Horse riders hit by chelsea tractor on wrong side of road

[661-Pete]

The horse rider left standing had a difficult job to do. If the injured rider on the ground was conscious and talking, I'd say that controlling the horses could well be the right first thing to do. Not just for the sake of the horses, but for the safety of other people in the area.

I didn't mean to imply that the rider left standing, was doing anything wrong. Quite rightly, once she'd determined that the othe rider wasn't seriously injured, her first duty would certainly have been to ensure the safety of the horses. Or at least one of them. Nothing could have stopped the other horse bolting, I suppose. I've had a bolting horse run straight towards me, once - scary!

The van that arrived later had absolutely no problem coming to a controlled stop at a point around which the other only appeared to be starting to react.

But the van was going a lot slower than the first vehicle. Its driver may have seen something of the incident before reaching the bend. I noticed that the road was rather wet.

[thirdcrank]

... But the van was going a lot slower than the first vehicle. Its driver may have seen something of the incident before reaching the bend. I noticed that the road was rather wet.

This had me reviewing the footage for the umpteenth time. The horses didn't move any nearer to the junction after the incident and the only thing different the van driver will have seen was one of the horses grazing at the back of the verge. Not only did the second driver stop, but they stopped well short of the horses, as meic says, when the first driver was only starting to react.

Without wanting to nit-pick, it looks to me as though the van driver was going slow enough to be able to stop in what meic rightly describes as a controlled manner, while the first driver was driving too fast to be able to do so and that's the difference. If we can see a wet road surface on the footage, I'd expect a driver to be able to see it even more clearly and to drive accordingly.

The riders were wearing hi-viz togs but this just demonstrates they can't be seen round corners. Nothing can be seen round corners.

On this latest viewing I noticed the time was 1130hrs and also that the car seemed to shed a bumper.

[reohn2]

I wonder what the moronic driver's penalty will be



Not enough I suspect.......


PS would moron's driving be classed as ''without due care and attention'' or ''dangerous driving''?
What say you?

[Bonefishblues]

Just sitting here browsing and listening to the radio I thought I'd look up some info about the "Chelsea Tractor" as labelled by the OP.

The Honda is 4.5 metres long, and 1.7m tall. A mid-sized estate car such as the Focus of today is slightly longer at 4.55m, and slightly less tall at 1.5m

The Honda is about 40kg heavier.

By way of further comparison, the last-gen Land Rover Discovery stood 4.8m long, 1.9m tall, and c1000kg (yes, you read that correctly) heavier.

Not sure what my exact conclusion is, except perhaps to suggest it doesn't really fit the mould of what I think is typically stereotyped thus (the Honda, that is)

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
We know what a Chelsea tractor is.

British gas sent me a advertising brochure which said in words, why are you running a Chelsea tractor when you can have a lean burner, then of course we have had protesters in the media going on road blocks and marches to stop said car cruising round town.
Needless to say I complained and haven't seen those type of words again.

My complaint was that my other vehicle wont do the 40 mpg plus but no one would give it a second glance.
Even though it could weigh twice my 4x4 and has no ABS either.

Up to date Chelsea tractors do 70 mpg, but I agree that most of the people who would drive one with the 2.7 tonnes they sport have no idea that they won' stop that quick.

This argument is not that valid in this case posted as I still think that the driver, yes too fast but distracted, I might be wrong but only the driver knows and they probably will never admit and has no idea either citing slippery road, in the end dangerous driver and got off lightly as it could have been much much worse.

When I say got off I mean the offence will for sure be less because no one was seriously injured or died.
I would ban the driver for ten years at least as they will surely be a collision waiting to happen, notice how slow he got out of car and returned to collision, if he ever got there IIRC, a sign that he is not fit at all in a what could of been life threatening.

Edited-
P.S. my first Chelsea tractor came in at less then 950 kgs.

[Bonefishblues]

Who knows what the reaction of the driver was? They likely thought that they had just killed a rider and a horse. People are different, they respond differently. Whatever, there would be a profound shock to have just driven into them, and be stationary in the middle of the road. I could understand it being a few seconds before thoughts were collected.

My issue with this incident is the lack of steering. Many people just don't seem to understand ABS and career into an accident they could have steered round as their wheels aren't locked in the way that they often were pre-ABS.

[reohn2]

Just sitting here browsing and listening to the radio I thought I'd look up some info about the "Chelsea Tractor" as labelled by the OP.

The Honda is 4.5 metres long, and 1.7m tall. A mid-sized estate car such as the Focus of today is slightly longer at 4.55m, and slightly less tall at 1.5m

The Honda is about 40kg heavier.

By way of further comparison, the last-gen Land Rover Discovery stood 4.8m long, 1.9m tall, and c1000kg (yes, you read that correctly) heavier.

Not sure what my exact conclusion is, except perhaps to suggest it doesn't really fit the mould of what I think is typically stereotyped thus (the Honda, that is)

I read the term ''Chelsea Tractor'' as an unnecessarily large car for a given use.
I've no idea what use the driver has for the Honda CRV in the video(other than mowing down horses)perhaps s/he tows a trailer or heavy caravan of sorts(there is a towbar fitted to the vehicle in the video),so TBH the thread title doesn't concern me in the least I don't take any offence by it*.
TBH I'm more concerned about the damage the driver caused and what it's going to cost him from a legal POV,IMO that was dangerous driving,and should attract a ban,a hefty fine in the region of £500+,plus 12 points,and a 2 day rehab and reassessment driving course which should cost him a further £200+.
Though I suspect his penalty will be driving without due care £250 fine max,6 points and a stern warning not to do it again.

*we looked at a couple of CRV's of that model when changing our car last time but they had limited space inside poor folding seat arrange for carrying bikes,fuel economy wasn't upto much,didn't need the 4x4 drive,replacement cost of the big tyres wasn;t good,and extra service costs was excessive,so didn't pursue it.

[thirdcrank]

There seems to be a marked difference in reactions - both time and conduct - between the drivers, post-incident. Having stopped, the second driver can be seen getting out, presumably to offer help. The first driver continues out of shot and I presume that's him entering stage right just before the clip ends, but what was he doing in between? No soundtrack, so we don't know if there was any exchange checking if the riders were OK but I do wonder if the first driver checked his car's bodywork first, before walking back to see how much harm he had done to the others involved.

I'd agree that even having come round the corner too fast, the driver ought to have been able to avoid this. It does look to me as though having been confronted with a problem entirely of his own making he has dithered. Perhaps he thought "Horses. I'm supposed to drive considerately near horses. Oh heck, what ever shall I do?" A split second more dithering and the horses might have copped it head-on. Then he would have had some damage to the bodywork.

Let's remember the words of Highway Patrol's Chief Dan Mathews "Remember folks, it's not the car that kills, it's the driver.

[Bonefishblues]

OTOH, having recovered their composure, and moved their car to a safe position, the driver could have been phoning the emergency services and a local vet.

We can speculate until the cows come home, but to do so sometimes displays our prejudices. Checking their car's bodywork? Really?

[meic]

Checking their car's bodywork? Really?

Yes!

I was tailended by a posh Land Rover in May last year.
The witness (I was lucky to have one of those) was rather enraged when the driver got out and inspected his front wing and moaned about the damage to it, after having just written off my car with my daughter in it.
He converted a hostile witness (due to the poor driving) into a VERY hostile witness.

He didnt actually seem like a bad guy and I even ended up putting my arm about him and comforting him. He was in quite some shock from the impact and had had a rather worse crash than I had.
So a combination of shock and natural self concern.

[Bonefishblues]

It's of course possible. They could also be doing any one of a variety of other things.

Is it likely, such that would be worth speculating was my point, and by speculating thus, I was pointing out what might be an innate prejudice.

[thirdcrank]

Yup. I do look for evidence and try to base any conclusions on that. (That's why I tried to get the right streetview.) Anything else is a bit like doing one of those pictures where you connect the dots, but sometimes with not many dots to go on. If I indulge in that, I can recognise the difference.

The big difference between me and that driver is that my guesswork about what's out of shot is done on a computer keyboard, rather than at the controls of a car. BTW, I've not been subscribing to the chelsea tractor theme - hence my Broderick Crawford comment. IMO, This would have been bad driving, IMO, in a Smart Car, Toyota IQ or in any other small car or indeed large car you can think of.

[reohn2]

There seems to be a marked difference in reactions - both time and conduct - between the drivers, post-incident. Having stopped, the second driver can be seen getting out, presumably to offer help. The first driver continues out of shot and I presume that's him entering stage right just before the clip ends, but what was he doing in between? No soundtrack, so we don't know if there was any exchange checking if the riders were OK but I do wonder if the first driver checked his car's bodywork first, before walking back to see how much harm he had done to the others involved.

Could've been shocked and or phoned for emergency services perhaps?

I'd agree that even having come round the corner too fast, the driver ought to have been able to avoid this. It does look to me as though having been confronted with a problem entirely of his own making he has dithered. Perhaps he thought "Horses. I'm supposed to drive considerately near horses. Oh heck, what ever shall I do?" A split second more dithering and the horses might have copped it head-on. Then he would have had some damage to the bodywork.

I think it's termed as incompetence,too fast in a vehicle with poor handling characteristics,in poor conditions,driven by an idiot.

Let's remember the words of Highway Patrol's Chief Dan Mathews "Remember folks, it's not the car that kills, it's the driver.

And in this case it's pure luck he didn't.

[broadway]

In the viedo I saw (the new paper one wont play for me so I had to watch a youtube copy), there is a break where everything freezes and immediately before the break the car, having stopped, starts to pull away and when the video resumes the car has disappeared. Does the car actually drive-off or just out of shot and do the Police know details of the offending vehicle ?

Ian

From the report "The car can be seen pulling up to the side of the road towards the end of the footage.".

[Psamathe]

.....
I'd agree that even having come round the corner too fast, the driver ought to have been able to avoid this. It does look to me as though having been confronted with a problem entirely of his own making he has dithered. Perhaps he thought "Horses. I'm supposed to drive considerately near horses. Oh heck, what ever shall I do?" A split second more dithering and the horses might have copped it head-on. Then he would have had some damage to the bodywork.
.....

I agree. And having watched the video again (and I am no expert) I don't see a lot of slowing down until after the car has hit the horses/riders, after which it comes to a stop pretty quickly. Certainly nothing I'd call any effort to emergency stop and nothing steering wise to swerve out of the way. But I'm no expert so purely based on (probably biased) personal opinion.

(n.b. The person we see walking back towards the horses after the Honda has pulled out of shot might not be the driver, might not even have been in the car and they certainly don't seem in any hurry to offer assistance).

I hope we do get to find out what action is taken over this incident. Too easy for it to become a local press, short paragraph somewhere "Driver given ..." and for few to be aware of offence->what penalty/punishment.

Video in the press report wont play on my computer and best youtube one I found is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAs5HQ8S5dc (that does play on my computer).

Ian