Car crashes into building - please post your Local news stories

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Nope, disqualified. The newspaper and eye witness both state  "driver" and we know these incidents happen when the car does it all by themselves.

I was surprised to see the use of 'driver' in that article, so maybe some reporters are trying to use appropriate language now.

However, the titles under the images are labelled "A car crashed into a traffic light on Fishponds Road in Bristol" so I think it still counts.

Mark B wrote:

“People should know better. If you see a low bridge coming towards you then you don’t progress, do you?”

No, I certainly wouldn't. I'd be running away.

I used to be really scared of a particular bridge, but I've learnt to get over it

A driver in his 20s, late at night, in a BMW, who ends up with injuries bad enough to keep them in hospital...nope complete mystery that one...Or am I just being cynical

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

"Newest First" does work for me on ordering correctly, but "Threaded" doesn't thread properly and shows Munges post from 1 month ago as the latest. 

I think it broke somewhere around the 200 comments. 

Because my comments, on any subject, are; the most important, relevant, witty, erudite and mostly squirrel free.

No. It is also too cold to cycle and no one can cycle up hills.

Clearly this one did not understand the figurative sense of "go through a red light"

They're doing it in pairs now!

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/two-cars-crash-house-serious-21045475

Wow, accessed by level crossing maybe.

A big determination to get away there.

andystow wrote:

FFS, swerving to avoid a squirrel!

Hawkinspeter, anything to say about this?

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/car-crashes-in...

I've heard that there's a robust conspiracy theory that Abraham Lincoln was in fact several squirrels disguised as a president. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence to support it including Abraham Lincoln having a high-pitched squeaky voice.

"The driver reported that he’d swerved briefly to avoid a hazard."

So that went well then !

...and of course there's this infamous photograph

Fourscore and... [looks at his pocket watch] seven minutes ago... we, your forefathers, were brought forth upon a most excellent adventure conceived by our new friends, Bill... and Ted. 

At the risk of being controversal, they were all "adults" from the pictures and either were drinking with him or should have been aware he was drunk and / or driving atrociously. Apparently they had been sending snap chat footage from within the car (used to identify where they had been in the car) just before the smash. I doubt the footage would have been them screaming at him to slow down. 

So whilst his driving was awful, and probably would have been unlawful if it was children in the car, I suspect that the coroner was also looking at them choosing to be in the car as well and probably cheering him on.

Although stating all that, on his actual legal comments, you do have to wonder what "truly exceptionally bad" driving is if the crash above is not counted in his mind. 

Supposedly it joined from the Station if the person at the station saw it go past. Satellite view shows what looks like the allotments almost a mile further down the track (including just past a bridge the photo above was probably taken from). 

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

"The driver is OK, according to officers and tested for drink/drugs but they said 'accidents happen' and will not be prosecuting the driver," Mr Corbett tweeted.

to my mind anyone that leaves the carriageweay and damages either street furnitiure or a building should be charged with dangerous driving. It's only luck that a person wasn't serriously injured, so how can it not be dangerous.

If a crane drops a load into the street, but it doesn't hit anyone, the HSE are not going to say 'accidents happen'

Looking at the photo and the street view its hard to see how the car could have come from the road into the salon, is this another one of those cases where someone puts the car in forward when it should be in reverse, and then reacts to it not going in the desired direction by applying more power?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-57849890

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'accidents happen'

The latest Direct Line Aviva advert is of a young lady who obviously approached a corner too fast for the icy conditions, crashed straight into a pet shop and probably has killed multiple animals plus put added financial burden on the shop owner. But don't worry, we will show a few rabbits bounding around alive, and her smiling because Direct Line sent a truck to take the car away. Accidents Happen. 

Yep, seems to be one of about four goto adverts on All4 which is probably the only place I see those adverts fully nowadays.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

'accidents happen'

The latest Direct Line Aviva advert is of a young lady who obviously approached a corner too fast for the icy conditions, crashed straight into a pet shop and probably has killed multiple animals plus put added financial burden on the shop owner. But don't worry, we will show a few rabbits bounding around alive, and her smiling because Direct Line sent a truck to take the car away. Accidents Happen. 

I thought that was an Animal Liberation Front commercial

I always wondered about that advert.  Isn't she basically admitting complete liability on the phone to her insurance company?  So, wouldn't her insurance company just say "Off you f-, then...".  And wouldn't the insurers for the pet shop also be after her??

Probably not. Still the making of advert still shows that she would have killed multiple animals in the "only an accident driving well too fast for the condtions" as all the lizards would have perished in the cold. I love how they "iced" up the roads so she couldn't claim she didn't know it was that icy. 

brooksby wrote:

I always wondered about that advert.  Isn't she basically admitting complete liability on the phone to her insurance company?  So, wouldn't her insurance company just say "Off you f-, then...".  And wouldn't the insurers for the pet shop also be after her??

I think you are not supposed to admit liability in an accident with another vehicle as the insurance company may want to argue fault with the other insurerer. Not going to be the case when driving into a building.  "It came out of nowhere" while apparently perfectly believeable when applied to fully lit stationary cyclists isn't going to wash for a building.

But was it wearing Hi-Viz