Ranger / Bantam crash...

[Apocalypse]

I'm pretty sure we've all seen this.

So. lets play the social media game.

How fast?

Who is at fault?

video to follow...

[Apocalypse]

Not nice - if you are of a weak disposition , don’t look etc.

[Apocalypse]

why aren't the pics and videos uploading? Gnash!!!

[Mike Nel]

Speed? - 162km per hour. My guess

Who’s fault? - hmm. If the Ranger did the allowed 60km per hour the Bantam would have made it. I therefore put blame on the Ranger

[ThysleRoux]

I agree with Mike regarding the guilt, but doubt if the Ranger was doing more than 140 - it IS a FROD after all !!

[Ricof4e]

Both are at fault.

I can substantiate this with a detailed legal explanation, but I am not in the mood for it. You will just have to take my word for it.

Bantam:
1) Duty to observe oncoming traffic before turning. Entered a lane of oncoming traffic when it was inopportune to do so. It seems its view was obstructed by two other vehicles. This is no defense. The duty rests with the Bantam driver.

Ranger:
1) Duty to expect vehicles may turn in front of it at an intersection. Should adjust speed accordingly to avoid a collision should one occur. Further a duty to keep a proper lookout and to exercise a degree of skill and care as would be expected from a reasonable driver under the circumstances. Also could not see him applying brakes before the collision.

If the driver of the Bantam died, the Ranger driver would be charged with culp alternatively reck&neg. State only needs to prove 1% negligence and I estimate the Ranger to be about 40% negligent.

[Apocalypse]

Speed - pretty much what Mike said - I got 156km/h , another friend I asked who does it a lot got 136km/h . Hey did hit the brakes - the nose dived - so I'd guess it depends on where the measurement was taken. Also, a bit of a difficult video to read from as it's a recording off a screen....

I am sure the original video and a decent analysis will be more accurate, but certainly, in a 60 zone, he was well over the limit.


A point on the speed - at 60km/h you are doing around 17m/s - at 144km/h you are doing 40m/s - the best part of half a rugby field. to safely cross an intersection you need to ensure the car you intend to cross in front of is 2 seconds away before pulling across.

At 60 you need to see a car 34m away - if he's doing 144 you need to see him 80m away and realise he's going uneexpectedly fast. Thats standing on the 22 and looking at the other teams try line. Most people can't see that far!

legally, Ricoffy is quite correct, but I think the speed would add a lot to the 'defence' of the bantam driver entering the intersection in terms of location of fault, and swing a lot towards the Ranger driver - most of those civil type claims happen between insurers and attorneys and not in the court these days, but I'd have thought that the contribution to the incident lay far more on the Ranger driver's side than on the Bantam driver....

What is for sure is that the Ranger's insurance company isn't going to be coughing up with that video in their possession - I think 'reasonable care of property' clause will kick in like a mule that just had a swift baseball bat to the ball bag. I'd think His personal liability insurance would be denied too, and if thee woman was a breadwinner or parent, he'll be paying an awful lot in damages.

I guess he'll certainly be charged (criminally) with Culpable homicide - and I know that in SA law they've never managed to pin murder on a driver even when he exhibits suicidal behaviour (the Humphreys case where a taxi driver skipped a level crossing boom and killed several kids got a murder verdict which was overturned on appeal and dropped to culpable homicide) - and I kind of get it - the rationale is that the reckless driver's intent is not to have an accident as that would be suicidal and thus dolus eventualis does not apply .

Personally, I think that at some point an action such as really excessive speeding does become murder - at the speed in that video a fatal accident becomes so likely that it's clear the driver just doesn't care - even if it's his own life.

Hopefully with this much evidence, we can see a murder charge be laid and stick....

[Ricof4e]

The speed the Ranger travelled prior to the impact may act as mitigating circumstances, but will not be a defence. The duty to observe oncoming traffic and not to enter a lane of oncoming traffic unless you are 100% sure it is safe will trump the Ranger's speed issue.

To me, the Bantam (now Flatam) was predominantly at fault.

[NEW]

I know that intersection well.... It is the first traffic light or stop of any kind for about 4 kilometers when you come from the Rangers direction. There is an uphill before it where the guys always like to push their vehicles abilities and then it is a down hill to the intersection where they want to ensure they still catch the light green...

[Mike Nel]

Very interesting debate. Lots of issues raised that I wasn't aware of but would certainly now be at the back of my mind whenever I am driving

[Prof]

This happens everywhere...being an idjit is not an SA issue...

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-ca ... ix-arizona

[Apocalypse]

The speed the Ranger travelled prior to the impact may act as mitigating circumstances, but will not be a defence. The duty to observe oncoming traffic and not to enter a lane of oncoming traffic unless you are 100% sure it is safe will trump the Ranger's speed issue.

To me, the Bantam (now Flatam) was predominantly at fault.

Well, to counter that, you may only enter an intersection if it is safe to do so - even if you have right of way (green light / no stop sign etc)

there is also a duty to adjust ones speed to conditions.... you are actually expected to slow down at an intersection and check, even if it's green !

Which is why one should always have insurance.

A lot of people don't realise that in an event like this - and it's well worth repeating - there is (civally) very little chance of ever getting a 100% 'fault' to one party in a collision where both vehicles are being driven.

In this case , lets say the court decides on a 50/50 fault.

The Bantam is worth say.... R30000. The Ranger , well it's a worthless POS , but lets place a value of R570k on it.

Civil damages to property is a total of R600 000 - with a split in liability of 50/50 that means each party has to swallow R300k of the loss.

so, both vehicles are totalled, but the Bantam driver will need to hoes up R270 000 to the Range driver.

and trust me, it happens and Insurers do come after their portion - no insurance , you are personally liable for the balance of damages.

I'd be interested to know if the Insurers will cover the Range Driver here - your policy (contract, it's different to law of the land) expects you to take reasonable care if they are to pay out. I'd think that kind of speed in a suburb would be classified as NOT 'reasonable care)

Then his personal liability would not pay out either - any Civil damages due to the estate / dependents of the bantam driver would come from his pocket, i.e. - not covered by insurance.

The video is also a very good example of why it's always better to be in the big vehicle than in the small vehicle - Keep your ECAP stars. you always come off worse in the small car.

Criminally, I'd think this guy at that speed would certainly get Culpable Homicide with a hefty sentence - but like I say, personally, I think that at that kind of speed it's murder.