Audis in houses


Note This piece really isn’t intended to make the case that drivers of Audis are worse than drivers of any other vehicle. That may or may not be the case; I wouldn’t like to jump to that kind of assumption without any evidence. Instead, it’s really intended to demonstrate that just one make of motor vehicle is involved in tremendous damage to our urban environment, and indeed to human beings; damage that people travelling around on bicycles are simply not capable of causing, despite the steady stream of articles by journalists about an apparent ‘cyclist menace’.

I did look – briefly – for any kind of opinion piece by journalists on the amount of destruction and death and serious injury caused by motor vehicles in urban areas, but they are apparently very scarce, even in a week when such destruction has featured prominently in the news.

I could, of course, have included motor vehicles of all manufacturers embedded in houses, destroying property, and so on, but that would have been a lengthy picture post, much much longer than the one here. Audis were chosen arbitrarily, mainly because a sequence of crashes involving Audis appeared nearly simultaneously in my timeline a while back. And also because ‘Audis in houses’ has phonetic appeal. But nothing more than that.


Source.

Source

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Audis in houses

  1. I could make some generalising comment about all Audi drivers being the same, but that would make me as bad as drivers that say all cyclists jump red lights and ride on pavements. Having said that, it always seems to be some B*****d in an Audi that tries to kill me when I’m out on two wheels.

  2. Mike Adams says:

    There is certainly something about Audis, and the way they are presented to the public, that attracts a particular section of the motoring population. I’m sure VW/Audi would describe these people as discriminating, knowledgeable and enthusiastic. I call them something different.

    Straying unforgivably from the central theme ……
    Can anyone explain to me why, in a country with a national speed limit of 70 mph, very high traffic densities and creaking infrastructure, manufacturers are allowed to sell high-powered cars?
    Surely, with about 1600 road deaths each year, it would make sense to restrict all cars (other than emergency vehicles) to, say, 50 horsepower?

    • Har Davids says:

      It would be fun to see a Hummer “cruise” by, powered by a 50 HP engine, but I doubt the car would move at all, considering its weight. I guess the more you expect people to take you seriously, the bigger the car you should have, to make people aware of your worth. The only other way would be carrying a sandwich-board with pictures of your worldly possesions and a copy of your most recent bank-statement.

    • paulc says:

      all motorcycle riders have a staged set of power limits these days…

      http://www.bikelicence.co.uk/

      so why not car drivers?

      oh and P.S. I passed my motorcycle test (the ancient one where the examiner ran around while you were riding on a circuit he’d told you to do) way back in 1981 so I can just jump on any size motorbike I want… the new ones terrify me… I found a 400 cc bike back then was enough of a handful…

  3. Steven Edwards says:

    I’ve been out cycling this evening in central London for a couple of hours, thinking I would enjoty the ‘calmer’, ‘quieter’ streets. Though there was less traffic, the vehicles around were (or at least seemed to be) more aggressive, hostile and offputting to anyone thinking they could enjoy getting about reltively stress-free, thatn usual. Giiven emptie, quieter streets, behaviour might be argued to be somewhat worse than usual today.
    Not sure how many of these contemptuous specimens were Audi users, but there were more ‘monster truck’ 4 x 4 owners, intent on proving how worthwhile they were to humanity by impressively getting ahead of cyclists at the lights or attempting ‘right hooks’ from the opposite direction.
    With this experience and the pictures on this blog, itmakes me a bit confused about what to prioritise for campaigning in 2016. Infrastructure? Or proper training for all those currently issued so frivolously with the responsibilty for a motorised vehicle.
    I wonder just how much more of a case needs to be made for anyone in government to get serious about the threat to people from thos with access to these machines?
    How many users of other vehicle makes are involved in similar behaviour? For every one of these shocking endings, how much of this behaviour is tolerated, dismissed, disregarded? Traffic police? What traffic police?!
    Oh there thay are, carrying out ‘Operation Safeway’ fining cyclists that go through red lights.

    • Jim says:

      We need more than proper training. We need proper punishment. The problem isn’t that people don’t know the rules, it’s that they choose to ignore them.

      • firedfromthecircus says:

        Indeed. There also seems to be a problem with people who are just too fucking lazy to drive properly. Modern cars with lovely modern power steering and it’s still too much of a hassle to actually drive the car round the corner. Just cut it instead.

      • I’d argue enforcement is more of an issue than punishment. A severe punishment for something that you will almost never get caught doing is no deterrent: people get accustomed to breaking the rules, then consider themselves extremely unlucky if they are enforced. A small punishment that is almost certain is more effective: the link between breaking the rule and having the consequence is strong.

        Also an issue with respect to road deaths. We don’t need harsher punishments for killing people with a car: people never think that their bad driving will result in death, because they drive the same way all the time and it’s never happened before. It’s the behaviour which results in death that needs tackling, not the entirely predictable, but not inevitable, consequences.

  4. ianrobo says:

    how many of these are down to speed. It is regardless of the make of car but until we (I talk as 10k a year cyclist and 12K a year driver) understand the dangers of speed these will never stop.

  5. John Klein says:

    Reblogged this on John Klein – Regina and commented:
    If you’ve ever thought that cyclists are a threat to you and your property in some way, consider that they couldn’t hope to cause this sort of damage. One automaker did this. Every other automaker is in part responsible for similar levels of destruction.

  6. Alun evans says:

    A recent Audi add said that because of the Audi transmission etc. Audi drivers do not have to worry about bad weather conditions. I complained to ASA but my complaint was thrown out. Yet over and over l see Audi drivers speeding in bad weather, passing me at 70-80mph even when speed restrictions are in force. Bad driving is not the fault of the car but those who believe these adds or those who these adds are aimed at will in all probability be bad drivers.

    • burtthebike says:

      There is a recognised phenomenon called “risk compensation” which shows that people use safety features to enhance performance. In a famous experiment, two fleets of cars were compared, the first with every conceivable safety device, the second were bog standard, with the expectation that the first group would have a much lower injury collision rate. The result was that there was no difference, because the drivers of the first group took more risks, drove faster, drove closer to the vehicle in front etc etc.

      Exactly the same effect has been noted about seat belts. Most, if not all “safety devices” aimed at making the driver of a vehicle feel safer, are doomed to failure. The old adage about the safest car being one with a 12″ rusty bayonet pointed at the driver’s heart with no seat belt, is still true. As all the pictures in the article show, we need to make drivers feel much more vulnerable if we really want to make our roads safer.

      It is a fascinating subject, and I highly recommend “Risk” by John Adams

      • paulc says:

        don’t forget SIPS systems now mean drivers are more likely to take risks pulling out at junctions as they feel perfectly safe… just wonder how many excess motorcycle rider KSI’s have been the result of those being introduced.

    • pm says:

      It’s notable how many car ads seem to use as a major selling point, the idea that this car will completely insulate you from the world outside in every possible way. In particular that you won’t hear that external environment, or be affected by it even if you hit something. Is it surprising that so many drivers then behave as if they are sitting in their own home or office when behind the wheel?
      (And the same drivers who buy those cars go on to moan about cyclists who wear headphones.)

  7. Citizen Wolf says:

    But, but, I saw a person on a bike go through a red light the other day. And I heard from a friend of a friend that their cousin’s boyfriend was injured by a person on a bike whilst they were crossing at pedestrian lights. They’re a menace to society, I tell you!!

    • bikecat7 says:

      98% of injuries accidents and deaths caused by a vehicle going through a red light are caused by the drivers of motor vehicles. Source CTC report to transport Select Committee a month or so ago.

  8. Mike says:

    It’s interesting that it is possible to compile this list by make of car. For some reason reporters are keen to identify the brand of car involved in any accident. Why should this be? I can’t remember the brand of bicycle involved in an incident being noted.

  9. Cyclestrian says:

    Road culture explains a lot. There is an expectation in the UK that the person driving behind you is in a hurry, intolerant and on the verge of road rage. Also that it is OK to be that person: important, above the law, a risk taker. It seems to be the case that driving fast and risky is fun, impressive and supported by the engineering and marketing of cars safety features. This is backed up after the event by comments such as “lucky to walk away from it”. Drivers that attract abuse as “idiots” or worse in popular culture are the ones who drive too slow, seem inexperienced or lost, fail to indicate, park slowly, etc. Are those seen speeding (or crashing into houses) subject to the same kind of popular derision? Or just seen as “lucky to survive” or “unlucky to come off the road”?
    I wonder what is the demographic of the drivers in houses. Mostly male? And I also wonder what the consequences of their actions were, and attribution of blame etc.

    • pm says:

      “I wonder what is the demographic of the drivers in houses. Mostly male?”

      I really think that’s a peripheral question.

      On the same lines as “how can you tell when a politician is lying” “their lips move”, I’d suggest “how can you tell a bad driver?” “They are behind the wheel of a motorised vehicle”

      But still, it is mildly interesting in an academic way. My guess would be “young men, and the elderly of both sexes”. Personally I think both those groups should be subjected to more frequent driving tests, but I can’t see it ever happening.

      • Chris says:

        Actually I would include young women as well, increasingly I notice them as impatient and with little respect for your life or health. Young people drive badly due to attitude, elderly drive badly due to reduced ability. Young people need more or better training, elderly need more monitoring.

  10. Notak says:

    One of the reasons the make of car is identified in reports of these incidents is the anthropomorphic treatment of cars combined with a weird but all too understandable ‘driver elimination’. It’s always the car that crashes, never the driver. We get told things like ‘An Audi crashed into a house on Acacia Avenue after colliding with a Ford Focus’. Sometimes we even get ‘John Smith was killed when his BMW left the road and plunged over an embankment’ but we very rarely hear ‘John Smith killed two people enjoying a coffee when he crashed his Mercedes into Costa on Wood Street’.

    As to why one make of car, I’m sure you could compile a similar list of ‘Fords in frontages’ or ‘Mazdas in mansions’ but at the same time it is true that some makes deliberately market themselves to appeal to aggressive or competitive tendencies.

  11. I loved the “road traffic collision” involving a a car and a house.

  12. livinginabox says:

    Another Audi in a house / hair salon
    “A mother was found guilty of attempted grievous bodily harm today after a jury ruled she did deliberately try to run her Turbo charged 4×4 into a cyclist she had argued with.”
    http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/13837908.display/

  13. Steven Edwards says:

    Speed Limits? Enforcement? Action?

    With the failure of the police to prevent this kind of behaviour, the only means of protection for vulnerable road users – walkers & riders – are actual physical measures.

    1) Three killed as car hits pedestrians in Doncaster
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/27/pedestrians-killed-car-collision-doncaster

    Police say three people were killed and one left critically injured when hit by a vehicle on Boxing Day…. The accident came two days after a fatal crash in which a car was driven into a Kent branch of Costa Coffee. A woman in her 70s died and several were injured on Christmas Eve after the car careered through Westerham town centre and crashed into the cafe. The woman was sitting by the window inside the cafe when the black Audi smashed into the shop shortly after 10.30am on Thursday

    2) Two men badly injured in Dalston ‘racing’ car crash
    (reported on BBC London News 27.12.15)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35186096
    Two men were seriously injured after being hit by a car in Dalston, east London, police said…
    The crash happened at about 11:00 GMT on Sunday on Balls Pond Road.
    Eyewitness Khurran Shazad told the BBC: “Both cars were racing. He [one of the drivers] lost control and came onto the footpath. It was a very terrible scene… injured people and blood.”

  14. jimmy-j says:

    Singling out Audi drivers invites the assumption these are the only guilty parties, whereas there’s no evidence drivers of that brand are more or less likely to present a danger on the road

    Ford http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B73Sg2WIcAESjum.jpg
    Ford http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276370/Article/images/22816106/6821521-large.jpg
    Ford http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/03/article-0-136CFF2E000005DC-980_634x421.jpg

    etc

  15. ThinkPurpose says:

    Reblogged this on thinkpurpose and commented:
    Blameless car drivers in traffic accidents with stationary houses that refuse to get out of the way.
    Audi’s bearing the brunt of the war on the motorist.

  16. Pingback: Cyclists need more situational awareness and training | At War With The Motorist

  17. The disclaimer in the beginning is fine and needful, too.
    Because otherwise one never knows what the outcoming is.
    Here in Germany BMW -drivers are known as the most sportive and risky ones. This image helps selling their cars.
    With your post Audi could claim this title for itself and take your post as an advertisement.

  18. Alibob says:

    I drive an old A6 (Tuned by Van Haalen in the old Seat Diesel BTCC days) which I drive reasonably well most of the time. I also have an Alfa GTV which I drive like an absolute C++t all of the time. I have never had a house leap out at me in either.

  19. baoigheallain says:

    I think the Audi community needs to its house (no pun intended) in order.

  20. GeoffL says:

    Great photos. I don’t do the mileage by car these day but I noticed a shift about 10 years ago of idiot drivers from BMW’s to Audis. On the bike it usually Audi drivers which drive with pointless aggression along with while van man, particularly plumbers.

  21. Pingback: Audis in houses | shijinthaaraapuram

  22. Matthew says:

    Not an Audi, but a special mention:

    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/BMW-collides-tree-Histon-Road-Cambridge/story-28898824-detail/story.html

    The first line in the very short article:

    “A BMW has sustained severe damage after it collided with a tree.”

    Easy to see the priorities here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s