Rather good I thought. Saying something like, you may get away with doing 70 on that sort of A road but no one will expect you to be doing 100.
Very good in fact.
|
|
Oh I see. Not so good then. Mimsing propaganda.
|
Good angle to take. I have noticed that drivers now pay comparatively little attention to hazards generally, and junctions especially, when knocking on on main roads.
Lots of roads have been straightened out, evidenced by oxbow laybys, junctions modified etc and I guess it's just easier to get away with than it used to be.
On a road that needs a bit of attention they are a menace.
Saw a near smash recently and it would have been a big one. Car in front decided to overtake, travelling south here goo.gl/maps/BykgL just before the junction. Rapidly braked hard and ducked back in as the dustcart turned left out of the junction!
Very common for people to look right only and pull out there, as their view to the left is obscured by the hedge. I'm sure the car driver blamed the dustcart (also careless), but really he was asking for it.
I'm convinced about 50% look straight ahead and see not much else. The road outside here is currently underwater to the crown. I have been out clearing gulleys between kerb and ditch to drain it faster. About half the passing drivers didn't even slow as they passed, my trousers and coat are now hanging on the Rayburn!
|
Looking at the 1000's of Russian dashcam videos on youtube, I now realise that the victims of accidents are more often that not innocent and the culprits drive off leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. In the sequence above, the person pulling out would have diven off, while the person travelling down the road would have hit another car or a tree.
To this end, I have added a thought into my driving routine which has now become instinctive - always make sure I will hit the culprit, preferably on the driver's door.
|
|
, Sooty, you are pulling our legs, aren't you? The last thing our roads need is self-appointed vigilantes. What makes you think you're qualified to judge who is the 'culprit' anyway?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 02:22
|
>> Sooty, you are pulling our legs, aren't you?
No. Last winter in sleet, I was travelling along at 50mph on a dual carriageway in lane 2.
Lane 1 was full of stationary vehicles queing to get off on the slip road.
An old torquoise Toyota Corolla in the queue suddenly lurched forward indicated and steered into lane 2 and stopped diagonally and I was already on the horn and full ABS and steering to the diminishing gap between it and the armco barrier.
As one's mind times to work 100x faster than usual in these situations, I had a thought in my mind that if I hit the armco it would stop me before I hit the car, then . I could see it's windows were compleetly steamed up and couldn't see anyone in it. This riled me and I imagined me hitting the barrier and them staggering off. So I steered left for their driver's door.
Thankfully, with nearly new tyres and the now defacto electronic driver aids it stopped just short of their door.
The whole event bothered me because they were so wreckless. Now when I see similar situations such as cars approaching sideroads, I think that if they pull out, I will hit them rather than hit oncoming traffic and I would certainly not drive of the road and leave them to drive off unaffected.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 02:21
|
>>Now when I see similar
>> situations such as cars approaching sideroads, I think that if they pull out, I will
>> hit them rather than hit oncoming traffic.....
I would call that common sense and impact planning. If you have time aim for the object of least resistance, (not a tree).
Some years ago a lady colleague rounded a fast bend to be confronted with stationary traffic, she pulled right and had a head on with an oncoming car. Discussing this at work I put forward the argument "Why double the impact speed by pulling right". There was much clattering of pennies dropping, and words like "Never thought of that".
If possible always have an escape route, (plan B).
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Tue 7 Jan 14 at 20:30
|
>> Some years ago a lady colleague rounded a fast bend to be confronted with stationary
>> traffic, she pulled right and had a head on with an oncoming car. Discussing this
>> at work I put forward the argument "Why double the impact speed by pulling right".
>> There was much clattering of pennies dropping, and words like "Never thought of that".
>>
>> If possible always have an escape route, (plan B).
>>
Better still, (plan C)
"Always drive at such a speed that you can stop within the distance that you can see to be clear"
|
>> If possible always have an escape route, (plan B).
>>
It is much simpler than that
Always have an escape route, if you haven't then you are going too fast.
|
No. Last winter in sleet, I was travelling along at 50mph on a dual carriageway in lane 2.
Lane 1 was full of stationary vehicles queueing to get off on the slip road.
Now read that back - a 50 mph speed differential with traffic two metres away from you, in bad weather and a situation that's almost bound to provoke an impetuous act from someone in the queue - and see if you still think you're fit to point the finger.
I get this situation twice on most working days, where the M4 crosses the M25 and M25 traffic is often queueing or trying to force its way into a queue. There, at least, there's the luxury of additional lanes, so I can leave a clear one between me and the queue. Otherwise, the more benign possibility is that the vehicle in front stops dead flashing a left indicator; the other is exactly what happened to you, and it's entirely predictable.
|
|
Choose your target with care Sooty, I tried Buses. Bad Plan.
|
>> Choose your target with care Sooty, I tried Buses. Bad Plan.
>>
Some of us are drivers, others mere road users. :-)
|
>> >> Choose your target with care Sooty, I tried Buses. Bad Plan.
>> >>
>>
>> Some of us are drivers, others mere road users. :-)
Carry on - user.
|
New Zealand, to judge from the little silver fern in the corner and the univowel iccints.
But AC, you've contradicted me before on pretty much this point. I contended that, while 100mph on a clear motorway might be safe, approaching other traffic so fast that they fail to register your arrival - effectively increasing the likelihood of a fatal mistake, as here - is not. But you, as I recall, weren't having it. Change of mind? Or have I forgotten something important?
|
Can't remember that WDB, sorry, but context is all... I don't deny that I am theatrically traditionalist in the Toad mould, but I mean so far so good so I can't be quite as barmy as I may seem to some.
I'm sure there are several people here who are better pilots and familiar with more capable machinery than I am. All the same, I have the attitude and the culture, and have seen and travelled in a thing or two in my time.
Look, I like to get a move on in an elegant and reasonable manner without alarming or offending too many other road users. What's wrong with that? Some are bound to be offended. Some are never satisfied. I bite my thumb at them, zounds!
|
Very impactive.
As a biker reinforces the theory that everyone pulling out of a junction is trying to take you out and therefore try and ride accordingly.
|
Well, I'm feeling pretty thick.
I've watched it three times, and I just don't understand it.
It was obvious that it was saying that if you drive too fast you might kill somebody if the unexpected happens, but I think most people know that already.
|
>> Well, I'm feeling pretty thick.
>> I've watched it three times, and I just don't understand it.
Yes. It's part of the softening-up programme. It started with leave your windows ajar and it's your fault you get burgled, wear a short skirt and it's your fauly you get raped and now drive at the speed limit and it's your fault if you crash - whatever next?
|
In simplistic terms yes.
The point is that if you are banging on at well over the limit someone making a momentary assessment at a junction may well not appreciate that and may pull out thinking that you are going to reach the junction much later and it is therefore safe to pull out.
When I was on the roads a standard excuse for someone pulling out at a junction was, "They were travelling too fast." To which I would always ask the question, "Do you always pull out infront of fast moving vehicles?" Bottom line was that they had made an incorrect assessment of approach speed if infact they had even looked properly.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 7 Jan 14 at 21:40
|
If it really is Australia 80 (50mph) is the usual limit, with 90 or even more here and there on bits of dual carriageway and so on. Bit of a waste of those snorting monster Holdens, but hey...
Look, if the road in the OP link had been in this country 70mph would have been just OK in that place, but 90 or 100 wouldn't. You have to know the road to go that much over the limit, you have to know where you can do that and where you can't.
Over the limit is one thing Reckless blinding is another as any fule kno.
|
Agree with FC's two recent posts absolutely. The poster mentioned hanging on the horn as he was trying to take avoiding action. Waste of time. The horn wasn't even mentioned on my advanced police tests many years ago. The principle was that you should be concentrating on the situation in hand. A horn blast isn't going to move the car in your way if you're close to impact and is not needed if you're not.
Use of the horn is best kept for the wobbly cyclist, or ped who might just step off the kerb. Even then, the driver should be well aware of the approaching hazard and be taking the appropriate precautions.
HO
|
>> Very impactive.
>>
>> As a biker reinforces the theory that everyone pulling out of a junction is trying to take you out and therefore try and ride accordingly.
>>
Bit of advice my old man gave me when I first hit the road:
Always think, what's the most stupid thing that other road users around you could do?
Basically, expect the unexpected, then you will be 1/2 way to being prepared....
|
I can confirm that the film has just been produced and released by the police in New Zealand. It is airing on national tv and has already won an award of some kind.
The open road speed limit here is indeed 100km/h.
I think the ad is trying to show the risk of "speeding" on approach to a blind summit or brow of a hill? The roads here are mainly made up of bumps, twists, and hilltops :-(
|
Anti speeding advert - Robin O'Reliant
