A Worrying & Serious Near Incident!

[Cubist]

@G2EWS I am not attacking you, I am trying to make you realise a fundamental error which may hve disastrous consequences. You appear fi ally to have decided you need to go back and do a bit more homework. Can you let me know the name of this response driving expert so I can check what he has written? I have access to the national standard driver training manuals now and I can try and help clear up what is obviously a misunderstanding on your part.

 

[G2EWS]

@G2EWS I am not attacking you, I am trying to make you realise a fundamental error which may hve disastrous consequences. You appear fi ally to have decided you need to go back and do a bit more homework. Can you let me know the name of this response driving expert so I can check what he has written? I have access to the national standard driver training manuals now and I can try and help clear up what is obviously a misunderstanding on your part.

Hi Cubist,

For various reasons all I can tell you is he was the senior officer who wrote the Police chase manual. But I don't think that is the point here. (I will message you!)

What I have been trying to say is very different from what you are accusing me of. Yes I am going back because I just cannot see this bend as being a 20 or even 30 mph one. I believe that at 30 mph, with the rider further back I or anyone else would have hit her.

So let me try and put this another way. Forget me in the equation.

If no one takes this bend at 30 mph or under and you have to assume that some of those people are at least advanced drivers then what are we missing? I think something is fundamentally wrong and this is what I am trying to get to the bottom of. I do indeed think this should be a good debate and I am happy to be part of it, otherwise I would not have put my original post up of course.

Hopefully, work permitting, I will let you know the result of my drive after lunch.

Best regards

Chris

 

[davefb]

irony being i'm listening to my boss ( motorbiker) MOANING about not being able to drive at 60.. since most are 50.. why are there 50s? because motorbikers kill themselves on rural roads..

and yes, got my wording wrong "NSL" is a default, 30 urban, 60 non-urban ( depending on vehicle, 40 for hgv hahaha etc)...
My understanding was that if a non-urban is marked at say 50, then it's been checked to be "okay" for 50, but if it's just NSL , then you can't make that assumption, all it means is 'go no faster than' ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limits_in_the_United_Kingdom#National_speed_limits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limits_in_the_United_Kingdom#National_speed_limits

 

[CopperCyclist]

irony being i'm listening to my boss ( motorbiker) MOANING about not being able to drive at 60.. since most are 50.. why are there 50s? because motorbikers kill themselves on rural roads..

I'm half with him there though. They frequently reduce a NSL road to a fifty because of 'too many accidents'. However, the one thing you can guarantee is the people crashing weren't obeying the speed limit, and still won't be it 60, 50 or 40.

 

[davefb]

I'm half with him there though. They frequently reduce a NSL road to a fifty because of 'too many accidents'. However, the one thing you can guarantee is the people crashing weren't obeying the speed limit, and still won't be it 60, 50 or 40.

more speed cameras then ... he was on some pennines passes I think. Or 'culling zone for middle aged bikers' ..

got some like that more local to me, I think it has slowed most people down, so the idiots are a rarity rather than an expectation.

 

[Tommy2]

I'm half with him there though. They frequently reduce a NSL road to a fifty because of 'too many accidents'. However, the one thing you can guarantee is the people crashing weren't obeying the speed limit, and still won't be it 60, 50 or 40.

Although a lot of people don't see a problem doing say 10 mph over the speed limit so on a road that is technically safe for 60mph with a speed limit of 50mph is better than having the limit at 60mph and doing 70mph.

 

[Night Train]

@G2EWS

Have you considered looking at the road from a slightly different point of view?

You keep mentioning '20mph' and '40mph', these numbers are meaningless in terms of safe driving*. If the road is safe one day at 20mph the next day, with a bit of dampness on the road, it might be only safe at half that speed, or less.
The safe speed is determined by the experienced judgement of the person who is determining the speed of the vehicle they are in control of, and that varies depending on all the circumstances of the moment.
(I have slowed to a complete stop to then crawl around some bends in roads because as I started to drive around it I was faced with blinding low sun. Stopping for a moment means that I don't drive into something/someone I can no longer see. Slowing early for it also means that the following drivers don't suddenly run into the back of me because they were not paying attention. It also means that they don't drive into the wreckage of my car were I to have crashed around the bend.)

Also consider that many of these roads were in place at a time when the fastest thing to travel along it was a horse at walking speed where the rider was able to see above the height of the hedgerows on either side.
There was no reason for the roads to be safe at the speeds expected by motorists, regardless of the posted speed limits.

Also, whether the road had signs warning of a sharp bend or not, it is the responsibility of the driver to 'read' the road ahead to determine the appropriate course of action.
If, for example, you have a straight ribbon of tarmac ahead of you and then there appears to be greenery right across that tarmac in the distance then it stands to reason that there is no more 'straight ahead' road for some reason. Could be a bend, left or right? Could be a dip or the brow of a hill? Could be a tunnel? It would then be prudent to slow down until the situation can be assessed further. That process continues up to the point of possibly stopping and wondering why there really is greenery right across the road. Maybe because it is a fallen tree due to a storm? Hitting 3 tons of fallen Oak at 20mph will hurt, hence stopping before getting there. Hopefully it will just be a bend in the road that you can continue to drive around at a safe speed.

This still isn't 'having a go at you'. There is an awful lot of learning that happens after one gets a license to drive (or gets on the road in any capacity or vehicle type). It is worth appreciating that new understanding whenever, and however, it happens.
After 30 years of driving (road, race, cars, motorbikes, trucks, LGV, PSV, and bicycles, and also teaching driving to others), I am still learning new things to take into account, and modifying my driving and thought processes to suit.


*Safe drivers don't need speed limits to tell them how fast they can drive. A safe driver will (almost) always be driving a road at considerably less then the currently posted limits to allow for the changing conditions and hazards.

 

[teekay421]

So let me try and put this another way. Forget me in the equation.

I think you keep repeating this. I feel you are trying to be a thinking driver but yet keep mentioning what can we/debate or resolve by applying a speed limit or rule or sign - all of these are supporting a notion of not taking responsibility. Someone posted earlier if you were in a court you could not blame the author of the police driving - whoever. No one is perfect but the system of roadcraft is to be a responsible driver and always adapt your driving plan to match the conditions - the information phase overlaps the position/speed/gear/accelerate phases and can change the plan accordingly. If everyone took responsibility and ownership instead of this opt-out mentality that scares me in some drivers that it is someone else who is responsible - the road engineers, the person who told you you could go round a corner at a speed - if it was snowing would you adapt your plan/speed/approach accordingly? Information is more than what you can see - what you cannot see (other senses) and what you can reasonably expect to develop. This is positive proactive responsible driving, not enforcing rules and workaround quick fixes to encourage those who have no interest in learning and becoming good at driving to have to comply. A common cause of accident is failing to negotiate a corner (never mind manslaughter of someone in the road) the excuse "the corner just tightened up on me" is invalid, it is failing to anticipate/judge/negotiate the hazard, looking further ahead, using the information and adapting your speed according to the conditions and limit point.

This is the worrying attitude of car drivers, lack of planning and refusal to learn from their mistakes and leaning on a blame culture and refusing to take responsibility when they are the ones in the driving seat.

Just my take on this whole thread

 

[G2EWS]

Right, back from an interesting drive round said bend.

I drove up and down the road three times.

Once through the bend at 30 mph
Once through the bend at 40 mph
Once behind other vehicles also doing 40 mph
There are no road signs, only a chevron sign by the side of the road before the bend but when you are coming the other way! Not the direction I was travelling in.

My conclusion is that the bend is perfectly safe at any time of the day for at least 40 mph. Of course I am not taking into account inclement weather with that statement Night Train.

I also believe that 30 mph may be too slow should you have other traffic behind you. Don't knock me for that one, I just believe in helping others to stay calm on the road.

I can only conclude that yesterday when I met the cyclists they did not have any lights on. Forgive me for not realising that sooner as my concern was why it had gone wrong at the speed I was travelling at. This would mean that I saw them maybe a second later than I should have as the area is covered by trees and with a greying sky today as yesterday which makes the road very dark. If I saw them at 45 mph as I came round the bend, there is know no doubt in my mind that I could have stopped wherever they were on the bend.

Interestingly enough as I came back down the hill I noticed the bend at the top was probably more dangerous, but still safe at no more than 40 mph. On my third trip I slotted in behind three vehicles who carried on at 50 mph, whilst I slowed down!

So what can I say overall about this experience?

I think we need to make people which includes me, more aware of their speed and surroundings. We need to be sure of why we travel at a set speed and how safe it is. As has been mentioned on here I doubt there are many drivers who could put their hand on their hearts and say they travel 'perfectly' every day.

I know one thing for sure and that is becoming a born again cyclist has made me more aware of other cyclists and the danger that could be just round the corner. Perhaps this means being just that bit more aware of those hidden dangers or perhaps slowing down a little more?

I have been driving since 1971 and as mentioned covered many hundreds of thousands of miles without incident. I am certainly not complacent as I believe that this is one of the worst and most dangerous aspects of driving. I also believe I am aware and still maintain that 45 mph was safe on this bend. But I have enjoyed the banter and discussion. I hope no one has been offended by any statements. Those that have learnt about me during my brief spell on this forum, will know that I cannot see the point of argument, but enjoy a good discussion. So I would like to keep this thread in that vein as well.


Best regards

Chris

 

[Lee_M]

Look guys, stop making this a personal attack on me.

I am opening this up for debate. I have no doubt in my mind that there is not one amongst you who would have travelled round that bend at 20 mph. So lets cut to the chase and debate the issue rather than making it about me.

The issue is, what do we need to do to make it safe for cyclists and motorists alike. Should we be enforcing a speed limit around a bend that is much slower than we originally thought was correct?

I don't have an issue with discussing the possible solutions.

As suggested, when you are next out in the car and perhaps on roads like I have shown, that you use on a regular basis, check and be honest with yourself, did you travel around the bend at a speed that could avoid ANY possible eventuality?

Best regards

Chris

Not attacking you as you stopped - so therefore you could say you weren't going too fast, but..

As an motorcyclist I have always been taught - and always follow the rule of - if you can't stop in the distance you can see then you are going too fast. I do this in my car too (ie follow the rule)

On the email list I partake of it's known as the fridge rule - if there was a fridge on the road around the next corner, could you stop in time?

 

[Night Train]

My conclusion is that the bend is perfectly safe at any time of the day for at least 40 mph. Of course I am not taking into account inclement weather with that statement Night Train.

I also believe that 30 mph may be too slow should you have other traffic behind you. Don't knock me for that one, I just believe in helping others to stay calm on the road.

I think you are missing the point.

You are applying a set speed to determine, in your view, what is safe for that bend. Try to not do that but instead apply the thought that the appropriate safe speed is variable depending on so many other factors of the moment. It 'might' be safe at 40mph right now, today, but two minutes later there might be a broken down tractor just out of sight on that bend and at 40mph you wouldn't be able to stop before running into the back of it.

You have to make that judgment call that next time that cyclist might have swerved into primary to avoid glass or roadkill just at the time that the car coming the other way was a little bit faster and just as there was a little bit of oil on the road and you would have had no option but to run over the cyclist or impact the other car.
Just because you didn't hit anything or anyone several times doesn't equate that a set speed is now safe for that bend.

You are also falling into the trap of 'not wanting to slow down or 'inconvenience' other motorists'. If you were driving a tractor you would be only driving at 25mph other drivers would have to drive slow behind you. If you were on a bike at 15mph other drivers would have to drive slow behind you. Their impatience shouldn't dictate that you drive faster then may be safe for the conditions.

I would slow to a safe speed for the conditions, and if the following drivers are not happy then they can pass me at the next safe spot. Hell, I'll even pull over to let them pass!

You are now starting to not learn from the incident, preferring to make up a random set rule that you can blame if it were to go wrong thus absolving yourself from the responsibility. Now that is 'having a go at you'.

 

[G2EWS]

I think you are missing the point.

You are applying a set speed to determine, in your view, what is safe for that bend. Try to not do that but instead apply the thought that the appropriate safe speed is variable depending on so many other factors of the moment. It 'might' be safe at 40mph right now, today, but two minutes later there might be a broken down tractor just out of sight on that bend and at 40mph you wouldn't be able to stop before running into the back of it.

You have to make that judgment call that next time that cyclist might have swerved into primary to avoid glass or roadkill just at the time that the car coming the other way was a little bit faster and just as there was a little bit of oil on the road and you would have had no option but to run over the cyclist or impact the other car.
Just because you didn't hit anything or anyone several times doesn't equate that a set speed is now safe for that bend.

You are also falling into the trap of 'not wanting to slow down or 'inconvenience' other motorists'. If you were driving a tractor you would be only driving at 25mph other drivers would have to drive slow behind you. If you were on a bike at 15mph other drivers would have to drive slow behind you. Their impatience shouldn't dictate that you drive faster then may be safe for the conditions.

I would slow to a safe speed for the conditions, and if the following drivers are not happy then they can pass me at the next safe spot. Hell, I'll even pull over to let them pass!

You are now starting to not learn from the incident, preferring to make up a random set rule that you can blame if it were to go wrong thus absolving yourself from the responsibility. Now that is 'having a go at you'.

Sorry Night Train, I think you have totally missed the point of my note and to be honest have gone off at tangent. Of course every driver changes depending on what the conditions are or if someone pulls out on you, do you honestly think that anyone would do otherwise? Any road, junction, bend has a speed at which it is safe to drive in normal conditions, that is what I have concluded. If, as yesterday with me, you meet a cyclist, you don't seriously think that any person would just carry on at the same speed do you?

Best regards

Chris

 

[growingvegetables]

I'm not attacking you ... I don't get the feeling that anybody is. But I AM really struggling with your perspective on safe speed.

Back in the old days, when I passed my test, there was one simple measure – can I stop safely within the distance I can see in front of me. No debate. No argument. Plain and simple. One sentence. With an elegant simplicity that takes into account all sorts of variables. And it's stood me in good stead for over 40 years driving/motorbiking/cycling.


In your OP, you said “I have travelled that road faster and considered myself to be driving safely. Indeed, if I had been in my Wife's BMW 6 series, I would almost certainly have been travelling nearer to 60 mph.”

You've added lots of argument to try and support your choice of various speeds. I get the sense that you're realising that this style of reasoning failed you in the OP? Thankfully with no serious consequences for yourself or the cyclists – but ......... it may fail you again.



Compare my perspective [hey, I've only “driven” your road on Googlemaps – so this is just a fwiw]. Narrow lanes. Restricted sight lines, made way worse by trees and hedges. Long bends, mostly blind, and what look like blind summits. Long stretches of unbroken white line. Plus all that I know of rural roads. I'm guessing I might hit 40 on the clear straights, but VERY substantially drop my speed on the bends and approaches to the blind summits. And considerably less again if I had reason to question “stuff” on the road surface, rain and weather.

But there's the difference

• even “driving” on Googlemaps, I'm looking at the road and factoring in all sorts of variables based on actual observation of the real conditions of the road. The road – nothing but the road, and who/what might be on it. I don't need signs to tell me what to do.
• while you are using reason, argument, what other people do ... anything EXCEPT actual real-time observation?

Once again – I'm NOT attacking. It's a perennial “discussion” between myself and #1 son – he thinks/argues like you do. I do believe you are driving too fast, and probably dangerously so (like he does). BUT – you're thinking it through. Can you take this perspective as a constructive contribution on your path to reconsidering your speed? More important – to reconsidering how you assess your speed?

[PS - Driving the bend again is irrelevant. Get the bike out - and cycle it; something tells me your language about an un-named BMW driver screaming up behind you at 60mph could be quite colourful?]

 

[G2EWS]

Hi growingvegetables,

Thanks for your post. No I don't see your post as attacking me!

We may be similar ages as I have also been driving for over 40 years which also includes motorbikes, cars, large motorhomes and cycles! My training has also stood me in good stead over the years.

I wonder if you have seen my post 108? I think I have explained what I feel about this bend and what the whole experience has done for me. As stated, I will certainly be looking at the road in a different way in the future.

Best regards

Chris

 

[Big boy]

What relevance has that when you cannot see round the corner?

Of course it has relevance (work that out yourself)
Im not gonna spoon fedd anyone else who posts pointles comments on a thread.
Dont like it then get over it and post something worth reading.