A Worrying & Serious Near Incident!

[Cubist]

I'm going to quote the manual as it appears on Wiki, as I do not have a copy to hand.

I'm going to bold out the part Subaqua refers to in his post above.

You @G2EWS are not debating, you have stated a point of view that you hold which tries to excuse a piece of poor judgement on your part. It does not matter in the slightest that countless others also drive around that bend too quickly, if you cannot stop safely in the distance that can see ahead, you are travelling too fast. There is no other debate. Even police officers responding to an incident with full strobes and sirens will have that principle firmly embedded in their consciences, because if they hit someone around that bend, they will be liable, even "the guy you know that wrote the responding manual". I tell you what, go and ask him, then come back and argue with us.

Read the part Subabqua refers to first. I'll quote it for you to save you having to click on the link yourself.
Roadcraft is the UK's police handbook that outlines a system of car and motorcycle control split into five phases represented by the acronym IPSGA:

1. Information received from the outside world by observation, and given by use of signals such as direction indicators, headlamp flashes, and horn; is a general theme running continuously throughout the application of the system by taking, using and giving information;
2. Position on the road optimised for safety, visibility and correct routing, followed by best progress;
3. Speed appropriate to the hazard being approached, attained via explicit braking or throttle control (engine braking), always being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your side of the road;
4. Gear appropriate for maximum vehicle control through the hazard, selected in one shift; and
5. Acceleration for clearing the hazard safely.

 

[Fnaar]

I think your two statements contradict each other somewhat - If every road user should take appropriate precautions, then the "simply cycling" cyclists perhaps should have also slowed to a halt, dismounted, taken their bikes to the roadside and walked the section of the bend that would potentially have been fatal for them if they'd continued riding.

But I suppose, as a non-driver, the only angle I can relate it with, is, supposing you were a mountain biker on a trail, and you came to a corner in your singletrack, nothing bikey seemed to be coming the other way, it was a run you knew well so you knew what speed you could maintain... you head round the bend and find that a hedgehog is paralleling you . Then there are also cyclists in view coming the other way. Would you splot the hedgehog, or brake to within an inch of stacking your bike and yourself in order to avoid splotting the hedgehog? Or would you have previously imagined this scenario for every impending corner and therefore cut your speed accordingly?

Stu

No, that would just be silly! Perhaps they should have stayed at home and wrapped themselves in cotton wool, or invented a time machine and gone back and asked their parents not to make them ...I meant, of course,within the bounds of reason and sensible roadcraft.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Roads can always be made safer. For ALL road users.
It has been mentioned that MANY roads are not suited nor designed to be driven at the NSL. They will remain with this limit in place until something is changed. Either the limit reduced or the road improved (widened for example) to accommodate fast travelling vehicles.
Before ALL dangerous or blind bends a combination of signs could be put in place. "SLOW DOWN". "BLIND CORNER".
For ALL registered cycle routes, especially rural, better signage could be used. "Beware cyclists at slow speed". "National cycle route". Etc etc. Cyclists ARE allowed to drive on any road they please (except motorways) but signs in these circumstances is at least a step in the correct direction.

Bottom line though is that there are main roads in Scotland that are causing deaths every week and there is no budget to fix those let alone B-roads and back roads which are potentially dangerous to cyclists.

 

[Cubist]

Hi Subaqua,

Sorry you are just totally wrong.No he isn't. Go back and drive that route on Google maps then tell me that you would go at 20 mph round it!

The point I am trying to make, is, I was driving as I normally do and that was safely.No you weren't you had to do an emergency stop to avoid hitting another road user.Having been on that road many times I and no one else I have ever seen has travelled that bend at anything less than 40 + mph.They were wrong too But I can now see that even using all the common sense and guidelines as taught to me and used by me in my many miles of travelling, was just too fast.You were mis-interpreting something that you half knew, or mistakenly believed.

Remember NO ONE I have ever seen travels around that bend at 20 mph. They are wrong too. Have you stood there since time began and watched every single driver ? Don't make assumptions based on your own erroneous driving. That should tell you something and do what I have asked of this thread to open a debate not about me, or anyone else who travelled around it at a sensible speed, but what do we need to implement to make sure a tragedy cannot happen. You were originally told by many others that you were going too fast. You have chosen to tell all of those who did so that you are right because of the spurious arguments you put forward above. That has not opened any sort of debate, that has been an example of entrenched refusal to accept criticism.

I feel that I must go back to this bend today and drive round it at 20 mph just to see again why this bend is such a problem and believe me, there is something not quite right here. Who says 20mph is the right speed? Go back and drive it at such a speed that you can stop withi the distance you can see to be clear. Take a tip from me before you do. Get someone else to watch the speedo, because you need to be looking at the road ahead. The actual speed is competely immaterial, 10, 15, 20 25 mph, none of it matters. What matters is the unseen hazard. I have never been let down by the guidelines or sensible practices of safe driving before. You have now.

As it happens I have asked local cyclists on a group I am part of if they know the bend and what speed they would drive round it. If they say 20 mph then I hold my hat up and say I need to go back to the drawing board. But somehow I feel that won't be the answer I get! I suggest you don't ask them then.

Regards

Chris

 

[G2EWS]

These bends don't have any roadsign at all?

Hi Adrian,

Pretty sure they don't. As I say I am going back to have another look today and will confirm what I find.

Regards

Chris

 

[G2EWS]

......................
You @G2EWS are not debating, .....

Hi Cubist,

I have tried to read everything you have put up, but!!

To attack someone you don't know, about, in this case a road junction you don't know, means that you have no interest in a debate and only an attack. That is a pity.

To condone every person as not being wise enough to judge that bend just shows me what kind of an individual you may be. I hope I am wrong and you are being genuine in your statements. But something tells me, you are in this for an argument not to debate the problem I have identified. You would not drive this bend at 20 mph, just like everyone else who drives it at a speed that is quite obviously too high. This means something is wrong! Perhaps you don't understand that. That is OK, I can live with that, but wonder if you can?

Anyway as mentioned I will go back and have another look today and see what makes this bend so at odds to others.

Best regards

Chris

 

[srw]

Sorry you are just totally wrong. Go back and drive that route on Google maps then tell me that you would go at 20 mph round it!

The point I am trying to make, is, I was driving as I normally do and that was safely. Having been on that road many times I and no one else I have ever seen has travelled that bend at anything less than 40 + mph. But I can now see that even using all the common sense and guidelines as taught to me and used by me in my many miles of travelling, was just too fast.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of your particular actions, that is not a 60mph road. At most it's a 40mph road. And I mean the straight bits. It's narrow, twisty and has atrocious sightlines. Each carriageway is only just over a car's width If "everyone" drives it at 60 then "everyone" is driving too fast. Which means that taking the blind corners at not much above 20mph is very sensible.

 

[400bhp]

This is a fantastic answer.

+1

A pragmatist.

 

[G2EWS]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of your particular actions, that is not a 60mph road. At most it's a 40mph road. And I mean the straight bits. It's narrow, twisty and has atrocious sightlines. Each carriageway is only just over a car's width If "everyone" drives it at 60 then "everyone" is driving too fast. Which means that taking the blind corners at not much above 20mph is very sensible.

Hi srw,

You know, you might just be right.

I can tell you that in the real world it is not that obvious. Will let you know when I drive it again.

I have driven a 7 ton 32ft, maximum width for the UK American Motorhome down that road and it is only just wide enough. It is surprising must how many roads are only just wide enough in the UK. With no margins for error at all.

Best regards

Chris

 

[Cyclist33]

Well, it doesn't seem like "we" need to implement something, rather that "you" do. I don't think you can reasonably post up your incident report as you did and expect everyone to agree with you.

I do feel you're hiding behind some rather faulty logic with the "I was taught to drive by a policeman" routine. Have you heard of syllogisms? Likewise with the "everybody does it so it must be right". It doesn't follow per se.

One solution would be for all cyclists to give up road use and stick to the trail. That way you might get some proper bo use out of that carbon mountain bike of yours

Hi Subaqua,

Sorry you are just totally wrong. Go back and drive that route on Google maps then tell me that you would go at 20 mph round it!

The point I am trying to make, is, I was driving as I normally do and that was safely. Having been on that road many times I and no one else I have ever seen has travelled that bend at anything less than 40 + mph. But I can now see that even using all the common sense and guidelines as taught to me and used by me in my many miles of travelling, was just too fast.

Remember NO ONE I have ever seen travels around that bend at 20 mph. That should tell you something and do what I have asked of this thread to open a debate not about me, or anyone else who travelled around it at a sensible speed, but what do we need to implement to make sure a tragedy cannot happen.

I feel that I must go back to this bend today and drive round it at 20 mph just to see again why this bend is such a problem and believe me, there is something not quite right here. I have never been let down by the guidelines or sensible practices of safe driving before.

As it happens I have asked local cyclists on a group I am part of if they know the bend and what speed they would drive round it. If they say 20 mph then I hold my hat up and say I need to go back to the drawing board. But somehow I feel that won't be the answer I get!

Regards

Chris

 

[G2EWS]

One solution would be for all cyclists to give up road use and stick to the trail. That way you might get some proper bo use out of that carbon mountain bike of yours

Ha ha,

Truth is out! Thanks for proving my point.

Regards

Chris

 

[davefb]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of your particular actions, that is not a 60mph road. At most it's a 40mph road. And I mean the straight bits. It's narrow, twisty and has atrocious sightlines. Each carriageway is only just over a car's width If "everyone" drives it at 60 then "everyone" is driving too fast. Which means that taking the blind corners at not much above 20mph is very sensible.

NSL is *not* a 60mph limit .

that's the mistake people make. they assume it's like 'urban driving' , instead the NSL is a top limit which may or may not be appropriate..

there has been a recent move to try to stop this and currently being discussed are rules to allow councils to put in lower limits in known accident hotspots..

I also think this is like the 20mph zones, you wouldn't need them if people didnt see the limits as "expected speeds" or "targets"

 

[G2EWS]

NSL is *not* a 60mph limit .

that's the mistake people make. they assume it's like 'urban driving' , instead the NSL is a top limit which may or may not be appropriate..

there has been a recent move to try to stop this and currently being discussed are rules to allow councils to put in lower limits in known accident hotspots..

I also think this is like the 20mph zones, you wouldn't need them if people didnt see the limits as "expected speeds" or "targets"

Hi Dave,

Very valid point.

I have a friend who is an advanced driving instructor and he explained exactly that. They teach people that speed limits are indeed not targets to be reached.

Best regards

Chris

 

[srw]

NSL is *not* a 60mph limit .

that's the mistake people make. they assume it's like 'urban driving' , instead the NSL is a top limit which may or may not be appropriate..

Wrong. NSL is a 60mph limit. It's not a 60mph target. Or a 60mph guide.

 

[Cubist]

The national limit is actually 30mph, except for roads outside of urban areas where the limit may be higher, depending on local limits, the type of carriageway and the type of vehicle being driven.