Family nearly killed today

[Joe24]

You know its not just HGV's in lane 1 yes? Anyway, it could have been an Irish HGV so could have been. It wont be the fault of the truck but it is the truck causing the problem. Anyway you mentioned heavy braking more then me

 

[Jaded]

Is all that relevant? Doesn't look like it.

 

[BentMikey]

Of course.
If you go by the speed limit of 70mph. 40mph is 30mph slower. Thus meaning that 'if' a driver wasnt paying the proper attention, they could still think that the truck is going faster and approach it too quick. A collision could happen, or the truck which is tailgating another truck or car hits the back of the car infront. Sandwhiching the car or truck. To find out more go and driver down a motorway at 40mph.
I do not think that its ok for a HGV to tailgate. However, slowing it down on a hill wasnt the best responce to the situation IMO.
Ok, maybe i did bring in the heavy braking, but i think i just miss interpreted that post.

So what you're really saying is that the slow HGV is not the danger, only a stupid and inattentive driver following behind? No different to a queue on the motorway, a crash, etc., all things for which we are all supposed to be paying attention.

I think it's not just misinterpretation, but blaming the wrong thing entirely as well.

 

[RufusA]

So what you're really saying is that the slow HGV is not the danger, only a stupid and inattentive driver following behind?....I think it's not just misinterpretation, but blaming the wrong thing entirely as well.

From a recent coroners report, it was BOTH a slow HGV and the inattentive driver who appear to have been to blame when a recovery truck doing 60mph ploughed in to the back of an HGV doing substantially less:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7339624.stm

Rufus.

 

[BentMikey]

Oooh, that's really quite a substantial misrepresentation of what is actually in that link about the HGV veering from one lane to another.

The speed of a vehicle in front should not be an issue to any driver:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should

• leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances PDF below)
• allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads
• remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance to stop. If driving a large vehicle in a tunnel, you should allow a four-second gap between you and the vehicle in front

 

[LLB]

Oooh, that's really quite a substantial misrepresentation of what is actually in that link about the HGV veering from one lane to another.

The speed of a vehicle in front should not be an issue to any driver:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should

• leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances PDF below)
• allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads
• remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance to stop. If driving a large vehicle in a tunnel, you should allow a four-second gap between you and the vehicle in front

I could take issue with a few of these points. The approach to roundabouts on dual carriageways are exercises in swearing when I tow due to the total knobs cutting into the safe braking gaps I leave between myself and the cars in front of me.

Also, many modern bikes have very good brakes. On my 172kg bike, the twin 6 pot calipers working on front disk brakes (which are are bigger than those on a Subaru Imprezza) can lift the bikes back wheel @ 100mph with the pressure of 2 fingers on the front brake lever.

I would say that the brakes on it are fairly effective given that it has less than 20% of the mass of a Ford Fiesta.

 

[Jaded]

Are you saying that because people cut into your braking distance it is silly to leave it?

 

[Mr Pig]

The speed of a vehicle in front should not be an issue to any driver

In theory, but it doesn't work like that. A car driving at thirty on the motorway is a hazard, no question.

When my sister lived in Germany there was a girl she worked with who could hardly drive and drove really slowly. She could barely change gear actually. One day the police pulled her over and told her that she could not drive so slowly on the Autobahn and she either had to drive faster or not use it.

 

[BentMikey]

No, can't agree with that. See the queue example, or a traffic collision. You're expected to drive safely and properly, and to have the expectation that the motorway won't always be clear and that you might have to stop.

Anything else is stupid and bad driving from the drivers behind. They are the hazard here, not the slow HGV. It's just sad that this sort of poor attitude is acceptable.

 

[Jaded]

Absolutely, BM.

The way Mr Pig is going, you'd expect wrecking crews at the ready on motorways, ready to bulldoze stationary vehicles off the road after a prang, lest they impede drivers doing 70.

 

[Mr Pig]

The way Mr Pig is going, you'd expect wrecking crews at the ready on motorways, ready to bulldoze stationary vehicles off the road after a prang, lest they impede drivers doing 70.

I think you're being silly. A car travelling at say thirty on an otherwise free-flowing motorway is a danger. I agree that all drivers should drive to the conditions and be fully aware of the speed and position of the traffic in front but to lay 'all' of the blame on the following driver is sometimes over-simplistic. It's easy to say what people ideally 'should' be doing in any given situation but people are fallible. Allowing driving behaviour that tests other drivers, like driving very slowly on the motorway, is an unnecessary risk to life.

 

[Jaded]

You should be able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear. Not the distance that you assume to be clear because you assume that all the lemmings are going the same speed as you.

Since you should be prepared for stationary vehicles up ahead it follows that a vehicle travelling at 30 is less of a hazard since your closing speed is less.

Assumptions lead to crashes. If you can't judge the speed of vehicles in front of you then consider if you should be driving.

 

[Mr Pig]

What you are saying is quite within the letter of the law. However it is easy to miss that a car is travelling very slowly if it's tucked away within a large cloud of other vehicles and you have a lot of other things to concentrate on. Yes, you should spot it, and most drivers will, but the odd driver will get caught out.

Slow moving vehicles can be 'more' of a hazard than stationary ones because you can tell at a glance that an object is stationary, were as it takes a longer look to accurately estimate the speed of a moving one. A busy motorway is a complex environment for most people and glances and 'assumptions' are commonplace.

Traffic ques are different in that to a large extent they are unavoidable. Saying that driving at thirty on the motorway is acceptable is like saying it's ok for teenagers to place snooker tables in the outside lane because it is the responsibility of drivers to see and avoid the hazard!

Some risk is inevitable but that doesn't make it ok to create risk unnecessarily. Driving is difficult and dangerous. We should be trying to help people with it, not just hammer them all the time for not being perfect at it.

 

[Jaded]

I'm sorry - but that from an advanced driver.

"A busy motorway is a complex environment for most people and glances and 'assumptions' are commonplace."

Doesn't mean that they are right or that we should accept them.

"However it is easy to miss that a car is travelling very slowly if it's tucked away within a large cloud of other vehicles and you have a lot of other things to concentrate on."

Yeah, like TXTing and eating sweets and whether the seat is set just right and Oh, I don't like this track, I'll just change it.

If driving a car was subject to the same rigourous scrutiny as flying a plane (which in this country kills far fewer people) your posts would be laughable, if not criminal.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

What you are saying is quite within the letter of the law. However it is easy to miss that a car is travelling very slowly if it's tucked away within a large cloud of other vehicles and you have a lot of other things to concentrate on. Yes, you should spot it, and most drivers will, but the odd driver will get caught out.
Slow moving vehicles can be 'more' of a hazard than stationary ones because you can tell at a glance that an object is stationary, were as it takes a longer look to accurately estimate the speed of a moving one.

This is absolutely true. I'm a professional driver, and I'm pretty good at it, but very occaionally I've had to brake sharply because the bloke in front was going substantially slower than I thought he was, and more importantly, going much slower than was reasonable (perhaps 40mph on a free flowing motorway). Of course, it was my job to spot him and allow for this, but it's not always as easy as some on here would have us believe. Without commenting on specific cases, driving at 40 on a free flowing motorway, in clear weather, is a Bad Idea.