Good Old Hampshire Constabulary
- Thread starter Monkreadusuk
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Nigeyy
Legendary Member
- Location
- Massachusetts, USA
Yeah, but I run a camera and it still looks like enough distance to stop to me.
jarlrmai
Veteran
Devils Advocate, you don't think 25 MPH down a busy urban street is too fast? In the wet conditions? Maybe cover the brakes when you see the vision obscured side road?
Maybe Gaz rides that speed because he's looking for incidents? He could have been going 12 or 15mph and it wouldn't have been an issue.
Maybe Gaz rides that speed because he's looking for incidents? He could have been going 12 or 15mph and it wouldn't have been an issue.
KneesUp
Guru
All forms of transport would be safer if they were slower.
If the van had pulled out on, say, a motorcycle, or a car travelling at 25mph, would you say the car or motorbike driver/rider was 'looking for an incident' too?
KneesUp
Guru
[QUOTE 3063918, member: 45"]Same comments about driving to conditions and anticipation, yes.
Have you ever done the theory test?[/QUOTE]
No - there was no such thing when I passed my test in (cough) 1990 something. I've driven about half a million miles without incident or accident though. Does that count for anything?
Have you ever done the theory test?[/QUOTE]
No - there was no such thing when I passed my test in (cough) 1990 something. I've driven about half a million miles without incident or accident though. Does that count for anything?
KneesUp
Guru
[QUOTE 3063933, member: 45"]Well no, not really. Not if you ignore the advice about appropriate speed and anticipation.
You can do the test. I think it's £33.[/QUOTE]
Ah, so I've just been lucky for half a million miles
The cyclist could have been going slower. You might argue the cyclist should have been going slower.
The incident though was caused by the van pulling out in to the path of an oncoming vehicle.
You can do the test. I think it's £33.[/QUOTE]
Ah, so I've just been lucky for half a million miles
The cyclist could have been going slower. You might argue the cyclist should have been going slower.
The incident though was caused by the van pulling out in to the path of an oncoming vehicle.
KneesUp
Guru
[QUOTE 3063942, member: 45"]Safe riding isn't about blame. That's pointless.
The hazard perception part of the theory test includes 14 clips of developing hazards, and you click when you see a hazard developing which is likely to require you to slow down. There's no option to blame someone else for the situation. Approach the test with the attitude of some of the posters on here and you'd have no chance of passing.[/QUOTE]
I would say that the rider was at the limit of what was safe. He stopped and there was no accident. That says to me that his judgement was pretty spot on - he was going quickly but when it came to it, he was able to cope with a mistake made by someone else and avoid an accident.
One doesn't drive for 20-odd years without an single accident without being able to anticipate things - I reckon I'd be ok with the test, thanks. In fact I must be pretty good at anticipating things because although I've never been involved in an accident, I've seen quite a few in my rear view mirror.
The hazard perception part of the theory test includes 14 clips of developing hazards, and you click when you see a hazard developing which is likely to require you to slow down. There's no option to blame someone else for the situation. Approach the test with the attitude of some of the posters on here and you'd have no chance of passing.[/QUOTE]
I would say that the rider was at the limit of what was safe. He stopped and there was no accident. That says to me that his judgement was pretty spot on - he was going quickly but when it came to it, he was able to cope with a mistake made by someone else and avoid an accident.
One doesn't drive for 20-odd years without an single accident without being able to anticipate things - I reckon I'd be ok with the test, thanks. In fact I must be pretty good at anticipating things because although I've never been involved in an accident, I've seen quite a few in my rear view mirror.
[QUOTE 3063964, member: 45"]I think the issue comes where a driver's acceptable level of risk clashes with the expected standard. With Gav's clip he accepted the higher risk he took and that it would require severe braking. The theory test requires more caution. You may have acted as Gaz did in the clip, but if you do this on the test you would score 0. In reality you would apply more caution on the test.[/QUOTE]
Luckily, he doesn't have to pass it to ride a bicycle...
Luckily, he doesn't have to pass it to ride a bicycle...
KneesUp
Guru
Or to drive vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes in weight
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
[QUOTE 3063964, member: 45"]I think the issue comes where a driver's acceptable level of risk clashes with the expected standard. With Gav's clip he accepted the higher risk he took and that it would require severe braking. The theory test requires more caution. You may have acted as Gaz did in the clip, but if you do this on the test you would score 0. In reality you would apply more caution on the test.[/QUOTE]
I think that this is taking hazard perception a bit too far, we don't expect people to just roll out of minor roads without properly looking. I certainly don't ride or drive with the expectation that it will happen at every minor junction, as that would require some level of slowing down.
My clip isn't really that comparable to the first, as in my clip the van driver appears, doesn't check the road properly and just rolls out into the junction.
The other clip the car was waiting there already at the junction for quite some time (going from memory of the video but I believe that was the case).
I took my hazard perception test nearly 10 years ago and certainly didn't have to highlight a minor road with no vehicles there as a hazard in advanced, one where a vehicle is waiting there, perhaps.
I think that this is taking hazard perception a bit too far, we don't expect people to just roll out of minor roads without properly looking. I certainly don't ride or drive with the expectation that it will happen at every minor junction, as that would require some level of slowing down.
My clip isn't really that comparable to the first, as in my clip the van driver appears, doesn't check the road properly and just rolls out into the junction.
The other clip the car was waiting there already at the junction for quite some time (going from memory of the video but I believe that was the case).
I took my hazard perception test nearly 10 years ago and certainly didn't have to highlight a minor road with no vehicles there as a hazard in advanced, one where a vehicle is waiting there, perhaps.
[QUOTE 3064122, member: 45"]At every junction you risk assess what's going on.
Maybe it has confused things bringing your clip in, but charging at a junction with the number of potential risks that there were in the OP, and doing nothing to slow once the hazard developed would have scored you zero.[/QUOTE]
Not enjoying the compound verb, but I'll roll with it. You risk-assess what's going on, but on a bicycle you don't need to risk-assess as if driving a car, because you are not driving a car...
Maybe it has confused things bringing your clip in, but charging at a junction with the number of potential risks that there were in the OP, and doing nothing to slow once the hazard developed would have scored you zero.[/QUOTE]
Not enjoying the compound verb, but I'll roll with it. You risk-assess what's going on, but on a bicycle you don't need to risk-assess as if driving a car, because you are not driving a car...
