So, as a car driver, how did I do with the group of cyclists? VIDEO

[CopperBrompton]

You apply here: http://www.roadar.org/drivers/the-test.htm

With your obvious expertise on driving, I'm sure you'll be back with your Gold in no time.

 

[donnydave]

The algorithms involved in underwriting car insurance are implacable and emotionless. Insurance companies are using these black boxes because they can indicate hood, safe driving, and hence lower premiums. It measures speed primarily, since speeding is irrefutably linked with more frequent and more severe collisions. I've no idea why you put the word "safely" in parenthesis.

Hello! I used safety in parentheses for the reasons that others have helpfully suggested, that is - the black boxes are too stupid to differentiate between someone heroically saving the day with superhuman reactions on steering/brakes/accel and someone who is half asleep and driving dangerously.

I wonder if they would accept dash cam evidence of awesomeness to challenge "bad" driving recorded by the box?

 

[glenn forger]

They aren't boxes. They record wild accelerating, braking and cornering. Drivers who aren't terribly good wildly accelerate, corner and brake. Wheel-spinning little chavs pay more for their insurance, sensible driver pay less.

 

[CopperBrompton]

http://www.roadar.org/drivers/the-test.htm

Signed up to see how good a driver you really are yet, Glenn?

Thought not.

 

[simon.r]

1:51 would have been a perfectly safe overtaking opportunity in my car, but I don't know what you were driving.

But in contravention of the Highway Code (Rule 130)?

"If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so." (My italics).

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-al...ines-and-lane-markings-on-the-road-127-to-132

 

[CopperBrompton]

(Edited for fuller explanation)

The Highway Code is designed to present a simplified view of both motoring law and advice aimed at those new to driving. You can tell the two apart by the language:

MUST NOT (which appears in capitals) means that the rule summarises the law.

'should not' (which is not capitalised) is advice aimed at new drivers.

It is perfectly legal and fine to enter broken-edged hatching where you are able to do so safely.

 

[simon.r]

'Should not' is advice; 'must not' means there is a law behind it. It's absolutely fine to enter broken hatchings when safe to do so.

I understand that, but it's the word 'necessary' that I'm not sure about. Would it be considered 'necessary' to overtake in that situation? It's a situation where I think I would overtake (assuming a clear road, reasonable conditions etc etc) but genuinely not sure what is meant by 'necessary'.

The closest analogy I can think of is the '10 mph rule' (Rule 129). If that was applied to hatched areas then it would be a contravention of the code to overtake in the OP's video, assuming the cyclists were riding at over 10mph.

 

[CopperBrompton]

There isn't any legal definition of the term in that context because it doesn't refer to a law. It's basically good advice to new drivers to say Don't do this unless you have a good reason to even though the law says it's perfectly fine if you can do it safely.

In that situation, in my car, it would not be a problem to carry out a safe overtake there. I would, however, have done exactly the same as the OP in holding back until that point.

 

[CopperCyclist]

I'm with Trikeman on the black box (I don't know or care if its actually a box!) argument. He's exactly right when he says it would label some instances of good driving as poor.

Insurance companies however will only ever do things that earn them money. The majority of driving it detects as poor must therefore equate to drivers more likely to have a crash, and vice versa - otherwise if wouldn't be financially viable for the insurance companies to use them.

This could also be because people like myself (and yes, I have taken an advanced driving test, and I did pass) wouldn't have one!

 

[GrasB]

400bhp wins on the basis that an E-30 about to clip an apex and nail the power beats a ponced-up plastic Lotus making too much gratuitous smoke.

Blasted E-30s get in the way when the 'cento comes out to play though. Yes I might be a few classes lower & you might have over twice the power but you can't brake or corner worth a damn...

 

[donnydave]

They aren't boxes. They record wild accelerating, braking and cornering. Drivers who aren't terribly good wildly accelerate, corner and brake. Wheel-spinning little chavs pay more for their insurance, sensible driver pay less.

They encourage smooth driving through lateral and longitudinal acceleration limits. You could be ticking all the smooth driving boxes according to their system but driving an inch off the bumper of the car in front. I wonder if you could do a brake stand/rolling burnout at a gentle walking pace and not exceed the accel limit - green light, good driving! To get round this they would basically have to log all data like an F1 car and have your driving peer reviewed by a panel of stewards.

They are so very nearly a good idea, but it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a whole bunch of real world scenarios where a good driver is punished. Perhaps fit them as a punishment to vehicles owned by those done for certain driving offenses?

I would much rather share the road with people properly trained to drive appropriately to conditions and have at least some idea of what the car is capable of, with the mindset to use that performance appropriately and where the risk to others is minimal. Unfortunately I don't have an answer to that, but I'm pretty sure the answer is not making everyone afraid to do anything but doddle gently along because some software says that >0.25g (or whatever the limit is) counts as bad driving. Removing responsibility from the driver to decide what is safe is the wrong approach, I can just imagine now "but my insurance app said I was driving safely, therefore the accident wasn't my fault"

Additionally, how can you say they aren't boxes, they ARE boxes! Some are phone apps, true, but others are actual boxes that someone has to fit to your car. An "engineer" has to crawl around behind my dashboard or wherever, chopping wires about to fit one of these? No thanks! I wonder how clever the apps are, if you chuck your phone in the door pocket and your phone rattles around, or if it drops on the floor will the app think you've done a barrel roll?

 

[Hotblack Desiato]

From just a video clip it was hard for me to judge if the OP had an opportunity to overtake.

Other than that I thought he did just fine. It seems to me that motorists massively overestimate the benefits of overtaking marginally slower vehicles, especially compared to the risk. Only rarely do I overtake other motor vehicles off multi-carriageway roads unless they are travelling very slowly or there is big safety margin.

My car insurance premium is currently low (I pay more for the TV licence) and I want to keep it that way.

 

[Boris Bajic]

From just a video clip it was hard for me to judge if the OP had an opportunity to overtake.

Other than that I thought he did just fine. It seems to me that motorists massively overestimate the benefits of overtaking marginally slower vehicles, especially compared to the risk. Only rarely do I overtake other motor vehicles off multi-carriageway roads unless they are travelling very slowly or there is big safety margin.

My car insurance premium is currently low (I pay more for the TV licence) and I want to keep it that way.

I reluctantly agree with the bit I've put in bold. I just taught one of my issue to drive and (as ever) the process elicited some further analysis of my own driving.

I thought I was Johnny Cautious on the overtakes, but I found myself wearing away tooth enamel over 'slow drivers' who were adding perhaps twenty seconds to a journey - all of that time recoverable on the next clear straight as if that even mattered.

I do like to give bicycles plenty of room and time, but I find that cars behind can bunch up and get just that little bit too close. It has ever been so.

The pay-off when you do spend a while behind a tractor, bicycle, chaingang, horse or similar is partly the realisation that ultimately it cost no time and that the time didn't matter anyway.... and it is partly the cheery thanks one gets from the other road user.

As this is a cycling forum I should add that of all the above groups, equestrians and cyclists are by far the best at acknowledging thoughtfulness.

 

[CopperBrompton]

No, he's not trying to understand my point at all. He continues to post nonsense on a topic he knows nothing about, hence me recommending that he learn something about the topic.

It would be rather like me pontificating on the best torque setting for doing up a stem bolt.

 

[glenn forger]

What have I posted that's nonsense? I showed that accelerating wildly, cornering at speed and excessive braking are not signs of a good driver, and accidents have decreased in Italy following the installation of trackers and black boxes. Which part of this do you dispute please? And stop with the personal attacks, I'm explaining why I support the use of these bits of kit, I'm not attacking your ideas or you personally, there's no need for abuse.