Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:46

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Near Head-on
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 14:46 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
On Tuesday night I was driving down Beaconside in Stafford from the direction of the A34 at around 6.50pm. The limit there is 50 but I was doing 40ish and slowing because the roads were damp and I'd just passed the left turn off to Sandon - which is a blackspot - and was some hundreds of yards from the double set of lights by the (ex)RAF Camp.

I noted headlights on my side of the road ahead and lifted, which quickly became clear as a car overtaking a truck almost immediately after leaving the junction with the lights. I stayed lifted, the car was still on my side of the road, I started braking, then braking harder....

I had come to a complete stop when the small hatch in question missed the front of my car by about 10 feet (going at around 50 or so) with the truck also braking as hard as he could given the conditions and flashing a large battery of lights at the tw@t in the car.

So we have: someone who, on pulling away from the lights behind a truck decided to overtake it on the run up to (from their side of the road) a known dangerous right turn off (with a "right turn lane" into it in the middle of the road, plus hatching) in a car with the accelerative properties of a lemur, and (presumably) on pulling out and seeing the lights of an on-coming car in the middle distance, continued to overtake!

It was, for me, a near brown-trouser moment, but I can't see what else I could have done. The offender was about half a second from either hitting me head on or swerving under the front of a large artic...

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 15:08 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
This makes me quite cross...something that should never be done under any circumstances (short of blues and twos ;)) is overtaking in a 'turn reservation'. The simple reason, the 'idiot' in front (assume all other drivers are idiots and take necessary precautions, but don't behave as such towards them) may pull into it without indicating, or you could miss their indicators, regardless, if they want to move into that lane the best possible outcome is that the overtakee spots the overtaker and has to brake to make it into the reservation without a collision!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Near Head-on
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 15:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
prof beard wrote:
It was, for me, a near brown-trouser moment, but I can't see what else I could have done. The offender was about half a second from either hitting me head on or swerving under the front of a large artic...


Roads are usually wider than we feel they are and quite often three abreast actually can be made to fit even when it looks impossible. So a 'golden rule' in this sort of situation is to think left/right space as well as fore/aft space. You might call it thinking laterally! Obviously we want to be as far left as possible.

Even if a squeeze within the road won't avoid the impact, once you are 'thinking laterally' pavements, driveways, laybys and verges may become useful escape space. It's also much quicker to chink left (where possible) than to brake - safety comes sooner.

But I wouldn't usually rely in tucking in even on a wide road. I'd continue to brake. I like to have safety from BOTH lateral and longitudinal space.

It's amazing how often this can be applied - or needlessly given away - driving side by side with another vehicle on a dual carriageway or motorway kills lateral space, but a tiny stagger and the space is there should you need it.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 15:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
RobinXe wrote:
This makes me quite cross...something that should never be done under any circumstances (short of blues and twos ;)) is overtaking in a 'turn reservation'.


Not so black and white!

The worthy exception is once you have PASSED the junction. There may still be 300 yards of turn reservation ahead, and nothing oncoming. This can be a safe and even excellent place to nip past. Just watch out for debris on any shaded bits as well as the usual overtaking safety checks.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 16:19 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Well quite, I did not include the hatched follow-on in my sentiment.

As you say however, the possibility of debris or a looser surface has always prevented me trying this on the bike, despite them being a perfect length.

Of course, where there is opposing traffic and the reservation is for them too, the above does not apply.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 16:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
RobinXe wrote:
Well quite, I did not include the hatched follow-on in my sentiment.

As you say however, the possibility of debris or a looser surface has always prevented me trying this on the bike, despite them being a perfect length.

Of course, where there is opposing traffic and the reservation is for them too, the above does not apply.


You might commonly find you can move to the right of of any shaded section for overtaking purposes, especially on a bike.

Have you taken any advanced training Robin?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Near Head-on
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 16:41 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
SafeSpeed wrote:
Roads are usually wider than we feel they are and quite often three abreast actually can be made to fit even when it looks impossible. So a 'golden rule' in this sort of situation is to think left/right space as well as fore/aft space. You might call it thinking laterally! Obviously we want to be as far left as possible.


Thanks Paul - an important point I had omitted to cover - within the bounds of road, kerb etc, I HAD moved as far to the left as I could without hitting the kerb - in these days of ABS one tends to forget that one has steered whilst braking. In fact, if the pr@t in question had been overtaking a CAR, your three abreast advice would have worked. Sadly in this case it was an effing great truck!

Mind you - think about it - given I was in a Saab - which has excellent crash ratings - and the offender was in a small hatchback - would a full head-on have been worse than a half to one-third head-on?

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 16:45 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
Well quite, I did not include the hatched follow-on in my sentiment.

As you say however, the possibility of debris or a looser surface has always prevented me trying this on the bike, despite them being a perfect length.

Of course, where there is opposing traffic and the reservation is for them too, the above does not apply.


You might commonly find you can move to the right of of any shaded section for overtaking purposes, especially on a bike.

Have you taken any advanced training Robin?


I have on the bike, not in the car.

I am aware that I may move onto shaded sections, but I generally don't move onto less well travelled sections through choice, due to experience of those sections accumulating loose debris, and some dodgy moments on those in the past!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Near Head-on
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 16:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
prof beard wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Roads are usually wider than we feel they are and quite often three abreast actually can be made to fit even when it looks impossible. So a 'golden rule' in this sort of situation is to think left/right space as well as fore/aft space. You might call it thinking laterally! Obviously we want to be as far left as possible.


Thanks Paul - an important point I had omitted to cover - within the bounds of road, kerb etc, I HAD moved as far to the left as I could without hitting the kerb - in these days of ABS one tends to forget that one has steered whilst braking. In fact, if the pr@t in question had been overtaking a CAR, your three abreast advice would have worked. Sadly in this case it was an effing great truck!


$64,000 question: How wide is the road there?

Kerb you say... How high? And what's beyond it?

prof beard wrote:
Mind you - think about it - given I was in a Saab - which has excellent crash ratings - and the offender was in a small hatchback - would a full head-on have been worse than a half to one-third head-on?


A half impact could be worse, sometimes, than a full head on. But by the time you're under about 2 feet of overlap the 'blow' is becoming glancing and less overlap is a big benefit.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Near Head-on
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 17:23 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
SafeSpeed wrote:
$64,000 question: How wide is the road there?

Kerb you say... How high? And what's beyond it?


Three cars comfortably wide - might have fitted me the hatchback and the truck IF the offender was right over on my side and the truck nicely in the middle of his lane. As it was I suspect no fit.

Kerb high, with about a couple of foot of grassy mush then trees. I wouldn't have liked to have to find out what would happen if you tried to mount it at any speed - it certainly would have caused significant damage to the car and might have thrown you back out. I probably would have just stuffed the car in the hedge if I'd been going at speed by the time the hatchback reached me though.


prof beard wrote:
Mind you - think about it - given I was in a Saab - which has excellent crash ratings - and the offender was in a small hatchback - would a full head-on have been worse than a half to one-third head-on?


Quote:
A half impact could be worse, sometimes, than a full head on. But by the time you're under about 2 feet of overlap the 'blow' is becoming glancing and less overlap is a big benefit.


I agree - a tricky one - in reality one would always be as far over as one could so some degree of "partialness" to the impact is inevitable?

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Near Head-on
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 19:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
prof beard wrote:
Kerb high, with about a couple of foot of grassy mush then trees. I wouldn't have liked to have to find out what would happen if you tried to mount it at any speed - it certainly would have caused significant damage to the car and might have thrown you back out. I probably would have just stuffed the car in the hedge if I'd been going at speed by the time the hatchback reached me though.


That kerb sounds like a no-no, although of course if the alternative is a head on anything is worth a try.

It's actually very hard for ordinary drivers to find lateral escape routes - they focus on the impact and drive directly towards it - sometimes with the tyres on fire. It's frequently said you go where you look.

Plenty of overtaking crashes - possibly even more than half - could have been avoided by the innocent oncoming driver taking a position further to the left.

On a lot of modern A roads there's even a couple of feet of 'spare' tarmac to the left of a white edge line. I think I'd recommend crossing the edge line frequently (when safe to do so) - you don't want your subconscious to think of it as 'unavailable' space - and you can get substantial 'position for vision' advantages.

I believe that the best way to train yourself to look for a lateral escape route in a real emergency is to practice - consciously imagine 'problems' in normal driving and plan esacpe routes. At the very least this causes you to assess hedges, kerbs and verges. At best it trains you to find an escape route when you need one for real.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Near Head-on
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 15:25 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 23:42
Posts: 200
Location: Milton Keynes
SafeSpeed wrote:
On a lot of modern A roads there's even a couple of feet of 'spare' tarmac to the left of a white edge line. I think I'd recommend crossing the edge line frequently (when safe to do so) - you don't want your subconscious to think of it as 'unavailable' space - and you can get substantial 'position for vision' advantages.


I definitely wouldn't recommend doing it just for the sake of it, I suspect it's illegal (it certainly is in some countries), and it greatly increases the risk of FOD. But you are right that it is important to be aware of it as being available if necessary, along with the other possible escape routes.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Near Head-on
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 15:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
greenv8s wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
On a lot of modern A roads there's even a couple of feet of 'spare' tarmac to the left of a white edge line. I think I'd recommend crossing the edge line frequently (when safe to do so) - you don't want your subconscious to think of it as 'unavailable' space - and you can get substantial 'position for vision' advantages.


I definitely wouldn't recommend doing it just for the sake of it, I suspect it's illegal (it certainly is in some countries), and it greatly increases the risk of FOD. But you are right that it is important to be aware of it as being available if necessary, along with the other possible escape routes.


I'm still thinking about it - I wouldn't do it 'for the sake of it', but I do do it for some real position advantage.

But what's FOD? Fear Of Debris? :hehe:

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Near Head-on
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 20:18 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 23:42
Posts: 200
Location: Milton Keynes
SafeSpeed wrote:
But what's FOD?


Foreign Object Damage - its a common term in an aeronautical context.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Near Head-on
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 23:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
greenv8s wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
But what's FOD?


Foreign Object Damage - its a common term in an aeronautical context.


I was close... :)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.019s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]