Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 07:14

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 00:26 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 04:56
Posts: 95
Location: Hertfordshire
Rigpig wrote:
Nos4r2 wrote:
Maybe it's not just not indicating that we should be debating but the lack of consideration for other road users period. :!:


Yep, yep yep.

Don't know if anyone else saw the Daily Express today, but they ran a small story headed The My Way Code. It looked at the results of a survey conducted by Teletext Cars of about 2000 drivers, not a very large sample and self-selecting granted, but it concluded that drivers were getting increasingly likely to ignore the highway code and the right of way of other drivers if they thought the police weren't watching them.
Amonst the things respondents openly admitted to doing were:
    Stealing parking spaces
    Making obscene gestures
    Jumping traffic lights
    Executing (presumably illegal) U-turns
    Tailgating - yes people actually admit to doing this
    Not wearing seatbelts
    Ignoring yellow box junctions
    Cut up other drivers for revenge
    Making calls on their mobile phone
    Driving straight over mini-roundabouts
Ironically, about 30% of these individuals actually took pleasure in seeing justice meted out to other people caught speeding or seeing the police pull over a flash motor :o
By slow increments we are losing our respect for the law and each other. Perhaps we should all buy tanks so we can dispense with any pretense that we can actually get along with one another and simply drive over any lesser mortal with whom we irritatingly have to share this hunk of rock.
:soapbox:


Worrying. You could see this as just another tabloid manufacturing a shock-horror-look-what-things-are-coming-to story, as they always do, or perhaps more seriously as a direct consequence of policy and the way it's implemented.

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 08:28 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
scanny77 wrote:
because people do not always come from behind. what about the pedestrians who may cross the road that you are turning into?


I'm not going to quote the HWC again, but here is one of my niggles. The number of drivers who don't realise that a pedestrian crossing the road has PRIORITY over them when they are turning in to a side road is amazing. So here it is better to give way.

With regard to your other example - a case of necessary. The problem with indicating by habbit is that too many people use thier indicators as a way of aquiring right of way. We should drive in a way that does not require other people to change course or speed. Hence there are very few cases of where indicators are necessary.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 08:33 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:52
Posts: 947
Location: falkirk
i am fully aware that they have right of way but if they see a vehicle is about to turn, they will normally wait. using it to acquire a right of way is wrong. the indicator is to signal your intention. to let others know what you want to do. not allow you to do as you like.
out of interest, how often do you get annoyed by people NOT indicating? joining motorways etc really bugs me as does lane changing. YOU STILL INDICATE TO PULL BACK IN AFTER OVERTAKING :evil:



sorry :oops:

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 08:59 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 00:06
Posts: 301
Location: Swindon
diy wrote:
The problem with indicating by habbit is that too many people use thier indicators as a way of aquiring right of way. We should drive in a way that does not require other people to change course or speed. Hence there are very few cases of where indicators are necessary.


Indicators are EXACTLY THAT-an indication not an order.

As neither you nor I are capable of reading the mind of other drivers then ANY point in time that you can see someone who could potentially under any circumstances be affected by your vehicle then you indicate your intention-whether or not you personally think that it's relevant really has little bearing on it.

You cannot use your indicators to acquire a right of way. You can however (and this is a perfectly acceptable practice) use your indicators as a signal of your intention early enough to give a considerate and courteous road user the chance to allow you space.
For example-if you want to change from lane 1 to lane 2 on the motorway to overtake a slow moving vehice and lane 3 is clear but lane 2 has a car about to overtake you, then indicate early. A courteous road user will indicate,move to lane 3 from lane 2 and allow you to pass then indicate and move back in-all of this without anyone having to go through all the rigmarole of slowing down and speeding up.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 09:07 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:52
Posts: 947
Location: falkirk
we know what we are talking about here. i always let trucks out if they indicate. we take a hell of a lot longer to regain that speed than other vehicles do. even in my car. if a truck indicates, i will flash him out and slow down or pull into lane 3.
before an arguement starts about flashing, the police dont seem to mind when i flash them out. another example of discretionary common sense over scameras :roll:

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:33 
Offline
Police Officer and Member
Police Officer and Member

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 22:53
Posts: 565
Location: Kendal
Rigpig wrote:
By slow increments we are losing our respect for the law and each other. Perhaps we should all buy tanks so we can dispense with any pretense that we can actually get along with one another and simply drive over any lesser mortal with whom we irritatingly have to share this hunk of rock.
:soapbox:


:) Your ideas have been shared and practiced for the last 10 years or more Rigpig. :)

Image

Now where is that bunker!




:bunker:

AAahh..........

:wink:

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 13:54 
Offline
Police Officer and Member
Police Officer and Member

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 22:53
Posts: 565
Location: Kendal
Observer wrote:
IanH wrote:
Two accidents I dealt with in the early hours of this morning involved Class one HGV drivers. They both made foolish mistakes and are likely to be facing at least Sec3 prosecution. Their manner of driving would have been explained much more readily if they had admitted to falling asleep at the wheel. Their contorted attempts to explain their action (or inaction) has not helped them.


Do you consider that speed limiters on HGVs contribute to driver 'sleepiness', Ian? And is your view shared by trafpol colleagues?


I'm sure they do, and I'm pretty sure most of my colleagues think they do. I don't think there is any real doubt about it. I've no real comparative experience to draw on as 1994 predates my traffic experience. :)

On this point I've never really thought otherwise. Where my viewpoint has moved is that previously I believed this negativity would have been quickly counterbalanced by the positive effects of keeping a limit on the vehicle momentum. This argument holds less and less value when actively considered and applied to real life situations.

I'm sure Paul has a graph to indicate HGV fatalities pre and post 1994 (The year when limiters were introduced and backdated to 88 models). This would provide clear indication of the positive or negative effect of the limiter. I have tried to find more data, but have struggled so far.



What is the best alternative?

It's difficult to know exactly. I believe they should be limited, but perhaps to 110kph, with the 90kph speed limit still applying on the motorway but enforced by police. In this way HGVs would be able to pass each other with much more ease. They would be able to apply their motoring skills more naturally, so there would be likely to be a concentration dividend.


The downside of this is that they may simply sit at the 110kph limit unless we are around.
To combat this there could be an argument for the use of 'voluntary ISA' whereby a mechanism in the cab alerts the driver by a 'pinging' sound to indicate that his speed has gone over the limit + 5mph. This would encourage him to trim back his speed naturally.


The reason I think there needs to be a limiter is that the motorway barriers are designed to withstand up to a certain momentum. The potential for carnage outwith the motorway barriers would in my view increase considerably if limiters were removed altogether.


Thoughts.............?

:popcorn:

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 14:01 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:52
Posts: 947
Location: falkirk
the barriers currently in use would be pushed to prevent a bicycle going through.
they should be replaced by a stronger design. they have been available for some time now but at expense. same as the tarmac. our government always chooses the cheap option over the more efficient designs
i dont know what the answer is to the limiters. like anyone else, if the extra speed is there, it will be used. even as they are, it is quite easy to go over 60MPH downhill without noticing. on a slight slope, you dont feel it

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 14:43 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 09:44
Posts: 516
Location: Swindon, the home of the Magic Roundabout and no traffic planning
scanny77 wrote:
the barriers currently in use would be pushed to prevent a bicycle going through.
they should be replaced by a stronger design. they have been available for some time now but at expense. same as the tarmac. our government always chooses the cheap option over the more efficient designs
i dont know what the answer is to the limiters. like anyone else, if the extra speed is there, it will be used. even as they are, it is quite easy to go over 60MPH downhill without noticing. on a slight slope, you dont feel it


Too true - judging by the instances of HGV's breaching the central reservation on the M4 recently (whilst obviously speeding at 56 mph, thus justifying the Wiltshire and Swindle Scamerati placing cameras along this stretch)

The will probably replace the armco with the steel cable design that is completely fatal to a motorcylist.

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 15:05 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
scanny77 wrote:
YOU STILL INDICATE TO PULL BACK IN AFTER OVERTAKING :evil:


Why? have you not given the car you were passing enough room? Do they need to slow down to let you in? What possible impact will it have on them if you don't?

I'm not trying to be devils advocate, or say that I go about without indicating, but I do try to avoid doing things by a habbit. Advanced driving is all about thinking and doing things for a reason.

For example when you overtake a car in an NSL single lane, do you indicate? Your immediate answer may be yes, but who will benefit?

the car you are passing - are they going to be looking? is there a risk they would be turning? if so should you be overtaking?

the car behind - are they close enough to be impacted? do they look like they are going to pass? should you be overtaking?

the oncoming car - definately should not be overtaking!

the car at the side road - definately should not be overtaking!

so who is left.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 15:29 
Offline
Police Officer and Member
Police Officer and Member

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 22:53
Posts: 565
Location: Kendal
diy wrote:

For example when you overtake a car in an NSL single lane, do you indicate? Your immediate answer may be yes, but who will benefit?

the car you are passing - are they going to be looking? is there a risk they would be turning? if so should you be overtaking?

the car behind - are they close enough to be impacted? do they look like they are going to pass? should you be overtaking?

the oncoming car - definately should not be overtaking!

the car at the side road - definately should not be overtaking!

so who is left.


The car in front will benefit if he is in a position to overtake the car in front of him but has made no effort to do so yet. You must indicate in this situation.

But I do think it's common courtesy to the motorist you are passing, to let him know you are about to overtake. The highway code provides instruction for what you should do while being overtaken, so I believe it is courtesy to let him/her know.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 15:36 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:52
Posts: 947
Location: falkirk
blademansw wrote:
Too true - judging by the instances of HGV's breaching the central reservation on the M4 recently (whilst obviously speeding at 56 mph, thus justifying the Wiltshire and Swindle Scamerati placing cameras along this stretch)


56MPH on the motorway isnt speeding. we are allowed to do 60 but are restricted to 56MPH.

indicating may not be absolutely necessary in the interests of safety but what about manners? or allowing someone a reaction time? or the fact that it is an offence to fail to indicate? correct indication is important too. indicating too early is actually dangerous as most drivers would react to it and assume they can pull out although this is not always the case. any half decent driver can judge when to indicate by looking at their speed. the faster they are going, the earlier they indicate to allow anyone following to react

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 16:52 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 09:44
Posts: 516
Location: Swindon, the home of the Magic Roundabout and no traffic planning
scanny77 wrote:
56MPH on the motorway isnt speeding. we are allowed to do 60 but are restricted to 56MPH.


I was being sarcastic - the HGV's aren't speeding, there have been many major accidents recently on the M4 involving HGV's. I am unsure as to the reason - perhaps foreign drivers, tiredness etc. The Swindon and Wiltshire scam partnership still trots out propaganda figures saying that speeding is causing all of these accidents. In fact, since they installed the cameras, the accidents have continued, even though the traffic speed has dropped.

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 17:12 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:52
Posts: 947
Location: falkirk
tell me about it, we get blamed for everything. part of the problem with tiredness is finding somewhere safe to stop. the MSAs charge a fortune for insecure parking and overpriced refreshments. the councils ar closing all the lorry parks and banning us from their towns/cities between 11pm and 7am. that only leaves industrial estates (not very safe) or laybys which arent safe either. there is also the added problem of risking fines for parking in laybys overnight for not displaying lights. if we left even sidelights on overnight, we would be paying for a jumpstart in the morning.
where do we get the appropriate rest?

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 18:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 18:19
Posts: 12
Location: Wiltshire
In an attempt to get this topic back online, I drove down the affected part of the M4 twice today the first being about 7AM, no speed camera vans, or marked Police cars. Cars not even bothered by the limit, plenty went bombing past us (We were doing around 70). :o

On the way back about 1PM same again even though there was heavy downpours in place, one camera van on a bridge targetting East Bound Traffic and must have been parked on the footpath :x :x

So depite what the scamera partnership a couple of weeks on and it seems it has not helped one bit (except swell their coffers :x )


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:02 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
IanH wrote:
The reason I think there needs to be a limiter is that the motorway barriers are designed to withstand up to a certain momentum. The potential for carnage outwith the motorway barriers would in my view increase considerably if limiters were removed altogether.


Judging from the number of crossover accidents, it seems that they don't stand up very well to a HGV at 56mph.

Perhaps it's better to ensure that drivers don't fall asleep in the first place, then the barriers won't need to withstand any momentum.

Cheers
Peter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:27 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 11:47
Posts: 1
Location: Surrey
sent this to lots of papers

Dear Sir
Having traveled to Wales this weekend I was appalled at the bunching of traffic caused by the new speed cameras in Wiltshire. All three lanes now proceed in a stately seventy mile convoy with vehicles getting dangerously close to each other. Thank goodness then that we are being given an opportunity to protest against this madness on Saturday. I haven’t heard much about this in the press so I hope you are going to do its utmost to publicise this most worthy event.
Yours Sincerely
Keith Jones


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 07:08 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:52
Posts: 947
Location: falkirk
Pete317 wrote:
IanH wrote:
The reason I think there needs to be a limiter is that the motorway barriers are designed to withstand up to a certain momentum. The potential for carnage outwith the motorway barriers would in my view increase considerably if limiters were removed altogether.


Judging from the number of crossover accidents, it seems that they don't stand up very well to a HGV at 56mph.

Perhaps it's better to ensure that drivers don't fall asleep in the first place, then the barriers won't need to withstand any momentum.

Cheers
Peter


this is the point i was trying to make Peter. where do we sleep safe and securely? there is nowhere for us and the government are not doing anything about it

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 09:04 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:52
Posts: 947
Location: falkirk
it can also be down to having to take evasive action to avoid someone who decides to enter from a slip road too close or some prat cutting across from the outside lane to the inside right in front of us. you have all seen that. a 44 ton truck takes 1/4 of a mile to stop at 56MPH. the space in front of us is not there for everyone to use. it is our equivalent to the 2 second rule

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 09:44
Posts: 516
Location: Swindon, the home of the Magic Roundabout and no traffic planning
scanny77 wrote:
it can also be down to having to take evasive action to avoid someone who decides to enter from a slip road too close or some prat cutting across from the outside lane to the inside right in front of us. you have all seen that. a 44 ton truck takes 1/4 of a mile to stop at 56MPH. the space in front of us is not there for everyone to use. it is our equivalent to the 2 second rule


Don't even get me started on the twats who swoop to get off the motorway 100 yards from the junction. What's so hard about getting in the left hand lane when you first see the sign for your junction?

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.072s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]