Safe Speed Forums

Coming home last week one evening (Thursday I think). On the two-lane-each-way part of the A12 between Hatfield Peverall and Witham heading East. Traffic in the inside lane doing mid sixties but sparse. Me barrelling down the outside at a safe speed, reducing to well under 15 mph differential for each "fly past". I was past the point of commitment to pass one car (who is perhaps 5 - 10 seconds behind his next in line and doing the same speed as it). I'm now looking way to the distance again. I catch out of the corner of my eye the car I am now more rapidly approaching drifting my way. I have to believe he's nodded off or started buggering about with the radio or something. I'd eyeballed him for perhaps 20 - 30 sec on and off before hand with absolutely no cause for concern at all.

Had I braked I'd have likely pitted him my n/s/f to his o/s/r and caused pretty serious carnage. I hooted, gunned it and eased over to the right - beyond the rumble strip with my right wheels but not into the gravel - a very tight squeeze - and missed him. He went hard left - after I'd passed him! Saw it in the internal mirror.

I am very glad I have lots of horses under the lid!

But did you go over the limit?

This is the type of quick-thinking and, ultimately, accident-avoiding driving that will surely be in danger with our friend Road Pricing. You avoid an accident, but go over the speed limit. PING!

Three weeks later....Lovely letter and fine and points.

Oh yes. I never checked the speedo - it was the last thing on my mind, but I'd lay odds I touched the ton on a transient basis to avoid the accident. I also returned to sane travel speed at the earliest reasonable opportunity - by lifting off not braking - once I saw I was clear.

When I've played with the numbers on these sorts of 'lane squeeze' things, I can't usually get much of an incident out of it unless:

- the passing car has a high speed differential OR
- the passing car has a low speed differential OR
- the passed car swerves wildly (very different from a gradual drift) OR
- the driver of the passing car isn't paying attention.

It's possible that the simple models miss something, so I'd be very intereted in trying to run the numbers on your incident and see what it looks like. Can you estimate speeds, lane widths and something about encroachment rate?

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

I'll PM you - tonight.

Ahem...

Then you weren't at a safe speed were you? Nor were you paying proper attention if you only managed to spot something happening in front of you 'out of the corner of your eye'.

It doesn't get much more simple than that. You were driving too fast for the situation, and not carrying out correct observations. There's no deep analysis required.

Welcome back JubJub, has the recent sun warmed your rock enough to rouse you to crawl back out from under it?

Roger, from what I read you were actually reducing your speed in order to pass the other vehicles (forgive me if I've misinterpreted). I can see the prudence in slowing as you approach them from behind, in order to give you a chance of spotting the stupid thing they're always likely to do, but personally I tend to pass as fast as practicable, in order to minimise the opportunity for them to 'put the squeeze on me'. I appreciate that, as a general rule, decreasing speed differential can be desirable, but never forget that the first rule of self-defence is 'don't be there'!

Most sideswipe incidents of this type seem to involve:

a) vehicles 'hanging about' in others' blind spots (i.e. speed differential too small)
b) side by side driving (i.e. speed differential too small leading to vastly increased exposure to risk.)

The risk minimum is always between about 10mph and 30mph differential speed for passing a vehicle in an adjacent lane with about 15mph differential being the typical optimum.

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

That's irrelevant here.

If the driver had been travelling at a speed appropriate to the situation (a safe speed, if you like) and carried out proper observations, he wouldn't have had to take evasive action to get out of the situation he had got himself into -that being travelling too fast to be able to brake safely.

Nonsense Jub Jub. Utter nonsense. What you're suggesting is that we should never pass other vehicles at all.

This incident had nothing to do with speed, and everything to do with poor observation by the other driver.

As for your definition of 'evasive action', what would you call braking?

Pathetic.

Do you actually drive a car, or any vehicle Jub Jub ?
You seem to have little or no understanding of what the realities are.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Right. I'm away tonight, hence the delay in my response. I said I'd PM, but given the additional interest I'll post here.

I retraced the steps, albeit on the opposite carriageway in the opposite direction, and can now see my misjudgement (if that's what it was). The stretch of road is actually a very shallow protracted S bend, first to the left then to the right. I had decided (wrongly as it turned out) that numpty was doing a grand job of keeping himself in his place. I had slowed down to be circa 10 - 20 mph faster than he was going to pass, but we were on a gentle lefthander and my eyes - having "cleared" him as a good'n - were slightly to the right peering into the distance past the next two or three cars. I was also gently speeding up. I caught him out of the corner of my eye not drifting to the right (as I originally typed) but going straight on on a left hand bend. The effect is the same, but the lay of the land means I really should have been more attentive in case numpty was asleep - which evidently he was. The bend was getting shallower by now, hence my (almost subconscious) choice to go for it rarther than anchor up being vindicated.

I will be more prudent on that particular "slalom" in future.

First post ever and he gets it! Now who should be asking questions of themselves?

Edit: EQ, he professes to ride a push-bike, for all the road sense that gives him, as anyone who has ever driven, walked or ridden round Oxford or anywhere similar will appreciate.

I'm not suggesting that at all. Please show me where I am.



Nope. It had everything to do with speed. If he hadn't been travelling at speed, and then slowing to 15mph differential for his 'fly past' then he would have been able to brake safely behind the car, and wouldn't have had to resort to a far more dangerous and uncontrollable conflict. Roger has displayed the ability to review an incident and learn from it, which is admirable. Now all that is needed is for someone like a road safety campaigner to review with him whether he was travelling at safe speeds before and during.




OK. Wrong word. He wouldn't have had to resort to such a risky evasive manouvre, where if he had been travelling at a safe speed things would have been much safer and easier for everyone involved.

Yup. Privately, and professionally in the past. 7.5 tonne, Merc 814, car delivery and collection, school bus runs, multi-drop. Scooter boy in a past life. Plenty of experience.

Oh, and a push bike. You should try it Robin. It gives you an extra understanding of the false security that being inside a lump of metal gives you to the less well protected on and around the road.

That explains alot...

It sounds to me like Roger had passed the 'point of no return' once he realised that mr numpty was drifting. Even if he'd been watching his target vehicle like a hawk there is no guarentee that the incident would not have occurred, but instead he'd checked that the road ahead was clear so when he did boot it he knew there was somewhere to go.

There is only so much you can do and we all have to rely on other motorists not to be complete idiots.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Apples and oranges?

Exactly the same could have occurred within the limit, so it can't all be all to do with 'speed' - right?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Quote jubjub:-

'Yup. Privately, and professionally in the past. 7.5 tonne, Merc 814, car delivery and collection, school bus runs, multi-drop.'


In my trucking life (50 years of it), I found that the above drivers, along with tipper drivers, were and are just about the worst on the road!

You're getting all mixed up with speed, speeding and speed limits.

Or do you think it is never possible to be travelling too fast while within the posted limit? I hope not, as this is one of the tenets of the SS position.