Driving standards

[caradoc]

Roundabouts are horrible things for cyclists to negotiate, fortunately as I am now a leisure rider only I am mostly able to avoid them. Perhaps the driving test should include cycling round one, preferably in pouring rain and a howling gale ?!!

 

[Pete the Elaner]

2 hours ago, big jim said:

a picture paints a 1000 words as the my say, had to collect my other bike from Halfords earlier and walked past the said roundabout 

 

I was coming from the same direction as the picture, left lane marked to go left, right marked to go straight on or right, nothing entering from my right at the time, positioned to the right of the centre line (about level with the door of the fiesta) 

 

I pulled into the roundabout and kept to the left of the straight ahead route so anything behind me could go right as there was slow traffic on the bridge ahead that I was going to merge into (as per the photos)

 

 

 

I was just about level with the island with the sign on, positioned to the left (almost as if in the above picture I’d be exiting the roundabout behind the white car) when he pulled out from the exit going straight on (basically across my path) and hitting me with his front wing

 

hope that gives you a better idea

 

That's more or less what I thought. Sounds like pretty reasonable riding to me.

Drivers need to take responsibility for their driving before worrying about others. Some simply don't.

[big jim]

When I was with colas we were told we had to go on a driving course for the vans, something to do with the FORS certification or something 

 

part of the course was to go out on a bike around town to see things from a cyclists point of view, at the time I was a ‘bigger boy’ as was another driver and I just had the image of those 2 big American fat blokes on the monkey bikes from the 70s! 
 

never did it in the end for some reason 

[kevinlms]

One from Western Australia!

 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/western-australia-news-speed-camera-captures-car-travelling-119kmh-with-person-on-the-bonnet/10f50cac-4c98-4973-801d-d4a2c6295b39

[melmerby]

One from the US:

 

[melmerby]

 

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

One from the US:

 

Most vehicles have slowed down considerably, but some especially the large white van seem to hit everything at full speed. Were they on their mobiles?

[ejstubbs]

11 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Were they on their mobiles?

 

What do you think?

 

The other day I was coming down a slip behind a white van to join the Edinburgh City Bypass.  I checked my mirrors as soon as I had a view of the traffic on the bypass and spotted an HGV approaching from behind in lane 1, with a sizeable gap behind it.  I therefore moderated my speed to let it pass, then indicated and began to move out to join lane 1 behind it.

 

In the mean time the white van had banged on his indictor and started to move in to lane 1 pretty much under the front bumper of the HGV, which was forced to move out in to lane 2 (fortunately there was a gap in traffic in that lane just large enough to accommodate it).  It seemed pretty obvious that the van driver hadn't bothered to check his mirrors before moving out.

 

The van driver then proceeded to donder long in lane 1 at about 50 mph, making little attempt to keep up with the traffic ahead of him in lane 1, while the HGV crawled past in lane 2 with a ever-growing tailback of cars and vans behind it, the bypass being only a two lane dual carriageway.  Eventually the HGV driver finally managed to complete his overtake and pull back in to lane 1, and the faster traffic - which by that time included me - was able to make progress.  As I passed the van whose driver had created the mess in the first place, I was wholly unsurprised to see that he was holding his mobile phone against right ear and was chatting animatedly away, either oblivious to or simply not caring about the aggro that he had caused.

Edited November 28, 2021 by ejstubbs

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, ejstubbs said:

What do you think?

 

A crime was committed.

[MarkC]

1 minute ago, ejstubbs said:

 

What do you think?

 

The other day I was coming down a slip behind a white van to join the Edinburgh City Bypass.  I checked my mirrors as soon as I had a view of the traffic on the bypass and spotted an HGV approaching from behind in lane 1, with a sizeable gap behind it.  I therefore moderated my speed to let it pass, then indicated and began to move out to join lane 1 behind it.

 

In the mean time the white van had banged on his indictor and started to move in to lane 1 pretty much under the front bumper of the HGV, which was forced to move out in to lane 2 (fortunately there was a gap in traffic in that lane just large enough to accommodate it).  It seemed pretty obvious that the van driver hadn't bothered to check his mirrors before moving out.

 

The van driver then proceeded to donder long in lane 1 at about 50 mph, making little attempt to keep up with the traffic ahead of him in lane 1, while the HGV crawled past in lane 2 with a ever-growing tailback of cars and vans behind it, the bypass being only a two lane dual carriageway.  Eventually the HGV driver finally managed to complete his overtake and pull back in to lane 1, and the faster traffic - which by that time included me - was able to make progress.  As I passed the van whose driver had created the mess in the first place, I was wholly unsurprised to see that he was holding his mobile phone against right ear and was chatting animatedly away.

And this is a perfect example of why taking Traffic Police patrol cars - especially unmarked ones - off the roads was a Bad Thing...

[kevinlms]

10 hours ago, MarkC said:

And this is a perfect example of why taking Traffic Police patrol cars - especially unmarked ones - off the roads was a Bad Thing...

Definitely, not happening in Victoria, Australia. There are more police than ever before pro-rata, including on the roads.

I know, because I have been stopped 7 times in the last 2 years. Why, because I was driving my wife's car at the time, but because it is flagged as belonging to a suspended driver (she has epilepsy), the vehicle gets pinged by the computer on board.

Nothing I'm doing is illegal, the coppers were very pleasant, but generally the view is 'get used to being stopped'. The answer is to put it in my name, but the wife still hopes to get her licence back and so declines.

So I have to not draw attention to myself in other ways!

[MarkC]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Definitely, not happening in Victoria, Australia. There are more police than ever before pro-rata, including on the roads.

I know, because I have been stopped 7 times in the last 2 years. Why, because I was driving my wife's car at the time, but because it is flagged as belonging to a suspended driver (she has epilepsy), the vehicle gets pinged by the computer on board.

Nothing I'm doing is illegal, the coppers were very pleasant, but generally the view is 'get used to being stopped'. The answer is to put it in my name, but the wife still hopes to get her licence back and so declines.

So I have to not draw attention to myself in other ways!

Res ipsa loquitur...

 

Visible police presence has always had a calming effect, and to see an unmarked car tug a driver who has been driving like an utter nutter is, frankly, a joy to behold 

 

Good luck to your wife in getting her licence back.

[ikks]

On 09/11/2021 at 21:14, kevinlms said:

One from Western Australia!

 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/western-australia-news-speed-camera-captures-car-travelling-119kmh-with-person-on-the-bonnet/10f50cac-4c98-4973-801d-d4a2c6295b39

WTF.........Where do these people (morons..sorry to all of the other morons) come from.

Mike

[kevinlms]

36 minutes ago, ikks said:

WTF.........Where do these people (morons..sorry to all of the other morons) come from.

Mike

At least those people were just being morons AND NOTHING HAPPENED.

 

This one killed 6 kids, because he had his son on his lap while driving. IIRC his QC tried to get him off, because there is no SPECIFIC law against driving with a child on your lap!

 

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/thomas-towle-who-killed-six-teens-in-hit-run-outside-mildura-is-set-for-prison-release/news-story/42a620f641146b01bcaa1601c2671e7f

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/victorias-worst-ever-hitandrun-driver-sued-by-slain-teens-sister-20161005-grv0jq.html

[Titan]

On 28/11/2021 at 00:59, kevinlms said:

Most vehicles have slowed down considerably, but some especially the large white van seem to hit everything at full speed. Were they on their mobiles?

 

18 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

What do you think?

 

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

A crime was committed.

 

I think peoples lack of observation is as bad as their haste to condemn.  The bridge is on an exposed area in sub zero conditions.  The cars are skidding on an isolated section of black ice, likely not just the only ice on that section of road, but not even covering the whole width of the bridge, and probably what caused the initial accidents on both sides  The ones that managed to slow were the ones driving in lanes with less or no black ice.  Blame lack of salt if anything.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Titan

[ejstubbs]

1 hour ago, Titan said:

Blame lack of salt if anything.

 

Or you could blame not driving according to the prevailing conditions.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Titan said:

I think peoples lack of observation is as bad as their haste to condemn.  The bridge is on an exposed area in sub zero conditions.  The cars are skidding on an isolated section of black ice, likely not just the only ice on that section of road, but not even covering the whole width of the bridge, and probably what caused the initial accidents on both sides  The ones that managed to slow were the ones driving in lanes with less or no black ice.  Blame lack of salt if anything.

 

There is some slight confusion - partly mine. I read @ejstubbs "What do you think?" as a preface to his Edinburgh bypass sliproad incident, rather than a comment on @kevinlms's question. In the Edinburgh case it is clear that a crime has been committed; I've no idea whether Minnesota has a similar law against driving whilst using a mobile phone. Given the legality of handguns there, I suppose there's no great incentive to legislate against manslaughter by other means. 

 

26 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

Or you could blame not driving according to the prevailing conditions.

 

Quite. It is the human agent who causes the incident - and by that I do not mean that you can shift resposibility onto the Highways Department. I'm left with the feeling that I wouldn't want to be driving in poor conditions with @Titan behind me!

[APOLLO]

Done to death --but

 

 

Brit15

[peanuts]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Done to death --but

 

 

Brit15

Only if you are actualy turning left best to keep them guessing otherwise 

[Titan]

12 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Or you could blame not driving according to the prevailing conditions.

 

Except that they were driving to the prevailing conditions - a road with plenty of grip and likely had been that way for many miles, if not their entire journey until that point.  The small patch of ice on the bridge was not the prevailing condition, and could have caught out even the most pious of drivers...

Edited November 29, 2021 by Titan

[kevinlms]

On 29/11/2021 at 20:03, ejstubbs said:

 

Or you could blame not driving according to the prevailing conditions.

How many have read in the manual, that you should not drive a vehicle in cruise control in wet or otherwise slippery conditions?

I guess with vehicles that use a radar to detect vehicle speeds and compares it to wheel speed, it might work OK, but for vehicles that just use the old method of changing the throttle/accelerator settings, it simply does not work and is in fact dangerous.

[stewartingram]

And what is wrong with looking ahead, seeing that an incident has occurred, and thus slowing down? By looking ahead - I mean further than the front of the bonnet/(hood).

[ejstubbs]

9 hours ago, kevinlms said:

How many have read in the manual, that you should not drive a vehicle in cruise control in wet or otherwise slippery conditions?

 

It would be difficult to read that in my car's manual since it doesn't say that anywhere.  The section on the cruise control does reference a general section at the beginning of the "Assist Systems" chapter, which reads as follows:

 

Quote

 

WARNING

■ The assistance systems only serve to support and do not relieve the driver of the responsibility for driving the vehicle.
■ The increased safety provision, as well as the increased occupant protection provided by the assistance systems must not tempt you to take risks - risk of accident!

■ Adjust the speed and driving style to the current visibility, weather, road and traffic conditions.
■ The assistance systems have physical and system-related limitations. For this reason, the driver may experience some undesired or delayed system responses in certain situations. You should therefore always be alert and ready to intervene!

■ Only activate, deactivate or set the assistance systems so that you have the car fully under control in every traffic situation - risk of accident!

 

 

I've highlighted the most relevant part in the context of this discussion (the bullet point below is also pertinent).  But nowhere in the manual does it say not to use CC in wet or slippery conditions.

 

As it happens, the CC on my car will automatically disengage if it senses something "funny" happening.  Even momentary loss of traction from going over an illegally harsh speed bump at 20mph is enough to disengage it (which can be a tad unhelpful).  It certainly doesn't use radar, though - I believe you may be thinking of adaptive cruise control, which my car doesn't have.  I suspect it's a function of the traction control system and electronic stabilisation systems, which uses a combination of inputs from the ABS sensors, accelerometers and attitude sensors.

 

On 29/11/2021 at 21:46, Titan said:

Except that they were driving to the prevailing conditions

 

Your previous post said that it was "sub zero conditions" that day.  That in itself would suggest that a certain wariness of the risk of ice should have been present, even if it had not (to the driver's knowledge) been encountered before that point on the journey.  Other drivers in the video clip appear to have been able to avoid losing control at that point.

 

I do wonder that you seem to know an awful lot about the specific circumstances of that collision.

[Titan]

12 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

Your previous post said that it was "sub zero conditions" that day.  That in itself would suggest that a certain wariness of the risk of ice should have been present, even if it had not (to the driver's knowledge) been encountered before that point on the journey.  

 

A valid point.  The trouble is complacency, after mile upon mile of good conditions it builds up a lot of evidence that there is no ice issue and that normal speed is safe, and speed gradually builds up as confidence is built.

 

12 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 Other drivers in the video clip appear to have been able to avoid losing control at that point.

 

And it is notable that the ones that do appear to avoid losing control are travelling in the nearest lane to the camera, which may suggest that the ice does not extend into that lane.  As this is also the fast/overtaking lane (or whatever terminology you prefer)  It is quite possible that only those travelling at the highest speeds were able to avoid the accident as they were not travelling on the icy patch.

 

12 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

I do wonder that you seem to know an awful lot about the specific circumstances of that collision.

 

To quote a certain fictional character "You see, but you do not observe"

 

All the "knowledge" I appear to have is there in the clip for anyone to observe.

 

Those that had a knee jerk reaction about blaming drivers being on mobile phones etc. did not appear to even observe the icy conditions, despite the evidence of some snow/ice on the sides of the road,  let alone observing that the only cars avoiding skidding were in the nearest lane to camera which may be relevant.  The red car stopping in the only lane without ice started to cause major problems for everybody, until the white van cleared a path through, which meant those that were traveling in the near lane could at least slow down enough to take evasive action and maintain some control as they drove around the red car over the ice, even if the slower cars in the other icier lanes were still struggling.

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Titan

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Titan said:

 

A valid point.  The trouble is complacency, after mile upon mile of good conditions it builds up a lot of evidence that there is no ice issue and that normal speed is safe, and speed gradually builds up as confidence is built.

 

 

And it is notable that the ones that do appear to avoid losing control are travelling in the nearest lane to the camera, which may suggest that the ice does not extend into that lane.  As this is also the fast/overtaking lane (or whatever terminology you prefer)  It is quite possible that only those travelling at the highest speeds were able to avoid the accident as they were not travelling on the icy patch.

 

 

To quote a certain fictional character "You see, but you do not observe"

 

All the "knowledge" I appear to have is there in the clip for anyone to observe.

 

Those that had a knee jerk reaction about blaming drivers being on mobile phones etc. did not appear to even observe the icy conditions, despite the evidence of some snow/ice on the sides of the road,  let alone observing that the only cars avoiding skidding were in the nearest lane to camera which may be relevant.  The red car stopping in the only lane without ice started to cause major problems for everybody, until the white van cleared a path through, which meant those that were traveling in the near lane could at least slow down enough to take evasive action and maintain some control as they drove around the red car over the ice, even if the slower cars in the other icier lanes were still struggling.

 

Hilarious to blame posters (me) for asking the question about whether or not they were on the phone. The evidence is on the video that SOME vehicles were not slowing down for some reason. Yes, I DID notice the snow & ice - did you assume that I'm blind?

 

Maybe it was more ice only on some lanes, but to me the video shows that SOME drivers slowed down more than others, irrespective of which lane.

 

Fact is people DO drive while on their phones, even though it it almost universally illegal to do so, without a proper handsfree kit. We have all (except you apparently), seen other people drive terribly, because they are concentrating more on their call than the road around them!