driving slow : your views ?

matttye

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

If the truck driver said he checked, and in his opinion the car was far enough away? Again, don't overtake if it's not safe. If you get killed hitting the back of a truck, because the law you shouldn't need to change speed, will you really feel better if you can blame the truck driver?

Sometimes I have to slam my brakes on when they perform some absolutely ridiculous pull outs. There's no conceivable way they could think it's safe to pull out.

Nearly_Old

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

If the truck driver said he checked, and in his opinion the car was far enough away? Again, don't overtake if it's not safe. If you get killed hitting the back of a truck, because the law you shouldn't need to change speed, will you really feel better if you can blame the truck driver?

Sorry but the "and behind" requirement is there to emphasise that for for dual carriageways/motorways the primary responsibility is with the driver changing lanes. A driver saying that he/she "thought" it looked safe does not get much sympathy from the police or the coroner.

nobbysn*ts

matttye wrote: »

Sometimes I have to slam my brakes on when they perform some absolutely ridiculous pull outs. There's no conceivable way they could think it's safe to pull out.

I do a reasonable mileage, motorway, dual carriageway, uk, Europe. I can't remember the last time a truck pulled out that I wasn't expecting. As I said earlier, I'm not saying they don't, just that I let them go, and not try to continue until I'm forced to brake heavily. But if that suits you, fair enough, I'd rather plan to pass the 20+s later, than try to get it down to 3s, and be squeezed into the barrier. It's a lot less stressful, and I reckon a minute or two on the overall journey doesn't worry me, in 4 or 5 hours.

nobbysn*ts

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Sorry but the "and behind" requirement is there to emphasise that for for dual carriageways/motorways the primary responsibility is with the driver changing lanes. A driver saying that he/she "thought" it looked safe does not get much sympathy from the police or the coroner.

Ah well, so long as the coroners on my side, it's all good then.

matttye

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

I do a reasonable mileage, motorway, dual carriageway, uk, Europe. I can't remember the last time a truck pulled out that I wasn't expecting. As I said earlier, I'm not saying they don't, just that I let them go, and not try to continue until I'm forced to brake heavily. But if that suits you, fair enough, I'd rather plan to pass the 20+s later, than try to get it down to 3s, and be squeezed into the barrier. It's a lot less stressful, and I reckon a minute or two on the overall journey doesn't worry me, in 4 or 5 hours.

Why should I wait and see if a truck pulls out? It's not my job to anticipate overtakers, it's their job to make sure that the lane they want to move into is clear.

The reason for this is simple: it is certain that I am going to overtake them (because I'm in the overtaking lane and travelling significantly faster than them), but it is NOT certain that they are going to overtake.

Therefore, what I am doing is not dangerous. It is clear and cannot be misread. When they pull out, causing me to brake sharply, that is dangerous.

I suspect that the reason you come across this less is simply because you don't travel as fast as I do, giving you more time to respond to pullers out.

brat

IanMSpencer wrote: »

A single study proves very little, and arguably all that he has shown is that high mileage drivers get tickets and crash. That sort of study does not account for things like the context of driving - so for example you are more likely to crash in towns, so a low mileage driver is more exposed to risk.

There are many more factors to consider, eg I do a low mileage, but most of it is out of town, so your point that low mileage = town mileage doesn't necessarily hold water. But I agree with your general point. One study, especially one that is commissioned by a group who need the result to suit their particular point of view, has no real value when trying to extract the truth, especially when the gaping naive flaws in it can be easily exposed.

It is like studies that show that wearing cycling helmets does not save cyclists, which is contrary to common sense. TRL did a study of the studies and worked out that every study was essentially statistically flawed, added in some of their own research on the mechanics of cycle crashes and concluded that helmets were indeed safer as you would expect, if you accounted for the likely profile of typical accidents.

TRL also did a large study (TRL595) on the safety effect of speed prevention techniques through temporary motorway roadworks. The report which was largely hidden from public consumption revealed that average speed cameras had no more safety credentials than speed limit signs and an occasional police presence, while the gatso type camera created a significantly less safe environment. That's probably why you don't see speed cameras in roadworks anymore, but I wonder why the DfT still support their use elsewhere.

The reality is that where speed cameras have been put in at accident black spots, they get massive changes in accident rates and RoSPA quote a figure of something like saving 800 deaths a year (RAC revisited and came in with a lower but still significant 400 deaths) can be directly attributed to the speed camera network. That does not reconcile with the suggestion that speed cameras simply catch safe (and by implication, observant!), fast, high mileage drivers.

DfT trumpeted a 42% reduction in KSIs at their camera sites which they stated led to a reduction in the region of 107 fatalities per year in 2003.

However this sophistry chose to ignore several very significant factors namely trend reduction, displacement RTCs, frustration RTCs and camera manipulation. All of these factors would have a significant efect on the DfT figure on their own, but the biggest single effect that the DfT knowingly concealed from their analysis was the effect of the statistical illusory effect of RTTM or regression to the mean. This single factor was shown (in research by mathematicians at Liverpool Uni) to be overstating the benefit by between 300 and 400 percent. When taking this and all the other factors into account, the likely effect of speed cameras would, on this analysis, be negative, ie they costs lives.

Nobody should depend on a single study to try and argue the safety or otherwise of cameras - all that you get is cherry picking of the studies to pick the one that suits the answer you want.

Unfortunately, most of the reports into the efficacy of speed cameras have been commissioned by those who want to show that they work. Hence the naively false figures on fatality reduction.

As I say, they are a law enforcement tool, not a safety tool. In my opinion, as a road safety practitioner, they are pointless, potentially dangerous eyesores in their current guise.

nobbysn*ts

matttye wrote: »

Why should I wait and see if a truck pulls out? It's not my job to anticipate overtakers, it's their job to make sure that the lane they want to move into is clear.

The reason for this is simple: it is certain that I am going to overtake them (because I'm in the overtaking lane and travelling significantly faster than them), but it is NOT certain that they are going to overtake.

Therefore, what I am doing is not dangerous. It is clear and cannot be misread. When they pull out, causing me to brake sharply, that is dangerous.

I suspect that the reason you come across this less is simply because you don't travel as fast as I do, giving you more time to respond to pullers out.

Well, if you want to speed, and overtake regardless, it's your choice. Keep pushing them back in. As said by Nearly Old, the coroner will probably agree you were right. Me, sod him, he can get his redundancy if he's relying on me for a job.

brat

matttye wrote: »

Why should I wait and see if a truck pulls out? It's not my job to anticipate overtakers.

Yes it is.

nobbysn*ts

brat wrote: »

...............That's probably why you don't see speed cameras in roadworks anymore...............................

I see them all the time. Average cameras are in most roadworks I regularly travel through. I guess I must be unsafe, as I see them, you're safe as you don't?

nobbysn*ts

brat wrote: »

Yes it is.

Not if you believe you have a god given right to overtake regardless, and everyone else has to carry you through, so they are obliged to ensure your safety and progress, at a cost to their own. If it's not safe, they are obliged to make it safe for you.