Aggressive Driving

lister

aardvaak wrote: »

Did you not read the earlier posts? I did look several times - she was in the wrong driving so fast

Ah - I see. Let us try the case in the Court of Guesswork.

"So then Aardvark, what speed would you estimate the car you didn't see was travelling at?" and the questioning would go downhill rapidly from there.

If we take what you have said (and not said) at face value, what we have is a straight road (implies reasonable sight lines of many 10s of metres at least), with a 30mph limit and no major visual obstructions (you didn't say there weren't, but I'm guessing you would mention if your view was partially blocked).

So we have a number of possibilities:

1) She was really caning it. To be invisible to good, well timed observation in the scenario I have painted she would probably need to be doing at least 60-100mph to cover say 50-100+ metres without you seeing her. Not impossible, but pretty uncommon on 30mph roads.

2) The timing of your observations isn't as good as you think. I sit beside drivers (both learner and experienced) all day, every day. Many will think they have observed properly, but their last look is 2-5 seconds before they pull out. Add a few more seconds for the turn out before looking behind again and suddenly even at 30 mph an oncoming vehicle can cover 70-140m

3) You haven't taken into account the fact that it is very easy to miss objects, even with multiple observations.

• As you move your eyes, saccades occur where the brain doesn't receive visual information and makes up the scene for you.
• Objects can be behind or near to pillars making them easy to overlook.
• The brain has a tendency to see what it expects to see, not what is actually there
• If you focus your observations too close to your vehicle you won't see beyond that point

.

So experience tells me that Occams Razor applies. You might be correct that she was travelling at warp speed, but the simplest explanation, and the one that proves to be true in the vast majority of 'looked but failed to see' accidents' is simply that you were let down by some combination of a weak observational technique and the frailties of the human brain.

Car_54

lister wrote: »

Ah - I see. Let us try the case in the Court of Guesswork.

"So then Aardvark, what speed would you estimate the car you didn't see was travelling at?" and the questioning would go downhill rapidly from there.

If we take what you have said (and not said) at face value, what we have is a straight road (implies reasonable sight lines of many 10s of metres at least), with a 30mph limit and no major visual obstructions (you didn't say there weren't, but I'm guessing you would mention if your view was partially blocked).

So we have a number of possibilities:

1) She was really caning it. To be invisible to good, well timed observation in the scenario I have painted she would probably need to be doing at least 60-100mph to cover say 50-100+ metres without you seeing her. Not impossible, but pretty uncommon on 30mph roads.

2) The timing of your observations isn't as good as you think. I sit beside drivers (both learner and experienced) all day, every day. Many will think they have observed properly, but their last look is 2-5 seconds before they pull out. Add a few more seconds for the turn out before looking behind again and suddenly even at 30 mph an oncoming vehicle can cover 70-140m

3) You haven't taken into account the fact that it is very easy to miss objects, even with multiple observations.

• As you move your eyes, saccades occur where the brain doesn't receive visual information and makes up the scene for you.
• Objects can be behind or near to pillars making them easy to overlook.
• The brain has a tendency to see what it expects to see, not what is actually there
• If you focus your observations too close to your vehicle you won't see beyond that point

.

So experience tells me that Occams Razor applies. You might be correct that she was travelling at warp speed, but the simplest explanation, and the one that proves to be true in the vast majority of 'looked but failed to see' accidents' is simply that you were let down by some combination of a weak observational technique and the frailties of the human brain.

Agreed. The only place cars "appear out of nowhere" is on insurance claim forms.

pendragon_arther

aardvaak wrote: »

This sounds a bit ageist I am not old just middle aged

You have to be aware there are several truculent urban radical drivers on these forums.

sleepymans

These days it's wisest to adopt defensive driving techniques....and install front and rear facing dash cams.

Oh......and a friendly acknowledgement of a raised flat palm when you make a mistake yourself.

Johno100

pendragon_arther wrote: »

You have to be aware there are several truculent urban radical drivers on these forums.

Are they driving SR3's or RXC's?

burlington6

If I go into work on a Sunday or a Bank holiday Monday, it takes around 20 minutes longer because the roads are full of nervous drivers who sit at home all week building up the courage to take the car out for it's weekly run at the weekend.

More is lost by indecision than the wrong decision

wrightk

aardvaak wrote: »

This afternoon I witnessed some extremely aggressive driving.
I was pulling out of a property onto a mainish straight road - I look both ways and again then I proceeded to pull out - a young women in a sporty car came out of nowhere so she must of been travelling at speed.
She then proceeded to flash lights and bib the horn repeatable and proceeded about a foot from my bumper. for about two miles.
I got worried she was going to follow me home so I turned off and travelled about the countryside in the opposite direction to my home she still followed me so at a junction I stopped and locked the doors after a few minutes she drove off.

What could she of been in such a hurry for and why so aggressive?

Next time look properly, put your hand up to say sorry if you made a mistake, and if the other driver continues to be aggressive and tailgate you drop it down a gear or tap your brake pedal and watch their face in your mirror (might cheer you up)

Clive_Woody

aardvaak wrote: »

This sounds a bit ageist I am not old just middle aged

I'm no spring chicken myself, but would add that there are bad drivers of all ages, but many of those who are "out of their youth" seem to think their driving is without fault based on the fact they've survived several decades on the roads. This is often not the case.

bigadaj

Whether the OP was in the right or not then it's still an odd scenario.

Why would a woman be so aggressive for so long, they just must be stupid.

I had a case a few years ago where I was turning off a dual carriageway, with an on slipway just a hundred yards or so before. A woman merged in and became very aggressive that I didn't move over or slow down to let her on, though it was my right of way. She pulled up close behind, flashing lights and kicking off.

I was perfectly happy to pull over and have a chat, she was a small middle aged woman with two young girls in the car, I'm a six foot bloke over sixteen stone, what did she think the outcome of any discussion would be, I could have been a complete nutter.

So whoever was in the right the idea of a woman behaving that aggressively is very stupid, unless she had a gun of course!

almillar

Not condoning her following you, aardvaark, but I hope you understand you did SOMETHING to annoy her. Either you didn't see her when you should have, she was really flying, OR, perhaps, did you not accelerate quickly enough up to 30? How long did it take you?
You shouldn't cause another driver to change their speed or course, and it sounds like you fell foul of this...