Safe Speed Forums

You make a bend blind by going around it too quickly.



When you're sure it's safe to do what you're doing, i.e. look in the rear view mirror, side mirror, check your speed etc...



Might I suggest that if you're travelling at such a speed that it's unsafe to glance at your speedo you should, er , slow down?



Moderator message:
Off topic posts have been split off from another thread into this new one.

Sorry ,but in my book ,that's bad driving--brought on by the religion of equating safe driving to obeying the number in the lollipop- anything under it MUST be safe - when at times even half the limit is too fast .The correct speed for a bend various with car and driver -something taught by experience and letting the driver THINK for themselves.
you can unbend a bend by prior road positioning = sensible anticipation of the prevailing road conditions .Bit of an added bonus is that in most cases you straighten out the bend .If done correctly ,you can check out the bend and also be in the correct place for any wide vehicle approaching ( letting you meet them to your best advantage and also letting both of you see each earlier allowing time for evasive,if needed action) .Some of us learnt to do this as a matter of habit because in our younger days roads sometimes were not wide enough for cars and Trucks , especially on bends .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I 5hink that what weep is trying, rather badly, to say is this: on any bend the radius constrains your forward vision to a certain distance. If your speed is such that you cannot stop within that certain distance the bend is, effectively, blind. Being able to stop within the distance which you can observe is a basic tenant of safe driving.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Ah, the "arrow head"!

mb

But the radius also constrains the speed at which you can negotiate the bend.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

- UNLESS - you take steps to straighten out the bend, and at same time aid forward vision -it's not a case of conforming to the roads ,as much as making as much use of the roads ( and the information they impart) - in short - IT'S CALLED READING THE ROAD . Something I fear ( from reading posts such as this ) has gotten lost on a lot of our so called advanced drivers .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Reading the road so as to increase the radius of the bend and improve your sight line is another basic tenant of good (not advanced) driving. But that does not alter the principle that, whatever the adjusted radius, there is a limit to how far you can see ahead on a bend and you must adjust your speed so that you can stop in that distance. And, with an old car like mine, you have to allow for that fact that you cannot safely brake as hard on a bend as on the straight.

Incidentally, I take the term "blind bend" to mean a bend which you cannot see round at all from your position on the road.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

That speed is often much higher though.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

glad to see another thread diverted in to weepej bashing... and extremely off topic
you guys really do the forum, yourselves and reasoned discussion no credit.

I strongly disagree with the sentiments expressed here.
Examine the the first response to the OP: who was bashing who, and was that was on topic...




You missed the point (as well as evading the question posed to you in the other thread - so now that's two issues evaded).
"when I check my speedo I'm still aware of what's in front of me" So how are you able to look at two places at once?


So you don't check your speedo in a built-up area? Do you see the flaw I'm pointing out?


Did you notice how I satisfactorily answered your question.

How do you know what speed is "unsafe to glance at your speedo" without looking at the speedo?

In this case wouldn't the VAS be of benefit? Wasn't this the point of this thread?

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

ok.. yup i just did.. its a typical weepej post making a point along the same lines as i was thinking (although i would have and have since worded it differently, shame no one can be bothered to respond to that).

you introduce the blind bend discussion from another thread in the opening part of your first response which bears no relevance at all to the 30mph enforcement & flashing VAS of the OP, or any of weepej's posts up to that point.

Why respond to both if they're along the same lines?


Yes I did; I usually address points in the order they were raised, so if you again examine weepej's post.....
It was to show how, yet again, no actual argument was given by weepej. I did also reword that opening point into a direct question (following the inevitable lack of a suitable response).

The remainder of the post was relevant to both the thread and weepej's response - indeed I gave a direct answer to his direct question (as relevant as it may or may not have been).

Within this thread, weepej's method of presentation has been 'bashed', but the person hasn't been; hence I still disagree with your earlier post.
TBH, I've become a lot less tolerant of his tactics following this gem.
If you wish to continue this side debate then I'll split the thread.

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

no no by all means carry on... if you'd prefer to continue arguing the toss with weepej rather than addressing my more reasoned viewpoint

Quite how my post was topic drift I'll never know!

Sadly ,that's the problem .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Must be my problem too. Let me try explaining in English. OP complained that he was caught speeding because of the lack of flashing 30 signs. Weep replied with the astute observation that the car's speedometer was a realistic alternative to a flashing sign.

Could you or Steve tell me exactly how that is a deviation from a discussion on the need or otherwise for flashing speed warnings. And while you are about it you could explain how, if Weep is of topic, Pete and Tone's discussion of the distracting effect of their hairy legs remains on topic.

Or perhaps it would be easier to admit that you attack Weep whatever he says.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Not me sir. I make a point of attacking the argument, whoever that comes from.

AFAIK a bit of OT friendly banter has always been the norm here and from a recent zero tolerance experience I had elsewhere I hope it remains so. I think it's healthy, so long as it doesn't derail the thread. So far so good I hope? It's the norm on all forums I've seen, except one

As for weepej, I don’t think I have attacked him here or said that his post was OT, hence why I said I understood what he’s saying. I’ve also addressed the subject matter each time so I hope the verdict is not guilty for me. I actually thought you did him a disservice yourself by saying he had put it “badly” because I actually thought he had made his case well, on this occasion, at that point.

I'd still be interested to know whether he, as a proponent of the speed kills argument, is more interested in his speedometer than what is legal but that isn't an attack.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I was under the impression that the obejection was that the "authorities" had seen fit to use a speed cam instead of a VAS and that therefore they were more interested in revenue generation that "Safety".

Weepie more or less confirmed this by questioning that why on earth would the authorities want to spend money on a VAS (that would not subsiquently generate a revenue stream.)

Thus confirming the OP's position (Albeit inadvertantly)

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

But how can confirming the OP's position be deemed to be "topic drift"? Steve and Botach are doing a good job of dodging that question.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Oh the hypocrisy!

That something you have been repeatedly guilty of. There have been many issues in other threads I raised which you have not responded to, and I purposely decided to not pick you up on them. Yet you decide to conclude that I have been 'dodging', this one issue, even though you didn't give me a reasonable chance to respond....

See when my last post was on the public forums: 15:21:41 - 31st Aug 10 (this thread oddly enough)
Your (or any) request for an explanation of ‘off topic’: 06:23:29 - 1st Sep 10
You claim that we're "dodging that question": 08:04:04 - 1st Sep 10


To answer your question directly (something that you may have noticed has not been returned to me):
The OP was talking about the usefulness of a sign to actively remind a driver, as opposed to a passive reminder, with regard to “2 seconds of lapse in concentration”; how can a “your speedometer” possibly guard against that?

Weepej decided to bash the OP with something the OP did not raise which was irrelevant to the raised concerns; active is not passive. Then weepej diverted again with his totally unsupported claim of double awareness; despite my direct and repeated prompts for an explanation (he has since posted in this thread), none has been given.

This thread will be split.

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