Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 07:05

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 08:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
Hmm, I reckon the trenches have been dug and defensive positions adopted in this debate


It's OK. We've got him outnumbered! :)

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 08:54 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Sixy would appear to have nothing to be embarrassed about from this incident... except for misreading the KPH on the speedo :lol:


You know what Ernest, you're right. That's ovbiously why it took me so long to pass the truck.

Johnsher. By your logic I'm an idiot - thanks. I might as well stop posting here then because I'm not perfect like you.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:00 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
I’m not gonna bother reading the rest of this thread, but I thought you all might be interested as to what the number one cause of road-rage on motorways is…

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 7830#77830


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Seriously, folks, I think we need to wrap this up before we waste too much temper and good will. The critical issues seems to be this one:

johnsher wrote:
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Sorry, but you seem to have dreamed up the scenario that Sixy pulled out on a driver who was close enough to be obvious, while glancing in the rear view mirror, AT night;

I haven't dreamed it up at all, those were the facts presented.


I have NOT read those facts presented by Sixy. Johnsher, please point out EXACTLY where you got it from.

This issue will then be resolved. If you can point it out, then I'm wrong, and will apologise. If you can't then you will be wrong.

Or maybe I should just close the thread anyway? Any comments?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:10 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
SafeSpeed wrote:
I have NOT read those facts presented by Sixy. Johnsher, please point out EXACTLY where you got it from.

ok, presuming I'm completely wrong, how long does it take to overtake a 56mph hgv when you're doing 85mph?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:11 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Sixy_the_red wrote:
Johnsher. By your logic I'm an idiot - thanks. I might as well stop posting here then because I'm not perfect like you.

I'm far from perfect and someone is only an idiot if they don't learn from their mistakes...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
johnsher wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
I have NOT read those facts presented by Sixy. Johnsher, please point out EXACTLY where you got it from.

ok, presuming I'm completely wrong, how long does it take to overtake a 56mph hgv when you're doing 85mph?


But Johnsher, that's only really a meaningful question (in this context) if one moves to L3 specifically to pass an HGV. And as far as I can tell Sixy may have been overtaking in L3 for 5 miles or 50 miles.

I agree that it's worth making the point that some people tailgated cause the problem, sometimes by lane hogging, sometimes by ill judged lane changes. But I cannot agree that we had the information required to accuse Sixy of such behaviour.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:21 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
SafeSpeed wrote:
I agree that it's worth making the point that some people tailgated cause the problem, sometimes by lane hogging, sometimes by ill judged lane changes. But I cannot agree that we had the information required to accuse Sixy of such behaviour.


Seconded. Johnsher, you're way out of order and owe Sixy an apology.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:26 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
SafeSpeed wrote:
And as far as I can tell Sixy may have been overtaking in L3 for 5 miles or 50 miles.

sounded like a single overtake from her initial post. Now, please answer my question.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
johnsher wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
And as far as I can tell Sixy may have been overtaking in L3 for 5 miles or 50 miles.

sounded like a single overtake from her initial post. Now, please answer my question.


'Sounded like' is nowhere near enough.

If we're going to play the 'now answer my question' game, then I asked before you when I asked you to point out exactly where you got the information from.

But a full overtake of a 56mph HGV requires:

1 second for the lane change
2 seconds for the following gap
75 feet for the pass (car + HGV length)
2 seconds for the gap in front
1 second for the lane change.

So that's 5 seconds + 75 feet at 85-56mph

85-56 = 29mph = (ooops battery's going... )

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:50 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
SafeSpeed wrote:
So that's 5 seconds + 75 feet at 85-56mph

so let's over estimate and say 10 seconds. So, if you're caught halfway - ie after 5 seconds - what's the maximum distance behind that a car doing 130mph could have been at the start of your overtake?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:50 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
johnsher wrote:
ok, presuming I'm completely wrong, how long does it take to overtake a 56mph hgv when you're doing 85mph?


If you don't know how to work it out, you shouldn't be participating in this debate.

Assuming truck is 50ft long, travelling at 60mph; car pulls out to overtake at 2s separation, pulls back in at 1s separation; speed differential is 30mph. Car needs to make up 176ft + 50ft + 88ft = 314ft at relative 44ft/s = ~7s. If Vectra car was also at speed differential of 30mph (115mph) and was on Sixy's tail half-way through the overtake (ignoring braking), she would made up ~200ft which would have taken ~4.5s. Therefore, Vectra may have been 4.5 x 44 = ~200ft behind at commencement of overtake. However, if Sixy pulled out at 3s separation (perfectly reasonable), she would have had to make up 289ft which would have taken ~6.5s so Vectra may have been ~290ft behind. Or Vectra may have been at 130mph in which case approximately double the above distances.

This is all academic because we weren't there. Maybe Sixy did misjudge the speed differential, maybe not. We don't know. What I know is that if I am carrying high speed on a motorway, I should be looking far enough ahead to anticipate a car overtaking a truck. If I am doing that, I will have no difficulty in losing enough speed, without drama, to allow a car ahead to complete an overtake without coming aggressively close to its rear, unless it pulls out when I'm very close and still at high speed differential. But then I'm still in the wrong because if there was any chance that could happen, I should have reduced the differential to obviate the risk.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:57 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Observer wrote:
If you don't know how to work it out, you shouldn't be participating in this debate.

I've already worked it out, it's everyone else that seems to be having difficulty

Observer wrote:
so Vectra may have been ~290ft behind. Or Vectra may have been at 130mph in which case approximately double the above distances.

so worst case is less than 200m...

If nobody else thinks it's reasonable to look 200m behind you before commencing an overtake then I despair and it's obviously time to give up and find some people who are genuinely interested in improving driving standards.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:20 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
johnsher wrote:
If nobody else thinks it's reasonable to look 200m behind you before commencing an overtake then I despair and it's obviously time to give up and find some people who are genuinely interested in improving driving standards.

I think it's reasonable (and desirable) that any road user driving 'enthusiastically' (to coin a phrase), should be sufficiently aware that if they see an HGV in the distance and a car, it is reasonable to assume/expect that the car will be wanting to overtake, and be prepared to scrub off some speed to accommodate that manouvre. If that can't be done, then the driver was using inappropriate speed for the conditions.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
SafeSpeed wrote:
(ooops battery's going... )


I'm back. I see Observer has done the job anyway. Thanks.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
johnsher wrote:
If nobody else thinks it's reasonable to look 200m behind you before commencing an overtake then I despair and it's obviously time to give up and find some people who are genuinely interested in improving driving standards.


It's not only reasonable, it is entirely necessary to observe rearwards for more than 200m whenever possible.

And you original point is a good one - some such incidents ARE caused by negligent lane changes. But, and here's the important part, AGAIN:

We don't know that Sixy changed lane shortly before the tailgating incident, so you had no basis for the original accusation.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:33 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
I'll say it again. If I am driving at high speed (say 115mph) on L3 of a motoway, I will be looking far ahead. I will observe a car ahead in L2 and a truck ahead of that. If the car is closing rapidly (30mph speed differential) on the truck, that will be obvious. It will therefore be obvious that the car will wish to use L3 to overtake the truck. I then have to judge whether I can complete my overtake of the car before it is likely to want to pull into L3 to overtake the truck. If I'm not sure I can, I will reduce speed and consider giving some sort of 'signal' to indicate that I'm allowing it priority to overtake the truck. After all, the car ahead as at least as much right to use L3 as I have. I don't own the road in front of me. If I am sure I can get past before the car (at its current speed) will need to use L3, I would continue with caution. Only if the car pulled into L3 well before it really needed to, and I was within (say) 3 seconds of overtaking it myself, would I be justifiably aggrieved at the action of the car driver. Even then, I would not expect to be in any difficulty as I would have L2 available to undertake, if necessary, as well as the option of braking. However, nothing Sixy wrote indicated that's what happened. In fact she said she was half way past the truck when it closed on her. That means that the Vectra driver must have had more than sufficient time to anticipate her need to overtake and adjust his speed accordingly.

In those circumstances, it is the action of a poor, aggressive, selfish, boorish driver to tailgate the car ahead in the way Sixy described.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:37 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Actually I recon judging by the bloke's driving he was also extremely tired.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:39 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
We don't know that Sixy changed lane shortly before the tailgating incident, so you had no basis for the original accusation.

And even if that was the case (which I don't think it was from how it was described), if you are travelling at well above the general speed of traffic, it's reasonable to expect people will pull out into your path from time to time, and you should anticipate that rather than going storming right up someone's backside.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Observer wrote:
In those circumstances, it is the action of a poor, aggressive, selfish, boorish driver to tailgate the car ahead in the way Sixy described.

:yesyes:

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:41 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
All those that think Sixy was right, say "aye"...

Aye.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.031s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]