Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Sep 21, 2018 23:22

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:14 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
I've been worrying about A pillars on and off ever since. Have you seen this: http://www.smidsy.org.uk ?


Thanks. I have now.

I did read the BIKE article when it was published – but perhaps selfishly, I’ve only ever considered the problem from my own (the biker’s) perspective.

I know that the SMIDSY is the biggest threat I face on the road. I know that I must never assume I’ve been seen – in fact, I should always assume I haven’t.
I also know there is much I can do to improve my chances of being seen, and for avoiding impact if I haven’t. On a bike, we have the massive advantage in that we can move around relative to other road users. We can position ourselves to be seen.

There is a famous Mike Waite bike training video where he constantly says, “I want to see what they had for breakfastâ€

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:31 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
Slightly related, I do believe that many people look but don’t see. How many times do we see heads rapidly twisting from side to side. These people look, turn away and have little recollection of what they saw or didn‘t see.


That certainly is another one. I relate this topic to the lookout I do when flying, moving your head to see round the canopy arch or door pillars, but also the way in which you move your eyes.

When your eyes are moving, they do not take in any information. If you find a friend and ask them to sweep their eyes along a newspaper you'll notice they actually move in a series of little jumps. The eyes must remain stationary, only for a split second, in order to 'see' whats there. Obviously when flying there are infinitely more places another aircraft could be and so a more comprehensive scan technique is required, making sure the eyes have plenty of stops as your clear the area where confliction is most likely. On the roads there are a fixed number of discrete pathways that a conflicting vehicle could approach from, but they eyes still need their moment stationary to clear them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 13:17 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
malcolmw wrote:
BottyBurp wrote:
Personally, I think all accidents (I hate that word - it makes crashes sound as if they're unavoidable) should be DWDCA...


The politically correct term is now "Road Traffic Collision" (RTC rather than RTA) in our non-judgemental age.

I can't agree that all collisions should result in DWDCA. They must all be judged on their own merits as to culpability and then only after consideration of all the facts and not on an "instant" basis.

Do you think that all parties should automatically be charged? Suppose you are in a traffic queue, someone runs into the car behind you pushing them into you. Should you be charged?

No, not ALL parties, just the one that actually caused the accident...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 13:24 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
RobinXe wrote:
Exactly, you have to move your head for a proper lookout! I can't believe this is really a foreign concept to the wealth of experienced drivers we have here.

I agree entirely.

OK, so we might not be able to pull up at a junction and have a quick millisecond cursory glance, but that's what this is about, surely?

Car drivers have to stop for more than a few milliseconds and look properly - stopping for a few seconds (as opposed to milliseconds) will allow any traffic in the A pillar blind spot to emerge and present itself.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 13:34 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
BottyBurp wrote:
Car drivers have to stop for more than a few milliseconds and look properly - stopping for a few seconds (as opposed to milliseconds) will allow any traffic in the A pillar blind spot to emerge and present itself.


I don't really understand the concept of stopping and then looking. That's not what happens in reality, is it?

Maybe it's just us bikers - but I'm looking at the earliest opportunity because my aim is to keep moving (unless it's a stop sign, of course :roll: ).

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:21 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
The trouble is that with the design of modern cars, and despite all the efforts to look around the A-pillars, just occasionally you CAN get caught out.
It's necessary to employ extra caution, and not just pull out, without allowing for either abandoning the start, or leaving room to divert your course.
And Of course you are relying on the other party to react as YOU expect to your measures, and not do something completely different.

It should not be up to the biker/pedestrian/cyclist/car driver to avoid a SMIDSY, but you DO have to take all sensible precautions, and then some! :oops:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:11 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
R1Nut wrote:
I don't know about attempted murder because that implies intent. If the rider dies then a charge of manslaughter should be brought against the rider as it was not an intentional death.

I asked the question because by their, usually, own admission of "Sorry mate I didn't see you" implies they were not driving with due care and attention and hence my question.

It'd be interesting to get the opinion of In Gear or one of the other police posters and also what the law states.



When we investigate an incident.. we check those involved for any impairment - including questions to establish whether or not "fatigue" set in these days.

We then check out the vehicles involved - defects etc - .. and we also ask questions ... about observation from those involved and from any other independent witnesses to these incidents. This helps us piece together the causes... along with evidence - forensic.. skid marks ... debris on the road surface - along with similar forensics on the vehicles involved.

Based on this .. we can then decide if charges ranging from careless to downright dangerous can be brought against the driver or even a catalyst motorised vehicle user - who did not collide but whose driving/riding standard brought about the incident.

If road layout was a contributing factor or even main factor which resulted in a SMIDSY.. then a defence lawyer would argue out this fact and its relevance to the incident in the courts.

If the road engineering was the main contributing factor - and the accident was just that .. a pure accident .. then no charges would be brought but coroner and police would recommend the road be re-engineered or at least warning signs be erected. This would then end up gathering dust in the Highways department :banghead: along with all the filed reports of the potholes :banghead: :furious:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:52 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Is there any legal requirement for potholes to be filled or signed if they are a danger?
I know of a couple on the Newby Bridge road (A592) which are awkward to see - especially in traffic, and could have a motorcycle or cyclist in peril even in good conditions.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 13:56 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 00:11
Posts: 764
Location: Sofa
Have you reported them? I've started using http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/ and have seen a quicker response than reporting them locally myself. I reported a particular sunken manhole using my council's online form twice to no effect. It was temporarily filled very quickly when I reported it through the CTC site.

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 20:26 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
MrsMiggins wrote:
Have you reported them? I've started using http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/ and have seen a quicker response than reporting them locally myself. I reported a particular sunken manhole using my council's online form twice to no effect. It was temporarily filled very quickly when I reported it through the CTC site.


I have to say that the CTC and "fillthathole" along with the CW campaign have shifted some "mountains" - more or less conquered the North Face of the Eiger on this issue :bow:

CTC must and rightly should be applauded for this site. :clap: :bow:

As in any society .. I think we have issues we 100% agree on.. others we contend but can meet halfway.. and a few which I think perhaps best to agree to disagree but recognise the strength of the other's argument to the contrary. :wink:

I know the Mad Doc reported a pothole problem related to Salford where his sisters live. They refuse to put Salford as their address by the way. Worsley never wanted to be a part of Salford....and whilst they appear to be a Labour strong seat.. Mad Doc's sisters each claim the Worsley village to be "blue rinsed Conservative" I do know them quite well by now :lol:

But his sisters reported their local rag as reporting a change of goalposts and definitions of "cracks v potholes" :banghead:

I do report each pothole I see. I sign my letters with my full title. The council know who I am. :lol: They fill that gap :wink:

I can only advise that if you see a pothole - report it asap - however you travel. It is in your safety interest that it gets fixed after all :wink:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.201s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]