Safe Speed Forums

Something said in another thread made me wonder what we'd normally consider to be a near miss. I think it's a tricky one to put into a poll as the whole area is a bit grey and subjective and there are necessarily millions of situations where one driver would say near miss and the next wouldn't. But I'm going to have a crack anyway to see what develops.

You are driving normally and heading towards an unexpected hazard which if ignored will bring you into a possible conflict with someone/something else. This could be a pedestrian entering the road without warning, another driver abruptly manoeuvering without indicating, a cyclist suddenly swerving into your path, basically anything that presents an unexpected hazard. Whatever it is you don't actually collide with it, but which of these, if any, would have made it a near miss?

1. You were aware of the potential hazard early enough that you were able to avoid it easily and safely - gentle braking, lane change, etc. almost as if the other person had signalled their intent.
2. You became aware of it in time to perform an emergency stop or other avoiding action safely
3. You became aware of it at the last minute and were forced to react without knowing whether or not you'd be successful
4. You didn't become aware until too late and missed by sheer blind luck

It's complicated by the fact that individuals might feel that any or all or a combination of those could qualify as a near miss, but to put every combination of the four up there would make it a bit unwieldy. I've stuck to the likely ones while leaving it as open as possible and allowing an "Other combination" option.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I went for 2,3 and 4.

Anytime you have to react, act suddenly or quickly constitutues means you probably missed the warning signs that would have seen you take pre-emptive action and, thus, a more calm and considered avoiding maneouvre.

Half of the people who have replied think that an emergency stop may not represent a near miss. I find that very scary. I hope it's a definition thing.

I think an emergency brake application is ALWAYS a near miss (excepting hits of course) because you have exhausted your (braking) options. Once you feel the need to use max braking, one should assume that you don't have time to stop without using max brakes. Therefore you can further assume that stopping in time is more luck than management. That's a near miss every time in my book.

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

Are you saying that 2 and 3 are really the same thing? I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Certainly in my early days of driving most or all of my emergency stops were of the hit the brakes and hope variety, but I don't think that's always the case now. There are probably occasions where something less than max braking would probably stop you in time, but you could be certain an emergency stop would defintely work. I'd still agree that any emergency stop counts as a near miss though.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Given the revelation about the dry skid resistence of the new road surfaces, I would say that 2 and 3 are definitely the same on some roads.

I voted "2, 3, 4". However, I personally believe a near miss can be summed up quite easily with phraseology such as

"Something that would very likely have resulted in an accident were one or more parties not to have taken hitherto unplanned evasive action within X seconds (or Y feet) of the event, OR an event that, despite nobody taking evasive action defined above, with minuscule difference of timings, would have resulted in an accident

An example of the first is braking and steering around the back of someone pulling out of the side road into one's path; an example of the second is a hole in the road opening up just after one has traveresd the section of road.

I have to admit that in my first few (maybe five or six) years of driving I would have agreed.

I just wish I could put my finger on when, how or what made me change. It certainly wasn't having 10 points on my licence.

Iwas always told to drive in a way that does not cause others to brake or change direction.

My view of a near miss is one where there would have need a colision if the other driver had not suddenly changed postion or speed because of your driving

It counts both ways

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I feel that driving in a manner than never causes anyone else to alter their course or speed is becoming much more difficult in modern traffic conditions. However I think we should try to get as close as we reasonably can to that ideal. It is a good objective.

As for what constitutes a near miss, I think a near miss is where a collision is only avoided by somebody taking urgent unplanned action.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Gizmo - my ideal too -to me thats courtous driving.

Scenario 1 - thats my idea of the correct way to do it.

Anything else to me is a near miss and if it happens - i would be asking myself why i let the situation get to that.