I nearly wacked a cyclist in my car tonight

prj45

bornagainbiker wrote:

Whatever happened to 'Driving at a speed which is SAFE for the given conditions'

Yup, I reckon eight out of 10 drivers drive in such a way that would mean they drive straight into an unlit object on a dark road, some of them probably wouldn't even see it.

Or alternativly put a mannequin in the middle of the road around the corner of a country lane and see how many people manage to stop witout hitting it or coming off the road trying to avoid it, less than 10% I reckon.

alfablue

lost_in_thought wrote:

And someone driving at 40 in a 60 where it was safe (in my eyes) to do 60 would annoy me no end.

It annoys me no-end when people presume I should drive at the maximum the speed limit allows (or even higher). Why is everyone in such a rush to get everywhere?

simon_e

alfablue wrote:

Why is everyone in such a rush to get everywhere?

I ask myself that question any number of times a day during my commute, and when some clown is driving too close behind with no chance of overtaking. If they did they'd only be stuck behind the car in front of me anyway.

This thread is a demonstration of how perfectly sensible people can quickly abandon rational thought when confronted with a (to them) imaginary scenario. Please folks, stock up on empathy, leave that bottle of vitriol on the shelf, and try a bit less bathing in the pool of righteous indignation.

Eau Rouge

Dipped light due to oncoming cars, that makes sense.
This cyclist must really have a deathwish though. No lights on a busy, unlit dual carriageway with narrow lanes. Maybe they really do need counselling!

lost_in_thought

alfablue wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And someone driving at 40 in a 60 where it was safe (in my eyes) to do 60 would annoy me no end.

It annoys me no-end when people presume I should drive at the maximum the speed limit allows (or even higher). Why is everyone in such a rush to get everywhere?

Someone going at 40 on a motorway or dual carriageway, unless the conditions are really dreadful, is a danger to other road users and themselves.

prj45

lost_in_thought wrote:

Someone going at 40 on a motorway or dual carriageway, unless the conditions are really dreadful, is a danger to other road users and themselves.

I've argued this before. There is no reason to hit somebody who chooses to do such a speed, the main danger is other drivers who are not driving properly (i.e. being observant, leaving plenty of space).

If somebody rear ends somebody else who is doing 40 on a motorway they've only got themselves to blame, but I agree, I wouldn't travel at such a speed unless the conditions dicated it.

The Chingford Skinhead

lost_in_thought wrote:

alfablue wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And someone driving at 40 in a 60 where it was safe (in my eyes) to do 60 would annoy me no end.

It annoys me no-end when people presume I should drive at the maximum the speed limit allows (or even higher). Why is everyone in such a rush to get everywhere?

Someone going at 40 on a motorway or dual carriageway, unless the conditions are really dreadful, is a danger to other road users and themselves.

OK, I'm intrigued. How?

If it is a motorway or dual carriageway then there is at least one lane by which the vehicle can be passed. You'll only rear end them if you aren't paying attention to the road. To insist that everyone must drive at or near the maximum means you'll have drivers who are uncomfortable or not competent to drive at that speed = higher risk of crash = far more dangerous than travelling at a speed that is comfortable.

Of course, if everyone has to travel at or near the maximum then the best thing to do would be to get those pesky cyclists off the road...[I can hear the Jeremy Clarkson manifesto cry now]

schlepcycling

prj45 wrote:

Yes you're [edit: probably] right. However there was absolutely no way I contacted him (or her), I'd already slowed to a crawl and they got up on the verge in front of me, not as I passed.

I might have freaked them out though, I figure they heard me braking (no ABS kicking in so it wasn't that sharp) and decided to get off the road sharpish. Had I stopped though they would've got an absolute bollocking no matter what state they were in.

When you say 'got up on the verge' do you mean 'jumped off their bike and scrabbled in a panicky kind of way up the verge as though in fear of being flattened by a car from behind' or 'bike and rider bunny hopped up the kerb in controlled and deliberate way' depending on which it was your presence could have been a complete coincidence he could have been heading that way as a short cut home just as you came upon him and he had no idea you were behind him. In either case if you had stopped and offered a few words of advice or an 'absolute bollocking' as you put it I expect you would have got as much if not more back.

prj45

schlepcycling wrote:

When you say 'got up on the verge' do you mean 'jumped off their bike and scrabbled in a panicky kind of way up the verge as though in fear of being flattened by a car from behind'

That one I think, but they stayed on the bike.

Could've been drunk I guess, surely nobody sober would ride down that road with no lights on in pitch black.

Eau Rouge

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

OK, I'm intrigued. How?

It's a concept called "speed differential" or somesuch. The idea is that the actual speed traffic is doing is not as dangerous as differences in the speed relative to other traffic. If everyone is going the same speed, there would be less accidents. Any fool can fly down an empty motorway at 120mph, most people could fly down a motorway with other traffic, all doing 125mph (we all do it at 85mph, for example) It's doing 125mph when everyone else is 'only' doing 85mph that causes problems.

You can see it on those road works average speed cameras. They are very careful to make sure that they capture every entry and exit point, cause any gap in the coverage and those cars will be going faster, increasing the speed differential on the road, and that causes the problems. They had just that problem on some cameras on the M27 last year and turned the whole lot off until they sorted it out.

You see it a lot on Ireland's mainly single-caraige road network. The difference between driving with my father at a pretty rigid 50mph and myself at 60mph (60mph limits) was so noticeable in terms of other traffic even my non-driving mother noticed (and these days Dad drives at 60mph and has a lot less stress.

It's a large part of why the police in the UK are generally happy to let traffic drive at 80-85mph on the motorway network, the current situation, with about half the cars doing it, is actually safer than having 90% of people doing 70mph and a handful doing 85mph.

There are places that take the whole thing seriously enough to use it to set speed limits, not to the arbitrary near-meaningless numbers we use, but to some formula based on what the real traffic really does on the road, within reason.

alfablue

It all seems rather odd, therefore, that many vehicles are limited to 56mph :?

ansbaradigeidfran

alfablue wrote:

It all seems rather odd, therefore, that many vehicles are limited to 56mph :?

That's for big/towing vehicles, which have more trouble slowing down and stopping. If they knew they could always keep going at 70 or so, great, but if the worst were to happen, and they had to brake, they'd never stop in time.

prj45

Eau Rouge wrote:

It's a concept called "speed differential" or somesuch. The idea is that the actual speed traffic is doing is not as dangerous as differences in the speed relative to other traffic. If everyone is going the same speed, there would be less accidents.

Like I said, If I was doing the maximum speed I'm pretty certain I would've hit this guy or have had to perform some serious swerving.

Border Cyclist

prj45 wrote:

bornagainbiker wrote:

Whatever happened to 'Driving at a speed which is SAFE for the given conditions'

Yup, I reckon eight out of 10 drivers drive in such a way that would mean they drive straight into an unlit object on a dark road, some of them probably wouldn't even see it.

Or alternativly put a mannequin in the middle of the road around the corner of a country lane and see how many people manage to stop witout hitting it or coming off the road trying to avoid it, less than 10% I reckon.

Please don't anyone try putting a mannequin in the middle of the road around the corner of a country lane - someone would get hurt :roll:

itboffin

prj45 wrote:

Travelling down a 60mph road near Denham, I was doing about 40 because it was dark and I'm like that, I don't like not being able to see far enough in front of me to be able to stop (although it's obvious many drivers do not bother to drive like this).

Out of the corner of my eye I caught a very dim red flash.

Then I was about 10 meters away from a cyclist on the left hand side of the road, no lights, no high vis, practically invisible. My missus said she didn't see anything at all until we went past him. The lane was quite tight and if I hadn't seen him in time or been driving like an idiot I'm pretty sure I would've struck him.

By this time he had scrambled onto the grass verge, and I beeped my horn in what is probably a vain attempt to communicate that not all drivers drive within the scope of their headlights on such roads.

I would have liked to have stopped for a word but it wasn't really the place.

Whizzzzz totally off topic, what's the name of the pub on the main road in Denham, the one that runs along the canal?

Ah I miss West London, anyway...! good pub loved the "special events" - if you know what i'm talking about then you sir are toooooo old to be on here.