Country lanes, a word of caution

[obi_waynne]

I was out having some fun in narrow country lanes last night. (All within the speed limits and RTA regulations.)

Now it struck me as I was driving round a bend on a narrow single lane that I allowed myself enough stopping distance (but only for me). If another car was coming towards me then our mutual stopping distances would have been too great to actually stop and we would have collided.

It's funny, we allow ourselves a stopping distance based on how we can stop if confronted with a stationary or receeding object, but we need to take into account that the obstacle we are trying to avoid may well be coming straight towards us effectively halfing our stopping distance.

Should the High Way code include a stopping distance for 2 cars approaching each other at 60mph? I really don't think that this obvious scenario is one drivers think about.

 

[RobBentley]

I think its a case of s*** happens, there is a risk with everything. Sometimes people are going to crash, its a fact of life. The government seems to have this fantasy where no accidents will occur, ever.

 

[obi_waynne]

If no one can afford to refeul or tax their cars then there wont be any accidents.

 

[RobBentley]

If no one can afford to refeul or tax their cars then there wont be any accidents.

Very true. I think you've just foiled their master plan.

 

[dpsubaru]

If no one can afford to refeul or tax their cars then there wont be any accidents.

damn politicians.

Am with Rob, the accident stats are never going to zero and they do put some bizarre restrictions in place to try and achieve this. Can just imagine these continue new 'improved' rules aer made by mandarins in london and bet they dont even own a car.

 

[old-git]

I prefer what the Americans call them - Crashes. Accident seems to infer that it wasn't anyone's fault when they ALWAYS are someone's fault as humans are involved and at least one of them made a wrong decision.

 

[HDi fun]

I prefer what the Americans call them - Crashes. Accident seems to infer that it wasn't anyone's fault when they ALWAYS are someone's fault as humans are involved and at least one of them made a wrong decision.

Agreed. Over 95% of RTCs (that's the current term, apparently) are attributable to driver error.

 

[glabus]

I am intriqued by RTC???
Does that stand for Road Traffic Crashes then?
You also reminded me of a quote from Dave Allen (comedian)
10% of (road) accidents are caused by drunken drivers, That means 90% are caused by sober drivers!!!
Assumedly, are the other 5% down to mechanical failures?
Which might not have happened if drivers maintained their cars
Be honest now guys. When did you last check ALL your lights??? Tyre pressures? Oil and water levels and especially brake fluid levels??

Agreed. Over 95% of RTCs (that's the current term, apparently) are attributable to driver error.

 

[dpsubaru]

RT Collisions ?

 

[glabus]

OK lets dispense with the ?fact? that you were having fun within the rules etc.
IF there was a bendfrom your query I have to assume that you couldn't see round it!
Was it dark?
Let us now see in theoretical retrospect WHAT you did!
If dark you had lights on. Did you approach and put main beams flash to warn of your presence? If not dark did you warn by sounding horn (It IS in HC but, unfortunately; most others drivers seem to have NO idea what it indicates (I AM HERE)
You mention travelling towards each other at 60mph. I assume that that was a rhetorical query and that YOU had slowed for the bend!!??Now.... maybe my GCSE Maths isn't what it was (Someone correct me??!!) but I seem to remember that the actual collision speed for vehicles travelling toward each other at 60 is 120
Your hypothetical crash therefore would be painful injuries and possibly fatal.
Another point is, of course; supposing that another driver was also out having fun on this road and he/she came round that bend not at your 60 but much higher speed. There is not a greatdeal anyone can do in a situation where there is no manovering space (sorry never can spell that!!) One can only try to reduce the risk to oneself by being sensible I am sure you are and that your queries were for elucidation from others!!!

I was out having some fun in narrow country lanes last night. (All within the speed limits and RTA regulations.)

Now it struck me as I was driving round a bend on a narrow single lane that I allowed myself enough stopping distance (but only for me). If another car was coming towards me then our mutual stopping distances would have been too great to actually stop and we would have collided.

It's funny, we allow ourselves a stopping distance based on how we can stop if confronted with a stationary or receeding object, but we need to take into account that the obstacle we are trying to avoid may well be coming straight towards us effectively halfing our stopping distance.

Should the High Way code include a stopping distance for 2 cars approaching each other at 60mph? I really don't think that this obvious scenario is one drivers think about.

 

[geraint13]

I think its a case of s*** happens, there is a risk with everything. Sometimes people are going to crash, its a fact of life. The government seems to have this fantasy where no accidents will occur, ever.

i agree, there will always b accidents no matter what.

 

[obi_waynne]

OK lets dispense with the ?fact? that you were having fun within the rules etc.
IF there was a bendfrom your query I have to assume that you couldn't see round it!
Was it dark?
Let us now see in theoretical retrospect WHAT you did!
If dark you had lights on. Did you approach and put main beams flash to warn of your presence? If not dark did you warn by sounding horn (It IS in HC but, unfortunately; most others drivers seem to have NO idea what it indicates (I AM HERE)
You mention travelling towards each other at 60mph. I assume that that was a rhetorical query and that YOU had slowed for the bend!!??Now.... maybe my GCSE Maths isn't what it was (Someone correct me??!!) but I seem to remember that the actual collision speed for vehicles travelling toward each other at 60 is 120
Your hypothetical crash therefore would be painful injuries and possibly fatal.
Another point is, of course; supposing that another driver was also out having fun on this road and he/she came round that bend not at your 60 but much higher speed. There is not a greatdeal anyone can do in a situation where there is no manovering space (sorry never can spell that!!) One can only try to reduce the risk to oneself by being sensible I am sure you are and that your queries were for elucidation from others!!!

60 would have been suicide even if the object I approached was stationary. It wasn't at night, there are houses along this lane and I'm sure they would all get pretty miffed if all drivers availed themselves of the horn as per HW code!

Yes a lot of this statemetn I made was rehtorical and hypothetical but it was a Eureka moment for me. Till this time I'd always assumed I was trying to avoid a stationary object and set my stopping distance accordingly.

 

[glabus]

I had taking (The right) assumption that your original was hypothetical. From our tooing and froing here . SO.... just a small quibble!
"people in the houses might be miffed"?????
Is it better for them NOT to be 'upset' by the sounding of horns? Or better to attempt or stop a possibly serious (fatal) crash?
At night the flashing of main beams should be sufficient warning to any approaching vehicle (though it often isnt!!!) AND, if it was not dark I for one am prepared to miff someone in their house. Lets face it you would be long gone if anyone came out !!!

60 would have been suicide even if the object I approached was stationary. It wasn't at night, there are houses along this lane and I'm sure they would all get pretty miffed if all drivers availed themselves of the horn as per HW code!

Yes a lot of this statemetn I made was rehtorical and hypothetical but it was a Eureka moment for me. Till this time I'd always assumed I was trying to avoid a stationary object and set my stopping distance accordingly.

 

[obi_waynne]

I had taking (The right) assumption that your original was hypothetical. From our tooing and froing here . SO.... just a small quibble!
"people in the houses might be miffed"?????
Is it better for them NOT to be 'upset' by the sounding of horns? Or better to attempt or stop a possibly serious (fatal) crash?
At night the flashing of main beams should be sufficient warning to any approaching vehicle (though it often isnt!!!) AND, if it was not dark I for one am prepared to miff someone in their house. Lets face it you would be long gone if anyone came out !!!

I quite agree, they shouldn't live on a bend - not my fault! I guess the question is should 99.9% of drivers cause annoyance to stop the 0.01% of accidents from happening, when drivers should be driving more slowly anyway under these conditions.

The horn is not a radar nor a guarantee of safety, an approaching car at best will slow up when hearing it but due to the lack of usage will probably ignore it.

Perhaps it would be better for both to do as suggested and drive at a safe speed. A head on colission should never be unavoidable.

Interesting in Italy you are required to sound your horn when executing an overtaking manoever - especially past cyclists.

At night I momentarily turn off my lights to see if anything is coming the other way. Sadly Deer, rabbits and foxes do not carry suitable illumination although cows do have horns. (Subtle joke that was extremely funny almost imperceptibly slipped in there)