 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / July 2006What would you do
You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if the way is clear. Someone decides to go just as you're barreling down in a 70km/h zone. Seeing you, they stop suddenly, but they're already sticking out into your side of the road. Your options are: (1) stay in your lane, and you are guaranteed to hit them, but you will not be at fault. Assume you are confident it will not be life threatening. (2) swerve partly into the lane to your left. Although you're generally very attentive to vehicles around you, at the exact instant this happens you're not sure if there is a vehicle to your left at that moment. What do you do? Perhaps more importantly, what will the Police, crash investigators and/or insurance companies make of your choice? You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an > intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. I think natural reflex would be to swerve > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an > intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ With my defensive driving skills, I would have seen the other motorist way in ahead. I would've stopped in early avoiding collision. -- HoweverMyCarHornsWillBeInFullBlast > With my defensive driving skills, I would have seen the other motorist way > in ahead. I would've stopped in early avoiding collision. How can you tell they're about to pull out in front of you when they're stationary before pulling out? > HoweverMyCarHornsWillBeInFullBlast When there's enough time to honk the horn it's not an accident situation. Michael >> With my defensive driving skills, I would have seen the other motorist >> way in ahead. I would've stopped in early avoiding collision. > > How can you tell they're about to pull out in front of you when they're > stationary before pulling out? ~~~~~~~~~~~~ I learned to drive from a third-world country. I KNOW from the position of a vehicle if it will suddenly swerve. Trust me, it's been 25 years and I've never had any collision of that sort although that situation has happened quite a number of times. >> HoweverMyCarHornsWillBeInFullBlast > > When there's enough time to honk the horn it's not an accident situation. ~~~~~~~~~~ With defensive driving and keen observation habit, there's time to react. -- MyBrakesAreCoveredWhenISeeAMotoristBehavingIncongruently >>>With my defensive driving skills, I would have seen the other motorist >>>way in ahead. I would've stopped in early avoiding collision. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > MyBrakesAreCoveredWhenISeeAMotoristBehavingIncongruently Yes and the sun shines out of your arse too... >>> With my defensive driving skills, I would have seen the other motorist >>> way in ahead. I would've stopped in early avoiding collision. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > With defensive driving and keen observation habit, there's time to react. > MyBrakesAreCoveredWhenISeeAMotoristBehavingIncongruently aHHsOyOUbLISSFULLYtHINKyOURsYSTEMiSiDIOTpROOF >> ~~~~~~~~~~ >> With defensive driving and keen observation habit, there's time to react. >> MyBrakesAreCoveredWhenISeeAMotoristBehavingIncongruently > > aHHsOyOUbLISSFULLYtHINKyOURsYSTEMiSiDIOTpROOF ~~~~~~~~~ No, it is not idiot proof. One has some to have some minimum level of intelligence to be a good defensive driver. -- It'sTheMaroonsWhoCrashOften >>> ~~~~~~~~~~ >>> With defensive driving and keen observation habit, there's time to >>> react. >>> MyBrakesAreCoveredWhenISeeAMotoristBehavingIncongruently aHHsOyOUbLISSFULLYtHINKyOURsYSTEMiSiDIOTpROOF > ~~~~~~~~~ > No, it is not idiot proof. One has some to have some minimum level of > intelligence to be a good defensive driver. rAMPANTsTUPIDITYbEATSiNTELLIGENCE >> ~~~~~~~~~ >> No, it is not idiot proof. One has some to have some minimum level of >> intelligence to be a good defensive driver. > > rAMPANTsTUPIDITYbEATSiNTELLIGENCE ~~~~~~~~~~~~ You just can't accept that a chink can have better driving skills than you white homies. -- TooBadForPrejudism >>> ~~~~~~~~~ >>> No, it is not idiot proof. One has some to have some minimum level of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > TooBadForPrejudism >>> ~~~~~~~~~ >>> No, it is not idiot proof. One has some to have some minimum level of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You just can't accept that a chink can have better driving skills than you > white homies. You just can't accept that one day an idiot will get past your perfect defenses. > TooBadForPrejudism GoTnOthInGtODowIThJuDiSm > You just can't accept that a chink can have better driving skills than you > white homies. Rattle off the names of any Asian F1 World Champions for us? Just one will do :) -- Regards, Noddy. >> With my defensive driving skills, I would have seen the other >> motorist way in ahead. I would've stopped in early avoiding [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Michael Michael! FFS he is a philipinie.. If you have spent time in an asian country................ > FFS he is a philipinie.. > If you have spent time in an asian country................ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Try driving around Manila, Bangkok or Bangalore. Without defensive driving skills, you won't survive. -- RecklessDriversInAusAreNothingComparedToThose > With my defensive driving skills, I would have seen the other motorist way > in ahead. I would've stopped in early avoiding collision. Lol :) An Asian who's done a defensive driving course? Does anyone else find that incredibly funny? :) -- Regards, Noddy. > > With my defensive driving skills, I would have seen the other motorist way > > in ahead. I would've stopped in early avoiding collision. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Does anyone else find that incredibly funny? :) An offensive driving course maybe? Al  SignatureI don't take sides. It's more fun to insult everyone. http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html >>With my defensive driving skills, I would have seen the other motorist way >>in ahead. I would've stopped in early avoiding collision. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Regards, > Noddy. Actually yes I do! The mind boggles... >>>With my defensive driving skills, I would have seen the other motorist >>>way in ahead. I would've stopped in early avoiding collision. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Noddy. > Actually yes I do! The mind boggles... ~~~~~~~~~~~ Actually, Noddy has reading comprehension problems. I didn't say I did a defensive driving course. I said, I have acquired defensive driving skills as a result of learning to drive in a third-world country. -- SchoolingIsOnlyOneFormOfEducation > Actually, Noddy has reading comprehension problems. I didn't say I did a > defensive driving course. I said, I have acquired defensive driving skills > as a result of learning to drive in a third-world country. Do beg my pardon, but somehow I *don't* think driving an Ox & cart in some gook infested shithole would make you a good car driver. -- Regards, Noddy. > > With my defensive driving skills, I would have seen the other motorist way > > in ahead. I would've stopped in early avoiding collision. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Does anyone else find that incredibly funny? :) Indeed. If it was a 70 zone he would be doing 35kph max. He'd have time to get the handbook out of the glovebox to make double sure which pedal was the brake pedal by the time he got to the intersection. :P SignatureCheers, Rod. > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an > intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. Hit them. I want a new car. Fraser > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an > intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. Laugh hysterically with the flames of hell bursting from my vehicle as I aim my railway track bullbar (complete with 20 odd crossed out car, tree & pram kills) for their side door. They now have 0.1 seconds to engage reverse and reach 6000rpm :) >> You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They now have 0.1 seconds to engage reverse and reach 6000rpm :) Rainbow wins this thread :) -mark >>> You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -mark True. But I'd bet good money on the fact that the turn cock-up artist would NOT have even started the turn in front of the RW abomination_on_wheels in the first instance. SignatureToby. quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an > intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Perhaps more importantly, what will the Police, crash investigators > and/or insurance companies make of your choice? I've skidded straight over 2 wombats so I'd say I'd hit them. > You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. If you've only got 0.2 secs then you'd hit them as that's only 8 metres, hardly time to react. Michael > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an > intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. Ummm. So what did you do in that .2 seconds? Natch the idea is to know what is beside you where the incident 'may' take place. Really. Next step is that anyone thinking of being beside you should make sure they aren't there at the point you need that lane, and if it was me, obviously so. But I'm just good at driving. But the odds are that they'll be a fucken thick as the right turner. In fact, they may be the cause of the right turner piking on the turn, because there *was* some idiot doing a mad dash up the lane to your left. Which you 'should have' noticed. Too late, I know, but HTH. There ya go - the defensive driving instructor hat has now been replaced by the tin bullet-proof one:-) SignatureToby. quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur > Ummm. > So what did you do in that .2 seconds? For the record, I swerved partly into the lane to my left... (BTW, I meant that you had 0.2 seconds to *decide* whether to swerve or not, and still have enough time to do it.) lucky there was space. But I've often wondered since, if I had hit another vehicle, whether I would have regretted my choice, even though the chance of injury was much lower. Would the driver I swerved to avoid be legally responsible for the accident, and for all the damages, even though he's not directly involved? If not, arent the at-fault rules encouraging me to cause a potentially avoidable accident, so that I don't have to pay for hitting the car of the guy next to me? If I had to shell out $$$, and the other guy (who caused the accident) pissed off free, you bet I would not make the same mistake twice. Would it be a defense for me to point out that I acted to avoid certain collision which would have resulted in serious injury/damage, instead risking the *possibility* of a collision which even if it occurred would have most likely caused lesser injury/damage? Lots of people say, "I'd hit him, I have a bullbar". I was driving a charade, which incidentally doesnt have a bullbar. The other guy was in a station wagon, also with no bullbar, but probably 2x my weight. What if I'd swerved and hit a motorbike? Now the stakes have gone up, from "who pays for damages" to potentially who gets done for neg driving causing death, and potentially who goes down for a stretch in the big house. That's what really scared me, so thats why I'm really interested in the legal side of it. R >> Ummm. >> So what did you do in that .2 seconds? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > R Welcome to life as we know it. Accidents happen, people get killed and cars get damaged. Im sure you did well enough to miss the idiot but in saying that if more people drove defensivly they (The person that may have been on your right) may have also seen the car and braked or swerved as well. You got away with it, learn and move on. Next time you will slow a bit seeing theres someone there that may move without warning. >> Ummm. >> So what did you do in that .2 seconds? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have regretted my choice, even though the chance of injury was much > lower. Probably seriously what I would do, 99% of the time I know exactly where what cars are around my 2.2tonne behemoth "child killer", so my mind would say I'm 99% sure there's nothing there, go for it. There are times you go into autopilot, and aren't 100% sure and that would be for anyone I'd say, unless you never think about GF break ups, work problems or talk to passengers whilst driving. > Would the driver I swerved to avoid be legally responsible for the > accident, and for all the damages, even though he's not directly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other guy (who caused the accident) pissed off free, you bet I would > not make the same mistake twice. What if the other car you nudged, went into the next lane or onto the wrong side of the road and hit someone head on too? > Would it be a defense for me to point out that I acted to avoid certain > collision which would have resulted in serious injury/damage, instead > risking the *possibility* of a collision which even if it occurred > would have most likely caused lesser injury/damage? I'd like to think you wouldn't be charged, even though you could be, apparently not reacting in time because you were sneezing whilst driving could also be a plausible excuse, how do you not sneeze? > Lots of people say, "I'd hit him, I have a bullbar". I was driving a > charade, which incidentally doesnt have a bullbar. The other guy was > in a station wagon, also with no bullbar, but probably 2x my weight. Well I was joking (about the flames of hell bit), a crash is a crash and despite what the pedestrian council want you to believe most bullbars are light duty alloy and aren't the steel 4 post railway track design anymore, the chances of a stuffed bullbar & other damage are still likely. Nobody should want to intentionally injure another person just because they did something dumb. Every one does dumb things occasionally. I'd be interested to se a list of people who have never F&*ked up behind the wheel, I suppose repetative doing so and not learning from it would be a different story. If you had space to swerve and didn't you could also be charged I suppose too. > What if I'd swerved and hit a motorbike? Now the stakes have gone up, > from "who pays for damages" to potentially who gets done for neg > driving causing death, and potentially who goes down for a stretch in > the big house. That's what really scared me, so thats why I'm really > interested in the legal side of it. One of the reasons I so hate motor bikes & fast&furious types who "teleport" around in traffic, crap like this happens, you swerve to avoid it then find some aggronaut going off the handle because you didn't realise he was cutting up the side of you at near double the normal traffic speed. > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an > intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. >. As we 4x4 owners have big arse pedestrian killers mounted up front, you just plough through and hope the offending vehicle ricochets away from you and into the closest power pole as they deserved it anyway. More to the point, what did you do when confronted the situation? ----- Original Posting ----- > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an > intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. I w SignatureAthel, Perth (WA) '90 AA34S, '84 G11R, '00 SXV20R > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an > intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. 2 because a head on is much more likely to cause death or injury than a minor side swipe. If there is a crash and its a minor side swipe no police or crash investigators need be involved, insurance matters are less certain but at least you would be alive and in a position to argue with them if they didn't believe you. Daryl > > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an > > intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 2 because a head on is much more likely to cause death or injury than a > minor side swipe. Unless the vehicle beside you is a fully loaded concrete truck whose driver is sh.tting himself 'cause he was held up at Maccas and now his load is going off. >>> You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an >>> intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > is sh.tting himself 'cause he was held up at Maccas and now his load is > going off. Maybe but if there was a large truck in the LH lane 99% of drivers would have known it was there. Daryl > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an > intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. Given it takes at least 2 seconds for anyone to react (even if you're driving defensively and are anticipating everything/anything, your mind still has to process what you're seeing) you're gonna hit straight on. > Given it takes at least 2 seconds for anyone to react (even if you're > driving defensively and are anticipating everything/anything, your mind > still has to process what you're seeing) you're gonna hit straight on. 2 seconds? You're joking, right? -- Regards, Noddy. >> Given it takes at least 2 seconds for anyone to react (even if you're >> driving defensively and are anticipating everything/anything, your mind [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You're joking, right? I fucken hope so.. SignatureToby. quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur > > 2 seconds? > > > > You're joking, right? > > I fucken hope so.. yeah, 2/10ths of a second would be more like it. >> > 2 seconds? >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > yeah, 2/10ths of a second would be more like it. How long is that in metric time? :) >>> > 2 seconds? >>> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How long is that in metric time? :) Your not very bright are you? Let me guess your job doesn't entail any mathematic equations eh? >>>> > 2 seconds? >>>> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Your not very bright are you? Let me guess your job doesn't entail any > mathematic equations eh? You really have no sense of humor do you? :P >> Given it takes at least 2 seconds for anyone to react (even if you're >> driving defensively and are anticipating everything/anything, your mind [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You're joking, right? That's why those pro boxers never actually manage to punch each other. Fraser > Given it takes at least 2 seconds for anyone to react (even if you're > driving defensively and are anticipating everything/anything, your mind > still has to process what you're seeing) you're gonna hit straight on. I've heard this "2 second" idea before, and I'll challenge it now in the same way I challenged it then. There's no way it takes 2 whole seconds. If that were true, I would never react to any kangaroo or wombat situation - ever. In 2 seconds, a roo would be all the way across the road and the risk gone by the time my vehicle began to slow. Given the huge number of roos and wombats I've been able to avoid almost every time I drive down to Sydney, I'd say I sufficiently disprove this 2 second claim. Seriously, it'd be no more than 1 second before my brake pedal is being pushed from when I first spot the roo. And although I've never timed myself, I think I'm being generous there. >> Given it takes at least 2 seconds for anyone to react (even if you're >> driving defensively and are anticipating everything/anything, your mind [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > pushed from when I first spot the roo. And although I've never timed > myself, I think I'm being generous there. You are, and you probably get to the brake in well under 1/2 a second, and probably manage that with only peripheral vision cues as well. (pity the foggie w.nkers don't have the same reaction loop, and ruin it for the rest of us dues their misplaced self interest) But I digress - as usual --- That stupid 2 second figure oft quoted is a GovCo figure, and obtained by in-house testing. The unrealistically long period measured for reaction and action in response to stimulii (aka road hazards in this case) is caused by their having to extract their heads outa their arses before committing any act that requires independent decision making. SignatureToby. quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur >>> Given it takes at least 2 seconds for anyone to react (even if you're >>> driving defensively and are anticipating everything/anything, your mind [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > their having to extract their heads outa their arses before committing > any act that requires independent decision making. Either that or they tested a grannie who had just taken a couple of sedatives. Daryl > > Given it takes at least 2 seconds for anyone to react (even if you're > > driving defensively and are anticipating everything/anything, your mind > > still has to process what you're seeing) you're gonna hit straight on. > > I've heard this "2 second" idea before, and I'll challenge it now in > the same way I challenged it then. I'll admit that 2 seconds might seem a bit much, but you need to look at it not in terms of near-misses, where you *did* react in time, but rather think about the times where you've actually had a collision. I think I'm a pretty good driver, and on all the occasions where I've run into other cars or people, the time taken to see what is going on, process the situation and take the correct course of action would have been close to that long (actually, it seems a *lot* longer at the time). Obviously a lot depends on what you're doing at the time, and what kind of car you're driving - for example, an auto allows you to keep a hand on the wheel at all times while you are using the stereo or aircon, windows, cigarette, texting etc. - I'm guessing this would become a lot more difficult in a manual where you have to constantly manipulate the clutch lever, probably increasing the reaction time even further. > I'll admit that 2 seconds might seem a bit much, but you need to look at it > not in terms of near-misses, where you *did* react in time, but rather think > about the times where you've actually had a collision. Yeah I see what you're saying. The times I haven't been able to avoid them is when they spring out right in front of you as if shot from a cannon. In these instances I have reacted before the impact, but was still unable to avoid the impact. After 2 seconds, I'd have at least gotten off the throttle, run him over, and be looking in my mirrors already. Seriously, get a stop watch and observe 2 seconds tick over. It's quite a long time to take to press the brake. > I think I'm a pretty good driver, and on all the occasions where I've > run into other cars or people, the time taken to see what is going > on, process the situation and take the correct course of action > would have been close to that long We might be talking about 2 different things here. I'm talking about the time taken between observing a "ruh-roh" situation and pushing on the pedal = way less than 2 seconds. If you want to factor in fiddling with the stereo and not paying attention - i.e. "ruh-roh" has already happened but you just haven't noticed yet because you're not looking, then that's very different. > I'm guessing this would become a lot more difficult in a manual > where you have to constantly manipulate the clutch lever, > probably increasing the reaction time even further. Nah not at all. It's no issue to press the clutch at the same time as the brake. > Nah not at all. It's no issue to press the clutch at the same time as > the brake. Test yourself.. Try and push the brake pedal without at least having your left hoof go for the clutch. Then try left foot braking and observe the confusion generated in the right foot. Christ us humans are pathetic at times, but it's the price some of us pay for being able to fart and chew gum at the same time:-) Older drivers, particularly those trained on grey engine Holdens and assorted other badly designed machinery will even feather the clutch as they back off the throttle from high RPM - for *very* good reasons. SignatureToby. quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur > Test yourself.. > Try and push the brake pedal without at least having your left hoof go [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Christ us humans are pathetic at times, but it's the price some of us > pay for being able to fart and chew gum at the same time:-) Lol :) -- Regards, Noddy. I tried left foot braking in the Econovan, I couldn't get my size 11's past the steering column quick enough :P >> Test yourself.. >> Try and push the brake pedal without at least having your left hoof go [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Regards, > Noddy. > I tried left foot braking in the Econovan, I couldn't get my size 11's past > the steering column quick enough :P [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Regards, >> Noddy. Wuss , you have small feet so what's wrong ? "Rob Stirling" <cantchoosethenameiwant@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Your options are: > (1) stay in your lane, and you are guaranteed to hit them, but you will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What do you do? I'd hit them, but then again I have a very nice heavy steel bullbar that would teach them a f.cking good lesson in situational awareness :) > Perhaps more importantly, what will the Police, crash investigators > and/or insurance companies make of your choice? If you swerve suddenly to avoid another vehicle and cause an accident in doing so, then you're likely to see yourself blamed for the damage. Especially if the car that caused you to swerve isn't involved, and casually takes off unidentified after the event. -- Regards, Noddy. > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an > intersection. Oncoming traffic can turn right, crossing your path, if [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. Id hit the red button on the dash that makes the car magicly launch 10 meters into air like kit does in knightrider. "Rob Stirling" <cantchoosethenameiwant@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > You're driving in the right lane of a three-lane road, towards an [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You have 0.2 seconds, starting now. A no-win situation, although I think my natural reaction would be to swerve & brake. If I swipe the car in the next lane I'm sure this would put me at fault, although the car that really started the chane of events would not be going anywhere! Excellent post, BTW. > Your options are: > (1) stay in your lane, and you are guaranteed to hit them, but you will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What do you do? Based on my prior experience, I'd hit them. That's exactly what I did in my old Valiant when an XF Falcon crossed my path and decided to stop. And as it happens that was in a 70 zone like your scenario. It depends on a lot of factors though, but generally I would not want any lateral Gs at the point of an impact which could fling my car onto the footpath for example. I nice straight snooker shot generally provides a much more predictable outcome. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.