 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / June 2005BBC Real Story program
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4607181.stm Was about the state of our roads and how people had skidded/crashed off. What really made me mad was the 18-year old girl who had done an "advanced driving course" managed to skid off on flood water and crash. She then sat there completely serious and said something like "i know it wasn't my fault at all". The reporter then blamed the lack of drainage on the road etc etc. OMFG, if she can't see a flood across a road then she needs to slow down or get her eyes tested. Next time it could be a kid on a bike or something she doesn't see, then blames it on there not being a cycle lane. She even said it was raining hard, I mean *HELLO*, it's raining hard, there *might* be some flood water about, best keep an eye out. GOd the BBC are really stupid sometimes. > What really made me mad was the 18-year old girl who had done an "advanced > driving course" managed to skid off on flood water and crash. She then sat > there completely serious and said something like "i know it wasn't my fault > at all". The reporter then blamed the lack of drainage on the road etc etc. But since then they've lowered the speed limit and put in a speed camera, so that's fixed it, innit? > GOd the BBC are really stupid sometimes. Them and too many of the rest of us, I fear.  SignatureMike Connally Had to take action 'against spam'. Remove those words to reply. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4607181.stm > > Was about the state of our roads and how people had skidded/crashed off. > > What really made me mad was the 18-year old girl who had done an "advanced > driving course" You've got it wrong. She hadn't 'done an advanced driving course' She'd taken some advanced driving lessons. Not the same thing at all. >managed to skid off on flood water and crash. She then sat > there completely serious and said something like "i know it wasn't my fault > at all". The reporter then blamed the lack of drainage on the road etc etc. > > OMFG, if she can't see a flood across a road then she needs to slow down or > get her eyes tested. You're obviously not that experienced yourself. I'm not making excuses for her but in heavy rain conditions, especially at night, it can be impossible to distinguish the difference between a flooded road surface, or one slick with surface water. Even more so if it's a smooth black tarmacadam surface My son aquaplaned off the road, on a flooded bend on a country road, and hit a telegraph pole. I drove to where it happened a little later, and didn't see the flood until I hit it. Being a bit wiser than him though, I wasn't travelling as fast. The same goes for the girl driver. In the conditions described, and on that country road, she should have been driving slower. You can't rely on always being able to see a flooded area of a road. Mike. >> What really made me mad was the 18-year old girl who had done an >> "advanced driving course" > > You've got it wrong. She hadn't 'done an advanced driving course' > She'd taken some advanced driving lessons. Not the same thing at > all. OK, so you can't be sure she had completed the whole "course" ;-) >> managed to skid off on flood water and crash. She then sat >> there completely serious and said something like "i know it wasn't [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > been driving slower. You can't rely on always being able to see a > flooded area of a road. Yes, that was my point, when it's raining you often can't tell how deep water is, whether it's just very thin surface water or deep enough to aquaplane off. You don't go charging around fast enough to aquaplane in those conditions, especially along country lanes where there are often leaves, dirt etc etc. When I was 17 I aquaplaned while I was going pretty fast and it scared me - fortunately on a straight bit of road - but I would never have blamed the road if I had crashed off. That experience taught me that you can't "see" deep water, it all looks roughly the same, esp. at night. I just don't understand how she could sit there and not even think or mention that she could have been going too fast. It's almost as if that because she's done the "advanced driving lessons" she thinks she is a perfect driver and couldn't possibly be at fault ... dangerous. "scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote in news:mfHte.21098$K5.1592@newsfe4- win.ntli.net: >> You're obviously not that experienced yourself. I'm not making >> excuses for her but in heavy rain conditions, especially at night, >> it can be impossible to distinguish the difference between a >> flooded road surface, or one slick with surface water. > Yes, that was my point, when it's raining you often can't tell how deep > water is, whether it's just very thin surface water or deep enough to > aquaplane off. You don't go charging around fast enough to aquaplane in > those conditions, especially along country lanes where there are often > leaves, dirt etc etc. Unbelievable isn't it - in one paragrah the OP describes how difficult this particular hazzard is to spot, yet describes you as not experienced because you say it can be avoided! Beyond belief. SignatureMrBitsy > "scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote in news:mfHte.21098$K5.1592@newsfe4- > win.ntli.net: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Beyond belief. Well I can see where Mike G was coming from, but if you can't tell whether standing water is shallow or deep, you should assume it is all deep enough to skid off. It's relatively easy to spot standing water (it normally has a smooth surface rather than following the fine contours of the road), but it's knowing whether it's going to deep enough to make you aquaplane that's the hard bit. Of course you don't drive through every puddle at 10mph, but you equally you don't charge through at 70mph assuming them all to be shallow puddles, especially when the road isn't straight. Experience probably counts for a lot here, just "knowing" what speed is safe in standing water. Having aquaplaned a couple of times, either acidentally or in a controlled safe environment, would probably help your judgement for the future. > "scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote in news:mfHte.21098$K5.1592@newsfe4- > win.ntli.net: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Beyond belief. A approriate verdict for your comprehension abilities apparently. You really should read posts more carefully. 'OMFG, if she can't see a flood across a road then she needs to slow down or get her eyes tested.' Note the part about _seeing_ a flood. Then go back and read my reply to Scott again. Come back if you're still having problems, and I'll see if I can make my reply even clearer. Mike. >> "scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote in news:mfHte.21098$K5.1592@newsfe4- >> win.ntli.net: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > my reply even clearer. > Mike. Heavy rain and going downhill - you sure you don't need a diagram? SignatureMrBitsy > >> "scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote in news:mfHte.21098$K5.1592@newsfe4- > >> win.ntli.net: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Heavy rain and going downhill - you sure you don't need a diagram? Changing the subject? You really have got comprehension problems. I say again. Re-read my post. You might then notice my comment about seeing floods was not specific to the girls accident. It was a direct reference to Scotts comment about seeing a flood. A general comment upon how invisible floods can be. Nothing to do with where floods are likely to occur. We can discuss that if you like, but don't try use that as a way of wriggling out of the mistake you made in your attack on my post. It all very well criticising others posts, but unless you get your facts right, you just end up looking foolish. Mike. >> Heavy rain and going downhill - you sure you don't need a diagram? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > facts right, you just end up looking foolish. > Mike. Does it really matter? The fact is it's easy to see something that *might* be a flood, as opposed to just wet tarmac. > >> Heavy rain and going downhill - you sure you don't need a diagram? > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Does it really matter? No. Not really. It was Rays scornful criticism of my post, that got my goat. I don't mind anyone having a go at me, I'm an argumentative bugger myself. If Ray had got his facts right it might have been justified. As it was he he misunderstood, or misread my post and jumped in with both feet as he is prone to do sometimes, leaving himself wide open to the sort of response he got. No real hard feelings, on my part anyway. We've crossed swords before, and no doubt we'll do so again. >The fact is it's easy to see something that *might* > be a flood, as opposed to just wet tarmac. Yup. I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh when I picked you up on 'seeing' I notice you stayed out of the argument. You've obviously got more self control than I have. :-) Mike. >> The fact is it's easy to see something that *might* >> be a flood, as opposed to just wet tarmac. > > Yup. I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh when I picked you up on 'seeing' > I notice you stayed out of the argument. > You've obviously got more self control than I have. :-) No, I'm just really busy at the moment :-) Given more free time I'm sure I'd have been in there too! > I drove to where it happened a little later, and didn't see the flood > until I hit it. Being a bit wiser than him though, I wasn't travelling > as fast. Not wise enough apparently. You must be able to stop in the distance you know to be clear. SignatureMrBitsy >> I drove to where it happened a little later, and didn't see the >> flood until I hit it. Being a bit wiser than him though, I wasn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You must be able to stop in the distance you know to be clear. True, but a puddle of standing water isn't like a pedestrian or tree. You see it ahead, and you slow for it, you don't stop. You need to decide what speed to go over it at, and often it's very hard to tell how deep it is until you're in it, and even then it can change depth quite suddenly if you can't see the road surface through the water and it's dark. Most of the time you can judge how deep it is by looking at clues on the side of the road. THere are two skills, firstly is knowing what speed to proceed through based on the depth you've judged, and the second is knowing when you are unable to judge accurately enough so you can slow to a safe speed. > > I drove to where it happened a little later, and didn't see the flood > > until I hit it. Being a bit wiser than him though, I wasn't travelling [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You must be able to stop in the distance you know to be clear. What are you on about? You seem determined to make an a.s of yourself. I simply drove through a flood at an appropriate speed. How unwise is that? And where did I say I intended to stop, and why do you assume I couldn't have stopped if I'd wanted to? Seems to me your IAM membership has gone to your head. You're not the guru of all things to do with driving, and sooner you realise that, the better. Maybe you wouldn't be so ready to criticise. Mike. >> > I drove to where it happened a little later, and didn't see the >> > flood until I hit it. Being a bit wiser than him though, I wasn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What are you on about? > You seem determined to make an a.s of yourself. You were quite clear in your description. You drove to where it happened (knew where the flood was) and you "Hit it"... > I simply drove through a flood at an appropriate speed. How unwise is > that? ... which does not equal "Drove through it at an appropriaste speed" > And where did I say I intended to stop, and why do you assume I > couldn't have stopped if I'd wanted to? "Didn't see the flood until I hit it" > Seems to me your IAM membership has gone to your head. > You're not the guru of all things to do with driving, and sooner you > realise that, the better. Maybe you wouldn't be so ready to criticise. > Mike. Hmmm. SignatureMrBitsy > >> > I drove to where it happened a little later, and didn't see the > >> > flood until I hit it. Being a bit wiser than him though, I wasn't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You were quite clear in your description. You drove to where it happened > (knew where the flood was) and you "Hit it"... Give me strength! Have you never heard of a colloquialism? It's a common form of speech. People refer to 'hitting' a patch of standing water. It doesn't always mean they lost control. > > I simply drove through a flood at an appropriate speed. How unwise is > > that? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "Didn't see the flood until I hit it" Gordon Bennet! > > Seems to me your IAM membership has gone to your head. > > You're not the guru of all things to do with driving, and sooner you > > realise that, the better. Maybe you wouldn't be so ready to criticise. > > Mike. > > Hmmm. You may very well 'Hmmm'. Think about it. People don't like being talked down to, no matter had valid your comment might be. Mike. >> >> > I drove to where it happened a little later, and didn't see the >> >> > flood until I hit it. Being a bit wiser than him though, I [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It's a common form of speech. People refer to 'hitting' a patch of > standing water. It doesn't always mean they lost control. I'm not implying you lost control, merely that you entered the water before you realised it was there - strange in that you knew it was there. >> > I simply drove through a flood at an appropriate speed. How unwise >> > is that? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Gordon Bennet! You wasn't able to stop before entering the flood. If this is not the case then may I suggest the phrase "hit it" was inappropriate? >> > Seems to me your IAM membership has gone to your head. >> > You're not the guru of all things to do with driving, and sooner [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > valid your comment might be. > Mike. I am not talking down to you but commenting on what you have written. so far, you "Hit a flood", changed that to "I simply drove through a flood at an appropriate speed" and then changed it to you not hitting the flood but saying it was a figure of speech. You need to be a little clearer I think. SignatureMrBitsy > >> >> > I drove to where it happened a little later, and didn't see the > >> >> > flood until I hit it. Being a bit wiser than him though, I [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > I am not talking down to you My comment wasn't just referring to me. It was a general one about the patronising tone in many of your replies. but commenting on what you have written. so > far, you "Hit a flood", changed that to "I simply drove through a flood > at an appropriate speed" and then changed it to you not hitting the flood > but saying it was a figure of speech. I still think you have comprehension problems. None of the above is contradictory in any way whatsoever. I'm not saying I didn't 'hit' the flood. What I am saying is that the word 'hit' in the context I used it, is a colloquialism. Is that any clearer? > You need to be a little clearer I think. Words of one syllable do you mean? I'll try to oblige, but I can't make any promises. Mike >> (snip all) > Words of one syllable do you mean? I'll try to oblige, but I can't > make any promises. Tools->Message Filters->New - in Mozilla Thunderbird, at least. I did that a short while ago, and u.r.d was transformed for me. Unfortunately the underlying problem is still there, but I don't see much of it! You can download Thunderbird free, it installs very easily, and is quite a nice tool. HTH. > "i know it wasn't my fault > at all". But it can't be, she is an advanced motorist. you know, if you have been taught the system, you could drive a bus through someones lounge, and it would be the builders fault for putting a house there. Signature"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf" The poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >> "i know it wasn't my fault >> at all". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > through someones lounge, and it would be the builders fault for putting > a house there. No, she isn't an advanced motorist - she was described as taking some advanced lessons, as if that can mitigate her piling into a flood in bad weather conditions. SignatureMrBitsy > >> "i know it wasn't my fault > >> at all". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > advanced lessons, as if that can mitigate her piling into a flood in bad > weather conditions. Sorry mate. Just having a dig. A good theme for the program, but it did go all "Daily Mail" about it. Signature"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf" The poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >> >> "i know it wasn't my fault >> >> at all". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Sorry mate. Just having a dig. > A good theme for the program, but it did go all "Daily Mail" about it. Oops, humour failure on my part :-) SignatureMrBitsy |
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
|
©2009 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.