 |
 | 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) / November 2005splosh
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13455865,00.html?f=rss Good grief. > http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13455865,00.html?f=rss > > Good grief. Wouldn't justice have been much better served if he'd been given the chance to apologise to the person concerned and paid for his clothes to be cleaned or replaced? >> http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13455865,00.html?f=rss >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > chance to apologise to the person concerned and paid for his clothes to be > cleaned or replaced? That won't do anything about the fact that he had to wear soaking wet jeans for the rest of the day. The story is unavoidably unclear about what actually happened - the plod who saw it are probably in a rather better place to determine if he was driving carelessly, and they saw fit to book him. My wild speculation is that he was going a bit fast, and put up a big sheet of water - something which is entirely avoidable. clive >>> http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13455865,00.html?f=rss >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > My wild speculation is that he was going a bit fast, and put up a big > sheet of water - something which is entirely avoidable. According to the report, he was doing 10mph; whether that was because he saw the puddle and slowed for it or because he had slowed for some other reason we don't kow.. We also don't know what time of day it was. We also don't know how much water went over the poor road worker. It is also difficult to assess before getting to a puddle how deep it is and how much water one is going to displace. Are we to slow to less than walking pace on approaching every puddle? I haven't suggested that he shouldn't make reparations, far from it. I'm merely questioning the usefulness of taking it to court. > According to the report, he was doing 10mph; whether that was because he > saw the puddle and slowed for it or because he had slowed for some other [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I haven't suggested that he shouldn't make reparations, far from it. I'm > merely questioning the usefulness of taking it to court. Exactly - it it's rainy and I see a big puddle I'll always try to either go around it or slow right down, but sometimes going around simply isn't possible, and in a busy town centre with heavy rain it might well be more dangerous to try and slow right down if you don't see it until close up. As a pedestrian I will always keep an eye open for big puddles in the road and do my best to avoid being soaked by keeping back or dashing past in between traffic. Taking this to court will do no favours to the police who already aren't the motorists best buddy. Even if this guy soaked the ped on purpose (possible) it still shouldn't have gone to court. I've heard of people getting cautions for much worse. James >> According to the report, he was doing 10mph; whether that was >> because he saw the puddle and slowed for it or because he had slowed [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > shouldn't have gone to court. I've heard of people getting cautions > for much worse. James perhaps he argued the toss with the plod who loast patience and instead of giving him a 'fixed whizzer' told him to tell it to the judge ? > Exactly - it it's rainy and I see a big puddle I'll always try to either > go around it or slow right down, but sometimes going around simply isn't > possible, and in a busy town centre with heavy rain it might well be more > dangerous to try and slow right down if you don't see it until close up. If it's busy, you'll see what the traffic in front of you is doing, and have plenty of time to take appropriate action. Stop making excuses for poor driving. You've thought up a scenario - now take appropriate action to avoid it being a problem. If this means slowing down and hanging back a little more in heavy rain, then so be it - it's sensible advice anyway. clive >> Exactly - it it's rainy and I see a big puddle I'll always try to either >> go around it or slow right down, but sometimes going around simply isn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If it's busy, you'll see what the traffic in front of you is doing, and > have plenty of time to take appropriate action. What if the people in front drove through it but no pedestrian was there? And you didn't see the splash because of glare from oncoming headlights and rain on the windscreen? > Stop making excuses for poor driving. You've thought up a scenario - now > take appropriate action to avoid it being a problem. If this means slowing > down and hanging back a little more in heavy rain, then so be it - it's > sensible advice anyway. Apparently he was doing 10mph, I'd say that's slow enough unless there was a full-on flood. I'm not trying to suggest he should be allowed to splash people at will - quite the opposite, but at the end of the day "sh.t happens". The ped has a reasonable responsibility to avoid being in the danger-zone "defensive walking anyone?" and the driver should take all reasonable means to avoid an incident - but doing an emergency stop on a road simply to save a ped's clothes when there is water about doesn't fall under what is reasonable imho. As others have said, none of us were there - maybe the driver was lippy to the police, whatever, but it still seems overkill given what other people get away with every day. > Apparently he was doing 10mph, I'd say that's slow enough unless there was > a full-on flood. 2 inches is getting on for full on flood. > I'm not trying to suggest he should be allowed to splash people at will - > quite the opposite, but at the end of the day "sh.t happens". The ped has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > clothes when there is water about doesn't fall under what is reasonable > imho. It wasn't just somebody ambling along - it was somebody working there. Which means he has no choice but to be in that place. And also means it is reasonable that he doesn't get soaked - it's not the clothes which are important here, it's working conditions. clive > It wasn't just somebody ambling along - it was somebody working there. > Which means he has no choice but to be in that place. And also means it is > reasonable that he doesn't get soaked - it's not the clothes which are > important here, it's working conditions. Working conditions are the responsibility of his employer. Why doesn't he sue them for putting him a situation where he could get splashed? >2 inches is getting on for full on flood. Not if it is a pot hole in the road it bloody isn't. The rest of the road might just have been damp.  SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >>2 inches is getting on for full on flood. >> > Not if it is a pot hole in the road it bloody isn't. The rest of the > road might just have been damp. If so, I suspect they wouldn't have described it as "2in deep floodwater". clive >>>2 inches is getting on for full on flood. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >clive Remember, we are heading for a bird flu pandemic that will kill 50million humans in the UK alone, when less than 50% of the human cases of bird flu have been from bird to human, with just cases of human to human, and that has been in something like 5 years. Journalists don't always write exact facts if it will hinder a "good" story. SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > Remember, we are heading for a bird flu pandemic that will kill > 50million humans in the UK alone, when less than 50% of the human cases > of bird flu have been from bird to human, with just cases of human to > human, and that has been in something like 5 years. I thought that it was only 1 case was possibly human to human. The rest were bird to human. > Journalists don't always write exact facts if it will hinder a "good" > story. Quite. It it doesn't get viewers, or sell their chip wrapper[0], it's not good enough. Pete. [0] anyone still use newspaper as chip paper? SignatureNOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be deleted Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail > And you didn't see the splash because of glare from oncoming headlights and > rain on the windscreen? If glare and rain mean you can't see pedestrians ahead, how fast should you be going? Ian >> The story is unavoidably unclear about what actually happened - the >> plod who saw it are probably in a rather better place to determine if [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > reason we don't kow.. We also don't know what time of day it was. We also > don't know how much water went over the poor road worker. The plod who booked him do know all this - and they chose to book him. > It is also difficult to assess before getting to a puddle how deep it is > and how much water one is going to displace. Are we to slow to less than > walking pace on approaching every puddle? It's not that difficult, and if there are people who could be adversely affected by the splash, yes. In real life it isn't normally a problem - IME the deepest puddles are in rural areas, where there aren't people. > I haven't suggested that he shouldn't make reparations, far from it. I'm > merely questioning the usefulness of taking it to court. It's reminded people that such a thing is irresonsible driving. A useful lesson, well timed for the season. clive || It's reminded people that such a thing is irresonsible driving. A || useful lesson, well timed for the season. Yep. £20,000 well spent. SignatureRob > It is also difficult to assess before getting to a puddle how deep it is and > how much water one is going to displace. Are we to slow to less than walking > pace on approaching every puddle? If there is someone beside it, then yes. Why not? Ian >> It is also difficult to assess before getting to a puddle how deep >> it is and how much water one is going to displace. Are we to slow to >> less than walking pace on approaching every puddle? > > If there is someone beside it, then yes. Why not? If the road is wet how does one identify the fact that a puddle is there? >>> It is also difficult to assess before getting to a puddle how deep >>> it is and how much water one is going to displace. Are we to slow to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If the road is wet how does one identify the fact that a puddle is there? Eyes normally. I've been using quite a lot of wet roads recently, from just wet to several inches deep. I've not had a problem identifying the deep stuff vs the shallow stuff. Normally the surface is a pretty good clue - with the shallow stuff you can still see the road surface features, whereas the deep stuff behaves more like a big body of water (not surprisingly). clive >>>> It is also difficult to assess before getting to a puddle how deep >>>> it is and how much water one is going to displace. Are we to slow [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you can still see the road surface features, whereas the deep stuff > behaves more like a big body of water (not surprisingly). During the day, true. What about in the dark? >>>>> It is also difficult to assess before getting to a puddle how deep >>>>> it is and how much water one is going to displace. Are we to slow [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > During the day, true. What about in the dark? I've been doing the same thing at night. However we could note that it wasn't dark when the incident in question took place. clive > If the road is wet how does one identify the fact that a puddle is > there? Do you actually drive? >> If the road is wet how does one identify the fact that a puddle is >> there? > > Do you actually drive? If you need to ask that question the it would appear that you don't. >>> If the road is wet how does one identify the fact that a puddle is >>> there? >> Do you actually drive? > If you need to ask that question the it would appear that you don't. How odd that I managed to drive this morning, in the rain, and didn't find any difficulty in seeing where there were puddles and where there weren't. >>>> If the road is wet how does one identify the fact that a puddle is >>>> there? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > find any difficulty in seeing where there were puddles and where > there weren't. If it hasn't already, the day will come when you are driving along and will not be able to differentiate between a merely wet road and deeper water. >>>>> If the road is wet how does one identify the fact that a puddle is >>>>> there? >>>> Do you actually drive? >>> If you need to ask that question the it would appear that you don't. >> How odd that I managed to drive this morning, in the rain, and didn't >> find any difficulty in seeing where there were puddles and where >> there weren't. > If it hasn't already, the day will come when you are driving along and > will not be able to differentiate between a merely wet road and deeper > water. You really ought to go to specsavers, y'know. > >>>>> If the road is wet how does one identify the fact that a puddle is > >>>>> there? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You really ought to go to specsavers, y'know. It's nothing to do with that. There's no apparent difference between a flat road with 1cm of water on it, and a dip in the road with 30cm in it. At night anyway. I once went through what I thought was a patch of damp on the road, which turned out to be a foot deep puddle. One set of very wet electrics, and having to get out of the puddle in 1st with the starter :-) Pete. SignatureNOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be deleted Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail > It's nothing to do with that. There's no apparent difference between a > flat > road with 1cm of water on it, and a dip in the road with 30cm in it. At > night anyway. 1 inch vs 30 cm maybe. At 1cm average depth you can still sort of see some of the road surface. (I've been looking at this sort of puddle a lot recently). cheers, clive >(I've been looking at this sort of puddle a lot recently). You really ought to get out more. SignatureIan >>>>> If the road is wet how does one identify the fact that a puddle is >>>>> there? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > will not be able to differentiate between a merely wet road and deeper > water. It will be the day he drives too fast for the conditions, or has his eyes shut. SignatureCessna172 >>>>>> If the road is wet how does one identify the fact that a puddle >>>>>> is there? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It will be the day he drives too fast for the conditions, or has his > eyes shut. Just like "unexpectedly" encountering a speed camera, eh? "Brimstone" <brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote in news:dkd4bt$sta$1 @nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com: >>>>>>> If the road is wet how does one identify the fact that a puddle >>>>>>> is there? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Just like "unexpectedly" encountering a speed camera, eh? No, not like that at all. SignatureCessna172 > "Brimstone" <brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote in news:dkd4bt$sta$1 > @nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > No, not like that at all. Quite true, sorry. A speed camera is always visible whereas a pothole that's full of water doesn't always show up when the road is also extremely wet. Brimstone <brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote on Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:23:03 +0000 (UTC): > A speed camera is always visible Rubbish. > whereas a pothole that's full of water > doesn't always show up when the road is also extremely wet. But I agree with that. SignatureDavid Taylor > > "Brimstone" <brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote in news:dkd4bt$sta$1 > > @nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > A speed camera is always visible Not necessarily. > whereas a pothole that's full of water > doesn't always show up when the road is also extremely wet. Depends on the depth of water covering the road but essentially true. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >> whereas a pothole that's full of water >> doesn't always show up when the road is also extremely wet. > >Depends on the depth of water covering the road but essentially true. Having seen someone almost lose a single-decker bus in a rain-filled "pothole" just ouside Nairobi, I have to agree with you! :-) SignatureJeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K. jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address) and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :) ... "There are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea.." Henry James, (1843 - 1916). >>> whereas a pothole that's full of water >>> doesn't always show up when the road is also extremely wet. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Having seen someone almost lose a single-decker bus in a rain-filled > "pothole" just ouside Nairobi, I have to agree with you! :-) I understand that some African countries have some pretty grotty roads in places, but a pothole big enough to cover a bus? Wow, that's some pothole!! >>>> whereas a pothole that's full of water >>>> doesn't always show up when the road is also extremely wet. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I understand that some African countries have some pretty grotty roads in >places, but a pothole big enough to cover a bus? Wow, that's some pothole!! They get formed during "the rains".. If you've not experienced one it's difficult to comprehend how so much water can stay up there long enough to get inland! SignatureJeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K. jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address) and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :) ... "There are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea.." Henry James, (1843 - 1916). >The story is unavoidably unclear about what actually happened - the plod who >saw it are probably in a rather better place to determine if he was driving >carelessly, and they saw fit to book him. He was done for inconsiderate driving, not careless or dangerous driving. SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >>The story is unavoidably unclear about what actually happened - the plod >>who [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > He was done for inconsiderate driving, not careless or dangerous > driving. Whatever, the point is he was driving below the standard expected. clive >>>The story is unavoidably unclear about what actually happened - the plod >>>who [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >clive And this is your eye witness opinion? SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >>> He was done for inconsiderate driving, not careless or dangerous >>> driving. >> >>Whatever, the point is he was driving below the standard expected. > > And this is your eye witness opinion? It's the opinion of the plod who watched him do it and booked him. Real live plod like people keep asking for on this group. It's the opinion of the court who convicted him. Why are you being all defensive about this? Don't you have enough confidence in your ability to drive safely and considerately? clive |
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.