 |
 | 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 2005Contact Position
My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one and a half car lengths' behind another vehicle. Isn't this far too close? I thought the police generally recommended 1 seconds? The road where he was saying this was a twisty country road behind a learner, doing 40+mph. Isn't it total madness to be 1.5 car lengths behind a learner doing over 40mph when approaching bends? I didn't get this close, I probably got to within 1 second of the car. However I think it was completely pointless, and unecessarily aggressive when the power of my car is considered. > My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one and a > half car lengths' behind another vehicle. Isn't this far too close? Serious question. Why do you think it's too close? I want you to think before you answer. > I thought the police generally recommended 1 seconds? Personally, I've never heard that. > The road where he was saying this was a twisty country road behind a > learner, doing 40+mph. Isn't it total madness to be 1.5 car lengths > behind a learner doing over 40mph when approaching bends? On the approach, probably yes. As you start to exit the bend and can see that an overtake opportunity may be developing, then you can move up to 'contact position'. > I didn't get this close, I probably got to within 1 second of the car. > However I think it was completely pointless, and unecessarily aggressive when the > power of my car is considered. In your car you're going to need every advantage you can get if you want to overtake safely. Leaving yourself extra distance to cover is going to mean either increased TED (Time exposed to danger) or missed opportunities. The question is, "Why do you think 1.5 lengths is too close?"  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] > My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one and a > half car lengths' behind another vehicle. Isn't this far too close? I > thought the police generally recommended 1 seconds?> > The road where he was saying this was a twisty country road behind a > learner, doing 40+mph. Isn't it total madness to be 1.5 car lengths > behind a learner doing over 40mph when approaching bends? Correct. It's aggressive and intimidating to drive that close. If there is no opportunity to make a safe overtake, drop back. In my day we had 'following' and 'overtaking' position. Is this more trendy jargon to prove we had it all wrong years ago? Whilst it might be cosy in other situations, the 'Contact' position sounds pretty unpleasant in a driving context. I was taught the six features of the system of car control. Someone later decided IPSGA was better. You want to improve your driving technique-and ensure that you will never be involved in an accident for which you are directly responsible, try to gain instruction from (an older) police Class one Advanced Driver. DaveK. > > My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one and a > > half car lengths' behind another vehicle. Isn't this far too close? I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In my day we had 'following' and 'overtaking' position. Is this more trendy > jargon to prove we had it all wrong years ago? I thought the 'contact', 'following', and 'overtaking' position were all the same? > Whilst it might be cosy in other situations, the 'Contact' position sounds > pretty unpleasant in a driving context. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > involved in an accident for which you are directly responsible, try to gain > instruction from (an older) police Class one Advanced Driver. > > > My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one and a > > > half car lengths' behind another vehicle. Isn't this far too close? I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I thought the 'contact', 'following', and 'overtaking' position were > all the same? No. Following position is where you would be if you were simply following (strange that). Overtaking and contact are synonymous and it is the position that you move up to when an overtake is developing immediately before moving out to offside for final check before going. Why hasn't your observer explained this to you? > > Whilst it might be cosy in other situations, the 'Contact' position sounds > > pretty unpleasant in a driving context. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > involved in an accident for which you are directly responsible, try to gain > > instruction from (an older) police Class one Advanced Driver. I have to agree wholeheartedly with that. When I was young my father always used to tell me that if you want to learn something you should seek out the best possible teacher you can find. 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] >>>> My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one >>>> and a half car lengths' behind another vehicle. Isn't this far [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > is the position that you move up to when an overtake is developing > immediately before moving out to offside for final check before going. ITYM 'attacking position' ;-) > Why hasn't your observer explained this to you? 'cos all the evidence seems to show he's a crap observer... although... >>> Whilst it might be cosy in other situations, the 'Contact' position >>> sounds pretty unpleasant in a driving context. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > always used to tell me that if you want to learn something you should > seek out the best possible teacher you can find. or in this case, pretty much any other teacher!! > >>>> My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one > >>>> and a half car lengths' behind another vehicle. Isn't this far [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > ITYM 'attacking position' ;-) That too. > > Why hasn't your observer explained this to you? > > 'cos all the evidence seems to show he's a crap observer... although... Although a perfectly feasible possible alternative explanation has since been found. I think the jury is still out. > >>> Whilst it might be cosy in other situations, the 'Contact' position > >>> sounds pretty unpleasant in a driving context. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > or in this case, pretty much any other teacher!! Perhaps. 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] "PC Paul" <me@home.com> wrote in news:Z4WdnVvC8ph- efrenZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@brightview.com: >> Why hasn't your observer explained this to you? > > 'cos all the evidence seems to show he's a crap observer... although... I would love to meet Peter's observer. My guess is a broken man (similar to chief inspector Dreyfus), who twitches when Peter's name is mentioned. SignatureCessna172 Peter <petermcmillan_uk@yahoo.com> wrote on 1 Nov 2005 13:09:27 -0800: >> > My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one and a >> > half car lengths' behind another vehicle. Isn't this far too close? I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I thought the 'contact', 'following', and 'overtaking' position were > all the same? Er...... You mean you think you're expected to drive at 1.5 car lengths behind the car in front at all times (i.e. when you're following it, and not about to overtake it)? SignatureDavid Taylor > Er...... You mean you think you're expected to drive at 1.5 car lengths > behind the car in front at all times (i.e. when you're following it, > and not about to overtake it)? I wish some would - it'd be an increase. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. > My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one and a > half car lengths' behind another vehicle. Isn't this far too close? I > thought the police generally recommended 1 seconds? Where the road disappears from view under your bonnet is about 25- 30 feet in front of your eyes. A one and a half length gap means there is no visible tarmac between your bonnet and the other vehicle. Peter came up with the following;: > My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one and a > half car lengths' behind another vehicle. Isn't this far too close? Not when, as contact position means, when you're moving close enough to overtake the vehicle in front. You shouldn't stay that close when simply following though. It's only used in the overtake manouvre. If you move up to contact position and can't overtake, eg due to changed or changng conditions, then drop back to following position. < I > thought the police generally recommended 1 seconds? You thought wrong. > The road where he was saying this was a twisty country road behind a > learner, doing 40+mph. Isn't it total madness to be 1.5 car lengths > behind a learner doing over 40mph when approaching bends? You shouldn't be in the contact position when approaching bends unless circumstances dictate that an overtake is possible and safe on those bends. > I didn't get > this close, I probably got to within 1 second of the car. However I > think it was completely pointless, and unecessarily aggressive when the > power of my car is considered. So why not explain this to the observer and drop back to where you do feel safe? SignaturePaul ... (8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!! ebay stuff 4586118598 8010924599 > My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one and a > half car lengths' behind another vehicle. Isn't this far too close? It's about half a car length more than alot of people in L3 drive from the car in front. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. >My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one and a >half car lengths' behind another vehicle. Isn't this far too close? I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >think it was completely pointless, and unecessarily aggressive when the >power of my car is considered. Why would you be in the contact position *approaching* bends? SignatureIan > Why would you be in the contact position *approaching* bends? If you want to be in the contact position (whatever it might be) immediately after a bend, and don't want to brake going around a bend, you may need to be in the contact position approaching the bend (depending on the behaviour of the driver in front). And often there will be an overtaking opportunity immediately after a bend, but you can't tell for sure on the approach to the bend. Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:32:21 +0000: >> Why would you be in the contact position *approaching* bends? > > If you want to be in the contact position (whatever it might be) > immediately after a bend, and don't want to brake going around a bend, > you may need to be in the contact position approaching the bend > (depending on the behaviour of the driver in front). That makes no sense. If you're in the contact position going round the bend, and the driver in front brakes, you'll have to brake going round the bend. If you're further back from the car in front, you'll have less need to brake than if you were in the contact position. > And often there will be an overtaking opportunity immediately after a > bend, but you can't tell for sure on the approach to the bend. In which case you probably can't tell for sure on the approach whether there's a crash immediately after the bend, and should drop back a little... SignatureDavid Taylor > Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:32:21 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If you're further back from the car in front, you'll have less > need to brake than if you were in the contact position. I agree that is a safer position, which I would take. But you might miss an opportunity to make best progress, since it takes several seconds to close up to the 'contact' position, match speed, move over to the right, check the road ahead - especially in a pinkycento. >> And often there will be an overtaking opportunity immediately after a >>bend, but you can't tell for sure on the approach to the bend. > > In which case you probably can't tell for sure on the approach whether > there's a crash immediately after the bend, and should drop back a > little... "drop back" from/to where? Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:01:44 +0000: >> Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:32:21 +0000: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > several seconds to close up to the 'contact' position, match speed, move > over to the right, check the road ahead - especially in a pinkycento. You might miss an "opportunity" to make best progress by not overtaking over a blind summit. The point is you don't know if it's safe, so you're not really "missing" anything. >>> And often there will be an overtaking opportunity immediately after a >>>bend, but you can't tell for sure on the approach to the bend. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "drop back" from/to where? Perhaps "hang back" would be better. Basically, I don't think being in the "contact position" is a good idea going round a bend with poor visibility round it. SignatureDavid Taylor > Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:01:44 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > over a blind summit. The point is you don't know if it's safe, so > you're not really "missing" anything. I have no problem in regarding Peter's one second gap at < 40mph around a bend as 'safe' in normal circumstances. >> "drop back" from/to where? > > Perhaps "hang back" would be better. Basically, I don't think being > in the "contact position" is a good idea going round a bend with > poor visibility round it. What is your "contact position" ? >> Why would you be in the contact position *approaching* bends? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And often there will be an overtaking opportunity immediately after a > bend, but you can't tell for sure on the approach to the bend. Hmm... sounds like reliance on an assumption that the road will be clear around the bend. When the driver in front sees the woman pushing a pushchair across the road and hits the brakes - you'll be in his boot. Some assumptions are acceptable, but not this one. >>> Why would you be in the contact position *approaching* bends? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hmm... sounds like reliance on an assumption that the road will be clear > around the bend. No... > When the driver in front sees the woman pushing a > pushchair across the road and hits the brakes - you'll be in his boot. ... well, it depends what the "contact position" is. > Some assumptions are acceptable, but not this one. What is your understanding of "contact position" > What is your understanding of "contact position" About 30 to 50ft at 50mph. It's not safe to use this on a bend; the Following Position is more appropriate - more like 50yds at 50mph. If sight lines permit a safe transition from Following to Contact position on exit from the bend - that's fine; remembering that you should always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear... -- Chris >> What is your understanding of "contact position" > > About 30 to 50ft at 50mph. So about 0.4s to 0.7s; thanks. > It's not safe to use this on a bend; the Following Position is more > appropriate - more like 50yds at 50mph. Well, if the car ahead is managing 50mph around the bends, it is not worth overtaking or the 'bend' is barely worth mentioning. > If sight lines permit a safe transition from Following to Contact > position on exit from the bend - that's fine; How long does it take you to make a transition from 50yds behind to 30ft behind at 50mph? >> Why would you be in the contact position *approaching* bends? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And often there will be an overtaking opportunity immediately after a >bend, but you can't tell for sure on the approach to the bend. Eh? You have to brake to move closer to the car in front? You don't want to be in a close position, ready to overtake until you're, well... ready to overtake! SignatureIan >>>Why would you be in the contact position *approaching* bends? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Eh? You have to brake to move closer to the car in front? If you are going to move closer on a bend and then match speed, yes. > You don't want to be in a close position, ready to overtake until > you're, well... ready to overtake! So you'd never get in to a close position without first moving out? >>>>Why would you be in the contact position *approaching* bends? >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > So you'd never get in to a close position without first moving out? Did I say that? I wouldn't be close enough to overtake until I was sure the road ahead was clear to overtake. I might well *start* to move closer exiting a bend when I knew there was a straight following - but I wouldn't be close enough to lose the sightlines down the sides of the vehicle in front until I was actually preparing to move out. SignatureIan >>>You don't want to be in a close position, ready to overtake until >>>you're, well... ready to overtake! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Did I say that? I wouldn't be close enough to overtake until I was > sure the road ahead was clear to overtake. How close is 'close enough to overtake'? It has no meaning to me. > I might well *start* to > move closer exiting a bend when I knew there was a straight following Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. Except that 'exiting a bend' means that the car ahead has already been accelerating for two seconds before you begin to accelerate, so you need an exceptional vehicle to actually move closer to it. > - but I wouldn't be close enough to lose the sightlines down the sides > of the vehicle in front until I was actually preparing to move out. I wouldn't be close enough to lose the sightlines down the sides of the vehicle in front. But that is possible with < 1s gap on a bend. > My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one and a > half car lengths' behind another vehicle. > The road where he was saying this was a twisty country road behind a > learner, doing 40+mph. Isn't it total madness to be 1.5 car lengths > behind a learner doing over 40mph when approaching bends? How many times do you need to be told that either you are *completely* misunderstanding your observer - to a level previously only ever encountered in a marital disagreement - or your observer is an incompetent fuckwit who should be observing nothing more taxing than his naval fluff? "Adrian" wrote in message >> My IAM observer tells me that the contact position is about 'one and a >> half car lengths' behind another vehicle. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > encountered in a marital disagreement - or your observer is an incompetent > fuckwit who should be observing nothing more taxing than his naval fluff? This makes no sense to me. Does the IAM advocate driving 1.5 car lengths behind a vehicle you wish to overtake at over 40 mph. That is less than half the thinking distance used to determine stopping distances in the Highway Code. Sounds more like intimidating the driver in front to go faster, thus removing the need to overtake. Overtaking on a twisty country road safely is usually very difficult and not worth the risk. I frequently see the results of drivers who thought they could overtake. They are the ones upside down in the farmer's field or in the ditch. One last year was presumably driving to this 'system' as he was a class 1 police driver, according to the farmer whose field he ended up crashing into. Ian >"Adrian" wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >This makes no sense to me. Does the IAM advocate driving 1.5 car lengths >behind a vehicle you wish to overtake at over 40 mph. No. "the closest position to the vehicle in front that is consistent with the hazards and that gives an adequate view of the road ahead" "you must be sure that there are no hazards ahead which might cause (the vehicle in front) to brake suddenly. You can only know this if you have been able to fully observe the road ahead" >That is less than half >the thinking distance used to determine stopping distances in the Highway [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >class 1 police driver, according to the farmer whose field he ended up >crashing into. Neither Peter nor your farmer is an oracle on driving standards and qualifications. SignatureIan "Ian Dalziel" wrote in message >>"Adrian" wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > (the vehicle in front) to brake suddenly. You can only know this if > you have been able to fully observe the road ahead" So are you saying that Peter either has misunderstood or has an idiot for an observer? Peter said he thought 1.5 car lengths was too close and ended up 1 second behind the learner. Even that sounds too close to me, especially as a learner is less predictable than a qualified driver. Using the 2 second rule from the HC, 1.5 car lengths is a safe distance at 7.5 mph not over 40. Peter said he was approaching bends, in which case he wouldn't have been able to overtake safely. If he had tried to overtake the learner could have become confused and gone anywhere. >>Overtaking on a twisty country road safely is usually very difficult and >>not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Neither Peter nor your farmer is an oracle on driving standards and > qualifications. It doesn't take anyone with knowledge of driving standards or qualifications to know that a car should be on the road and not upside down in a farmer's field having left the road and rolled through a fence. The farmer used to have a hedge there, but it has been damaged so many times by cars going through it that a wooden fence is easier for him to repair. The police driver proved that he was no more capable than many other idiots on the road. Ian >"Ian Dalziel" wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >So are you saying that Peter either has misunderstood or has an idiot for an >observer? Yup. >Peter said he thought 1.5 car lengths was too close and ended up 1 >second behind the learner. Even that sounds too close to me, especially as a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >wouldn't have been able to overtake safely. If he had tried to overtake the >learner could have become confused and gone anywhere. Shouldn't have been in the contact position at all approaching (assumed blind) bends. There is no recommended distance for the contact position - but it is not something to be maintained for any length of time, it's the position immediately prior to pulling out. (All as I misunderstand it, of course) >>>Overtaking on a twisty country road safely is usually very difficult and >>>not [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >driver proved that he was no more capable than many other idiots on the >road. Hence my disinclination to believe he was a qualified, up to date, class 1 driver. Not every police driver is. SignatureIan > Shouldn't have been in the contact position at all approaching > (assumed blind) bends. There is no recommended distance for the > contact position - but it is not something to be maintained for any > length of time, it's the position immediately prior to pulling out. > (All as I misunderstand it, of course) You have misunderstood it so far that you have gone right around and got it absolutely spot on. :-) 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] Ian Dalziel presented the following explanation : > Hence my disinclination to believe he was a qualified, up to date, > class 1 driver. Not every police driver is. Not many police drivers are. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Ian Dalziel presented the following explanation : > > Hence my disinclination to believe he was a qualified, up to date, > > class 1 driver. Not every police driver is. > > Not many police drivers are. Substitute "enough" for "many" :-) 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] Mark Foster formulated the question : >> Ian Dalziel presented the following explanation : >>> Hence my disinclination to believe he was a qualified, up to date, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Substitute "enough" for "many" :-) Impossible, there is'nt an 'enough' to substitute. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Mark Foster formulated the question : > >> Ian Dalziel presented the following explanation : [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Impossible, there is'nt an 'enough' to substitute. I've read it several times now trying to find your meaning but I am coming to the conclusion that it's a "Whoosh!" for you. 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] >> Mark Foster formulated the question : >> >> Ian Dalziel presented the following explanation : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I've read it several times now trying to find your meaning but I am >coming to the conclusion that it's a "Whoosh!" for you. Harry has substitution back to front - common mistake. SignaturePaul Rooney > >> Mark Foster formulated the question : > >> >> Ian Dalziel presented the following explanation : [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Harry has substitution back to front - common mistake. That's what I figured, but I was wondering if he meant something else. 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] on 03/11/2005, Mark Foster supposed : >>>> Mark Foster formulated the question : >>>>>> Ian Dalziel presented the following explanation : [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's what I figured, but I was wondering if he meant something else. No, I got it backwards :-) SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > No, I got it backwards :-) Well don't bend over in the showers then. SignaturePhil Kyle™ http://philkyle2003.reachme.at/ "The truly racist person is one Helene Rudlin, who admits it." - Neil Barker <MPG.1c47999866a4baf798976c@127.0.0.1> "I wonder - is there perhaps some form of cosmetic surgery we can pay for, so that Helene can actually become a coon ?" - Neil Barker <MPG.1c479b87e7a43ce989770@127.0.0.1> Be still! and revere Harry Bloomfield, who blessed us with their presence on 04 Nov 2005... > No, I got it backwards :-) Filth. Signature1> Peter Parsnip 2> Compliance 3> Further compliance 4> At the limit of compliance 5> Non-compliant. As always. > So are you saying that Peter either has misunderstood or has an idiot > for an observer? c. Peter's observer has an idiot for a student. d. All of the above. Prace bets now. "Ian" <if.ptnospam@nospamtesco.net> wrote in news:iFbaf.530$Ua6.381 @newsfe6-win.ntli.net: > The police driver proved that he was no more capable than many other > idiots on the road. There you go then, at that point in time he was not driving to the system. SignatureCessna172 > "Adrian" wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Code. Sounds more like intimidating the driver in front to go faster, thus > removing the need to overtake. Whoosh! > Overtaking on a twisty country road safely is usually very difficult and not > worth the risk. Yes it's more difficult but that doesn't mean it's any more risky or that it shouldn't be done. If it can be done safely then there is no reason not to. > I frequently see the results of drivers who thought they > could overtake. They are the ones upside down in the farmer's field or in > the ditch. One last year was presumably driving to this 'system' as he was a > class 1 police driver, according to the farmer whose field he ended up > crashing into. Well *IF* he was a class1 driver - and we only have the farmer's word for that - and he crashed into a field then, by definition, he wasn't driving to the system. 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] Ian <if.ptnospam@nospamtesco.net> wrote on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:42:27 GMT: > Overtaking on a twisty country road safely is usually very difficult and not > worth the risk. Crap. Either it's equally as easy as anywhere else, but more risky (just go for it, regardless); or harder than other roads, but no more risky (make sure it's safe first). > I frequently see the results of drivers who thought they > could overtake. They are the ones upside down in the farmer's field or in > the ditch. One last year was presumably driving to this 'system' as he was a > class 1 police driver, according to the farmer whose field he ended up > crashing into. Why would you presume he was driving to the system, given that he crashed? SignatureDavid Taylor >One last year was presumably driving to this 'system' as he was a >> class 1 police driver, according to the farmer whose field he ended up >> crashing into. > >Why would you presume he was driving to the system, given that he >crashed? He crashed into a field because he tried to overtake on a blind bend. Of course he wasn't driving to the system - either Mark's interpretation of it or mine! He may have been a policeman, but if he was a class 1 police driver then I'm Jackie Stewart. (I'm not, by the way) SignatureIan > He crashed into a field because he tried to overtake on a blind bend. > Of course he wasn't driving to the system - either Mark's > interpretation of it or mine! He may have been a policeman, but if he > was a class 1 police driver then I'm Jackie Stewart. (I'm not, by the > way) I followed a plod in a marked Ashtray about an hour or two ago - and watched in horror as he overtook an artic on a s/c. Despite the hatched centre markings for a junction on the left. Oh, and despite the oncoming car, who had to slow RIGHT down to not collect him head on. What do you reckon would have been the result if he'd been behind me and *I'd* done that exact same manouvre? >> He crashed into a field because he tried to overtake on a blind bend. >> Of course he wasn't driving to the system - either Mark's [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >What do you reckon would have been the result if he'd been behind me and >*I'd* done that exact same manouvre? Do not pass Go, do not collect £200, no doubt about it. Was the oncoming car about to turn right, then? 'Cos you can cross cross-hatched markings if there's a broken line round them. Not if there's a car in them, though. SignatureIan >>I followed a plod in a marked Ashtray about an hour or two ago - and >>watched in horror as he overtook an artic on a s/c. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>Oh, and despite the oncoming car, who had to slow RIGHT down to not >>collect him head on. > Was the oncoming car about to turn right, then? Should have said - the overtake took so long, he was past the hatched bit by then... "David Taylor" wrote in message > Ian wrote on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:42:27 GMT: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (just go for it, regardless); or harder than other roads, but no > more risky (make sure it's safe first). You don't live in the countryside do you. I do and often see the results of people who think it is easy to overtake on a twisty road. Just the other day I had to brake quite hard when a deer ran out of a hedge in front of me. The guy tailgating me, which I now understand means being in the contact position had rubber burning off his tyres so that he did not to hit me. At this time of year mud on the road and leaves are a problem that seem to be ignored by many. The risks are more unexpected than in town when the time of day would give a clue as to whether a child is likely to run unexpectedly across the road, for example. >> I frequently see the results of drivers who thought they >> could overtake. They are the ones upside down in the farmer's field or in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why would you presume he was driving to the system, given that he > crashed? Don't Class 1 police drivers always drive to the system? Ian >"David Taylor" wrote in message >> Ian wrote on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:42:27 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >of day would give a clue as to whether a child is likely to run unexpectedly >across the road, for example. Which part of "make sure it's safe first" are you having difficulty with? >>> I frequently see the results of drivers who thought they >>> could overtake. They are the ones upside down in the farmer's field or in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Don't Class 1 police drivers always drive to the system? I obviously didn't express myself clearly enough. <Jim Royle> Class 1 police driver my arse! </Jim Royle> SignatureIan "Ian Dalziel" wrote in message > Which part of "make sure it's safe first" are you having difficulty > with? Personally none, but many drivers on country roads seem to have lots of trouble with driving safely. Ian > You don't live in the countryside do you. I do and often see the > results of people who think it is easy to overtake on a twisty road. When I lived in the country I used to be a damn sight better at overtaking than I am these days. More practice. > >> I frequently see the results of drivers who thought they > >> could overtake. They are the ones upside down in the farmer's field or in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Don't Class 1 police drivers always drive to the system? Why do you assume he was a class1 driver on the say so of a farmer? 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] "Mark Foster" wrote in message > In article , >> >> I frequently see the results of drivers who thought they >> >> could overtake. They are the ones upside down in the farmer's field or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Why do you assume he was a class1 driver on the say so of a farmer? Why do you assume he wasn't? Ian > "Mark Foster" wrote in message > In article , > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Why do you assume he wasn't? I didn't. I have already said that *IF* he was, and he crashed, then by definition he was not driving to The System. 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] > "David Taylor" wrote in message >> Ian wrote on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:42:27 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > when the time of day would give a clue as to whether a child is likely > to run unexpectedly across the road, for example. The contact position will only be reached after allowing for conditions - including mud and leaves. The deer is an interesting point. I assume you don't drive at 2mph everywhere in the country to allow for deer? If not, then why do you bring it up in relation to overtaking technique? SignatureCessna172 "Cessna172" wrote in message > "Ian" wrote in >> "David Taylor" wrote in message >>> Ian wrote on Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:42:27 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > everywhere in the country to allow for deer? If not, then why do you bring > it up in relation to overtaking technique? An example of the type unexpected hazard that can jump out in front of a driver on a twisty country road. Like the road Peter was driving along. I don't normally drive at 2 mph on such a road, but I don't often exceed 40 either. Those that do often end up off the road in fields or ditches around here. Ian > "Cessna172" wrote in message >> "Ian" wrote in [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Ian If a deer jumped out 0.1 seconds before you hit it, maybe 40mph is enough to leave the road? SignatureCessna172 "Cessna172" wrote in message > "Ian" wrote in >> "Cessna172" wrote in message >>> "Ian" wrote in [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > If a deer jumped out 0.1 seconds before you hit it, maybe 40mph is enough > to leave the road? So far I have always spotted them in time, but judging by the dead animals I come across, others aren't so lucky. The other point to remember if you ever have a close encounter with a deer is that they often move around as a family. So if you miss the first one there may well be one or two more following along. They are quite large and on longish legs too, so will make a nasty mess of the front of a car. I have my 4x4 protected with a bullbar just in case. Other animals, such as badgers, are also quite large but lower down. I have always avoided them too, but I often come across squashed ones by the roadside. Ian "Ian" <if.ptnospam@nospamtesco.net> wrote in news:V4Taf.4206$Gy5.2068 @newsfe3-win.ntli.net: > I have my 4x4 protected with a bullbar just in case. With a bit of luck it won't be a human you hit. SignatureCessna172 [stuff about country roads snipped] > I don't normally drive at 2 mph on such a road, but I don't often exceed 40 > either. Oh, you're one of *those*, that explains a lot. Still, you're good practice for people like me. :-) > Those that do often end up off the road in fields or ditches around > here. Bollocks. That's because they misjudged the appropriate speed for that particular bend, not because they exceeded 40mph. 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] "Mark Foster" wrote in message > In article > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Bollocks. That's because they misjudged the appropriate speed for that > particular bend, not because they exceeded 40mph. The maximum appropriate speed on most of the roads around here is not much more than 40 mph. Some of the bends are so tight that you have to drop down to 10. On the wider NSL60 roads I'll quite happily do 60. Ian > The maximum appropriate speed on most of the roads around here is not much > more than 40 mph. Some of the bends are so tight that you have to drop down > to 10. On the wider NSL60 roads I'll quite happily do 60. Every car I've had is capable of more than 10mph at full lock. What is it about the bends that limit speed to 10 ? "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message >> The maximum appropriate speed on most of the roads around here is not >> much more than 40 mph. Some of the bends are so tight that you have to >> drop down to 10. On the wider NSL60 roads I'll quite happily do 60. > > Every car I've had is capable of more than 10mph at full lock. > What is it about the bends that limit speed to 10 ? Bottom of a hill and often has wet leaves on the road is one. Tight 'S' bends running through woods with leaves on the road and often flooded, for another. A car recently didn't slow down enough and when I came on the scene it was perched on a large log just off the road in the woods. Today I went out in the rain and the flooding was bad enough to need to reduce speed to about 10 to 15 on many straight roads or I couldn't see for the tidal wave coming over the bonnet. Apart from not wanting to drown other drivers from my wash. Ian > "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the tidal wave coming over the bonnet. Apart from not wanting to drown other > drivers from my wash. Ah, weather, not the tightness of the bends then. > Don't Class 1 police drivers always drive to the system? I thought Traffic Cops last week was interesting, because PC Horton had his camera positioned so that you could clearly see where his hands were whilst he was steering. Although he may not actually be Class 1. > I frequently see the results of drivers who thought they > could overtake. They are the ones upside down in the farmer's field or > in the ditch. One last year was presumably driving to this 'system' as > he was a class 1 police driver, according to the farmer whose field he > ended up crashing into. Well, it was plainly obvious he wasn't driving to the system. SignatureCessna172 "Cessna172" wrote in message > "Ian" wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, it was plainly obvious he wasn't driving to the system. Is it impossible to follow the 'system' and crash? Ian "Ian" <if.ptnospam@nospamtesco.net> wrote in news:qQGaf.3904$lJ.329 @newsfe5-win.ntli.net: > "Cessna172" wrote in message >> "Ian" wrote in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ian Interesting question. I would say if EVERYONE followed the system then there would be few, if any crashes - those that occur being down to acts of god and human error. As only a very few people drive to the system then drivers following that system may still be involved in actidents caused by others. SignatureCessna172 >>> I frequently see the results of drivers who thought they >>> could overtake. They are the ones upside down in the farmer's field or >>> in the ditch. One last year was presumably driving to this 'system' as >>> he was a class 1 police driver, according to the farmer whose field he >>> ended up crashing into. >> Well, it was plainly obvious he wasn't driving to the system. > Is it impossible to follow the 'system' and crash? A single-vehicle crash with no direct external influences? I'd say that was a fairly clear cut case of the driver f.cking up. If the system includes that... "Phil Kyle" <philkylenospam2003@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Harry Bloomfield" <harry.m1bytNOSPAM@tiscali.co.uk> verbally sodomised >in news:mn.258b7d5b23e22944.8412@tiscali.co.uk: > >> No, I got it backwards :-) > >Well don't bend over in the showers then. How else can I get the soap ? -- Mr Frisbee Carrot, Spinster of this Parish. |
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.