My survey: possibility of tired driving.
Discussion
Hi guys.
I’ve not been here for a while; I've spent what time I have on a different forum (no names, yet).
One of the topics that came up was regarding my experience through the 40mph M1 SPECS enforced road works a few months ago (I don't know if they are still there now). The issue was that I was feeling considerably tired towards the end of this stretch, yet I was completely alert beforehand and immediately afterwards for the next 2 hours of driving (all the way back down to Portsmouth, no breaks). I was driving the car (hire car so I don’t know the speedo error) for around 30 minutes before I encountered the roadworks, having had a 10 hour break before starting the journey. This was well past midnight with no surrounding traffic, ahead or in other lanes. There were no workmen when I passed through, evident by the lack of workmen and the floodlights for them to operate.
The question I would like to ask my fellow motorists is this:
Is driving at below 40mph (likely to be less than 35/36 for speedo tolerance and efforts towards average speed compliance), for 10 miles, in total darkness apart from the light provided from one’s own headlamps, without any surrounding traffic, on a featureless road, for a full 10 miles, not enough to induce fatigue (severe or not) for a significant amount of drivers?
I am going somewhere with this but I would like to hear your answers before I reveal.
I’ve not been here for a while; I've spent what time I have on a different forum (no names, yet).
One of the topics that came up was regarding my experience through the 40mph M1 SPECS enforced road works a few months ago (I don't know if they are still there now). The issue was that I was feeling considerably tired towards the end of this stretch, yet I was completely alert beforehand and immediately afterwards for the next 2 hours of driving (all the way back down to Portsmouth, no breaks). I was driving the car (hire car so I don’t know the speedo error) for around 30 minutes before I encountered the roadworks, having had a 10 hour break before starting the journey. This was well past midnight with no surrounding traffic, ahead or in other lanes. There were no workmen when I passed through, evident by the lack of workmen and the floodlights for them to operate.
The question I would like to ask my fellow motorists is this:
Is driving at below 40mph (likely to be less than 35/36 for speedo tolerance and efforts towards average speed compliance), for 10 miles, in total darkness apart from the light provided from one’s own headlamps, without any surrounding traffic, on a featureless road, for a full 10 miles, not enough to induce fatigue (severe or not) for a significant amount of drivers?
I am going somewhere with this but I would like to hear your answers before I reveal.
I’m back. Happy new year to you all!
Thanks for all the replies.
I feel there is a general consensus that drivers in the stated conditions could suffer from tiredness.
In the event I described the effect was real and significant enough for concern.
No amount of planning could have prepared me for this situation, I did not know I could have been susceptible having never encountered such a scenario in such conditions. Also, it was not possible to pull off for a break because there was no opportunity once I had entered the works section. I had only been driving for 30 minutes prior to entering the works, I was alert at this time. As soon as I left the works I was again absolutely fine, awake and alert - really. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t have any difficulty driving slowly, as evidenced by my getting caught in the inescapable slow jam on that same stretch on the way up earlier in the day without problem.
I strongly suspect that going that bit quicker in the described scenario would have offered more of a mental stimulus, hence delaying the onset of fatigue. Also it results with reduced time being spent in the restricted section; these two coupled together results with the driver being disproportionately less tired. Weighing that up against the increased risk to the workmen – who were not there – suggests that it makes sense for that limit to have been perhaps 50 instead of 40. Don’t get me wrong, there is no speed where everything suddenly becomes OK, but 40 for so long in such conditions is clearly an issue (for me anyway); I’m concerned with net risk minimisation. I suspect I am not a unique case given that a significant proportion of all crashes are sleep/fatigue related (dft_rdsafety_032139).
Getting to the point:
I mentioned this experience on another forum only to be met with a chorus of abuse. No one would accept that could happen, not even to a minority of drivers (bar those with a medical condition). The others in the thread saw it merely as a poor excuse to drive faster. I argued that the effect was genuine citing a good parallel example – boring meetings. I also argued that it would have been safer to drive faster in this case because there were no workers present, hence there was insignificant risk to life, so the risk trade-off would have been positive. My efforts seemed to fall on deaf ears.
The forum is C+
The start of this ‘discussion’ can be found in this thread here (although I joined the thread, indeed the forum, at page 8….):
www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=116961&whichpage=20
I was not able to register as ‘smeggy’, I guess my reputation preceded me
I’m sure you’ll soon be able to deduce my nick.
I would like to know what experienced PHers think of the general arguments given from the others. Also, I would like to know if their behaviour could be considered reasonable (those more experienced with forum clashes may realise where I’m going with this).
Please please, do not join up to post a response in the thread, no matter how tempted you are. I strongly suspect anyone posting the same opinion as I will automatically be drawn into a pointless flame war, which would benefit no one.
Thoughts?
Thanks for all the replies.
I feel there is a general consensus that drivers in the stated conditions could suffer from tiredness.
In the event I described the effect was real and significant enough for concern.
No amount of planning could have prepared me for this situation, I did not know I could have been susceptible having never encountered such a scenario in such conditions. Also, it was not possible to pull off for a break because there was no opportunity once I had entered the works section. I had only been driving for 30 minutes prior to entering the works, I was alert at this time. As soon as I left the works I was again absolutely fine, awake and alert - really. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t have any difficulty driving slowly, as evidenced by my getting caught in the inescapable slow jam on that same stretch on the way up earlier in the day without problem.
I strongly suspect that going that bit quicker in the described scenario would have offered more of a mental stimulus, hence delaying the onset of fatigue. Also it results with reduced time being spent in the restricted section; these two coupled together results with the driver being disproportionately less tired. Weighing that up against the increased risk to the workmen – who were not there – suggests that it makes sense for that limit to have been perhaps 50 instead of 40. Don’t get me wrong, there is no speed where everything suddenly becomes OK, but 40 for so long in such conditions is clearly an issue (for me anyway); I’m concerned with net risk minimisation. I suspect I am not a unique case given that a significant proportion of all crashes are sleep/fatigue related (dft_rdsafety_032139).
Getting to the point:
I mentioned this experience on another forum only to be met with a chorus of abuse. No one would accept that could happen, not even to a minority of drivers (bar those with a medical condition). The others in the thread saw it merely as a poor excuse to drive faster. I argued that the effect was genuine citing a good parallel example – boring meetings. I also argued that it would have been safer to drive faster in this case because there were no workers present, hence there was insignificant risk to life, so the risk trade-off would have been positive. My efforts seemed to fall on deaf ears.
The forum is C+
The start of this ‘discussion’ can be found in this thread here (although I joined the thread, indeed the forum, at page 8….):
www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=116961&whichpage=20
I was not able to register as ‘smeggy’, I guess my reputation preceded me
I’m sure you’ll soon be able to deduce my nick. I would like to know what experienced PHers think of the general arguments given from the others. Also, I would like to know if their behaviour could be considered reasonable (those more experienced with forum clashes may realise where I’m going with this).
Please please, do not join up to post a response in the thread, no matter how tempted you are. I strongly suspect anyone posting the same opinion as I will automatically be drawn into a pointless flame war, which would benefit no one.
Thoughts?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff