Now THAT was close!
Discussion
/rantmodeon
Outside lane of A338 in my Disco (well, it's a V8 innit??) I overtake a line of cars and notice a Volvo about 18" off my rear bumper. I accelerate to about 90-ish and pull in to let the guy past (yes stupid me - should have let him bloody wait!) Volvo goes past me at about 100, pulls in then without warning starts an emergency stop! This is on a straight, clear, 1 mile section of the Spur Road with no slips, junctions etc...
Hurrah! I do the same in an effort to avoid dying and Land Rover starts to fish. Flash! Flash!
In all the excitement I catch a glimpse of a little fella in dayglo standing behind his box-of-death, shaking his fist at me...
I didn't get an NIP (presumeably because I went through the camera sideways) but my point (there is one) is...
WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOD WAS HE DOING THERE???
How is putting a camera on a straight piece of dual carriageway going to reduce accidents?? I really do despair sometimes...
/rantmodeoff
Outside lane of A338 in my Disco (well, it's a V8 innit??) I overtake a line of cars and notice a Volvo about 18" off my rear bumper. I accelerate to about 90-ish and pull in to let the guy past (yes stupid me - should have let him bloody wait!) Volvo goes past me at about 100, pulls in then without warning starts an emergency stop! This is on a straight, clear, 1 mile section of the Spur Road with no slips, junctions etc...
Hurrah! I do the same in an effort to avoid dying and Land Rover starts to fish. Flash! Flash!
In all the excitement I catch a glimpse of a little fella in dayglo standing behind his box-of-death, shaking his fist at me...
I didn't get an NIP (presumeably because I went through the camera sideways) but my point (there is one) is...
WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOD WAS HE DOING THERE???
How is putting a camera on a straight piece of dual carriageway going to reduce accidents?? I really do despair sometimes...
/rantmodeoff
Streetcop said:
If you knew there was a camera there, would you have accellerated to 90mph because of the Volvo? No and therefore the catalogue of events wouldn't have happened...
Street
This is kind of like an episode of Star Trek...you know - the ones where they time travel then ignore the time paradox issues
If the camera had NOT been there the volvo would not have braked therefore...
If the camera was fixed/visible/advertised then I would have seen it and...
Hey, anyone seen Donnie Darko??
madant69 said:
I do the same in an effort to avoid dying and Land Rover starts to fish.
And the lesson is... choose a vehicle that'll brake with rather less drama. (Or possibly get some practise with serious braking away from the public road.)
[Apologies if I'm stating the bleedin' obvious, and sincere apologies if it appears insulting - it isn't supposed to be.]
Hmmm, bad case of "Safety? blinkers" in those replies.
Yes, he is a very naughty boy going a bit fast, especially in a wallowy Disco. I realise there could have been a whole range of causes for the Volvo, who apparently was driving like a twat, to do an emergency stop with similair or worse consequences, however the point is, I believe, that it was a "safety? camera/speed trap" on a presumably open and straight section of dual carriageway. Did this improve road safety? Or did it increase the risk to those involved? Would a trafpol pulling the Volvo to explain that tailgating and emergency stops after pulling in front of a large 4x4 are a bad idea have been a better solution?
I drive a TD5 LWB with 80% off road tyres, a bit like having roads made of treacle, therefore when on tarmac I try to keep a huge stopping distance available and drive at appropriate speed, but sometimes other people do as the Volvo above and cause problems.
Yes, he is a very naughty boy going a bit fast, especially in a wallowy Disco. I realise there could have been a whole range of causes for the Volvo, who apparently was driving like a twat, to do an emergency stop with similair or worse consequences, however the point is, I believe, that it was a "safety? camera/speed trap" on a presumably open and straight section of dual carriageway. Did this improve road safety? Or did it increase the risk to those involved? Would a trafpol pulling the Volvo to explain that tailgating and emergency stops after pulling in front of a large 4x4 are a bad idea have been a better solution?
I drive a TD5 LWB with 80% off road tyres, a bit like having roads made of treacle, therefore when on tarmac I try to keep a huge stopping distance available and drive at appropriate speed, but sometimes other people do as the Volvo above and cause problems.
safespeed said:
I do the same in an effort to avoid dying and Land Rover starts to fish.
And the lesson is... choose a vehicle that'll brake with rather less drama. (Or possibly get some practise with serious braking away from the public road.)
[Apologies if I'm stating the bleedin' obvious, and sincere apologies if it appears insulting - it isn't supposed to be.]
Sorry Paul, your answers are usually filled with various levels of wisdom but this is absolute crap.
There are many vehicles with less stability than a Disco, should we remove all of these from the road? I presume HGVs should also be removed as these cannot brake in a safe manner.
Either that, or all drivers must undergo training for "serious braking" according to the cars they drive. This may make a little more sense, but how could it possibly be enforced or administered each time a person changes car?
smifffy said:
madant69 said:
I do the same in an effort to avoid dying and Land Rover starts to fish.
And the lesson is... choose a vehicle that'll brake with rather less drama. (Or possibly get some practise with serious braking away from the public road.)
Sorry Paul, your answers are usually filled with various levels of wisdom but this is absolute crap.
Grin. Are you sure about that? I think *loads* of folk choose vehicles for absolutely the wrong reasons, when logical analysis would put primary safety (i.e. the ability to avoid accidents) high on the list.
I'd hazard a quick guess that 9 out of 10 4x4 vehicles are chosen for totally the wrong reasons.
safespeed said:
madant69 said:
I do the same in an effort to avoid dying and Land Rover starts to fish.
And the lesson is... choose a vehicle that'll brake with rather less drama. (Or possibly get some practise with serious braking away from the public road.)
Hehe well OK maybe I was going a bit fast but hey, the Volvo gave me a practical test in Disco control that no amount of training could have given me (cause it would have been too dangerous to recreate). A new Volvo is always going to outbrake a 94 Disco, whoever is driving...
And sure, I fished, but I got it back
And I chose the disco 'cause it had 7 seats (my kids, her kids, dog, luggage) and looked cooler than an Espace
(Though regrettably has neither pilot seats nor excellent fold out picnic table) The Chim brakes rather more effectively and as an added bonus has WAY less than 7 seats
safespeed said:
safespeed said:
madant69 said:
I do the same in an effort to avoid dying and Land Rover starts to fish.
And the lesson is... choose a vehicle that'll brake with rather less drama. (Or possibly get some practise with serious braking away from the public road.)
Sorry Paul, your answers are usually filled with various levels of wisdom but this is absolute crap.
Grin. Are you sure about that? I think *loads* of folk choose vehicles for absolutely the wrong reasons, when logical analysis would put primary safety (i.e. the ability to avoid accidents) high on the list.
I'd hazard a quick guess that 9 out of 10 4x4 vehicles are chosen for totally the wrong reasons.
Hehe, well there are few assumptions there Paul - How do you define "wrong"? If they are wrong from the perspective of safety, then maybe - but a large part of buying a car is immotive (long may that continue). Personally I'd rather not have my choice of vehicle restricted other than by the laws of the road, and certainly not by the criteria that it can be outbraked by a Volvo!
If we followed your argument to its logical conclusions, we'd all be driving either the same car or we'd be given context based training for months each time we change vehicle.
smifffy said:
Grin. Are you sure about that? I think *loads* of folk choose vehicles for absolutely the wrong reasons, when logical analysis would put primary safety (i.e. the ability to avoid accidents) high on the list.
I'd hazard a quick guess that 9 out of 10 4x4 vehicles are chosen for totally the wrong reasons.
Hehe, well there are few assumptions there Paul - How do you define "wrong"? If they are wrong from the perspective of safety, then maybe - but a large part of buying a car is immotive (long may that continue). Personally I'd rather not have my choice of vehicle restricted other than by the laws of the road, and certainly not by the criteria that it can be outbraked by a Volvo!
If we followed your argument to its logical conclusions, we'd all be driving either the same car or we'd be given context based training for months each time we change vehicle.
It's certainly not going to be my next important piece of work, but I do strongly feel that fashion led choices causing folk to buy big heavy 4x4s end up working against everyones' interests.
I just wish folk in general would make more rational choices, that's all.
Obviously there are plenty of folk who derive real benefit from larger vehicles - and I'd strongly defend their right to do so. Equally obviously they are in the minority.
Re-write the original article and lets say the volvo was doing 75 once past the disco, and the disco 70.
Volvo driver *still* stamps on brakes and slows to 60 because (a) he doesn't know how fast he's going (b) he's still one of these idiots that thinks the limit on a dual carriage way is 60 (c) he's blindly panicked by the speed trap.
Ergo, we still have a brake tested Disco, but we can pretty much remove any arguments about anyone (volvo aside) traveling at a couple of speed units over the limit. Discuss again...
Volvo driver *still* stamps on brakes and slows to 60 because (a) he doesn't know how fast he's going (b) he's still one of these idiots that thinks the limit on a dual carriage way is 60 (c) he's blindly panicked by the speed trap.
Ergo, we still have a brake tested Disco, but we can pretty much remove any arguments about anyone (volvo aside) traveling at a couple of speed units over the limit. Discuss again...
madant69 said:
WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOD WAS HE DOING THERE???
Stealing ££££££'s and people's licences on behalf of the government.
DAZ
PS - Welcome back. Thought you'd deserted us having left the pub meet thinking we were a bunch of loons or something..
>> Edited by dazren on Sunday 11th July 13:07
madant69 said:
And sure, I fished, but I got it back
...good on you... as a thought, though, might the brake balance need looking at if it behaves like that on a dry road? (he says never having driven a Disco)
madant69 said:
And I chose the disco 'cause it had 7 seats (my kids, her kids, dog, luggage) and looked cooler than an Espace
Ah, so you're really after one of these:
safespeed said:
It's certainly not going to be my next important piece of work, but I do strongly feel that fashion led choices causing folk to buy big heavy 4x4s end up working against everyones' interests.
I just wish folk in general would make more rational choices, that's all.
Obviously there are plenty of folk who derive real benefit from larger vehicles - and I'd strongly defend their right to do so. Equally obviously they are in the minority.
Paul, you forget about free choice, people are free to buy and drive whatever they wish, for whatever reason they like, be it sensible or not. The world would be a lot duller without sports cars, 4x4s and other non-sensible cars.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff