Speed kills? Quite the opposite...
Discussion
I was driving along a town-centre dual carriageway once, at the stated speed limit of 60, in a stream of heavy nose-to-tail rush hour traffic.
Ahead of me in the left hand lane I see a white van buck and swerve. As I try to work out why I see a little old lady walking across the dual carriageway, totally oblivious to the traffic.
I see that as she crosses the second lane she's going to go under my wheels so in that split second I just have time to wrench the steering wheel to the right and aim for the central reservation to try and give her as much room as possible. This is a split second reflex action. It's not going to make much difference because there's not a lot of room to play with, but it's all I can do.
As I pass her I hear a "clonk" as the front left-hand corner of my car clips her walking stick.
I snatch a quick glance in the rear view mirror and see her safely on the central reservation, about to cross the other dual carriageway on the other side.
Afterwards I realised that if I'd been driving slightly slower, or if I'd hit the brakes, I'd have killed her. She'd have been that much further across the lane by the time I reached her.
Possibly a fairly rare scenario but there you go.
Ahead of me in the left hand lane I see a white van buck and swerve. As I try to work out why I see a little old lady walking across the dual carriageway, totally oblivious to the traffic.
I see that as she crosses the second lane she's going to go under my wheels so in that split second I just have time to wrench the steering wheel to the right and aim for the central reservation to try and give her as much room as possible. This is a split second reflex action. It's not going to make much difference because there's not a lot of room to play with, but it's all I can do.
As I pass her I hear a "clonk" as the front left-hand corner of my car clips her walking stick.
I snatch a quick glance in the rear view mirror and see her safely on the central reservation, about to cross the other dual carriageway on the other side.
Afterwards I realised that if I'd been driving slightly slower, or if I'd hit the brakes, I'd have killed her. She'd have been that much further across the lane by the time I reached her.
Possibly a fairly rare scenario but there you go.
feck me. Are you still shaking ? I trust you phoned the police and got her out of care in the community and back into a secure geriatric unit.
Thing is, if you'd hit her at 60 she might have killed you on her way through the car.
Not really about speed it's about the standard of care for the elderly. Why was she on her own crossing a main road ? I blame Thatcher and all subsequent governments.
Thing is, if you'd hit her at 60 she might have killed you on her way through the car.
Not really about speed it's about the standard of care for the elderly. Why was she on her own crossing a main road ? I blame Thatcher and all subsequent governments.
Quite possibly true.
I have only ever been involved in two accidents. Both were caused by women not looking where they were going and driving into the back of my stationary car.
If I were going faster they wouldnt have hit me.
Secondly by getting around without wasting time and driving to the conditions of course I only spend as much time on the road as is necessary in order to minimise my exposure to sh*t drivers.
I have only ever been involved in two accidents. Both were caused by women not looking where they were going and driving into the back of my stationary car.
If I were going faster they wouldnt have hit me.
Secondly by getting around without wasting time and driving to the conditions of course I only spend as much time on the road as is necessary in order to minimise my exposure to sh*t drivers.
7db said:This brings us back to the consideration of 'unknown unknowns' that vh and, apparently, your good self seem to be ignorant of.
So were you going faster than the speed at which you could stop in the distance you could see to be clear?
Unknown unknowns can foil any attempt to follow the common sense rules of the road including the one you mentioned. The trouble is, it's not intended as a perfect and inviolable rule, just very good guidance. For example, I can see you getting tetchy if a flap falls off the wing of an overflying Rusky plane and lands on a carriageway in front of some cars going about their business and one of them hits it.
The 'distance clear' thing is a good rule for leaving a gap between yourself and the vehicle ahead, and for setting a speed where there are hazards visible ahead that might interact with you. The folk in the inside lane could have lifted and covered as they saw her doddering along, if she was clearly approaching the verge they should have reduced speed sharpish in anticipation, but the rest is just a case of 'well done for taking evasive action'.
To claim that the OP should have planned for the appearance of senile dementia on a road of that type in those conditions is unacceptably harsh.
Slightly similar thing happened to me many years ago. Another little old lady 
coming the other way in a fiesta decided to turn right in front of me with no warning. This was on a fast bit of NSL road. I just had time to swerve a fraction to the left and hit her front wing sending both cars spinning down the road. Had I been doing the speed limit her car would have been further across the road before I hit it and her passenger would have taken the full force of my car at 60mph. It would have been very messy. Speed saves lives perhaps?
coming the other way in a fiesta decided to turn right in front of me with no warning. This was on a fast bit of NSL road. I just had time to swerve a fraction to the left and hit her front wing sending both cars spinning down the road. Had I been doing the speed limit her car would have been further across the road before I hit it and her passenger would have taken the full force of my car at 60mph. It would have been very messy. Speed saves lives perhaps?7db said:Hmmm back to your old ways again 7db, nothing worth replying to (again) beyond this.
To claim that the OP should have planned for the appearance of senile dementia on a road of that type in those conditions is unacceptably harsh.
Yeah - you're right. He missed her, so why should he bother improving his driving?
7db said:
So were you going faster than the speed at which you could stop in the distance you could see to be clear?
Nope. The "see to be clear" bit is the key phrase. She was not visible from my vantage point until she broke cover, so my speed was appropriate for the conditions at the time. As soon as she broke cover of course the situation changed, and fortunately I took the best action.
I also hadn't factored in the possibility of a 747 hurtling unseen towards the ground with a likely impact point immediately in front of my car.
There are many situations where a THEORETICAL hazard exists - approaching a bridge or a flyover, driving along any road with any signage / bushes / phone boxes by the side etc etc. Do you slow to 10 mph every time you approach a bridge?
Whereas driving past a school at chucking out time does warrant a 10mph speed since in those conditions the possibility of an unseen hazard materialising becomes sufficiently high to factor in.
Edited to say that I have just noticed turbobloke made a similar point.
>> Edited by gregwatson on Friday 19th May 12:51
>> Edited by gregwatson on Friday 19th May 12:52
gregwatson said:
So were you going faster than the speed at which you could stop in the distance you could see to be clear?
Nope. The "see to be clear" bit is the key phrase. She was not visible from my vantage point until she broke cover, so my speed was appropriate for the conditions at the time. As soon as she broke cover of course the situation changed, and fortunately I took the best action.
It may well be the case that nothing I can say will make you change your mind that you are absolutely right and that there was absolutely nothing that you could have done differently to make this situation safer.
"See to be clear" is important. As is the rejoinder "and reasonably expect to remain clear". The fact is that it wasn't clear, so either you didn't see it becoming unclear, or didn't allow for it to be unclear.
However, based on the information which you have put in your post, I don't think that is right. In nose-to-tail traffic at the speed limit and with restricted lateral visibilty and unusual behaviour from a van ahead and close to your line of travel, you didn't consider that there might be an unseen hazard. You'd have to be a pretty good driver to spot it. Although good driving habits would give you more time to spot that sort of problem developing. A good gap rather than nose to tail, and speed related to lack of lateral vision.
You might not be capable of attaining that level of driving, you might not want to. And why should you? You missed the old woman so your driving must be fine. And everyone here will agree with you and not me, so don't worry about it.
jacobyte said:
Although good driving habits would give you more time to spot that sort of problem developing.
Evidentially he did allow for this kind of thing, hence this thread not being titled "I just ran over an old biddy".
The point about near misses it to recognise that they are failings that show where things can be improved, not evidence that everything is working properly.
7db said:Someone randomly stepping out into that kind of carriageway in that kind of traffic when hidden by other vehicles is NOT something that is reasonably predictable or should be allowed for otherwise there would be no progress on multi-lane roads. Your lack of awareness of unknown unknowns isn't impressive for such a nitpicker, and the increasingly unreasonable manner in criticising others when you don't have all the facts is unnecessary and unhelpful and may be giving the wrong impression - you might actually be a normal reasonable person.
"See to be clear" is important. As is the rejoinder "and reasonably expect to remain clear".
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff