Tell me like it is!
Discussion
JumboBeef said:
I'm not convinced that slowing would have been the right thing to do because, as I keep saying, it would have made it more likely the car (and maybe the van) would have pulled out, thus making me brake down to 30-40ish. Or he might have been planning to nip out just as I passed, and if I slowed that might confuse things.
Again, I've been thinking about the cruise. One advantage of the cruise was I could maintain a steady speed and yet have my foot over the brake. I could have come off the cruise, but should I, if I was going to maintain a steady speed? (and then I couldn't cover the brake as I did....)
Travelling at the speed limit is relevant as people joining expect approaching cars to be at the speed limit (ish). It's not like I was bearing down on him at 120, or bumbling along at 30 driving Miss Daisy.
I see what you are saying there but in my original reply I suggested considering the flashing lights of the crane and what vehicles approaching it may do. The crane would have been visible from some distance so there should have been an opportunity to alter speed without too much drama and avoid the conflict which occurred. The earlier a likely scenario is anticipated the less severe any reaction needs to be. It should have been possible to slow down so that it was clear that you were not inviting the BMW out but also so that you did not have to take any severe action to avoid hitting the BMW when it inevitably did pull out. Again, the presence or otherwise of following vehicles is important. Consider if there was one or a number of vehicles following you closely behind. If you slowed gradually and then had to slow further when the BMW pulled out the likelihood of a rear end shunt would be much less than if you simply carried on at the speed you were travelling at and then had to hit the anchors when the BMW pulled out. The approach I am suggesting should strike the correct balance between safety and undue hesitation leading to confusion or frustration. Again, I've been thinking about the cruise. One advantage of the cruise was I could maintain a steady speed and yet have my foot over the brake. I could have come off the cruise, but should I, if I was going to maintain a steady speed? (and then I couldn't cover the brake as I did....)
Travelling at the speed limit is relevant as people joining expect approaching cars to be at the speed limit (ish). It's not like I was bearing down on him at 120, or bumbling along at 30 driving Miss Daisy.
TooMany2cvs said:
ORD said:
Cruise control. That's why. It encourages terrible driving.
<applause>Should have knocked cruise off when the flashies started to draw near.
dvenman said:
JumboBeef said:
Indicators mean "I would like to come out" not "I'm coming out, ready or not"
That's what they should mean...the man on the Clapham Omnibus generally uses them as a "here I come"!Indicators are to inform not to ask. Using them as a request leads to doubt, using them as a statement of intent leads to certainty. In the same way as treating them as a request leads to doubt and treating them as a statement of intent leads to certainty.
fatjon said:
No, indicators are to tell other road users what you are going to do. Which is why I get so peed off with people flicking them on when I'm 10 feet from the back of their car about to overtake them on a motorway. Wait for the gap you intend to move into, indicate and then maneuver.
Why do you even bother to indicate if no one has a chance to acknowledge/react to them?Do you apply the same thinking when you're turning right into a minor road? Don't indicate until you actually intend to cross the opposite carriageway? Otherwise the oncoming traffic might think you're a maniac whose's going to cut across in front of them?
Edited by IcedKiwi on Tuesday 19th January 15:27
All right, wrong choice of words. Signals are an indication of your intention to manoeuvre, and I should have said "I'd like to move when it's safe to do so", and I admit I tend to use it sometimes in heavy traffic to signal my desire to move, and beg another motorist to be kind to me.
In any event, the "indicator" needs to be satisfied it's safe to move/turn and that the indicatee has had a chance to interpret the message. In the OP's instance the driver did not do that - at 0:13 the OP moves into lane 2, at 0:19 the BMW moves into lane 1, there's a VERY brief brake flash at 0:23 before moving into lane 2. No pause or second indication. OP can be forgiven for thinking that the car driver is actually thinking a little about his actions.
In any event, the "indicator" needs to be satisfied it's safe to move/turn and that the indicatee has had a chance to interpret the message. In the OP's instance the driver did not do that - at 0:13 the OP moves into lane 2, at 0:19 the BMW moves into lane 1, there's a VERY brief brake flash at 0:23 before moving into lane 2. No pause or second indication. OP can be forgiven for thinking that the car driver is actually thinking a little about his actions.
Edited by dvenman on Tuesday 19th January 16:05
IcedKiwi said:
fatjon said:
No, indicators are to tell other road users what you are going to do. Which is why I get so peed off with people flicking them on when I'm 10 feet from the back of their car about to overtake them on a motorway. Wait for the gap you intend to move into, indicate and then maneuver.
Why do you even bother to indicate if no one has a chance to acknowledge/react to them?Do you apply the same thinking when you're turning right into a minor road? Don't indicate until you actually intend to cross the opposite carriageway? Otherwise the oncoming traffic might think you're a maniac whose's going to cut across in front of them?
Edited by IcedKiwi on Tuesday 19th January 15:27
Looking at the video, and assuming the driving standard of the 'average' driver, it seemed fairly obvious that the BMW was going to pull out.
Problem with cruise is that it can't judge that. I've no doubt that if you'd not been using cruise, you'd have instinctively lifted, which would allow a smoother transition into braking.
Only real criticism (from what the video shows which can alter perspective) is that you seemed to react very late to the BMW drivers stupidity.
Problem with cruise is that it can't judge that. I've no doubt that if you'd not been using cruise, you'd have instinctively lifted, which would allow a smoother transition into braking.
Only real criticism (from what the video shows which can alter perspective) is that you seemed to react very late to the BMW drivers stupidity.
fatjon said:
No need to be deliberately obtuse. We are discussing in the context of the OPs video not sitting at a junction waiting to turn.
Yes apologies, but even on a DC/MW there's still situations where I would put on an indicator before the gap I intend to move into. You may want to let the people behind/in front within your lane know that you're planning to move out to discourage them moving into the same gap. Yes it may give the person already established in the faster lane a bit of a pause for concern but in busy traffic the gaps available may not give you much option.I cover a lot of motorway mileage and on the vast majority of occasions that a driver I was about to overtake has indicated he was about to come into my lane and cause an accident it has been the case that the driver was in fact "asking for permission". Unfortunately on several he simply did not know I was there and was about to do exactly what I feared when I saw the indicator. On one occasion he destroyed the nearside of my car and I destroyed the offside rubbing down the crash barrier to avoid him. Now I take the indication quite literally that he is going to do what he says he is going to do. I see no other safe way to deal with this situation.
I'm always prepared to listen to reasoned argument and advice but at the moment I'm firmly of the opinion that if someone indicates they are about to do something stupid it is folly to assume they are not. If there is no gap to move into then don't indicate and don't move. Of course there are always exceptions, such as needing to change lane in very slow moving traffic to get to your exit, or get around the broken down car in the middle lane as you reach the head of the traffic jam but these certainly are the exceptions and "permission asking" indication should not be the rule.
I'm always prepared to listen to reasoned argument and advice but at the moment I'm firmly of the opinion that if someone indicates they are about to do something stupid it is folly to assume they are not. If there is no gap to move into then don't indicate and don't move. Of course there are always exceptions, such as needing to change lane in very slow moving traffic to get to your exit, or get around the broken down car in the middle lane as you reach the head of the traffic jam but these certainly are the exceptions and "permission asking" indication should not be the rule.
fatjon said:
I'm always prepared to listen to reasoned argument and advice but at the moment I'm firmly of the opinion that if someone indicates they are about to do something stupid it is folly to assume they are not.
Yes I agree with you that you should treat others as idiots and be wary of their indications, but I will use my own indicators in a way which would be advantageous to me which may include "asking for permission." There's also many cases I will use no indicator at all because there's a suitable gap and the move won't effect anyone.I think there's a small but massively significant difference between "asking for permission" when if you move it'll cause someone to slow, and "asking for permission" when if you move it'll cause an accident. The "permission" side of indicating is in my opinion completely valid in the former case.
An example of this may be when a lorry needs to leave a parking spot at the side of a dual carriageway at a busy period, when a car needs to leave a petrol station at the side of a dual carriageway, or when a driver in lane 1 needs to move to lane 2 to overtake a lorry and lane 2 is nose to tail traffic (10-20 metre gaps).
If we didn't have 'permission indicating', then in the above examples all three drivers would simply be stuck - in rush hour they might be sat there for 20 minutes! In the first two cases, we might be talking up to an hour...
To do the above most people follow a golden rule of never indicating when someone is too close to merely ease off slightly to allow them out. That's just common sense. We have to have 'permission indicating' though, just executed politely and with common sense so the driver you're affecting has the chance to slightly alter their speed or change lanes to allow the traffic to continue to flow.
In the OP's situation, I think the 1 series was being a bit daft expecting the OP to knock 40mph off his speed just to let him out, when the road was clearly lightly trafficed enough for him to just wait behind the lorry and pull out behind the OP. However, with that car already having made the silly decision not to wait, I would not have done what the OP did and just continue at my present speed and then suddenly stamp on the brakes really late - that to me is taking risks purely to prove a point; I'd have started braking the instant the 1 series changed lanes and done so in a progressive linear manner until I was at a safe stopping distance behind the 1 series.
An example of this may be when a lorry needs to leave a parking spot at the side of a dual carriageway at a busy period, when a car needs to leave a petrol station at the side of a dual carriageway, or when a driver in lane 1 needs to move to lane 2 to overtake a lorry and lane 2 is nose to tail traffic (10-20 metre gaps).
If we didn't have 'permission indicating', then in the above examples all three drivers would simply be stuck - in rush hour they might be sat there for 20 minutes! In the first two cases, we might be talking up to an hour...
To do the above most people follow a golden rule of never indicating when someone is too close to merely ease off slightly to allow them out. That's just common sense. We have to have 'permission indicating' though, just executed politely and with common sense so the driver you're affecting has the chance to slightly alter their speed or change lanes to allow the traffic to continue to flow.
In the OP's situation, I think the 1 series was being a bit daft expecting the OP to knock 40mph off his speed just to let him out, when the road was clearly lightly trafficed enough for him to just wait behind the lorry and pull out behind the OP. However, with that car already having made the silly decision not to wait, I would not have done what the OP did and just continue at my present speed and then suddenly stamp on the brakes really late - that to me is taking risks purely to prove a point; I'd have started braking the instant the 1 series changed lanes and done so in a progressive linear manner until I was at a safe stopping distance behind the 1 series.
Op, With people like the BMW driver and their facepalm friends, it willalways be your fault, as they rely on everybody else to compensate for their own incompetence.
Sadly, you have to accept that you will have to plan for their ongong incompetence as both drivers and individuals - and just view the entire exercise as some form or 'charitable donation' to the clinically retarded community.
As some people have stated - just assume that they 'have no common sense' and will likely pull out on you, and adjust your own vehcile position & speed accordingly.
Edited by Hol on Thursday 21st January 09:43
Isn't that 90% of advanced driving though? Avoiding idiots? The other 10% tops up your basic knowledge and makes sure you won't have an accident on your own, and that leaves the overwhelming chance that someone else will do something stupid and ruin your day, and that's what being a good driver is all about - spotting such things early enough to react and prevent an accident.
RobM77 said:
Isn't that 90% of advanced driving though? Avoiding idiots? The other 10% tops up your basic knowledge and makes sure you won't have an accident on your own, and that leaves the overwhelming chance that someone else will do something stupid and ruin your day, and that's what being a good driver is all about - spotting such things early enough to react and prevent an accident.
Yes it is. ....In the way that you would anticipate any driver to your left needing to pull out into your lane at about the same time you would be passing them - so you can move over a lane, or adjust your own speed to avoid a collision.
On the opposing side of the coin, and advanced driver to your left, should see that he will probably crash into a slower vehicle ahead of him at the same time that you are likely to pass - and plan his own avoiding manouver with clear indication of intent a few seconds in advance.
Where only just one of the above examples is a good driver, you have no issues.
If neither assess the risk and fail to anticipate, then you have a situation like the OP's
fatjon said:
ORD said:
It was absolutely obvious that the BMW would want to pull out. What else was he going to do? Sit behind the slow-moving vehicle? Nope. He was going to pull out, and you must have known that if you were paying attention.
So why not just ease off and allow him across instead of ploughing on and becoming involved in an "incident"?
I think you felt that you had "right of way" or it was "your lane" and so werent going to do the BMW any favours by just lifting off.
Cruise control probably played a part here. It really encourages the "I wont slow down for anyone" mentality. I dont use it for that reason - it makes me a worse driver because I become attached to a particular speed rather than constantly adjusting to suit the situation.
This^So why not just ease off and allow him across instead of ploughing on and becoming involved in an "incident"?
I think you felt that you had "right of way" or it was "your lane" and so werent going to do the BMW any favours by just lifting off.
Cruise control probably played a part here. It really encourages the "I wont slow down for anyone" mentality. I dont use it for that reason - it makes me a worse driver because I become attached to a particular speed rather than constantly adjusting to suit the situation.
I would have probably eased off the throttle at 15 seconds into the clip, allowed my speed to wash off, let the cars sort themselves out and then back on the gas and past once clear of the slow mover.
Seems silly, but washing off the speed earlier, would have probably made for quicker progress as there would have been no need for heavy breaking etc and already in right gear to press on. Rather than stamp on brakes, now need right gear, get back momentum you have lost etc.
Edited by IT1GTR on Tuesday 9th February 11:05
RobM77 said:
Isn't that 90% of advanced driving though? Avoiding idiots? The other 10% tops up your basic knowledge and makes sure you won't have an accident on your own, and that leaves the overwhelming chance that someone else will do something stupid and ruin your day, and that's what being a good driver is all about - spotting such things early enough to react and prevent an accident.
Exactly this.You can see the crane from 7 seconds. It was obvious from the BMW's position he'd want to come straight out but even ignoring that, I'd have been expecting the van to pull out. I certainly wouldn't have gone charging through with cruise on.
As for dropping speed, even if I'd been hurtling along at 120mph I'd have dropped my speed enough to be able to brake without panic fully expecting one of them to pull out.
Something out of the ordinary was occurring on the road (a 30mph vehicle on a 70mph road) and as such you failed to act accordingly. Whoever is legally right or right by the highway code doesn't matter, good driving has to be about anticipating what might happen and being prepared for it, on this occasion you didn't.
Awesome camera though.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff