a pre-emptive gear change?

[bertbert]

I have discovered an opportunity to change gear in anticipation of what's coming. This is at a point coming down a slip road to a roundabout to take the third exit. The thing is that the visibility of the roundabout is quite late coming. When I get visibility, I will get a clear and obvious choice of whether it is safe to proceed or whether I need to stop.

The trouble is that as I am so close to the roundabout, that if I am not in the right gear to proceed, I have little time to get there. Consequently if I treat it as a normal hazard, reduce speed, make my go/nogo decision, select the right speed and proceed, I have to be going very slowly (selecting 2nd gear).

However, if I change into third before I get clear visibility I can then choose to stop or go. If I do have to stop (about 50% of the time), then I can safely and smoothly come to a stop. If not, then my entry speed to the roundabout is just right.

Would that sequence of events be criticized as part of (IAM/Rospa) advanced driving.

Bert
PS this sequence of events happens when there are no cars on the slip stopped in front of me.

[mph999]

bertbert said:

I have discovered an opportunity to change gear in anticipation of what's coming. This is at a point coming down a slip road to a roundabout to take the third exit. The thing is that the visibility of the roundabout is quite late coming. When I get visibility, I will get a clear and obvious choice of whether it is safe to proceed or whether I need to stop.

The trouble is that as I am so close to the roundabout, that if I am not in the right gear to proceed, I have little time to get there. Consequently if I treat it as a normal hazard, reduce speed, make my go/nogo decision, select the right speed and proceed, I have to be going very slowly (selecting 2nd gear).

However, if I change into third before I get clear visibility I can then choose to stop or go. If I do have to stop (about 50% of the time), then I can safely and smoothly come to a stop. If not, then my entry speed to the roundabout is just right.

Would that sequence of events be criticized as part of (IAM/Rospa) advanced driving.

Bert
PS this sequence of events happens when there are no cars on the slip stopped in front of me.

Not being familiar with the junction, I suspect that the correct course of action is ...

"Consequently if I treat it as a normal hazard, reduce speed, make my go/nogo decision, select the right speed and proceed, I have to be going very slowly (selecting 2nd gear)."

I wouldn't worry if you have to take the gear over the giveway line, occassionally this is required.

Martin

[R_U_LOCAL]

bertbert said:

I have discovered an opportunity to change gear in anticipation of what's coming. This is at a point coming down a slip road to a roundabout to take the third exit. The thing is that the visibility of the roundabout is quite late coming. When I get visibility, I will get a clear and obvious choice of whether it is safe to proceed or whether I need to stop.

The trouble is that as I am so close to the roundabout, that if I am not in the right gear to proceed, I have little time to get there. Consequently if I treat it as a normal hazard, reduce speed, make my go/nogo decision, select the right speed and proceed, I have to be going very slowly (selecting 2nd gear).

However, if I change into third before I get clear visibility I can then choose to stop or go. If I do have to stop (about 50% of the time), then I can safely and smoothly come to a stop. If not, then my entry speed to the roundabout is just right.

Would that sequence of events be criticized as part of (IAM/Rospa) advanced driving.

Bert
PS this sequence of events happens when there are no cars on the slip stopped in front of me.

Interesting - slip roads which lead down from a motorway / dual carriageway to a roundabout which has an overbridge naturally have a limited view to the right, because of the embankment on which the motorway is built.

Under IAM/Rospa/Police test conditions, you would be criticised for taking a gear before you had a view. Using the system correctly, you should remain on the brakes until you know whether you can go or whether you have to stop. Only when you get that view, and you know it's safe to go, should you take a gear to go. Taking a gear in anticipation and then having to brake to a stop because you took the gear before the view would have you losing marks for poor use of system.

Having said that, I can see completely where you're coming from with this. In everyday driving, I don't see it being a problem and if I'm being honest, it's something I do myself on occasions. It can form part of a planned approach to a roundabout, providing you're not just planning to go - your plan should have two alternatives, and the old maxim of "planning to stop, looking to go" is spot on.

So, to answer your question, I'm sure the system stalwarts would criticise you for it, but in everyday driving, providing you apply it correctly, I don't see a problem with it.

[vonhosen]

As has been said, as far as "The system" is concerned the old maxims "Planning to stop, looking to go" & "Vision before decision, then gear to go" apply.

However if you are not worrying about "The system", what works reliably & best for you will suffice.

[bertbert]

Thanks Martin and Reg and VH. That was exactly the answer I was looking for...it is indeed with the bridge a limited visibility junction. I feel good and rebellious doing something that would get marked down, but feels a very good and controlled technique to me!

Bert
Edit to add VH!

Edited by bertbert on Monday 2nd April 22:31

[Syd knee]

Planners are now actively introducing visibility screens at roundabouts to slow traffic down. This difference between "the real world" and a ROSPA test may perpetuate the wrong image.

[R_U_LOCAL]

Syd knee said:

Planners are now actively introducing visibility screens at roundabouts to slow traffic down. This difference between "the real world" and a ROSPA test may perpetuate the wrong image.

I've come across these visibility screens a few times now - at first I thought they were just badly designed road signs which took away your view, but I've come to realise that they're actually designed for that purpose.

What a dreadful idea - taking away a drivers ability to make a nice, planned approach to a roundabout. It will also, in my opinion, cause accidents when the less safety-conscious driver doesn't lose enough speed, and gets a view of a vehicle on the roundabout too late.

I really wonder what's going on sometimes.

[victormeldrew]

R_U_LOCAL said:

Syd knee said:

Planners are now actively introducing visibility screens at roundabouts to slow traffic down. This difference between "the real world" and a ROSPA test may perpetuate the wrong image.

I've come across these visibility screens a few times now - at first I thought they were just badly designed road signs which took away your view, but I've come to realise that they're actually designed for that purpose.

What a dreadful idea - taking away a drivers ability to make a nice, planned approach to a roundabout. It will also, in my opinion, cause accidents when the less safety-conscious driver doesn't lose enough speed, and gets a view of a vehicle on the roundabout too late.

I really wonder what's going on sometimes.

Reg, I agree 100% on that. They are an abomination - how can reducing visibility at an accident blackspot possibly contribute to safety, or do they seriously expect everyone to notice that they are there and come to a complete stop at the junction? The people causing accidents are the ones who don't look until they are there (and to whom these obstructions make little difference), not those who plan ahead. A dreadful practice as you say.

[JonRB]

victormeldrew said:

Reg, I agree 100% on that. They are an abomination - how can reducing visibility at an accident blackspot possibly contribute to safety, or do they seriously expect everyone to notice that they are there and come to a complete stop at the junction? The people causing accidents are the ones who don't look until they are there (and to whom these obstructions make little difference), not those who plan ahead. A dreadful practice as you say.

Indeed. It just goes to show the one-dimensional thinking that blind adherence to "speed kills" can cause.

What's next? Forcing drivers to wear blindfolds so that they will slow down?

[bertbert]

JonRB said:

victormeldrew said:

Reg, I agree 100% on that. They are an abomination - how can reducing visibility at an accident blackspot possibly contribute to safety, or do they seriously expect everyone to notice that they are there and come to a complete stop at the junction? The people causing accidents are the ones who don't look until they are there (and to whom these obstructions make little difference), not those who plan ahead. A dreadful practice as you say.

Indeed. It just goes to show the one-dimensional thinking that blind adherence to "speed kills" can cause.

What's next? Forcing drivers to wear blindfolds so that they will slow down?

Don't be silly, that would be extremely dangerous if you couldn't see where you were going.

What is actually happening is compulsory eye patches. Everyone will have a very reduced ability to judge distance, so will have to drive much more slowly which equates to much more safely of course.

Bert

[R_U_LOCAL]

bertbert said:

JonRB said:

victormeldrew said:

Reg, I agree 100% on that. They are an abomination - how can reducing visibility at an accident blackspot possibly contribute to safety, or do they seriously expect everyone to notice that they are there and come to a complete stop at the junction? The people causing accidents are the ones who don't look until they are there (and to whom these obstructions make little difference), not those who plan ahead. A dreadful practice as you say.

Indeed. It just goes to show the one-dimensional thinking that blind adherence to "speed kills" can cause.

What's next? Forcing drivers to wear blindfolds so that they will slow down?

Don't be silly, that would be extremely dangerous if you couldn't see where you were going.

What is actually happening is compulsory eye patches. Everyone will have a very reduced ability to judge distance, so will have to drive much more slowly which equates to much more safely of course.

Bert

No, I'm afraid you're all wrong.

Trials are ongoing of the new "safe-T Blinkodrive system". If trials are successful, then they'll be compulsory in the next 18 months...

[bertbert]

R_U_LOCAL said:

bertbert said:

JonRB said:

victormeldrew said:

Reg, I agree 100% on that. They are an abomination - how can reducing visibility at an accident blackspot possibly contribute to safety, or do they seriously expect everyone to notice that they are there and come to a complete stop at the junction? The people causing accidents are the ones who don't look until they are there (and to whom these obstructions make little difference), not those who plan ahead. A dreadful practice as you say.

Indeed. It just goes to show the one-dimensional thinking that blind adherence to "speed kills" can cause.

What's next? Forcing drivers to wear blindfolds so that they will slow down?

Don't be silly, that would be extremely dangerous if you couldn't see where you were going.

What is actually happening is compulsory eye patches. Everyone will have a very reduced ability to judge distance, so will have to drive much more slowly which equates to much more safely of course.

Bert

No, I'm afraid you're all wrong.

Trials are ongoing of the new "safe-T Blinkodrive system". If trials are successful, then they'll be compulsory in the next 18 months...

That's outrageous, I thought we were co-pis(ton)heads and I find out you have been stealing my ideas all this time. I'll see you in court.

Bert

[victormeldrew]

R_U_LOCAL said:

bertbert said:

JonRB said:

victormeldrew said:

Reg, I agree 100% on that. They are an abomination - how can reducing visibility at an accident blackspot possibly contribute to safety, or do they seriously expect everyone to notice that they are there and come to a complete stop at the junction? The people causing accidents are the ones who don't look until they are there (and to whom these obstructions make little difference), not those who plan ahead. A dreadful practice as you say.

Indeed. It just goes to show the one-dimensional thinking that blind adherence to "speed kills" can cause.

What's next? Forcing drivers to wear blindfolds so that they will slow down?

Don't be silly, that would be extremely dangerous if you couldn't see where you were going.

What is actually happening is compulsory eye patches. Everyone will have a very reduced ability to judge distance, so will have to drive much more slowly which equates to much more safely of course.

Bert

No, I'm afraid you're all wrong.

Trials are ongoing of the new "safe-T Blinkodrive system". If trials are successful, then they'll be compulsory in the next 18 months...

You have 30 seconds to comply ...

[GreenV8S]

I'd be inclined to take the gear speculatively to keep the options open, without committing. The idea of refusing to change gear until you were sure you needed it seems daft to me.

The roundabout visibility thing reminds me of a study done in Canada that I read about many years ago. They have lots of un-gated train/road crossings there, and they worked out that there was a significant number of car drivers trying to beat the train and losing. The train of course had now way to stop and just left the car spread out over a few miles of track. They tried to sort it by realigning all the crossings and cutting back the scenery so the approaching drivers could see the trains from miles away. And it made no difference whatsoever, except that the cars tended to be travelling slightly faster when they were hit by the train. Knowing full well that the trains were there, there was a certain percentage of drivers that would convince themselves that they could beat the train and commit to doing that, and find too late that they couldn't.

I don't know whether the same applies to roundabouts in the UK. It will certainly slow traffic down and impede the traffic flow, but it will probably mean that the accidents that do occur are smaller ones, and *might* mean that the number of accidents doesn't change much.

[bertbert]

I am certainly not committing and if I do stop (about 50% of the time) it is nice, smooth and controlled without any excessive braking.
Bert

[SneakyMcC]

R_U_LOCAL said:

Under IAM/Rospa/Police test conditions, you would be criticised for taking a gear before you had a view. Using the system correctly, you should remain on the brakes until you know whether you can go or whether you have to stop. Only when you get that view, and you know it's safe to go, should you take a gear to go.

Crikey! Iim happy to admit I would have thought (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!) that it was this level of readiness what made an Advanced driver/rider?

R_U_LOCAL said:

Taking a gear in anticipation and then having to brake to a stop because you took the gear before the view would have you losing marks for poor use of system.

Is this my error. That the technique would require an overlap of gear change whilst braking? The above technique is still preparing to stop?

Would the controls of a motorcycle or a cars paddle shift negate the IAM/Rospa/Police criticism?

Edited by SneakyMcC on Wednesday 4th April 06:40

Edited by SneakyMcC on Wednesday 4th April 06:41

[SneakyMcC]

R_U_LOCAL said:

What a dreadful idea - taking away a drivers ability to make a nice, planned approach to a roundabout.

Too few road users plan what they do, so its only a small percentage that are actually effected! ;-)

[vonhosen]

SneakyMcC said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

Under IAM/Rospa/Police test conditions, you would be criticised for taking a gear before you had a view. Using the system correctly, you should remain on the brakes until you know whether you can go or whether you have to stop. Only when you get that view, and you know it's safe to go, should you take a gear to go.

Crikey! Iim happy to admit I would have thought (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!) that it was this level of readiness what made an Advanced driver/rider?

R_U_LOCAL said:

Taking a gear in anticipation and then having to brake to a stop because you took the gear before the view would have you losing marks for poor use of system.

Is this my error. That the technique would require an overlap of gear change whilst braking? The above technique is still preparing to stop?

Would the controls of a motorcycle or a cars paddle shift negate the IAM/Rospa/Police criticism?

It's defined within the system. You get the speed right for the hazard & then the gear for that speed. You can compromise that where safety demands it, but not just for convenience.
It can be said that if you are getting a gear to go before the speed for the hazard is correct, that your mindset is not truely "planning to stop, but looking to go". You actions have raised the importance of progress in the equation beyond it's station within the system. With paddle shift I'll still get the speed right, then take the gear. Overlaps should only happen when driving within roadcraft, where they have to be done in order to maintain safety. If it can be done safely without overlapping, then it should be done without overlapping.

Remember though this is advanced driving Roadcraft style, it's not the only style.

[vonhosen]

SneakyMcC said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

What a dreadful idea - taking away a drivers ability to make a nice, planned approach to a roundabout.

Too few road users plan what they do, so its only a small percentage that are actually effected! ;-)

How many actually look right early ?

[trevorh]

So how much does one bring local knowledge into the system? In this case the OP knows the road/hazard layout and takes a pragmatic approach to it. Another example would be slowing more than would obviously be needed when approaching a hidden access of which one is aware.