Nearly had an accident due to Talivan

[Bathman]

Whilst driving on the A308 towards Sunbury, I was driving at 55 in a 50 the guy in front of me was doing around 60.

There was a Talivan parked on a grass verge as you came around a blind corner. Guy infront sees the Van brakes like mad, I, in turn, Brake like mad to avoid hitting him, and the guy behind me brakes like mad skids and misses me by a nats whisker.

To top it all off the van has written on the side "accident prevention unit"

How low will they stoop before they cause an accident themselves.

[pdV6]

Driving too close, were we?

Seriously, though, hiding around blind bends is hardly cricket.

[trefor]

Yea but they would agrue that you were speeding so you have no excuse unfortunately.

Different to people impulse braking when they see a speed trap, even when they're already below the limit.

[Bathman]

By the time I had turned the corner that revealed the hidden Talivan I was driving no faster than 45 due to braking quickly at the motorist infront.

[observer]

Bathman said:

Whilst driving on the A308 towards Sunbury, I was driving at 55 in a 50 the guy in front of me was doing around 60.

Can you say exactly where this was and at what time? I drive that road every day and haven't yet seen one.

>> Edited by observer on Tuesday 16th March 17:41

[rospa]

Roadcraft: "Never travel so fast that you cannot comfortably stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road".

Come on, guys. If we want to win the arguement that speed doesn't matter you've got to start observing this fundamental rule of safe driving.

[HarryW]

rospa said:

Roadcraft: "Never travel so fast that you cannot comfortably stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road". Come on, guys. If we want to win the arguement that speed doesn't matter you've got to start observing this fundamental rule of safe driving.

May I make an observation here I think he said he had to brake hard but it was the car behind that nearly hit him

Harry

[rospa]

HarryW said:

rospa said: Roadcraft: "Never travel so fast that you cannot comfortably stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road". Come on, guys. If we want to win the arguement that speed doesn't matter you've got to start observing this fundamental rule of safe driving. May I make an observation here I think he said he had to brake hard but it was the car behind that nearly hit him Harry

Hi Harry

I wasn't actually directing the comment at the original poster, it was just a general comment. Re-rading it, though, it does seem that he *may* have been a bit close, but he did get away with it.

[Observer]

rospa said:

Roadcraft: "Never travel so fast that you cannot comfortably stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road". Come on, guys. If we want to win the arguement that speed doesn't matter you've got to start observing this fundamental rule of safe driving.

Absolutely right. But - you wouldn't argue that it's a good idea to 'brake test' a following vehicle IN CASE the driver's not 100% alert or happens to be momentarily distracted for any number of commonplace reasons. Sudden and unnecessary braking (i.e. braking other than to avoid a collision) IS, de facto, a hazard. A fixed or mobile camera would probably not induce panic braking if it's reasonably sited and conspicuous, but a hidden one, or one which only becomes visible on exiting a bend, MAY do.

[Mr2Mike]

HarryW said:

May I make an observation here I think he said he had to brake hard but it was the car behind that nearly hit him Harry

But the OP said he had to "brake like mad" to avoid hitting the car in front. This itself suggests he did not leave an appropriate distance between himeself and the car in front for the speed he was doing.

As rospa says, the gap should be large enough that you can comfortably stop, not stop with a gnats whisker to spare and a full pair of pants.

[HarryW]

Mr2Mike said:

HarryW said: May I make an observation here I think he said he had to brake hard but it was the car behind that nearly hit him Harry But the OP said he had to "brake like mad" to avoid hitting the car in front. This itself suggests he did not leave an appropriate distance between himeself and the car in front for the speed he was doing. As rospa says, the gap should be large enough that you can comfortably stop, not stop with a gnats whisker to spare and a full pair of pants.

So if someone does an emergency stop in front of you, you obviously leave enough space to cruise to a halt yourself everytime then, really .

I felt and still feel that someones gone to the trouble to make a post about how they had to slow sharpish and nearly get collected by the car behind. Perhaps others reading may learn form that in its self.
I do not see how either of you can feel suitable superior to pass judgement on it though, thats all.

Harry

[count duckula]

Bathman said:

To top it all off the van has written on the side "accident prevention unit"

I bet it is a sticker over "Revenue generation unit"

Road safety my arse.


Malc

[Bathman]

[quote=observer]
Can you say exactly where this was and at what time? I drive that road every day and haven't yet seen one.

Observer
As you drive along the A308 from staines towards sunbury After the last roundabout there is a stretch of Dual carriagway before you get to the BP garage. There is a left hand blind bend, as soon as you appear around the bend the van is tucked up on the left on the grass verge. If you are in the outside lane and another car is in the inside lane, they block your vision of the van even further causing people to brake hard. Hence my original post.

I am sorry to those who felt so high and mighty to say that I should have left enough distance between myself and the car infront. I shall whip myself and say three hail mary's.

The main reason for my posting was to warn other drivers in the area that they are about. It seems to only be ther after 9.30am but I still only drive at 50 whatever the time is now

[observer]

Bathman said:

It seems to only be ther after 9.30am but I still only drive at 50 whatever the time is now

Thanks Bathman. That would explain why I haven't seen it. I'm usually through before 9.30.

Reducing the speed limit on that stretch was a really stupid idea. The section from the Ashford roundabout to the reservoir was NSL (no junctions, footpath or other hazards) except for the last 400 yards or so where a 50 limit was completely appropriate as you enter the built up area just before the traffic lights/BP station. There is no need for a 50 limit before then. So the impact of a change of limit to warn of an increased level of hazard is now completely lost.

I've been driving that stretch twice a day for the last 12 years and never seen an accident (except at the lights, which was always a reduced limit anyway).

The reduction to 50 limit on the previous section from Crooked Billet to Ashford is even more ridiculous. That's rural dual carriageway without junctions or footpaths.

[Bitter'n'Twisted]

Imagine someone thought of introducing something that meant thousands of drivers a day would brake sharply and suddenly for no immediately obvious reason.

That would be highly irresponsible and would never happen would it.....

[echo]

speeding i can cope with - but tailgating

[tonyrec]

echo said:

speeding i can cope with - but tailgating

I totally agree..........one Tailgater is worth 20 Speeders.....but then again, thats my opinion.

[HarryW]

Still confused what tail gating are we on about here :confuised: OB or the guy following him .
Even using the 2 second rule if the car in front slams on his anchors you will have to slam on your anchors, I do not care if you say you could slow slowly in this case. You would have had to have left a gap of at least two counties long to do that and that isn't gonna happen as ever other car is going to pull into the gap you've left and before you know it you'll be............ah not worth it.

Maybe I'm missing something, or the missing link , agree tail gating is v dnagerous and should be stamped out but having to brake hard because the car in front has is now an offence, I'm having a bad day here with this..................help.

Harry

[tonyrec]

However hard the car in front slams on his brakes....if youre following and you hit him then you are at fault also, whats hard about that?

[HarryW]

tonyrec said:

However hard the car in front slams on his brakes....if youre following and you hit him then you are at fault also, whats hard about that?

Tony don't doubt nor deny that. I must clarify, I am only posting responses to the title thread, this is not indicative of my own driving style .

Last accident btw was when I first started driving and yep it was a rear end , guess where...... at a round about, aren't most of them.
I won't tell you how long ago that was, but some of the posters on here that were just born then would have past there test and have got a full NCD by now .

Harry