Ever noticed how you need to avoid an accident on Motorways

[911hope]

Interesting experiment, for regular motorway drivers.

Count the number of times you take an action to avoid a potential collision on motorways.

I find that I make allowances or avoiding actions for things that may happen. The scenarios are well known, such as

A HVG just changing lane into my path. (indicate and go)
A L2 driver overtaking without accelerating to the speed L3 traffic
A joining car not joining to the correct speed or looking properly.

Lots more cases exist, as we know.

No doubt, most make similar allowances to avoid the accident.

A few days ago, I counted the number of times that these allowances actually prevented the accident and was shocked to find it was at least once every 20 minutes on a busy motorway.

Interesting to see if anyone else has the same observations.

[911hope]

Milkyway said:

I’m OK with the ‘near miss’ scenarios...it’s part & parcel of general driving.

Edited by Milkyway on Wednesday 12th October 12:32

Always thought the expression "near miss" is odd.

Really it is a "near hit" or and "actual miss"

[911hope]

this is my username said:

911hope said:

A HVG just changing lane into my path. (indicate and go)
A L2 driver overtaking without accelerating to the speed L3 traffic
A joining car not joining to the correct speed or looking properly.

I'd take a different view of this.

If I see an HGV catching up with a vehicle in front I'd expect it to pull out and I plan accordingly. If the HGV has just "changed its lane in to my path" then I would consider that to be a failure of observation on my part. HGVs generally wait until the last moment to pull out; if they become unable to do this due to car drivers' failure to anticipate then they will pull out earlier and "block" lane 2 for longer so faster vehicles will be inconvenienced by them for longer. Anticipating the truck's need to pull out and allowing them to do so is a win-win for both drivers.

If an L2 driver needs to pull out in to lane 3 due to slower traffic ahead of them then anticipate it and let them. Again, if they can't pull out easily when they need to then they will just sit in L3 instead rather than pulling back in to L2. Allowing L2 drivers to easily pull out in to L3 is a win-win for both drivers.

Cars joining at the wrong speed? Yes, I'm with you on that, but we know that it's going to happen so it's hardly a surprise ......

I don't think your view is actually different. Your planning for the expected HGV lane change is actually you avoiding the accident, caused by the HGV's move.

They shouldn't do it these dangerous lane changes, but the vast majority do it all the time. We know this and give them a wide berth.

[911hope]

waremark said:

911hope said:

I don't think your view is actually different. Your planning for the expected HGV lane change is actually you avoiding the accident, caused by the HGV's move.

They shouldn't do it these dangerous lane changes, but the vast majority do it all the time. We know this and give them a wide berth.

Calling it dangerous is rather sensational - it is just a normal part of multi-lane driving and as mentioned several times we should have anticipated it and made space.

You may have good observational skills and can anticipate that someone may move into your path.
But the fact remains that you needed to take action to avoid the possible accident. In the real world many of the HVGs are happy to pull into the next lane, where traffic is 20mph faster. It is also the case that not all these moves can be predicted.

Consider the situation, where you are in lane 2 at 60mph and you see a likely HGV pullout at 50 into your path. Obviously you will be aware of the 80mph traffic in L3.

Do you..

A. Brake in L2 to avoid the potential accident.
B. Continue at 60 in L2 and hope the HGV does not pull out.
C. Accelerate very quickly to change into L3 at 80
D. Change into L3 at less than the L3 traffic and hope for the best.

Obviously some of these options are stupid and exactly the sort of behaviour people seem to forgive the HGVs for.

Bearing in mind that in the real world HGVs often pullout having tailgated someone for ages, so the observation of a gap closing just isn't a reality.

[911hope]

waremark said:

In my view it is very exceptional for an HGV to pull out with someone closing on them from behind without a signal in good time. But thinking a little further back in time, if approaching a situation where one HGV is tailing another and where a lane to my right is not available for any reason, I am constantly aware of the possibility the tailgater may pull out. I won't say I have never had to brake hard in that situation but it is exceptionally rare. If I have had to brake more firmly than I would like, it has generally been because the HGV indicated right before it had actually moved. I won't go alongside any vehicle after it has started to indicate to move into my lane - I think drivers sometimes start to indicate but have no intention of changing lanes until after you have got past, but I stay behind in that situation.

Did you know that indication is not meant to mean.. "I am coming get out of my way"

It should already be safe to change, when indicating and require no avoiding action from others when you do.

Edited by 911hope on Thursday 1st December 07:55

[911hope]

Louis Balfour said:

Absolutely. Just another arrogant 911 driver driving within the speed limit, staying in lane and keeping a good distance from the car in front. Irresponsible maniacs the lot of them.

Not seeing a £100k Porsche there, though.

If ever there was an example that illustrates that people need to treat HGVs with extreme caution, this is it.

What planet was the Sun headline writer on, to say the Porsche hit the HGV.
....It was even contradicted by the first line of the "article".

HGV driver gets bored of tailgating the blue car, hasn't been looking in mirrors, has no idea what is in L2, takes a punt and causes the accident.

[911hope]

Louis Balfour said:

When I am king, lorries won’t be allowed to use motorways or dual carriageways during daylight hours. Then they can do all the elephant racing and crashing into one another they want, during the hours of darkness.

I will implement similar rules for buses on urban routes.

Elephant racing is stupid behaviour. I regularly see 3 lanes of the M6 blocked by these idiots.

Given the tiny difference in limited speed (and not often consistent up/down hill).

And to what end?

0.5mph difference over 300 mile journey is about 2.5 minutes @60mph. It is just irrational behaviour.

Ever seen the drivers jogging across the service station car park to save time?

[911hope]

7mike said:

Louis Balfour said:

7mike said:

Perhaps if 911 drivers were taught about truck class V mirrors they would apply better driving skills

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/20423322/porsche-h...

Absolutely. Just another arrogant 911 driver driving within the speed limit, staying in lane and keeping a good distance from the car in front. Irresponsible maniacs the lot of them.

Not seeing a £100k Porsche there, though.

Sorry, I thought this was the advanced driving section for a moment. For anyone else, more interested in self-preservation rather than being 'dead-right'; the mirror directly above the window is a bit of a clue that the truck is left-hand-drive. Pottering along with your bonnet just ahead of the cab is a sure way of positioning in the driver's blind-spot.

That's the mirror that should allow the HGV driver to look in his blind spot, which he obviously didn't.

The HVG having a blind spot does not give the driver the right to move into it.

Obviously the video didn't show what came before the HGV crashed into the 911. Either the 911 overtook slowly in L2, or the HGV caught up in L1.
Either way there was ample opportunity for the HGV driver to see the 911 at some time. It is the HGV driver's responsibility to KNOW there is nothing to hit, before moving.

This collision was 100% the fault of the HGV.

The 911 could have seen the danger and escaped. That would have been an example of an action to prevent an accident initiated by someone else.
... The point made in the OP.

[911hope]

waremark said:

In my view it is very exceptional for an HGV to pull out with someone closing on them from behind without a signal in good time. But thinking a little further back in time, if approaching a situation where one HGV is tailing another and where a lane to my right is not available for any reason, I am constantly aware of the possibility the tailgater may pull out. I won't say I have never had to brake hard in that situation but it is exceptionally rare. If I have had to brake more firmly than I would like, it has generally been because the HGV indicated right before it had actually moved. I won't go alongside any vehicle after it has started to indicate to move into my lane - I think drivers sometimes start to indicate but have no intention of changing lanes until after you have got past, but I stay behind in that situation.

In my experience it is common for the signal to be within a second of the lane change

In your scenario of "good time" The HGV is still forcing the closing vehicle to make a change"

All this says is that you see dangerous HGV driving and that you have needed to take avoiding behaviour.
It is reasonable to assume that indication is an intention to change soon regardless of safety and that you are well advised to take avoiding action.

[911hope]

7mike said:

Louis Balfour said:

Clearly the 911 driver was a bloody fool and entirely to blame. Surely this is basic stuff.

Or maybe the lorry driver who changed lanes and should have been aware of the above limitations was at fault.

Runaround……. Now!

Did you even read what I said? Of course the truck driver was at fault.

I once read something about insurance companies referring to some policy holders as 'crash magnets'. The sort who moan about their premiums going up even though all the crashes they were involved in weren't their fault. Good luck

To be fair 7Mike did squeeze in an statement about the fault being the truck driver.

Unexpected and easy to miss after starting by attacking the whole cohort of 911 drivers' skills.