Can you ever see a time.. (discussion)

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

I was stationary at the eastbound lights at the Naked Lady junction of the North Circular and the A1

Henleys Corner Just 5 minutes from my home. Pulling forwards now would set the Gatso traffic light camera off...

Hampstead Garden Suburb?

Or The Bishop's Avenue?  

[nikpro]

It's experience, and looking properly. Obviously at night it's difficult to see past the headlights, but during the day I can usually see the occupants face. If I can't, he ain't looking ahead...

If I can see the face, then like much on the road, it comes down to experience and judgement. It can't be taught, but there are clues to look for. Is the car dipping as if it's braking? Is there evidence of a gearchange? Can you see the drivers face? Can you see his hands on the wheel? Is he indicating or otherwise signalling that he may have a problem?

And for me...

Have I left an escape route? Is there an escape route open to me if I brake/accelerate out of the way? How can I miniise the impact? Could I alert the muppet behind to the fact that I've stopped? Would a hand signal get his attention?

There are *lots* of little things you can do to try to alter the unfolding situation. The trouble is, most folk are not thinking like this when they drive, and many many thousands will have never even considered that there is anything they could do, even when it seems to be too late. I do, 'cos my survival depends on it, especially when I'm on the bike or in the Westfield.

These are exactly the observation skills Roadcraft recomends.

Bloomy; perhalps fault is to strong a word but if there is anything you could have done to avoid the accident then you should do it; the reason that the statistic is correct is because peolpe fail to learn from the experience by saying to themselves 'there was nothing I could have done', when infact they may well have been something. The next time you will react in exactly the same way and the accident will occur again.

If you stand under a cliff and a stone hits you on the head that isn't your fault but I bet you would approach that cliff differently in the future; why not your driving?

The comment about the advance driving instructor recomending neutral with handbrake on baffles me!

Should be first gear with handbrake on.

[Boomy]

If you stand under a cliff and a stone hits you on the head that isn't your fault but I bet you would approach that cliff differently in the future; why not your driving?

But if i had to be near such a cliff for any reason then i would buy a decent hard hat or something.Much like i wear my seat belt in a car and a crash helmet on motorbikes.I know there are dangers, so i take precautions.

It's still the fault of the careless climber who dislodged the rock that hit me on the head though in my book.You can only do so much.

I understand what you mean though, there will always be those who will stand beside a 'quiet - danger of avalanche' sign and yell over to distant mates to explain what they have seen.

It just seems to me that anything said in this thread regarding being more aware behind the wheel and all round safer driving should be aimed soley at the people smashing into the rear ends of others.The brake light flashing for example is a nice idea if you have the time, but i'm pretty sure my brake lights are not as bright as the huge red bulb 10 feet above my head on the traffic light pole.If people can miss one of those, what chance for my little honda melody lamp? : p

I understand your suggestions may apply to some people though in extreme circumstances, but i find it hard to agree that a driver who was shunted could of done that little bit more to avoid it and therefore must assume a fraction of responsibility.

It's just not cricket in my eyes

Some interesting comments made though from everyone.You can't beat a good bit of banter  

[Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman]

After being involved in a nasty accident last year, car written off, trip to hospital with the blues and twos going etc; other driver admitted complete liability etc. Rather than simply thinking not my fault, I spent a lot of time considering what I could do to avoid the situation.

The net result of which, was that when after picking my car up from having a tow bar fitted last month, I suddenly found myself in the middle of an almost identical accident, (and only down the road from the previous one   ), I did exactly what hindsight had told me I should have done before. Turning the whole episode into a near miss for me, though the other car did end up wrapped round a parked semi trailer.

The point being, I learnt from my "mistake" in the first accident.

[Blatman]

I was stationary at the eastbound lights at the Naked Lady junction of the North Circular and the A1

Henleys Corner Just 5 minutes from my home. Pulling forwards now would set the Gatso traffic light camera off...

Hampstead Garden Suburb?

Or The Bishop's Avenue?  

No comment

[TrevP]

You should never have the vehicle in nuetral whilst stationary but should always have it in gear ready to move.

So in this case what happens if the  clutch cable goes and you ram the car in front or hit a pedestrian.    

Is that your fault.

[Boomy]

So in this case what happens if the  clutch cable goes and you ram the car in front or hit a pedestrian.    

Is that your fault.

Pedestrians fault for not wearing an old metal diving suit.  

[nikpro]

It goes on to explain that in any accident there is always fault on both sides and it is the refusal of the person who believes they are not at fault that makes them more likely to have another accident. It goes on to say that even if the accident was believed by you to be someone elses fault there is always something that can be done to change your driving that may have  prevented that accident.

This is just to refresh people's memory of the original quote; obviously in a collision there may well be someone who is 99% responsible for that collision but it is the refusal of person who is 1% at fault to believe they MAY have done something different that makes them far more likely to be involved in a similar accident.

From the day we are born we learn from experience; why do some people refuse to do it whilst they are driving?

A motor vehicle is the most 'lethal weapon' you are ever likely to own yet some people believe that when a traffic light is at red they can sit and play with the stereo, make a phone call etc... rather than believe that the road conditions are forever changing and require as much attention and concentration as driving down a twisty country lane; if you do not pay as much attention to what is happening around you then I'm sorry, but you would be classed as a poor driver!

Mechanical failure is not classed as an accident for statistical purposes, but as I said in a previous post if you are sat waiting in gear with the handbrake on the car would just stall if the clutch cable snapped. It is also assumed as a good responsible driver you maintain your vehicle in a roadworthy condition.

Roadcraft does explain the checks you should do to ensure your vehicle is safe on a dailly bassis.

The book is 'out of date' but the large majority of it is still good usefull advice and worthy of a read.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

I fail to see how good advice can be 'out of date'. This is an expression used by politicians (professional or amateur) to justify change for reasons they don't want to reveal. If dropping into neutral was to protect carbon thrust release bearings from excessive wear in the past, then it can be out of date. But if it was for sound safety reasons, e.g. to remove all possibility of a slipped clutch foot causing the death or injury of a pedestrian on a crossing, then it remains good advice to this day.

Frankly, I would suggest that the slim chances of needing to urgently move off are outweighed by the inherent risk engendered by a potential unwanted take-off and I would lean heavily to sitting in neutral. Just my opinion and available to persuasion to the contrary. BTW, the Driving Standards Agency publication 'Driving -the essential skills' ISBN 0-11-552224-7 agrees with me.

No rancour nor attack was intended, real or imagined, in the making of this post.  

[timd]

Frankly, I would suggest that the slim chances of needing to urgently move off are outweighed by the inherent risk engendered by a potential unwanted take-off and I would lean heavily to sitting in neutral. Just my opinion and available to persuasion to the contrary. BTW, the Driving Standards Agency publication 'Driving -the essential skills' ISBN 0-11-552224-7 agrees with me.

This was also the opinion of the advanced driving instructors I mentioned earlier.

Better to save "wear and tear" on both car and driver (fatigue)....

[nikpro]

I fail to see how good advice can be 'out of date'. This is an expression used by politicians (professional or amateur) to justify change for reasons they don't want to reveal. If dropping into neutral was to protect carbon thrust release bearings from excessive wear in the past, then it can be out of date. But if it was for sound safety reasons, e.g. to remove all possibility of a slipped clutch foot causing the death or injury of a pedestrian on a crossing, then it remains good advice to this day.

That's exactly my point; it was originally written long before the time of anti-lock breaks, sychromesh gearboxes etc so that's why parts of the book are out of date but the chapters on observations etc are still applicable.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

I fail to see how good advice can be 'out of date'. This is an expression used by politicians (professional or amateur) to justify change for reasons they don't want to reveal. If dropping into neutral was to protect carbon thrust release bearings from excessive wear in the past, then it can be out of date. But if it was for sound safety reasons, e.g. to remove all possibility of a slipped clutch foot causing the death or injury of a pedestrian on a crossing, then it remains good advice to this day.

That's exactly my point; it was originally written long before the time of anti-lock breaks, sychromesh gearboxes etc so that's why parts of the book are out of date but the chapters on observations etc are still applicable.

Anti-lock brakes are nothing to do with what a stationary car's driver does at lights, surely, unless you're suggesting that a rear-ender is MORE likely because of them. What's more, my first car - 1947 Morris Ten - had synchromesh gears so you are suggesting that the driving manuals are sixty years old. No, I am sorry but I still disagree, *respectfully, and refer you to the publication I mentioned above which is the CURRENT and fully revised edition. Of course, if you're taking issue with the writers of said manual then your argument is with them, not with me.  

*respectfully, because I think debates like this are very healthy and can lead to improvement in standards all round and I also believe there is merit on both sides of this matter - just more on mine!  

[jeff oakley]

Back to the origanal question, yes I can see it happening but not for a long time and it is that the currant targets for the motor haters is the 4x4 brigade which many on here have agreed with. Bikers are already in their sights so when they have made those both hated by the masses they will start on normal sports cars that can go too fast. there will be no rason other than the fact they can until we all drive sensible none polluting biodegradable cars. travel will be for politicians only on the new empty roads.

I wrote on one website three years ago that the police would be replaced with less costly forms of control and was ridiculed, but here we are with traffic cops replace with highways agency staff and police replaced with community support officers, but they just leave enough real police to dismantle the war protesters gaff outside westminster. They do to us what we allow them to and we allow them to do anything.

[nikpro]

The book is 'out of date' but the large majority of it is still good usefull advice and worthy of a read.

'The Book' does not just discuss rear end shunts! I was reffering to the book as a whole.

Anti-lock brakes have nothing to do with sitting stationary at a pedestrian crossing I understand that.

There are people on this thread who have quoted how they managed to avoid a rear end shunt by sitting stationary in gear and being ready to react to factors happening behind them; I have yet to come accross a vehicle that would 'lurch' foward at idle speed whilst the handbrake is set and the clutch cable snaps or your foot slips of the clutch and kill a pedestrian like quoted.

Try it in your own vehicle and it won't move more than a foot.

I thought I had made this perfectly clear but obviously not!

If you wish to sit stationary with the handbrake on and in nuetral then you will obviously not have time to react to a fast developing situation occuring in your mirror so you won't even give yourself the oportunity of avoiding a collision; but, hey-ho, you'll have a comfy coffin to sit in and say' it wasn't my fault, I did as the driving standards book told me.'

I'm not saying that the other option will make things different but they at least give you another option.

Yes the manual was initially written in the 1930's so it is infact 70 years old and yes I would take issue with the manual you quote which, although I have not read it, probably advocates 'push-pull' stearing rather than crossing your arms.

The system of car control I'm reffering to is the system taught to advanced Police drivers/motorcyclists; I will leave it up to you whether you think that standard is higher than the standard taught to people learning to pass their driving test.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

I am familiar with 'Roadcraft' but that's not the manual I am quoting. As it happens I don't agree with all the DSA says and have taken issue over a couple of matters with a senior examiner of examiners. Whether it advocates not crossing hands or not, I don't know - I guess it goes along with the shuffle.  It would be perverse to teach learners one thing at test time and then another thing later and I don't believe, say, IAM supports hand crossing either. On track, of course as you have already said, it is another world. Like all drivers of long experience, yourself included no doubt, I do different things on different occasions. Living in the south (dunno where you are Nikpro) you rarely remain alone at the lights for long and once there's a car stopped behind you there's little point in staying in gear. Naughtily, I tend to slip into neutral as I approach an obviously longish stop. On other occasions I mot certainly stay in gear and always (at least nearly always) make sure tarmac is visible in front of my car. I have no desire to be trapped against the car ahead's rear end, and don't want to breath its exhaust either. Escape routes are life savers as an old acquaintance of mine would say now from his celestial cloud after a French lorry killed him at a traffic light some years ago.