If it is this tragic story then the original driver crossed back to the car. Who knows what happened and why.
I would add the other drivers that may have been involved were driving too close/too fast and responsible for their actions. It's not like a rear-shunt with stationary traffic. Let the insurance decide.
But if the reference to this paper is what FT was alluding to... surely we tread lightly or thread deleted? My earlier posts (from personal experience) need reviewing too IMHO.
|
But if the reference to this paper is what FT was alluding to... surely we tread lightly or thread deleted?
The article you mention has been reported in The Daily Telegraph, as well as by other papers and media. It is most certainly in the public domain. Other such newspaper stories have been already been discussed here.
The reason I did not include references to any particular report of an incident was to stimulate discussion of general points. I tend to agree with the point of view that these "pile up" collisions, in general, are the fault of the colliding driver - I do not quite understand why more prosecutions are not forthcoming.
|
|
|
|
As its an ongoing investigation my money is on the mods locking this thread!
--
Fullchat
|
Fullchat I agree.... this is now linked to the Peer and therefore need not be discussed.
There are tragic circumstances and we should not discuss. OP thought we could without all the details but I think this should be shutdown.
|
The website on which this story is published is allowing comments on the story, could you explain why you think this thread should be locked?
I can see no reason why a story published in a national newspaper cannot be discussed on this forum.
|
I can see no reason why a story published in a national newspaper cannot be discussed on this forum.
Many are - there's the "quad bike" one, the"BMW through wall", etc., etc. I assume it comes under the title of "Discussion" for a reason, and that people can keep themselves in order.
I have had to drive on dual carriageways almost daily recently, in the dark - I remarked to a passenger, actually on Christmas Day (or Boxing Day, perhaps), that the biggest danger is the possibility of hitting something stationary on the road.
|
|
|
|
this is now linked to the Peer and therefore need not be discussed.
This thread appears to have been moderated by some of its contributors. As long as you keep your comments general and not specific to the earlier discussion, then we'll leave it open. Goes without saying though that we'll be watching, and PU may well have a different view on this.
DD.
::EDIT:: Have done some deleting of a couple of posts since my earlier comment as one or two people cannot help themselves and keep referring back to certain posts.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 28/12/2007 at 17:40
|
|
|
|
Oddly enough, I too was involved in a rear end collision at nearly the same place, between j34 and j35 of the M1. Traffic slowed and came to a halt, with me in the outside lane. A white van screeched into the back of me, writing off my first Mecedes E320. Only had it 3 months too. Nothing was ever done about the van driver - my wife couldn't find him!
At least the crumple zones worked on it - saved our lives as the passenger compartment was intact amongst the rest of the debris of body work. Thanks, MB.
Mike
|
It's a case of commonsense and everyday useage overriding the literal rules.
Of course in theory everyone drives within a distance he could stop in, even if the car ahead were to stop dead (eg from hitting something else). So according to the rule book a driver hammering along in lane 3 at 70 mph could suddenly do an emergency stop, and the driver behind would have ample time to react and then do a safe stop. Like wise the car behind him, and so on. The result would simply be a lane at a dead standstill, full of safely stopped cars all separated by 180 yard gaps.
But in practice we all know it is not like that. Everyone keeps a gap on the motorway of much less than the theoretically safe amount. Just try it sometime - watch the spot on the road where the car is ahead, and imagine whether you could now stop before you too crossed that point.
This unofficial practice has become accepted driving behaviour on dual carriageways. It is not safe, but we all do it in the interests of traffic flow.
|
From another thread re ABS " Stomp and Steer".
I wonder if it was stomp and ..... proceed staight to the site of the impact ?
From the various reports in the press...
Police believe "......ran across three lanes of speeding traffic .
was driving an "X-Type Jaguar"
"I saw a red Audi facing the wrong way. There was nothing I could do about it."
|
According to the news story the car was on the hard shoulder and the man was killed as he crossed the M1.
Edit - the new story seems to give two accounts - one that the car was hit and then later it says the man was hit as he crossed the road?
Edited by moonshine {P} on 28/12/2007 at 09:20
|
|
|
|
It's a case of commonsense and everyday useage overriding the literal rules.
Common sense surely dictates that drivers - even in 30MPH zones - look ahead for problems - doesn't it?
Of course in theory everyone drives within a distance he could stop in even if the car ahead were to stop dead
But that isn't my point for discussion - which is that is a driver hits a stationary object, which has been there for a while, is it their fault, or that of someone else?
Everyone keeps a gap on the motorway of much less than the theoretically safe amount.
This is a different topic entirely, but yes, many do, and it is really stupid.
but we all do it in the interests of traffic flow.
No we do not "all do it".
|
My understanding is that if a car is parked dangerously - e.g. on an unlit country lane, on a bend with no lights then it may the fault of the person who parked the car.
If your car breaks down on a motorway, wether it be on the hard shoulder or in the fast lane, then how can be your fault? Doesn't everyone have a responsibility to watch for such hazards on the roads?
|
|
|
No we do not "all do it".
Yes we do Fothers. And the ones who don't either get in the way or find themselves being flashed at and undertaken. See Westpig below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 28/12/2007 at 12:09
|
SNIP!
As said earlier, "please keep your comments general and not specific to the earlier discussion" DD
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 28/12/2007 at 12:08
|
self censored
------
And I dream Im on vacation - cos I like the way that sounds -
Edited by Altea Ego on 28/12/2007 at 12:11
|
|
|
you've got to be reasonable about this
if you were driving up a dark wet m/way at the legal limit and whilst overtaking someone in lane 2 on a bend met a parked unlit car in lane 3....then you're going to have an impact aren't you
the whole point of the m/way is to allow sustained higher speeds, because side roads, traffic lights, lay bys, slow vehicles, pedestrians etc are not there
if you wished people to be able to stop in the distance they can see on an unlit wet twisty motorway then the speed limit would need to be about 40mph
(the above comments are not intended to be directly related to the accident reported and discussed above i.e. i don't know the road concerned)
|
if you were driving up a dark wet m/way at the legal limit and whilst overtaking someone in lane 2 on a bend met a parked unlit car in lane 3
Isn't it a good practice not to overtake in bends - when you can't see the road ahead?
|
Isn't it a good practice not to overtake in bends - when you can't see the road ahead?
>>on a motorway?........there's some stretches where you'd never make any headway past anyone else
|
|
I don't know of any motorway where you can't see the road ahead in sufficient time to avoid a stationary obstacle in the road. If you can't "make headway" safely, you shouldn't try to do it, should you!
|
|
|
|
if you were driving up a dark wet m/way at the legal limit and whilst overtaking someone in lane 2 on a bend met a parked unlit car in lane 3....then you're going to have an impact aren't you
Not necessarily. Why on earth should there be a crash, unless the overtaking driver is going too fast - or not paying attention?
if you wished people to be able to stop in the distance they can see on an unlit wet twisty motorway then the speed limit would need to be about 40mph
There is no such thing as "an unlit twisty motorway". People who can't stop, or at least take evasive action, in time to avoid an obstacle in the road, should not have a licence.
|
Generally,
If you hit something thats stationary on the motorway, its your fault.
If it rushes across the motorway in front of you and you hit it, its not your fault.
there are exceptional circumstances of course
------
And I dream Im on vacation - cos I like the way that sounds -
|
|
There does seem to be a tendency in some posters' remarks here to imply that the normal (or recommended) safe driving practices, i.e. primarily that of driving at a speed that allows safe braking distance from head on 'obstructions' (be they moving or stationary), are somehow void or 'flexible' if you're driving on a motorway. That seems, both figuratively & literally, a fatalistic point of view.
|
literally a fatalistic point of view.
I would say more 'realistic'. There are plenty of stretches of motorway that are unlit. There are some that for motorways are quite twisty. On a wet road at 70mph, ...then if you met a parked unlit car in lane 3 then you've got big problems.....
... and i've yet to see on a motorway fellow drivers slacken off their speed at 70mph, because they're going around a corner and can't see as much as the previous straight
i think many drivers under estimate badly.. how quick they can react, how quick they can stop and how far they can see at night (dipped headlamps don't go very far do they) ... and if there are exacerbating factors such as: fully laden, low tyre tread, greasy road, tiredness, smeary windscreen, yapping passenger, etc, etc..the chances of an accident are even higher
|
Hear him, hear him. If these people who say they never drive faster than the speed from which they can always stop within the distance they can see the road to be clear are telling the truth, they must be a fantastic nuisance to drive behind.
Personally I don't believe them. They think they're telling the truth, but their judgement is out.
|
That's right. Just try the test. Next time you are in a line of traffic in lane 3 overtaking at 80 mph, look at the bit of road that the car ahead is just passing, and then imagine trying to stop before you reached it. If you had been allowing the recommended 2 second gap that's 80 yards. Do you see many cars in the fast lane keeping 80 yards behind the car ahead? I simply don't believe anyone does.
We all just assume that the line of cars will keep moving, and that no one will do anything silly like break down or have a blow-out or stop dead for some reason.
|
you cant keep 80 yards gap. It would be filled by others in an instant.
------
And I dream Im on vacation - cos I like the way that sounds -
|
you cant keep 80 yards gap. It would be filled by others in an instant.
Yes you can AE, and I often do. Provided the traffic is light few middle-lane drivers are going to nip clumsily into it. If the traffic is dense and restless and cars keep nipping into the gap, you have two choices: not to mind dropping back to give these wallies the space they require, or closing the gap to something more tense and dangerous so that fewer of them will dare try it. Mind you, some still will. There are many drivers out there who don't understand that causing another car to brake, or even lift off, without very good reason is much the same as picking your nose at table and eating it.
|
If the traffic is light, this means you have a good view and an escape route, so 80 yards is not required to miss an obstruction.
do keep up lud.
------
And I dream Im on vacation - cos I like the way that sounds -
|
What are you talking about you bad-tempered young tailgater? Never mind. Another thought has occurred to me: 80 to 100 yards may be fine at 70 in the dry in daylight, but is it sufficient at 100 in the dark and wet that so many motorway drivers do?
Please don't, anyone, bother to point out that this is something you personally would never do. We know that already.
|
Not clear from the report in the excess exactly what the sequence of events was but some, nay most, of the comments confirm my worst prejudices about that paper's remaining readers!!!!!
Once encountered a broken down Uno in lane 3 of the M1 (terrified occupants sheltering between the cent res barriers) and can see where the OP is coming from. Car seemed undamaged so not clear why they'd not been able to make the hard shoulder.
SWBO and I tend to drive as a team. We'd both spotted the rash of brake lights and swerves from 500metres back and slowed/moved over to lane 1. Lot of drivers left it much too late - clearly not looking ahead.
As reflected in the Contacting the Police thread it was quite difficult to decide the best means of reporting - IIRC we mobiled 999. Not sure I could have said with any certainty whether we were in S Yorks, Notts or Derbyshire at the time.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 28/12/2007 at 15:11
|
or stop dead for some reason.
Hello Cliff Pope.
Can you describe a situation whereby a car previously travelling at 70 or 80mph manages to come to a dead stop instantly? I can think of the possibility of a big hulk such as maybe the Spacestation suddenly dropping out of the sky in front of it. Other than that I cannot foresee how the fast car can come to a dead stop instantly, without giving the following traffic to take evasive action.
|
like when a car or lorry breaks over the central reservation? stops things pretty quickly.
------
And I dream Im on vacation - cos I like the way that sounds -
|
like when a car or lorry breaks over the central reservation? stops things pretty quickly.
Yes. A while ago a lorry carrying army tanks did just that and the tanks got thrown at oncoming cars. Not only could some of those cars have stopped dead instantly but they could conceivably have been pushed backwards.
|
like when a car or lorry breaks over the central reservation? stops things pretty quickly.
Agreed. That is actually a worse scenario than the spacestation dropping vertically down in front of you. The momentum of the the truck will carry it forward in to the path of a number of vehicles and possibly across more than lane 3.
|
Other than that I cannot foresee how the fast car can come to a dead stop instantly without giving the following traffic to take evasive action.
you are driving in lane 2, it's raining and it's dark, you are doing 70mph. Up ahead you can see an HGV overtaking another one, you are catching him up noticeably. You can't overtake yet, but will do when the car in lane 3 has gone by
as the car in lane 3 goes past, you pull out into lane 3 to overtake the lorry...as you come around a gentle left hand bend you see the car in front swerve violently in front of the HGV...you are left looking at a parked car in lane 3...
options; brake light hell and try to get back in behind the lorry..other than that there are none....no time to stop and you can't take lane 2 because there's an HGV in it.
chances are you'd ram the parked car in lane 3
|
as the car in lane 3 goes past, you pull out into lane 3 to overtake the lorry...
Except that i never do that. I always leave a large gap between me and the vehicle in front. Not always meeting the 2 second rule, but mostly so and never less than 1 second. In the wet and dark, it is more like 3 to 4 seconds. I too learnt my lesson from a near miss in my first year of driving and therefore take greater care about keeping my distance.
|
Despite all the excuses that seem to be used & examples given of how it's inevitable you must crash or be unavoidably involved in an accident despite your 'best' efforts at driving correctly, the common factor seems to be excess speed for the circumstances and/or leaving too little margin of safety (esp. braking distances)
It's not compulsory to drive at 70mph (or 80mph!) , nor a god-given right. You don't have to tailgate just because everyone else is, nor do you have to adopt a 'baby thrown out with the bathwater' attitude if you can't in every single, possible circumstance predict what may be up ahead or round the next bend. Fatalistic is an apt description.
|
|
There are at least two distinct scenarios in this thread when it comes to stopping distance. Leaving a 2 second gap between you and the moving vehicle in front makes an allowance for the fact that the vehicle in front can't (Normally) stop instantly. The situation of a piece of debris or indeed transported vehicle falling off a lorry, or a broken down car in the dark are a different ball game altogether. 2 seconds would not be enough to stop in either of those circumstances and you either have to allow far more time/a bigger gap or be prepared to take avoiding action. On an unlit motorway at 70 mph on dipped beam I suspect your stopping distance is longer than you can see if an object itself is unlit.
|
2 seconds would not be enough to stop
At 70mph, in 2 seconds you cover nearly 62 metres.
At 70mph, on a dry road, you need 20metres thinking distance plus 55 metres braking to a dead stop.
So the 2 seconds will give you enough of a safety margin 99.99% of the time on a dry well lit free flowing motorway. In all other conditions, adapt your driving to suit the conditions.
|
Hear him hear him. If these people who say they never drive faster than the speed from which they can always stop within the distance they can see the road to be clear are telling the truth they must be a fantastic nuisance to drive behind.
On a motorway, there are "overtaking lanes".
Personally I don't believe them. They think they're telling the truth, but their judgement is out.
The judgement of anyone who drives too fast to be able to stop or take evasive action in time should there be an obstacle on the road is not just "out", it's stupidly wrong. People prove this to themselves quite often.
|
A couple of years ago I was driving a 7.5t lorry on the M3. It was about 2am and the motorway seemed to be deserted.
As I'm cruising along at about 70 in the inside lane I noticed in the distance (opposite carriageway) a pair of headlamps flashing on and off. I was a bit distracted, but even more distracted when I caught sight (Hard shoulder next to me) of a darkly dressed figure waving, I can still remember his very white frightened looking face. I looked back to the road and right in front of me was a dark, unlit car parked broadside on in the inner lane, with a couple of shadowy figures stood on the hard shoulder next to it. I had no time to brake, and swerved into the middle lane with inches to spare. Who knows what would have happened if the middle lane had been occupied. The headlamp flashing driver was parked opposite the car, and the chap waving was probably 50 - 60 yds from it and despite the good intentions they distracted me to the point where if I'd looked back to the road a split second later, I'd have hit the car and probably injured or killed the bystanders and possibly myself. I didn't stop, and by the time I'd got settled down again I was some distance away, didn't have a mobile phone and I remember thinking that the three of them would push the car onto the hard shoulder PDQ.
|
Accidents are caused by inattention, taking chances, bad judgement, fatigue, and horseplay.
Last summer on the M180 I called in that a wheelbarrow was in the centre lane just before J5 southbound.
During that conversation, a car hit the wheelbarrow taking with it another (innocent) vehicle as it rebounded off the central crash barriers, across the middle to the inside lane and coming to a very smokey rest....
Near perfect driving conditions as in broad clear daylight, no mist or fog, early evening in summer with totally dry roads with light cloud and no bright or blinding sun.
Yet, the driver still failed to see such a large object lying in the road?
Edited by Tron on 29/12/2007 at 12:49
|
The judgement of anyone who drives too fast to be able to stop or take evasive action in time should there be an obstacle
If only you had added 'or at least not hit anything at lethal speed' I would almost agree with you FT... The point I was trying to make is that it is not reasonable to expect objects to be lying in the outside lane (or indeed any lane) of a motorway, or to find parked unlit cars in the carriageway on a bend of a country A road. When these things do occur, you need an element of luck as well as correct driving to avoid damage. It simply isn't true that 'good drivers' can always stop completely in the distance they can see. Like most of us, they base some of their driving technique on the belief that the road will continue to be clear. They take some of the background as it were on faith. To be truly cautious in the way you suggest would make people mimsers.
|
Not exactly the same thing, but a local guy was killed pulling out of a side road when he was broadsided by a van doing 50mph. The police measured the maximum visibility the van driver had of the junction at 35 metres yet said no blame could be attached to the van driver as he was travelling under the speed limit.
I therefore reckon that if you were travelling, in the dark, at 70MPH or less and hit an unlit vehicle abandoned on the carriageway of the motorway, the fault would lie with whoever caused the vehicle to be there.
|
Also relevant is the other thread about dipped headlights on motorways.
Supposing you were driving at 70 when a car approached in the opposite direction. Many people on this forum argue you should dip your headlights. How far ahead can you see on dipped headlights? What is the maximum safe speed to be driving on dipped headlights, in order to be able to see an unlit stationary object and stop in time?
Not 70 mph, I suggest. Yet no one slows down to say, 50, in the fast lane when they dip. The reason, as Lud says, is because they take the situation on trust. It would be absolutely ridiculous to slow down on a motorway every time you dip your lights, and would probably cause far more accidents than it avoids.
|
Our entire lives are based on certain assumptions eg. you'll get your pay cheque at end of month, house price will only go up etc. etc.
Likewise everyone drives on motorways on the basis of some assumptions - like no children will appear from side of roads, there won't be potholes/humps on the roads, there won't be parked cars on any lanes etc.
Although everyone SHOULD drive defensively so that he can take evasive action whatever the situation happens, it is hardly easy in real life. If a train driver sees an abandoned car on track will he be able to stop the train from 125 mph before hitting the car?
When there are exceptions to assumptions, disaster might strike!
|
|
By analogy with the previous real case, oughn't this post to be censored too?
|
In Dar es-Salaam once in the middle of the night, in a Fiat 125 with dodgy brakes and lights, I drove very slowly with the nearside front wheel into a manhole whose cover had been removed by persons unknown for more urgent purposes. This caused the offside rear wheel to leave the ground, so reversing out wasn't an option. Presently two blokes walked past and, laughing, lifted the front corner so that I could reverse gently away.
Moral: be going slowly or fast enough to just skip over any hole in the ground. Can't help feeling in this case slowly was best.
|
Another stationary object on M1 www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news....0
Good heavens. I don't usually take this line but a long ban seems appropriate. World class PFD. Placing a dangerous object in the carriageway and falling unconscious in it...
Where do they find these people?
|
What is the maximum safe speed to be driving on dipped headlights in order to be able to see an unlit stationary object and stop in time? Not 70 mph I suggest.
I agree.
If someone warned me there was an unlit object ahead on the motorway, and it was dark and perhaps raining a little, I'd probably have to drive at around 30mph on dipped in order to guarantee not hitting it.
All these people who say you should always drive so that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear, would probably moan if they came upon a car going 30mph on a unlit section of motorway doing just that.
You do have to assume certain things when travelling on motorways. You can look for signs that the way ahead is blocked, but you can't see some things until it is too late. It's the nature of motorways.
|
The point I was trying to make is that it is not reasonable to expect objects to be lying in the outside lane (or indeed any lane) of a motorway
Well:
- Things fall off lorries. They can bounce into any lane.
- Things happen (see the published story about Lord Ahmed, *for example*) that mean
vehicles may be encountered stopped on the motorway.
- People driving in circumstances where visibility is reduced may be rear-ended by
people with less than perfect driving technique (pile-ups).
- for whatever reason, vehicles add to pile-ups, which is why they're *called* pile-ups -
perhaps the most dangerous situation on motorways.
Try using an Internet search tool to look up:- motorway "pile up" - there are lots and lots of results that prove the point. I could list some, my favourite search tool (UK results) returns 'Results 1 - 100 of about 15,800 for motorway "pile up"'.
In short, it is quite reasonable to expect that one may encounter objects in the way on motorways - and quite unreasonable to reckon that this will not happen.
or to find parked unlit cars in the carriageway on a bend of a country A road.
People crossing the road. Animals in the road. Someone who's fallen off his bike (an incident in Wales last year). Vehicles broken down. Road defects. Floods. Fallen trees. Telegraph poles down. You name it, it could be there.
When these things do occur you need an element of luck as well as correct driving to avoid damage
Counting on luck to get one out of a lethally dangerous situation seems to me to be entirely foolhardy.
It simply isn't true that 'good drivers' can always stop completely in the distance they can see.
I absolutely disagree. "Good drivers" may, perhaps, break the speed limit, or all sorts of such things of no great issue - but to be unable to stop in time is not the technique of a good driver.
To be truly cautious in the way you suggest would make people mimsers.
What is a "mimser"? A bad driver who can't stop before killing himself, and/or other people, perhaps? Not a term I'm familiar with.
|
FotheringtonThomas
You're so right you know, in my opinion.
There seem to be posts on here by people who think you can drive at any speed and if anything happens then that is bad luck. Like something round a corner you could not avoid - despite having the option to slow down.
I think a lot in India drive like this and it's religion - lots die but they think this is pre-planned by our/their God and accept it. Well I think we can try to avoid some of this! But not wanting to start a debate on this I think it's true.
But if you think it's all pre-planned and you can do nothing - might you not take more risks?
>>> When these things do occur you need an element of luck
>>Counting on luck to get one out of a lethally dangerous situation...
No offence but the original comment is what I would expect in India. Defensive driving does not rely on luck. It relies on observations. On a clear day and no other cars then higher speeds than the limit are safe. But when it is busy you have to adapt. And if leaving space means someone undertakes and slots in front of you then you have to drop back again.... It is your safe stopping distance! Forget everyone else.
I once had to STOP breaking when others were emergency breaking because the idiot behind was about to hit me! I braked/stopped breaking (literally) and judged it right and did not end up in a pile-up. The car behind had a brown trouser moment as they stayed well behind for over 40 miles after that and I left the road at that point. I heard their brakes screach and saw smoke from the tyres.... looking back I did well to avoid hitting the car in front. I could avoid the car in front without problem but I'd have been hit from behind....
An hour later more evasive action on a roundabout near Leicester needed... another story.
>>> It simply isn't true 'good drivers' can always stop completely in the distance they see. I absolutely disagree. "Good drivers"
So do I.
Rob
|
You're all so young sounding. You seem to think defensive driving can be perfect and will protect you.
Look, I don't think people should drive in a reckless and insouciant manner and I don't do it myself much these days, although the temptation is often strong. I've gone through a lot of stages in learning to drive. I'm not all that bad although a bit impatient and given to being annoyed by unnecessary mimsing despite its near-universality.
At the same time, I can't help remembering, and knowing in my very being as well as from years of experience, that the whole enterprise has a precarious side which any intelligent person can analyse. That's all I am doing when I assure people that only very cautious drivers of the most annoying sort are as safe-in-all-circumstances-even-to-their-minor-trim as some of you seem to expect to be. I mean it's an admirable ambition, don't get me wrong. Just a bit, I don't know, unrealistic. And annoying.
Call me an Indian by all means. Never driven there.
|
|
And of course, like everyone who has driven for years, I have had to avoid or run over various unwelcome objects in various carriageways, and had them projected at my car from the wheels of the vehicle in front. C'est la vie.
|
You make some very good points rtj70, which sum up my own position eloquently. The 'contra' camp I feel have had, up to now, what might be called good fortune. Every day I see driving that, given slightly different circumstances & precursors, would in end collisions. It's part of the nature of driving (..and chance) that appalling drivers can survive indefinitely & go to their (naturally induced) graves thinking (if they care to ponder it..) they drove well.
Many such 'lucky' (or percentage ) drivers have, I'm sure, been posting on this thread!
This evening, whilst out driving on the local A/ B+ roads with dipped beam, I estimated a maximum top speed to allow safe braking distance within vision was between 50 & 55 mph (dependent on micro-geography & road topology) - this gave me clear vision for about ~2.5 seconds @ that speed to brake (to stationary) if necessary.
|
The 'contra' camp I feel have had up to now what might be called good fortune.
You too have enjoyed good fortune woodbines, or I hope so, and long may it continue.
Every day I see driving that given slightly different circumstances & precursors would in endcollisions.
And so do we all.
But has nothing awful ever happened as a result of your own or someone else's mistake, or more usually a combination of the two? Have none of you ever been actually involved in one of these situations or even, er, helped to bring it about, or come so close to that that you knew you were at fault or that some fool had tried to kill you? If so for more than say ten years you have the luck of the devil or live somewhere very quiet.
And if that seems too controversial, what about the occasions, some mentioned here, when an innocent driver has been shunted by some idiot and failed to get full financial redress?
|
if anyone thinks they can drive down the average motorway at 70mph, amongst traffic, in the dark, relying on dipped headlamps only.. and expect to miss something in the carriageway that they are not expecting is kidding themsleves.....it's as simple as that
that doesn't mean to say you shouldn't drive defensively, minimise risk, allow for unforeseen circumstances etc, etc........but you also have to open your eyes to reality
you might miss it/ you might not...hopefully you will, many don't
|
|
|
|
|
|
