Driving standards

[JDW]

1 hour ago, 298 said:

 

British drivers were deemed to be too thick to understand when the system was in operation, ie when it was a live lane and when it was hard shoulder. I can fully believe that.

 

 

Problem with that argument though is that by the exact same logic, if they're too thick to understand it the German way, they'll not use it and carry on in lane 1 as if the hard shoulder were a hard shoulder. If they're too thick to understand the British way, they just barrel along in lane 1 without a second thought. The German way seems designed to fail safe, whereas the British way seems destined to fail in the 'dangerous' mode every time, whether it's driver error, sign error, power cut, tech failure... 

 

Definitely a valid point that lots of dual carriageways have no hard shoulder - places like the A303 or up north, once you pass Perth the M90 becomes the A90, same speeds, almost as much traffic in places, but just a dual carriageway. I wonder whether part of the issue though with smart motorways is the amount of traffic, the density of it, as well as the speed. There may be an element of (conscious or otherwise) assumption on the part of drivers when they're in a "motorway" environment that its safer, no junctions, crossings, etc, so less need to concetrate on hazards ahead, whereas on a dual carriageway people are more tuned to that kind of thing.

[Jol Wilkinson]

45 minutes ago, 21C1 said:

 

 

1 hour ago, 298 said:

 

British drivers were deemed to be too thick to understand when the system was in operation, ie when it was a live lane and when it was hard shoulder. I can fully believe that.

 

I'd accept the argument that removing the hard shoulder makes it less safe because the perception of having it as a safety net has gone (and barrelling along parts of the M1 southbound on Northamptonshire on a 60yr old alignment with a steep embankment immediately to your left is unnerving), but there are plenty of single and dual carriageways that have nowhere to stop either and stopping on those stretches is as dangerous as the smart motorways case in the media, if anything and with the accompanying footage of near misses shows a complacency to driving on a motorway.

 

One solution to avoid accidents with stationary vehicles is to not have them stop in the first place, driving standards and attitudes are a broad brush but there's also the issue of a lack of maintenance awareness so when that funny noise that a driver has ignored around town for the previous month suddenly lets go at 70 mph then that is something that could have been prevented.

 

Many years ago the motor manufacturer I worked for introduced breakdown cover as part of the new vehicle purchase package. It was provided by the RAC who provided information on their call out statistics. IIRC, something like 97% were classified as "Owner Responsibility". That included punctures but everything else was due to poor maintenance, running out of fuel, etc.

[JDW]

I think another part of the problem in that regard is that people don't know how to react. Ok it's not always avoidable to stop - but some people just haven't got a clue. Some just don't plan ahead, some don't look for an "out" or escape route to safety, some will just stop and panic. If I had a puncture and thought it were that dangerous to stop, I'd keep moving - even at 5 or 10mph, you're still a hazard and in danger of being hit, but you're a hazard that's on it's way to safety, a hazard that's only a hazard for a few minutes.  

 

That said, I'm still embarrased to admit calling upon my breakdown cover when there was a whoosh of steam from under my bonnet in a queue of traffic. I pulled over (safely!), there was green liquid around the radiator area. After much head scratching, the AA guy realised that it was my air conditioning pipe that had burst, the green liquid being the dye they had used when looking for an air con leak years ago. I'd sat there for about 90 minutes and got home well after midnight - for nothing!

[Titan]

Indeed, it has always been my policy to get as far away from moving traffic as possible, irrespective of any further damage that may be caused, unless such is likely to pose a greater safety risk than stopping where I am.

 

I managed to avoid becoming a victim on the more southern part of the M1.  Felt a vibration from the trailer I was towing,  looked in the mirror and saw that the nearside mudguard was practically a blur, and that clearly something was badly amiss with it's respective wheel.  I pulled over to the hard shoulder straight away  as the possibility of catastrophe was imminent. I was also mindful that about five minutes previously the Hard shoulder had changed from live to "Emergency use only"  The tyre concerned had developed some bad bulges but was still holding air, and as I really did not want to hang around on the hard shoulder I opted to proceed at moderate speed along the hard shoulder to the next refuge, which was surprisingly wide enabling me to change the wheel in safety well away from the traffic, particularly as there was the width of the hard shoulder in addition to the generous size of the refuge.  Coincidently there was also another car in there with a trailer that had a failed tyre.

 

Anyway, just as I had got the jack out an artic came barrelling along the hard shoulder at 56mph.  If either of us had decided not to get to the refuge it would have been very messy.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Titan

[Titan]

22 hours ago, Reorte said:

On the way back from work today, car in a sideroad on the left - waiting, not running straight out, indicating to go right, finally pulls out right in front of me. Swerved to avoid him, thank god nothing close by coming the other way, he still kept moving after I had started turning, luckily nothing more happened. Sometimes I suppose peoples' brains just turn off; it's not as if the visibility is bad where it happened, and my headlights were definitely working.

 

 

Was the side road at a bit of an angle by any chance?  I had the misfortune to be in the other guys situation and became acutely aware of one of the drawbacks of modern cars - thick A pillars at a low angle. Great for strength and deflecting forces through the bodyshell in case of collision, but disastrous for visibility.  Most of the time not a problem, but if you are at a junction at just the right angle they can completely obscure a moving car.  I looked, saw no car, and pulled out  and crump.  Luckily it was only a glancing blow, so no write off or injuries, but it came on top of a very bad weekend which had started with my fiance getting her car stolen so we went from having two cars between us to having one just temporarily patched up and drivable.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Titan

[Reorte]

34 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

Was the side road at a bit of an angle by any chance? 

Almost square on (only a very slight angle) - this one here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3881451,-2.1699884,19z. The other car was turning right out of Clover Avenue, I was approaching from the left.

[PhilJ W]

29 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

Was the side road at a bit of an angle by any chance?  I had the misfortune to be in the other guys situation and became acutely aware of one of the drawbacks of modern cars - thick A pillars at a low angle. Great for strength and deflecting forces through the bodyshell, but disastrous for visibility.  Most of the time not a problem, but if you are at a junction at just the right angle they can completely obscure a moving car.  I looked, saw no car, and pulled out  and crump.  Luckily it was only a glancing blow, so no write off or injuries, but it came on top of a very bad weekend which had started with my fiance getting her car stolen so we went from having two cars between us to having one just temporarily patched up and drivable.

 

My car has thick A pillars that can easily hide a cyclist or motorcyclist. So I take extra care when pulling out of a junction leaning forward to make sure it is clear before going ahead. Also my car has very thick B pillars which makes looking over your right shoulder impossible as all you can see is the pillar. I actually avoid certain junctions because of this and at other junctions I have to place the car at an odd angle just to get a clear view.

[Enterprisingwestern]

10 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

 

My car has thick A pillars that can easily hide a cyclist or motorcyclist. So I take extra care when pulling out of a junction leaning forward to make sure it is clear before going ahead. Also my car has very thick B pillars which makes looking over your right shoulder impossible as all you can see is the pillar. I actually avoid certain junctions because of this and at other junctions I have to place the car at an odd angle just to get a clear view.

 

It seems a lot of the Chelsea tractors/Tonka Toys/mummys little darling carriers have the driving position so far back that the only way to see out of a junction is to be half way out of it in the first place. Things like this should be considered and assessed when the vehicle is tested for roadworthiness IMHO.

 

MIke.

[TheQ]

10 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

It seems a lot of the Chelsea tractors/Tonka Toys/mummys little darling carriers have the driving position so far back that the only way to see out of a junction is to be half way out of it in the first place. Things like this should be considered and assessed when the vehicle is tested for roadworthiness IMHO.

 

MIke.

The latest thing in Norwich is to have pavements cross in front of the road junction so you get the the junction and the stopping place is so far back you have no chance of see what's coming..

 

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, TheQ said:

The latest thing in Norwich is to have pavements cross in front of the road junction so you get the the junction and the stopping place is so far back you have no chance of see what's coming..

I see that a lot where there are lights but I've not seen without lights (I'm nowhere near Norwich though). I would guess it's so that people respond to the lights rather than just looking and going whatever the lights say.

[TheQ]

1 minute ago, Reorte said:

I see that a lot where there are lights but I've not seen without lights (I'm nowhere near Norwich though). I would guess it's so that people respond to the lights rather than just looking and going whatever the lights say.

This is from non traffic lighted side roads onto  main roads..

[Reorte]

3 minutes ago, TheQ said:

This is from non traffic lighted side roads onto  main roads..

 

That sounds dangerous. Any chance it's all about "priority to pedestrians" and so on, without consideration for things like drivers actually being able to see where they're going? (it's also a more understandable problem with cycle paths, where you actually get a decent one - a cycle path following the main road is pretty poor if it has to give way to every side road, but the side road needs to have its stop line next to the main road so there's good visibility).

[TheQ]

Just now, Reorte said:

 

That sounds dangerous. Any chance it's all about "priority to pedestrians" and so on, without consideration for things like drivers actually being able to see where they're going? (it's also a more understandable problem with cycle paths, where you actually get a decent one - a cycle path following the main road is pretty poor if it has to give way to every side road, but the side road needs to have its stop line next to the main road so there's good visibility).

yes that's exactly what they proclaim

So if you are stopped back by that wall you have no chance of seeing where you are going..

[Nick C]

13 minutes ago, TheQ said:

yes that's exactly what they proclaim

So if you are stopped back by that wall you have no chance of seeing where you are going..

What a stupid idea! Not only could a car tuning right not see what's coming, but they wouldn't be able to see the pedestrian they're supposed to be giving way to! The guy in the striped jumper would be invisible to any low car waiting at that GW line...

[Trevellan]

15 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

Its a pity that road modifications are not treated like railways where the modifications have to be signed off as safe by a competent person 

 

I worked for a highway authority at one time and all schemes went through a safety audit. In our case, the competent persons included former police traffic officers.

[JDW]

Looks very much like a case of "We have to do something. This is something. We'll do it" with little thought to the big picture. Yes, it seems to give pedestrians the right of way, but as both an experienced driver and even more experienced pedestrian I can see a host of problems from every angle.

 

As a pedestrian, it's confusing. I'd be walking up to it wondering if it's a junction, if it used to be a junction but has been made into a dead end (such as to stop it being used as a 'rat run'), whether I should be expecting a car to turn in across the pavement, whether a car is going to understand any better or just treat it as a normal junction,... It looks like a pedestrian has priority as the pavement continues (same as, say, entering a petrol station) but as a pedestrian I wouldn't trust that to be the case. The double yellow lines on the main road suggest it's no longer a junction.

 

As a driver, I'd be thinking the same - driving across a pavement is a no-no anyway (with obvious exceptions) so is it a through road? Has it been closed? Can I drive across? The yellow lines across it suggest it isn't a junction any more, and I'd half be expecting there to be bollards where the give way lines are to stop people turning in.

 

Plus, give way lines don't generally mean give way to pedestrians on a pavement, they mean give way to traffic on the main road, which is what drivers will be expecting to do. And as has been said above, how do you see the road? Stop, give way, move forwards, stop again, give way again,... 

 

It looks completely un-thought through. As with the hard shoulder  situation above, loo at European junctions and the markings they have, the chunky white dashes denoting a cycle lane and/or footpath across a junction for example. It might not solve the position of the give way lines but the intent would be a lot clearer for all involved. Car drivers see that there is a pathway crossing, pedestrians would still be aware that they are crossing a road and there may be moving vehicles. 

I think if I had to do it like that, I'd carry on the dipped kerbstones, but leave the give way lines in the usual place, meaning that vehicles can still negotiate it as normal but with the visual reminder of the pavement crossing. I get the idea behind it, but it seems like it was thought up because they needed "a solution" and this is a solution, without any thought of how people actually use it regardless of intention - something which seems way too common. I can think ofa few new junctions where you can see they've applied 'new' ideas on how things should work and 'safety' but which actually neither seem to improve safety nor traffic flow. 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by JDW

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, JDW said:

As a driver, I'd be thinking the same - driving across a pavement is a no-no anyway (with obvious exceptions) so is it a through road? Has it been closed? Can I drive across? The yellow lines across it suggest it isn't a junction any more, and I'd half be expecting there to be bollards where the give way lines are to stop people turning in.

 

Yes, a couple of nice big bollards to block the road off are what's needed here.

[boxbrownie]

Just to confirm how confusing it is, they have had to put double yellow lines on the main road to stop people parking........bloomin’ silly answer to something with no question.

[Michael Hodgson]

10 hours ago, TheQ said:

yes that's exactly what they proclaim

So if you are stopped back by that wall you have no chance of seeing where you are going..

Yep, normal for Norfolk.

 

[Titan]

On 19/01/2021 at 20:52, Reorte said:

Almost square on (only a very slight angle) - this one here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3881451,-2.1699884,19z. The other car was turning right out of Clover Avenue, I was approaching from the left.

 

Yup, it only needs a slight angle for the nearside A pillar to create a big blind spot when turning right, and that seems to be about the perfect angle.  More than that and you see the car through the windscreen, less than that and you see it through the passenger window.  Whilst there will be a bit of variation due to make and model, I suspect it is no coincidence that the road angle is almost identical to my mishap:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Leicester/@52.6467468,-1.0816542,18.87z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x487742ab49b76c73:0x9a151d2a6fb49cb8!8m2!3d52.6368778!4d-1.1397592?hl=en&authuser=0

 

I was turning right from Herongate road into Humberstone Drive.  Even the curvature of the road that the car was approaching from  seems the same as in your case.  I suspect the speed that the car was travelling was a factor too, not necessarily speeding or too slow, but just right to be hidden at the wrong moment. 

[johnofwessex]

I have seen an analasys of a fatal accident where a cyclist was killed at a crossroads in the New Forest, basically at a particular speed the cyclist was obscured by the drivers side pillars 

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, johnofwessex said:

I have seen an analasys of a fatal accident where a cyclist was killed at a crossroads in the New Forest, basically at a particular speed the cyclist was obscured by the drivers side pillars 

That'd be this junction:

 

 

 

[duncan]

Or a few very public prosecutions for failing to stop

[JDW]

Unfortunately with any junction there's bound to be a make or type of vehicle where the pillar lines up perfectly, be it a vertical lorry/bus pillar or a raked back coupé, especially if the approaching vehicle is also traveling at just the right speed to remain in the blind spot.

[PhilJ W]

If it causes even one fatal accident the junction should be altered. Either made a staggered junction as in the video or a roundabout.