Driving standards

[Enterprisingwestern]

2 hours ago, stewartingram said:

It should have been easy to predict that they would cause damage. 

 

It was, but knowing that there are a lot of f*ckw*ts driving cars/vans etc doesn't mitigate the original aims of the restriction.

 

Mike.

[PhilJ W]

What puzzles me is that the lane to the right of the restriction is accessible from both sides of the restriction and appears to be wider.

[Sidecar Racer]

6 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

What puzzles me is that the lane to the right of the restriction is accessible from both sides of the restriction and appears to be wider.

 

I think thats a bus lane .

Edited April 3, 2022 by Sidecar Racer

[Sidecar Racer]

 It is . 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6754358,-0.3795247,3a,53.8y,48.42h,84.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXHbl2j8yoYkEkNtehHIn2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

And larger things will fit with care .

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6758131,-0.3791336,3a,15y,210.7h,87.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stZq-eOnV5F6YP9vGvM2pfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Edited April 3, 2022 by Sidecar Racer

[PhilJ W]

3 minutes ago, Sidecar Racer said:

 It is . 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6754358,-0.3795247,3a,53.8y,48.42h,84.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXHbl2j8yoYkEkNtehHIn2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Nothing to stop any wide vehicle using the bus lane though, I can't see any CCTV camera's. I notice that the bollards are only about two feet high, perhaps raising them to about four feet would help.

[PhilJ W]

5 hours ago, peanuts said:

You have to understand that he will of known all about it having heard about how many times the local loudmouth has sailed through it in his van and it's all its wider than it says and a con used to hear the same about low bridges "!I've sailed under that and my trucks at 16 ft " there's two inches they don't tell you about for safety with the usual result when the gullible or inexperienced believe them

A lot of bridge strikes are when a vehicle that has passed under safely when fully laden is driven under the same bridge empty.

36 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Nothing to stop any wide vehicle using the bus lane though, I can't see any CCTV camera's. I notice that the bollards are only about two feet high, perhaps raising them to about four feet would help.

Perhaps the height of the bollards is a factor. If the body of the van had been a few inches higher its possible the van would have cleared the top of them and gone through.

Edited April 3, 2022 by PhilJ W

[ejstubbs]

17 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

If you have so little spatial awareness that you don't when your car will fit through a gap then you shouldn't be driving a car in the first place

 

You see this a lot, though, even just in ordinary driving.  Fact is that most drivers of cars and vans don't have much of an idea how wide their vehicle is.  So you see people leaving unnecessarily large gaps on their nearside when passing obstructions, and giving way to oncoming traffic at a slightly narrow point when it's perfectly clear that both vehicles could easily pass through.  (See also drivers who let their vehicles drift over the centre line towards the opposite lane on right-hand bends - although I admit that could also be down to being too lazy to turn the steering wheel a few more degrees.  And by the way I'm not referring here to drivers "taking the racing line" provided that their path is visibly clear to do so - or "offsiding" as I believe the IAM call it.)

 

* Perhaps just about understandable if the obstruction is a parked vehicle which might have an offside door flung open by an unobservant occupant (although observation of the vehicle can also give a clue as to whether there is actually anyone inside who might wish to disembark) but otherwise not so much.

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

 

Perhaps the height of the bollards is a factor. If the body of the van had been a few inches higher its possible the van would have cleared the top of them and gone through.

The restrictions in Wickford are the same width and don’t seem to have those problems, the posts in Wickford are about five feet high and there is only one each side, or maybe the Wickford drivers are better 🤣

[Enterprisingwestern]

3 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

The restrictions in Wickford are the same width and don’t seem to have those problems, the posts in Wickford are about five feet high and there is only one each side, or maybe the Wickford drivers are better 🤣

 

Essex drivers?, nah!

 

Mike.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, ejstubbs said:

 

You see this a lot, though, even just in ordinary driving.  Fact is that most drivers of cars and vans don't have much of an idea how wide their vehicle is.  So you see people leaving unnecessarily large gaps on their nearside when passing obstructions, and giving way to oncoming traffic at a slightly narrow point when it's perfectly clear that both vehicles could easily pass through.

 

If you drive too close to a line of parked cars, there's a good chance some idiot won't look before opening a car door into your path.  And if the council as far behind with its gully-empyting as it is with its pothole bodging, you can saturate pedestrians (or with luck cyclists!) by driving through the lakes of surface water.  Far too many motorists blithely sail out onto the wrong side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic forcing the traffic which has the prioirty to stop or take an inconsiderate or even unsafe road position.

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

The restrictions in Wickford are the same width and don’t seem to have those problems, the posts in Wickford are about five feet high and there is only one each side, or maybe the Wickford drivers are better 🤣

The ones in Wickford also have high kerbs that collect a lot of rubber. The taller posts are pretty obvious even from the driving seat of a Transit. A couple of years ago a truck went down there (Wick Lane) following his pratnav and caused chaos backing out.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, Sidecar Racer said:

 It is . 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6754358,-0.3795247,3a,53.8y,48.42h,84.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXHbl2j8yoYkEkNtehHIn2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

And larger things will fit with care .

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6758131,-0.3791336,3a,15y,210.7h,87.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stZq-eOnV5F6YP9vGvM2pfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

So can someone please explain the point of restricting wider vehicles, when buses are allowed to bypass the obstruction? Obviously I'm missing something important.

[Michael Hodgson]

8 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

A couple of years ago a truck went down there (Wick Lane) following his pratnav and caused chaos backing out.

 

We regularly have that trouble when lorry drivers realise they are more than 13'3" high just in time to fail to bash Bridge 102.

And sometimes just after failing to realise.

[PhilJ W]

7 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

So can someone please explain the point of restricting wider vehicles, when buses are allowed to bypass the obstruction? Obviously I'm missing something important.

Possibly because it was used as a short cut by heavy goods vehicles. If you rotate the Google image you can see a HGV passing the end of the street, and a coach taking advantage of the bus lane.

[PhilJ W]

[Dunsignalling]

On 04/03/2022 at 23:07, kevinlms said:

Which of course is the same as large fines, for some/most people it would be life changing, for others a petty cash annoyance.

The penalties ought not to depend on the size of you bank account, or Daddy knows someone!

Admittedly , not everybody drives a  car of commensurate cost to their financial status, but impounding or confiscating that would, in most cases, introduce an element of proportionality.

 

With leased cars, it would just need the contracts to include a liability to continue paying if the car were seized....

 

John

Edited April 3, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Sidecar Racer]

 

 From the below overhead view the road next road to the left is also width

restricted and both roads are weight restricted and 20 MPH zones , so I

agree with Phil that it's to stop heavy vehicle using it as a short cut .

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Woodmere+Ave,+Watford/@51.6763704,-0.3818431,579m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48766aad104049c7:0x185ddbed413111a8!8m2!3d51.6743867!4d-0.3806546

Edited April 3, 2022 by Sidecar Racer

[kevinlms]

22 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Admittedly , not everybody drives a  car of commensurate cost to their financial status, but impounding or confiscating that would, in most cases, introduce an element of proportionality.

 

With leased cars, it would just need the contracts to include a liability to continue paying if the car were seized....

 

John

There was a case in Victoria, where an exotic rental car was seized, probably for 28 days. The owner was actually able to get it back, due to the cars uniqueness was such, that the owner was unable to get a replacement for existing future booked rentals.

No the offender didn't get off, just that the owner was not the one deserving of the punishment.

[ejstubbs]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

If you drive too close to a line of parked cars, there's a good chance some idiot won't look before opening a car door into your path.

 

I did actually mention this in my post.

[Enterprisingwestern]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

So can someone please explain the point of restricting wider vehicles, when buses are allowed to bypass the obstruction? Obviously I'm missing something important.

 

Buses are public service vehicles, theoretically encouraging people not to drive their cars into this obstruction, there are probably only 3 an hour and therefore don't impact the local neighbourhood as much as the, maybe, one every couple of minutes HGV/large van, for which the people who own the house with the camera (and others) are eternally grateful for.

 

Mike.

[boxbrownie]

3 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Essex drivers?, nah!

 

Mike.

All those cozies drifting in MaccyDees car park paid off eh? 🤪

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

So can someone please explain the point of restricting wider vehicles, when buses are allowed to bypass the obstruction? Obviously I'm missing something important.

Presumably the buses stick to their particular route which is fine for wider vehicles where as large vans and trucks might take more minor roads within the area which they are trying to restrict?

[alastairq]

19 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

You see this a lot, though, even just in ordinary driving.  Fact is that most drivers of cars and vans don't have much of an idea how wide their vehicle is.  So you see people leaving unnecessarily large gaps on their nearside when passing obstructions, and giving way to oncoming traffic at a slightly narrow point when it's perfectly clear that both vehicles could easily pass through.  (See also drivers who let their vehicles drift over the centre line towards the opposite lane on right-hand bends - although I admit that could also be down to being too lazy to turn the steering wheel a few more degrees.  And by the way I'm not referring here to drivers "taking the racing line" provided that their path is visibly clear to do so - or "offsiding" as I believe the IAM call it.)

 

* Perhaps just about understandable if the obstruction is a parked vehicle which might have an offside door flung open by an unobservant occupant (although observation of the vehicle can also give a clue as to whether there is actually anyone inside who might wish to disembark) but otherwise not so much.

 

 

Driver training must take the ''blame'' for this a bit, I feel.

Or rather, many students' inability to fully understand not just what they are being taught, but 'why?'

I'm willing to bet [based on personal but, for this thread, anecdotal, experience] that , if one stops & asks any given driver why they left so much room when passing a parked vehicle, they will respond with 'that is what I was taught!'

A few will remember the bit about 'in case a car door opens'

Virtually none will recall the adage, ''slow down, move in'',  & ''move out, speed up''!

Yet,that is how one safely passes parked vehicles, leaving room for oncoming traffic to pass as well......instead of turning every street in a town into a single track road.

 

A fault I commonly see [as a one-time instructor of dafter driving]...is that folk take the 'apex' [often without consideration for oncoming traffic, which annoys me intensely]....but give no thought to the really important part of that exercise, the 'lead in' and 'lead out' road positioning.  The feeding-in and feeding-off on a bend is the part that gives the reason for the whole so-called racing line thing [easy to see on telly]....& which I do mercilessly at any given speed. That is, enhancing the vehicle's stability.  Folk often don't feed off towards the outside after taking the apex..They stay tight..which rather makes a nonsense of the whole proceedings.

One cuts the apex thing, in a car, a motorbycycle, but not a bus or a lorry, which, due to size & length, needs to adopt a wholly different position with regards the carriageway, to negotiate bends and corners.

I adopt a wholly different technique when on a narrow rural lane, with limited forward views, too. That helps deal with closing speeds, and vanishing points which are but yards off my front bumper.

Folk don't 'know' the width of their motors these days.....largely due to the shapes and sizes, and limitations of visibility that are imposed by fashion and computer design.

Oh well...I'm retired now, so I don't really 'care' anymore.....I just cope comfortably with everything...

 

 

Horses for courses, so to speak...something which is also ignored by the driving public at large....they don't change things , when they really need to.

Edited April 4, 2022 by alastairq
spolling

[JDW]

13 hours ago, stewartingram said:

 BUT the whole point is, it is a RESTRICTION to PREVENT use of the road by larger vehicles. Any modification to make it easier to get through makes it usable for those vehicles!

Yes, I know what the point of a restriction is. But it wouldn't really make it more usable for larger vehicles at all, it'd make it more usable for vehicles up to 7'. The kerbs would still be the same width apart, and the posts would still prevent any significantly wider vehicles passing, but allow a few inches of extra of leeway for driver error to prevent scraped wheel-arches. Anything wider than a van still wouldn't fit, as (for example) HGVs have a much wider track so still wouldn't fite between the kerbs - and even if they mounted the kerb, the extra couple of inches between the posts still wouldn't be enough to allow them through, as anything bigger than a van is generally significantly wider.

 

Angling the posts outwards so they tops are 6 inches further out would do the same, and probably have an even better psychological effect as it would emphasise the narrow base, and still mean nothing wider than a van could get through, but allow enough leeway that those who are just under 7' at body height can do so without unneccesary damage or hindrance. 

I don't think people should be scraping it anyway, whether its because they're chancing it trying to squeeze through or just can't judge their car's width, but the design could still achieve the aim without causing unneccessary damage. Punishment by damage isn't the aim - though some might disagree!

[Enterprisingwestern]

6 hours ago, JDW said:

Punishment by damage isn't the aim - though some might disagree!

 

I fully agree, but when the punishment is self inflicted?

 

Mike.