Driving standards

[TheQ]

4 hours ago, Catkins said:

Paul, I suggest that you get an up to date Highway Code.

The speed limits in ENGLAND and WALES for HGVs over 7.5 tonnes are 50mph on single carriageway roads, and 60 mph on Dual Carriageway and motorways.

The speed limits in Scotland are as you have stated, but in any and all cases they are unless signed otherwise. (there is a section of the A9 in scotland where HGVs are permitted to do 50mph on a single carriageway - but only as a 'trial')

 

If I remember correctly the DfT changed the speed limits at Easter 2013.

High way code … Online...

https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/highway-code-road-safety

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, Catkins said:

I often drive the A17 from Lynn to Newark, and half the time I'm being slowed by car drivers who don't even do 50mph.

 

I was taught to drive at the speed limit where it was safe to do so.

 

That accounts for the number of demolished or bent over road signs near us...

[jonny777]

9 hours ago, Catkins said:

I often drive the A17 from Lynn to Newark, and half the time I'm being slowed by car drivers who don't even do 50mph.

 

Exactly. I do part of that stretch regularly (from Lynn to Sutterton A16 roundabout). It is not HGV drivers who slow traffic on those kinds of roads; but selfish car drivers who pull out of side roads desperate to be ahead of the approaching lorry and then proceed to do 45mph, for mile after mile after mile.....

[jonny777]

It is terrifying what some drivers will do on two lane roads, see - 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-51443359

[TheQ]

14 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

 

Exactly. I do part of that stretch regularly (from Lynn to Sutterton A16 roundabout). It is not HGV drivers who slow traffic on those kinds of roads; but selfish car drivers who pull out of side roads desperate to be ahead of the approaching lorry and then proceed to do 45mph, for mile after mile after mile.....

The latest one I've been getting  is people stopping on the A17 to let people in from Side roads...

[jonny777]

1 minute ago, TheQ said:

The latest one I've been getting  is people stopping on the A17 to let people in from Side roads...

 

OMG! I will watch out for that on my next trip in a week or so's time. 

 

Although, I do have sympathy with the locals trying to navigate across the endless lines of two-way traffic on that particular road. And the single carriageway (i.e. most of it) A47 is not much better either. 

[kevinlms]

12 hours ago, Catkins said:

 

 

Going back to the 'Ellie Goulding' incident,
Kevin, I presume that you don't drive a heavy goods vehicle - I do, and my driving seat is about 6 foot above the road surface - despite all the mirrors that are fitted trucks still have blindspots that are big enough to lose a car in, and the Royal Mail truck will have 450HP at the crank, that is plenty powerful enough to move 44tonnes, which the Royal Mail truck would be nowhere near carrying, If the car has mis-judged pulling in front of the truck, and has been clipped by the truck, then its done for.

As for the truck driver having no idea, the driver could have been checking the mirrors on the other side of the truck to that which the car was on at the critical second!!

 

I suspect though that the car driver carried the majority of fault.

Well I had to go back a long way to find out what you're talking about!

 

One thing is true, I don't drive a truck and admire those that do, with the crap they have to put up with.

 

I doubt that the truck driver was responsible for hitting the car. As you surmise, it was probably the car drivers fault, although the video doesn't show us, one way or the other. I would love to see the actual impact, which I'm sure will show the car driver at fault.

 

My comments about the 'NFI', wasn't about the truck driver, not noticing a car get in the way - that makes sense to me as lots of blind spots. But not knowing that a car was allegedly pushed '100s of yards down the road'. Obviously, I'm showing my ignorance! Yes, the truck is just a prime mover and no trailer, so a very high power to weight ratio.

Is it really that hard to notice that you're pushing a car sideways down the road? That is a serious question, as I would have assumed that, something wouldn't feel right.

 

But many of the subsequent comments, were about the celebrity, 'making the most of the publicity'. For which I fail to understand what RMweb members, had such a beef about.

FWIW, I have no idea of who the celebrity is and I can't be bothered to find out. That's a mountain out of a molehill, IMO.

[Sprintex]

11 hours ago, Catkins said:

Paul, I suggest that you get an up to date Highway Code.

The speed limits in ENGLAND and WALES for HGVs over 7.5 tonnes are 50mph on single carriageway roads, and 60 mph on Dual Carriageway and motorways.

The speed limits in Scotland are as you have stated, but in any and all cases they are unless signed otherwise. (there is a section of the A9 in scotland where HGVs are permitted to do 50mph on a single carriageway - but only as a 'trial')

 

If I remember correctly the DfT changed the speed limits at Easter 2013.

 

Reorte beat you to it 

 

As I said, they changed after I escaped from truck driving so no reason to keep up to date with the speed limits. It's of no consequence now anyway as I didn't renew my licence when I had to pay a fortune for a medical.

 

Paul

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 hours ago, jonny777 said:

..I do part of that stretch regularly (from Lynn to Sutterton A16 roundabout). It is not HGV drivers who slow traffic on those kinds of roads; but selfish car drivers who pull out of side roads desperate to be ahead of the approaching lorry and then proceed to do 45mph, for mile after mile after mile...

Frustrating it may be, but this is the public highway, and there's a  considerable range in both ability and experience of those behind the wheel. I don't know this particular route so cannot comment on it. No experience. But when I don't know what's round the next bend or over that blind crest, I will take it slower. What I do have general experience of is road signage that only tells you of a hazard as you arrive at it, the right angle bend over a bridge that is only a single carriageway for example. (If following traffic catches up, I'll look for a safe location to pull over; but that too is often problematic, because all too frequently you cannot see a safe location until on top of it.)

 

There's a major element missing from the highway code. The front cover should have 'Be Patient' on it in the largest font that will fit...

[Titan]

5 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Frustrating it may be, but this is the public highway, and there's a  considerable range in both ability and experience of those behind the wheel.

 

Unfortunately that range falls outside of the requirements to pass a driving test.  It is a test fail to drive too slowly for the conditions - failure to make sufficient progress.  Doing 45mph on a road safe for 60mph would be a test fail.  My ex wife failed for doing exactly that, so it is not conjecture either.  I don't think not accepting someone driving in a manner that would fail a test should be seen as intolerant. 

[jonny777]

14 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Frustrating it may be, but this is the public highway, and there's a  considerable range in both ability and experience of those behind the wheel. I don't know this particular route so cannot comment on it. No experience. But when I don't know what's round the next bend or over that blind crest, I will take it slower.

 

I hope that you don't mind that I can't help but smile at this part of your post; but at least you admit you do not know the route being discussed. 

 

However, if I tell you that it runs in relative straight lines just south of The Wash across what is generally known as The Fens, and that it might (just) reach a 'summit' of 5metres AMSL in the 30 or so miles between Kings Lynn and Swineshead, you may understand why the idea of 'not knowing what is around the next bend or over that blind crest' is quite amusing. 

 

I can cope with the occasional tractor and trailer (of which there are many at certain times of year) because they are aware they are holding up about 2 miles of traffic behind them, and will usually turn off after a mile or three - and some even pull into lay-bys to let everyone by - but if a car/van driver cannot do 55mph on a flat and mostly straight road like the A17, then they shouldn't be on that road in the first place. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

13 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

I hope that you don't mind that I can't help but smile at this part of your post; but at least you admit you do not know the route being discussed. 

 

However, if I tell you that it runs in relative straight lines just south of The Wash across what is generally known as The Fens, and that it might (just) reach a 'summit' of 5metres AMSL in the 30 or so miles between Kings Lynn and Swineshead, you may understand why the idea of 'not knowing what is around the next bend or over that blind crest' is quite amusing.

And that's fine, with that specific route knowledge.

 

29 minutes ago, Titan said:

... I don't think not accepting someone driving in a manner that would fail a test should be seen as intolerant. 

Wow. Every day I am on the road there's someone demonstrating a test fail, and usually multiple examples. Our roads rely on tolerance for their safe functioning. This very morning a hundred yards from home and there's Mummy driving on the wrong side of the road, leaning out of the driver's window to have a conversation with her child who is walking toward the school gate.

[Titan]

14 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

Wow. Every day I am on the road there's someone demonstrating a test fail, and usually multiple examples. Our roads rely on tolerance for their safe functioning. This very morning a hundred yards from home and there's Mummy driving on the wrong side of the road, leaning out of the driver's window to have a conversation with her child who is walking toward the school gate.

 

So presumably it would not bother you if one of them killed your nearest and dearest, as it would go against your policy of tolerance.  Or where do you draw the line?

 

Obeying the highway code keeps more people out of hospital than tolerance.

 

For me as I would expect for the the majority the line to cross would be a test fail, but if you are happy for something much worse then I suppose that is up to you,

Edited February 11, 2020 by Titan

[Reorte]

7 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

So presumably it would not bother you if one of them killed your nearest and dearest, as it would go against your policy of tolerance.  Or where do you draw the line?

 

Obeying the highway code keeps more people out of hospital than tolerance.

 

For me as I would expect for the the majority the line to cross would be a test fail, but if you are happy for something much worse then I suppose that is up to you,

Some things in the Highway Code, and what's necessary for passing the test, are about consideration for other people rather than safety. Not that I'm saying that it's OK to be inconsiderate, and there's doubtless a fair degree of correlation between inconsiderate drivers and dangerous ones, but there's also a difference.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

51 minutes ago, Titan said:

So presumably it would not bother you if one of them killed your nearest and dearest, as it would go against your policy of tolerance.  Or where do you draw the line?

 

Obeying the highway code keeps more people out of hospital than tolerance.

 

For me as I would expect for the the majority the line to cross would be a test fail, but if you are happy for something much worse then I suppose that is up to you,

It has definitely 'bothered me' in the four instances of fatality to nearest and dearest caused by drivers in clear breach of the highway code. The traffic police and courts are there to deal with that. Also fully on board that conformance to the highway code is the best way. And I am not happy with non-conformance.

 

But practically in most situations the immediate safest response is to be tolerant and patient. So he's only doing 45mph where he should be proceeding at a near approximation to 60mph. What are you going to do? I'd suggest that you have to be patient and tolerate it, until it is safe to overtake.

 

Rarely is it practical to  effectively intervene. Last year's account was unusual in that I scored two. First getting a white van man parked off the road because he had a rear door that could not be secured closed, and then stopping an elderly woman driving in a 'directionally unstable manner' on two flat tyres; because it was practical to do so on both occasions, I was on foot.

[PhilJ W]

The dangers of pedestrians looking at their mobile phones.>>

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/family-schoolgirl-hope-tragic-death-21478870#source=push

The real surprise was the driver of the school bus only had a provisional licence.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

The dangers of pedestrians looking at their mobile phones.>>

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/family-schoolgirl-hope-tragic-death-21478870#source=push

The real surprise was the driver of the school bus only had a provisional licence.

While the family is obviously upset, it appears that possessing a proper driving licence, would have made no difference to the sad outcome.

[PhilJ W]

59 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

While the family is obviously upset, it appears that possessing a proper driving licence, would have made no difference to the sad outcome.

The main fact is that he was driving a school bus which makes you wonder about who employed him without checking his credentials.

[Coldgunner]

I used to have to walk 2 miles to and from work in Cambridge, I'd often listen to music or a good book but I'd take extra care to be aware of my surroundings, not only when crossing the road but also within a city that is cycle path heavy/ I must have shaken my head like the churchill dog, but I was sure to be extra vigilant.

[Titan]

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

The main fact is that he was driving a school bus which makes you wonder about who employed him without checking his credentials.

 

Maybe he was a self employed owner driver? 

[JDW]

That is pretty shocking, and as much as I wouldn't want to disagree with the findings of the police investigation, I can't help wondering whether a better-trained driver (no licence, so presumably no CPC, no advanced driver training, etc) might have been a bit more aware of the surroundings and identified the hazard developing before she stepped into the road. Maybe I'm being unfair and that wasn't possible and she stepped from behind something (gate, bush, etc) but it does leave me wondering.

[Titan]

21 minutes ago, JDW said:

That is pretty shocking, and as much as I wouldn't want to disagree with the findings of the police investigation, I can't help wondering whether a better-trained driver (no licence, so presumably no CPC, no advanced driver training, etc) might have been a bit more aware of the surroundings and identified the hazard developing before she stepped into the road. Maybe I'm being unfair and that wasn't possible and she stepped from behind something (gate, bush, etc) but it does leave me wondering.

 

According to the article the driver did not stand a chance, it was calculated that he had 0.63 seconds to react and take evasive action - stopping, or swerving more than 1m to the right with a double decker bus doing 19mph, from the first point there was any clue she was going to step in front of the bus.

[JDW]

As I read it, that 0.63 seconds was the time it took for her to step a metre into the road. What I wonder is where she came from, though - unless she walked directly out of a gate behind a high wall or hedge onto the road, could he have seen the situation developing before she reached the road? Maybe not, I don't know the location. I do know that most occasions where I've had that happen, I've known they were going to do it before they even got to the kerb, you can usually tell by their body language and motion. Hence my wondering, had he been a better trained (and qualified) driver, if he might have had better situational awareness.

(That's not to say, of course, that all professional drivers have good situational awareness, nor that non-professionals don't, but was the first thing that came to mind on reading it)

[PhilJ W]

I have had a pedestrian engrossed with his mobile phone suddenly veer in direction and step onto a pedestrian crossing right in front of me. He was fortunate that I was looking in his direction at that moment. IIRC its reported that even the best trained and experienced drivers only can take in about 12% of whats happening around them.

Edited February 13, 2020 by PhilJ W

[Titan]

1 hour ago, JDW said:

As I read it, that 0.63 seconds was the time it took for her to step a metre into the road. What I wonder is where she came from, though - unless she walked directly out of a gate behind a high wall or hedge onto the road, could he have seen the situation developing before she reached the road? Maybe not, I don't know the location. I do know that most occasions where I've had that happen, I've known they were going to do it before they even got to the kerb, you can usually tell by their body language and motion. Hence my wondering, had he been a better trained (and qualified) driver, if he might have had better situational awareness.

(That's not to say, of course, that all professional drivers have good situational awareness, nor that non-professionals don't, but was the first thing that came to mind on reading it)

 

Indeed, although I get the impression that it was a crowded pavement, and that she stepped straight out from behind other schoolchildren.  However, I am not sure why you are wondering, as the police statement made it absolutely clear that his training/qualification/experience etc. had no bearing on the outcome.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Titan