Going straight over a large fast and miraculously empty roundabout at a brisk (~15-20 mph) pace. Three lanes on the roundabout itself (they spiral out), and I'm going straight over, so I put myself in the central lane. The incoming traffic on my left also has three lanes of input, and I'm watching them to make sure they all stop. Lane 3 is empty. Lane 2 contains a car, that approaches but the driver sees me and he eases to a smooth crawl. Lane 1 contains a ****ing huge tanker, approaching at speed, the driver gazing *behind* me and showing absolutely no sign of slowing. Our courses are such that I'm going to end up somewhere under the middle of his rig if one of us doesn't do something.
A very loud yell from me woke him up, and I skimmed across his rapidly braking bow with a good few feet to spare, to the sound of his tires squealing. No harm done.
But, FFS, how much (lack of) observation does it take to miss a 6' lardy [censored] in a fluorescent yellow top?!
A very loud yell from me woke him up, and I skimmed across his rapidly braking bow with a good few feet to spare, to the sound of his tires squealing. No harm done.
You did the right thing. Don't trust other road users to see you, or to do 'the right thing'. Applies cycling or driving.
One valuable lesson my Dad taught me when driving was, if you are at a Give Way line on a sidestreet, if a car on the main road is indicating left wait till it actually turns left. Indicators may be left on by some dozy twit.
One valuable lesson my Dad taught me when driving was, if you are at a Give Way line on a sidestreet, if a car on the main road is indicating left wait till it actually turns left. Indicators may be left on by some dozy twit.
Or he may be indicating he's about to pull up at the kerb just after the junction. The idea they might be giving an ambiguous signal doesn't seem to occur to some people.
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:39:04 +0100, Richard wrote:
Quoted message said:
One valuable lesson my Dad taught me when driving was, if you are at a Give Way line on a sidestreet, if a car on the main road is indicating left wait till it actually turns left. Indicators may be left on by some dozy twit.
I've had car drivers wait for me when I'm indicating left - as if I'm going to leave my arm sticking out by accident!
One valuable lesson my Dad taught me when driving was, if you are at a Give Way line on a sidestreet, if a car on the main road is indicating left wait till it actually turns left. Indicators may be left on by some dozy twit.
Or he may be indicating he's about to pull up at the kerb just after the junction. The idea they might be giving an ambiguous signal doesn't seem to occur to some people.
That's not really the fault of the driver, though, is it?
If s/he doesn't indicate when about to pull up just past the junction, following motorists are going to get irate when s/he brakes and pulls over with no, or very sudden, indication.
It's actually a problem with the signalling system we use.
But, FFS, how much (lack of) observation does it take to miss a 6' lardy [censored] in a fluorescent yellow top?!
It's been discussed before here many times; everyone's brain processes the signal produced by the eyeballs to make the image the brain works with. The latter is much simpler than the inclusive, photographic-style image the optical equipment generates. Particularly if the brain has set priorities such as seeking information on other motor vehicles, other information such as cyclists in the field of vision can be filtered out. Our brains save effort by removing information from conscious consideration that is apparently irrelevant to our current task. This is how we all work. It is obviously normally appropriate. But it is bad news for cyclists moving among big fast motor vehicles.
Congratulations on having dealt with it satisfactorily.
You might it interesting to watch this Java video (7MB) of a basketball game and try to count the total number of times that the people wearing *white* pass the basketball. Do *not* count the passes made by the people wearing black.
One valuable lesson my Dad taught me when driving was, if you are at a Give Way line on a sidestreet, if a car on the main road is indicating left wait till it actually turns left. Indicators may be left on by some dozy twit.
Or he may be indicating he's about to pull up at the kerb just after the junction. The idea they might be giving an ambiguous signal doesn't seem to occur to some people.
That's not really the fault of the driver, though, is it?
If s/he doesn't indicate when about to pull up just past the junction, following motorists are going to get irate when s/he brakes and pulls over with no, or very sudden, indication.
S/he should slow down gradually. My parents have this problem, living just after a junction. The correct method is to slow down but not signal until after the junction.
If following motorists get irate, that's their problem.
Lane 1 contains a ****ing huge tanker, approaching at speed, the driver gazing *behind* me and showing absolutely no sign of slowing. Our courses are such that I'm going to end up somewhere under the middle of his rig if one of us doesn't do something.
Damn I hate that. I ride past several large distribution depots daily, so often as I approach an entrance to a roundabout there is a truck thundering up, and I wonder if the bugger is going to stop. Brakes covered and stand by to bail out, is my usual approach.
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:47:04 +0100, Mark Tranchant <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
S/he should slow down gradually. My parents have this problem, living just after a junction. The correct method is to slow down but not signal until after the junction.
I agree. That's what I'd do, but it's not official guidence.
Quoted message said:
If following motorists get irate, that's their problem.
If the turnee did what you describe, true. If they just breezed past the junction, braked and parked (perhaps whipping the indicator on as they did so), then the following motorist would be justified to become vexed.
On 28 Apr 2005 02:21:56 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Or he may be indicating he's about to pull up at the kerb just after the junction. The idea they might be giving an ambiguous signal doesn't seem to occur to some people.
That's not really the fault of the driver, though, is it?
Of course it is.
Quoted message said:
If s/he doesn't indicate when about to pull up just past the junction, following motorists are going to get irate when s/he brakes and pulls over with no, or very sudden, indication.
The driver has several sensible choices including: slow down gradually and signal once past the junction; pull up a little bit further from the junction; use the slowing down or stopping hand signal.
Damn I hate that. I ride past several large distribution depots daily, so often as I approach an entrance to a roundabout there is a truck thundering up, and I wonder if the bugger is going to stop. Brakes covered and stand by to bail out, is my usual approach.
On your bike you should be able to pass safely underneath. :-)
On 28 Apr 2005 02:21:56 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Or he may be indicating he's about to pull up at the kerb just after the junction. The idea they might be giving an ambiguous signal doesn't seem to occur to some people.
That's not really the fault of the driver, though, is it?
Of course it is.
All right, to a certain extent, it is, but it's almost certainly what they were trained to do.
It's primarily the fault of using a signaling system whereby if you do what you are trained to do, you can confuse other road users.
Quoted message said:
The driver has several sensible choices including: slow down gradually and signal once past the junction; pull up a little bit further from the junction; use the slowing down or stopping hand signal.
If they notice the problem.
As I said, that is not in the standard training, and neither is it in the advanced motorist training (or, at least it wasn't 20 years ago).
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:47:04 +0100, Mark Tranchant <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
S/he should slow down gradually. My parents have this problem, living just after a junction. The correct method is to slow down but not signal until after the junction.
I agree. That's what I'd do, but it's not official guidence.
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:47:04 +0100, Mark Tranchant <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
S/he should slow down gradually. My parents have this problem, living just after a junction. The correct method is to slow down but not signal until after the junction.
I agree. That's what I'd do, but it's not official guidence.
I really should read the whole highway code again.
It's weird the way someone can pass a test, and still be driving possibly 50 years later without ever re-reading the highway code.
I would say without ever _having_ to read the highway code again, but I expect someone would post detailing somewhere in the RTA where it says drivers must do what is necessary to keep up with current regulations. (And if it doesn't, it should).
I really should read the whole highway code again.
It's weird the way someone can pass a test, and still be driving possibly 50 years later without ever re-reading the highway code.
I would say without ever _having_ to read the highway code again, but I expect someone would post detailing somewhere in the RTA where it says drivers must do what is necessary to keep up with current regulations. (And if it doesn't, it should).
I think it's worse that it's possible to pass the test and then not get behind the wheel again for 50 years. -- Mark
I really should read the whole highway code again.
It's weird the way someone can pass a test, and still be driving possibly 50 years later without ever re-reading the highway code.
I would say without ever _having_ to read the highway code again, but I expect someone would post detailing somewhere in the RTA where it says drivers must do what is necessary to keep up with current regulations. (And if it doesn't, it should).
I think it's worse that it's possible to pass the test and then not get behind the wheel again for 50 years.
Not getting behind the wheel is not the problem.
However, having not bothered to drive for some 16 years now, I know I would not try driving again until I'd had some refresher lessons and been assured by the instructor that my skills had been restored to something at least adequate.
Is there any evidence that there is an actual problem with people going back to driving completely unprepared after giving it up for many years?
> I really should read the whole highway code again. > > It's weird the way someone can pass a test, and still be > driving possibly 50 years later without ever re-reading the > highway code. > > I would say without ever _having_ to read the highway code > again, but I expect someone would post detailing somewhere in > the RTA where it says drivers must do what is necessary to > keep up with current regulations. (And if it doesn't, it > should).
I think it's worse that it's possible to pass the test and then not get behind the wheel again for 50 years.
Not getting behind the wheel is not the problem.
However, having not bothered to drive for some 16 years now, I know I would not try driving again until I'd had some refresher lessons and been assured by the instructor that my skills had been restored to something at least adequate.
Is there any evidence that there is an actual problem with people going back to driving completely unprepared after giving it up for many years?
I drive lots, but notice after a break of 6-8 weeks (post-surgery recovery time) I was 'rusty' to a minor degree. I remember taking more care over things, but don't think that after a break of about 5-6 months from driving it was any more pronounced.
I did find everyone seemed to be driving faster than before the several-months break from it though.
I'd be much more concerned about getting back behind the wheel after a year or more of not driving. I think it doesn't take long to get back into everythign you need to be aware of, but that initial period *is* more dangerous to yourself and others, I think.
Of course, 50 years on it's not just driving that's changed - traffic levels, behaviour and attitudes, much of society has changed. There are those who can't cope with that and find it very hard to adapt, I dread to think what they'd be like behind the wheel after that length of time!
I agree; so is there any evidence that drivers who have taken a substantial time off don't recognise the problem? Is it an issue, as I think implied by some earlier posts, something that should be addressed by formal means? Or is it actually so obvious, to everyone else as well as you and me, that great care is needed by all those who used to drive and intend to start again, that it can be left to sort itself out?
