Re: Don't drive tired...

Yes.

It was partially my fault for putting myself in a position where I was not able to account for the other driver's stupidity.

This is something I've been arguing with the missus over the last few weeks, with a collision involving two moving vehicles both sides are negligent in their duty of care towards other road users (How much each side is negligent depends on the exact circumstances of the accident of course).

You have a duty, as a road user, to take the maximum amount of care possible to (a) not run into people and (b) not let people run into you. If you are driving in a manner that renders you unable to take avoiding action of other road users, then you aren't driving as safely as you could be. That doesn't mean that you're driving dangerously, but it does mean you're not driving to the best of your ability.

And yes, I agree it's not possible to do this 100% of the time before it's mentioned. But that's a different issue.

Dan405 raved thus:

::

Not this again... Actually, I think this clip's great! I love the fact he's got a Dale Earnhardt #3 T-shirt on...

MeatballTurbo raved thus:

:: It monitors stuff to disc or tape, either internally or externally fo :: the vehicle. :: Either for staff that drive like nuts or wreck vehicles, or for on :: busses to allow for staff protection, or keeping takings safe.

There are more clips on their website

Some of the clips have 2 cams; one into the vehicle and one looking out the front. My fave (apart from the no seatbelt man) is the bus crash.

So when you see a car a third of a mile away waiting to turn right as you approach you would assume they've seen you and are waiting until you've passed to turn into their drive? ;-)

Not when it's some old dear who's forgotton you were there and turns into you the second you get to her...

Mark S.

Yes - but for obvious reasons, the "marketing angle" is nowhere near as important as the fact that that they save lots of lives, and prevent lots of injuries.

Pah. Cars cost money, and so does safety. Get used to it :)

I wouldn't 'assume' anything. It's exactly because of people making assumptions that accidents occur.

I've been hit by car's so many times and one tractor that nearly killed me on my bike, they were all mostly my fault, but had the drivers been looking all around and taking more care they could have avoided hitting me.

With regards to near misses, pff so many times, gay ass lorries pulling out into the middle lane of motorway to over take another lorry doing 1 mph less than they would like to be going. A student driver in a university city driving like she was the only bitch on the road, pulling out of her drive had i not hit the brakes as hard as i did i would have ploughed straight into the side of her. I stalled the car that time, that was crap driving on my part though as i was still a new driver.

Apparently for every 600 something near misses you will have 1 crash, was a scientific study into it.

Whaaa !!! :-O

i'd rather have a pre-tensioner than an airbag

Exactly, that's all I'm saying - accidents are caused by a varying amount of negligence on *both* parts.

If someone having 600 near misses then I feel they'd really need to examine whether they're suitable for life on the open road... :/

I know some people are strong believers in this sort of stuff.

I just think that bad luck is one of those things, e.g. you can be stationary and a loaded car transporter driving towards you can break a front control arm and swerve straight into you.

Belief that you control all this won't help. In practice, the "evidence" of no accidents really just reflects the fact that you've been lucky up to now, it's not really because you control what the other cars do or take account of all things.

Having seen some of the statistics, I will never be guilty of driving too slowly, though. A surprisingly large number of accidents come about due to one vehicle travelling significantly faster or slower than the rest of the traffic on that road / in those circumstances. Much more common than mechanical failure or someone falling asleep, or whatever.

It is usually when the vehicle is slower, as that means there is a continual stream of cars overtaking the slower vehicle, and you only need one of these cars to make a bad overtaking decision for the accident to result, and it usually involves the overtaker, the overtaken, and whatever runs headlong into them both. If there are trees or a truck in the mix, it is sometimes fatal.

Where there is a faster vehicle, the driver usually has a lot of experience in overtaking things and can be better at it, but again, a bad decision is all you need and the higher than normal speeds make the accident worse than normal, if it involves the faster car (and it quite often doesn't, it can be other people avoiding him and involving someone else, e.g. emergency braking and the truck behind you can't stop in time.)

Overall, drive about at the "normal" speed, and you'll have few accidents, even though you are, in those circumstances, guaranteeing that there are situations you can be well beyond any possibilty of stopping or avoiding due to "excessive speed". But these situations are rare enough to make that a lower risk.

If we all drove about at 4mph top speed, there would be few serious accidents, but if you make that decision unilaterally, you'll find yourself in court monthly, being let off as "not the direct cause" of the accidents you are repeatedly involved in, until you die young, I reckon.

This is partly why we all have to slow down where the speed limits are being flouted, if only one does, there is a hazard. Speed cameras are good in this regard, as people will learn where they are and will slow down, in a general sense. The M25, although just as congested, seems to have fewer accidents on the stretch with the variable zone cameras. This is partly because everyone tries to go at the same speed to avoid a ticket, in whcih case there can't be a large disparity in speeds and everyone including heavily loaded trucks can at least manage to travel at the slower speeds being required by the camera.

You can, unless the circumstances are fairly extreme.

The chances of anyone hitting the side of you as you are going past are so slim as to be non-existent. Which leaves you with them pulling out in front, i.e. that you would be running into them - that means you were unable to demonstrate full control of your vehicle. That would make you negligent to a varying degree depending on the exact circumstances (not you personally, I mean in a 3rd person sense).

I'd disagree with that, when taking into account your next sentence.

Anticipation is the key to being in control.

And that is because people make assumptions whilst driving.

All I'm saying is the blame for accidents is shared, it's not a one sided thing. Unfortunately people don't like admitting that as it would mean saying they were in the wrong to a degree.

I'm sure you can, but that's irrelevant as 'a stationary car with a loaded car transporter driving towards you' is not a collision between two moving vehicles involving someone pulling out in front you.

No one controls another person's actions, that's the whole point - you can only control your own actions, and your actions play a part in dictating the outcome of what happens on the road.

I think you are misunderstanding the thread, because that's just got nothing to do with anything I said.

It's not irrelevant purely because it is *easier* for me to create a fatal accident when the target car is moving. The stationary case is *more difficult*.

The point I think some are making, I intend to, is that you only have choices within the constraints set by the laws of physics, and by the practical considerations of modern driving - specifically that your actions influence how other drivers behave to some extent. Once you are traveling at 30 mph and there are other vehicles traveling on the other side of the road at 30 mph - or more

- and a few feet away, there are plenty of fatal scenarios which require nothing more than a fraction of a second and the twitch of a steering wheel or failure of some small component.

You can be going at 70 on the motorway, and a truck on the opposite carriageway bumps into the central reservation, throwing a consignment of fridges into the road in front of you. "Being in control" means nothing, you die instantly the first fridge passes through your car.

You can be traveling quite reasonably along a road and someone else can pull out in front of you, if you habitually slow down to ensure this can't happen, you will be rear ended. You will also be encouraging other cars to pull out in front of you while someone else is being encouraged to overtake you. That is appalling driving, IME, but you won't get too many judgements against you.

Only two posts ago, you said: "By being fully in control of your vehicle you are aware of the possibility of those 'daft things'. Being aware means being able to account for if necessary."

I say you have been lucky up to now because a truck hasn't thrown a consignment of fridges your way, e.g. while you've been traveling at modest motorway speeds. You say this hasn't happened, because you are "fully in control" and can account for anything that happens, if necessary.

That's the gist of the debate, as far as I can see, you are saying that anyone involved in an accident, is automatically responsible and that you haven't had any accidents due to being in control. I say you've merely been lucky. That's not to say there aren't sometimes accidents that come about *because* of a driver making a bad judgement, there are. Just that there are also accidents that happen to people whatever they might try to do to prevent / avoid them.

In the specific case of a car pulling out in front of a driver on a regular road at regular speeds, the physics are quite simple. There definitely is a class of accident that happens despite the actions of the driver.

Look, it's quite simple - it's irrelevant because I was not talking about 'a stationary case', that is why I specifically used the phrase "two moving vehicles".

Still completely and utterly irrelevant to anything at all that I said. What the hell are you going on about, are you having your own private mini-debate or something ?

That is complete and utter bollocks.

And seeing as your so up with the contents of the thread you'd also know that A) we were discussing a side impact. I was not referring to anything other than that, as that was what the incident in question was about, and B) I said "with a collision involving two moving vehicles".

You're waffling on about being hit by a flying fridge ffs !

I said that anyone who lets someone run into the side of their car bears a degree of responsibility unless the circumstances are fairly extreme and the other driver is hell bent on running into you. I also said that degree of responsibility varies according with the circumstances - it may only be 5% (but how do you measure such a thing).

Yes they are, yet people constantly make assumptions, and assumptions are what cause accidents.

Some would say *because* of the actions of the driver.

No one can run into your car unless you let them by inaction.

You have presented a general assertion:

"By being fully in control of your vehicle you are aware of the possibility of those 'daft things'. Being aware means being able to account for if necessary."

Are you instead, trying to say:

"By being fully in control of your vehicle you are aware of the possibility of someone pulling out in front of you. Being aware means being able to account for the situation where someone pulls out in front of you if necessary."

If the second paragraph describes what you actually mean, then you can limit the examples to include only those where someone pulls out in front of you.

Otherwise, you have to accept all examples which fit the generalisation "any daft things".

No, I'm trying to give examples where your generalisation...

"By being fully in control of your vehicle you are aware of the possibility of those 'daft things'. Being aware means being able to account for if necessary."

...does not hold true.

In this case, the example shows how you can be unable to account for the situation where fridges are spewed across the motorway in front of you, however "in control" you are of your vehicle.

By insisting this is irrelevant, you are failing to defend the assertion:

"By being fully in control of your vehicle you are aware of the possibility of those 'daft things'. Being aware means being able to account for if necessary."

You are merely trying to limit the debate only to those limited situations where you think your assertion may be more likely to be regarded as true.

Try driving about and slow right down every time you come to a junction, even though it's your right of way. You will very quickly learn that you are the one talking bollocks, but for sure, you will stop the ridiculous slowing down practice before long - and for excellent reasons. Maybe you have no experience of real world driving as yet?

The assertion: "By being fully in control of your vehicle you are aware of the possibility of those 'daft things'. Being aware means being able to account for if necessary."

...is not limited to side impacts.

Nor is it limited to a collision involving two moving vehicles. In some ways, it implies a collision quite often between a moving and a stopped vehicle.

Or, as you put it originally, 'daft things'.

But fine, if you want your definition of being able to account for 'daft things' to exclude anything except the situation where you run into the side of a car that has pulled out in front of you, then you can have that debate instead, and you'll be withdrawing your generalisation, as it covers far too many situations in addition to, the situation where you run into the side of a car that has pulled out in front of you.

I can see how you may then regard it as quite sensible that you use your control and predictive abilities to avoid running into the side of a car that has just pulled out in front of you, even though that might mean you get rear ended by other vehicles as those accidents would be irrelevant to the case "not running into the side of a vehicle that has pulled out in front of you".

You are therefore also allowing the degree of responsibility to be zero? I.e. there are sometimes accidents where you run into the side of a vehicle that has pulled out in front of you, and it wasn't possible to avoid it at all? Optionally, you are proposing some sort of cut off, where it can't go below some value. In which case, what would that value be?

Accidents often happen because people make mistakes. Sometimes one person makes the mistake, sometimes the other person could make allowances for the mistake and doesn't, sometimes the other person hasn't got the chance to do anything about it. Sometimes more than one person makes a mistake. So what?

But you can't reasonably claim that you can always make allowances for other people's mistakes, there are millions of examples where this can be seen to be untrue. It's not even true with the situation where someone T bones your car while you are passing, or whips out and stops in your path within your stopping distance.

"There is a class of accident that happens despite the actions of the driver."

"There is a class of accident that happens because of the actions of the driver."

These phrases mean different things. They are both true in some circumstances. If you are trying to say that the first phrase is illegal or meaningless or something, due to the second, your reasoning powers are sadly restricted.

This phrase, however, is palpably wrong. If you are sitting in lane 2 of the motorway with queuing cars either side, and a car behind you in lane 2 has not realised the cars have stopped, what do you think is going to happen?

If you are driving past a junction at which I am waiting, I can ram into you better than six times out of ten, I reckon, and I can also get you to drive into the side of my car, unless you slow right down and more or less stop, in which case I'll do this to you every time so that I can always pull out even though it's not my right of way. Can you not see how that works?

The paragraph was already limited to the area that was being discussed. It's generally called 'subject matter' :)

Of course it does not hold true in that regard - you've wandered off on a totally different tangent to what the thread was discussing :)

It's a statement made about one type of scenario, that does not mean that it applies to every kind of scenario out there. I'm unsure as to your line of reasoning that could deduce such logic.

I did not say 'slowing right down'. That is your assertion, not mine. Slowing down enough to be in control of your vehicle does not mean crawling past them at 5mph.

I drive a fast car, and I generally drive it hard. If by real world you mean mundane, boring, slow cars then no I have no current experience.

And - not that it's of that much relevance - my family business was a driving school, but I suppose that's just 'pretend driving' :)

I suppose it's not, when taken out of context as a single phrase with no relevance to anything else I said.

If you are under some confusion as to what was being discussed tho, that's not really my problem...

I don't know what kind of "real world driving" you undertake, but mine generally doesn't consist of fridges sitting at side junctions waiting to pull out into the flow of traffic.

It's called subject matter, what exactly is unclear about this ?

There is no "instead", that *was* the debate. The only person having a different one appears to be you...

If a driver runs into the side of another car, they hold a degree of responsibility for causing that accident. Simple as.

Mistake is another word for negligence...

Unless ridiculous speeds are involved on the part of the primary offending vehicle, then yes it is true.

If someone is able to 'whip out' within your stopping distance, then your stopping distance is incorrect. That is called negligence.

Agreed, I meant to say no one can make you run into them unless you do so by inaction.

I seriously doubt it, the chances of directly hitting the side of a car moving past a junction are slim to none, the window of opportunity is so slow as to be non-existent. The chances of pulling out *in front* of that vehicle are far higher tho.

Maybe you can, and that would involve a degree of negligence on my part, which would only serve to make my point.

I can see your theory, I just disagree with it.

I'm right then.

It's somewhere around 0.2 seconds for the vast majority of people.

The kind of anticipation that increases one's reaction time is different to thinking "That bod might pull out in front of me". It's anticipation of regular things. For example, if you timed how long it took a ball bearing to drop through some oil for a set distance, you'd be able to come up with figures more accurate than you ought to be able to because you anticipate the BB passing the marker and press the stopwatch button then. You can't anticipate random things in the same way, obviously.

People make assumptions all the time. It's the only way you can get anywhere. I've assumed that the brake warning bulb in my car is working and that I've still got brake fluid every time I've wanted to use the brakes.

Someone can pull out into the side my car when it's simply too late for me to react and I will not be at fault. You're wrong, I'm right, and you like boys and wearing make up.

"You slow down to whatever speed you need to to ensure yours and others safety. If that means 5mph, then 5mph it is."

Seconded. I've had maybe 10 near misses, in my 8 years driving.