Booby Trap Warning: Tiptree, Essex

[Vorpal]

If you can't stop because of the driver too close behind, you should have slowed further to control that driver's speed too!

Tha's all fine, and it's my normal tactic, but if someone comes up behind you, there is still a brief time in which something could occur before you (and the following driver) necessarily slow down. I don't recall the specific circumstances of my brick incident; it was 13 or 14 years ago, now. I was aware of a car close behind mine and was already slowing when I saw the brick. I presume that the driver had 'caught up' to me just before the incident, but I don't now remember for certain that this was the case.

Indeed and I'm not claiming to be perfect either, just that whenever I've had such an incident (there've been a few, fortunately no-one hurt), I've looked towards my own actions for the remedy. Considering who I am (for the most part) conversing with here, I think that is the general approach of most in this conversation. So 'criticism' is just that: Constructive raising of a different approach (and - as an advanced driver (not IAM any longer I believe) recently remarked to me: AD is about giving permission yourself to drive at the correct speed for the circumstances, which may be slower than others would).

Fair enough. It's normal for me to consider in retrospect, what I could have done differently. Although I clearly recall seeing the brick in the carriageway, and deciding that the safest choice was to hit it, I don't recall my post-incident analysis, or what I concluded. It seems to me now, that it would have been very difficult in the circumstances to avoid an incident, and I just chose the least harmful scenario. I *was* driving slower than others, which is why, I suppose, a car was passing me on the outside, and another was up my backside.

[reohn2]

As in Vorpal's case,I had a choice not to commit Badgercide,it was just that poor old Badger was the least of the two evils I was faced with,Badgercide or (potentially)being rear ended choices,choices,in that circumstance I won.
I was on my knees the morning after looking for damage under the car,which was unscathed but for some badger hair remains.When a chap asked if I was having problems,when I explained,he said I was lucky,as the one he hit wrote off a 5year old car

It seems Vorpal's and my situation are different to the OP in that we both made the right decision under the circumstances or does it.
But how do we know the driver in the video didn't have someone tailgating them when they saw the debris in the road,and that they didn't make to right decision too?

It's as I said up thread 20/20 hindsight is a gift,though by it's nature always too late,there but for the grace of God,etc.

I used to work with a chap who's stock saying at the finish of a job was 'perfectus finus' I used wind him up saying with a pointing finger 'except for that little bit up there',it never failed.

[Phil Fouracre]

Interesting comments. Totally agree with being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, this was hammered into us when I learnt to drive, doesn't seem to be today. Are the people who are sympathetic, the same ones who complain when drivers say that they didn't expect to see a cyclist? Taking the lane, similarly, control the traffic behind by slowing down to give yourself manoeuvreing room!

[Vorpal]

I think there are a number of factors here. Size and importance matter. A brick in the carriageway is relatively small and less noticeable than a cyclist. Certainly, the distance at which a cyclist can be seen is greater than the distance at which a brick in the carriageway can be seen.

It was night time when I hit the brick in the incident described above. I think that when it first came into my headlights, I must have thought it was a stone or a pothole or something. I don't think it was a matter of not driving so that I could stop within in the distance that I could see to be clear, but rather misunderstanding, or underestimating the object in the carriageway. Byt the time I registered it as a potentially damaging object, my options were limited. Frankly, I think it's something that could happen to anyone. If it matters, the brick was actually only maybe 2/3rds of a brick, and it also had some masonry stuck to it, so part of it was the same colour as the road surface.

I doubt that I would have missed a cyclist in front of me, but even if I had observed a cyclist at the point that I realised there a brick in the carriageway, I am confident that I could have stopped. But I had low confidence that the driver behind could stop.

At what point do we say a driver should have been more observant, going slower, etc. At badger size? Child size? Brick size? How much does weight matter? People leave drinks bottles in the road all the time. Nobody stops for them, even though they are a similar size to the brick I hit. They recognise that a drinks bottle is unlikely to damage a vehicle. Some of the items in the OP were large enough that I would tend to agree that the drivers should have seen them. Others? I'm not so sure. Should I drive slow enough to see (rather difficult to see at night) barbed wire in the road? I would think that would require driving dangerously slow, at least in some circumstances. I certainly wouldn't want to drive the A12 at 30 mph, looking for barbed wire.

[AlaninWales]

I don't think it was a matter of not driving so that I could stop within in the distance that I could see to be clear, but rather misunderstanding, or underestimating the object in the carriageway. By the time I registered it as a potentially damaging object, my options were limited..

This is very true and important: It is also why some car drivers don't see cyclists! Not aimed at you Vorpal, I'm sure you would, but it is the time taken to sort out the expected from the unexpected which accounts for the majority of reaction time in most cases (i.e. when you are not waiting for the red light to come on or the examiner to slap the dashboard ). Most people drive along thinking of 'something and nothing' and are not prepared for anything but a clear road (it is what they had for the last x00 miles and is what they expect to continue to have). This is where the concentration to play a continual game of 'what if?' comes in.
What if there's a skip/child/parked car around this bend?
What if there's a pedestrian walking in the road ahead (hidden by the glare of oncoming lights)?
What if there's something about to exit from the (unseen) gap in the hedge?
...etc...

[pwa]

Rheon2's darting badger notwithstanding, I do find it disturbing that so many motorists in this story apparently failed to see and avoid hitting relatively large objects in the road.

As I have reported before, I once cycled in to a large black bullock on an unlit country lane. And my wife once ruined a wheel on our car by driving over a rock that had fallen off the adjacent dry stone wall. It is easily done. We are not perfect, and a grey lump of rock on a grey road surface, at night, might look like nothing more than a patch in the tarmac.

[Tangled Metal]

I agree with all contents about driving so you can stop within your sightlines. It's what I try to do. At night I'm b especially cautious.

Taking this aside I do believe the deliberate boobytrapping a rural road goes that does need dealing with too.

Near me there was a case of a few lasses from the uni rowing squad rowing into a boobytrappin made up of a fishing line with hooks at head height all across the wide river. One person got hurt needing stitches. The police investigated but took it no further. The investigating officer was a member of the local fishing club and it was common knowledge that it was two members of that club who did it. There was agreed access between all river users that had been in operation for years but the fishing club became anti anyone else using the river. These two guys were just a taking it too far. The club made the right noises about kicking anyone guilty of this out of the club with the resulting loss of their fishing rights. It's dead men's shoes getting into.that club.

I doubt anyone here would disagree that any attempt to cause harm through the criminal placement of obstructions should be stopped and condemned. Even if nobody obeying the law should come to harm.

[pwa]

I agree with all contents about driving so you can stop within your sightlines. It's what I try to do. At night I'm b especially cautious.

Taking this aside I do believe the deliberate boobytrapping a rural road goes that does need dealing with too.

Near me there was a case of a few lasses from the uni rowing squad rowing into a boobytrappin made up of a fishing line with hooks at head height all across the wide river. One person got hurt needing stitches. The police investigated but took it no further. The investigating officer was a member of the local fishing club and it was common knowledge that it was two members of that club who did it. There was agreed access between all river users that had been in operation for years but the fishing club became anti anyone else using the river. These two guys were just a taking it too far. The club made the right noises about kicking anyone guilty of this out of the club with the resulting loss of their fishing rights. It's dead men's shoes getting into.that club.

I doubt anyone here would disagree that any attempt to cause harm through the criminal placement of obstructions should be stopped and condemned. Even if nobody obeying the law should come to harm.

I'd go a bit further and say that whilst all road users should be looking where they are going, and not going too fast to stop when they meet an obstacle, the rubble placed in the road was not necessarily easy to see, and the sort of driver who takes care and watches out for pedestrians could easily get caught out. That stuff would be low lying and effectively camouflaged. If I cycled in to a piece of metal with barbed wire attached I would not blame myself. Nor would I blame a driver who did the same.

[Mike Sales]

This booby trap episode is interesting in that it gives a slightly different look at the torrent of advice on the wearing of hiviz by cyclists and pedestrians. It always strikes me that in all this torrent aimed at us, there is hardly any mention of the need for drivers to observe H.C. rules 126 and 154.
Booby traps cannot be expected to wear hiviz. Its up to drivers to look out for themselves.

[Tangled Metal]

That depends on visibility. If you assume the purpose was vandalism/to cause harm to someone then there is likely to be concealment involved. Then I'd agree that speed is not necessarily the issue.

If it's done by an idiot without the ability to think of concealing the obstruction then drivers/riders might have a reasonable chance of the spotting it and reacting if they're following highway/driving regulations or best practice.

My example of the fishing line across the river had complete concealment at its heart. You cannot see a clear, nylon filament and fishing hooks stretched out behind you as you row at competitive training speeds even if you had a cox.

The road equivalent might be wire stretched across the road with barbed wire dangling down just round a blind bend with a dip and under cover of trees I guess.

There's been a few cases of concrete blocks off road bridges a few years back. Not nice. A clubmate had his £1500 slalom kayak ruined by yobs throwing bricks from a bridge at him on the nearest decent permanent slalom b training course. That was 20+ years ago and he was a good amateur in the top 50 or higher at the time. He was insured luckily but could have been fatal.

All this shows is there's some scum out there without any care for their fellow human beings. At the risk of going daily wail on you it's a sign of the times perhaps.

[pwa]

This booby trap episode is interesting in that it gives a slightly different look at the torrent of advice on the wearing of hiviz by cyclists and pedestrians. It always strikes me that in all this torrent aimed at us, there is hardly any mention of the need for drivers to observe H.C. rules 126 and 154.
Booby traps cannot be expected to wear hiviz. Its up to drivers to look out for themselves.

We all like to think that we look where we are going. But if one of my kids leaves some books on the stairs and I fall as a result, I still complain to the person who left the obstruction in a daft place. If one of my kids left a deliberate obstruction, hoping for an accident, I would seek out psychiatric counselling for them. I would not primarily put the blame on myself for not seeing the obstruction.

What the Highway Code says about looking out for other road users and ensuring you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear is good advice, and I try to stick to it. Everybody should. But we are humans equipped only with human eyes, and it will always be possible for us to fail to spot inconspicuous objects at night on country roads, even at low speeds. When my wife drove over a large rock she was doing about 20mph on a straightish bit of road, and the rock merged with the numerous patches in the tarmac. She would have seen a pedestrian or a cyclist, but not necessarily a buff coloured lump of limestone that blended into the background of patches. Trying to adhere to the Highway Code is a good thing, but let's not pretend that mishaps cannot happen if we drive correctly.

[Mike Sales]

Yebbut, my point is not what you seem to think it is.
Next time you see advice to cyclists about wearing hiviz, check whether the article, or police warning, or blog piece or whatever, also advises drivers to "drive at such a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear" . My experience is that hardly anyone seems to think there is any need to repeat this advice which is mentioned twice in the Highway Code. This advice is not emphasised even though it is routinely ignored. Nobody taking part in the discussion has disagreed. Many drivers here are keen to say why it is impractical, or not infallible, or a problem because of tailgaters, but everyone accepts that this H.C. advice is not followed.
I am drawing attention to the fact that this advice is not only ignored, but that its very existence is ignored when advice is given to cyclists and pedestrians to dress up in reflectives and dayglo.
Don't you agree that this is symptomatic of something or other?

[jgurney]

But if one of my kids leaves some books on the stairs and I fall as a result, I still complain to the person who left the obstruction in a daft place.

However it that case you have no special responsibilities. A driver has undergone special training and has a special responsibility, beyond the logic of self-preservation, to be carefully observing the road ahead.

[reohn2]

This booby trap episode is interesting in that it gives a slightly different look at the torrent of advice on the wearing of hiviz by cyclists and pedestrians. It always strikes me that in all this torrent aimed at us, there is hardly any mention of the need for drivers to observe H.C. rules 126 and 154.
Booby traps cannot be expected to wear hiviz. Its up to drivers to look out for themselves.

The major obstacle to that is non driving drivers,where the driver is being driven or driving beyond their capabilities or observational senses or the distractions of not being 'there' are very real and a problem facing drivers who expect everything by expecting nothing.
A state of,I was just driving along and next thing I know,'WHAM'.
They didn't see anything because they didn't expect to see anything......

[reohn2]

..........All this shows is there's some scum out there without any care for their fellow human beings. At the risk of going daily wail on you it's a sign of the times perhaps.

Weird innit?
In the linked article it mentions two people,male and female,described as in their 20's seen placing objects in the roadway,and who ran away when challenged.

To think that children would throw heavy missiles off a bridge at people below is something that can sort of be forgiven(though not condoned) as they perhaps wouldn't conceive the consequences of their actions.

Older teenagers or 20 year old's makes me wonder what's going on in their heads .
Or maybe what have they been ingesting that they think that sort of 'prank' is good fun

Weird doesn't begin to describe such behaviour.