Booby Trap Warning: Tiptree, Essex

[reohn2]

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.

I agree,the motorist is rarely seen as the guilty party or responsible for their actions,it's all too often because everyone drives,if the finger is pointed in the motorist's direction the remaining three point back to the self,a dilemma for many

Don't you agree that this is symptomatic of something or other?

Without doubt

[[XAP]Bob]

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.

...

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.

Agreed - the people doing the booby trapping need to be hung out to dry, but that doesn't stop the responsibility of the motorists to stop in the distance they can see to be clear. Note that that is very different from being able to stop in the distance you can't see an obstruction.

[AlaninWales]

We are now all vehemently agreeing I wonder why

I agree by the way.

[[XAP]Bob]

We are now all vehemently agreeing I wonder why

I agree by the way.

I don't think we ever disagreed.

[sjs]

We are now all vehemently agreeing I wonder why

I agree by the way.

Well, to deal with moving vehicles one can't see (eg approaching car round a bend) everyone would have to be able to stop in half the distance they can see to be clear.

[pwa]

Last night I was driving in torrential rain, sometimes on country lanes. Having contributed to this topic earlier in the day I asked myself whether I would spot a lump of concrete, the size of a football, on the dark, wet road surface. The honest answer is no, not on some of the potholed lanes with their irregular surfaces. I was driving in my usual way, watching out for pedestrians and other road users, plenty of margin for error. But rubble on the road would not have shown up well in my headlights with the wipers going. (Taller obstructions like cyclists and pedestrians would have been much easier to identify).

Taking the discussion a little away from the original topic, what cycling-related message can I take from this? Well, my lights would have picked out taller obstructions (including people) so no problem there. But if there had been an injured person on the floor with no reflectives, and in dark clothing, I may or may not have seen them. Putting aside the rights and wrongs of this, if you ever find yourself lying injured on a road at night, and if you are able, get yourself off the road ASAP.

I think nearly all motorists know about the requirement to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, but when we think "clear" we tend to think clear of the usual obstructions such as other motor vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horses and (here in Wales) sheep. Stuff lying on the floor is rare and therefore not at the top of our list of what to watch out for. Stuff on the floor is also much harder to identify at the sort of distance that motorists (and, to a lesser degree, cyclists) look. Rubble would be identified as such (in the dark) quite close up, but the motorist normally concentrates on a zone a bit further up the road. You could be very good at spotting cyclists and very poor at spotting bricks.

[reohn2]

We are now all vehemently agreeing I wonder why

I agree by the way.

Well, to deal with moving vehicles one can't see (eg approaching car round a bend) everyone would have to be able to stop in half the distance they can see to be clear.

I agree.
IMHO life is a game of chance,you try to reduce that chance factor as much as possible,though there are no guarantees.
The problem is not everyone's reduction of chance or even awareness of such chance is the same,and for a multitude of reasons.
Those reasons can be reduced by external influence,ie;policing and threat of loss of licence,awareness of mortality etc,etc.
But the chances of those external influences are minimised, due constraints on spending on prevention,particularly in a society that that sees wrong as right and as a result doesn't want to be,or even at worse case doesn't recognise what wrong is!
Unfortunately the responsibility for safety is all to often in the hands of those who can't spell the word let alone know it's meaning .

[Tonyf33]

the highway code states to be able to stop WELL WITHIN the distance you can see to be clear, that part evades the vast majority, also it infers that it is in 'your lane' and not for oncoming traffic. If you can't see 10 metres ahead due to the conditions/environ then 20mph is too fast (bearing in mind you have braking AND thinking time/distance) so you won't be able to stop in time for an object on the road or stopped vehicle possibly waiting to make a turn or if there is an incident further up the road which they have properly stopped for.

[reohn2]

the highway code states to be able to stop WELL WITHIN the distance you can see to be clear, that part evades the vast majority, also it infers that it is in 'your lane' and not for oncoming traffic. If you can't see 10 metres ahead due to the conditions/environ then 20mph is too fast (bearing in mind you have braking AND thinking time/distance) so you won't be able to stop in time for an object on the road or stopped vehicle possibly waiting to make a turn or if there is an incident further up the road which they have properly stopped for.

I agree.
However the HC ideal is seldom practised,and the practising of it is even disregarded by the courts who should be upholding it's laws.
It seems according to some recent cases hilighted on the forum,motorists don't even have to take into account the very existence of cyclists presence,just plough on regardless whether they can see the road in front or not.
That's the reality we are now faced with.

[Vorpal]

Following that principle, in theory, no one should ever drive faster than 60 mph on dipped beams, except through a very well lighted areas. Many cars do not have headlights that illuminate that far ahead, on dipped beams.

Following the same logic, anyone who goes from full beam at 70 mph to dipped beam should slow down.

[pwa]

There is agreement here that motorists should be driving in a way that allows for what might be round the next corner. But the implication of talking about this, and only this, is that a motorist driving responsibly cannot fail to see a lump of rubble in the road. I disagree with that. And we must not forget that cyclists could also be caught out. Can any of us say that we have never failed to spot a pothole in time to avoid it? If you can say "yes" to that, you are perfect and I bow to you. But if you can't, why would you expect to be better at spotting low lying obstacles when driving a car?

[[XAP]Bob]

There is agreement here that motorists should be driving in a way that allows for what might be round the next corner. But the implication of talking about this, and only this, is that a motorist driving responsibly cannot fail to see a lump of rubble in the road. I disagree with that. And we must not forget that cyclists could also be caught out. Can any of us say that we have never failed to spot a pothole in time to avoid it? If you can say "yes" to that, you are perfect and I bow to you. But if you can't, why would you expect to be better at spotting low lying obstacles when driving a car?

My initial post was:

The damage caused to vehicles has been significant, and it is only down to careless driving that any has been caused.

FTFT (fixed that for them)

It's a stationary object on the road that they failed to avoid - isn't that the very definition of careless?

As others have pointed out the stationary object could have been a collapsed pedestrian, or a smaller vehicle with mechanical issues (possibly total electrical failure as well, maybe even spun sideways)

The HC says:
146: Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend. Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution.
154: Be prepared for pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, slow-moving farm vehicles or mud on the road surface. Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear.

If you can be expected to see mud - then you can be expected to see a boulder....

If I fail to spot something then that is careless - it was careless (but impressive) when I jumped my trike down the road from Draycote Water - I was chatting to the person next to me, picking up speed and failed to see the speed bumps...
It was careless when I went over a speed bump into a car park and only realised at that point that the far side of the speed bump had not been gritted at all...
It was careless when I glanced down to adjust the heating control at exactly the wrong time on the A1 and had to ram the brakes on - shortly afterwards I was overtaken by a significant amount my rear tyres in the form of blue smoke - but I did avoid any collision.

[reohn2]

It was also careless when driver carried on blindly into a setting sun or into driving rain that reduced their visiblity so badly that they didn't see th well lit and reflective wearing cyclist and killed them.And many more similar 'accidents' when such drivers were found not guilty.
Such is the skewed and topsy turvy world that is the Great(?)British legal system

[pwa]

We are dealing with a sliding scale here. A driver not seeing a cyclist or pedestrian in the road is a lot less understandable than the same driver not seeing a rock or a metal bar. The same human frailty that allows a cyclist to mistake a pothole (to be avoided) for a mere patch in the tarmac (to be ridden over) comes into play. You don't have to be the kind of driver who would race around a bend and into the back of a tractor to mistake a lump of concrete for a blemish in the road surface. Its raised nature might be unclear in poor light, especially on a road with lots of patches. And you would damage your car at 20mph or less. What I am saying is that a normally cautious driver travelling at modest speed and trying to comply with the Highway Code might easily misread debris on the road. At night, in the rain, even at low speed it could easily happen.

[reohn2]

We are dealing with a sliding scale here. A driver not seeing a cyclist or pedestrian in the road is a lot less understandable than the same driver not seeing a rock or a metal bar. The same human frailty that allows a cyclist to mistake a pothole (to be avoided) for a mere patch in the tarmac (to be ridden over) comes into play. You don't have to be the kind of driver who would race around a bend and into the back of a tractor to mistake a lump of concrete for a blemish in the road surface. Its raised nature might be unclear in poor light, especially on a road with lots of patches. And you would damage your car at 20mph or less. What I am saying is that a normally cautious driver travelling at modest speed and trying to comply with the Highway Code might easily misread debris on the road. At night, in the rain, even at low speed it could easily happen.

I think the discussion has moved on slightly to discussing that drivers are forgiven for almost anything to cover up their bad driving habits,killing cyclists by not slowing down where apropriate, being one of those.
That being the case what chance have they of see a lump of concrete,barbed wire or other obstruction in the way?
They don't expect it so it does exist.