# A Worrying & Serious Near Incident!



## G2EWS (22 Oct 2012)

Hi All,

Since being a born again cyclist once again I have been enjoying my commutes and weekend rides when I get the chance.

Having cycled into the office today, I had to pop down to Fordingbridge from my office in Market Lavington. So I took the Land Rover which my Wife had driven to work.

I went from Market Lavington into West Lavington and turned left (South) towards Salisbury on the A360. As you come out of West Lavington and into the unrestricted 60 mph zone you approach a left hand bend:

*West Lavington, Wiltshire SN10*

I drove round this bend at about 45 mph which in my opinion was a sensible speed.

As I got round, in front of me and riding sensibly and close to the side in secondary position was one of two cyclists. The 2nd being about 10 - 15 M further on.

I reacted very quickly and slammed on the brakes allowing the ABS to take over. I missed the Woman by no more than 1 M!

If she had been 10 M further back, there is no question in my mind that I would have hit her. Swerving was not an option, nor overtaking as the road is narrow and there was a stream of vehicles coming the other way.

For the rest of my journey and return I pondered over what I might have done differently or indeed the cyclist could have done to make her life safer.

As I say, she was cycling well and up a steep hill. No undue wobble and quite obviously in the correct gear as was her male partner.

I have travelled that road faster and considered myself to be driving safely. Indeed, if I had been in my Wife's BMW 6 series, I would almost certainly have been travelling nearer to 60 mph.

As far as I can see the only quantifiable change would be for me to have been travelling around the bend at no more than 30 mph and possibly slower. But how practical could it be to travel on roads like this and slow down to 30 mph or slower for every bend? It just would not work.

I remember in the 70's an advert of a car travelling around country lanes and around every bend there was a space ship on the middle of the road. They then re run the same route and instead of a spaceship they had a herd of cows, a broken down car and a cyclist.

It has certainly got me thinking of how we as motorists and cyclists should travel on our roads!

Best regards

Chris


----------



## MrJamie (22 Oct 2012)

I think it'll come down to you only driving as fast as you can see is safe ahead of you, but I dont really think anyone does that on a twisty lane. I suspect if you parked a tractor in said blind spot, it wouldnt take very long before someone crashed into it. I think on a tight bend theres also a tendency to assume its clear for as far as you can see half the lane is empty ie. no vehicles.

From the cyclist perspective if I do end up on a road like that, I tend to hang out in primary as late as possible so im visable as far back as possible, then really hug the gutter once in the blind spot. No idea if thats the best idea, but theres usually space for a close pass if it comes to it.


----------



## G2EWS (22 Oct 2012)

Hi Jamie,

Having been taught by the man who wrote the Police chase manual to drive round a bend, I can confirm that I was well within the 'safe' speed for the bend.

But I think you are right, any vehicle that has stopped becomes a danger. If you broke down on a bend, the first and safe thing you would surely do, is let oncoming motorists know by alerting them before the bend.

A conundrum for sure!

Regards

Chris


----------



## ColinJ (22 Oct 2012)

It is quite simple - you were driving too fast!

What about a rider on a horse, or a vehicle that has only just broken down, or a cyclist that has hit a pothole and fallen off ...?

I knew somebody who killed a grandfather and grandson who were standing in the road round a bend like that. He was indignant to have lost his license and said it was their fault because "_they shouldn't have been standing there_"! 



G2EWS said:


> As far as I can see the only quantifiable change would be for me to have been travelling around the bend at no more than 30 mph and possibly slower. But how practical could it be to travel on roads like this and slow down to 30 mph or slower for every bend? It just would not work.


Of course "it would work", you would just average (say) 52.7 mph for your journey instead of 56.9!


----------



## Pale Rider (22 Oct 2012)

You missed the lass, so all is well.
But it does sound as if you were driving too fast around a 'blind' bend.
I have to regularly negotiate a long, sharp lefthander on a country road.
Nothing for it but to slow right down and lean to the right in a largely futile attempt to see further around the corner.


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (22 Oct 2012)

I absolutely hate cycling along roads with "blind corners", with hedgerows/buildings either side.
One of the worst local roads to me is the old march to wisbech road. Proper rat run with speeds up
to 80mph quite feasible.

Here's a scenario which could happen:

A cyclist is travelling round a left bend, shielded from the view of a motorist approaching behind.
The motorist suddenly finds a cyclist in the way half way round the corner.
The motorist moves wants to move across, but can't as there's a car in the oncoming lane.
The motorist brakes hard.
The back end of their vehicle swings around as the roads are *wet*.
*Bang!*
The cyclist stops, totally unharmed, and phones 999, whilst looking at the wreckage of two cars.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Oct 2012)

Chris,

Back in the 70's when I was just 16 and on my funky moped on the way back from my girlfriends was a sharp left hand bend. I would go round it at 20 miles an hour but could never stay on my side of the road. I once spoke to my dad about it, his reply was 'You are going too fast' I argued the point how could I being going too fast I was only going 20. Nearly 40 years later I agree with him, if I couldn't go round the corner & stay my side of the road I was going too fast.

So I put it to you, if you couldn't go round the corner & not run over the cyclist that was laid in the road, stop before you hit the tractor & trailer stopped in the road, or hit the car that had just crashed you were going too fast.

Alan...


----------



## mattobrien (22 Oct 2012)

I was taught (not by my driving instructor, or not at least the one that taught me to pass my test) that you can drive as far as you can see. By that, you can go as fast as see that you can safely stop in.

Yes that means sometimes slowing down for corners and driving appropriate to conditions. Driving out in the country there can be anything from tractors to livestock.


----------



## sidevalve (22 Oct 2012)

Easy to bang on about "you were going too fast" and maybe you were but in practice [and in the real world] EVERYBODY is guilty of going too fast sometimes and yes that includes cyclists.


----------



## G2EWS (22 Oct 2012)

I used to travel about 1,000 miles a week and hate to say it, but the only accidents that have happened are when 1. A car pulled out on me and he accepted blame and 2. A car rammed me and was spotted by the Police who prosecuted him for dangerous driving.

I consider myself a safe driver and follow, as I say the Police's own safety guides about how to drive around a bend. Bit complicated to explain here, but I was well under the safe limit for this bend.

If you consider any bend you go round and tackle it to the best of your ability with absolute safety in mind, then you will find that most need to be negotiated to avoid the possibility of something in the road at a speed that is likely to be under 20 mph. Check it out next time you are driving on a road like I have shown you above. You will see what I mean. Then seriously question yourself, did I tackle that bend correctly for 'any' incident that may have taken place? 

Nobody does this, unless they are travelling at 20 mph all the time. So again, I wonder what the solution is? Should we be forced to slow down to 20 mph on every bend?

Average speed would go down considerably slower than what you suggest Colin. 

I am not saying that your suggestions are wrong, but question the practicality of following it through. I have never in many hundreds of thousands of miles of driving seen anyone driving like this so doubt that it actually happens.

Colin, the statement regarding the person who killed those poor people is of course a pathetic excuse from the driver.

I think I will contact the Police and discuss this with them as there has to be an answer. If the Police had travelled around this bend at the 'safe' maximum speed, it would have been 60 mph by their own guidelines. If they had been in a chase situation it would have been considerably faster than that!

A couple of years ago I was driving to Swindon and as I approached a bend I found a Woman broken down in totally the wrong place. It was a suicide - by accident - waiting to happen. I contacted the Police straight away. I have never seen a car travel that bend at 10 mph, which was the only speed you should travel at to have avoided an accident. I had just pulled away having stopped, hence being able to stop safely.

Regards

Chris


----------



## G2EWS (22 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> Can you explain more fully why this would be a bad thing?


 
I didn't say it was a bad thing, just suggested that it maybe the only solution. How we enforce it is another debate of course!

Regards

Chris


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Having been taught by the man who wrote the Police chase manual to drive round a bend, I can confirm that I was well within the 'safe' speed for the bend.


 
His name wasn't Gerard Sharratt was it?

Lucky for you it wasn't a tractor round the corner or you would have learnt the wisdom of the advice of always driving so you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear.


----------



## G2EWS (22 Oct 2012)

Look guys, stop making this a personal attack on me.

I am opening this up for debate. I have no doubt in my mind that there is not one amongst you who would have travelled round that bend at 20 mph. So lets cut to the chase and debate the issue rather than making it about me.

The issue is, what do we need to do to make it safe for cyclists and motorists alike. Should we be enforcing a speed limit around a bend that is much slower than we originally thought was correct?

I don't have an issue with discussing the possible solutions.

As suggested, when you are next out in the car and perhaps on roads like I have shown, that you use on a regular basis, check and be honest with yourself, did you travel around the bend at a speed that could avoid ANY possible eventuality?

Best regards

Chris


----------



## Hip Priest (22 Oct 2012)

It shouldn't be too difficult to put a sign up saying 'Blind Bend - Do not exceed x mph'.


----------



## MrJamie (22 Oct 2012)

I don't think people are even taught to only drive as far as they can safely see, plenty of cyclists ride way over what's safe for certain roads too, Strava makes that pretty clear  If you slowed right down for tight bends you'd probably become the obstacle and get hit from behind by someone else who didnt slow 

A friend of mine said that he either failed or got marked down on his driving test (i forget which, it would be like 12-15 years ago now) for slowing down to about 40mph on this twisty bit of 60mph NSL road: http://goo.gl/maps/076FJ


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Look guys, stop making this a personal attack on me.
> 
> I am opening this up for debate. I have no doubt in my mind that there is not one amongst you who would have travelled round that bend at 20 mph. So lets cut to the chase and debate the issue rather than making it about me.
> 
> ...


 
But it is about you and the solution is to make it clear to motorists that they should not go hurtling round blind bends expecting it to be clear. There could be anything round the bend from a tractor to a cow in the road to a cyclist. The only solutions to the problem you posed is to drive more slowly or ban cyclists, tractors, milk floats and other slower vehicles from the roads. And the latter is not an acceptable solution.


----------



## G2EWS (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> But it is about you and the solution is to make it clear to motorists that they should not go hurtling round blind bends expecting it to be clear. There could be anything round the bend from a tractor to a cow in the road to a cyclist. The only solutions to the problem you posed is to drive more slowly or ban cyclists, tractors, milk floats and other slower vehicles from the roads. And the latter is not an acceptable solution.


 

OK Red Light, if you say so. I give in trying to have a decent debate. 

Regards

Chris


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (22 Oct 2012)

I think it's the habit these days to not look far enough ahead. I was talking to my better half's son this weekend and he was telling me how his motorbike instructor drilled a 'scanning routine' into him. Look in the far distance, look mid distance, look close etc. It stuck in my mind and I've found myself questioning how much of a scan routine myself and most drivers have in these days of jams and tailgaters.

They say you learn to drive after your test. Having a partner who's an ambulance driver, then watching her son through bike and car instruction has made me think a lot more about what I haven't learnt in 24 years on the road.

My thought for the day on the OP is that in that situation I hoped my 'far scan' would have seen the cyclists enter the corner. It's no perfect world, there's plenty to get in the line of sight, but it's another idea.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Oct 2012)

Chris - welcome to the world of cycle/car ownership.

Cycling has clearly made you look in retrospectively at how you drive and that can only be a good thing. 

I like these threads - people being honest.

You've Manned Up sir

Look up vanishing point - that's the bit you are missing from your driving.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Oct 2012)

Oh, and ignore the evangelists.


----------



## G2EWS (22 Oct 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> I think it's the habit these days to not look far enough ahead. I was talking to my better half's son this weekend and he was telling me how his motorbike instructor drilled a 'scanning routine' into him. Look in the far distance, look mid distance, look close etc. It stuck in my mind and I've found myself questioning how much of a scan routine myself and most drivers have in these days of jams and tailgaters.
> 
> They say you learn to drive after your test. Having a partner who's an ambulance driver, then watching her son through bike and car instruction has made me think a lot more about what I haven't learnt in 24 years on the road.
> 
> My thought for the day on the OP is that in that situation I hoped my 'far scan' would have seen the cyclists enter the corner. It's no perfect world, there's plenty to get in the line of sight, but it's another idea.


 
Hi Nigel,

Interesting and very good points.

Sadly, no, the cyclist was round the corner when I arrived. 

I naturally scan the road all round. Part of being as experienced as I am. But as I mentioned unless I slowed down on a bend that is normally taken at 50 - 60 mph by every road user I have ever seen to about 20 mph, if the cyclist was 10 M further back I don't think there would have been a chance of not hitting her. As I say, it questions what speed we should be driving around a bend. If everyone I have ever seen goes round it at 50 - 60 mph and I have used the road a lot, then what is going wrong? Lack of foresight perhaps? But by everyone? Even those who SAY they slow down but I doubt they do.

I didn't say earlier, but on my return along the same road and at the top of the hill I spotted a broken small mirror in the road. Both cyclists had rear view mirrors! I wonder if the worst really did happen? I do so hope not.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## G2EWS (22 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Chris - welcome to the world of cycle/car ownership.
> 
> Cycling has clearly made you look in retrospectively at how you drive and that can only be a good thing.
> 
> ...


 

Hi 400bhp,

Thanks for the comments. I am aware of vanishing point and that is what surprises me as it deemed this bend could be taken at higher speeds than 20 mph. Worrying for sure!

Best regards

Chris


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> OK Red Light, if you say so. I give in trying to have a decent debate.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chris


 
So what is your solution? Absent widening country lanes I can't see any options other than driving round the bend more slowly or removing the cyclist from the road. And the latter for me is unacceptable. Can you see an option I've missed?


----------



## Paul_L (22 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> I think I will contact the Police and discuss this with them as there has to be an answer. If the Police had travelled around this bend at the 'safe' maximum speed, it would have been 60 mph by their own guidelines. If they had been in a chase situation it would have been considerably faster than that!


 
I'm confused by this. I'm assuming the road is NSL, i.e. limit is 60mph? So on a section of the road with blind bends, how come the "safe maximum speed" is the same as the speed limit for the road per se?

And in a police chase, if plod were driving at speeds >60mph then they would be on blues and twos?


----------



## 400bhp (22 Oct 2012)

I think he's getting confused with the maximum permitted speed and a safe speed.

Many people make this mistake unfortunately.


----------



## Fnaar (22 Oct 2012)

The way I read it, the cyclists were simply cycling, and couldn't be expected to go faster, slower, or be anywhere else, so the responsibility therefore lies with the car driver, I'd say. Everyone on the road, walking, cycling, or in whatever vehicle, should expect the unexpected, and take appropriate precautions.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (22 Oct 2012)

It's a tricky one G2EWS, though i am glad everything worked out okay on this occasion. 
Is it realistic to expect ALL drivers to slow down to 20-30mph on blind bends? You could argue yes. Certainly would prefer it as a cyclist, but as a realist i would suggest it's not likely. As a cyclist i suggest, like it or not, cycling on the road brings with it risks. Being struck by a car from behind is very much one of them. All you can do is ride best you can to keep yourself safe and hope the other road users are going to be safe also. 
How many people have seen a few slow moving cars in front of a long que of traffic. Clearly holding everyone else up but in their minds they are travelling at a safe pace. ?? 
Right or wrong this encourages risky overtaking and needless crashes. I see this all too often and is one of the main reasons people die on busy 60mph roads such as the A9. 
So again G2EWS. It's a tricky one with no easy answer. You could forget what everyone else does and treat every corner as if there may be a cyclist just around that blind corner. Cos you never know.


----------



## Night Train (22 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> I have no doubt in my mind that there is not one amongst you who would have travelled round that bend at 20 mph. So lets cut to the chase and debate the issue rather than making it about me.


 
I do.

I was taught to do that.

I still do that. Though I don't claim a particular speed would be safe, just any speed that is slow enough to be safe.

OK, not a personal attack on you, you learned something today about your driving and the road you were on. That is a good and positive thing, sadly not every driver would have stopped to think about it as you did. Most would have blamed the cyclist, the sun, the road designer, in fact nearly anyone and anything else other then question if they could have done any different. So you are doing well so far.

Anyway, The solution is, as has been said, to only drive as far as you can see to be your safe stopping distance. If you can only see 10m around a blind corner then your speed should allow you to come to a stop within 10m given the road conditions, even if that is less then walking speed.

I will happily blast around country lanes at the speed limit but I will also slow to a crawl if the next bend or junction is blind. This is not because I am a cyclist but because I learned, when I learned to drive, that sometimes there is something around the corner that could either kill me or be killed by me if I wasn't able to stop in time.

OK, my anecdote.

I was driving on a winding lane in mid Wales, a few years ago, and approaching a bend to the right. It was a blind bend that had many chevrons on it and high hedges on both sides. I think I was down to about 10-15mph and aiming for walking speed until I could see further.
As I got to the start of the bend an articulated lorry came into view coming towards me. The lorry was on the other side of the road and well clear of me but the overhanging front end of the oversize load it was carrying, as it rounded the bend, swept over the roof of my car causing me to instinctively duck. I came to a dead stop very quickly as I was no longer able to look above the dash. Had I been driving a taller vehicle, a 4x4 or a van, the load would have hit my vehicle.
If I had been driving faster then I wouldn't have been able to duck and stop safely.

Annoyingly the escort vehicle carrying the sign that said 'Caution, oversize load following' was following behind the lorry it should have been in front of.


Anyway, good for thinking about the incident and wanting to figure out how to make your driving safer in future.


----------



## Canrider (22 Oct 2012)

Night Train said:


> That is a good and positive thing, sadly not every driver would have stopped to think about it as you did.


And perhaps more importantly, wouldn't have had the sand to come on here and tell the rest of us about it!


----------



## Canrider (22 Oct 2012)

2114379 said:


> Is there a problem with the general rule of being able to stop before you reach as far as you can see at any given moment?


Not generally, however, I can think of a couple places near here where that rule means you effectively would have to stop dead and wait for the man with the red flag to walk ahead of you.


----------



## atbman (22 Oct 2012)

I think htat we should all bear in mind that rural roads are more dangerous for cyclists than are urban ones: about half of all cyclist fatalities occur on them. Taking into account the fact that there are more urban cycling journeys than rural ones, this indicates that a rural cyclist runs a higher risk of a fatal collision with a motor vehicle.

Might it be that driving round bends faster than is technically wise is part of this? By the way, the OP was probably doing what the majority of us do when driving in the country.


----------



## Bengarbage (22 Oct 2012)

a. you're brave admitting this on a cycle forum

b. no ill happened this time, relax

c.hope you've learnt a lesson, because....

d. it's a limit, not a target.

best wishes.


----------



## Canrider (22 Oct 2012)

2114516 said:


> And the problem with that is?


..probably the lack of men with red flags in Our Modern World?

I do encourage you to drive a car around said corners at a speed faster than you can see clear to stop. Here's one of them:
http://goo.gl/maps/SfdNk
I'll even give you some local knowledge: as you go round the corner, there's usually a van (illegally) parked up level with the door on the building on your left as you go round the corner.

(NB: It's significant that the Google truck has difficulty even visualizing this corner)


----------



## Canrider (22 Oct 2012)

atbman said:


> I think htat we should all bear in mind that rural roads are more dangerous for cyclists than are urban ones: about half of all cyclist fatalities occur on them. Taking into account the fact that there are more urban cycling journeys than rural ones, this indicates that a rural cyclist runs a higher risk of a fatal collision with a motor vehicle.
> 
> Might it be that driving round bends faster than is technically wise is part of this? By the way, the OP was probably doing what the majority of us do when driving in the country.


Yes. And also more dangerous for car drivers as well, likely for broadly similar reasons. Everyone needs to slow down.


----------



## Canrider (22 Oct 2012)

2114525 said:


> So what is wrong with walking pace where appropriate?


Deal with the rest of the post, then we'll talk.


----------



## Bengarbage (22 Oct 2012)

looking at adrians sig i wouldn't bother arguing mate


----------



## Bengarbage (22 Oct 2012)

you are obviously the alpha and omega of all thing cycling mate ya?


----------



## Canrider (22 Oct 2012)

Bengarbage said:


> looking at adrians sig i wouldn't bother arguing mate


Yeah, pretty much, he's not going to stick any neck out. I go round that corner at 10 in 1st, and I guarantee I'm the slowest to do so. And yes, given the semi-guaranteed illegally stopped van I'm going waaaaay too fast at 10mph (wow, that'd be slow cycling speed, wouldn't it?).


----------



## Bengarbage (22 Oct 2012)

if so sorry (use my quote above please) just trying to balance the discussion mate


----------



## Canrider (22 Oct 2012)

2114536 said:


> Your local example has insufficient relevance to determine a principle.


You didn't have trouble applying a 'principle' to someone else's 'local example'...


----------



## Canrider (22 Oct 2012)

2114552 said:


> No, his local example breached a principle.


PMSL. Only because he *told* you it did, ergo, you have no basis to say my local example doesn't do the same...


----------



## Bengarbage (22 Oct 2012)

wow, this still going on lol, take a chill pill


----------



## Big boy (22 Oct 2012)

Im sorry but slamming on the brakes and letting the abs to take over at 45mph sounds a tad strange to me.
As someone said maybe drive a little bit slower, as far as i know you could be a very good driver.
We all get caught out from time to time, at least you said it as it is on here.
im sorry but i havent read every reply to your post but was the woman wearing high viz or anything.


----------



## Canrider (22 Oct 2012)

2114560 said:


> Told us? Are you sure that he has accepted the principle?


Immaterial, given that you're arguing that you can detect the presence of a principle on his road but not on mine...


----------



## Cubist (22 Oct 2012)

Can I just clear up a point? @G2EWS has confused two principles, which is the fastest safe speed to take any given corner, but that is based on that corner having full sight lines, therefore the "racing line" (out,apex,out) simply extends the geometry of the curve and means a car can travel round that curve "safely", ie without losing grip.

However, the police driving manual also talks of sight lines, and the "arrowhead" effect, which is the point at which the sides of the road appear to converge. Too fast, and that point rushes towards you, bang on the right speed and the arrowhead stays at a constant distance until the road straightens again. That arrowhead principle also teaches a driver to shift position in the road to extend that arrowhead, for example by moving to the offside edge of the carriageway to extend the sight lines on a left hander, and as far over to the nearside as possible on a right hander. 

Absolutely none of this theory over rides the most fundamental principle of safe cornering, which is that YOU MUST AT ALL TIMES BE TRAVELLING AT SUCH AS SPEED THAT YOU CAN STOP SAFELY WITHIN THE DISTANCE YOU CAN SEE AHEAD. Oh, and the other point made above, which is that the vehicle should be able to stay on the correct side of the road. 

So sorry G2EWS, but if you had to make an emergency stop to avoid the cyclist, you were simply travelling too fast. Please don't fall out with me, I'm not doing this as a personal attack, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Unless you have done all of the Advanced driving course, leave fast cornering to the experts, or the race track.


----------



## Canrider (22 Oct 2012)

2114568 said:


> Have you got a point to make here?


Maybe you should read back? I'd highly recommend making more voluble responses to posts rather than thinking that Lindfordesque-one-liners will secure you 'points'.


----------



## Bengarbage (22 Oct 2012)

get some driving tips from adrian (he's not near me thank god).


----------



## Bengarbage (22 Oct 2012)

fair enough, I never mean offence, however i'm good at sarcasm


----------



## Canrider (23 Oct 2012)

2114584 said:


> I have invited the discussion of the underpinning principle that you don't drive faster than the speed that enables you to stop in the bit of road you can see. Your individual junction does not add or detract from that so it has no relevance to add. Sorry.


I have proposed a junction where the maximum safe speed is approximately 0 MPH, therefore it is, by your definition, undriveable. Here's another: http://goo.gl/maps/Gyqm0


----------



## G2EWS (23 Oct 2012)

Cubist said:


> Can I just clear up a point? @G2EWS has confused two principles, which is the fastest safe speed to take any given corner, but that is based on that corner having full sight lines, therefore the "racing line" (out,apex,out) simply extends the geometry of the curve and means a car can travel round that curve "safely", ie without losing grip.
> 
> However, the police driving manual also talks of sight lines, and the "arrowhead" effect, which is the point at which the sides of the road appear to converge. Too fast, and that point rushes towards you, bang on the right speed and the arrowhead stays at a constant distance until the road straightens again. That arrowhead principle also teaches a driver to shift position in the road to extend that arrowhead, for example by moving to the offside edge of the carriageway to extend the sight lines on a left hander, and as far over to the nearside as possible on a right hander.
> 
> ...



Been there and done that! Not falling out but it seems strange to have people who don't know me, ignore some of what I have said but pick out the bits they want to discuss.

As some have said brave or maybe naive of me to put this on a cycling forum and expect a sensible debate.

To those who have raised valid points many thanks I have enjoyed your rhetoric.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## Cyclist33 (23 Oct 2012)

Fnaar said:


> The way I read it, the cyclists were simply cycling, and couldn't be expected to go faster, slower, or be anywhere else, so the responsibility therefore lies with the car driver, I'd say. Everyone on the road, walking, cycling, or in whatever vehicle, should expect the unexpected, and take appropriate precautions.


 
I think your two statements contradict each other somewhat - If every road user should take appropriate precautions, then the "simply cycling" cyclists perhaps should have also slowed to a halt, dismounted, taken their bikes to the roadside and walked the section of the bend that would potentially have been fatal for them if they'd continued riding.

But I suppose, as a non-driver, the only angle I can relate it with, is, supposing you were a mountain biker on a trail, and you came to a corner in your singletrack, nothing bikey seemed to be coming the other way, it was a run you knew well so you knew what speed you could maintain... you head round the bend and find that a hedgehog is paralleling you . Then there are also cyclists in view coming the other way. Would you splot the hedgehog, or brake to within an inch of stacking your bike and yourself in order to avoid splotting the hedgehog? Or would you have previously imagined this scenario for every impending corner and therefore cut your speed accordingly?

Stu


----------



## Cyclist33 (23 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> It's a tricky one G2EWS, though i am glad everything worked out okay on this occasion.
> Is it realistic to expect ALL drivers to slow down to 20-30mph on blind bends? You could argue yes. Certainly would prefer it as a cyclist, but as a realist i would suggest it's not likely. As a cyclist i suggest, like it or not, cycling on the road brings with it risks. Being struck by a car from behind is very much one of them. All you can do is ride best you can to keep yourself safe and hope the other road users are going to be safe also.
> How many people have seen a few slow moving cars in front of a long que of traffic. Clearly holding everyone else up but in their minds they are travelling at a safe pace. ??
> Right or wrong this encourages risky overtaking and needless crashes. I see this all too often and is one of the main reasons people die on busy 60mph roads such as the A9.
> So again G2EWS. It's a tricky one with no easy answer. You could forget what everyone else does and treat every corner as if there may be a cyclist just around that blind corner. Cos you never know.


 
This is a fantastic answer.


----------



## Cubist (23 Oct 2012)

My point was perfectly serious. What parts of it did you want to debate? You told us that you had to make an emergency stop to avoid a cyclist who was the other side of a blind bend, and told us that you didn't think you were going too fast because a police officer told you how to corner in a car. That officer was either wrong, or didn't tell you all of the principles of safe cornering, or you mistook what the officer said. 

Imagine (God forbid) that you had hit the cyclist. You are standing in the dock of a court, trying hard to explain that it wasn't your fault because a police officer told you how fast you could go round corners?

You compound this by telling us that you think none of us would ever go round that corner safely or slowly, and don't expect a reaction?


----------



## Bengarbage (23 Oct 2012)

lets not forget peds are fully entitled to use the carriageway (morally right or wrong)


----------



## Bengarbage (23 Oct 2012)

2114649 said:


> Don't drive it then. Get a mirror put up so you can see.Take a chance but don't cone whining to me when it goes wrong. You choose.


stay in lane then no issue , we all know the motorist must get ahead though. There's no answer i'm afraid. education does not work...


----------



## RWright (23 Oct 2012)

I do some riding on narrow country roads and even with little traffic I get a little nervous. A lot of the time they also have a soft shoulder. When I am riding I try to get out of the curves as fast as I can and after I go over a hill I try to get away from the peak quickly as well. An uphill blind curve on a narrow road like you described is probably the worst place for a cyclist to be because it can be hard to get out of the curve quickly.

I think cyclist need to get over as far from center as possible in those situations, at least that is what I do. I know others may disagree with my approach but I try to take up as little road as possible.

As far as what drivers can do I guess it is to try to recognize problem areas like sharp uphill curves, just after peaks on hills, and slow down more approaching them. Contact politicians to get the roads widened. I think a lot of roads are too narrow for the posted speed limits to start with.


----------



## Oldspice (23 Oct 2012)

@Cubist


----------



## G2EWS (23 Oct 2012)

RWright said:


> .............. I think a lot of roads are too narrow for the posted speed limits to start with.


 
Very good point.

Chris


----------



## subaqua (23 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi Jamie,
> 
> Having been taught by the man who wrote the Police chase manual to drive round a bend, I can confirm that I was well within the 'safe' speed for the bend.
> 
> ...


 this is not a personal attack but what i beleive and what I _TRY _to do all the time, and it annoys the hell out of some people when they are behind me.
I was taught to pass a test by an instructor, who taught me to travel at a speed that means I can stop safely in the distance I can see.
then when all of my friends had passed their tests, the fatjher of one of my friends who was a commended police driver and instructor at Cheshire police taught us to drive. one of the first things he asked us was How fast can you drive round a corner? , i gave my answer as I had been taught whilst learning to pass the test and he congratulated me on having a bit of sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadcraft item 3 Speed .

from the info given in your post it shows you were not meeting the requirements. this is one reason HMG wants to bring in lower limits on a lot of rural roads. Not that there are the resources to police this effectively , which isn't a dig at the police more HMG .


----------



## G2EWS (23 Oct 2012)

subaqua said:


> I was taught to pass a test by an instructor, who taught me to travel at a speed that means I can stop safely in the distance I can see.
> then when all of my friends had passed their tests, the fatjher of one of my friends who was a commended police driver and instructor at Cheshire police taught us to drive. one of the first things he asked us was How fast can you drive round a corner? , i gave my answer as I had been taught whilst learning to pass the test and he congratulated me on having a bit of sense.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadcraft item 3 Speed .
> ...


 
Hi Subaqua,

Sorry you are just totally wrong. Go back and drive that route on Google maps then tell me that you would go at 20 mph round it!

The point I am trying to make, is, I was driving as I normally do and that was safely. Having been on that road many times I and no one else I have ever seen has travelled that bend at anything less than 40 + mph. But I can now see that even using all the common sense and guidelines as taught to me and used by me in my many miles of travelling, was just too fast. 

Remember NO ONE I have ever seen travels around that bend at 20 mph. That should tell you something and do what I have asked of this thread to open a debate not about me, or anyone else who travelled around it at a sensible speed, but what do we need to implement to make sure a tragedy cannot happen.

I feel that I must go back to this bend today and drive round it at 20 mph just to see again why this bend is such a problem and believe me, there is something not quite right here. I have never been let down by the guidelines or sensible practices of safe driving before. 

As it happens I have asked local cyclists on a group I am part of if they know the bend and what speed they would drive round it. If they say 20 mph then I hold my hat up and say I need to go back to the drawing board. But somehow I feel that won't be the answer I get!

Regards

Chris


----------



## Cubist (23 Oct 2012)

I'm going to quote the manual as it appears on Wiki, as I do not have a copy to hand. 

I'm going to bold out the part Subaqua refers to in his post above. 

You @G2EWS are not debating, you have stated a point of view that you hold which tries to excuse a piece of poor judgement on your part. It does not matter in the slightest that countless others also drive around that bend too quickly, if you cannot stop safely in the distance that can see ahead, you are travelling too fast. There is no other debate. Even police officers responding to an incident with full strobes and sirens will have that principle firmly embedded in their consciences, because if they hit someone around that bend, they will be liable, even "the guy you know that wrote the responding manual". I tell you what, go and ask him, then come back and argue with us.

Read the part Subabqua refers to first. I'll quote it for you to save you having to click on the link yourself.
Roadcraft is the UK's police handbook that outlines a system of car and motorcycle control split into five phases represented by the acronym IPSGA:

*Information* received from the outside world by observation, and given by use of signals such as direction indicators, headlamp flashes, and horn; is a general theme running continuously throughout the application of the system by taking, using and giving information;
*Position* on the road optimised for safety, visibility and correct routing, followed by best progress;
*Speed* appropriate to the hazard being approached, attained via explicit braking or throttle control (engine braking),* always being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your side of the road;*
*Gear* appropriate for maximum vehicle control through the hazard, selected in one shift; and
*Acceleration* for clearing the hazard safely.


----------



## Fnaar (23 Oct 2012)

Cyclist33 said:


> I think your two statements contradict each other somewhat - If _*every road user should take appropriate precautions*_, then the *"simply cycling" cyclists perhaps should have also slowed to a halt, dismounted, taken their bikes to the roadside and walked the section of the bend that would potentially have been fatal for them if they'd continued riding*.
> 
> But I suppose, as a non-driver, the only angle I can relate it with, is, supposing you were a mountain biker on a trail, and you came to a corner in your singletrack, nothing bikey seemed to be coming the other way, it was a run you knew well so you knew what speed you could maintain... you head round the bend and find that a hedgehog is paralleling you . Then there are also cyclists in view coming the other way. Would you splot the hedgehog, or brake to within an inch of stacking your bike and yourself in order to avoid splotting the hedgehog? Or would you have previously imagined this scenario for every impending corner and therefore cut your speed accordingly?
> 
> Stu


No, that would just be silly! Perhaps they should have stayed at home and wrapped themselves in cotton wool, or invented a time machine and gone back and asked their parents not to make them  ...I meant, of course,within the bounds of reason and sensible roadcraft.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (23 Oct 2012)

Roads can always be made safer. For ALL road users. 
It has been mentioned that MANY roads are not suited nor designed to be driven at the NSL. They will remain with this limit in place until something is changed. Either the limit reduced or the road improved (widened for example) to accommodate fast travelling vehicles. 
Before ALL dangerous or blind bends a combination of signs could be put in place. "SLOW DOWN". "BLIND CORNER". 
For ALL registered cycle routes, especially rural, better signage could be used. "Beware cyclists at slow speed". "National cycle route". Etc etc. Cyclists ARE allowed to drive on any road they please (except motorways) but signs in these circumstances is at least a step in the correct direction. 

Bottom line though is that there are main roads in Scotland that are causing deaths every week and there is no budget to fix those let alone B-roads and back roads which are potentially dangerous to cyclists.


----------



## Cubist (23 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi Subaqua,
> 
> Sorry you are just totally wrong.No he isn't. Go back and drive that route on Google maps then tell me that you would go at 20 mph round it!
> 
> ...


----------



## G2EWS (23 Oct 2012)

2114704 said:


> These bends don't have any roadsign at all?


 
Hi Adrian,

Pretty sure they don't. As I say I am going back to have another look today and will confirm what I find.

Regards

Chris


----------



## G2EWS (23 Oct 2012)

Cubist said:


> ......................
> You @G2EWS are not debating, .....


 
Hi Cubist,

I have tried to read everything you have put up, but!!

To attack someone you don't know, about, in this case a road junction you don't know, means that you have no interest in a debate and only an attack. That is a pity.

To condone every person as not being wise enough to judge that bend just shows me what kind of an individual you may be. I hope I am wrong and you are being genuine in your statements. But something tells me, you are in this for an argument not to debate the problem I have identified. You would not drive this bend at 20 mph, just like everyone else who drives it at a speed that is quite obviously too high. This means something is wrong! Perhaps you don't understand that. That is OK, I can live with that, but wonder if you can?

Anyway as mentioned I will go back and have another look today and see what makes this bend so at odds to others.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## srw (23 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Sorry you are just totally wrong. Go back and drive that route on Google maps then tell me that you would go at 20 mph round it!
> 
> The point I am trying to make, is, I was driving as I normally do and that was safely. Having been on that road many times I and no one else I have ever seen has travelled that bend at anything less than 40 + mph. But I can now see that even using all the common sense and guidelines as taught to me and used by me in my many miles of travelling, was just too fast.


Whatever the rights and wrongs of your particular actions, that is not a 60mph road. At most it's a 40mph road. And I mean the straight bits. It's narrow, twisty and has atrocious sightlines. Each carriageway is only just over a car's width If "everyone" drives it at 60 then "everyone" is driving too fast. Which means that taking the blind corners at not much above 20mph is very sensible.


----------



## 400bhp (23 Oct 2012)

Cyclist33 said:


> This is a fantastic answer.


 
+1

A pragmatist.


----------



## G2EWS (23 Oct 2012)

srw said:


> Whatever the rights and wrongs of your particular actions, that is not a 60mph road. At most it's a 40mph road. And I mean the straight bits. It's narrow, twisty and has atrocious sightlines. Each carriageway is only just over a car's width If "everyone" drives it at 60 then "everyone" is driving too fast. Which means that taking the blind corners at not much above 20mph is very sensible.


 
Hi srw,

You know, you might just be right.

I can tell you that in the real world it is not that obvious. Will let you know when I drive it again.

I have driven a 7 ton 32ft, maximum width for the UK American Motorhome down that road and it is only just wide enough. It is surprising must how many roads are only just wide enough in the UK. With no margins for error at all.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## Cyclist33 (23 Oct 2012)

Well, it doesn't seem like "we" need to implement something, rather that "you" do. I don't think you can reasonably post up your incident report as you did and expect everyone to agree with you.

I do feel you're hiding behind some rather faulty logic with the "I was taught to drive by a policeman" routine. Have you heard of syllogisms? Likewise with the "everybody does it so it must be right". It doesn't follow per se.

One solution would be for all cyclists to give up road use and stick to the trail. That way you might get some proper bo use out of that carbon mountain bike of yours 



G2EWS said:


> Hi Subaqua,
> 
> Sorry you are just totally wrong. Go back and drive that route on Google maps then tell me that you would go at 20 mph round it!
> 
> ...


----------



## G2EWS (23 Oct 2012)

Cyclist33 said:


> One solution would be for all cyclists to give up road use and stick to the trail. That way you might get some proper bo use out of that carbon mountain bike of yours


 
Ha ha,

Truth is out! Thanks for proving my point.

Regards

Chris


----------



## davefb (23 Oct 2012)

srw said:


> Whatever the rights and wrongs of your particular actions, that is not a 60mph road. At most it's a 40mph road. And I mean the straight bits. It's narrow, twisty and has atrocious sightlines. Each carriageway is only just over a car's width If "everyone" drives it at 60 then "everyone" is driving too fast. Which means that taking the blind corners at not much above 20mph is very sensible.


NSL is *not* a 60mph limit .

that's the mistake people make. they assume it's like 'urban driving' , instead the NSL is a top limit which may or may not be appropriate..

there has been a recent move to try to stop this and currently being discussed are rules to allow councils to put in lower limits in known accident hotspots..

I also think this is like the 20mph zones, you wouldn't need them if people didnt see the limits as "expected speeds" or "targets"


----------



## G2EWS (23 Oct 2012)

davefb said:


> NSL is *not* a 60mph limit .
> 
> that's the mistake people make. they assume it's like 'urban driving' , instead the NSL is a top limit which may or may not be appropriate..
> 
> ...


 
Hi Dave,

Very valid point.

I have a friend who is an advanced driving instructor and he explained exactly that. They teach people that speed limits are indeed not targets to be reached.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## srw (23 Oct 2012)

davefb said:


> NSL is *not* a 60mph limit .
> 
> that's the mistake people make. they assume it's like 'urban driving' , instead the NSL is a top limit which may or may not be appropriate..


 Wrong. NSL is a 60mph _limit_. It's not a 60mph _target_. Or a 60mph _guide._


----------



## Cubist (23 Oct 2012)

The national limit is actually 30mph, except for roads outside of urban areas where the limit may be higher, depending on local limits, the type of carriageway and the type of vehicle being driven.


----------



## Cubist (23 Oct 2012)

@G2EWS I am not attacking you, I am trying to make you realise a fundamental error which may hve disastrous consequences. You appear fi ally to have decided you need to go back and do a bit more homework. Can you let me know the name of this response driving expert so I can check what he has written? I have access to the national standard driver training manuals now and I can try and help clear up what is obviously a misunderstanding on your part.


----------



## G2EWS (23 Oct 2012)

Cubist said:


> @G2EWS I am not attacking you, I am trying to make you realise a fundamental error which may hve disastrous consequences. You appear fi ally to have decided you need to go back and do a bit more homework. Can you let me know the name of this response driving expert so I can check what he has written? I have access to the national standard driver training manuals now and I can try and help clear up what is obviously a misunderstanding on your part.


 
Hi Cubist,

For various reasons all I can tell you is he was the senior officer who wrote the Police chase manual. But I don't think that is the point here. (I will message you!)

What I have been trying to say is very different from what you are accusing me of. Yes I am going back because I just cannot see this bend as being a 20 or even 30 mph one. I believe that at 30 mph, with the rider further back I or anyone else would have hit her.

So let me try and put this another way. Forget me in the equation.

If no one takes this bend at 30 mph or under and you have to assume that some of those people are at least advanced drivers then what are we missing? I think something is fundamentally wrong and this is what I am trying to get to the bottom of. I do indeed think this should be a good debate and I am happy to be part of it, otherwise I would not have put my original post up of course.

Hopefully, work permitting, I will let you know the result of my drive after lunch.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## davefb (23 Oct 2012)

irony being i'm listening to my boss ( motorbiker) MOANING about not being able to drive at 60.. since most are 50.. why are there 50s? because motorbikers kill themselves on rural roads..

and yes, got my wording wrong "NSL" is a default, 30 urban, 60 non-urban ( depending on vehicle, 40 for hgv hahaha etc)... 
My understanding was that if a non-urban is marked at say 50, then it's been checked to be "okay" for 50, but if it's just NSL , then you can't make that assumption, all it means is 'go no faster than' ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limits_in_the_United_Kingdom#National_speed_limits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limits_in_the_United_Kingdom#National_speed_limits


----------



## CopperCyclist (23 Oct 2012)

davefb said:


> irony being i'm listening to my boss ( motorbiker) MOANING about not being able to drive at 60.. since most are 50.. why are there 50s? because motorbikers kill themselves on rural roads..



I'm half with him there though. They frequently reduce a NSL road to a fifty because of 'too many accidents'. However, the one thing you can guarantee is the people crashing weren't obeying the speed limit, and still won't be it 60, 50 or 40.


----------



## davefb (23 Oct 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> I'm half with him there though. They frequently reduce a NSL road to a fifty because of 'too many accidents'. However, the one thing you can guarantee is the people crashing weren't obeying the speed limit, and still won't be it 60, 50 or 40.


more speed cameras then ... he was on some pennines passes I think. Or 'culling zone for middle aged bikers' ..

got some like that more local to me, I think it has slowed most people down, so the idiots are a rarity rather than an expectation.


----------



## Tommy2 (23 Oct 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> I'm half with him there though. They frequently reduce a NSL road to a fifty because of 'too many accidents'. However, the one thing you can guarantee is the people crashing weren't obeying the speed limit, and still won't be it 60, 50 or 40.



Although a lot of people don't see a problem doing say 10 mph over the speed limit so on a road that is technically safe for 60mph with a speed limit of 50mph is better than having the limit at 60mph and doing 70mph.


----------



## Night Train (23 Oct 2012)

@G2EWS

Have you considered looking at the road from a slightly different point of view?

You keep mentioning '20mph' and '40mph', these numbers are meaningless in terms of safe driving*. If the road is safe one day at 20mph the next day, with a bit of dampness on the road, it might be only safe at half that speed, or less.
The safe speed is determined by the experienced judgement of the person who is determining the speed of the vehicle they are in control of, and that varies depending on all the circumstances of the moment.
(I have slowed to a complete stop to then crawl around some bends in roads because as I started to drive around it I was faced with blinding low sun. Stopping for a moment means that I don't drive into something/someone I can no longer see. Slowing early for it also means that the following drivers don't suddenly run into the back of me because they were not paying attention. It also means that they don't drive into the wreckage of my car were I to have crashed around the bend.)

Also consider that many of these roads were in place at a time when the fastest thing to travel along it was a horse at walking speed where the rider was able to see above the height of the hedgerows on either side.
There was no reason for the roads to be safe at the speeds expected by motorists, regardless of the posted speed limits.

Also, whether the road had signs warning of a sharp bend or not, it is the responsibility of the driver to 'read' the road ahead to determine the appropriate course of action.
If, for example, you have a straight ribbon of tarmac ahead of you and then there appears to be greenery right across that tarmac in the distance then it stands to reason that there is no more 'straight ahead' road for some reason. Could be a bend, left or right? Could be a dip or the brow of a hill? Could be a tunnel? It would then be prudent to slow down until the situation can be assessed further. That process continues up to the point of possibly stopping and wondering why there really is greenery right across the road. Maybe because it is a fallen tree due to a storm? Hitting 3 tons of fallen Oak at 20mph will hurt, hence stopping before getting there. Hopefully it will just be a bend in the road that you can continue to drive around at a safe speed.

This still isn't 'having a go at you'. There is an awful lot of learning that happens after one gets a license to drive (or gets on the road in any capacity or vehicle type). It is worth appreciating that new understanding whenever, and however, it happens.
After 30 years of driving (road, race, cars, motorbikes, trucks, LGV, PSV, and bicycles, and also teaching driving to others), I am still learning new things to take into account, and modifying my driving and thought processes to suit.


*Safe drivers don't need speed limits to tell them how fast they can drive. A safe driver will (almost) always be driving a road at considerably less then the currently posted limits to allow for the changing conditions and hazards.


----------



## teekay421 (23 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> So let me try and put this another way. Forget me in the equation.


I think you keep repeating this. I feel you are trying to be a thinking driver but yet keep mentioning what can we/debate or resolve by applying a speed limit or rule or sign - all of these are supporting a notion of not taking responsibility. Someone posted earlier if you were in a court you could not blame the author of the police driving - whoever. No one is perfect but the system of roadcraft is to be a responsible driver and always adapt your driving plan to match the conditions - the information phase overlaps the position/speed/gear/accelerate phases and can change the plan accordingly. If everyone took responsibility and ownership instead of this opt-out mentality that scares me in some drivers that it is someone else who is responsible - the road engineers, the person who told you you could go round a corner at a speed - if it was snowing would you adapt your plan/speed/approach accordingly? Information is more than what you can see - what you cannot see (other senses) and what you can reasonably expect to develop. This is positive proactive responsible driving, not enforcing rules and workaround quick fixes to encourage those who have no interest in learning and becoming good at driving to have to comply. A common cause of accident is failing to negotiate a corner (never mind manslaughter of someone in the road) the excuse "the corner just tightened up on me" is invalid, it is failing to anticipate/judge/negotiate the hazard, looking further ahead, using the information and adapting your speed according to the conditions and limit point.

This is the worrying attitude of car drivers, lack of planning and refusal to learn from their mistakes and leaning on a blame culture and refusing to take responsibility when they are the ones in the driving seat.

Just my take on this whole thread


----------



## G2EWS (23 Oct 2012)

Right, back from an interesting drive round said bend.

I drove up and down the road three times.

Once through the bend at 30 mph
Once through the bend at 40 mph
Once behind other vehicles also doing 40 mph
There are no road signs, only a chevron sign by the side of the road before the bend but when you are coming the other way! Not the direction I was travelling in.

My conclusion is that the bend is perfectly safe at any time of the day for at least 40 mph. Of course I am not taking into account inclement weather with that statement Night Train.

I also believe that 30 mph may be too slow should you have other traffic behind you. Don't knock me for that one, I just believe in helping others to stay calm on the road.

I can only conclude that yesterday when I met the cyclists they did not have any lights on. Forgive me for not realising that sooner as my concern was why it had gone wrong at the speed I was travelling at. This would mean that I saw them maybe a second later than I should have as the area is covered by trees and with a greying sky today as yesterday which makes the road very dark. If I saw them at 45 mph as I came round the bend, there is know no doubt in my mind that I could have stopped wherever they were on the bend.

Interestingly enough as I came back down the hill I noticed the bend at the top was probably more dangerous, but still safe at no more than 40 mph. On my third trip I slotted in behind three vehicles who carried on at 50 mph, whilst I slowed down!

So what can I say overall about this experience?

I think we need to make people which includes me, more aware of their speed and surroundings. We need to be sure of why we travel at a set speed and how safe it is. As has been mentioned on here I doubt there are many drivers who could put their hand on their hearts and say they travel 'perfectly' every day. 

I know one thing for sure and that is becoming a born again cyclist has made me more aware of other cyclists and the danger that could be just round the corner. Perhaps this means being just that bit more aware of those hidden dangers or perhaps slowing down a little more?

I have been driving since 1971 and as mentioned covered many hundreds of thousands of miles without incident. I am certainly not complacent as I believe that this is one of the worst and most dangerous aspects of driving. I also believe I am aware and still maintain that 45 mph was safe on this bend. But I have enjoyed the banter and discussion. I hope no one has been offended by any statements. Those that have learnt about me during my brief spell on this forum, will know that I cannot see the point of argument, but enjoy a good discussion. So I would like to keep this thread in that vein as well.


Best regards

Chris


----------



## Lee_M (23 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Look guys, stop making this a personal attack on me.
> 
> I am opening this up for debate. I have no doubt in my mind that there is not one amongst you who would have travelled round that bend at 20 mph. So lets cut to the chase and debate the issue rather than making it about me.
> 
> ...


 
Not attacking you as you stopped - so therefore you could say you weren't going too fast, but..

As an motorcyclist I have always been taught - and always follow the rule of - if you can't stop in the distance you can see then you are going too fast. I do this in my car too (ie follow the rule)

On the email list I partake of it's known as the fridge rule - if there was a fridge on the road around the next corner, could you stop in time?


----------



## Night Train (23 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> My conclusion is that the bend is perfectly safe at any time of the day for at least 40 mph. Of course I am not taking into account inclement weather with that statement Night Train.
> 
> I also believe that 30 mph may be too slow should you have other traffic behind you. Don't knock me for that one, I just believe in helping others to stay calm on the road.


I think you are missing the point.

You are applying a set speed to determine, in your view, what is safe for that bend. Try to not do that but instead apply the thought that the appropriate safe speed is variable depending on so many other factors of the moment. It 'might' be safe at 40mph right now, today, but two minutes later there might be a broken down tractor just out of sight on that bend and at 40mph you wouldn't be able to stop before running into the back of it.

You have to make that judgment call that next time that cyclist might have swerved into primary to avoid glass or roadkill just at the time that the car coming the other way was a little bit faster and just as there was a little bit of oil on the road and you would have had no option but to run over the cyclist or impact the other car.
Just because you didn't hit anything or anyone several times doesn't equate that a set speed is now safe for that bend.

You are also falling into the trap of 'not wanting to slow down or 'inconvenience' other motorists'. If you were driving a tractor you would be only driving at 25mph other drivers would have to drive slow behind you. If you were on a bike at 15mph other drivers would have to drive slow behind you. Their impatience shouldn't dictate that you drive faster then may be safe for the conditions.

I would slow to a safe speed for the conditions, and if the following drivers are not happy then they can pass me at the next safe spot. Hell, I'll even pull over to let them pass!

You are now starting to not learn from the incident, preferring to make up a random set rule that you can blame if it were to go wrong thus absolving yourself from the responsibility. Now that is 'having a go at you'.


----------



## G2EWS (23 Oct 2012)

Night Train said:


> I think you are missing the point.
> 
> You are applying a set speed to determine, in your view, what is safe for that bend. Try to not do that but instead apply the thought that the appropriate safe speed is variable depending on so many other factors of the moment. It 'might' be safe at 40mph right now, today, but two minutes later there might be a broken down tractor just out of sight on that bend and at 40mph you wouldn't be able to stop before running into the back of it.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry Night Train, I think you have totally missed the point of my note and to be honest have gone off at tangent. Of course every driver changes depending on what the conditions are or if someone pulls out on you, do you honestly think that anyone would do otherwise? Any road, junction, bend has a speed at which it is safe to drive in normal conditions, that is what I have concluded. If, as yesterday with me, you meet a cyclist, you don't seriously think that any person would just carry on at the same speed do you?

Best regards

Chris


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Oct 2012)

I'm not attacking you ... I don't get the feeling that anybody is. But I *AM* really struggling with your perspective on safe speed.

Back in the old days, when I passed my test, there was one simple measure – can I stop safely within the distance I can see in front of me. No debate. No argument. Plain and simple. *One sentence*. With an elegant simplicity that takes into account all sorts of variables. And it's stood me in good stead for over 40 years driving/motorbiking/cycling.


In your OP, you said “I have travelled that road faster and considered myself to be driving safely. Indeed, if I had been in my Wife's BMW 6 series, I would almost certainly have been travelling nearer to 60 mph.”

You've added lots of argument to try and support your choice of various speeds. I get the sense that you're realising that this style of reasoning failed you in the OP? Thankfully with no serious consequences for yourself or the cyclists – but ......... it may fail you again.



Compare my perspective [hey, I've only “driven” your road on Googlemaps – so this is just a fwiw]. Narrow lanes. Restricted sight lines, made way worse by trees and hedges. Long bends, mostly blind, and what look like blind summits. Long stretches of unbroken white line. Plus all that I know of rural roads. I'm guessing I might hit 40 on the clear straights, but VERY substantially drop my speed on the bends and approaches to the blind summits. And considerably less again if I had reason to question “stuff” on the road surface, rain and weather.

But there's the difference

even “driving” on Googlemaps, I'm looking at the road and factoring in all sorts of variables based on actual *observation* of the real conditions of the road. The road – nothing but the road, and who/what might be on it. I don't need signs to tell me what to do.
while you are using reason, argument, what other people do ... anything *EXCEPT actual real-time observation*?
 
Once again – I'm NOT attacking. It's a perennial “discussion” between myself and #1 son – he thinks/argues like you do. I do believe you are driving too fast, and probably dangerously so (like he does). BUT – you're thinking it through. Can you take this perspective as a constructive contribution on your path to reconsidering your speed? More important – to reconsidering how you assess your speed?

[PS - *Driving the bend again is irrelevant. Get the bike out - and cycle it*; something tells me your language about an un-named BMW driver screaming up behind you at 60mph could be quite colourful?]


----------



## G2EWS (23 Oct 2012)

Hi growingvegetables,

Thanks for your post. No I don't see your post as attacking me!

We may be similar ages as I have also been driving for over 40 years which also includes motorbikes, cars, large motorhomes and cycles! My training has also stood me in good stead over the years. 

I wonder if you have seen my post 108? I think I have explained what I feel about this bend and what the whole experience has done for me. As stated, I will certainly be looking at the road in a different way in the future.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## Big boy (23 Oct 2012)

2114566 said:


> What relevance has that when you cannot see round the corner?


 Of course it has relevance (work that out yourself)
Im not gonna spoon fedd anyone else who posts pointles comments on a thread.
Dont like it then get over it and post something worth reading.


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Oct 2012)

Goodness - now where do I start?


G2EWS said:


> I don't see your post as attacking me!


I'm guessing that something in the wording I used ....... kinda clicked positively? Only a suggestion then - come back in a coupla weeks, and you'll probably find I only re-worded Cubist, Night Train, and few others. They weren't attacking either 



G2EWS said:


> I wonder if you have seen my post 108?


Yes, I did - and (honestly) it was the trigger for me being thoroughly p!$$ed off ... and adding my tuppenyworth to the thread. You actually wrote "I can only conclude that yesterday when I met the cyclists they did not have any lights on." 

Against that - good on you for posting, better still for realising that you need to rethink your perspective on speed ......... and *we want to hear your reports on you cycling through those bends*!


----------



## sidevalve (23 Oct 2012)

I just feel I must remake the following points, - 1 - were you going too fast - no, not in this instance 'cos you stopped. 2 - the phrase "stop in the distance you can see to be clear" is 100% relevant and always will be.
I also see two other things emerging here, a callous disregard for the fate of m/cyclists [also a minority road using group] by some contributers, to the extent that if the word cyclist were swapped for motorcyclist then there would be cries to have them hung from a lamp post and an almost total denial of the fact by some that yes sometimes cyclists also go too fast. If you have to swerve to avoid a box etc in the road then why ? If you come round a bend into a pothole you didn't see in time and come off, well who's fault is that ? The desire to go fast [and sometimes too fast] is NOT confined to the big bad car drivers.
I make no excuses here but the fact remains impatience is common to almost everyone and even though you may not be piloting a ton of metal you still have a resposibility to be able to stop, there are those who seem to forget .


----------



## Big boy (23 Oct 2012)

Ok lets presume that the driver wasnt lookin at the end of his bonnet the whole journey.
And lets presume the cyclist was doing 15mph, and that the drivers vision / reaction time was about average.
The road must be either really bendy with no str8 whatsoever before the bend, or the cyclists had been stopped and just set off as the driver rounded the bend.
I live out in the sticks myself , theres dodgy bends hills bushes trees and of course other cyclists.
As a motorist and a cyclist i can often se someone wearing high viz from quite a distance away.
Should i go into a blind bend i would anticipate that someone else may also be on that part of the road.
Maybe a pedestrian cyclist or a parked car, we have it all around here.
By the way as i mentioned before i have seen people in high viz gear hundreds of yards away.
Had they not have been wearing it i wouldnt have known they was there.
Im not blaming either the cyclist or the driver, just trying to understand how the driver never saw a thing untill he hit the abs..


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (23 Oct 2012)

2114711 said:


> I am pretty sure that all bends are marked with the appropriate road sign
> 
> If you get more warnings about cyclists on some roads, what consequence do you envisage on other roads without increased signage?
> 
> Roads are not dangerous, being inanimate objects. People behave in dangerous ways.


 
G2ews has confirmed there are no signs of warning at said bend. I have seen a few apparently dangerous bends which have appropriate signage. Problem is with these bends is it probably took a few accidents and road deaths to qualify as dangerous!! There is one blind summit 10 miles from my home town that caused several accidents. Nothing was done. 5 people died one night as a result of a head on collision. The driver over taking never saw the lights due to the blind summit. The result? A sign is now visible on both sides of the summit reading "Caution Blind Summit". Bit late. I am also pretty sure this after the parents petitioned to have this done! 

Regarding possible consequences for cyclists without the pre mentioned signage? I would imagine the same for children who are not in the "20's plenty" zone near schools. Do you think motorists get out of the 20mph school zone, go back to driving up the pavements and through pedestrian crossings? Consider that rhetorical. 

One pretty effective way to keep people at 30 mph, or less, in town is with the "Flashing 30 signs". They serve only as i reminder to the road user that they may be speeding when approaching a town. A possible solution to dangerous bends or sections of road that are high risk maybe. Though again that's all £££ and usually many people have to die for such money to be spent. What ever happened to prevention being better than the cure...................


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Oct 2012)

Big boy said:


> Im not blaming either the cyclist or the driver, just trying to understand how the driver never saw a thing untill he hit the abs..


Having a look at the Googleview of the road (as per the OP's link) might be a good start?


----------



## srw (24 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> s, in town is with the "Flashing 30 signs". They serve only as i reminder to the road user that they may be speeding when approaching a town. A possible solution to dangerous bends or sections of road that are high risk maybe. Though again that's all £££ and usually many people have to die for such money to be spent. What ever happened to prevention being better than the cure...................


Prevention would be drivers stoppping thinking that 30mph was a target speed, or a safe maximum in a 30mph zone. It's not. It's a legal maximum.


----------



## tadpole (24 Oct 2012)

Personally I don’t drive to the limit of “how far can I see” or “what is the speed limit”. I drive to the limit of my car braking system + my reaction time + weather conditions + road conditions + (the reaction time and braking of the cars behind me) = safe speed to travel. Every day is different. Even on the same road, some days I drive at 45mph and some days 18mph. If I’m being followed by some beat up piece of sh@t I’ll drive slower than if I was being followed by a S6 or BMW. 
 I know the limits of my reaction time and my car, so I know how fast I can go and still stop on a blind bend “fridge moment” but that is no help if the guy behind is too close/not able to stop when I haul on the brakes. 
There again I’ve no room to talk as I’m the dick whose likely to be doing 70mph on the motorway, holding up all the traffic.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (24 Oct 2012)

srw said:


> Prevention would be drivers stoppping thinking that 30mph was a target speed, or a safe maximum in a 30mph zone. It's not. It's a legal maximum.


Of course that would be the ideal. I think it somewhat unrealistic though. With some measures in place, like the flashing speed signs, people would be forced to think about the possible danger ahead.


----------



## ushills (24 Oct 2012)

The way I understand the police drive and the way I was taught was to imagine line from the front of the car terminating in a dot that reflected the position I could come to a complete stop, this imaginary dot would be close or further out depending on speed and provided this dot is on the road you can see your speed is appropriate, or alternatively you're going as fast as you can for the distance you can see.

I also happen on country lanes to drive in a manner that gives the greatest sightlines and this is in stark contrast to taking the 'racing line', I am frequently across the white line on winding lanes using the method above as you can see further or drive faster.

I would say to the OP, you were going to fast for the distance you could see. For the cyclist I would position myself further out on bends to cars can see me sooner and I still have the opportunity of moving towards the kerb if I cannot hear the car behind slowing down.


----------



## ushills (24 Oct 2012)

Also I would suggest the following

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Roadcraft-d...tial-Handbook/dp/0117021687/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t

Similar to cyclecraft for the cyclist and not just for Police drivers.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> I can only conclude that yesterday when I met the cyclists they did not have any lights on. Forgive me for not realising that sooner as my concern was why it had gone wrong at the speed I was travelling at. This would mean that I saw them maybe a second later than I should have as the area is covered by trees and with a greying sky today as yesterday which makes the road very dark. If I saw them at 45 mph as I came round the bend, there is know no doubt in my mind that I could have stopped wherever they were on the bend.


 

You've reviewed your actions, driven the same road again at varying speeds, been given excellent driving advice by Night Train and others, and you've come to the conclusion that this "worrying and serious near incident" wouldn't have been such had the cyclist been using lights in the daytime.

I doubt you've learned anything from this.

By the way, what was the reponse from the police to your query?

GC


----------



## cd365 (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS I think the lesson you need to learn is not to post a critique of your own driving skills on Cyclechat, it does end up with you and your (lack of?) driving skills being attacked. You are far better of moaning about motorised vehicles and their drivers, claiming you have given up your car to cycle every where and being aware that all cyclists are always in the right unless another cyclist is having a go at said cyclist!

Personally I don't think you did much wrong, you slowed down and stopped in time for a hazard.

I regularly cycle around a similar bend but this bend is after a long steady climb where it has just got a lot steeper, it's a point where I normally get out of the saddle to get to the top. I often have cars who come zooming around the bend, they have not seen me on the long straight beforehand disappearing around the bend so get a shock when the see me. To mitigate an accident I try to be over to the left as far as possible and I always have rear lights on though the safest thing I could do is get off the bike and push it up past the blind bend. But that is not going to happen, but expecting car drivers to come around the bend at 10mph is not going to happen either.

Maybe the solution is to give jobs to all of the unemployed people, they can be given red flags and on dangerous bends, road sections etc. they can slow traffic down to a safe level.


----------



## G2EWS (24 Oct 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> You've reviewed your actions, driven the same road again at varying speeds, been given excellent driving advice by Night Train and others, and you've come to the conclusion that this "worrying and serious near incident" wouldn't have been such had the cyclist been using lights in the daytime.
> 
> *I doubt you've learned anything from this.*
> 
> ...


 
Hi GC,

You have made a totally incorrect conclusion from my analysis!

My purpose of pointing this out, is for my benefit and help understand what went wrong. There is no doubt whatsoever that had I hit the cyclist, it would have been my fault. After all, it could just as well have been a collapsed pedestrian or broken down vehicle. I have no issue in accepting that whatsoever nor the blame for the result that may have been!

My conclusion which should help any one of us, is that the bend can be driven, at least at 40 mph safely. I proved that again yesterday evening in the dark when I had to drive along the same road. 

I believe that the biggest problem was probably that I was not as alert as I should have been, which the lights would have got over. But that does not excuse the fact that I, very likely similar to others was just not thinking properly or quickly. It is too easy to become involved with a drive and be contemplating the end result of that journey, rather than being alert to EVERY danger.

What I have tried to do is get us all thinking about that incident and CD365, no I am happy to have reported it on here. After all, we have surely all learnt something from it!

As to following it up with Police I am very sad to report that the Policeman whom I was going to talk to and have mentioned before in this thread was found dead on Sunday. At this stage we are not sure of the circumstances so that is a worrying turn of events.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## benb (24 Oct 2012)

Hi @G2EWS

I think you are confusing a speed at which you can negotiate a bend without spinning off, with the speed at which you can stop in time to miss an unexpected hazard in the road.

With modern cars, you will be able to drive quite fast round quite tight bends, so on that basis you could consider quite a high speed to be "safe" in that you can negotiate the bend without crashing. But if you are going so fast that you can't come to a stop within the road that you can see to be clear, then you are going too fast. End of.

What speed that is will change based on road conditions (rain, visibility, &c.) and what vehicle you are in (a modern car will stop much quicker than an old one).

As others have said: if you cannot stop within the road that you can see to be clear, you are going too fast.


----------



## G2EWS (24 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> Hi @G2EWS
> 
> *I think you are confusing a speed at which you can negotiate a bend without spinning off, with the speed at which you can stop in time to miss an unexpected hazard in the road.*
> 
> ...


 
Hi Ben,

Not the case at all. As mentioned previously, I am totally aware of the 'safe' maximum speed a bend can be taken at and how to calculate it.

Please read my post above yours.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## benb (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi Ben,
> 
> Not the case at all. As mentioned previously, I am totally aware of the 'safe' maximum speed a bend can be taken at and how to calculate it.
> 
> ...


 
Hi

In that case I'm confused. You say that if you were going at 40 you would have hit the cyclist, yet the bend is safe to negotiate at 40. One of those is wrong.


----------



## oldfatfool (24 Oct 2012)

Now try posting the same OP on Pistonheads where there are non cyclist drivers as opposed to non driving cyclists.

Both groups in my humble opinion are equally bigoted and that is without bothering to read the 7 pages here. Until we get an infrastructure where cyclists and cars don't share the same space then this will not change


----------



## G2EWS (24 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> Hi
> 
> In that case I'm confused. You say that if you were going at 40 you would have hit the cyclist, yet the bend is safe to negotiate at 40. One of those is wrong.


 
Hi Ben,

Sorry to say it again but read my post above yours where the answer will become clear!! Honest!!

Best regards

Chris


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi Jamie,
> 
> Having been taught by the man who wrote the Police chase manual to drive round a bend, I can confirm that I was well within the 'safe' speed for the bend.
> 
> ...


 
No. You were not. If you cannot stop in the space that you can see, you're going too fast.


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Look guys, stop making this a personal attack on me.
> 
> I am opening this up for debate. I have no doubt in my mind that there is not one amongst you who would have travelled round that bend at 20 mph. So lets cut to the chase and debate the issue rather than making it about me.
> 
> ...


 
It's a MAXIMUM speed limit, not a minimum.

Link your speed to vision and you won't go far wrong. Police yourself. Someo wont, but you're only in charge of you.


----------



## benb (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi Ben,
> 
> Sorry to say it again but read my post above yours where the answer will become clear!! Honest!!
> 
> ...


 
OK. I think you are saying that in normal circumstances you can negotiate the bend at 40, and still stop in the road you can see. Is that right?

Therefore in the original incident you were going to fast for those specific circumstances, would you agree?


----------



## Dan_h (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Since being a born again cyclist once again I have been enjoying my commutes and weekend rides when I get the chance.
> 
> ...


 
I have to say, after reading this whole thread I am unsure what you want to debate exactly. You wan't to discuss how motorists and cyclists can live together safely? Slow down!!! all of your points above would be fixed by that.

Think about it...

(1) I reacted very quickly and slammed on the brakes allowing the ABS to take over. I missed the Woman by no more than 1 M! - If you were going slower you would have had time to react and not have to rely on the technology built into your vehicle to get you out of your mess.

(2) If she had been 10 M further back, there is no question in my mind that I would have hit her. Swerving was not an option, nor overtaking as the road is narrow and there was a stream of vehicles coming the other way.- There is a way you could have avoided hitting her, you could have been travelling slower.

(3) As I say, she was cycling well and up a steep hill. No undue wobble and quite obviously in the correct gear as was her male partner.- So she was doing everything correctly, the fault is not hers.

(4) I have travelled that road faster and considered myself to be driving safely. Indeed, if I had been in my Wife's BMW 6 series, I would almost certainly have been travelling nearer to 60 mph. - It would seem like you need to reconsider that you were driving safely, the evidence would seem to suggest otherwise. Now you know this you do have an opportunity to change the way you travel on this and other similar roads.

(5) As far as I can see the only quantifiable change would be for me to have been travelling around the bend at no more than 30 mph and possibly slower. But how practical could it be to travel on roads like this and slow down to 30 mph or slower for every bend? It just would not work. - If that is the speed at which it is safe to take that bend then that is what you must do. Dont give me any bollocks about I would be hit from behind, even a car doing 60 behind you would only be closing at 30 mph, which in your estimation is safe.

Seriously, you had a near miss and thought about it, at least you thought about it! But the takeaway from this is that if the cyclist was doing nothing wrong and you still nearly hit her then you need to look at what you were doing. By the fact that you had to stamp on the brakes and hope for the best the answer is clear, you were travelling too fast for that part of the road. The fact that you can take the corner faster does not mean that you were travelling at the right speed this time, it means that you take the corner way to fast the other times!

I try not to get involved in these long heated arguments but I feel that this comes to the heart of a lot of the incidents that I read about and hear about. People need to take responsibility for their actions. There is no point in debating road design or mirrors or seperating cyclists from cars. these are all great things that are not going to be implemented everywhere at once. However in this instance there is a clear action that can be taken, in future take the corner slower so you are safe and other road users are safe.

Right I am going to put nmy soap box away and go and get a beer!


----------



## G2EWS (24 Oct 2012)

I have enjoyed this debate, but it is sad that some people just don't want to read the complete thread and then comment. Assuming what I have said is not the way to go Dan, sorry mate you are talking a lot of Bollocks yourself. Good idea to get of a wobbly soapbox!

Regards

Chris


----------



## Dan_h (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> I have enjoyed this debate, but it is sad that some people just don't want to read the complete thread and then comment. Assuming what I have said is not the way to go Dan, sorry mate you are talking a lot of Bollocks yourself. Good idea to get of a wobbly soapbox!
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chris


 
I will be much wobblier after a beer! However my point stil stands - You made a mistake, you got away with it. We all make mistakes, the thing to do is accept that you did and next time slow down.


----------



## G2EWS (24 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> OK. I think you are saying that in normal circumstances you can negotiate the bend at 40, and still stop in the road you can see. Is that right?
> 
> Therefore in the original incident you were going to fast for those specific circumstances, would you agree?


 
Hi Ben,

I will point out the most important bit of my statement:

_I believe that the biggest problem was probably that I was not as alert as I should have been, which the lights would have got over. But that does not excuse the fact that I, very likely similar to others was just not thinking properly or quickly. It is too easy to become involved with a drive and be contemplating the end result of that journey, rather than being alert to EVERY danger._

So as I have stated, the bend is a 40 mph one, but I now realise I was just not alert and concentrating enough to deal with every potential danger, including a cyclist.

It has definitely made me think again about my driving and the end result is I will concentrate more as I go round a bend or just drive in general.

As I have also stated, I am pleased I put this up on the forum. By questioning my own actions I have hopefully made others question theirs. We may believe we do the right thing all the time but I just wonder how many of us really do?

A friend called in this morning and I explained what happened. He promptly told me that he thinks about every bend and what danger lurks around it. I replied, 'You know, if you had told me the same had happened to you, I would have told you I think about the danger around every bend'!

The fact is, I have now proved to myself that I did not and I wonder how many of us don't do what we say? I bet a lot of you who have posted on this thread, have concentrated more when driving! So the thread has been a good one if we have this as a result I think you will agree?

Best regards

Chris


----------



## G2EWS (24 Oct 2012)

Dan_h said:


> I will be much wobblier after a beer! However my point stil stands - You made a mistake, you got away with it. We all make mistakes, the thing to do is accept that you did and next time slow down.


 
I just don't get why you cannot read the whole thread?

Regards

Chris


----------



## fossyant (24 Oct 2012)

Very sorry to hear the officer died.

On a lighter note, he probably read this thread and lost the will to live. 7 pages.....?


----------



## Dan_h (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> I just don't get why you cannot read the whole thread?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chris


 
Read it, obviously missed the part where you said "Oh yes, perhaps I was travelling too fast".


----------



## G2EWS (24 Oct 2012)

Dan_h said:


> Read it, obviously missed the part where you said "Oh yes, perhaps I was travelling too fast".


 
Sure did Dan, because it is not there.

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water!

Guess you can't be bothered eh?

Best regards

Chris


----------



## G2EWS (24 Oct 2012)

fossyant said:


> Very sorry to hear the officer died.
> 
> On a lighter note, he probably read this thread and lost the will to live. 7 pages.....?


 
I should have pointed out that he was our neighbour.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## Dan_h (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Sure did Dan, because it is not there.
> 
> Oh well, you can lead a horse to water!
> 
> ...


 
Be bothered to what? It's not there? You mean you don't think you were going to fast? So what is the point then? You want someone to absolve you of blame for the near miss? Or what you say would have happened had she been 10 yards further back?

You can blame the road designers, the cyclist for not having lights, the council for not putting up 30 mph advisory signs. BUT at the end of the day you were the driver and you have to make a call about what is safe for your vehicle at a given time. This time there was no accident so no harm done, just slow down next time.


----------



## User6179 (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi Ben,
> 
> I will point out the most important bit of my statement:
> 
> ...


 
Got there in the end, I think you were under attack on this thread because you were trying to defend your driving here where it was obvious to everyone it was driver error ( to fast, not paying attention,etc) but I think your statement above is very fair and honest !


----------



## slow coach (24 Oct 2012)

Country roads in U.K are mainly unrestricted i.e 60mph even when single track. Unfortunately the majority of drivers seem to think this means they have to do 60mph at least, Here lies the problem the speed limit is the maximum under the law it does not mean that it is safe to do so. As your experience shows the true safe speed is considerably less. You now fully appreciate this and no doubt this will influence your driving in future. A change in law is not the answer, education is the way.


----------



## oldfatfool (24 Oct 2012)

2117014 said:


> Unless we banish cars from a substantial portion of our road network, your suggestion is a non-starter. We will just have to settle for getting people who use dangerous machinery in public places to accept responsibility for their actions and to act in a responsible fashion.


 
@User, Or as they would say on pistonheads,ban cycles


----------



## ushills (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> As I have also stated, I am pleased I put this up on the forum. By questioning my own actions I have hopefully made others question theirs. We may believe we do the right thing all the time but I just wonder how many of us really do?


 
On of the major benefits of being a driver and a cyclist is that you generally become much more aware of the potential scenarios where you will be going too fast.

I generally wait behind bikes until I can clearly see the road ahead as I am a cyclist and see the speed that cars come in the opposite direction, others overtake bikes at the first opportunity and wonder why they are doing an emergency stop in the wrong lane.

Learn from this situation and from cycling, it will make you a safer driver and a safer cyclist.


----------



## oldfatfool (24 Oct 2012)

2117325 said:


> They can f*** off


----------



## newfhouse (24 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Sure did Dan, because it is not there.
> 
> Oh well, you can lead a horse to water!
> 
> ...


 
Just slow down FFS. You admit you came close to causing a collision through a combination of inappropriate speed and lack of concentration. Why would you think it sensible to drive to the limit of your ability to stop, or even beyond it? Well done for admitting your mistake (I think) but don't pretend that you'll never ever lose the plot again. Slow down...


----------



## Cyclist33 (25 Oct 2012)

newfhouse said:


> Just slow down FFS. You admit you came close to causing a collision through a combination of inappropriate speed and lack of concentration. Why would you think it sensible to drive to the limit of your ability to stop, or even beyond it? Well done for admitting your mistake (I think) but don't pretend that you'll never ever lose the plot again. Slow down...



Not that I'm defending the driving, but to be fair, the one consistent point chris has stuck to is that it wasn't due to inappropriate speed. That is in my opinion the last remaining challenge of this thread, to persuade him that there is a difference of principle between the speed at which a corner can be driven without losing grip, and the speed at which the same corner should be driven under any given set of variables.


----------



## Cyclist33 (25 Oct 2012)

It is easy for me again to think of it in terms of off road cycling. Take Danny hart for instance on that brilliant video that was posted on here the other month. In a championship situation, and being one of the worlds best riders, he ripped up this trail in no time, hammering round the bends and down the twisty slopes etc. I venture to suggest that if he'd been riding the same trail on a public day, it would be prudent for him to ride the course considerably slower, considering the possibility of other riders round any given bend or blind "hill".


----------



## Phaeton (25 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Oh well, you can lead a horse to water!


 
Do you even appreciate the irony of that statement?


Alan...


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi GC,
> 
> You have made a totally incorrect conclusion from my analysis!


 

I quoted _your_ conclusion and gave my own summation of it.
I'll distill it further here:

you barely avoided hitting a cyclist while taking a blind bend at 45mph
the cyclist wasn't using a light
had the cyclist been using a light you have no doubt you "could have stopped wherever they were on the bend"
Is all of that incorrect?



> There is no doubt whatsoever that had I hit the cyclist, it would have been my fault. After all, it could just as well have been a collapsed pedestrian or broken down vehicle. I have no issue in accepting that whatsoever nor the blame for the result that may have been!


 
That's good to hear.



> ... the bend can be driven, at least at 40 mph safely.


 
Don't fixate on identifying a set speed at which any bend can be driven, there are too many variables to take into account on any approach.

Will you continue to drive it at 40-45mph? (or nearer 60 in the BMW?).



> I proved that again yesterday evening in the dark when I had to drive along the same road.


 
Did you unexpectedly come across a cyclist, a collapsed pedestrian or broken down vehicle in any of these tests?



> I believe that the biggest problem was probably that I was not as alert as I should have been, which the lights would have got over. But that does not excuse the fact that I, very likely similar to others was just not thinking properly or quickly.


 
It's good that you acknowledge your lack of alertness. There is no need to dilute that with the notion that had the cyclist put on lights it would have overcome your failing; it smacks of passing some of the responsibilty for your actions to someone else.



> As to following it up with Police I am very sad to report that the Policeman whom I was going to talk to and have mentioned before in this thread was found dead on Sunday.


 
I'm sorry to hear that. Any other policeman should be able to answer your query though, try your local bobby.


GC


----------



## G2EWS (25 Oct 2012)

Hi Glasgow Cyclist,

You sure do go on a bit don't you!

I have already pointed out that the cyclist having no lights would not be the reason I would have hit her. It was my lack of concentration. Didn't try and 'dilute' anything so stop making foolish assumptions about what I am trying or this case 'not' trying to do!

The bend is safe to take comfortably at 40 mph even if there was a person lying in the road. I have explained and you have accepted that it was my lack of concentration that was the problem. Speed is relevant to the conditions of course and under normal conditions I estimate that bend could probably be taken faster than 40 mph and still be safe. Will I do that in the future? No, I am pleased to report yet again for your benefit that this has been a brilliant exercise and made me realise I have just not been as attentive as I should be when driving. So the end result is superb is it not?

So do me a favour and stop trying to dissect something that has already been dissected! I cannot keep going on that I made a mistake.

As it is, I am investigating advanced driving courses in the area to 'brush' up what I have obviously forgotten over the years.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## G2EWS (25 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> That should be very helpful to you, please let us know how you get on. I recommend the RoSPA one, which relies on the same training as the police use and is tested by police officers. Looking forward to hearing some feedback from you.


 
Thanks for the heads up. Will look into RoSPA in this area.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## G2EWS (25 Oct 2012)

Hi @User13710,

Once again many thanks. I have just joined the North Wilts group and look forward to working with them.

Best regards


Chris


----------



## subaqua (25 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi Glasgow Cyclist,
> 
> You sure do go on a bit don't you!
> 
> ...


 
. therefore driving too fast for the conditions. we have all done it at some point, you were lucky this time. RoSPA driving course will help you see this.


----------



## cd365 (25 Oct 2012)

There are some pretentious tosspots on this forum, I hope you all cycle slowly incase some what-if occurance happens because that is what you are saying car drivers should do.


----------



## newfhouse (25 Oct 2012)

cd365 said:


> There are some pretentious tosspots on this forum, I hope you all cycle slowly incase some what-if occurance happens because that is what you are saying car drivers should do.


 
Consequences are likely to be significantly different, no? Appropriate speed is the point, I think.


----------



## cd365 (25 Oct 2012)

Do you think that cyclists don't cause injury and death?


----------



## cd365 (25 Oct 2012)

newfhouse said:


> Consequences are likely to be significantly different, no? Appropriate speed is the point, I think.


Whilst walking my dog recently I came across a teenage boy lying on the ground in agony, a cyclist had come speeding around the corner and hit him, the cyclist got up and fled. If he had hit an old person he could easily have killed them, luckily(!) he hit a healthy teenage boy who only suffered broken ribs.

The cyclist obviously thought he was cycling at an appropriate speed!


----------



## cd365 (25 Oct 2012)

2119344 said:


> Numbers on that one please.


Google it if you want numbers but 1 death would be too many.


----------



## newfhouse (25 Oct 2012)

cd365 said:


> Whilst walking my dog recently I came across a teenage boy lying on the ground in agony, a cyclist had come speeding around the corner and hit him, the cyclist got up and fled. If he had hit an old person he could easily have killed them, luckily(!) he hit a healthy teenage boy who only suffered broken ribs.
> 
> The cyclist obviously thought he was cycling at an appropriate speed!


 
But he may not have been. I have no way to determine whether the boy's injuries would have been worse had he been hit by a car in similar circumstances, but I think it's likely, don't you?


----------



## subaqua (25 Oct 2012)

cd365 said:


> There are some pretentious tosspots on this forum, I hope you all cycle slowly incase some what-if occurance happens because that is what you are saying car drivers should do.


 
there is a huge difference between 20Kgs of metal with a 100Kg rider and 1000kg of metal coming towards you. you do understand basic physics Force = Mass x Acceleration .

and when cycling i am generally travelling at a speed I can safely stop in. demonstrated in practice by the plum who hit me a few weeks ago on the canal path while I had stopped.


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 Oct 2012)

2114379 said:


> Is there a problem with the general rule of being able to stop before you reach as far as you can see at any given moment?


 
This doesn't work for me when I blink.

If I take blinking out of the equation, there is much to be said for it.

Also, I find it hard to apply at times when I am looking in a direction other than that in which I am travelling.

Also, my wife has started putting maple syrup on her porridge instead of demarara or honey. I find this eccentric and worrying.

Also....


----------



## cd365 (25 Oct 2012)

2119358 said:


> Sorry but that is just pathetically laughable.


Why, can't you use Google? We all know most cycle / pedestrian collisions go unrecorded so any stats would not be accurate. In car / cycle collisions that result in death the police attribute fault to be half and half.


----------



## cd365 (25 Oct 2012)

subaqua said:


> there is a huge difference between 20Kgs of metal with a 100Kg rider and 1000kg of metal coming towards you. you do understand basic physics Force = Mass x Acceleration .
> 
> and when cycling i am generally travelling at a speed I can safely stop in. demonstrated in practice by the plum who hit me a few weeks ago on the canal path while I had stopped.


I understand physics perfectly well thank you but it is attitudes like yours that makes cyclists so hated. If you're walking along a pavement and get hit by a cyclist it will hurt, injure and possibly kill, to think that an innocent party hit by a cyclist is less of a crime than being hit by a car is just wrong.


----------



## User6179 (25 Oct 2012)

cd365 said:


> There are some pretentious tosspots on this forum, I hope you all cycle slowly incase some what-if occurance happens because that is what you are saying car drivers should do.


 
Thought this post started well enough but fell away a bit at the end!


----------



## growingvegetables (26 Oct 2012)

cd365 said:


> There are some pretentious tosspots on this forum, ....


Thank you for the warning. I'm such a noob to forums that I hadn't realised.

Please be assured that I have taken this to heart, and shall make sure to remind myself of it whenever I see one of your posts. Thank you again.


----------



## subaqua (26 Oct 2012)

cd365 said:


> I understand physics perfectly well thank you but it is attitudes like yours that makes cyclists so hated. If you're walking along a pavement and get hit by a cyclist it will hurt, injure and possibly kill, to think that an innocent party hit by a cyclist is less of a crime than being hit by a car is just wrong.


 
i don't ride on the pavement, I stop at red lights . I also drive and drove some large vehicles in the past. I was also taught to drive using the principle of being able to stop safely in the distance in can see clearly. . I can't see anywhere that i have said it is less of a crime. i beleive my post said that I can still stop in the distance i can cleartly see even when on my bike
I don't know what your problem is but you sir are this weeks cockwomble for that attitude


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> The bend is safe to take comfortably at 40 mph even if there was a person lying in the road. I have explained and you have accepted that it was my lack of concentration that was the problem. Speed is relevant to the conditions of course and under normal conditions I estimate that bend could probably be taken faster than 40 mph and still be safe.


 
I would simply point out that your level of alertness is also part of the conditions that inform your safe speed.

The advanced driving course sounds interesting, I might do one.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi Glasgow Cyclist,
> 
> You sure do go on a bit don't you!


 
That's an odd thing to say after only my second post on this 160+ post thread, and a topic which you "opened for debate".



> I have already pointed out that the cyclist having no lights would not be the reason I would have hit her


 
I didn't say it was.



> As it is, I am investigating advanced driving courses in the area to 'brush' up what I have obviously forgotten over the years.


 
RoSPA and IAM are very worthwhile tests to take, you should find a local group within easy reach.
I'd be delighted to hear when you've passed.

GC


----------



## cd365 (26 Oct 2012)

2119536 said:


> So how many fatal cyclist pedestrian collisions do you think there are and how does that figure compare with the flawed official stats? How do you measure the difference?
> Again, figures or a source for the 50:50 fault split?


 
I have no idea how many fatal cyclist pedestrian collisions there are, again try Google. Stats can be show to prove anything, it would be very easy to take the number of miles driven to fatalities then compare it with the number of miles ridden to fatalities and see what that stat proves. I have got neither figure and will not be trying to work it out, go ahead if you find the need.

A quick Google search found the webpage I read a long time ago http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

"_The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time._
_With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time_"



2119572 said:


> Or
> 
> So "just in case" a pedestrian runs out in front of me I should drive down a road in an urban environment at 10mph, even at 3am in the morning?"
> 
> Which is your opinion?


 
I do not drive or cycle with a "what if" mentality, if I did I would probably develop agoraphobia. I try to drive and cycle as safe as I can everytime I go out, I don't want to be responsible for killing someone nor do I want to be killed. It wasn't me that was having a go at G2EWS picking faults with his driving, saying his speed was inappropriate for the conditions, implying that he should have gone around that bend at little more than walking pace "just in case" there was something around the corner. From what I read he didn't cause an accident, he stopped in time so in my opinion his speed was appropriate for the conditions.


----------



## cd365 (26 Oct 2012)

subaqua said:


> i don't ride on the pavement, I stop at red lights . I also drive and drove some large vehicles in the past. I was also taught to drive using the principle of being able to stop safely in the distance in can see clearly. . I can't see anywhere that i have said it is less of a crime. i beleive my post said that I can still stop in the distance i can cleartly see even when on my bike
> I don't know what your problem is but you sir are this weeks cockwomble for that attitude


 You said there is a difference "there is a huge difference between 20Kgs of metal with a 100Kg rider and 1000kg of metal coming towards you" in my opinion there is no difference, if you are an innocent party struck by a cyclist or a car it will hurt, the only difference will be the degree of pain and possibly the length of recovery. Neither waay will it be a nice experience.

My problem is the attitude that if you are hit by a bike it is OK you should be glad it wasn't a car!

Cockwomble, is that a 7 year olds insult? Should I take offence to that?


----------



## subaqua (26 Oct 2012)

cd365 said:


> You said there is a difference "there is a huge difference between 20Kgs of metal with a 100Kg rider and 1000kg of metal coming towards you" in my opinion there is no difference, if you are an innocent party struck by a cyclist or a car it will hurt, the only difference will be the degree of pain and possibly the length of recovery. Neither waay will it be a nice experience.
> 
> My problem is the attitude that if you are hit by a bike it is OK you should be glad it wasn't a car!
> 
> Cockwomble, is that a 7 year olds insult? Should I take offence to that?


 
you don't come here often i take it, if you have not read the word cockwomble on the forum before.

the difference between 1000Kg and 120Kg is that one will likely hurt somewhat whereas the other will likely cause serious injury or a fatality. it still doesn't change the statement that you should drive or ride at a *Speed* appropriate to the hazard being approached, attained via explicit braking or throttle control (engine braking/slowing pedalling on a fixie ), always being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your side of the road.

maybe we should experiment with me driving into you at 10mph in a range rover and then at 10mph on a bicycle. then you can tell me which was worse . we can increase the speed until you want to stop. although i do think that we may get more chances with the bicycle than with the range rover


----------



## Boris Bajic (26 Oct 2012)

Much sense has been written on this thread - and I think one or two good points have been made.

There would appear to be no logic in driving round a blind bend, finding a stationary object in one's path and putting any blame on anyone other than oneself. 

Having been taught by the person who devised the Police Driving Course is fabulous. A rare privilege.

I could teach my cat to play the saxophone, but I still wouldn't pay money to see him put me tuition into practice.

(Actually, I might, but for the wrong reasons).

However, something I've noticced on narrow, twisty lanes in the Three Couties that makes simply no sense is the following: A cyclist (or small group of cyclists) stopped and inspecting some part of the bicycle of one of them on the outside verge right on the apex of a blind bend on a high-hedged, narrow lane.

I've only ever seen it 3 times (both is the past year), but it strikes me as odd. An approaching vehicle would have to move towards the centre at just the location where one might suppose the centre was the wrong place to be. Although fully visible to other road users coming from both directions (which is a good thing), the cyclists present any other road user with a potentially tricky situation. 

I may be wroing about this being eccentric behaviour, as seeing it three times in a year suggests that it might be some sort of accepted best practice. Any thoughts?


----------



## cd365 (26 Oct 2012)

2120271 said:


> So your even split is in fact less than 25 more than 75.


 
Did you only read the bit about adults? "_The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less *evenly* between drivers and cyclists overall"_


----------



## cd365 (26 Oct 2012)

I've read cockwomble on the forums and always assumed it was made up by a 7 year old not allowed to swear. Just because it is on this forum does not make it funny or clever.


----------



## subaqua (26 Oct 2012)

cd365 said:


> I've read cockwomble on the forums and always assumed it was made up by a 7 year old not allowed to swear. Just because it is on this forum does not make it funny or clever.


 GC is going to love that.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Oct 2012)

cd365 said:


> I've read cockwomble on the forums and always assumed it was made up by a 7 year old not allowed to swear. Just because it is on this forum does not make it funny or clever.


 
I love this. Apparently.


GC


----------



## subaqua (26 Oct 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I love this. Apparently.
> 
> 
> GC


 GregCollins you CW


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Oct 2012)

subaqua said:


> GregCollins you CW


 
Doh!

GC

(I did wonder...)


----------



## cd365 (26 Oct 2012)

2120348 said:


> Well yes and no. I read all of it and chose to point out to you that in collisions between adult cyclists and drivers the data don't support your assertion.


 
Well on that note I will bail out of this conversation.


----------



## subaqua (26 Oct 2012)

cd365 said:


> Well on that note I will bail out of this conversation.


 
I was just beginning to think you were Linf.


----------



## cd365 (26 Oct 2012)

2120589 said:


> Probably best, if you have nothing of any substance to offer.


A good piece of advice I was given was "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."


----------

