I think JamZ is hinting that the rule "only drive at a speed such that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear" applies. Generally I'm pretty keen on that rule, but I think one is entitled to assume that the road surface continues to the same standard, and hasn't been suddenly contaminated.
It is reasonable to spot a hole in the road, or a broken down car, or any kind of physical barrier, or to anticipate ice, even invisible black ice, in winter. But it is clearly not reasonable to anticipate that any bit of the surface might have had diesel poured on it. No one would ever go more than 20 mph if that were the case.
|
|
started well with the statement about being able to stop inside the distance you can see to be clear but you shouldn't assume everything is ok,expect the unexpected
|
expect the unexpected
Yes, but within reason.
Expect, for example, that there is a broken down car stationary after the next bend. Expect, on a cold winter's day, that the shady patch ahead conceals black ice. Expect that the BMW behind will do something aggressive and silly or that the Micra ahead will suddenly slow down for no apparent reason.
However, if we all drive on the assumption that the road ahead is liberally covered with sufficient diesel to impair braking to the extent experienced by Jesse then there will of course be no accidents. However, at 2 mph max we won't get very far in a day, and with no-one at work the economy might suffer a tad.
|
|
|
We have an extremely seriously ill young lady from the office. She drove around a corner, under the speed limit, and found a skip lorry blocking her path.
Completely not her fault. But that probably isn't much compensation right now.
Like he said - expect the unexpected.
|
|
I'd say we agree then, Mark?
|
|
I think we posted at the same time; but yes, essentially we agree. One can take it too far, but too many people taking blind corners and the like on trust.
|
Well put, patently. That was exactly what I was trying to say.
Here's another example;
If you drive round a blind corner and hit a tree lying across the road, then you were clearly driving too fast for the amount of visible clear road.
But you can't be expected to slow to 10 mph whenever approaching trees just in case one happens to be about to fall.
|
You can't be expected to slow to 10 mph whenever approaching trees just in case one happens to be about to fall.
it's best to go very fast past trees, so that they don't have too much time to fall onto you.
|
it's best to go very fast past trees, so that they don't have too much time to fall onto you.
That's a bit like running so as not to get wet. It just means you run faster into the next bit of rain, or the next tree that is already falling.
|
>> >> it's best to go very fast past trees, so that they >> don't have too much time to fall onto you. >> That's a bit like running so as not to get wet. It just means you run faster into the next bit of rain, or the next tree that is already falling.
No, it's sound theory. Coz overall, you'll be spending les time under trees. Of course, if one does hit you, it'll hit you harder...
|
>>Coz overall, you\'ll be spending les time under trees.
Less overall minutes perhaps, but the % of those minutes where you are susceptible to a tree-stomping may not be so clear cut.
Assuming that there is a falling distance of [say] an inch where if you\'re under a tree it will catch, hold and crush you, but where if you\'re not under a tree there is still sufficient time to push under that tree and then get caught, held and crushed, then presumably you are increasing your exposure to a tree falling on you by the distance your car can travel in the time that it takes the tree to fall 1 \". Clearly, since the tree fall rate is reaosnably constant, then an increase in speed will result in more chance of getting hit.
If, however, that same falling distance of 1\" worked the other way where within that 1\" you could still scrape out from under the tree but you would not be able to get under it if it fell in front of you, then clearly speed would be a significant advantage.
On the other hand, that is presuming that the tree can only hit you at a vertical angle and that your car is flat. Since your car is not flat topped, and you can run into a tree as well as getting stomped by it, it would appear clear that the logical approach would be to use a different road.
Well, it is Friday.
|
I was working on a quite simplistic theory of the hypothetical falling tree having a 'footprint' where it will land.
If you're travelling at a higher speed, you will spend less time within that footprint.
It being Friday, and already being able to feel my brains leaking out of my ears, I have no idea whether what you just said made sense or not.
Happy Friday everyone.
|
I think too it depends on the length of the stretch of trees. Driving past one tree, I agree it probably makes sense to go as fast as possible. But in a wood, you'd just speed into the next danger zone. Going slowly you'd have a chance of seeing it start to fall, and either accelerating or stopping in time.
Subject for next Friday: driving over a dangerous bridge - better fast or slow?
|
|
To go back to where we started,IMHO the worst offenders for spilling diesel on the road......my fellow truckers,either because they overfill the tank (very,very,common)or when filling up they forget to replace the fuel cap (holds hands up 8-( ).Worse still,finding a truck with fuel cap missing they cover it with a plastic bag and elastic bands which is as effective as you'd expect.Apologies on their behalf....
|
Mark,
Whilst I would love to reply to your post, sadly it reaches an anorak level that even I could only dream of!!!
Thank you for brightening a Friday afternoon and putting me in a better mood for an M25* slog home.
*motoring link!
|
|
|
|
