merc0447:
I cannae be doing with this sort of thing i always knock off the limiter takes less than 60 seconds. If someone trys an overtake on a hill and they die then i keep on the limiter cos im no dying behind them
Although saying it ive noticed especially the last few years with overtaking bans being introduced it doesnât happen as much as it used too. Maybe drivers are thinking with their heads instead of their right foot.
Depends on what you mean by âknocking off the limiterâ .In the old days it meant running without a fuse in it to run faster not lifting off .But that procedure on hills is just what we did without limiters anyway as Iâve said before or we would have had inside lanes full of trucks going at ever slower and slower speeds which is what the coppers and the politicians seem to want now on the flat and on the hills.
Governor!:
:evil: Thanks to the two idiots who wouldnt give in on the M25 last night @ around 9.30pm, i sat behind a Waitrose artic in lane 2 trying to overtake a MRS artic from the A10 slip through till the A1 turn, not one would admit defeat and either slow down to let the other one in or slow down and pull back in!!! Up hill, down hill on that section neck and neck at 52mph,
Governor!:
getting â â â â â â off by these idiots showing totally unprofessional driving, by ignoring the massive pile up of trucks behind them, just embroiled in there own little battle to overtake,
A couple of months ago, at one of the monthly meetings/training sessions of the local IAM (Advanced motorbikes) Group [where I was living up North until last week] there was a presentation by the areas Senior Examiner. His day job is a Traffic Cop, mainly on motorbikes, which I guess kind of makes him not the most popular kind of person on here! Either way, having been in the Police for nearly 30 years, the majority of which has been on traffic, thereâs no denying that he has got a lot of qualifications/skills and experience.
Once the training session had finished, we got into conversation which eventually got around to bad driving examples he witnessed the most often, which group of road users were (most of the time) the worst offenders or most dangerous, etc. Well folks, in his âexperienceâ truck drivers were/are the group of road users with the most examples of inconsiderate/bad/dangerous driving.
I tried the argument of not stereotyping any one group of road users but Iâve got to say, for every argument I had for HGV drivers, he had five times more against them, topped-up with several actual examples. To be honest, he had far too much ammo for me to win the argument.
Now he didnât get this ammo from thin air. His experiences are/were based on actual examples, some of the accidents/incidents I knew about and some I had studied as case examples when I did my Road Safety Officers Course and again when I did the Accident Investigators Course.
One of his main examples of bad [HGV] driving was the original subject of this thread i.e. prolonged âovertakingâ. He had personally attended a number of accidents/incidents that had been caused by the concertina effect of the long queues caused by the very kind of overtaking described by Governor in the above quote. Of course, most [if not all] of the time the HGV drivers were not aware of what had happened way back in the lines of traffic behind them. True, they didnât directly cause the aforementioned incidents but they were certainly a contributing factor to what had happened.
Im sorry but that is just âsliding doorsâ mate, EVERY accident has some sort of contributing factor like that, the classic taking 10 seconds out before your journey to bend down and tie your shoe lace could result in not being involved in a fatal because your 10 seconds down on your day. Disagree with that statement by the copper.
And also, there called accidents not incidents as no one goes out to crash on purpose
FarnboroughBoy11:
Im sorry but that is just âsliding doorsâ mate, EVERY accident has some sort of contributing factor like that, the classic taking 10 seconds out before your journey to bend down and tie your shoe lace could result in not being involved in a fatal because your 10 seconds down on your day. Disagree with that statement by the copper.
If the âcontributing factorâ was not present then how would the accident have occurred??
FarnboroughBoy11:
And also, there called accidents not incidents as no one goes out to crash on purpose
To utilise and Americanism - Thereâs no such thing as an accident; someone, somewhere, to a greater or lesser degree, is to blame.
I have a confession to make, I am one of those numpties that slows down if the overtaker runs out of steam. Why should I be bothered if he is in front of me, but it is obviously a problem to some drivers who post on here.
marcustandy:
To utilise and Americanism - Thereâs no such thing as an accident; someone, somewhere, to a greater or lesser degree, is to blame.
Not many people go around hitting things on purpose (note the deliberate avoidance of the word nobody ) If you didnât mean to do it, youâve done it by accident. âThere was an onpurpose on the M1 this morningâ doesnât have the same sort of ring to it
waddy640:
I have a confession to make, I am one of those numpties that slows down if the overtaker runs out of steam. Why should I be bothered if he is in front of me, but it is obviously a problem to some drivers who post on here.
FarnboroughBoy11:
Im sorry but that is just âsliding doorsâ mate, EVERY accident has some sort of contributing factor like that, the classic taking 10 seconds out before your journey to bend down and tie your shoe lace could result in not being involved in a fatal because your 10 seconds down on your day. Disagree with that statement by the copper.
If the âcontributing factorâ was not present then how would the accident have occurred??
FarnboroughBoy11:
And also, there called accidents not incidents as no one goes out to crash on purpose
To utilise and Americanism - Thereâs no such thing as an accident; someone, somewhere, to a greater or lesser degree, is to blame.
The biggest contributory factor in this case being those poxy limiters which those expert coppers all seem to want.If thereâs no such thing as an accident then why did they always use the old RTA code and not the new RTC one which the political lot and those expert coppers decided to change in order to suit that blame culture.Fatal accidents are often caused by idiots but theyâre still accidents not murder and/or suicide which is why they donât charge anyone with murder for causing a fatal accident and no sane driver would try to kill themselves or others on purpose.In the case of a typical motorway shunt caused by bunching itâs the rigid enforcement of speed limits and speed limiters which are mostly to blame to a greater or lesser degree and that someone is those idiots who enforce their fitment.
personally i set the cruise to 54mph then when i approach something slower than me i hit the gas to 56 pop round it and then back down to 54 âŚsimples
marcustandy:
To utilise and Americanism - Thereâs no such thing as an accident; someone, somewhere, to a greater or lesser degree, is to blame.
Not many people go around hitting things on purpose (note the deliberate avoidance of the word nobody ) If you didnât mean to do it, youâve done it by accident. âThere was an onpurpose on the M1 this morningâ doesnât have the same sort of ring to it
Even if you didnât mean to do it, itâs not automatically an accident. âHe didnât mean to mount the kerb and squash the child in the pram, as he went round the corner. It was, however, a case of either neglect of his responsibilities, driving without due care & attention or even dangerous driving.â It hardly warrants the description of âan accidentâ despite the fact that he âdidnât mean to do itâ.
At best, an âaccidentâ can still have blame attached to the guilty party and therefore falls into the descriptive term of âan incidentâ.
m.a.n rules:
personally i set the cruise to 54mph then when i approach something slower than me i hit the gas to 56 pop round it and then back down to 54 âŚsimples
But you wonât be able to do that when theyâve set the limiter at 85 kmh which is one of the recent directives.But what happens even at 56 when the slower wagon is running at 85 kmh/53 mph .It takes forever with that type of differential and the same if itâs 53 versus 50.Itâs a joke.
m.a.n rules:
personally i set the cruise to 54mph then when i approach something slower than me i hit the gas to 56 pop round it and then back down to 54 âŚsimples
But you wonât be able to do that when theyâve set the limiter at 85 kmh which is one of the recent directives.But what happens even at 56 when the slower wagon is running at 85 kmh/53 mph .It takes forever with that type of differential and the same if itâs 53 versus 50.Itâs a joke.
fair comment mate but all you can do is to keep it flowing as safe as possible and make progress
marcustandy:
To utilise and Americanism - Thereâs no such thing as an accident; someone, somewhere, to a greater or lesser degree, is to blame.
Not many people go around hitting things on purpose (note the deliberate avoidance of the word nobody ) If you didnât mean to do it, youâve done it by accident. âThere was an onpurpose on the M1 this morningâ doesnât have the same sort of ring to it
Even if you didnât mean to do it, itâs not automatically an accident. âHe didnât mean to mount the kerb and squash the child in the pram, as he went round the corner. It was, however, a case of either neglect of his responsibilities, driving without due care & attention or even dangerous driving.â It hardly warrants the description of âan accidentâ despite the fact that he âdidnât mean to do itâ.
At best, an âaccidentâ can still have blame attached to the guilty party and therefore falls into the descriptive term of âan incidentâ.
If an accident can still have blame attatched to it then why does it need to be described as an incident?.An armed robbery in which someone is shot is usually described as an incident but thatâs not the same as hitting someone with a vehicle.Itâs just the coppers looking for an opportunity to criminalise drivers and put them in the same league as that armed robber.Unless itâs a copper who caused the âaccidentâ of course.
marcustandy:
To utilise and Americanism - Thereâs no such thing as an accident; someone, somewhere, to a greater or lesser degree, is to blame.
Not many people go around hitting things on purpose (note the deliberate avoidance of the word nobody ) If you didnât mean to do it, youâve done it by accident. âThere was an onpurpose on the M1 this morningâ doesnât have the same sort of ring to it
Even if you didnât mean to do it, itâs not automatically an accident. âHe didnât mean to mount the kerb and squash the child in the pram, as he went round the corner. It was, however, a case of either neglect of his responsibilities, driving without due care & attention or even dangerous driving.â It hardly warrants the description of âan accidentâ despite the fact that he âdidnât mean to do itâ.
At best, an âaccidentâ can still have blame attached to the guilty party and therefore falls into the descriptive term of âan incidentâ.
Iâm glad you just made me look this one up, Iâve done my learning for today
Narrowly defined, the designation may refer only to the event, while not including the circumstances (facts surrounding) or results of the event; i.e., âaccidentâ is constrained to an immediate incident, the occurrence of which results in an unplanned outcome. In common use, however, âaccidentâ may include the entire interacting circumstantial framework (chance, pre-existing, or uncontrolled dynamically developing conditions; commonplace actions; random time and place; participants; etc.) leading up to, including, and resulting from, the accidentâs immediate occurrence. Accident will happen unknowingly and due to our ignorance. eg:trying to move a bike in a place which is not more than the space of a bike, also known as crash
So in the incident you describe, the accident is mounting the kerb, the rest is a consequence of the incident. Hmmm⌠so a crash can be called an accident, but if you start talking about blockages and casualties itâs an incident
And - trying to move a bike in a place which is not more than the space of a bike, also known as a [zb] idiotic thing to do, you [zb] [zb] [zb] your [zb] [zb]
arronls:
Accident will happen unknowingly and due to our ignorance.
IIRC, the chap I was speaking with actually used those very words above; âaccident due to ignoranceâ [as in, accident in the queueing traffic due to the ignorance of the two limiter-jockeys!].
Would that include railway accidents and aircrashes in which air accidents are investigated by the air ACCIDENT investigation branch of the DfT.So why the double standards Rog?.Probably for the same reason that trains and planes can use tax free fuel to crash with.
FarnboroughBoy11:
Im sorry but that is just âsliding doorsâ mate, EVERY accident has some sort of contributing factor like that, the classic taking 10 seconds out before your journey to bend down and tie your shoe lace could result in not being involved in a fatal because your 10 seconds down on your day. Disagree with that statement by the copper.
If the âcontributing factorâ was not present then how would the accident have occurred?? :shock:
FarnboroughBoy11:
And also, there called accidents not incidents as no one goes out to crash on purpose
To utilise and Americanism - Thereâs no such thing as an accident; someone, somewhere, to a greater or lesser degree, is to blame.
Ok then but look at it further back down the concertina effect⌠for e.g you said a contributing factor for an accident half a mile back is because of 2 slower moving lorrys yes, ok so what about the other contributing factors like the car driver in said accident fiddling with his stereo at that crucial moment or the numpty who hasnt had is brake fluid changed in 5 years?? In an ACCIDENT there are lots of âcontributing factorsâ that we are probably unaware of but i just cant beleive that u and that copper are implying that a KEY factor in an accident back further down the road is because of two trucks up ahead. madness
And just because someone somewhere can be blamed it doesnt mean that its still not an ACCIDENT, - not pre meditated, not done on purpose = accidental.
Backing off the limiter, irrespective of if you are the overtaker or being overtaken, is such a simple and sensible course of action. Furthermore, by not doing it, it portrays HGV drivers as unprofessional and alienates us from the general public. It provides exactly the kind of ammo that is used to justify the introduction of more and more overtaking bans. Last week driver X didnât want to lose so much as a second of his total journey time so he kept his foot flat to the floor and hard on the limiter. Next month it wonât be the few seconds he loses but it may well be measured in tens of minutes if heâs stuck behind some knackered & underpowered old nail of a truck for the full length of a no overtaking zone!!
J (the cop) was saying that surely a professional driver is far more aware of the consequences of his actions and will do what he can to minimise the risks/causes of accident to both himself and other road users. Drivers in the industry have moaned for long enough about not being treated as professionals - well with the attitude that âMPâs & âexpertâ coppers are all to blame for speed limiters so tough, Iâm not going to give up before him, and I donât care what others think!â we are never going to treated as professionals nor taken seriously in any aspect of the transport industry. I wonder how many times an MP or Government minister has been stuck behind a couple of stubborn âon the limiterâ drivers? No wonder they donât have the appetite or desire to do anything for this countryâs transport industry.
The honest answer is that, unfortunately there seems to be a percentage of HGV drivers who are moaning, self-centred, full of their importance, selfish, inconsiderate, ill-informed and ill-trained that, due to usually being the loudest, get us all a bad name. I know these types exist - Iâve seen and worked with them!! Theyâre only happy when theyâre unhappy. If they have nothing to moan about, then theyâll theyâll moan about that!! The world owes them everything and nothing is as important as what theyâre doing, including saving those few seconds with a ridiculous overtaking manoeuvre!!
As for accident v incident, Iâd say Rog provided a quality explanation of the finer details of that argument!
marcustandy:
As for accident v incident, Iâd say Rog provided a quality explanation of the finer details of that argument!
Rog:
An event without apparent cause
Now youâre getting into the realms of causality and all sorts of philosophical puzzles
I did discover this though:
J. L. Mackie (Australian philosopher) argues that usual talk of âcause,â in fact refers to INUS conditions (insufficient and non-redundant parts of unnecessary but sufficient causes).
For example, a short circuit as a cause for a house burning down.
Consider the collection of events: the short circuit, the proximity of flammable material, and the absence of firefighters.
Together these are unnecessary but sufficient to the houseâs destruction (since many other collections of events certainly could have destroyed the house). Within this collection, the short circuit is an insufficient but non-redundant part (since the short circuit by itself would not have caused the fire, but the fire would not have happened without it, everything else being equal). So, the short circuit is an INUS cause of the house burning down.
To translate that to the overtaking argument, the 10 mile overtake could be the short circuit, or the flammable material. Alone, itâs not the cause of the (theoretical) crash, but the crash wouldnât have happened without it. To me thatâs a pretty good reason not to do it - why make yourself a potential cause when all you have to do is ease off for a few seconds
Over a distance of three miles a constant 56 mph will get you there 192.86 seconds
Over the same distance, but doing 56 for 2 miles and 53 for 1 will get you there in 196.5 seconds
Can anyone honestly say 3.64 seconds is going to make ANY impact on their day? Thatâs 16.5 overtakes before youâve lost a minute. Seriously? Youâre THAT pushed for time?
Backing off the limiter, irrespective of if you are the overtaker or being overtaken, is such a simple and sensible course of action. Furthermore, by not doing it, it portrays HGV drivers as unprofessional and alienates us from the general public. It provides exactly the kind of ammo that is used to justify the introduction of more and more overtaking bans. Last week driver X didnât want to lose so much as a second of his total journey time so he kept his foot flat to the floor and hard on the limiter. Next month it wonât be the few seconds he loses but it may well be measured in tens of minutes if heâs stuck behind some knackered & underpowered old nail of a truck for the full length of a no overtaking zone!!
J (the cop) was saying that surely a professional driver is far more aware of the consequences of his actions and will do what he can to minimise the risks/causes of accident to both himself and other road users. Drivers in the industry have moaned for long enough about not being treated as professionals - well with the attitude that âMPâs & âexpertâ coppers are all to blame for speed limiters so tough, Iâm not going to give up before him, and I donât care what others think!â we are never going to treated as professionals nor taken seriously in any aspect of the transport industry. I wonder how many times an MP or Government minister has been stuck behind a couple of stubborn âon the limiterâ drivers? No wonder they donât have the appetite or desire to do anything for this countryâs transport industry.
The honest answer is that, unfortunately there seems to be a percentage of HGV drivers who are moaning, self-centred, full of their importance, selfish, inconsiderate, ill-informed and ill-trained that, due to usually being the loudest, get us all a bad name. I know these types exist - Iâve seen and worked with them!! Theyâre only happy when theyâre unhappy. If they have nothing to moan about, then theyâll theyâll moan about that!! The world owes them everything and nothing is as important as what theyâre doing, including saving those few seconds with a ridiculous overtaking manoeuvre!!
As for accident v incident, Iâd say Rog provided a quality explanation of the finer details of that argument!
No Iâd say that itâs that copper,the politicians and maybe Rog are the ones who still ainât getting it.So how many years of safe driving of HGVâs on a 100,000 mile per year basis have they all actually got behind them,including under the old no speed limiter days, and it seems to me that they are making it all up to suit themselves.Itâs a catch 22 situation of the politicians and coppers own making and even if trucks overtaking or being overtaken back off on a continuous basis as per your argument theyâll still cause a safety issue as Iâve (tried) to point out.Unfortunately for road safety Iâm hearing your argument and blown it out of the water for good reason but itâs those coppers,politicians,and maybe Rog who donât want to hear reason when itâs given to them by someone who knows better having been there,seen it,done it,and got the T shirt having covered more miles without the nanny state forcing limiters on trucks than I did with them and Iâm still here to tell the tale and confirm that,from the point of view of driving trucks safely,things were better without them.That copper was right about a professional driver being aware of his actions and by that yardstick any professional driver knows that backing off at the wrong time in the wrong place,like on a motorway with average traffic levels,can cause more risk to following traffic not less and the answer to that,given by those idiots behind their desks and coppers whoâve never even driven a loaded truck but who think that they are the experts when it comes to driving them,will be to put up even more of those variable speed limits on motorways in a vain attempt to cure even more of that ripple effect braking as it goâs further and further back down the line in order for following traffic to maintain seperation distances and often failing as the modern day accident rate with limited trucks shows compared to the unlimited ones of my day.Iâd suggest that you go take your bs argument to the States and see how you get on trying to sell it to their drivers and maybe you could tell them how âunprofessionalâ they are running unlimited trucks at 65-70 mph and/or whatever it takes to pass quickly and safely on a multi lane interstate where going faster with the overtaking vehicle not backing off either the overtaking vehicle or the one being overtaken is recognised (rightly) as the way to overtake correctly.However under your idea it is possible for the dangerous situation of BOTH the overtaking vehicle and the one being overtaken to back off together in confusion as how are they to know which one is going to back off and which one not â â .So I can foresee a scenario of a following truck closing on the one in lane 1 and pulls out to overtake just as BOTH slow down in front of him !!! and even if not and only the one in lane 1 backs off itâs going to throw his lane change calculations way out.Hopefully youâre professional enough to understand the implications of all that.
.But that procedure on hills is just what we did without limiters anyway as Iâve said before or we would have had inside lanes full of trucks going at ever slower and slower speeds which is what the coppers and the politicians seem to want now on the flat and on the hills.
) If you didnât mean to do it, youâve done it by accident. âThere was an onpurpose on the M1 this morningâ doesnât have the same sort of ring to it 
