From: ChelseaTractorMan on
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:36:54 +0100, MrBitsy <ray.keattch(a)infinity.com>
wrote:

>On 14/04/2010 13:04, ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:59:51 +0100, MrBitsy<ray.keattch(a)infinity.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So, we have a car (a small hatch no less), doing '30ish' while
>>> approaching a 'split'. Your anticipation at this point is woefully
>>> lacking, demonstrated by the plan you made - to move into a gap between
>>> lorries.
>>>
>> what the hell are you talking about? What lack of anticipation?
>>
>The hatch ahead was approaching a 'split',

no, its approaching the dartford minor turnoff, the split is ahead,
thats why the lorries have moved out.


>therefore the car ahead could
>move left or right.

A car might at any time move left or right, does that stop people
passing a car in lane 1 in lane2? Especially when its indicating left!


>From your description, it appears you thought it
>more likely the car was going left
>because of the slow speed and left
>indicator. Good anticipation would also allow for the possibility of
>the left indicator being given in error, and the slow speed because the
>driver was unsure which direction to take.

why would you slow to below the speed of the lorries you were merging
with,(if you had a clue)?

>So there was a chance he may not go off.

So what, makes no difference if he stays in L1, i'm happy in L2.

>Given that chance, why put
>yourself into a place he MAY go, given the great clues he gave you -
>slow speed while approaching a 'split'

"great clues", indicating left in L1 at a speed suitable only for
turning off?

> If I was approaching this guy, I
>would be worried about that slow speed - if he was sure which way he was
>going, why such a slow speed?



>The slow speed was more a clue of NOT going left! To me, going slow
>approaching a split shows the driver is not sure where they are going.
>> "split in road" was also a clue to the car going left.

Nope, hes approaching a minor turn off, the split is *ahead*, slow
speed was not suitable to merge with lorries doing 55

>> As were the indicators.
>> All the "clues" pointed to it going left.
>>
>Ok, so now you have learnt your anticipation is poor,

groan, we have learnt you didnt read the post properly and like to
jump to daft conclusions

>because he went
>right! Given you were completely wrong in your assumptions, why are you
>still so defensive?

I'm not defensive, you are being ridiculous. Tell me if you would
overtake a L1 car in L2 that was indicating left? Yes or No.


>I don't think I could have been clearer in my response. The clues the
>other driver gave were VERY clear of a possible move to the right...

slowing approaching a turn off indicating left is a "very clear
possible move to the right", youre nuts!



>> so you avoid overtaking cars signaling left do you? Total bolox.
>>
>No, I don't avoid overtaking vehicles if they are indicating left, but I
>sure wouldn't overtake a car that was giving such a clear set of clues
>they may go right.

thats youre fantasy

>When I approach a 'split' on a motorway

we were approaching the dartford turn-off, the split was ahead,
hopefully you misunderstood that. You cannot be in two places at once.


>No, it was taken from your description of the incident, that clearly
>showed your anticipation was poor.

it clearly didnt, this is nonsense.

--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: MrBitsy on
On 14/04/2010 17:24, ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:36:54 +0100, MrBitsy<ray.keattch(a)infinity.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> On 14/04/2010 13:04, ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:59:51 +0100, MrBitsy<ray.keattch(a)infinity.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, we have a car (a small hatch no less), doing '30ish' while
>>>> approaching a 'split'. Your anticipation at this point is woefully
>>>> lacking, demonstrated by the plan you made - to move into a gap between
>>>> lorries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> what the hell are you talking about? What lack of anticipation?
>>>
>>>
>> The hatch ahead was approaching a 'split',
>>
> no, its approaching the dartford minor turnoff, the split is ahead,
> thats why the lorries have moved out.
>
A split is ahead, that is all we need to know. The driver of the hatch
has a choice of the 'minor' turnoff, or continuing to the split. The
hatch driver has a choice of route and is travelling slowly - are they
unsure which way to go? This is the question you would have been
advised to consider.
>> therefore the car ahead could
>> move left or right.
>>
> A car might at any time move left or right, does that stop people
> passing a car in lane 1 in lane2? Especially when its indicating left!
>
One would hope anticipation would stop someone passing a car at a low
speed approaching several possible routes.
>
> > From your description, it appears you thought it
>
>> more likely the car was going left
>> because of the slow speed and left
>> indicator. Good anticipation would also allow for the possibility of
>> the left indicator being given in error, and the slow speed because the
>> driver was unsure which direction to take.
>>
> why would you slow to below the speed of the lorries you were merging
> with,(if you had a clue)?
>
I would be very worried which way the hatch was about to go given the
very clear clues this driver was unsure where to go.
>
>
>> So there was a chance he may not go off.
>>
> So what, makes no difference if he stays in L1, i'm happy in L2.
>
No, you wasn't happy in lane two. In fact you say 'I can use half of
lane 3' to avoid him - why half? Was your view of lane 3 good,
considering you were moving into a gap in the lorries.
>> Given that chance, why put
>> yourself into a place he MAY go, given the great clues he gave you -
>> slow speed while approaching a 'split'
>>
> "great clues", indicating left in L1 at a speed suitable only for
> turning off?
>
The reality of the situation was he moved to lane two, but you still
maintain his speed and indication was suitable only for turning off!
Have you not learnt a valuable lesson here, that your anticipation was
poor on this occasion? When you next get into a situation like this,
are you not going to consider the possibility of the car moving right,
thus not putting yourself into the space he may go?
>> If I was approaching this guy, I
>> would be worried about that slow speed - if he was sure which way he was
>> going, why such a slow speed?
>>
>
>
>
>> The slow speed was more a clue of NOT going left! To me, going slow
>> approaching a split shows the driver is not sure where they are going.
>>
>>> "split in road" was also a clue to the car going left.
>>>
> Nope, hes approaching a minor turn off, the split is *ahead*, slow
> speed was not suitable to merge with lorries doing 55
>
Again, you say not suitable for moving right, but that is exactly what
he did!
>>> As were the indicators.
>>> All the "clues" pointed to it going left.
>>>
>>>
>> Ok, so now you have learnt your anticipation is poor,
>>
> groan, we have learnt you didnt read the post properly and like to
> jump to daft conclusions
>
No, you are being daft here because the other driver did the opposite to
what you thought. When I pointed out the obvious clues to the move,
you just keep bleating on about how the other driver could only go left,
yet he did the opposite!
>
>> because he went
>> right! Given you were completely wrong in your assumptions, why are you
>> still so defensive?
>>
> I'm not defensive, you are being ridiculous. Tell me if you would
> overtake a L1 car in L2 that was indicating left? Yes or No.
>
You are not being defensive? Think thi comment through.

You moved into a space you thought was safe, because you did not
anticipate a possible move to the right. You convinced yourself he was
going left ...

'going slow, (30ish) indicating left'.
'he is probably going off there. No problemo'
'I can go out to L2 and come in again in front of him.'
'As I draw level with him, (he is still indicating left)'

Your plan did not consider the possibility of this driver going right,
because the observational clues you got were not used to anticipate the
other actions he could take. Your anticipation was poor. What is really
quite odd, is the way you are defending your actions even though the
other driver did the opposite to what you thought. You learnt nothing,
so will continue to anticipate poorly.
>> I don't think I could have been clearer in my response. The clues the
>> other driver gave were VERY clear of a possible move to the right...
>>
> slowing approaching a turn off indicating left is a "very clear
> possible move to the right", youre nuts!
>
I think you must be nuts, because you are still giving the clues he gave
as as absolute proof he was going to go left - even though he went
RIGHT! Good grief man, can't you see how daft your position is?
>>> so you avoid overtaking cars signaling left do you? Total bolox.
>>>
>>>
>> No, I don't avoid overtaking vehicles if they are indicating left, but I
>> sure wouldn't overtake a car that was giving such a clear set of clues
>> they may go right.
>>
> thats youre fantasy
>
No fantasy as it happened to you!
>> When I approach a 'split' on a motorway
>>
> we were approaching the dartford turn-off, the split was ahead,
> hopefully you misunderstood that. You cannot be in two places at once.
No, but you can be approaching two different hazards, that are close
enough to be considered as one.
>> No, it was taken from your description of the incident, that clearly
>> showed your anticipation was poor.
>>
> it clearly didnt, this is nonsense.
How can it be nonsense - it happened!

--
MrBitsy
Rover 75

From: ChelseaTractorMan on
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:13:51 +0100, MrBitsy <ray.keattch(a)infinity.com>
wrote:

>A split is ahead, that is all we need to know.

Not at all.
We have a car indicating left approaching a turnoff, you think that it
is "poor anticipation" to expect it not to move the opposite way. You
are playing a silly game. You are attempting to distort background
information into being central.

>No, but you can be approaching two different hazards, that are close
>enough to be considered as one.

only in your mind.

>> No, it was taken from your description of the incident, that clearly
>> showed your anticipation was poor.
>>
> it clearly didnt, this is nonsense.

>How can it be nonsense - it happened!

False circular logic. The idea that my poor anticipation was a factor
is conjecture by you. The incident happened, that does not prove your
analysis correct, surely you can see that?


you have written a great deal of rubbish that I haven't bothered with
and given the distortions you are trying to introduce and the
blatantly dishonest "logic" you are trying to use, (and remembering
your difficulty in understanding that inanimate objects can be
dangerous), I will not waste my time further.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: Raymond Keattch on
On 15/04/2010 09:12, ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:13:51 +0100, MrBitsy<ray.keattch(a)infinity.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A split is ahead, that is all we need to know.
>
> Not at all.
> We have a car indicating left approaching a turnoff, you think that it
> is "poor anticipation" to expect it not to move the opposite way. You
> are playing a silly game. You are attempting to distort background
> information into being central.
>
>> No, but you can be approaching two different hazards, that are close
>> enough to be considered as one.
>
> only in your mind.

As described by you.

>>> No, it was taken from your description of the incident, that clearly
>>> showed your anticipation was poor.
>>>
>> it clearly didnt, this is nonsense.
>
> >How can it be nonsense - it happened!
>
> False circular logic. The idea that my poor anticipation was a factor
> is conjecture by you. The incident happened, that does not prove your
> analysis correct, surely you can see that?

The incident happened through poor driving by the driver of the hatch.
The error by the other driver was made worse by you not spotting the
clues that the driver may move right (which it actually did, proving my
point).

> you have written a great deal of rubbish that I haven't bothered with
> and given the distortions you are trying to introduce and the
> blatantly dishonest "logic" you are trying to use, (and remembering
> your difficulty in understanding that inanimate objects can be
> dangerous), I will not waste my time further.

Dishonest logic - I would love to understand what the hell you are on
about! You missed valuable clues and nearly had an accident. All I did
was offer advice on how your anticipation could be improved.

Dishonest logic!

--
MrBitsy
From: ChelseaTractorMan on
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:51:43 +0100, Raymond Keattch
<ray.keattch(a)infinity.com> wrote:

>The error by the other driver was made worse by you not spotting the
>clues that the driver may move right (which it actually did, proving my
>point).

no, not proving your point, think about it.

>Dishonest logic - I would love to understand what the hell you are on
>about!

then think about it
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.