From: MrBitsy on
On 17/04/2010 12:22, ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:28:55 +0100, Raymond Keattch
> <ray.keattch(a)infinity.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The incident you described was not indicators only. There were several
>> clues and limited safe space that suggested passing the hatch was not
>> advisable.
>>
> limited safe space? Nope.
> The clues were indicators. The rest you made up.
>
No, I did not make them up - you clearly described them. I pointed out
how those clues could help a driver anticipate the possible collision
(that you almost had). If the space wasn't limited, how come you put
yourself into the exact same spot the other car moved into?

Your anticipation was poor - learn from it.

--
MrBitsy
From: MrBitsy on
On 17/04/2010 12:24, ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:31:00 +0100, Raymond Keattch
> <ray.keattch(a)infinity.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I have, please explain.
>>
> I already did, if you cannot understand that the existence of an
> incident does not prove your analysis of it to be correct, then it
> proves I'm right to not continue trying to explain anything to you.
>
Anticipation is all about taking clues from observation and playing what
if...

What if that indication is incorrect?
What if they don't turn off?
What if the slow speed, combined with several choices, means they move
right instead of left?
What if I move into the space in the lorries, and the car moves right -
will I be able to clearly see lane three?

You didn't anticipate, you assumed, and it led you to one of your closes
near misses.

--
MrBitsy
From: MrBitsy on
On 17/04/2010 12:25, ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 03:06:48 +0100, Raymond Keattch
> <ray.keattch(a)infinity.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I totally agree. As it was, poor anticipation put the OP into a
>> dangerous place because the clues were missed. Unfortunately, it
>> appears the OP has learnt nothing at all from the experience.
>>
> the lesson learned was not to expect some people to make a sensible
> analysis.
>
Good, I am glad you have now learn't there is a better way.

--
MrBitsy
From: MrBitsy on
On 17/04/2010 12:34, ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:27:34 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
> <harry.m1byt(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> The risk of passing them at a sensible speed and with extra care has to
>> be balanced against alternative - the risks inherent in slowing down
>> their speed. By default, under the circumstances mention I would be
>> inclined to the first option to get me out of the way quickly.
>>
> If I could have known he would be so stupid...
>
The clues were there but you didn't interpret them. Considering what
happened, have you learnt anything?


--
MrBitsy
From: MrBitsy on
On 17/04/2010 12:31, ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:56:49 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
> <harry.m1byt(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> I agree completely about signals on roundabouts, but this was not a
>> roundabout.
>>
> the interesting point should be :- is there any way of guarding
> against the rare fool who indicates left and then moves right, or even
> does not indicate and moves right. Every day we all pass hundreds of
> cars trusting the other driver to not do so.
> Especially so if he is at a turn off and delivers all the "clues" he
> is turning left:-
>
> a) he's at a junction
> b) hes indicating
> c) hes going slowly.
>
'C' suggests he may not turn off. 'C' suggests he may be unsure about
turning off. Given 'C', I would not pass him at the Junction - can you
see the problem?

--
MrBitsy