Conference terri::cars_uk

    
    The best way to learn defensive driving is to ride a motorbike. You
    have to assume that you are invisible to a large % of road users.

    
    I don't see the logic in .0's tip. No matter how you position your
    wheels at a junction ( except having each wheel at right angles to
    the chassis 8-) you will still be "shunted" forward onto the main
    road or into parked vehicles ?
    
    Also when do you correct the wheels to point in the desired path ?
    
    Anyway, on the same lines, when waiting at a junction I always look
    at the the 'angle' of the wheels of on-coming or major road traffic 
    rather than rely on their indicator !
    
    How many times have you been tempted to pull infront of an on-coming
    vehicle because he/she was indicating to turn into 'your' road ? And 
    then you release that they didn't know that their indicator was on !
	
    The same applies to some Roundabout users who sometimes get you off-
    guard when they decide to do a 360 !
    

    I think .2 has got it wrong and missed the point in .0.....
    
    Imagine what happens to you if you are waiting( as I have to) to cross
    a line of traffic to get into my drive way. The road is a tempting one
    on which to speed and a few people have been caught out by my presence
    on the correct side of the crown of the road waiting for an opportunity
    to transit across the traffic. If I get shunted in the rear by a
    pillock who isn't taking care or (as is usual... trying o overtake) and
    my wheels are turned to the right, then I WON'T get stuffed straight
    on, I'll go the way the wheels are pointing, across the traffic at a
    time that I might not choose so to do.
    
    However, I do agree that watching the wheels of a car approaching a
    junction and indicating that it **MIGHT** turn is a pretty good way of
    assessing whether it really means what its indicators say!
    
    BTW ...... if you do get pushed off your stationary spot into oncoming
    traffic by somebody trying to climb into your boot, Mr. Plod can hit
    you with a "Driving without due care and attention" charge if he feels
    it is warranted ......
    
    Honest, officer, it wasn't my fault.........

    my theory on defensive driving is that it isn't a technique as such,
    more of how you approach driving.
    
    It's no use driving along thinking:
    
    "Tum te tum... must remember to video M*A*S*H ... what's this stupid DJ
    saying now on the radio ... I wonder what's for supper tonight...."
    
    It should be..
    
    "Where's this cortina in front of me going to go.. that bus might pull
    out... I'll just glance up this side road... oh, there's a 30 mph limit
    at the bottom of this hill... I'll ease off...." and so on.....
    
    Huw.

    
    Re .-1
    
    Ahhh. I see it now ! I had an image of a 'T' or 'X' Junction.
    Silly me !

>>Where's this cortina in front of me going to go

To the nearest scrapyard hopefully ;-)

Hi ,

How do you stop morons driving 10 feet from your bumper, when you are doing
60 - 70 mph on a country road ? 

This happened to me 's morning , I don't think the bloke behind me , in a manky
old Fiat , had a brain cell in his head.

I like to leave plenty of room between me and the next car, it's a shame not 
everyone shares that feeling.





Gary.

    re -1
    
    You can use 3 tactics:
    
    1) Take your foot off the accelerator and slow down without applying
       brakes, therefore giving the moron behind you a chance to react.
       Alternatively, you can flick on the rear fogs or TAP the brakes.
    2) Slam on your brakes, and watch his face when he pulls back... ;-)
       I like that one...
    3) Go faster...
    
    Between the 3, #1 is probably the best. Of course don't slow right
    down otherwise he'll just get heated up.
    
    I have this happening to me all the time, now i drive a slower car,
    and when MR 2.0i 16v 4wd Turbo Nutter B*****d arrives 3cm from my
    bottom (;-)), i usually apply #1...
    
    it's safer...

>>         <<< Note 1287.7 by MAJORS::REVELL "Shoots, but can't hit.." >>>
>>How do you stop morons driving 10 feet from your bumper, when you are doing
>>60 - 70 mph on a country road ? 

    You slow down GRADUALLY to a speed at which 10 feet IS a safe
    distance!. If you try to out-race him you make it worse as your
    throwing him a challenge to his macho. If you brake sharply or flash
    your stop lights he brakes heavilly, calls you several choice words,
    and closes to 5 feet.
    
    Treat him like the idiot he is, and forget about the extra couple of
    minutes it'll add to your journey.
    
    
    Actually, I think this note could be a very positive benefit to
    everyone. 
    
    How many times have you driven down a motorway, keeping into the inside
    lane, and as you approach traffic been baulked by someone coming up the
    outside of you?. Look ahead, AND behind, judge when you will have to
    move out, early if necessary to give the car behind plenty of warning
    and chance to also manouver, don't let yourself get blocked in or your
    blood pressure will rise.
    
    Conversely, if your in the middle lane approaching a line of traffic in
    the inside lane, look for the guy at the back or in the middle who's
    closing on the rest, and is likely to pull out (lorry's are very fond
    of doing this!), if it's safe, move out in advance, giving him a clear
    lane to move out too!. 
    
    Richard

    There was a time when I were a young lad and a sales rep out in the
    Newmarket Office and driving about 60,000 miles a year. Don't ask
    why.... it's too looooooong a story to tell. This was back in 1988/89.
    At that time Digital asked everybody who was doing over 50,000 miles a
    year to do a half day "Defensive Driving" course taught by an ex police
    man who is supposed to have been the only person to have been given a
    100% mark at the Hendon Police Advanced driving school plus just about 
    every other driving qualification you could think of. 
    
    That was an excellent half day's investment in both the companies
    money and my time. I think the trigger events for that kind of tuition
    being made available was the fact that in the mid/late 80's Digital
    lost about half-a-dozen people in car accidents, plus Tony James had
    just about every bone in his body mangled by his BMW.
    
    Is the tuition still available to employees?

    Whoops.... Re .11
    
    I tell a lie, my story was in the 1986/87 time frame. My how time flies
    when you are having fun ........

>    At that time Digital asked everybody who was doing over 50,000 miles a
>    year to do a half day "Defensive Driving" course taught by an ex police
>    man...
    
>    Is the tuition still available to employees?

       At the time I did it, October last year, fleet management were 
       making *every* lease car driver go on it, irrespective of company
       miles driven (my company mileage last year was zero!)

       I agree, a worthwhile course. 

       Ian.

	Re: people in your boot.

	I must admit that I just ignore them. I try and drive the way I
	want to drive. If it's bad I'll slow down (foot off accelerator),
	if he's close to me though, that's his problem.

	The worst type is the one who is close to you and tries/looks
	 to pass you all the time. He keeps you looking at him
	 wondering when he's going to pass.

    
    Another aspect to the 'driving too close' is that it makes it difficult
    for other people who want to overtake. It means that they are either
    forced to 'push in' or overtake the two cars together. I was under the
    impression that the highway code said you were supposed to 'assist'
    those who wished to overtake, by easing back gently, to alow them
    plenty of room to pull in - not as seems to be the case these days,
    drive close to the car in front, and then hoot at anyone who dares to
    try to get in between. 
    

    I did mine in January.
    
    The tips I remember are:
    
    - Keep as far to the outside of the bend as you can consistent with
    safety (ie - not all the way on the wrong side) to give maximum
    visibility round the bend.
    
    - Follow the vanishing point in the road round the bend; provided it is
    not going slower than you, you are at a safe speed. This has saved me
    from all those corners which seem to tighten up half way round, forcing
    me to brake; I see the "tightening up" before I get there.
    
    - Watch road signs, so you know in advance where the junctions etc are,
    even (or especially) if you don't want to turn.
    
    - Read the dotted lines in the road; the bigger the gaps, the more
    visibility, and vice versa
    
    - Always stop in traffic so you can see the tyres of the car in front;
    both to give space for the prat who regards your bumber as a convenient
    brake, and also you have space to pull out if the guy in front stalls.
    
    It was an excellent day. If the opportunity arises, I will do it again,
    as I am sure I still have plenty to learn, and I would advise others to
    do likewise.
    
    Steve

    
    "If he's close to me though, that's his problem."
    
    That to my mind, sums up non-defensive driving. The key to a defensive
    drive is understanding that you _have_ to safeguard against other
    peoples inability and stupidity. It really is your problem, ignore it
    at your peril...
    
    So, awareness is key. A healthy degree of pessimism is also useful,
    as is constant regard to three questions:
    
    - What hazards can I see.
    - What hazards can't I see (ie. are obscured from vision).
    - What can I reasonably expect to happen (eg. horses/cows on a country
      lane).
    
    
    When you anticipate problems, rather than react when they occur, then
    you're beginning to drive defensively.
    
    Bill.

    Agree with .17
    
    Taking the bumper rider as an example, the only safe alternatives in my
    judgement are either:
    
    - Stop, allowing him to proceed out of sight
    
    - If safe, travel faster than he is prepared to
    
    - Take a different route
    
    All of these allow the bumper rider to proceed, in his lights,
    unimpeded. He will be safer through not being frustrated, and you are
    safer because he is somewhere else.
    
    Steve

	Re: close to bumpers.


	Sorry, but I'm not going to slow down/pull over all the time
	 as I would then be looking to do that quite a lot and that
	 is not acceptable.

	I will not, though *intentially* hold someone up.

	That is potentially dangerous.

    Re .16  What exactly is the 'vanishing point'?
    
    Mikef

The vanishing point in this context is where the left and right hand edges of
the road appear to meet.  As you go round a bend, if this point appears to
move towards you, the bend is getting sharper, and vice versa.

Scott

    >   At the time I did it, October last year, fleet management were 
    >   making *every* lease car driver go on it, irrespective of company
    >   miles driven (my company mileage last year was zero!)
    
    Is this still true?  I've had my lease car now since Feb and have not
    been requested to go on such a course although I would like to.
    
    ..Craig   

	This course is open to everyone. I do not have a lease car, but asked
	if I could go on the course.

	I did, and an excellent day it was.

	HOWEVER, if you are not a lease-car owner, make sure you specify this,
	otherwise you may find out that no-one is, and there will be no car
	to drive.

	Heather

	I think that someone said this earlier but...  Defensive driving is
	an attitude of mind.  Whatever you do don't get angry, some lunatic
	overtaking you on a blind bend in wet weather in a Cortina isn't an
	insult to you, just a danger, get them away from you.  Being pushed
	along, driving a little more quickly than you want by someone up
	your chuff box is not safe, don't impede them, let them by at the
	earliest opportunity.  Anyway, here are some (I hope practical tips):-

	Don't rely on signals - watch the tyres
	Expect the worst - the lorry *will* pull out to overtake.  On 
		motorways, you quite often see the lorry "wiggle" a bit before
		it goes, just having a look, I guess.
	Be paranoid - everyone's out to get me - it's true, they really are!
	Be polite - you never know, it may catch on.  Try not to intimidate or
		frighten other drivers - it may make them do unexpected
		things.  Thank people when they've been kind. 
	Do expected things - telegraph your intentions to the world, let other
		drivers know what you intend to do.  You do this by signalling
		and positioning.
	Be calm - don't get angry, it doesn't matter you're right if you're
		dead.  
	Observe - look, see and then...
	Plan - think ahead, plan your moves.

	Dave

	Oh, and another tip.  If there are two lanes straight ahead lanes
	at a set of traffic lights you usually make more progress by choosing 
	the right hand one (even if that is also a right turn lane).

When I was learning to drive my instructor told me to drive "as if every other 
road user was blind, deaf, stupid, intoxicated and suicidal"

Always seemed like a good definition of defensive driving to me :-)

/. Ian .\

    Sounds fair enough to me!!
    
    Re -a few...
    What do you do if someone is driving very close to your rear end, and
    there is no opportunity  for them to pass?  I do my best to stay cool,
    but it can be unnerving.
    
    Mikef

>>be Predictable and hope its
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

by that do you mean give 'em the finger?!	:-)  

    Has anyone read a book called VERY ADVANCED DRIVING its a paperback
    that is usualy available from WH Smiths etc. I can recommend it as
    well worth a read, it applies some lateral thinking to driving skills
    (sideways motoring?) that are very interesting.
    
    The one tip I would like to pass on is; Never overtake when you
    see any form of junction sign  eg; |-  ....it sounds obvious
    but head ons happen all the time because of this.
    
    Hows about a note on Offensive Driving? 
    
    Simon. 

    THE BOOK to read is ROADCRAFT. It is published by HMSO. It basically is
    a cut down civilian version of the police forces' manual.
    
    I've also read 'very advanced driving' and I didnt think much of it
    myself.
    
    Huw.
    my 2p tip is don't assume that other drivers know the procedure at
    roundabouts, that way you can anticipate them cutting you up! 

    I'd like to 2nd, 3rd and 4th that last tip..!!!
    
    I always expect the unexpected on roundabouts.....
    
    especially the Brighton Hill roundabout in Blasingsmoke, coming
    from the new Hatchwarren estate....
    
    for those of you who are not familiar with this, there are 3 lanes
    leading onto the roundabout, what invariably happens is, when waiting
    to get onto the roundabout, the person in the left hand lane moves
    into the middle lane on the roundabout,the person in the middle
    lane moves into the right-hand lane on the roundabout, and the person
    in the right-hand lane in the queue....gets crushed/has to brake
    violently/choose another lane/go for it and hope the left hand/middle
    lanes move over..!!!
    
    Horrendous....

    
    re: the original question 
    
       slow down, using accelerator only (sudden brake lights may aggrevate
    the driver behind) if the vehicle behind still can't/won't pass then
    pull over and stop. the driver that is behind you may not realise that
    they are too close, and by stopping you will force them to pass.
    
    Failing that, and the road/traffic conditions are clear then maintain
    maximum safe progress until such a time that they can successfully
    complete an overtake.
    
     Alan.
    
    ROADCRAFT (fwiw) is probably one of the best advanced driving books
    available (but only if you continually practise what is between it's
    front and back covers).
    

    
    I'd say Roadcraft is probably one of the worst driving books
    available; its hard to understand and uninstuctional. However,
    it compensates this by presenting the best system of driving
    available - which makes it required, if uninspiring, reading.
    
    Bill.

    
    re: -1
    
        I have been driving and riding to the guidelines setin the
    ROADCRAFT manual for sometime now, and I can honestly say that it has
    increased my observation, safety, and travel time has been reduced
    (progress through different road systems faster).
    
     Alan
    

    Re .24
    
    I called car fleet today and asked about the driving course...
    Yep, you guessed it "Sorry we no longer do that"
    
    Oh well..  8-(
    
    Craig.   

	Fleet?????????

	I called edu services to book mine, it was nothing to do with the
	fleet car system. I don't have a lease car.

	They may have stopped, but I'd check edu as well if I were you.


	Heather

re.38 (and others...):

See topic 89.

Dave.

    Re Driving course:
    
    I called EDU as well and the course is definitely no longer running.
    
    
    ..Craig

No one has stated the obvious yet on how to deal with the tailgaters..

You just have to leave enough room between you and the car in front to allow 
for both you and the car behind you's to brake safely and remember that 
he/she/it is behind you when you do brake...

...still that doesn't allow for the prats who see the gap, pull out into it and 
then can't find their second gear...that requires another technique :-)

    Also, whenever you have to brake hard, it pays to look in your mirror
    to see that you are not about to get shunted up the rear.
    
    Mind you, if a car is rapidly approaching your backside, I don't
    suppose there is a great deal you can do in most situations,
    especially considering the short timeframe available

    
    Which is exactly why you should know whats behind you before you
    brake...

    It is nice to see that the Driving Courses were so well received and
    many people fell they have benefitted from them.  They are no longer
    being run due constraints on this type of expense and possible income
    tax problems - there has been a move by the Revenue to make them a
    taxable benefit, especially when they apply to drivers of "perk" cars.
    
    What is nice to see also, is this type of conference where those who
    have benefitted either by the DEC course, or some other type of
    training, are sharing their changed attitude with others.
    
    Doug 

    Thanks Doug for clarifying the point. Isn't it typical, the company
    tries to do the right thing to reduce accidents, the inland revenue try
    to make money out of it!!!!!!
    
    They'll be charging us for fire evacuation courses next!!
    
    Richard

    Re .44
    
    Doug - Have you noticed any difference in accident claims for trained
    and untrained drivers?
    
    If there is a quantifiable cost benefit in terms of accident claims,
    presumably this can be used to sort out HMIT?
    
    Steve

    
    Re .31
    
    I have read "Very advanced Driving" by Tom Topper. There are some very
    good tips in there, but....
    
    Tom says it is OK, even desirable, to cut in "as close as possible"
    after an overtake and people who advocate otherwise are giving dangerous
    advice. He says that to wait until the vehicle that has been overtaken
    is visible in your rear view mirror before returning to your side of
    the road will make you dangerously exposed. I don't agree with this. No
    overtaking manouver should be attempted unless there is time to pass
    without cutting in. Of course, if the overtake is missjudged then it
    may be necessaty to cut in more than one would like. As stated in
    Roadcraft "advanced" (and defensive) driving is about giving yourself
    and others TIME TO REACT and allowing yourself and others space to make
    mistakes. If you were being overtaken by someone who has clearly
    missjudged things what would you do? I would look in my mirrors and slow
    down to reduce the time it took the other driver to overtake. If I also
    had someone who was too close behind I would have to take this into
    account when deciding on the degree of decceleration......
    
    Ian.
    
    

I always slow down a little when being overtaken anyway. This is what I was
taught when I was learning to drive.

Simon

    
    Ian, your advice is sound but I think you do Mr. Topper a disservice.
    If I remember (and my copy of the book is prehistoric), his advice was
    that it was better to cut up a car that you'ld just overtaken than to
    risk a head on accident with an opposing vehicle. In fact, its better
    to clip the car than to have a head-on which will involve all three
    cars anyway!
    
    I think he reasoned that some people courted disaster by 'staying out'
    too long - and held the view that this could be because instructors
    were adamant that you should never pull in until you can see the car
    that you've passed in your rear view mirror.
    
    Bill.

    Been away one week and still catching up, including this note. So far,
    an interesting and potentially very informative topic. I'll add more
    comments later but, for now, suffice it to say that I did the one-day
    Drive and Survive which prompted me to do the IAM test.
    
    One thing I *try* to do, especially when driving alone, is image there
    is a police officer in the car with me observing my driving. Is that
    overtake REALLY safe just here? Did I notice that car approaching the
    junction before he pulled out in front of me? What *WAS* that last road
    sign I passed??!!! It takes an amazing amount of concentration to drive
    a car really well. I'm not there yet, although I'm a hundred light
    years ahead of most people, including a lot of DECcies driving into/out
    of DECpark!!
    
    Colin

Re: .49

Bill, Yes, I agree with your reasoning. I will look at Tom's book again. 
Maybe I misunderstood what he was saying and come back.

Re: .48

Simon, Always slowing down a little when being overtaken is not a bad policy 
but if in the given circumstances there is no need to slow down, why do so? 
Conversely, under different circumstances it may be necessary to slow down a 
lot, even an emergency stop. What you should not do is to accelerate, which 
is a specific traffic offence in some counties (France -  who has twice the 
accident rate of the UK or so I have read). This is similar to always using 
an indicator whether there is traffic or not. Only using your indicators when 
there is someone around to make use of it implies that you know what is going 
on around you, which is why this practise is advocated in <Roadcraft>. Your 
driving instructor was not wrong to tell you to always do whatever. He told 
you this because it is easier for a learner to cope with <always>. The 
<sometimes> comes with more experience and advanced training. Never forget 
that the D o T driving test is a minimum standard.

Generally, overtaking is just about the most dangerous manoeuvre there is and 
a good piece of advice that I have been given by a RoSPA person is - before 
any overtake is attempted ask yourself three questions:

1) Is it legal? - not in the zigzag of a pedestrian crossing or where there 
is a double white line that is solid your side etc.

2) Is it safe? - not approaching a junction, brow of hill. Not likely to 
inconvenience or endanger other road users etc.

3) Is it necessary? - Are you going to turn off the main road you are on 
shortly after the overtake? Are you in a queue of traffic on a winding road 
with few overtaking oportunities? etc. Or, is the vehicle in front genuinely 
impeding your progress?

  If the answer to any of the above questions is <no> - don't overtake!

                 If they are all <yes> then GO!


        < Remember - If in danger or in doubt - bottle out >

Re: .50  I like that idea. Keep up the good work Colin.


				-0-

Ian.


    

    A most intresting note. It makes me wonder why more people don't use
    some of the driving techniques mentioned in this note. I think most of
    what has been said in here has been argued somewhere else. Maybe its me
    or just the places I drive but very few people drive the way me and
    obviously many of you folk would advocate. I think the single most
    defensive thing that you can do is to be polite. How often have you sat
    in a side road waiting and waiting to get out and not one single person
    has got the time to just stop and let you out. It doesn't cost that
    much time and in some cases prevents an accident. Thats not to say that
    we should all stop and let folk out of a side road but sometimes it
    makes sense. One thing that has been mentioned more that anything else
    is to think ahead. That to me is something that has been of emense
    value. I have found if you just look at  whats going on around you
    , more often than not you will see accident happening but not get
    involved simply because you saw what was happening and done something
    avoid it. 
    
    Just take this senario and see if it makes sense. 
    
    driver a driving along a stretch of road in a town. This stretch of
    road has quite a busy , lots of pedestrians, dogs , cats and children.
    This stretch of road has a number of side roads joining it and several
    sets of traffic lights, single lane. Driver b is also driving along the
    same stretch of road behind driver a. The traffic coming in the other
    direction is not heavy but constant. Driver b is hovering on the bumper
    of car a itching to get past. Driver b tries to overtake but failed to
    see a car coming out of a side turning , fortunatly with some time to
    spare and drops behind car a again. The road widens to 2 lane , driver
    b screens down the outside and stops at a red traffic light, cars a
    beside . The road continues with 2 lanes but soon after is another set
    of traffic lights with a right filter with cars waiting , traffic ahead
    flows freely. Car b charges off to find that the filter is against him
    and does not want to be in this lane . But car a has arrived with
    several cars behind so car b has to wait to change lanes. Car b changes
    lanes and has to stop for a red traffic light, car a is long gone.
    
    
    How often do you see that kind of thing. For me car a was being driven
    defensivly. The driver read the road and was in command, where as the
    driver of car b was charging about without causion, and in the end
    taking longer to complete the journey.  I've been riding motorcycles
    for close on 16 years, I have never been involved in an accident where
    I have been injured other than bumps and bruises. I'm still alive so
    defensive driving must work. It might take just that little bit longer
    to get there but in the long run its far cheaper and safer.
    
    
    	Hope I didn't bore you all , but I wish more people would drive 
    	with the same attitude rather than the dash and tear around
    	merchant.
    
    
    	Garry

    Re: only signalling where necessary
    
    I'm not sure I agree with this policy.  How can you be 100% certain
    that you know exactly what is going on on every section of road from
    which your car is visible.  I venture to suggest you cannot,
    particularly at complex junctions.  My opinion is to *always* give the
    correct signal for the manoeuvre, as there *may* be some other road
    user somewhere in the area who needs to know what you're doing. 
    Pedestrians use car signals as well, to decide when to cross the road.
    
    If you get into the habit of only signalling when you can see that
    another road user needs that signal, then:
        a) You may get it wrong and fail to signal when you should have
        b) May "forget" to give a signal at all.
    
    Also, if *you* do something wrong (eg end up in the wrong lane at an
    unfamiliar junction), if you've been giving the correct signals other
    drivers will be more understanding.
    
    Always signalling keeps you in practice, so you are better able to give
    the correct signal at the correct time, again most important at
    unfamiliar junctions.
    
    Of course there will always be people who know they are skilful enough
    drivers to always give the correct signal at the right time, and who
    know the road conditions well enough to know when they don't need to
    give a signal...
    
    My own suggestion on signalling is:
    
    Don't give a right-turn signal to pass stationary vehicles at the side
    of the road if there is a genuine right-turn in the vicinity: it may
    confuse other dirvers.  In fact,
    don't give a signal at all to pass stationary vehicles unless it
    requires you to move into a position that would obstruct other traffic
    (eg oncoming or belting along behind you trying to overtake).  Note
    the highway code does not say that you need ever give a signal to pass
    stationary vehicles.
    
    Scott                

    Re .53
    
�    particularly at complex junctions.  My opinion is to *always* give the
�    correct signal for the manoeuvre, as there *may* be some other road
    
    I agree entirely.  What I want to know is :-
    
    What is *wrong* with indicating when not strictly necessary ?
    
    
    On a similar vein, why do some drivers insist on not using their
    lights in poor conditions, or only use sidelights at night ?
    
    It doesn't exactly cost a lot to use these lamps, does it ?
    
    So - why not use them, it is (almost always) safer to do so...
    
    J.R. (who uses headlamps in daytime too (not in broad sunlight)
        - it gives other drivers more chance to see me sooner)
    
    Is this getting to be a 'soapbox' ? Is that permitted in this conference ?

	RE: last couple.

	Indicators and lights usage are the most dreadful aspect of
	 motoring these days. It might be because of power/lighter steering,
	  you don't need both hands on the steering wheel, so your hands
	  are not placed in the vicinity of the stalks, or there are far
	  too many roundabouts, turnings etc these days that people get fed
	  up indicating.

	It is an offence to drive without lights in dark conditions, perhaps
	a few well publicised court cases could help.

	I drive a dark green car and I am very aware that it is not easly
	 seen, so I have lights on a lot, as some mentiond, it cost me nothing,
	 and I like using indicators  because it at least lets someone else
	 know what I,m doing.

	Incedentaly, I usually indicate when overtaking bike,cars etc
	  for people behind and more for people coming towards me, it
	  lets them know I'm moving out, perhaps close to/on their lane,
	  (depending on road conditions of course!)

	re .-1, you're right about politeness; however, under heavy traffic
	conditions, that often breaks down.  I drove in London over the 
	weekend, when I let someone out of a side road, the guy behind gave
	me a blast of horn.  

	You're also correct about making progress.  The old phrase "more haste,
	less speed" often works well, particularly in mixed traffic around
	town.  I consider myself to have made a mistake if I have to brake
	after accelerating - that means that I haven't looked ahead and seen
	the hazzard. 

	Dave

    Good topic this.
    
    Note .52 reminded me of something that I have often wondered:  do
    people who have ridden bikes or motorcycles regularly make better
    drivers?  I think that the answer is yes, as riding something small and
    on two wheels makes you much more aware of what's going on around you.
    
    The best rule of driving that I know is simply `THINK AHEAD'. 
    Unfortunately, most of the drivers I see could do with using the
    abbreviated version: 'THINK!'
    
    Mat.
    *:o)
    

    Ok I'm new to the conference but the last note needs comment.
    =======================================================================
    �Note .52 reminded me of something that I have often wondered:  do
    people who have ridden bikes or motorcycles regularly make better
    drivers?  I think that the answer is yes, as riding something small and
    on two wheels makes you much more aware of what's going on around you.

    ========================================================================
    
    I have to differ from this opinion, as what I have seen of cycle
    riders (non-motorised variety), is that they haven't a clue (or
    care) what is going on around them!
    
    They pull out without signalling, weave thro (bearly) moving traffic without
    thinking about a car/van/lorries blind spots, etc (I'm sure I'm
    not the only one with a problem here)....
    
    
    If this makes a better car driver, then Gengis Khan has excellent
    babysitting skkills!
    
    Bob
                                                                           
    

    Cyclists do not by law need any training to ride a cycle on the road. 
    I think this is wrong, and many examples like those in .59 make it
    obvious cyclists need training too.  I did the Cycling Proficiency Test
    many years ago now, and think that a similar, or maybe even more
    rigorous test, should be compulsory before cyclists are allowed on
    roads...
    
    Just my opinion...
    
    Scott

    
    I think that there issue key aspect of the "Car drivers vs Bike drivers
    average standard"...
    
    
	If you ride a bike badly - you will either be forced off the road
    by injuries, or scared off.
    
    To make a wide gerenalisation - if you have no road sense then it's
    sensible to put a big cage arround you so that you won't die/be injured
    so easily.
    
    Rob

    
>>    BTW it is ILLEGAL TO RIDE a bike on the pavement
    
    Whilst this is perfectly true, I will not let my young kids ride
    their bikes on the road. The sheer fact is that most drivers (noters
    excepted of course) are stupid, drunk, incompetent, inconsiderate.
    
    I would rather my kids grazed an OAP's knees on the pavement than
    be murdered by some nerd in car (s)he is not mentally equipped to
    handle.
    
    Iam  (sorry Ian)
    
    

	Defensive driving:

	If you meet any of the following, treat them like idiots, and expect
	the worse:


	Bicyclists, and motorcycle riders with L plates, and cars with L plates,
 	and cars with little old men that wear caps, and cars with little old 
	ladies with blue rinses, and Sunday afternoon drivers with 4 plus kids 
	in the back, and more than 1 lorry on a motorway.


	Heather

    
    Re. signalling (or is that line of conversation dead, now?)
    
    My view is that I won't indicate if nobody's around to benefit from
    the signal, however:
    
    - If there is anybody around who might benefit (including
      cars, pedestrians, equestrians etc...) I'll signal.
    
    - If there's dead ground where somebody could be hidden from view,
      but might benefit from a signal, I'll give one.
    
    - If somebody comes into view when I'm not signalling, I'll start one.
    
    It occurs to me that anything you consider and think about, as opposed
    to perform by rote, is probably done better. For instance, I hope that
    by thinking about signalling, I'll recognise circumstances when I need
    to reinforce a signal with an arm signal... 
                                      
    Bill.

�    It occurs to me that anything you consider and think about, as opposed
�    to perform by rote, is probably done better. For instance, I hope that
    
    True, in that you should *think* about signalling.
    
    But, just because you can see no apparent reason to use signals,
    I still see no harm in doing so - even *defensive drivers*
    can get things wrong...
    
    
    
    Regarding motorcyclists becoming better drivers, I think I go
    along with that opinion too, although riding a 'bike does not
    *automatically* make a better driver.  Experience of riding a
    bike should help one think about things a bit more, after all
    the risk factor is much higher *if* you have an accident on a bike.

    Re motorbikers.
    
    It is sometimes a real pleasure to see a motorbike skilfully and safely
    ridden, sometimes at speed.
    
    I more frequently see bikes being ridden dangerously, at speed,
    sometimes weaving through lines of slow moving traffic (and blaming the
    car drivers for the dangerous situations), sometimes cornering on the
    wrong side of the road on blind corners, sometimes belting down a
    traffic light queue, forcing oncoming traffic into the pavement, and
    coming to a sudden halt cutting off the first car in the queue. 
    
    What all this does is infuriate the car drivers, alienating them from
    bikers in general. Those less charitable than the contributors to this
    conference might then find themselves tempted to try to beat the biker
    off the lights, thus causing a minor shunt. Both would blame the other,
    and both would be right.
    
    Biking is an intrinsically dangerous passtime for the inexperienced. I
    suggest that nobody should be permitted to ride a bike unless they have
    completed five years of active riding on a full licence.
    
    Steve

  >>  suggest that nobody should be permitted to ride a bike unless they have
  >>  completed five years of active riding on a full licence.
    
    
    A good trick if you can do it !!!
    

    Re: -1
    
    As is with everything (Motorcyclists,football fans etc) it is the 
    minority that give a bad reputation to the majority.
    Certainly the are idiots on motor bikes who corner on the wrong side of
    the road on blind corners. (As there are car drivers who do similar
    things).
    
    However...............
    
    Providing that the motorcyclist can see properly and take into account
    road conditions etc; there is very little danger in riding between
    stationary or slow moving traffic queues. After all, part of the 
    reason for riding motorcycles is to avoid being stuck in traffic jams.
    The main danger comes from frustrated car drivers who change lane,
    without making proper observation first.
    
    Yes, I am sure that a motorcycle getting through a traffic jam does
    infuriate and frustrate car drivers. That is basically their tough
    luck. Why do they not get a bike instead ? It would cut down on traffic
    jams, save on the planets resources, and still be a more exillerating
    (sp?) sensation than driving a Ford Fiasco or a Vauxhall jelly mould.
    
    The only problem is that as we dont live in the tropics, you can get
    extreemly cold and wet as well ;-)
    
    To my main point, which concerns the following.....
    
    "Biking is an intrinsically dangerous pastime for the inexperienced. I
     suggest that nobody should be permitted to ride a bike unless they
     have completed five years of active riding on a full licence"
    
    The above statement does not make any sense.
    Do you mean "five years active driving on a full licence" ?? 
    
    If car drivers had to put up with the same ammount of hassle
    motorcyclists have to, in order to pass their test, there would be an
    uproar.
    
    I think that the following details are correct, but as I passed
    my motorcycle (and car) test some time ago, I do not sure of all 
    the details.
    
    Firstly (as of 1/12/90), you will not be able to ride a motorbike 
    on the road until you have been trained by an approved instructor 
    in a car park (or similar). This shows that a least you know where
    everything is.
    
    Then you have to pass your Part 1 test, which is basically driving
    around cones. This demonstrates that you can manouver and control
    a motorcycle at low speed.
    
    Then the part 2 test, this is a 'persuit' test. Where you are followed 
    around the test circuit by an examiner who stays in touch by radio.
    This test is performed on the public highway.
    
    All these tests cost money, I believe that it is approx �15 for
    EACH part of the test. (excluding all the training sessions you will
    need in order to pass each part.)
    
    Once completed you can then have a full motorcycle licence.
    
    I am not saying that doing all these tests is a waste of time, perhaps
    if car drivers had to do a similar sort of test (INCLUDING MOTORWAY
    DRIVING), then perhaps there would be an drop in the number of
    all types of motor accidents.
    
    
    Matt.  A fair weather motorcyclist ;-)
    
    
     

    I'm not so sure about the minority giving the majority a bad name bit.
    Since there is a much smaller number of motorcyclist , I think its fair
    to say the the number of genuine nutters is much smaller , so it is
    more likley for people to notice that more that the genuine headcase
    driving a car. I ride a bike all year round, a nessesity to get to
    work, and cover a lot of miles. I think I have seen most thinks at one
    time or another and what stands out more than anything , baring in mind
    that I am a member of a minority ,  I see more car drivers doing
    careless, thoughtless and down right dangerous things than
    motorcyclists. Not thats not to say that car drivers are the villan of
    the peace but, if the ratio of motorcyclist to car drivers is say 30 to
    1 , I don't see that kind of ratio of inconciderate driving. That just
    my view point . Anyway someone has already mentioned what to look for 
    comes to the lights on, no one at home driver to beware of , well
    here's my additions, including motorcyclist's.
    
    
    1. The honda 50 with the clip board on the front ( cabbie doing the
       knowledge)
    
    2. The dispatch rider on a private bike with a top box bungee'd to the
       back of the seat.
    
    3. The learner on a trail bike wearing training shoes and a t-shirt.
    
    4. The cortina with a body kit and silvered windows ( probably with
       exessively loud music).
    
    5. Any datsun cherry, think its a 120y.
    
    6. A volvo being driven by a man with a beard and a black trilby on.
    
    7. particularly in London clean,green and often stupid, pedal power
       commuters. 
    
    8. Drunks.
    
    
    I don't want to standup for motorcyclists or car drivers , as far as I
    am concerned there is no room in book for inconsiderate driving.
    Unfortunatly these's days the other guy is always wrong , there's a bit
    of fist waving and use on some the undocumented road signals , along
    with the odd choice word. If that was not the accepted thing ,and
    people were more polite and curtious towards each other, the roads would
    be safer. So long as it is acceptable to speed everywhere, rant and
    rave at others , cut people up ,it is unlikly that the roads will ever
    really get better short of banning all internal combustion vehicle's
    and going back to horse and cart.
    
    
    
    	Garry

    Re .64 .....
    
    Heather, you forgot one important class of people/things to avoid on
    the road:
    
    people with little or no driving experience (sometimes life experience)
    drivib=ng cars that are far too quick/powerful/nasty for their needs
    but who are stupid enough to pay the exhorbitant prices their profile
    seduced the insurance companies to extort from them. 
    
    Personally, I'd rather face up to the little old lady (complete with
    blue rinse) who is either going slow enough to give you a chance to
    decide what's going on, than the 18 year old prat I met once that
    pulled out from behind a car that was exiting from a round about on the
    A4. He hit a car two in front of me, wrote it off, spun into the next
    car,bounced across the road onto a car going the opposite way and then
    slid over the pavement. He put two people in hospital that day and it
    transpired that the **only** raeson he was on the road in an XR2i was
    beacause he could afford the car and the insurance. He'd passed his
    test the day before the accident....... which immediately gave him the
    driving capability of Moss/Fangio/Nuvolari/Clarke/Surtees (you can
    guess when I used to follow F1!).
    
    Be nice if we could get back to Defensive Driving...... 

    Coming from Holland and currently working/living in Edinburgh I've made
    the following observations:
    
    As I bought my new bike (an Italian 1000cc Vtwin) this spring,
    reactions in the office were mixed: YOU an FINANCE guy, a BIKER???. 
    
    Bikers have a serious image problem in the UK; in Holland you're
    regarded as a decent guy. Biking is fully accepted (perhaps British
    bikers don't want this and thrive on being an outcast). More and more
    people buy a bike just for a few hours during the weekend. Depending on
    your bike, you're either a RUB or a PUB (Rich/Poor Urban Biker).
    BTW, over 50% of the applicants for a bike licence in Holland are women. 
    
    The weather is not much better (but our public transport system is...).
    
    Is traffic stops or slows down considerably, bikers are allowed
    (although strictly speaking it is illigal) to drive in between the
    rows. Car drivers pull out to the left and right to make way. If done
    cautiously, the police will never stop you.
    
    I see so many cars with faulty rear/brake lights; I always try and pull
    beside them and advise them.
    
    BE HONEST; WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU CHECKED YOUR LIGHTS??
                   do it tonight o.k?
    
    Traffic light spurts: if your car does 0-60mph in less than 4 seconds,
                          come and see me...........
    
    
    Bikes and cars alike: DRIVE LIKE HELL AND YOU'LL GET THERE!!!!!!
    (after 50,000 miles on a bike, I know what that means)
    
    The beat goes on............
    Flying Dutchman
    
    
    

    
>>    All these tests cost money, I believe that it is approx �15 for
>>    EACH part of the test. (excluding all the training sessions you will
>>    need in order to pass each part.)
    
      I've just taken my bike test, and part 2 of the test is �26, - quite
    a lot more than a car test. I did an intensive training course, which
    was quite expensive, but well worth it. The training was done by
    persuit riders, with inter-com units, so all the time you could be
    guided and instructed. What I was impressed with, was that I was taught
    not only 'how to pass the test' (which is all I was taught when I
    learned to drive a car)  but how to ride safely, and how to weigh up
    the risks involved in manoevers, such as riding between lanes of
    traffic. 
    
    I don't know if I should start another note for this - but anyway, how
    can anybody's driving ability be truly assessed in a 30min test? Surely
    some form on continuous assesment type course would be better, such
    that instead of the emphasis being put on passing THE TEST, the
    emphasis was on learning how to drive, safely and courteously (sp?).

�    I see so many cars with faulty rear/brake lights; I always try and pull
�    beside them and advise them.
    
	Trouble with that, it will often be construed as 'offensive'
    
    
�    BE HONEST; WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU CHECKED YOUR LIGHTS??
�                   do it tonight o.k?
    
    
    Being honest - last night.
    
    I frequently check lights using windows of the DEC Building (SBP)
    as a mirror when entering and leaving parking space.  This is a
    lazy way to do it, but it is reliable.
    
    If I had to get out and walk around the car, I don't know how often
    I would check - certainly not as often as I should do.
    
    Actually, every time I use them - the dash includes a 'pretty' array
    of lamps which should let me know when lights are faulty.  This has
    informed me of intermittent faults.  The question is, can I rely on
    these warning lamps (Italian electrics being what they are) ?
    
    J.R.

    RE: my note in .59
    
    I must admit most of the notes from .59 - .74 have really nailed
    down my own thoughts, and as all of us car drivers who have full
    licenses realise, passing the test is when you *begin* to learn
    to drive...
    
    I have often thought about taking the Bike test but never got round
    to it so far, and one of my best friends was an instructor on the
    STAR RIDER courses.
    
    Learner drivers of all vehicles should be given a lot of room and
    concideration.  My wife is learning to drive at this time ***(I 
    refused to teach her as I know I have many bad habits, and I also am not
    to keen on the divorce proceedings that would be inevitable if I
    tried to teach her to drive)*** and from what she has told me, the
    only time she is treated with any concideration on the road is when
    there are POLICE in the area!
    
    I think that is a sad indication of car drivers concideration for
    learners.
    
    Bob

    RE .72 from another Dutch fellow: 
    	Most issues about bikers reflect to Motorbikes; 
    	What about the bicycle traffic as we have overhere in Holland?
    	Most of these cyclists behave very badly indeed!
        Don't say I might not be experienced as biker: 
        Annually I ride about 3000 Kms.
    
    	Most motor cyclists in Holland have their light misadjusted:
    	They make me blind!
    
    Re .74 Don't staart talking about poor Italian electrics.
    	I just have finished updating "rpince of Darkness" Lucas electrics
    	in my MGB, where 95% did not work!
    
    Hans

�    	I just have finished updating "rpince of Darkness" Lucas electrics
�    	in my MGB, where 95% did not work!
    
    With Italian electrical systems, some of it will work - some of the time,
    never all of it, all of the time.
    
    Serves you right for buying an old Brit car, when you have sorted
    out the electrics, you will probably find that the engine doesn't
    do much either - that would be followed by bodywork, the trim...
    When it does all work, I hope you like the result.
    
    J.R.

    Re .-1
    As you could see in another reply: Mine does not rust:  Santa Barbara
    was it's previous home city....
    
    HD

	You wanted to see me?????? my car does 0-60 in less than 4 seconds.


	Hint:
	It's not the landrover


	Heather

    How do you drive defensively when approaching roadworks on a motorway
    and the lanes go down from 3 to 2, or on an A road when they go from 2
    to 1.
    
    What happens is a lorry blocks up the outside lane anywhere up to 2
    miles before the roadworks. He then continues to drive at the same
    speed as his mate on the inside of him, thus causing even longer tail
    backs.
    
    What right have they to do this?
    
    I have seen a guy get so frustrated he has overtaken on the grass
    verge!
    
    
    Greg
    
    

it stops people from pushing in in the queue that forms;

most people take note of the fact that a lane is closed ahead & therefore move
into an appropriate lane, some however shoot past at 90mph expecting someone
to be courteous enough to let them in once they have come to the closed lane

I think that a lorry doing this actually speeds up passage through the lane
closures 

    re .81
    
    Ok, but how do they decide when to do it? I have noticed recently that
    they seem to do it earlier and earlier.
    
    
    Greg

    re .82
    
    It's not only lorries that do it, I do as well and I don't drive a
    lorry.  I can't speak for the lorry drivers, but I try to pull over to
    an appropriate lane as soon as I see the first sign indicating the
    closed off lane.  If people then over-abuse the space I have left I may
    then pull out to block the lane.  Naturally I wouldn't do this right by
    the first lane close sign, but use common sense to judge what is
    reasonable.  Also I am very careful not to pull into the path of a fast
    approaching car, if in any doubt, I stay put - safety has to be
    paramount.
    
    To me, this type of queue forming is little different to queueing in say,
    a Post Office or Building Society.  Just because people feel protected
    and aggressive when shielded by their car, there is no justification in
    to taking advantage of people with better manners. 
              

re the last few;

I've been known to do it as well.

When the traffic has formed queues in the inner lane(s), the people who
zoom down the outside and cut in at the last moment cause delays to
the smooth flow of traffic into the road works section. I've seen two
accidents caused by this kind of behaviour; in both cases the driver cutting
in just kept on moving, and hit the side of the cars in the queue...

I find it quite annoying when drivers cut in at the very last moment, and 
force their way into the traffic; they may have saved themselves two 
minutes, but at the cost of 120 drivers having lost a second each...
(very roughly!)

It's usually noticeable that this kind of behaviour results in traffic
that keeps moving, albeit slowly, in the approach, rather than stop-start
movement...

Peter.

    Re: .83
    
    Flame ON!
    
    You have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to sit in the righthand lane with the
    intension of preventing traffic from overtaking.
    
    You are causing an obstruction!
    
    The law says keep to the left except when overtaking, SO DO SO!
    
    Only the Police have the power to direct traffic, you are just a member
    of the public, so obey the rules.
    
    This self-righteous behavior causes longer tailbacks, frustrates other
    drivers and is likely to CAUSE an accident.
    
    I once had a lorry pull directly out and almost forced me into the
    central reservation when i was approaching (� mile away) a restricted
    part of a dual carriageway. The BMW behind me almost didn't make it.
    Neither of us were "doing 90mph", neither of us were trying to queue
    jump.
    
    It is all down to good manners. If you do feel the need to "punish"
    these other drivers then just REFUSE to let them into the stream of
    traffic. Don't risk causing a major accident by playing a traffic
    Policeman - that will just create more of a jam.
    
    And as for intentionally PULLING OUT to stop another driver, i just
    hope for your sake that he isn't an off duty policeman. Is it worth the
    3 points on your licence just to feel smug?
    
    FLAME OFF
    
    mb

    C'mon Martin stop being so self righteous about this. Only the english
    form queues for ANYTHING and those selfish b******s that won't get into
    an orderly forming queue and insist on getting to the front of the
    queue and cutting in deserve a bit of a comeuppance. Now I'm not
    advocating this by dangerous means at all. Try to see this from the
    perspective of the people who've seen the obstruction, moved into the
    unobstructed lane and are waiting their due turn. How would you feel?

    
    If it's not necessary - why queue?
    
    I have this kind of mentality shown to me most times I ride through
    traffic - luckily it's ony a very small minority who try to stop me
    making fair and reasonable progress and it is often predictable and
    avoidable (there are many ways to overtake).
    
    "You don't need to follow anyone else - you are all free..." - Brian
    
    Rob
                                                

    Nobody likes being overtaken after they've had the "foresight" to pull
    over early.  But let's look at it logically - two lanes have to merge
    into one at some point.  Why some magic half mile before the
    restriction?  Why not make full use of the available road surface, and
    merge AT THE RESTRICTION?  That way noone can gain an overtaking
    advantage, nobody feels that anyone is putting one over them, maximium
    throughput is achieved, and everyone escapes with normal blood pressure.
    
    Once this is accepted as a reasonable and correct thing to do, then
    there's no problem.  It would obviously need "driver education" so
    everyone is expecting it to happen, and stiff fines for the obstructions
    mentioned in previous notes.
    
    The contractors are often to blame for putting warning signs far too
    early.
    
    Jeff.

re .85
    
Nothing to do with being self-righteous.  As soon as the flow of 
impatient, ill-mannered drivers stops, the traffic in front starts to 
move more rapidly (less slowly?).  In other words the action of blocked 
these dipsticks helps all the other drivers who have been queueing for 
longer.
    
I don't queue jump in shops, why should I queue jump on the road?

Also, the police don't like people behaving without due consideration for 
other road users.  A friend of mine is a traffic cop on the M1 in Northants, 
he usually gets the queue jumpers for speeding, invariably they are doing more
than the 50 mph speed limit (if there is a mandatory limit in place).  He 
simply does them for speeding as it's easier, they do get a lecture too on 
very simple and basic courtesy.  

Excepting drink, I firmly believe that many accidents are caused by 
ill-mannered driving.  

I have seen several accidents where people drive around the outside of a 
roundabout to turn right.  The guy on the inside expects the driver 
beside him to turn left or go straight on (as the highway code specifies).
So when the driver on the inside goes straight on, he T-bones the idiot
who couldn't bear waiting in a queue for a couple of minutes.  The idiot 
often comes off worse too, as often he/she is hit in the driver's door.

The idiot's action has been taking in self-interest, if some more logic 
was applied, the conclusion might be that self-interest is not best served
by being killed. 
    

    Jeff,
    
    Re: .88, well said, i agree totally!
    
    mb

>>                   <<< Note 1287.88 by NEARLY::GOODENOUGH >>>
>>                           -< Some logical analysis >-

>>    Nobody likes being overtaken after they've had the "foresight" to pull
>>    over early.  But let's look at it logically - two lanes have to merge
>>    into one at some point.  Why some magic half mile before the
>>    restriction?  Why not make full use of the available road surface, and
>>    merge AT THE RESTRICTION?  That way noone can gain an overtaking
>>    advantage, nobody feels that anyone is putting one over them, maximium
>>    throughput is achieved, and everyone escapes with normal blood pressure.

    Except that the traffic has already bunched up by the point of the
    constriction, there is NOWHERE FOR THE LATE MERGER TO GO. So he either
    stops and waits (bad for street cred) or he pushes in risking an
    accident himself or, by forcing the vehicles in the queue to stop, an
    accident further back as the 'standing wave' of stopping travels back.
    
    Even worse if your not first in this disapearing lane, as the traffic
    stops because of the action of the vehicles in front of you, so you've
    nowher to go and stop, whilst 'hot rod henry' is charging up the back
    of you determined to get in at all costs.
    
    A well planned and sensible merger on the other hand does not create a
    risk to anyone, nor does it raise tempers all round!.
    
    Richard

    Re.89 - With you totally on the people going round roundabouts!!
    
    Mikef

Re: .89
    
    > I don't queue jump in shops, why should I queue jump on the road?
    
    I can just picture it now, you are queuing up at the checkout in your
    local supermarket, 5 people back from the till, when you notice a
    totally empty queue next to you. Rather than simply using this other
    queue, you jam your trolley across it, so that nobody else can get in
    there, but you remain in your own queue, still 5 back!
    
    We are talking about driving techniques here, and how to negotiate road
    hazards in the best way.
    
    We all hate aggressive inconsiderate drivers, but don't ASSUME that
    anyone approaching a road restriction in the outside lane is a
    homocidal maniac.
    
    Lets all be extra nice driving home tonight!
    
    mb

    re .93
    
>    I can just picture it now, you are queuing up at the checkout in your
>    local supermarket, 5 people back from the till, when you notice a
>    totally empty queue next to you. Rather than simply using this other
>    queue, you jam your trolley across it, so that nobody else can get in
>    there, but you remain in your own queue, still 5 back!
    
    If you follow the analogy through, you will notice that the empty check
    out has an exit all of it's own and will assist in everyone getting home
    early.  This is the situation on a clear motorway, not one with
    roadworks.
    

I think both camps are correct here (says he, firmly nailed to the fence ;-)
If everyone tried to use all the available lanes until the road narrowed, you'd
get a bottleneck at the point where one lane closed: -> risk of accident,
stop-start movement as two lanes filter into one.

If people pull into an available lane too soon before the lane
closes, then the traffic can keep moving, but 
everyone goes slower as there are more cars in less lanes.

I think the answer is: pull into an available lane *when it's safe and
convenient for you*.  No need to sit behind Granny in her Ford Anglia at 35mph
for two miles before the lane closure, also no need to overtake every other car
on the road just to get there first.  Definitely don't do something of dubious
legality and safety just because you don't like the way another road user is
behaving.  Two wrongs don't make a right (but three lefts do ;-), and all that.

If someone else is being a pillock on the road, I just put as much distance
between them and me as possible, and console myself with the thought that my
licence will stay clean and my car unbent longer than theirs.

Moral: Relax, take it easy.  Concentrate on what you're doing, don't get worked
up by others' stupidity.  Sitting in front of someone who's trying to push in
won't make them realise the point you're trying to make, and just make them
speed even more at the next available opportunity...

Scott

	Talking of queues this time three into two ..

	The M4 has just been given the accolade of the most dangerous
	  motorway in Britian.

	Seems that most accidents are at the Chevely(??) flyover going into
	 London where three lanes go into two. Can't remeber the exact figures,
	 something like a hundred or so accidents in the year.

	(lost the article (Sunday Express magazine) as bin day is Monday)

.88 >> The contractors are often to blame for putting warning signs far too
.88>>  early.
    
I think that all lane restrictions should be given at least two and preferably
a three mile warning. Several times I've come across three solid lanes of
stationery traffic with no warning signs because the queue has exceeded one
mile.

Steve.

(Of course if everybody had used the correct lane-merging technique the
queue wouldn't have developed in the first place...)

>I think that all lane restrictions should be given at least two and preferably
>a three mile warning. Several times I've come across three solid lanes of
>stationery traffic with no warning signs because the queue has exceeded one
>mile.

Does it really make any difference? You'll still be stuck in traffic whether you
know about the restriction or not.


Ian

    Back to the supermarket! :-) The CORRECT analogy is:
    
    There are a lot of people queing in the operative checkout lane, you go
    down a lane where the checkout is NOT operative, and at the last minute
    you cut in front of all the others waiting in the queue!.
    
    Now, how do you think they'll all react?.
    
    
    Re Derek and continue until re-directed: note at the restriction you
    are directed FROM IN EXCESS OF 800 YARDS back to move out of the closed
    lane. Why wait until your down to 800mm?
    
    Richard

    Re .85
    
�    I once had a lorry pull directly out and almost forced me into the
�    central reservation when i was approaching (� mile away) a restricted
�    part of a dual carriageway. The BMW behind me almost didn't make it.
    
    
    Naughty me, I cannot remember my 'stopping distances' from the
    back of the highway code, but I would have thought that if a lorry
    pulls out when � mile ahead, it should not cause you any real
    problem.  If you were travelling at less than 90mph, why were you
    'almost forced into the central reservation'.  I presume the lorry
    would have been travelling at a minimum of 25 mph ?  If you were
    travelling at (indicated) 75 mph, � mile seems enough distance to
    reduce speed by about 50mph.  I would worry more about the BMW behind
    you when you put the brakes on, though.

    

    
    Can I change the subject?
    
    The main reason I opened this note was to pass on and have passed on
    tips and experiences on the subject of staying out of trouble on our
    overcrowded roads. Not that the above notes are not doing this to some
    degree. 
    
    One of the most common "accidents" is the rear end shunt while in pole
    position at a roundabout or slip road. I have heard of some serious
    consequences of these usually minor, in injury terms, prangs. In other
    words, although injuries are usually slight they are'nt always. In terms
    of damage most "accidents are expensive.
    
    There is no secret in avoiding shunting someome else - i.e. look at the
    person in front and and not to your right, until you are sure that driver
    HAS GONE. Glances to the right to assess the traffic are OK. Don't be
    tempted to be to quick as the driver in front may change his/her mind
    or his/her foot may slip off her/his peddles.
    
    How to prevent, as far as possible, someone shunting YOU from behind is
    more difficult. With reference to the para. above, don't hesitate, STOP
    at the line, if you have to, and DON'T MOVE FORWARD until you are sure
    you can go, then GO!
    
    Any more ideas/advice?
    
    Ian.
     
    
    

    From talking to a traffic policeman - this is the most common accident
    in and arround Basingstoke.
    
    Rob

�    this is the most common accident in and arround Basingstoke.
    
    Going by the number of roundabouts in Basingstoke, that
    comes as no surprise.
    
    I agree with the comments in .102 - I have heard of this type
    of accident many times.  I have no idea what you can do to try
    and avoid being shunted up the rear, but being *positive* when
    negotiating the roundabout should help (the following car).
    
    As far as earlier statement of cars going round the outside lane,
    your only option is to avoid turning left when another car is on
    your left - you cannot tell if he/she will turn as well, so go
    on another trip around the roundabout.  It would also help if
    you were in the left-hand lane when you wanted to turn left off
    of the roundabout...
    
    J.R.

    > It would also help if
    > you were in the left-hand lane when you wanted to turn left off
    > of the roundabout...
    
    Not necessarily if the exit is a two-lane dual carriageway.
    
    Jeff.

    I agree with .105...
    
    I am usually extremely careful when the exit from a roundabout is
    a 2 lane dual .....
    
    Seldom a day goes by when someone from the inside lane (nearside)
    exits the round about and cuts into the outside lane without looking
    and the reverse also happens!
    
    I still feel the biggest problem we have in the UK as far as driving
    standards are concerned is lane disciplne!
    
    Bob 

.99 >> Does it really make any difference? You'll still be stuck in traffic whether you
.99 >> know about the restriction or not.

My point was that it's better to arrive at a solid traffic jam having had
some warning of it.

Steve.

    If Defensively driving... 
    
    Pull off the roundabout in the left hand lane only, don't use the 
    right hand lane when exiting.  
    
    Then (check mirror!) move into the right hand lane and accelerate 
    (usually up-hill).  That's why you buy the XRSRiGTE/GTI (!), because the
    Grandad which came up the right hand lane off the roundabout will box
    you in otherwise.

�    If Defensively driving... 
    
    That is the bit I should have mentioned when pointing out that the
    left-hand lane should be used.
    
    If you turn left from any other lane, you are automatically assuming
    that any other drivers on that roundabout will behave 'correctly'.
    This is an assumption you cannot make (under the heading of this topic).
    
    
    
    
�    Then (check mirror!) move into the right hand lane and accelerate 
�    (usually up-hill).  
    ...
�    Grandad which came up the right hand lane off the roundabout will box
    
    When joining a motorway from a roundabout-type intersection, it is
    normal to go down-hill.  This is to help that Granada keep momentum
    before it gets to the motorway and swings across to the outside lane,
    'cutting-up' any other traffic in the process (no offence to Ford G.
    drivers, it could be any car doing this).

    
    RE: rear-end shunts..
    
       The best way I have found of avoiding these is to :
    
     a) approach the roundabout/junction/hazard at a speed that will allow
        me to continue into a predetermined space.
     
     b) be observant, search every roundabout entrance/exit looking for
        that space which will become "the predetermined space" in para a.
    
     c) try not to stop. A correct approach (started at least 150 yds from
        a hazard) will minimise the need for stopping.
    
    maintaining maximum progress removes the need to exceed the speed
    limit.
    
      Alan.
    

I agree with .110 about gauging speed to negotiate a hazard without stopping.

Trouble is, it's not always possible.  Some junctions are noticeably "open",
to maximise your field of vision *once you get there*, but very few afford a
wide enough view far enough before the junction to make the technique
foolproof.

If you slow right down before the roundabout, then the idiot foot-to-the-floor
driver who is likely to shunt you will overtake you to get there first...

Scott

    Sorry to be a bit late with this one but us Batch Noters run a little
    late.
    
    A friend of mine has a wonderful theory regarding speeding up
    contraflows on motorways.  His reasoning is thus:
    
    On a three lane motorway you have one lane doing 60, one lane doing 70
    and the other doing 90.  Thus you have an aggregate of 220 mph.  If
    this gets channelled into two lanes provided there is a minimum speed
    limit of 110mph then there will be no delay whatsoever.
    
    On a two lane road reducing to one the minimum speed limit would be say
    60 plus 90 or 150mph.
    
    My friend drives a BMW 5 series.
    
    Regards,
    
    Rob_who_once_say_a_Jag_take_out_100yds_of_cones_on_the_M6_'cos_he
    couldn't_get_back_in.__The_only_damage_caused_was_by_every_third_cone
    which_was_filled_with_concrete.
    cone

	It is rarely possible to get in the left hand lane on many roundabouts
	if you were initially taking the third exit.


	Just look at the roundabout at the J11 exit.

	There are 5 exits, four of which are all dual carriageway exits. 
	All of the entrances are 3 or 4 lanes, and there are 3 lanes around
	the roundabout, with wonderful traffic lights.

	The number of times I come from DECpark to go on the M4 towards Newbury
 	and the guy on the outside goes all the way round................if you
 	speed up, so does he, if you slow down, so does he. Eventually he cuts 
	you up and you heave on the brakes.

	It's called Murphy's law.
	
	A wonderful time to practise defensive driving.

	Heather

I am interested in doing one or more of the following:

	1)	Skid pan training
	2)	Training for IAM test
	3)	Drive & survive type training

Although I think I'm a reasonably good driver (doesn't everyone) I recognise
that there is room for improvement. Can anyone give me names, addresses and
phone numbers of training centres please. Recommendations from personal
experience would be useful, too.

Steve.

Moderator, please move this if necesary.

There's a skid pan at Castle Combe Race Circuit (M4 J17).

If enough CAR_UK noters are interested, I'll inquire about a "Group" session
and find out prices, etc.  It used to be �35 for individuals, or �200 for a
group, I think.

I read an article about the place, and it seems very good training; copies of
the article available on request.

Mail/'phone/visit me if interested.

Scott

IOSG::MARSHALL or Scott Marshall @ REO or DTN 830 6896 or REO D4/3A-2

    Re: .112 It's not just a theory, it's a paraphrase of Kirkhoff's Law, which
    mainly applies to electric current, but equally applies to traffic.
    
    Jeff.

    re .113
    
    I personally don't see a problem; 
    
    If I come up to the roundabout from decpark in the RH lane, I cross to
    the innermost circle of the roundabout, then at the westbound ramp I
    enter it in the RH lane.
    
    if I come up to the roundabout from decpark in the LH lane, I take 
    the middle circle of the roundabout, then at the westbound ramp I enter
    it in the LH lane. 
    
    Hence two lanes of traffic may progress down the slip road, which is
    after all two lanes wide.
    
    I only see a problem if the person in the LH/centre lane tries to join
    the slip road in the RH lane, or the person in the RH/innermost lane
    tries to join  the slip road in the LH lane. 
     
    This process IS described in the highway code for entering and leaving
    two lane roads on a roundabout.
    
    Richard

    re: .117 Yes, but that roundabout has its own special rules!  Left lane
    is for traffic going down A33 left lane. Centre lane is for people going
    down A33 right lane to turn right at 3MX roundabout to avoid M4
    snarl-ups.  Right lane is for M4.
    
    So it's you who cocks up the system!
    
    Jeff.

    
    Re: .114
    
    Here are the addresses and phone nos. of the two main Advanced Driving
    associations in the UK.
    
    Institute of Advanced Motorists,	RoSPA Advanced Drivers Association,
    IAM House,				Cannon House,
    359 Chiswick High Road,		The Priory Queesway,
    LONDON.				BIRMINGHAM.
    W4 4HS				B4 6BS
    
    Tel. 081 994 4403			Tel. 021 200 2461
    
    They both operate a free advisory service in the form of volunteers who
    provide coaching to help you pass the test. The standard of coaching
    varies greatly and you may have to wait some time for a "coach" or
    "observer to be allocated. The advantage of these schemes is their
    cheapness. To get the free coaching you will need to join a local group
    as an "associate". The cost is in the region of #10.
    
    If you live in the Basingstoke, Reading, Newbury area I can put you in
    touch with the local IAM group (Basingstoke). Mail me direct.
    
    Ian.
    
    

    re .118, where are these rules stated?. What you describe is what
    generally happens, but you also assume then that people in the RH lane
    are entitled to cut diagonally across and down the sliproad in any lane
    they chose. 
    
    In fact the best path to follow is in fact keeping to the kerb and down
    the RH lane of the sliproad. I'll repeat; if people KEEP to their
    chosen lane then nonoe impedes anyone else. The only problem arises
    from SLOPPY lane discipline.
    
    Richard (who considers lane discipline a forgotten art!)

	Okay,

	I go up to the roundabout in the RH lane, I am on the innermost lane 
	of the roundabout, and take the outside lane on the slipway.

	Then, the guy who's been on my left all-the-way-round, decides
	to continue around the roundabout into Reading.

	Or, the guy who joins from the Shire-hall turning goes to the middle 
	lane to go towards Reading, and also cuts me up.

	It's definately defensive driving you need on that roundabout!

	The people who did the "Drive and Survive" course are

	Drive and Survive UK Ltd.
	Charles Hedges
	Ford Motorsport
	Boreham Airfield
	Boreham Chelmsford
	Essex CM3 3BG   0245 466749/468869

	The did say they did skid testing at Blackbushe Airdrome.

	Heather

    >>          <<< Note 1287.121 by SUBURB::THOMASH "The Devon Dumpling" >>>
    
    Then, the guy who's been on my left all-the-way-round, decides to
    continue around the roundabout into Reading.
    
    Or, the guy who joins from the Shire-hall turning goes to the middle
    lane to go towards Reading, and also cuts me up.
    <<
    
    I agree totally with all this, it is bad positioning on their behalf,
    and to be aware of. You can minimise it by anticipating the other car,
    clearly positioning yourself, and clearly signalling.
    
    However, it does not say therefore that you shouldn't use either lane
    from the A33 to exit down the M4. 
    
    Richard

    We have some newly-built roundabouts here in Galway,while the traffic
    is moderate I stick to the following rules.
    Approach the roundabout on LH if going left or straight ahead.
    Approach on the RH lane if going right (3rd exit).
    NEVER change position relative to the cars on EITHER lane while on the
    roundabout,some pillock might change suddenly and sidewind you.
    EXPECT the traffic on the exits next to you to pull out in front of
    you.LET them off by keeping a deliberate sedate pace on the roundabout
    so you have time to brake.
    On getting onto a roundabout it pays to keep a steady 10-15 mph up to 
    them then you can see if there is a space to get into (safely!).
    I usually get in if the traffic is more than 180 degrees on the other
    side.Some "drivers won't enter until the roundabout is completely
    empty!!You can recognise them by the cobwebs on the cars and the
    starved look on their faces!!!
    Others treat it as a "STOP" junction,then you need a lot more time
    and hence space to get on in the first place and it shouldn't happen
    if you cruise up moderately and be looking out long before you are at 
    the entrance.
    If ever there was an example of the old bottleneck rule it is here in
    Galway.All the improvements have meant that at the one remaining
    "slow" traffic light all the traffic,previously delayed at the other
    junctions which have been replaced by roundabouts,builds up for 20
    minutes or more!!Fortunately us locals know a short-cut or two.
    I suppose you guys in the land of perpetual carparks (roads?) would love
    a 20-minute jam,but it is long by Galway standards.
                                                       

here's some details of the next rospa driving course starting in the new year:


RoSPA Advanced Drivers Association
thames valley group

the palmer lecture theatre, room 109
palmer building
reading university
whiteknights park
reading

all lectures on Wednesday evenings & start at 7:30 pm

9th January	intro to Roadcraft
23  January	}
6 February	} roadcraft lectures
20 February	}
6 March		}

17 March 2:15 pm Sunday Demonstration drives

20 March	} roadcraft lectures
27 March	}

associate membership is �12

    
    There was a fatal road crash an the A325 (Farnborough to Aldershot)
    road last week. A 19 year old student drove up the slip road to join the
    south bound duel carriageway towards Aldershot. UP is the operative
    word. There is very poor vision of fast moving traffic on the main
    road. The poor girl apparently got shunted from behind by a transit (a) and
    got pushed across the barrierless central reservation into the path of a
    car (b). Another car (c) collided with car (b). I know this slip road
    very well and it is very easy to missjudge things. There is a very short
    section of slip road, in which to accelerate, with full view of the
    traffic on the main road and even less if you rely soley on mirrors. 
    This unfortunate driver did not have a powerfull car (a Fiesta 1.1). 
    
    In such a situation use of "the lifesaver" is essential. Being only 19
    this driver would not have had her licence very long and I can't help
    wondering whether anyone told her about the necessity of turning the head
    to look over the right shoulder when joining from a slip road. This
    leaves me also wandering what the other drivers should or could have
    done to prevent or alleviate this appalling accident. I have my own
    ideas. What about you?
    
    Ian.  

    
    Isn't looking over your shoulder all part of the routine for pulling
    out into a flow of traffic?
    
    I too, know this section very well, and there is very limited
    visibility. Another problem is that traffic tends to move very fast 
    on it, and the entry of the slip road is NOT easily visible from the 
    road.
    
    Mark

    Re last couple.  I don't really understand the point .125 is trying to
    make.  How can you pull out from a sliproad *without* looking over your
    shoulder at the traffic you're joining?
    
    Jeff.

�    make.  How can you pull out from a sliproad *without* looking over your
�    shoulder at the traffic you're joining?
    
    I think the problem at this junction (and many others) is due
    to the very shallow angle at which the roads join.
    
    Vehicles already on the main road can easily be hidden from view,
    when looking in mirrors and/or over-the-shoulder.
    
    This does not provide an excuse for the unfortunate accident, but
    it does highlight this sort of problem.
    
    I think that slip roads which join dual carriageways would be much
    safer if they had a 'lane to themselves', so that you're not forced
    to pull onto a lane which has vehicles already on it.
    (especially when you consider the potential speed difference).
    
    I don't know if this was mentioned, but I believe this was
    a fatal accident - also involving a fire. (apologies if incorrect)
    
    J.R. (l.h.d. gives a different perspective...)

    
    
    
    Re. The last couple -
    
    Yes, my remarks refer to slip roads and junctions that form a narrow angle
    with the main road.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         main road
    -----------------------.        .-----------------------------------
                              .          .
                                  .          .
    
    Some people rely solely on their mirrors! Even with "blind spot"
    mirrors it is essential to look over your shoulder. The slip road in
    question does indeed have a very shallow angle - and virtually no
    "acceleration lane". Even when as in joining a motorway, there is a
    proper acceleration lane and if you have a "blind spot" mirror
    (essential equipment, in my view, and the only type I have found that
    work are "Paddy Hopkirk" brand) a quick look over the shoulder should
    be made. I do not know if a failure to look over the shoulder was the
    cause of the particular accident. It is just one of those places where
    a look is essential and the failure to do so a possible cause. The car
    did catch fire but the local paper said that the fire was not the cause
    of death.
    
    Although we have to live with what is there, and drive accordingly, a
    longer acceleration lane and a crash barrier would make this particular
    junction a lot safer. When using this junction myself I "build in" a
    slighty longer acceleration lane by, traffic permitting, driving up the
    right hand lane (this slip road is two lanes wide) then as I reach the
    point where I can see down the road, LOOK OVER MY SHOULDER, then I
    drive down the white line towards the left hand lane (of the slip road)
    to lengthen the acceleration "lane" - if you understand me. I believe
    this is called "local Knowledge".
    
    All for now,
    
    Ian.
    
     
    
    

Oft have I pondered on the usefulness of blind spot mirrors.  After a friend
fitted them, I sat in his car and had a look, but found them a bit confusing;
he said they take a few days to get used to.

So I've opted for a different approach.  Angle my door mirror so that there is
no blind spot in the first place!  It only felt (or rather looked) odd for the
first day, and the benefits are amazing.  There is still plenty of overlap
between the views in the internal and door mirrors.  I can't see behind the
car with the door mirror (so I use the internal one... ;-) but have a far better
view of traffic coming up on my right.  The angle also makes it easier to work
out which lane traffic is in in the dark.  As a car pulls alongside me, it is
still visible in the mirror as it becomes visible "out of the corner of my eye",
so to speak, hence no blind spot.

Does anyone else do this?  It seems so sensible, easy and obvious I'm surprised
more people don't do it.

I still look over my shoulder, though, just to make sure...

Scott

    Re - 1  Yes, I adjust my mirrors slighlty so that I get more vision to
    the right and behind of me.  The mirrors on my car are quite large, and
    I get an excellent view, and as you say, it helps enormously in the
    dark.  I still get overlap between internal and external mirrors.  
    
    I still look in awkward junctions tho...and there are plenty of those
    about.  Sometimes slowing right down is the only answer (and way out).
    
    Mikef

    I just do not understand why some drivers adjust their external mirrors
    to display the same view as the internal one.  As with the last two re-
    plies, I too `widen' the view so that there is minimal overlap. Driving
    a LHD car,  I feel that the right-hand side of my car is more vunerable
    than a RHD car.
    
    Martin.
    
    P.S. I have been thinking about buying a couple of `blind spot' mirrors
         to attach to my door mirrors - still thinking about it!

    
    Re the last two-
    
    Are you sure there is still no blind spot? I adjust my side mirrors so
    I can see the side of the car in them otherwise there is no point of
    reference for judging distances and the internal mirror of my BX does
    not give as good a view as most other cars but the wing mirrors are
    better than average and so make up the difference.
    
    Ian.
    
    

1. There is ample overlap between internal and door mirrors
2. The side of the car is visible in the door mirror.
3. There is no "blind spot"

Demonstrations on request...

Scott

Re: .133

Despite Scott's confidence in his methods...they really do depend on the type
of wing mirror your car is fitted with, some works as he suggests, some don't.
You just have to try it out. 

Positioning of the wing mirror should never replace the quick glance over the 
shoulder 'though.


The position of your mirrors should also depend on what type of road you do
most of your driving on.  The best position for single carriageway roads is 
quite different from the best position for muliple carriageway roads.

    .132�P.S. I have been thinking about buying a couple of `blind spot' mirrors
    .132�   to attach to my door mirrors - still thinking about it!
    
    Well worth the effort... I find that when I change my car I suddenly
    don't know what is going on around me.... and then I get used to it...
    and it takes me until my next birthday or Christmas to have them
    replaced.... and then I know my surrounds again

    Yesterday morning I joined the A45 at Newmarket about 7:30am, a busy
    time with lots of cars, lorries etc.  I was going towards Cambridge and
    the road (dual carraigeway) follows a sweeping left hand curve for about
    a mile.  I moved out into the middle lane and noticed a blue light
    ahead.  I drive a Renualt Espace and so get a good view over the roofs
    of the cars.  It was not clear where the police car was, but it was
    stationary.  As I got nearer I realised that it was parked in the outer
    lane of my carriageway with the traffic flowing at near normal
    speed (50-70+!).  I took a look in my rear view mirrors and sure enough
    there was a Sierra in the outside lane doing near enough 100 (judging
    from the closing speed) totally oblivious to the stationary jam sarnie! 
    I checked and moved over into the nearside lane and braked, leaving him
    an escape lane and waited for the reaction!  The Sierra driver saw the
    police car with about 100yds to go, braked hard (the road was damp but
    not icy) and took the escape route.  As I passed the police car the
    officers were chatting, quite oblivious to the fact that they very
    nearly caused a major pile up.  The look on the Sierra drivers face
    suggested that a change of underclothing might be needed.  About half a
    mile (now straight) ahead the traffic was slowing to stationary.
    
    I appreciate that the police car was trying to warn traffic of the
    queue up ahead but parking in the outside lane on a sweeping left
    hander seemed a bit short sighted.  A telescopic blue light (seen on
    Range Rovers and Bikes) would have been useful.
    
    Even if the Sierra had been doing 70, if I could not have got into the
    nearside lane the Sierra would have nowhere to go and not enough time
    to stop.  Those policemen must have been very brave to park in the
    outside lane of a busy motorway style road.  They must put a lot of
    faith in their blue light!

    Round about .59 onwards there were some remarks made about cyclists in
    traffic, so perhaps I should speak up.
    
    First, it's no good thinking of cyclists as a unified group. The range
    of types is huge, from children to shoppers to old men to commuters to
    tourers to racers. Very few of these cyclists are actually interested
    in cycling, most are using it as a cheap and appropriate method of
    transport. That being so, they don't feel they have to set an example
    to anyone. What's more, their choice of cycling as a means of transport
    is based entirely on practical reasons, and these include not having to
    wait in queues of cars, being able to hop onto pavements to avoid
    obstructions and all manner of other behaviour entirely forbidden to
    motorists. From a motorist's viewpoint, this leads to a lot of
    behaviour that looks annoying, but be fair, there are so many
    disadvantages to cycling in terms of comfort and the necessity to use
    your muscles that you can hardly expect cyclists not to exploit
    cycling's advantages to the full.
    
    Second, there's no point in trying to legislate for compulsory tests
    for cyclists. Bikes are too cheap and available to make this practical
    and what's more cycling has so many advantages for the community that
    it should be positively encouraged, not discouraged. 
    
    Finally, remember that many cyclists, like myself, are also drivers,
    and on the days we cycle to work that's one less car delaying your
    journey. And remember also that any stupidity on my part is much more
    likely to hurt me than you.
    
    So a little bit of understanding and consideration on the part of
    motorists towards cyclists would be much appreciated.
    
    
    Rod
                                     

    
    re .138,  I agree, and the same for motorcyclists! We're not all
    irresponsible idiots who will beat up our own grannies, you know!
    
    Elaine                

    re .138
    
    Rod,
    
    I am a cyclist myself, but I'm afraid that I don't have a high opinion
    of many cycling enthusiasts on the the road. They often seem to think
    that the normal rules do not apply to them. This is particularly the
    case with those cyclists that fasten their feet to pedals so that it is
    inconvenient to stop. These people go through red lights, fail to stop
    at stop signs etc. I have often seen them pass cars at a red light and
    then circle in front of the cars (beyond the stop line) waiting for the
    lights to change ! It may sometimes be `safe' for a cyclist to go
    through a red light, but then it is sometimes `safe' for a motorist to
    do it as well - that doesn't mean that it should be regarded as OK to
    do it. If a cyclist is unable to stop for a STOP sign then is he (or
    she) really in full control of the bike ?
    
    The worst are those doing time trials on normal roads (I thought it was
    illegal to race on roads. These may be officially 'time trials', but
    the warning signs often call them races). These cyclists will not obey
    the rules if it means slowing down. When approaching a roundabouts they
    pass cars slowing down, and ride at full speed onto the roundabout.
    They do not give way to traffic already on the roundabout. Several
    times I have had to stop suddenly (while already on the roundabout) to
    let a competitor pass in front of me. Are these people disqualified
    from the event for breaches of the normal rules of the road, if not
    then why not?
    
    This kind of behaviour (by `serious' cyclists) does not set a good
    example to the `amateur' cyclist (especially children), and gives all
    cyclists a bad name. As you point out, any act of stupidity by a
    cyclist is more likely to hurt them than the motorist, but that does
    not seem to prevent many cyclists (even those who should know better)
    riding straight through junctions and relying on the motorist to take
    avoiding action. Any serious cyclist should ALWAYS obey the highway
    code, otherwise they should expect motorists to regard them as stupid,
    dangerous creatures that should not be allowed on the roads.
    
    Andrew

    Hi Andrew..
    
       
    Time-triallists are specifically and heavily told to obey normal rules
    of the road. I know, 'cos I've often waited at roundabouts while in the
    middle of a time-trial. If a competitor is known to have cycled
    dangerously, then he or she is disqualified.
    
>                     Any serious cyclist should ALWAYS obey the highway
>    code, otherwise they should expect motorists to regard them as stupid,
>    dangerous creatures that should not be allowed on the roads.
    
    Serious cyclists do, on the whole, obey the highway code. I qualified
    that statement and .138 gives the reasons. As to your statement about
    how motorists should regard cyclists, I think that's symptomatic of the
    belief that many motorists have, that they own the road, and if they
    see something they don't like, it should be banned. But that attitude
    isn't on - cyclists, and horses, and other vehicles that can't do 0-60
    in 8 seconds, have their place and they will keep it. 
    
    
    Rod

>   What's more, their choice of cycling as a means of transport
>   is based entirely on practical reasons, and these include not having to
>   wait in queues of cars, being able to hop onto pavements to avoid
>   obstructions and all manner of other behaviour entirely forbidden to
>   motorists. 

	"hopping onto pavements" is forbidden to cyclists and motorists alike.

    ................
>    So a little bit of understanding and consideration on the part of
>    motorists towards cyclists would be much appreciated.

	and cyclists to pedestrians    
    

	Heather                                     

Roadcraft states that when slowing down, you should brake to the required speed,
then change gear to one suitable for your speed.  Elsewhere in this conference
people have said you shouldn't change gear while braking.  So my question is:
which of the following are correct, and which are incorrect, and why?

1: Press brake pedal.  As car slows down, press clutch pedal to stop car
   stalling.  When required speed reached, release brake pedal.  Change gear.
   Release clutch.

2: Press brake pedal.  As car slows down, press clutch pedal.  As required
   speed is reached, change gear.  Release brake pedal.  Release clutch.

3: Press brake pedal.  As car slows down, press clutch pedal.  As required
   speed is reached, change gear.  Release clutch slowly, allowing engine revs
   and road speed to match.  When exact required speed reached, release brake.

'3' sounds bad (literally!) but is it really "wrong" or just unadvisable?
'2' is what I tend to do, as it all works smoothly and I can complete the
whole procedure more quickly than if I do '1'.
'1' is the Roadcraft method, so is supposedly what I should be doing...?

Scott

    
    4 Drive at incredibly high speed, don't brake (that's for wimps!)
      and wave fist in anger at poor unsuspecting driver on his side
      of the road being greeted by a low flying aircraft!
    
      Mark (Only joking Derek, honest! :^))
    
    
    
    

Re .143

On the application form for the Advanced Driving Test there is a list of
the major reasons for people failing. One of these is 'changing gears
whilst braking'.

I use method 2 (mostly) so I don't suppose I have much hope.

Steve.

I used to do this (change gear whilst braking) until one day when driving off 
road I tried it whilst going down a steeper than expected hill in a Land Rover.

Now whilst both the Landy and I survived the resulting high speed descent, it 
is not something I'd care to repeat.

/. Ian .\

    
    Not being an off-road afficiando at all, can you explain why the brakes
    won't hold the vehicle? If you are talking about a very steep slope I
    can understand it, and I can see the problem on a surface with poor
    traction where the drive MAY actually slow the vehicle rather than 
    accelerate it.
    
    Am I on the right track or is there another reason?
    
    Mark
    

re off-road braking.

without the compression braking of the engine the brakes simply lock the wheels 
and you become a high speed toboggan with no directional control.

recomended way to come down a steep[ish] off road slope is to stop at the top, 
engage the correct gear (typically 1st gear and low speed on the transfer case) 
and then release the clutch and let the vehicle 'walk' down the slope without 
touching *any* of the pedals.

I was quite a lot younger when I had my little adventure and learned that lesson 
(ie too young to get a licence to drive on the highway).

---

side point: the newly introduced Mercedes-Benz G-wagen Mk "1a" (ie the latest 
minor mods) have an ABS syste that can be switched off "because braking off 
road is more efficient if the wheels lock".

/. Ian .\

    re. 1,2,3,4 methods of braking I usually go for method 4, with the
    short reminder being that you *NEVER* have the clutch and brake pedals
    depressed at the same time.
    
    My only confusion now is when listening to rally drivers talking about
    left-foot braking. Does this mean they are wellying the throttle while
    hitting the brakes to induce some sort of slide ?
    
    AmS

    
    Left foot braking allows the driver to keep the revs up while slowing
    the car. This started with the Audi Quattro which had an incredibly
    narrow power band.
    
    Presumably Group A cars are better since they don't produce anything
    like the F1-type BHP that the later Group B cars had.
    
    Mark

    What happens if the car you drive (Honda Civic) won't allow you to
    heal-and-toe because of pedal placement ?
    
    I double de-clutch (if possible) the car then brake ie
    
    	IF �the-engine-will-blow-if-i-go-down-a-gear� THEN
    			break_until_it_wont;
    	END IF;
   	double_de_clutch;                                             
    	break;
    
    Sometimes if we've left it a bit late the forget about using the clutch
    at all and hope you get the engine speed EXACTLY right. (Do not try
    this until you can de-clutch into first at 6000 odd revs...)
    
    
    

>> *NEVER* have the clutch and brake pedals depressed at the same time

Oh yeah?  How the hell do I slow down and stop at traffic lights without
stalling the engine then?

Ignoring (for the time being) advanced techniques like double-declutching and
heel-and-toeing, can someone please answer my original question, as replies so
far are confusing rather than assisting me in understanding the "correct" way to
do this.  Essentially, is method '2' OK (as it appears to me to be) or am I
committing some heinous crime?

Once we've established the basics, then I'll move on to the advanced stuff,
although ironically I'm happier about my DDC technique than my normal braking
one at present...

Scott

    
>>
Nasty things like changing down after turning in are verb�ten ;-))
>>
    
    Is someone having a go at me here? 
    
    Elaine
    

    
    And we'll have less of that if you don't mind!
    
    Mark :^)
    
    PS See Personal Name!

�    What happens if the car you drive (Honda Civic) won't allow you to
�    heal-and-toe because of pedal placement ?
    
    Scrap it !    It can't be a 'drivers' car if you cannot heel-and-toe.
    And what would you be doing with a vehicle that is not a 'drivers' car ?
    
    :-)  ;-)  :-)    (or wear big boots)
    
    Re 'more complex ... double-declutching'
    
    I wouldn't have described this as more complex, only thing being
    that it is often a slower way of changing gear, although it does
    make things easier on the gearbox internals.
    
    Re 'left-foot braking'
    
    Mainly used by rally drivers, for a couple of reasons.
    Also used by some race drivers.
    
    Mainly, as suggested, it is used to provoke some sort of slide.
    
    Left-foot braking was 'pioneered' by the 'Flying Finn' Timo Makinen,
    when he won the Monte Carlo Rally in a Mini Cooper.  (He and many of
    his [mad] compatriots had practised this for some time before then).
    
    One (main) use of l-f-b is on a front-wheel drive car, where extra
    power (particular on loose surface) will simply generate serious
    levels of understeer.  To avoid going straight on, the brake pedal
    is used at the same time as the throttle - whilst car is already
    [trying to] turn.  The braking action has two effects in this case,
    rear wheels tend to lose traction (as when handbrake is applied)
    and wheelspin is reduced at the front.
    
    Another use of l-f-b is as an alternative to the 'confidence lift'.
    When approaching some hazard, which could be described as 'flat out',
    is common for drivers (rally/race/road) to lift off the throttle
    slightly.  Instead of this, the driver could keep the throttle pedal
    hard down, but slightly press the brake pedal with the left foot.
    This does not reduce speed much, but does give the 'confidence' feeling
    when about to negotiate the hazard.  As a side effect, putting on the
    brakes 'slightly' will compress the suspension a certain amount, which
    may increase stability through the 'hazard'.
    
    As commented on earlier, l-f-b also became heavily used when the
    Audi Quattro entered rallying.  In this it was used so that the
    car could be slowed down (as in normal use of brakes), but without
    the disadvantage of encountering turbo lag when the driver wished
    to accelerate again.  In this case, l-f-b was used to keep up the
    turbo boost, ready for when you let go of the brake pedal so that
    the car can then 'shoot off' in the required direction with maximum
    effort from the turbo.  With a 4WD car, this problem seemed even worse
    due to there being less 'controllability' when going through a bend.
    
    Of course, left-foot-braking would be used in various combinations of
    the above by a rally driver.  Nowadays, it is almost a necessity when
    rallying either a front-, or four- wheel drive car.
    
    I had read various things about left-foot braking etc. in the past,
    but (as I love mentioning) I went on a 'rally driving' course.
    In this I was told (and practised) how to do l-f-b.
    The driver who gave the course (yeah, you know the name)
    stated that he used his left foot for braking in ALL instances
    ON THE ROAD, EXCEPT for when he wanted to change gear (using the clutch).
    
    I guess that he would fail the IAM-type of test too.
    (But he has proved he can control a car off-road,
     and that he knows how to crash them too....)
    
    J.R.

	Mmm.. I seem to remember that the police(?) recommended
	 braking only and change into the correct gear when you've slowed
	 down.

	reason was safety. If you had to do hard braking, your better off 
	 with you hands on the steering wheel, keeping proper control,
	 rather than taking one hand off to change gear.

	I use the gears for braking, as in the cars I used to have the 
	 brakes were not that good. I also notice in the Rover 214 that
	 the engine does'nt seem to brake you as well as my old Pug 205
	 deisel...

	All this heel/toeing stuff !!

	I cannot think why I would need do all this stuff in normal
	   everyday driving. :-)

    
    Re .164
    
    Ahhhh. Ray of sanity. 
    
    
    
    But don't you realise engine braking is a good way of engine breaking?
    :^)
    
    Mark

�    But don't you realise engine braking is a good way of engine breaking?
    
    I young lady of my acquaintance was told by her driving instructor :
    
    "Clutches are cheaper than brake pads"
    
    So, she used to use the engine to brake....
    
    J.R.

>      <<< Note 1287.165 by OVAL::SAXBYM "Teenage Mutant Ninja Teutons" >>>
>    
>    But don't you realise engine braking is a good way of engine breaking?

    What if you engine brake by:
    
    a) clutch in
    b) rev up to match revs to new lower gear
    c) change to lower gear and clutch in
    d) foot off accelerator and let engine slow the car
    
    I don't see how this can be bad for the engine if the engine isn't
    forced outside its normal rev range. On the other hand it must exert a
    torsional force on the drivetrain in the opposite sense to the one the
    engine normally exerts. Is that bad?
    
    
    Rod

    Re .168 etc.
    
    What is the point of doing this?  I have seen a lot of people changing
    down through the gears like this to slow down, when they have a
    perfectly good brake to use.  The method given simply takes longer, and
    wears the car out faster.
    
    It takes a considerable amount of force to slow a car down.  I would
    rather that this was applied by my brakes rather than my gearbox,
    engine, clutch, and so on.
    
    The engine is good for slowing down in two ways:
    
      1)  If you take your foot off the accelerator early, then the car
    will slow down(!).  This often prevents the need to use the brakes at
    all for minor hazards.
    
      2)  When you have to slow down a lot or stop, then by leaving
    declutching as late as possible, the engine assists braking.
    
    
    The advice 'use the engine for braking' doesn't mean 'the function of
    the brakes can be replaced by the engine', it means 'by using the
    engine properly, the brakes don't have to do quite as much work'.  In
    other words, don't leave it until the last minute and then slam on your
    brakes.
    
    
    In answer to the original question:
    
    I have a tendency to more or less use method 2.  It is a very easy
    habit to get into.  Generally, it should be possible to slow down to
    the correct speed, and then change gear just after your foot leaves the
    brake.  I know of very few cars that will use this as an excuse to
    stall due to low revs.  It tends to be only when you apply the
    accelerator in a too-high gear that this happens.  Of course, if you
    are stopping (see above) the problem should not arise, as you will
    declutch before coming to a halt.
    
    I think that makes sense...
    
    Mat.
    *:o)
    
    PS  I don't think that techniques such as heel-and-toe even need to be
    considered outside racing and rallying, because:
    
       1)  If you are driving safely, they are unlikely to be of much use.
       
       2)  Too many people attempt to adopt these techniques, not knowing
           why and when they should be used, thus leading to worse driving
           rather than better driving.  These are the same people who
           think that rapid progress simply means a higher speed.

�    rather that this was applied by my brakes rather than my gearbox,
    
    By the way, I did not agree with the 'instructors' advice...
    
    
�    will slow down(!).  This often prevents the need to use the brakes at
�    all for minor hazards.
    
    This is the first comment of late to really have any reference to the
    title of the topic.  If driving 'defensively', I feel that a driver
    should not need to use the brakes much in traffic situations, unless
    actually coming to a standstill (or when approaching bends at speed,
    not the situation I am referring to).  If you are taking notice of
    your surroundings (traffic lights, junctions, other cars, etc) then
    you would use the engine to accelerate and decelerate according to
    what is coming up...
    
    If you have been 'paying attention', you will find that you need to
    use the brakes *much* less, and also that you will not need to use
    them anywhere near as hard as if you do not anticipate their use.
    
    
�    PS  I don't think that techniques such as heel-and-toe even need to be
�    considered outside racing and rallying, because:
�    
�       1)  If you are driving safely, they are unlikely to be of much use.
    
    I think that this is not *entirely* true, but I would say that there is
    no *need* to learn these techniques.  It just *can* lead to smoother
    driving - which is a benefit both on the road and the race-track.
    
    Left-foot braking is not to be recommended for general use, but if
    this technique is to be used off-road (rallying or racing) then it
    would help to develop 'feel' in your left foot, if used more often.
    
    You will find that most drivers would press the brake MUCH to hard
    and fast when first attempting l-f-b.  So if done on the road, it
    could result in some sort of incident.  This is due to the normal
    (and correct) use of your left foot for operating the clutch pedal,
    which is usually pressed *all* the way down, quite quickly - whereas
    a brake pedal should only be 'squeezed' when used (by either foot).
    
    
�           rather than better driving.  These are the same people who
�           think that rapid progress simply means a higher speed.
    
    I do know the difference between rapid progress and high speed,
    although you cannot have the former without using the latter
    at least 'some' of the time.
    
    Granted, that 'too many people ... adopt these techniques', but of
    course, nobody in this notes conference drives 'badly' do they ?
    
    J.R. (just you try criticizing my driving, or my sex life !  ;-)

    
    I mentioned compression braking a few notes ago: in my opinion this is
    the only legitimate use of engine braking (ie you are using the
    compression braking effect to stop the car speeding up on a down
    gradient, rather than to slow the car down).
    
    /. Ian .\

    Re. .170
    
�  just you try criticizing my driving, or my sex life !
    
    Would I dare, after all your the only person I know who drives a
    ``Stallion with VD'' with a child seat in the back ...  :-)
    
    	Rik

    If someone is happier (or thinks it better) to brake all the way down
    to their required speed using ONLY the brakes, and not the engine
    braking capability, why don't they drive an AUTOMATIC. They would be
    happy as a pig in excrement then, no clutches to worry about, no
    left-foot braking, no double-declutch, no heel-toeing. No FUN.

    
    Although I agree that if driving 'fully aware' of what is going on
    there should not be a need to use the brakes very often, don't forget
    that your brakes operate the brake lights - which can warn the less
    attentive driver behind you, that you are slowing down! Warning others
    of what you are doing is part of defensive driving.

�              -< But does defensive driving mean "no overtaking" >-
    
    Not in my opinion.
    
    
�to stop ( A Volvo). The car immediately behind started to indicate to overtake.
�I hit the horn and the brakes. This car ( Audi ) pulled out in front of me, so
    
    I presume you _expected_ the Audi to pull out, so were aware of the
    potential danger.  You issued a warning and managed to avoid a collision,
    so you must have been driving 'defensively' in some way.
    
    Obviously, it would be safer not to overtake more than one car,
    but it is even safer to keep off the road altogether.
    
    It all depends on what 'level of risk' you expose yourself to.
    
    Reminds me of some article or other mentioning the term 'TED',
    which was 'Time Exposed to Danger'.  It basically related to how
    long it takes to complete a maneuver, such as overtaking.
    Obviously, a faster car can reduce this time, so *can* be safer.
    The reverse of this is that if overtaking at higher speed, the incident
    you experienced is more likely to result in a collision.
    
    
    'Tis a pity that more people don't expect other cars to overtake them,
    before they go to overtake somebody else - or that they look first.
    
    J.R.

    OK, Scott I'll be more specific as there's a lot of 'noise' (obviously
    too close to christmas!) in this topic.

    You ONLY need to depress the clutch if your slowing down were to drop
    the revs to below stalling point. In practice this only is likely to
    occur when you are actually coming to a stop!. (e.g. even my 16v rover
    can go from max speed down to 20 MPH in 5th and still be doing 1000
    RPM!)
    
    You should slow down first. Then change gear, consistent with a. being
    in the most suitable gear, and b. not being in it just because it's
    there. (e.g. my car will happilly pull away in fifth from 40 MPH, but
    if I want to get the hell out of there I could use third or even second)


    So......
    your doing 99.9999MPH, 
    Start to brake early, 
    select straight line,
    
    1. check clear behind,  
    2. slam on the anchors (or be gently if you like :-} it's getting to me
    	too!). 
    3. As you get down to the revs where you feel your car wouldn't pull	
    	away again in that gear, cease braking, THEN depress clutch to select
    	next gear down. 

    Repeat 1,2,3 as often as necessary (usually unnecessary to go below
    second) until AS you come to a stop you depress the clutch.

    Richard

    Having quietly watched this note for a few days, I have finally been
    unable to resist the temptation to make a reply.
    There really does seem to be a lot of Trype being sid.
    
    1) The only reason anyone ever used engine-braking to stop a vehicle
       under NORMAL driving on the road was in the good old days when no
       one had brakes worth mentioning. Now we all have ABS disk brakes all
       round (don't we ?) it ain't so important.
    
    2) I am sure that it says in the Roadcraft manuals somewhere ( I am
    sure it is in both ) that you should always be in correct gear for
      your speed in order to be able to accelerate out of danger.
    
      This implies having a bit more than 1,000 rpm showing, I prefer at
    least 3,000 in the Snail, and at least 4,000 on my bike (power bands/
    turbo lag etc )
    
      Also, if you are as inept as I am, then you will not be too clever at
      all this racing stuff, and so will satisfy youself with a quick
      semi-double-declutch in between bouts of braking, thus not getting
    the feet too confused/tangled.
    
    
    	Does that help ?
    
    
    Rob.
     

    Re: .154 (Sorry I went to sleep for five minutes ....) and L.f.b
    started with the Audi Quattro.........
    
    You must be very young. The Ford Escort (Mk1) Mexico required l.f.b
    during the Mexico challenge Rallying in the '70s, but I'm sure l.f.b
    started with the Mini-coopers (and front-wheel drive) in the sixties......
    
    JK

    
    Re .179 and an earlier note.
    
    Ah, but I don't remember rallying in the 60s!
    
    But to correct myself, Left foot braking returned to prominence with 
    the Audi Quattro. 
    
    Mark :^)

�                           -< What's a Mini Cooper? >-
    A tiny box with a grotty little engine with [just] enough power
    to spin the two wheels at the front, and a pair of wheels stuck
    under the back end to make that part of the box easier to drag around...
    
        
�    Re .179 and an earlier note.
    
    You must mean me - note .163
        
�    Ah, but I don't remember rallying in the 60s!
    
    Nor do I, but the same nationality who were winning then
    still seem to be at the top nowadays (El Matador being an exception)
    
�    But to correct myself, Left foot braking returned to prominence with 
�    the Audi Quattro. 
    
    I think I agreed with this in note .163
    
    Re .179
        
�    You must be very young. The Ford Escort (Mk1) Mexico required l.f.b
�    during the Mexico challenge Rallying in the '70s, but I'm sure l.f.b
�    started with the Mini-coopers (and front-wheel drive) in the sixties......
    
    read above comments - although I did not appreciate the use of the
    left foot by early Escort 'rallyists'.
    
    Whilst on this subject (although not related to topic heading),
    one other advantage of using your left foot to brake (in competition)
    is that you spend less time (none) between throttle and brake, since
    you can 'overlap' the actions of each foot.  This fits in nicely with
    the idea that when racing you should be either accelerating or
    decelarating, but NOT 'coasting' - which is what you do when moving
    your foot between the brake and throttle pedals...
    
    Re some earlier note which mentioned 'automatics'
    
    These make it MUCH easier to left foot brake.
    In fact there was an [easily argued with] article in CAR magazine
    which proposed the way to drive an auto was with a foot for each pedal.
    
    J.R.

    
    re .178, point 2:  (about being in correct gear to accelerate)
    
    You should always try to be in the correct gear to accelerate out of
    danger.  However, I don't think that this applies when you're
    approaching a Stop sign or traffic lights!
    
    Mat.
    *:o)
    

    Re: .182
    I only just caught the tail end of the conversation, so I thought we
    were talking about braking/slowing down in general. Maybe it is not
    absolutely necessary to be able to accelerate out of danger when
    slowing for traffic lights, but it ain't half handy to be in the right
    gear with the revs up when they change ! But then, perhaps I get more
    of a problem from the Snail if I let the revs drop than most cars might
    present. I just *HATE* getting caught in the wrong gear, esp. when some
    flash sid in a gti cuts me up 'cause he is in the right gear - but now
    I am wandering off the subject of defensive driving...
    
    Rob
    

         
    Right then, we're approaching a corner that requires us to lose speed
    and change down...
    
    - Course: Select the line for approach...
    
    - Mirror: Nice to know what's happening behind you...
    
    - Signal: Probably unnecessary...
    
    - Brake:  If necessary, reduce the speed of the car to that needed to	
    	      safely negotiate the corner. Try to use one period of braking.
    
    - Gear:   Having reached the correct speed for the hazard, select the
    	      appropriate gear for the speed. Again, try to get it right
    	      first time (eg. change from 5 -> 3, not 5->4 and then 4->3).
    
    - Warn:   Consider the use of horn or lights, as a warning.
    
    - Accelerate: Settle the car using gentle acceleration, to balance the
    	      car in the bend.
    
    Then all you have to do is steer (important bit that, don't forget!).
    
    
    So, normally, you can finish braking before you have to move your foot
    to cover the clutch. The most common exception is where you need to
    slow to a speed which would stress the engine - in this case you
    obviously need to declutch while braking (but you can still finish
    braking before changing gear).
    
    Bill.

    
    Derek,
    
    When overtaking other road users, its essential that they know you
    are there - you're problem resulted from a car that didn't realise
    you were there pulling out infront of you.
    
    Its worthwhile moving out (without accelerating), then considering
    using the lights (or horn) to warn the vehicles that you are about
    to pass; only when they've seen you are you safe to overtake.
    
    Bill.

    Bill,
    
    I think Derek ALWAYS uses the lights on the 23.
    
    The problem seemed to occur because the Audi driver was dozing, perhaps
    the horn would have been effective, but the 23 has a loud engine and it
    may be that the horn would have been drowned.
    
    The only defense in this circumstance is to be ready for such a stupid
    move and it seems (thankfully) that Derek was.
    
    Mark
    
    PS Your description of how to take a bend is the first bit of sense
    regarding taking bends I've read in this note. :^)

    
    In the Maestro, eh?
    
    I'd say that gives him even LESS excuse for not seeing you. Maybe the
    blue light wouldn't be a bad idea.
    
    Mark
    

    
    As far as defensive driving goes, the other driver's failings are your
    problems - its a question of attitude; compare:
    
    - He wasn't aware that I was overtaking (his fault)
    
    - I didn't make him aware of me (my failing)
                                                                     
    Bill.

    
    re .189
    
    While the principle of what you say is true - there comes a point where
    you have to 'trust' that someone else is going to behave in a
    particular way, - (you still have to bear in mind that thay may not,
    and be as prepared as you can be, and to act accordingly!)  but if
    you've done what you can (flashed lights, used horn) and the person is
    still asleep, how do you tell?
    
    All driving is a matter of trust - trusting that the other driver has
    read the same book of rules as to which side of the road to drive on -
    who has right of way at a road junction etc. The ultimate conclusion of
    defensive driving is to assume that no-one else _has_ read the same
    rule book as you, but if you did drive like that, you would be a very
    slow moving hazard..........

	Getting back to the topic of defensive driving, attitude is one of
	the major differences between defensive and ordinairy driving.
	Understanding the risks that we take when someone else's actions
	cause us to react is often the difference between a good and bad 
	driver.  That doesn't mean to say that you cannot be proactive, car
	positioning and lights (and horn to a lesser extent) can all be used
	to give a clear message of your intentions to other drivers.

	Dave

	To a certain degree, you do need 'buy in' from the other drivers
	affected by your manouvre.  As for a steering committee, it depends
	on how many seats there are in your car...

    I saw a street cleansing lorry the other day with two steering wheels.
    
    Steve

�    I saw a street cleansing lorry the other day with two steering wheels.
    
    I wanted Santa to give me an extra steering wheel for the 'other side'
    
    Would the 'steering committee' accept instruction 'from the back seat' ?
    (assuming one was available...)
    
    J.R.

    
    It looks as if all us defensive drivers are going to have to work
    harder at staying out of trouble in 1991. Death and injury on the roads
    of the UK went up in 1989 (the last full year for such statistics).
    I recent years the UK has had the lowest rate in Europe but this could
    change, if it hasn't already. As has already been mentioned in other
    replies one of the most important aspects in driving is attitude. It
    is a well known fact that most drivers consider THEMSELVES to be above
    average drivers. Yet how can they judge their own standard of driving.
    If they could - surely there would be no need for a driving test? The
    only way to find out what sort of driver you really are is to subject
    yourself to a test and since you have already passed (presumably!) the
    DoT test then the next one is the IAM or RoSPA advanced test. Both
    these tests have the potential of reducing your chance of being
    involved in an a accident by up to 75%.
    
    Over to you.
    
    Ian.
    
    

	Well, if you really want to learn, then join RoSPA (or IAM, I'm not
	biased).  However, the RoSPA course in Reading starts Wednesday 9th
	January at 7.30 at the Palmer building in Reading University...

	Dave

    Well, I'm starting the RoSPA course next week: who else...?
    
    Scott

    
    What's the cost, Scott?
    
    Mark

    Don't the drivers around Burghfield Common find it offensive enough
    already? :^) :^) :^)
    
    Mark

    I believe the RoSPA course is free, but...
    
    ...you have to pay �12 a year to join RoSPA before you can do it ;-)
    
    I don't know how much the test costs; maybe someone who's done it
    recently could enlighten us.  IMVHO, the potential benefits of this
    course far outweigh its financial cost...
    
    Scott                        
    
    PS Is it true that the you have to re-do the test every three years?  I
    believe these subsequent tests are free, provided you keep paying the
    RoSPA membership.

    
    I can see that retaking the test is a good idea, but what do you
    mean by "HAVE" to retake it? What happens if you don't? (If you had
    to retake your DOT test, you'd lose your licence, but what impact would
    not retaking your ROSPA test have (Beside saving you 12 pound a
    year!:^))).
    
    Mark
    
    

    If you don't take it again, you're no longer considered an "advanced
    driver".  The IAM test must be better, 'cos that lasts for life ;-)
    
    Scott

Assuming you can pay at the door and didn't have to book in advance,
I'm going along to the RoSPA course. Can anyone give me directions to
the Palmer building. I assume it's on the campus, but I've never been
there. Which entrance should I take, where on the campus is it?

I'll be approaching from Shinfield Road.

Steve

In main entrance, 2nd left, right at mini-roundabout.  Park on left outside
language labs, or there are a few spaces in front of you.  Palmer Building is
the odd-shaped one in front of you.  Go to Room 109 (Lecture Theatre).

Scott

Thanks, Scott.

Steve.

    
    RE. Rospa & IAM.
    
    Not retaking a Rospa retest simply means you can no longer officially
    show a badge and your membership of the RoSPA Advanced Drivers
    Association will laps.
    The retest is important because standards can easily fall after a test
    is taken. In this way, I think a Rospa badge is worth more. The cost of
    the retest is included in your #12 annual fee.
    
    Ian.
    

    
    
    Ian.
    
    

Well, I went last night, and paid �12 for which I received an explanation of why
they charge �12.  The course proper starts in a fortnight.  There were several
Deccies there (unless Digital pocket diaries are the in-thing to have this
year ;-), but only one other CARS_UK noter (and she a read-only one - go on
Vicky, enter a note!)  that I could see.  Were any of you there?  If not, I'd
recommend going, it looks like being a very worthwhile course.

Scott

 I am interested in doing the course but unfortunately felt too unwell to go
last night.

 Is there another chance to join up next week, or do I just turn up in a 
fortnights time at the beginning of the course ?


	Barrie.

There is no "session" next week; they're fortnightly.  Just turn up on the 23rd
and I'm sure they'll be pleased to extract �12 from you!

You can also buy Roadcraft and the latest Highway Code there at reduced prices.

Sessions are fortnightly to 6th March, then demonstration drives on Sunday
17 March, then two more sessions on 20 & 27 March.  After that it's individual
tuition throughtout the summer...

Scott

I went last night, too. The session was essentially an introduction to
the course, so people unable to attend didn't miss much. The training
proper starts at the next session on Wednesday 23rd March at 7.30pm.

The basic differences between IAM and RoSPA were explained and it seems
that RoSPA is a better system (aren't I gullible).

I am pretty sure that anyone who wants to attend, or is thinking about
it could do so by turning up at the next session (early, since they
want to start at 7.30pm prompt). I think it's going to be very
interesting and informative.

The timetable shown about 100 replies back is correct. In the
demonstration drives they take you out in their cars. After the lectures
have finished, they will then start assessments where you take them out
in your car. All this is included in the �12.

If you pass your test, for which you pay an additional �25, you will
be graded bronze, silver or gold. If silver or gold you require re-testing
in three years. If bronze, or fail you require re-testing in one year.
Once you pass the membership fee is �5, and the re-testing fee is less
than �25, but I can't remember how much. I think this is right
if not please correct me.

Since you are re-tested every three years and are graded each time,
you will be able to monitor your driving performance over the years and
will be able to continually strive to retain (or achieve) a high
standard, wheras with the IAM, you either pass or fail and there is
no grading. As they explained last night, it is all too easy to let
your standards drop...

Steve.

    I also went last night but dropped out at the first coffee break.
    
    I am an IAM member and also took the Rospa test when I joined both
    organisations in 1981. Not sure what I was expecting, perhaps more
    of a "club" rather than an introductory advanced driving course.
    Don't wish to sound OTT but i don't think I need to start from scratch
    again. 
    
    I also thought it was rather badly organised. Whilst the first speaker
    (Les I think) tried to give an introduction to the meeting he could
    hardly be heard over the noise of folks talking and collecting subs
    - rather rude I thought.
    
    Anyway I won't be going again but I support it's aims for drivers
    who are not already "advanced drivers".
    
    Ian
    
    ps how come almost everyone in this conference is called Ian ?
    

.216�    ps how come almost everyone in this conference is called Ian ?

    I dispute that assertion!
    
    
    Ian.

    
    Re .-1
    
    Me too!
    
    Ian.
    
    P.S. I am hoping to enter a note regarding a RoSPA course to be run in
    Guildford (Surrey) soon.

�    P.S. I am hoping to enter a note regarding a RoSPA course to be run in
�    Guildford (Surrey) soon.
    
    Guess I'll try to attend that one.
    
    J.R.

    
    		NOTIFICATION OF RoSPA LECTURES AT GUILDFORD.
    
    The RoSPA Advanced Drivers - Home Counties South Group - will be
    holding a series of six lectures aimed at improving your driving and
    based on "ROADCRAFT" the Police Drivers Manual.
    
    The lectures will be held on Wednesday evenings starting 13th. Feb.
    1991. at West Surrey Electicity Sports and Social Club, Woodbridge
    Road, Guildford, Surrey. Start time is 17:30.
    
    The lectures are free to members of the group which anyone may join for
    an annual fee of #10. This fee also entitles members to regular
    practical assessment drives which are held on the second Sunday of each
    month. The lectures are limited to 30 people.
    
    For an application form ring (0252) 22479 (club secretary).
    
    
    Ian.
    
    

    Something on this subject, or at least for you better drivers to read
    in 1366 .
    

    My son passed his test two years ago (second attempt), and my daughter is 
    coming up for her second attempt next week, having passed the theory
    section. Both of them have been taught by AA driving instructors, and I
    have had the same discussion (argument!) with both of them...
    
    I was taught to go down through the gears as I approach a bend or turn
    off a main road i.e. 4th - 3rd - 2nd, if it is a 2nd gear bend. They are
    taught not to, i.e. brake in 4th until you reach a 2nd gear speed then
    change direct 4th - 2nd. No problem. I can see the logic in this
    (better to wear the brakes than the engine). 
    
    What I can't understand is what they are taught to do as they approach
    a junction, e.g. a give-way junction. They are told to keep the car in
    the higher gear (4th) braking all the time up to the give-way line, and
    only then, disengage the clutch. I can't understand the logic in this. I
    would like to see them brake, and change gently down through the gears
    as they approach the line, and as the car reaches an appropriate speed. 
    If not this, then at least disengage the clutch a few yards before the
    line, so the propulsion of the engine is not pushing against the
    brakes right up to the last moment. I never feel sure that my daughter
    is going to stop at a give-way sign, because she keeps the engine
    pushing the car forward right up to the line. 
    Surely this can't be right?
    Can anyone tell me the logic behind the driving schools teaching in
    this way?
    Cheers,
    DaveT
    
    p.s. since my son has been driving for two years now, he recently
    confided to me that he now disengages the clutch earlier at junctions,
    because it saves him fuel!
        

    re .222
    
    Most people can't change down and brake at the same time - as you
    change down you need to raise the engine speed, which is either done by
    using the accelerator pedal or by making the clutch speed the engine
    up. The first is difficult, and the second wears out the clutch. So it
    makes sense to avoid changing gear while braking.
    
    Of course, it is essential to disengage the clutch before the cars
    stops. In fact if you disengage the clutch after stopping then you have
    stalled the engine. The engine wont be pushing the car forward though,
    in fact you will be getting some braking effect from the engine while
    its speed is above the idle speed (because the engine is trying to slow
    down to its idle speed). You should disengage the clutch when the
    engine does get down to the idle speed, and slip into neutral. If you
    delay disengaging the clutch then you may get a little 'push' from the
    engine, but it is also quite likely that when you DO disengage the
    clutch the engine will stall rather than come up to idle speed. (This
    assumes you are intending to stop regardless of the state of the road
    you are approaching. If you are prepared to continue without stopping
    then you need to approach in a gear which would allow you to accelerate
    appropriately).
    
    Andrew

    When I was first taught to drive, I had two instructors.  One believed
    in the "use the gears when slowing down" and the other didn't.  Seems
    that in the past when brakes were not very good,  it was recommended
    to change down.  Now we have better brakes then it is preffered to use
    the breaks and not the gears.  Besides,  replacing brake shoes/pads
    is cheaper than replacing the clutch :-)
    
    Jc
    

    Being an old fart, I too use the gears to slow me down. I too don't
    fully understand the current method, but I did read an explanation in
    the motoring section of the Saturday Telegraph that almost made sense:
    something along the lines of the brake lights warning drivers behind.
    I don't find it difficult to use the gears in this way, in fact, I
    don't even think about doing it; I was taught to be in the "correct"
    gear at all times, in case I needed to react quickly to something.
    Doing 10mph in 4th isn't, IMO, the correct gear.
    
    Laurie.

    I dont think there is much problem using the gears to slow down,
    provided you match the engine speed while doing it. This is easy enough
    if you aren't trying to brake at the same time. I.e. you either use the
    brakes or the gears to slow down. You can use the brakes if you leave
    the slowing down to the last minute, or you can use the gears when you
    have plenty of time to prepare things. Using the gears probably saves
    fuel.
    
    Andrew

    
    This goes some way to explaining why a lot of folks always stop at Give
    Ways and roudabouts, they've obviously driven up to the junction in
    top, braking all the way and then ve to change into1st or 2nd to pull
    off. If they changed down through the gears as they approached then at
    the point where they see the road is clear they could just accelerate
    and pull out.
    
    Of course it could be that they're just not looking at what's going on
    around them %^)
    
    Graham

    RE: .227
    
    HAHA! Both of those! Actually, it drives me bloody mad when they do
    that, but they're probably waving the gearstick around like a spoon in
    a bowl of custard, trying to find first! Because my first car required
    me to put it into 2nd before I could engage (non-synchro) 1st, even
    when stationary, I still do it automatically, and never have any
    problems.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

    I'm with Laurie on this one. Being in the correct gear for the correct
    speed is very important as it allows you to react to events more
    quickly. I do tem to touch the brake slighly as I begin to decelarate
    as it gives warning to people behind me.
    
    Mind you the above doesn't apply when I'm "progressing" as I use the
    brakes late and hard with only time for a quick blip of the accelarator
    prior to dropping a cog (or 4).
    
    Rik

    The courses I have done make it very simple - brakes are for stopping,
    gears are for driving. Period
    
    They add the fact that brake lights tell people behind you that you are
    stopping. 
    
    Just like F1 with fast downshift semi auto boxes really.
    
    Paul

    Thems were the days...
    
    One day I think I might try and find my first car - 1957 Hillman Minx, 
    series II.
    
    I to still do the "second -> first" to get in,  even after xxx years of
    fully synchromeshed boxes.  Soon learned not to try changing gear
    with the indicator stalk though :-)
    
    Jc
    
    

    Ok,  I am sure people will throw stones for this !
    
    Why bother with all that stirring the gearlever business?  An automatic
    transmission will take care of all that for you.  The added bonus is
    that you are always in the correct gear for the situation.
    
    Set Shields = On
    

My prefered option is, IMHO, a far supior technique...

When approaching a junction - whether Give Way or 
Stop - simply turn off the engine and use the 
handbrake to slow down. Initially you can use the 
footbrake, however once the servo gets "used" up the 
brakes are a little stiff - now time to use the good ol' 
hand brake.

No problem for power steeering cars either. Just 
make sure you are aiming at the junction before you 
turn the engine off. 

Saves fuel and doesn't hurt the environment. Try it - 
you'll like it!

Rupert

    And don't forget that steering lock !
    
    Rik - who once *forgot* when coasting home in his Polo.

Re .233

Are you serious? That's dangerous.

Dave

Re. 235

Yes it is dangerous. And also quite 
alarming if you are a passanger.

The first and only time I came across 
this innovative technique was about 25 
years ago (as a small lad) being 
driven in a very old Bently by a very 
odd friend of my fathers. We coasted 
through much of Bournemouth like 
this! 

Rupert

    Thanks for all your replies! I will not try to change my kids' 
    learned techniques any more, as clearly I come into Laurie's 'old 
    fart' category!
    
    I try to be in the right gear for my speed as many of you have said.
    Graham put his finger on it for me when he highlighted the abrupt stop
    that usually takes place when my daughter approaches a give-way. Having
    come down from 4th to 2nd, she is unable to make the smooth get-away
    that a progressive change-down would permit.
    
    Paul, your idea of a binary 'driving/stopping' states is interesting,
    but perhaps more appropriate for racing? On the normal road, surely you
    have to think about fuel economy and safety more? On a race driving 
    course at Thruxton, I lost points for 'trailing' the right foot into 
    bends i.e. I lifted off the accelerator, waited briefly as the car lost 
    momentum, then braked. This is what I would do in normal driving.
    
    Laurie. I, too, use the gears a lot more than my kids. I also leave the
    car parked in gear, sit in neutral at traffic lights, warm up the
    engine before moving off in the morning and never change into first
    when moving - all relics of a bye-gone age!
    
    Rupert. Your suggested technique sounds exciting. I will try it next
    time I follow you to a squash match ;-).
    
    Regards,
    DaveT
    

Re .236

Was that in the days when the ignition switch was on the dash? I heard of 
someone who had the habit of switching off the ignition to coast down hills.
No problem until he bought a new car which had a steering lock.

Dave

Ref .238

Yes I think so - it was a very old car.

Rupert

RE:                    <<< Note 1287.237 by IOSG::TYLDESLEY >>>
>>    Laurie. I, too, use the gears a lot more than my kids. I also leave the
    
    My oldest is only 15, so he hasn't started driving yet, but I expect
    we'll differ as to technique! I wonder if a follower of the old-fart
    approach would fail a modern test?
    
>>    car parked in gear, sit in neutral at traffic lights, warm up the
>>    engine before moving off in the morning and never change into first
>>    when moving - all relics of a bye-gone age!
    
    I do all that too! One thing I *hate* is people who sit in a traffic
    queue in gear, foot on the brake, especially when I'm behind them. I
    automatically put the handbrake on and the car in neutral every time I
    stop; I don't even think about it. ke you, i always leave the car in
    gear when stopped. In my early cars, going into first when moving would
    have blown the gearbox up! I still never do it. I passed my test in
    1973, BTW, and my first road car was a 1961 Ford Anglia.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

>>    car parked in gear, sit in neutral at traffic lights, warm up the
>>    engine before moving off in the morning and never change into first
>>    when moving - all relics of a bye-gone age!
    
    	Do all these except the "never change into first when moving". What
    happends when you want to make a swift exit from a hairpin bend.
    
    Rik

    
    isn't that what torque is for ?
    
    G.

    >> warm up the
    >>    engine before moving off in the morning
    
    Isn't this a bad practise, revving the engine before moving?
    

	OK...sad admission, I had an old 1960's version of Roadcraft - The Police
	Drivers handbook which was quite explicit about braking to the correct
	speed for the negotiation of any hazzard (roundabout, T Junction etc.)
	without changing down through the box.  The intent here was that
	the hands were on the wheel for the majority of the time...not
	bouncing between gearstick and wheel. 

	Now the sad admission, I bought a new 1990's version of Roadcraft.  The
	major difference that I noted (apart from the introduction
	of ABS, power steering, syncromesh ;-} etc.) was that the use
	of brakes and gearbox to slow on the approach to hazzards is
	now "approved".  However, it is stated that the use of the 
	original "system" is better for high speed approaches to hazzards.

	That's my summary...not Roadcraft's.

	So you pays your money...

	Kevin.

    I was told that at a junction one should engage the hand-brake, engage
    neutral and cover the break pedal. I was also told to appraoch
    junctions via the gears, ensuring tochange in second at the start of
    the fifth white line before the junction itself.
    
    Shaun.