Lets see if you are thinking drivers?
Discussion
I was in a meeting today when I was asked a question on cornering, I thought some of you might like a little teaser of a question which might just get the old grey matter working, some of you might know the answer immediately, in which case let the others fight amongst themselves.
You are out on the bike or in the car driving or riding along a lovely section of road for the very first time.
You are riding/driving in a national speed limit (60). You approach a bend which you have never ridden/driven before. The road surface is good, the weather is fine and clear and traffic flow is light. You decide to take the bend at 30 MPH. You come out the other side safely and realise that you could have gone quicker, so being a lovely section of road, you turn around and go back and ride/drive it again. This time you ride/drive the same bend at 40. It is still safe and legal and it still feels comfortable, so you do it again at 50 and again at 60.
On each and every occasion you have ridden/driven the bend it has been comfortable, safe and legal, but what is the correct speed for the bend? 30? 40? 50? or 60?
Not a trick question I assure you, answers on a postcard, and I refer to both car and bike as the answer is the same.
You are out on the bike or in the car driving or riding along a lovely section of road for the very first time.
You are riding/driving in a national speed limit (60). You approach a bend which you have never ridden/driven before. The road surface is good, the weather is fine and clear and traffic flow is light. You decide to take the bend at 30 MPH. You come out the other side safely and realise that you could have gone quicker, so being a lovely section of road, you turn around and go back and ride/drive it again. This time you ride/drive the same bend at 40. It is still safe and legal and it still feels comfortable, so you do it again at 50 and again at 60.
On each and every occasion you have ridden/driven the bend it has been comfortable, safe and legal, but what is the correct speed for the bend? 30? 40? 50? or 60?
Not a trick question I assure you, answers on a postcard, and I refer to both car and bike as the answer is the same.
"The more you can see, the more you can go.
The less you see, the more you slow."
You must be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.
The limit point must always be staionary, or moving away from you.
As long as those two points are met you can take the bend at whatever speed you like - within the law
The less you see, the more you slow."
You must be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.
The limit point must always be staionary, or moving away from you.
As long as those two points are met you can take the bend at whatever speed you like - within the law
OK - I'll bite. If Advanced Driving theory requires that progress is made when appropriate and safe, then presumably 60mph is the correct speed. If this isn't the answer you're thinking of, I'd be interested to hear your argument.
You could say that 30mph for the first pass was appropriate as you didn't know the bend, but if you've ended up travelling at half the safe speed surely it points to a failure to read the bend correctly in the first place.
You could say that 30mph for the first pass was appropriate as you didn't know the bend, but if you've ended up travelling at half the safe speed surely it points to a failure to read the bend correctly in the first place.
TC1474 said:
The road surface is good, the weather is fine and clear and traffic flow is light.
please tell us, where this is available in the UK? 
really tho, i would say it depends on the rise/fall of the road, visibility thru the bend, etc....
it can't be THAT bad of a bend if you can do 60 "comfortably, safely and legally"....
I'm sitting on the fence for this one....
Bit of a strange driver/rider that who initially decides to take a bend at 30mph and then decides he could have gone quicker once he's finshed the corner?! If vision and grip are his limiting factors, how will they be different each time?
The driver is either:
a) not judging vision and grip at all, therefore I don't trust any of his speeds. He's treating the road as a race track.
b) Made an accurate judgement the first time and then just forgot about stopping within the distance he could see (assuming the bend would be clear) and went faster and faster as if on a race track. True, he's just been through the bend so the chances of a broken down car or a child in the road on the corner are fairly low, but still that chance is there, or a tractor could have dropped mud whilst he was turning around etc.
So, either way, he sounds like a pretty stupid driver/rider to me.
The driver is either:
a) not judging vision and grip at all, therefore I don't trust any of his speeds. He's treating the road as a race track.
b) Made an accurate judgement the first time and then just forgot about stopping within the distance he could see (assuming the bend would be clear) and went faster and faster as if on a race track. True, he's just been through the bend so the chances of a broken down car or a child in the road on the corner are fairly low, but still that chance is there, or a tractor could have dropped mud whilst he was turning around etc.
So, either way, he sounds like a pretty stupid driver/rider to me.
The correct speed is 30 MPH.
When you first dealt with the bend, you assessed that speed as being correct based on what you could see.
When you made subsequent trips through the bend, the rider/driver now starts to use local knowledge and familiarity. You know the road conditions, the likelihood of vehicles pulling out of junctions, possible oncoming traffic that could affect your safety, and so this knowledge tempts or allows the rider/driver to increase the speed because they become more dependant on having that knowledge rather than treating it as if they were riding or driviing through for the first time when you had no knowledge what so ever, other than what you could see.
In other words, first time you made a risk assessment, subsequent occasions the risk assessment played less significance in the decision making process.
Now, I know I used a bend as an example, but now put it into an everyday context.
For 364 days of the year you probably drive or ride along the same section of road on your way to work, and for the majority of the time everything remains a constant. Local schoolkids, the same people pullling off the petrol station forecourt, the same delivery vehicles doinng their rounds, so you get lulled into a false sense of security because your local knowledge tells you that nothing will change, or not by much.
Then day 365 arrives, you get a mile down the road go around the first bend and there is the road being dug up which you were not expecting because it wasn't there yesterday. You have allowed your local knowledge to take over and dismissed doing any risk assessment.
What should be happening is that roads you drive or ride daily should be assessed in exactly the same way as you did when you rode that bend for the first time.
Now the reality is you probably won't go back and ride the bend multiple times at higher speeds (unless you are on some of the wonderfull continental roads) and in reality you will go through bends quicker than 30 where conditions allow, but I used it as the example to emphasise how a judgement or assessment is made, the principles remain the same.
Hence the reason the answer to the question is 30 MPH
Now I will wait to get flamed
When you first dealt with the bend, you assessed that speed as being correct based on what you could see.
When you made subsequent trips through the bend, the rider/driver now starts to use local knowledge and familiarity. You know the road conditions, the likelihood of vehicles pulling out of junctions, possible oncoming traffic that could affect your safety, and so this knowledge tempts or allows the rider/driver to increase the speed because they become more dependant on having that knowledge rather than treating it as if they were riding or driviing through for the first time when you had no knowledge what so ever, other than what you could see.
In other words, first time you made a risk assessment, subsequent occasions the risk assessment played less significance in the decision making process.
Now, I know I used a bend as an example, but now put it into an everyday context.
For 364 days of the year you probably drive or ride along the same section of road on your way to work, and for the majority of the time everything remains a constant. Local schoolkids, the same people pullling off the petrol station forecourt, the same delivery vehicles doinng their rounds, so you get lulled into a false sense of security because your local knowledge tells you that nothing will change, or not by much.
Then day 365 arrives, you get a mile down the road go around the first bend and there is the road being dug up which you were not expecting because it wasn't there yesterday. You have allowed your local knowledge to take over and dismissed doing any risk assessment.
What should be happening is that roads you drive or ride daily should be assessed in exactly the same way as you did when you rode that bend for the first time.
Now the reality is you probably won't go back and ride the bend multiple times at higher speeds (unless you are on some of the wonderfull continental roads) and in reality you will go through bends quicker than 30 where conditions allow, but I used it as the example to emphasise how a judgement or assessment is made, the principles remain the same.
Hence the reason the answer to the question is 30 MPH
Now I will wait to get flamed
TC1474 said:
The correct speed is 30 MPH.
When you first dealt with the bend, you assessed that speed as being correct based on what you could see.
When you made subsequent trips through the bend, the rider/driver now starts to use local knowledge and familiarity. You know the road conditions, the likelihood of vehicles pulling out of junctions, possible oncoming traffic that could affect your safety, and so this knowledge tempts or allows the rider/driver to increase the speed because they become more dependant on having that knowledge rather than treating it as if they were riding or driviing through for the first time when you had no knowledge what so ever, other than what you could see.
In other words, first time you made a risk assessment, subsequent occasions the risk assessment played less significance in the decision making process.
Now, I know I used a bend as an example, but now put it into an everyday context.
For 364 days of the year you probably drive or ride along the same section of road on your way to work, and for the majority of the time everything remains a constant. Local schoolkids, the same people pullling off the petrol station forecourt, the same delivery vehicles doinng their rounds, so you get lulled into a false sense of security because your local knowledge tells you that nothing will change, or not by much.
Then day 365 arrives, you get a mile down the road go around the first bend and there is the road being dug up which you were not expecting because it wasn't there yesterday. You have allowed your local knowledge to take over and dismissed doing any risk assessment.
What should be happening is that roads you drive or ride daily should be assessed in exactly the same way as you did when you rode that bend for the first time.
Now the reality is you probably won't go back and ride the bend multiple times at higher speeds (unless you are on some of the wonderfull continental roads) and in reality you will go through bends quicker than 30 where conditions allow, but I used it as the example to emphasise how a judgement or assessment is made, the principles remain the same.
Hence the reason the answer to the question is 30 MPH
Now I will wait to get flamed
Bit of a trick question because you're assuming the driver made the correct judgement on their first trip to the corner.When you first dealt with the bend, you assessed that speed as being correct based on what you could see.
When you made subsequent trips through the bend, the rider/driver now starts to use local knowledge and familiarity. You know the road conditions, the likelihood of vehicles pulling out of junctions, possible oncoming traffic that could affect your safety, and so this knowledge tempts or allows the rider/driver to increase the speed because they become more dependant on having that knowledge rather than treating it as if they were riding or driviing through for the first time when you had no knowledge what so ever, other than what you could see.
In other words, first time you made a risk assessment, subsequent occasions the risk assessment played less significance in the decision making process.
Now, I know I used a bend as an example, but now put it into an everyday context.
For 364 days of the year you probably drive or ride along the same section of road on your way to work, and for the majority of the time everything remains a constant. Local schoolkids, the same people pullling off the petrol station forecourt, the same delivery vehicles doinng their rounds, so you get lulled into a false sense of security because your local knowledge tells you that nothing will change, or not by much.
Then day 365 arrives, you get a mile down the road go around the first bend and there is the road being dug up which you were not expecting because it wasn't there yesterday. You have allowed your local knowledge to take over and dismissed doing any risk assessment.
What should be happening is that roads you drive or ride daily should be assessed in exactly the same way as you did when you rode that bend for the first time.
Now the reality is you probably won't go back and ride the bend multiple times at higher speeds (unless you are on some of the wonderfull continental roads) and in reality you will go through bends quicker than 30 where conditions allow, but I used it as the example to emphasise how a judgement or assessment is made, the principles remain the same.
Hence the reason the answer to the question is 30 MPH
Now I will wait to get flamed
You're then assuming the driver hasn't made a correct assessment on the next trips through.
The driver has had to make an error in judgment on more than one trip through. If he made made an incorrect assessment on trip 1 and 2, then 60mph is the correct speed...
I am of course assuming that the driver knows when he has/hasn't made a correct judgement and is not affected by road familiarity as you say.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the big assumption here is the road unfamiliarity means you always make the correct judgement, which is clearly not the case.
Edited by navier_stokes on Wednesday 19th August 11:03
[quote=navier_stokes]Bit of a trick question because you're assuming the driver made the correct judgement on their first trip to the corner./quote] 
just as I said in my post above.
As I said above too, any driver who goes into a bend on the public road quickly "because he knows it" and he's done it every day previously is completely stupid.
just as I said in my post above. As I said above too, any driver who goes into a bend on the public road quickly "because he knows it" and he's done it every day previously is completely stupid.
Actually OP, you're wrong. Local knowledge can and should be used to factor into a given risk assessment - but you have to always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.
For instance theres a road that you drive down - NSL with a right hand bend, safe to drive at say 30mph. Taking into account the road and weather conditions, you use the limit point system and make sure that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear.
Thats fine, thats using the system to its best. The system is a simplified approach to ensuring safety when approaching any given hazard, regardless of previous experience of that road.
You come around the bend, see traffic queuing because of roadworks, brake and are able to stop safely behind the last car in the queue. Thats fine.
But lets say you do have some previous knowledge of this road, because you drive it every day. You know that theres roadworks starting just before the bend opens up and that consequently there is likely to be a queue. So you check behind you for other drivers and take a slower approach, and as a consequence you are able to brake further back - before the bend enters its sharpest point. Your brake lights give a warning to others behind you of the hazard, before they're committed to the bend with what may be too fast a speed for them.
Roadcraft does allow the use of local knowledge of hazards to assist you. What it doesn't allow is using that knowledge solely to form your risk assessment - you should still be looking and paying attention, not getting lackadaisical (which I think was your point, in a roundabout way.)
For instance theres a road that you drive down - NSL with a right hand bend, safe to drive at say 30mph. Taking into account the road and weather conditions, you use the limit point system and make sure that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear.
Thats fine, thats using the system to its best. The system is a simplified approach to ensuring safety when approaching any given hazard, regardless of previous experience of that road.
You come around the bend, see traffic queuing because of roadworks, brake and are able to stop safely behind the last car in the queue. Thats fine.
But lets say you do have some previous knowledge of this road, because you drive it every day. You know that theres roadworks starting just before the bend opens up and that consequently there is likely to be a queue. So you check behind you for other drivers and take a slower approach, and as a consequence you are able to brake further back - before the bend enters its sharpest point. Your brake lights give a warning to others behind you of the hazard, before they're committed to the bend with what may be too fast a speed for them.
Roadcraft does allow the use of local knowledge of hazards to assist you. What it doesn't allow is using that knowledge solely to form your risk assessment - you should still be looking and paying attention, not getting lackadaisical (which I think was your point, in a roundabout way.)
RobM77 said:
As I said above too, any driver who goes into a bend on the public road quickly "because he knows it" and he's done it every day previously is completely stupid.
Am I right in thinking that you're saying: "You're stupid if drive slower on roads you don't know"?
Surely if you can't see how tight a bend is, it's safer to go slower, to be safe, even if it's actually fine for 60mph?
therefore it's completely natural to drive faster on a road you know well, compared to a road you do not know.
As for the OP's question, it's a typical trick/vague question which can be interpreted to lead to any answer.
Edited by buttery muffin on Wednesday 19th August 11:17
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff