ADUK Archive

Posted: **Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:53 pm**

vonhosen wrote:
trashbat wrote:Can either of you define what you mean by 'chassis language'? I've heard it several times in the context of communicating your intent to others, and have the gist, but a little more expansion or precision would help.

When I brake where does weight transfer?
Is this so much that it is visible to somebody outside observing me?
They will interpret that information & make choices based on it.

Indeed; but in these days of anti-dive suspension firm or hard braking is not quite as obvious as it once was.

Once upon a time, hard braking would have the nose down and the tail up in the air; but it ain't quite so spectacular these days. We now have to look at the rate of change of speed, or the 'speed profile', as somebody recently, and quite rightly, said.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Posted: **Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:44 am**

trashbat wrote:IMO this is something separate, in that it's simply positioning, although maybe users of the term intend to cover it, I don't know.

Just as body language tends to cover all forms of non-verbal communication, I think of chassis language as covering all information-giving that isn't through the classic signalling forms (lights, horns, arms).

Posted: **Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:26 am**

This is all getting a bit heavy...

BGOL for turning into junctions (left or right). Separation for everything else. That's me done...

Posted: **Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:49 am**

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:?...but equally there are "submissive" ones - like indicating to change lanes on a motorway in advance of a gap...n.

Do you mean waiting for a gap to pull out into... (Overtaking)... or to pull out into one you have seen is (and hopefully will remain ) coming?

I sometimes get caught in Lane 1 closing in on a slow moving vehicle with no opportunity to pull out because of a stream of vehicles moving together slowly past me and presenting no obvious gaps. Should I just sit and wait... Or are you saying indicate and see what opens up? ( I don't think you mean that but I'm interested in best tactics for reasonable... 'Progress'

Posted: **Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:34 pm**

StressedDave wrote:Indeed, I typically couch it in terms that the UK is a polite society and, provided, you actually ask permission (and by this I mean perhaps using bold positioning to indicate that you'd quite like to take a specific path at a specific time) early enough that the other vehicles can work out what you're doing and have sufficient time to help comply with your wishes, then you get that compliance.

On the flip side, waiting too long for a response has its own failings...

<wavy lines, cheapo cgi for a long time ago...>
I dealt with the accident involving a certain member of the press corps colliding with a Police van on its way to a job and ending up with what certain mental health professionals describe as 'only having one oar in the water'. Here we were dealing with a classic 'run over by a car', in that instead of playing a nasty game of projectiles, the victim was knocked down and ended up just in front of the stationary van. Impact speed was at most 15 mph and more likely less than 10 mph.

So what went wrong in Roadcraft? Nowt... the van driver had seen the victim and slowed appropriately. The victim had stopped because she saw the van. Both decided within half a second of each other that the other party was allowing them to continue and started off again. Result a low speed collision where there simply was insufficient time left for either party to react and avoid the collision.

I see it happening all the time with advanced drivers on the road - they get hooked up in all the potential problems and just as they decide they've ticked off every possible thing on the checklist, someone else thinks they've been given 'permission' to pull out or infringe in the safety bubble and you get a 5+ page thread on AD-UK and a learning exercise which descends into a discussion on technique rather than headology.

+1

I can relate to all of that. Could you summarise it as...

Sh1t happens but, if you spend less time worrying about its colour and consistency, you'll hopefully be long gone by the time it hits the fan...

Posted: **Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:01 pm**

TripleS wrote:I don't see that as aggressive; I'd rather describe it as positive or assertive.

Thank you. "Assertive" is probably the word I was searching for. Original now edited.

Posted: **Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:18 pm**

revian wrote:
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:?...but equally there are "submissive" ones - like indicating to change lanes on a motorway in advance of a gap...n.

Do you mean waiting for a gap to pull out into... (Overtaking)... or to pull out into one you have seen is (and hopefully will remain ) coming?

I sometimes get caught in Lane 1 closing in on a slow moving vehicle with no opportunity to pull out because of a stream of vehicles moving together slowly past me and presenting no obvious gaps. Should I just sit and wait... Or are you saying indicate and see what opens up? ( I don't think you mean that but I'm interested in best tactics for reasonable... 'Progress'

I mean ...

- Observe traffic flow to your right.
- Identify a potential gap to move into.
- Start indicating early - even while other vehicles are alongside you, but ensure your chassis language is "submissive" i.e. not a millimetre of movement towards the white line. In fact, as posted by Gareth in an earlier thread on this same topic, consider moving slightly to the left to reinforce the "safe to pass" message.
- Confirm that the gap you intended to use has not shrunk.
- Move right as the last passing vehicle before the gap passes you, accelerating slightly to match the speed of the traffic in the lane to your right. This means accepting a small gap between you and the vehicle in front, that you can allow to expand again once you are behind them.
- If appropriate, acknowledge the driver behind with a "thank you" gesture in the mirror.

Hope this makes sense. Of course, you can also indicate to "ask permission" if things are so tight that there are no obvious gaps. This just requires patience, and even more submissiveness. There's nothing wrong with this. It's part of the "polite society" Dave mentioned above.

Posted: **Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:06 pm**

StressedDave wrote:
TripleS wrote:This sort of discussion sometimes makes driving feel to be a very confrontational business, and in reality I don't find it to be like that.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Indeed, I typically couch it in terms that the UK is a polite society and, provided, you actually ask permission (and by this I mean perhaps using bold positioning to indicate that you'd quite like to take a specific path at a specific time) early enough that the other vehicles can work out what you're doing and have sufficient time to help comply with your wishes, then you get that compliance.

Not only does one get compliance but if you fail to ask permission you could find others driving dangerously to teach you to be polite in the future.

Posted: **Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:50 am**

StressedDave wrote:On a less flippant note, it's more about understanding how your speed and position relative to others with respect to time controls their decision making processes and carefully balancing your rising sense of paranoia about what they could do with the need to do something yourself.

Also worth considering how people stereotype road users. It's amazing since getting a BMW that people seem to expect you to drive like a **** and seem confused when you are courteous :lol:

Posted: **Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:08 am**

I will second that!!

Posted: **Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:01 pm**

I had a very nice BMW driver following me towards London in lane 3 on the M4 last weekend. He wanted to make more progress than I was, but seeing that I was overtaking a number of vehicles, he hung well back and only accelerated past once I pulled back into the left (which of course I did as soon as practicable and convenient). It gives a warm feeling when you can communicate sympathetically with another driver and arrive at a mutual understanding without any other signals. Another example of chassis language.

Posted: **Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:36 pm**

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:I had a very nice BMW driver following me towards London in lane 3 on the M4 last weekend. ... It gives a warm feeling when you can communicate sympathetically with another driver and arrive at a mutual understanding without any other signals. Another example of chassis language.

QED. A BMW behaves in a considerate manner and you feel it's sufficiently unusual to remark on the fact :lol:

/but what were you doing in our lane in the first place :twisted:

Posted: **Fri Sep 06, 2013 3:54 pm**

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:
....Hope this makes sense. Of course, you can also indicate to "ask permission" if things are so tight that there are no obvious gaps. This just requires patience, and even more submissiveness. There's nothing wrong with this. It's part of the "polite society" Dave mentioned above.

Thanks... That makes sense... Just the thought that if someone indicated when I'm alongside them I wonder if they have seen me...

BTW.. I'm a polite BMW driver as well... 2 of us out there it seems...

it's black so you can't see it coming... Stealth car..

Posted: **Fri Sep 06, 2013 6:38 pm**

revian wrote:BTW.. I'm a polite BMW driver as well... 2 of us out there it seems...

Maybe even more than 2. There are certainly more than 2 of us in HPC alone.

Posted: **Fri Sep 06, 2013 6:46 pm**

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:
TripleS wrote:I don't see that as aggressive; I'd rather describe it as positive or assertive.

Thank you. "Assertive" is probably the word I was searching for. Original now edited.

You're most welcome, Nick.

[Jeeves mode]
One endeavours to render a modicum of assistance periodically.

[/Jeeves mode]

Best wishes all,
Dave.

ADUK Archive

I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but

Re: I tried but