Offsiding and straightlining - cut from 'Tailgating' thread

[Ancient]

@Horse, actually the junctions I was considering are considerably closer than that - no pavement or verge, house or hedge comes right down to the road. An alternative is where a hedge runs alongside the road and a verge/pavement starts ahead; at the junction of hedge and verge the hedge is often high and a hidden corner results.
I was not particularly considering vehicles (although tractors often hide in such places), children for example tend to play behind hedges/walls and may run/cycle out. Consideration of where they will look is IMO secondary (they may well not look at all) and even if offsiding doesn't give a full view into the hidden space it does give more time once they emerge (for either of those involved to notice and react).

[MGF]

The point is that combining an equally low speed with offsiding improves safety.

Driving faster because you are further from the hazard doesn't improve safety - it improves progress - and if you do need to move over it may put you in conflict with the hazard you were trying to avoid in the first place.

[daz6215]

what about a simple bend on a single carriageway (two lanes) road where the other lane is fully in view but my nearside lane is (at least partially) hidden? Again we know there is no oncoming but are not clear about what may be hidden around the corner. Do we accept offsideing here?

Would a court accept offsiding here if it went wrong because you missed something partially hidden which then turned into your path?

[Horse]

The point is that combining an equally low speed with offsiding improves safety.

Yup, think this'll be the third or fourth time I've said that or agreed with it

Part of the problem, though, is that the encroaching 'hazard' is unpredictable, so - as you say - speed must be moderated to allow for any reasonable outcome.

A kid running out is reasonable, the kid keeping running is likely. A second, following, kid is also likely. [And why is the kid running?]

[Ancient]

The point is that combining an equally low speed with offsiding improves safety.

Driving faster because you are further from the hazard doesn't improve safety - it improves progress - and if you do need to move over it may put you in conflict with the hazard you were trying to avoid in the first place.

On first reading I agreed (and wondered why you had interpreted me as speeding past because I had a better view - I said I adjust my speed according to the view).
But then...
If you are driving 1mph and pass within an inch of the structure hiding the view, anything emerging can coincide with you passing. Given the likely outcomes of passing at different speeds, I would suggest that for a car <5mph is the acceptably safe speed where the structure is close enough to have 'no warning' of something emerging (and 'use a banksman' is the only acceptable choice for HGVs - whatever TfL and the haulage industry say).
If you pass further away, such that you will have time to react (brake or take other effective avoiding action), then passing faster is in fact just as safe - up to (given sufficient room to safely offside (unlikely extreme scanario) the NSL.
(actually not so extreme - think at what speed you pass a motorway bridge where the hard shoulder disappears as is increasingly common. Even in lane1 you don't slow down to sub10mph I assume).
The direction I am trying to take this however is this:
There are clearly occasions where (despite IAM's statements) offsiding for a better view is safer than remaining on the nearside where the view is restricted. Given that, it should be possible (with a little thought) to classify those occasions - perhaps by dividing up the 'view ahead' into 'view of oncoming traffic' and 'view of other areas of the road' ?

[Horse]

Given that, it should be possible (with a little thought) to classify those occasions - perhaps by dividing up the 'view ahead' into 'view of oncoming traffic' and 'view of other areas of the road' ?

Indeed; I'd be interested in hearing how much forward view (in terms of seconds) pro- 'offside for view on blind left hand bends' users would want to maintain? Bearing in mind that there's a necessity to allow:
a. Enough room to return to the left lane
b. Maintain a low enough speed to stop within the clear road, allowing for a danger hidden around the nearside (which could be encroaching into 'your' roadspace)
c. Not cause concern to oncoming road users who see you on 'their' side of the road

Now, obviously that headway will be relative to the view ahead, and has to be decided by left lane view alone. SO how much improvement can be expected by moving (or remaining) offside? Isn't there a point where you commit to being offside to gain (or maintain) a view with - still - a relatively short headway to an oncoming vehicle?

And it's probably worth considering that a T-bone impact into an almost stationary vehicle will have significantly lower effects on you than a head-on into an oncoming vehicle. [With an unpredictable oncoming driver who might swerve into your lane]

[Ancient]

Well here's an example of a bend where recently, an offside position giving me a forward view long enough to be sure the oncoming lane was clear, also allowed me a couple of extra seconds to see the pedestrian in the road on the nearside http://goo.gl/maps/GfjDc and to stop, without fuss and on my side of the road, a good couple of car-lengths from him; at the same time as oncoming emerged around the next bend (the potential for which was why steering around him was not suitable).
Edit to add: Note how I can get a clear view of the oncoming lane (about where the track is on the right), simply by moving out towards the centre. This allows me to see whether it is safe to offside. If it is safe then offsiding gives me a clear advantage in what I can see on the nearside and allows a greater speed to be held safely than would otherwise be the case, because whether offside or near, I need to be able to stop in (etc). So yes, if there is oncoming, the speed can be reduced before steering so that the shorter nearside view is accomodated.

[Horse]

Completely offside? And roughly what sort of speed?

60 limit? If so, the lead vehicle in Google is, by the lane markings, about 90m ahead. So if we presume an oncoming 60mph vehicle would be in view at about 120m (reasonable?) then that gives:

2 x 26.8 metres per sec = 2.24 time to contact

Not long to make that move to the left! And when you say: So yes, if there is oncoming, the speed can be reduced before steering so that the shorter nearside view is accommodated. . . .

Interesting example in that the early view over the field to the left indicates how the road won't tighten further left. Would/could that have affected/influenced your decision?

[Ancient]

Completely offside? And roughly what sort of speed?

60 limit? If so, the lead vehicle in Google is, by the lane markings, about 90m ahead. So if we presume an oncoming 60mph vehicle would be in view at about 120m (reasonable?) then that gives:

2 x 26.8 metres per sec = 2.24 time to contact

Not long to make that move to the left! And when you say: So yes, if there is oncoming, the speed can be reduced before steering so that the shorter nearside view is accommodated. . . .

Interesting example in that the early view over the field to the left indicates how the road won't tighten further left. Would/could that have affected/influenced your decision?

TBH I wasn't watching the speedometer - I find that attempting mental arithmetic whilst driving is not good for maintaining concentration (YMMV but I note that the test which 'prove' a hands-free mobile is as dangerous as drinking, tend to use arithmetic and visualisations as part of being 'involved' in the telephone conversation); the point is surely that I was able to safely stop on my own side of the road, a couple of car-lengths before the (otherwise hidden) pedestrian and several seconds before the emerging oncoming (which did not slow) passed me.

ETA.
Stopped without activating ABS or even getting a complaint fro, SWMBO.

Oh and of course a tightening bend changes things look further along that road, there are plenty of bends of different shapes; S shaped, thr'penny bit shaped, mostly hill-shaped though with plenty of variation of road surface thrown in (and blind entrances, doors directly onto the road - sometimes allowing offsiding to clear, other times not).

[daz6215]

and allows a greater speed to be held safely than would otherwise be the case,

What is the advantage of the greater speed?

[Ancient]

and allows a greater speed to be held safely than would otherwise be the case,

What is the advantage of the greater speed?

It allows me to get to my destination a little faster, it keeps me further ahead of Brake members ...

None whatsoever really, we could have (and enforce) 20mph limits everywhere (or <10 mph as is needed for some corners).

[daz6215]

Its just the speed should be a bi-product of getting everything else correct! I know the 4 'S's' have been discussed on here before but it's worth considering what you are gaining, (if arriving at your destination a split second earlier than you otherwise would have is your goal, then great!) But driving at speed limits I personally think there is very little to gain in a lot of circumstances (not all) with regard to offsiding. Speed should really be low on the list of your driving plan when negotiating any hazard! So is a partial loss of view a hazard?

[Horse]

and allows a greater speed to be held safely than would otherwise be the case,

What is the advantage of the greater speed?

What's the disadvantage? Adding 10mph will almost double your braking distance . . . And if you need to return to the nearside then you'll be above what you have assessed was a safe speed for the corner.

I don't give those figures to suggest that anyone should be doing mental maths as they travel, just to demonstrate hat there is a very short time to contact in which to make that avoiding manoeuvre, let alone braking.

[daz6215]

It's also worth mentioning that most drivers don't have plan B in place for the 'what if', when I'm listening to drivers in full flow of commentary and I ask them what their plan is if 'X' happens I'm often met with a blanc look!

[GJD]

It's also worth mentioning that most drivers don't have plan B in place for the 'what if', when I'm listening to drivers in full flow of commentary and I ask them what their plan is if 'X' happens I'm often met with a blanc look!

Do you get the same response if you ask them that question when they're not in full flow of commentary?