IAM

[stever750]

I can't see why you seem to think that you can't brake from 70 to 30 in time for the nonsense (this is my opinion) with a block change 6 - 3, and then sort out the roundabout.

There are plenty of roundabouts here in Scotland where the island is still NSL, and braking with a skip shift, block shift or to rest depending on other traffic and on gearbox is normal practice.

Didn't say it wasn't possible, my issue is rolling to an almost halt at the RAB in 6th isn't appropriate. Go no problem with a 6th to 3rd other than it's asking more of the syncro, plus I'd always be in 4th gear at 30 mph in normal circumstances. In effect, I am doing exactly what you're suggesting.

I'd agree with Chris - the introduction of the 30 mph limit is a hazard to be dealt with. The RAB is another subsequent hazard, to be dealt with having negotiated the first.

Sorry, buts what's "NSL"?

[Llanigraham]

National Speed Limit.

[ScoobyChris]

I've been mulling this over since my reply yesterday and I'm wondering how a situation like this may be tackled in practice, with and without the 30mph limit signs, but with similar vision. 70mph is around 31m/s and the HC suggests that to emergency stop from 70mph is around 75m (ignoring the thinking distance) so if you were going for the short and decisive braking approach (while keeping it comfortable for passengers), you could begin braking around the 100m marker board.

My thinking is that with the 30mph limit starting so close to the roundabout (50m away?), is it worth treating it as a separate hazard, or could it be "absorbed" by preparations for the roundabout anyway (assuming that vision is restricted such that you would not consider travelling at more than 30mph through the roundabout) and as a side-effect entering the 30mph limit at around 30mph anyway but under brakes, potentially dipping the clutch for the last couple of seconds before the decision point if 6th causes the engine to drop to stall point.

Without the 30mph limit, would the approach be any different? I guess that you wouldn't need to worry about checking your speed at the 50m mark but other than that, I'm not sure it would....

Need to find some roundabouts and have an experiment

Chris

[AnotherGareth]

is it worth treating it as a separate hazard, or could it be "absorbed" by preparations for the roundabout anyway

An epiphany for me was when I realised that sometimes multiple hazards can be coalesced such that the resulting combined hazard could be treated as if it were a single hazard. This is a case where increased mental workload, (observation, recognition, planning), leads to a simplification in the number of actions a driver has to take, and this leads to the idea that the best driving is where there are no superfluous actions.

[littleade]

As a novice to advanced driving would it be appropriate to have reduced your speed to 30mph max and changed down into 3rd before the 30mph sign. That way you'd be in the correct gear already as you approached the roundabout? (subject to traffic volumes) so could then negotiate the roundabout in that gear if you didn't have to stop?

[ScoobyChris]

As a novice to advanced driving would it be appropriate to have reduced your speed to 30mph max and changed down into 3rd before the 30mph sign. That way you'd be in the correct gear already as you approached the roundabout? (subject to traffic volumes) so could then negotiate the roundabout in that gear if you didn't have to stop?

Not sure how much you know about advanced driving, so feel free to "fast forward" over any bits where I'm teaching you to suck eggs

The aim is to arrive at the hazard in the correct position, at the correct speed and in the correct gear (IPSGA), where vision is determined by position, speed is determined by vision (and the law ) and gear is determined by correct speed. Ideally you should only need one gear change for the hazard and this comes at the point where you know the gear you need .. which is after you've completed the braking to set the speed and have the best vision.

So, in your example, selecting 3rd early works well in the cases where the roundabout is clear and you would have selected 3rd anyway if using IPSGA, but is less ideal where vision reveals something unexpected and you'll need two gear changes for a single hazard.

Hopefully that's a reasonably clear answer - not had my morning cuppa yet

Chris

Edited 13 February, 2013 by ScoobyChris

[KenONeill]

Not sure how much you know about advanced driving, so feel free to "fast forward" over any bits where I'm teaching you to suck eggs

The aim is to arrive at the hazard in the correct position, at the correct speed and in the correct gear (IPSGA), where vision is determined by position, speed is determined by vision (and the law ) and gear is determined by correct speed. Ideally you should only need one gear change for the hazard and this comes at the point where you know the gear you need .. which is after you've completed the braking to set the speed and have the best vision.

So, in your example, selecting 3rd early works well in the cases where the roundabout is clear and you would have selected 3rd anyway if using IPSGA, but is less ideal where vision reveals something unexpected and you'll need two gear changes for a single hazard.

Hopefully that's a reasonably clear answer - not had my morning cuppa yet

Chris

IMO that applies (and subject to considerations of gear ratios is what I'd do) where there is only one hazard. In the case of a reduced speed limit near a roundabout I'd suggest that you are dealing with 2 separate hazards (even if the RSL is only a hazard to your driving licence) unless there is sufficient queuing traffic on your approach that you require to slow below the RSL before you reach the restriction markers.

[ScoobyChris]

IMO that applies (and subject to considerations of gear ratios is what I'd do) where there is only one hazard. In the case of a reduced speed limit near a roundabout I'd suggest that you are dealing with 2 separate hazards (even if the RSL is only a hazard to your driving licence) unless there is sufficient queuing traffic on your approach that you require to slow below the RSL before you reach the restriction markers.

See post #78

Imho, it depends how close the two hazards are together (and the approach speed!) as to whether it's possible to merge dealing with them into a single application of the System. In the scenario mentioned, it sounded like the 30mph specifically "wrappered" the roundabout with the change in speed limit being only 50m from it and (presumably returning to NSL on the exit) rather than a fully fledged change in speed limit significantly prior to the roundabout which would definitely warrant being treated as 2 separate hazards.

Chris

[KenONeill]

See post #78

Imho, it depends how close the two hazards are together (and the approach speed!) as to whether it's possible to merge dealing with them into a single application of the System. In the scenario mentioned, it sounded like the 30mph specifically "wrappered" the roundabout with the change in speed limit being only 50m from it and (presumably returning to NSL on the exit) rather than a fully fledged change in speed limit significantly prior to the roundabout which would definitely warrant being treated as 2 separate hazards.

Chris

That's why I'm suggesting that an RSL in these circumstances may only be a hazard to your licence, rather than denoting a reduction in visibility, or attempt to control danger to vulnerable road users who wish to cross the carriageway that you're on.

For instance, there's one roundabout near my Mum's place where the RSL on one side of it is about 10m deep, but on the other side there's a light-controlled pedestrian crossing.

[Thojj]

Yesterday I took an assessment for IAM and discovered I wasn't very good at making sure my assessor was capable of securing his seat belt correctly,even though warning of this would have come via the cars systems. I also discovered that I didnt explain the intricate nature of the gear box in the Illness to my assessor...but on the other hand my ability to control speed and overtake were very good though my road positioning at junctions and braking were average. I was offered a position on a course but won't be taking it up.I will spend the money saved on this,attending skid pad training and improved driving techniques which I consider will improve my present skills far better for myself and other occupants of the car than explaining gear boxes and seat belts. I'm sure for some IAM works but not for me.

[Paul007]

Not sure skid pan training will help you in the real world whereas improved observation, planning and car control via acceleration sense/braking sense should do. Your call. Your money but I know which I'd be doing.

[Ootohere]

Is there a system in place to 'Get the badges back',  from these road captains that have them on the grill of their modern cars.? 

(Or even make them sit a Current UK Driving Test, Hazard Perception etc, since somehow many go well 

over the speed limit through villages and towns, and well bellow the NSL out of them. sometimes the exact same speed 

maintained in Town and out of town.)

Badges which they must have got for the cars back in the 50's-60s -70's when they were 'Advanced Drivers', but these days they drive as though 

they still have 4 forward gears only, and cars needed an oil change ever 3,000 miles.

[Paul007]

Not if they're still members.

[33q]

Been a member for 37 years. Still drive to the badge even though I do not display it. I took the test to improve my driving and safety and that of others not to gain the right to display a trinket.

 

I drive at sensible speeds within speed limits. Even if I'm not in need to minimise my journey time I do not hold up others.

 

I accept there are some badge hunters but I know many more who pass the test for the right reasons and continue to drive in a proper and safe manner.