"Cynic" wrote in message
news:bslu13l9d22qjngtt0hve4od4up6aot028@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:50:29 +0100, Norman Wells
> wrote:
>
> >>>>Yes - but for a reason that the following driver *should* have seen
> >>>>and therefore started braking for a lot earlier.
> >>>
> >>>Can you see through:
> >>>
> >>>(a) a Transit van
> >>>(b) a lorry
> >>>(c) anything else opaque?
> >>>
> >>>If not, how do _you_ know when to start braking?
> >>
> >>Yes, I can easily see past all those things unless I am far closer
> >>than a 2 second gap at 40MPH+
> >
> >I'm sorry, but you're not Superman, and without comprehensive proof, I
> >don't believe you can see through any of the above. The best you can
> >hope to do is have an occasional glimpse round the side. But if you're
> >following in lane and not constantly weaving from side to side to do
> >that, the fact is you'll probably have little idea of the movement of
> >what's in front of the vehicle in front of you, and you certainly won't
> >be in any position to anticipate when the vehicle in front of you is
> >going to collide with anything.
> >>
> >>I would be able to see the other vehicle and in almost all cases
> >>anticipate the situation.
> >
> >What with? X-Ray vision?
>
> That clinches it. You obviously do not drive, otherwise you would be
> very familiar with how much you can and cannot see of the road ahead
> of the vehicle in front of you.
>
> In fact, I checked it specifically yesterday morning on the drive to
> work. I had a large Tesco lorry in front of me, and I closed up
> deliberately to a 2 second gap. I had plenty sufficient glimpses of
> the road for a distance in front of that lorry to know whether there
> was any other traffic ahead, and that was without weaving from side to
> side. The exceptions occur at blind corners and blind rises where you
> cannot see sections of the road even with no vehicles in front of you
> at all.
So you obviously didn't see the car being tailgated by the Tesco lorry,
otherwise you would have mentioned it, right?
|