In message , Cynic
writes
>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:37:34 +0100, Norman Wells
> wrote:
>
>>A lot of people here seem to be inclined to put words into the Highway
>>Code when it suits them, and to omit them when it doesn't. And you're
>>one of them.
>>
>>Can we please stick to what it actually says, which is:
>>
>>"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
>>you can see to be clear. You should leave enough space between you and
>>the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows
>>down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall
>>stopping distance"
>
>If the "distance you can see to be clear" had meant to include the
>vehicle in front, there would be no reason to have made a *different*
>rule wrt to that, would there? It states that you should be able to
>stop withing the distance you can see to be clear, but the gap between
>you and the vehicle in frnt must be sufficient only to pull up safely
>should it suddenly slow down or stop. Can you not see that that is
>two *different* distances?
There are three different sentences in the above quotation from the
Highway Code. The second merely clarifies the first for the hard of
learning, and is written in terms of space rather than speed, but means
exactly the same speed/distance relationship. The distance you can see
to be clear is to the rear end of the vehicle in front of you. You are
meant to drive at a speed that will allow you to stop in that distance,
which will be exactly the distance you have to stop in if, as postulated
in the second sentence, the vehicle in front suddenly stops.
The third sentence emphasises and reiterates exactly the same
speed/distance relationship, but adds that 'the safe rule is never' to
drive otherwise.
All three sentences are entirely consistent with one another. I've
interpreted them in the way that any reasonable person or lawyer would,
ie giving them each their own straightforward meanings from the words
they use, neither adding to them nor subtracting from them. To make
them mean different distances, you have to add words that are not there.
Moreover, the specific words you choose to add have been conjured out of
nowhere, and there is absolutely no justification for that.
>
>Elsewhere in the Highway Code is described the "two second rule"
>Please explain how that equates with *your* interpretation of what you
>have just quoted?
The two second 'rule' as you call it is never called that in the Highway
Code, though it does appear as:
"allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on
roads carrying fast traffic"
That is inconsistent with all three sentences considered above, except
at one specific speed of about 40mph. It cannot possibly be reconciled
with 'the safe rule' of never getting closer than the overall stopping
distance, except at speeds below 40mph. Above that speed, it means you
WILL be driving closer than the overall stopping distance, within the
distance you can see to be clear, and contrary to the safe rule.
In my view, the two second rule is therefore unsound and should be
removed from the Code. That is especially so as it becomes increasingly
unsafe the higher the speed, and that's down to the physics of moving
bodies because the energy they possess (that obviously has to be
dissipated by the brakes) is proportional to the square of the velocity,
which means that the stopping distance is also proportional to the
square of the velocity, whereas the two second 'rule' only increases the
separation in direct linear relation to the velocity. It follows that
the higher the speed the more within the overall stopping distance you
will be if you just follow blindly two seconds behind.
>
>The only way that the two rules can *both* make sense is if the "clear
>road" does not include same direction vehicles.
No, it doesn't make sense even then.
You now justify to me how 'the safe rule' of never getting closer than
the overall stopping distance is reconcilable with the 'two second rule'
when, at 70mph, the overall stopping distance is 315ft, but at two
seconds you will be just 205ft behind.
>
>So it is not *I* who is interpreting the HC the way I want to, but it
>is yourself who is twisting the meaning in an attempt to support an
>argumenty that you surely must have realised days ago to be untenable.
>
Not so at all.
--
Norman Wells
NG
|