M1 Minibus "Accident"

[fungus]

The research posted by Horse and the point made by Gareth make perfect sense. A vehicle parked at an angle would stand out more than one parked in line with flowing traffic. And the intensity and relatively high number of flashing light of any colour would confuse. High powered halogen lights do blind. Locally, there is a small industrial etsate running paralell to the road. At a point where the road bends left there is a pedestrian/bus crossing controlled by lights. One of the units on the idustrial estate uses high powered lights at night which blind, and mask the traffic lights as you are in the bend. This is a shallow bend and the speed limit is 50mph. You can see the industrial unit between Creekmore Lane and the road in question, Broadstone Way in the link below.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.74637 ... a=!3m1!1e3

Nigel.

[TheInsanity1234]

Thank goodness I'm not the only one who thinks police and ambulances with their LED flashing lights are unneccessarily bright.

I have issues when driving along and a vehicle on a blue light run is coming the other way, the blue lights completely wash out my night vision and I practically have to come to a standstill and wait for them to pass before I can continue on safely. Same when they're approaching from the rear, I have to slow down and dip my mirrors, and then when they proceed to pass, pretty much come to a standstill until they're disappearing around the next bend, or far enough away that I can see where I'm bloody going!

I understand the need for them to be bright, for when it's a bright day, they need to be noticable. But surely they should be fitted with ambient light sensors or be linked to the headlight switch so that when it's darker (as in, dipped headlights on), the blue lights are dimmed, so they're still noticable but don't blind you.

When approaching an accident scene like I did a couple of months ago, the lights definitely make it hard to see where you're supposed to be going.

I also can verify the hazard lights = hard shoulder assumption, as I remember driving along a dark motorway and there was a car broken down with hazard lights going, and the motorway, unseen to me, curved to the left slightly, so the broken down car seemed to be sat on the hard shoulder. Now I have a habit of always moving out to L2 at the least when passing a broken down vehicle on the h/s, simply to give them a bit more room and to give me some kind of safety space between the h/s and my car, to migitate the possibility of someone stepping out into L1 in front of me.

Good job I moved out to L2, as when I started to get closer I realised the motorway curved, and that the vehicle was actually broken down in L1!

[waremark]

The only way I can imagine the driver to have managed to miss the minibus for that length of time would be because he was looking at the phone or fiddling with a satnav while carrying on the conversation...

What was the nature of the phonecall? I could understand if he was trying to get in touch with his route manager to try and discuss alternative routes and thus would have been fiddling with the satnav as he was going.

He had been on the phone for more than an hour using a Bluetooth headset.

[Strangely Brown]

Personally, I find it hard to believe that the mobile phone use will have been a major part of his not reacting to the stopped vehicles.

/confirmation bias Because accepting it could actually have been the cause of the accident would challenge your own view that phone use is safe?

I would have said more cognitive dissonance than confirmation bias.

Mark, you say that you believe yourself perfectly capable of holding a hands-free conversation of considerable length without compromising the safety of your driving. If you truly believe that you don't miss anything important whilst in that conversation, how do you know?

I put it to you that you have absolutely no idea how much important stuff you miss while in a call because... well... you missed it. Could it be that, to date, you have just been remarkably lucky?

[Gareth]

Do police officers ever use mobile phones while they are driving?

[Strangely Brown]

Do police officers ever use mobile phones while they are driving?

Argumentum ad verecundiam, and a weak one at that. In particular, congitive bias.

To answer the question: they probably do. And it would make them wrong too.

[TheInsanity1234]

Do police officers ever use mobile phones while they are driving?

Argumentum ad verecundiam, and a weak one at that. In particular, congitive bias.

To answer the question: they probably do. And it would make them wrong too.

I often wonder why it's deemed unacceptable for people to drive using a mobile phone, but perfectly fine for officers to drive around while using the radios clipped to their vests, which often require a button to be pushed in...

[Horse]

I've posted before about some research I took part in. It was actually aimed at developing tests for the effects of brain injury on driving, in particular trying to develop something more effective than a fields test.

It involved 'driving' through a very simple computer-generated environment, following a path and steering around blocks that appeared. Two runs, the second with a simple additional task: listen to a recording of random letters being read and say 'yes' when 'S' was said.

Test 1 my reaction time was 0.4s. Test two, 2 seconds. Proof enough for me. Your opinion may differ, but based on what?

[waremark]

Personally, I find it hard to believe that the mobile phone use will have been a major part of his not reacting to the stopped vehicles.

/confirmation bias Because accepting it could actually have been the cause of the accident would challenge your own view that phone use is safe?

No doubt. And I would say reasonably safe, not as safe as driving with maximum concentration, which in turn is not as safe as lying on the sofa at home.

[waremark]

I've posted before about some research I took part in. It was actually aimed at developing tests for the effects of brain injury on driving, in particular trying to develop something more effective than a fields test.

It involved 'driving' through a very simple computer-generated environment, following a path and steering around blocks that appeared. Two runs, the second with a simple additional task: listen to a recording of random letters being read and say 'yes' when 'S' was said.

Test 1 my reaction time was 0.4s. Test two, 2 seconds. Proof enough for me. Your opinion may differ, but based on what?

The point here is that your additional task was much more demanding of concentration than a casual conversation.