Kent Crashes on A249

[Mr_Squirrel]

You think that foglights won't be seen as well as headlights?

 

The problem with just using front foglights, is that they are fitted low to the vehicle. Of course, the light can be seen provided you are at a distance from other vehicles. Get too close and those lights disappear out of sight and given their short range, the beam soon becomes lost in the fog.

Front foglights are designed to give a low, short, wide field of vision. They are mainly there for the driver to see the kerb edges/lane markings clearly and only light up about 20yds in front of the vehicle. They are little use for any kind of 'distance' visibility and as a result, should not be relied upon for driving with alone.

Manufacturers make the light switch setting so they can be used with side lights only to prevent glare from fog but it must be remembered that they are 'auxiliary' lights intended to assist the main dipped beam headlights and this is stated in the highway code (Rule 226) You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced (100m or less) and you MAY ALSO use front or rear foglights but you MUST switch them back off when visibility improves.

 

There.. My pedantry duty done for today.

[DT Ralge]

You think that foglights won't be seen as well as headlights?

 

No, but I know when I would use fog lights:

- when vision is seriously cut (to less than 100 metres)

AND only when I need them to make me visible.

So I wouldn't use them in the middle of a moving queue of traffic where headlights and taillights alone make me visible enough to those around me. if I am at the front or rear of the moving queue that's different.

Headlights and taillights are generally sufficient and do not jeopardise others' vision because they do not dazzle.

I can't actually remember the last time i used my fog lights. Pressing that switch needn't be a reflex action to a bit of fog.

[CorkerSWFC]

How no one got killed in this pile up is beyond me, very very lucky people...

[Obelix]

No, but I know when I would use fog lights:

- when vision is seriously cut (to less than 100 metres)

AND only when I need them to make me visible.

So I wouldn't use them in the middle of a moving queue of traffic where headlights and taillights alone make me visible enough to those around me. if I am at the front or rear of the moving queue that's different.

Headlights and taillights are generally sufficient and do not jeopardise others' vision because they do not dazzle.

I can't actually remember the last time i used my fog lights. Pressing that switch needn't be a reflex action to a bit of fog.

 

I've only ever seen fog where you needed hi intensity rear lights on to see the cars a few times. Mostly ordinary taillights can be spotted a long time before you meet the braking point. We simply don't seem to get the thick fog as much in this country, perhaps that's why we are so bad at dealing with it.

[Jam on it]

Dozens of people have been injured as 130 vehicles were involved in a series of crashes in thick fog on the A249 Sheppey crossing in Kent.

 

 

That many retards on one stretch of road? wow.

[Alien52]

There was a rep on TV today from the RAC.

He said it was a good idea to stride out the stopping distances for yourself to have an idea of the distances involved.

Total stopping distance for 70mph is 96metres.

Tried it for myself earlier and it is frightening.

[DT Ralge]

There was a rep on TV today from the RAC.

He said it was a good idea to stride out the stopping distances for yourself to have an idea of the distances involved.

Total stopping distance for 70mph is 96metres.

Tried it for myself earlier and it is frightening.

 

Whatever the theoretical or actual stopping distance at 70 or any other speed, it is made up of reaction time plus braking distance.

Reaction time, however, is made up of decision time (the time between observing the hazard and deciding what to do) and the response time (the time to start the physical braking response).

In the fog, without vision ahead and beyond the first few vehicles, some, many, all of the 130 crashed vehicles decidedly exceeded their allotted decision and response time, demanded too much of their braking systems and ran out of space.

The same (lack-of-vision-ahead) rear-end shunt problem occurs on long straight motorway stretches, hence these straight stretches are marked by painted chevrons and the encouragement to keep two chevrons apart AS A MINIMUM.

Too close, too fast (and too late) is norm for many drivers in all contexts, though, and they wring their hands on the odd occasion it goes wrong.

[WallBuilder]

I have noticed a lot of news reports from bridges spanning motorways ove the last few years and I'm often more interested in the vehicle numbers flowing past within camera range. I thought the third lane was for overtaking only but obviously not as all three lanes had fast flowing traffic. The other thing I've often noticed is they don't leave a safe distance and so virtually everyone looks as though they'r tailgating which at high speed is madness.

I've driven in some real pea soupers and must say it quite scares me when some idiot suddenly looms up behind me, no lights and going far too fast for the weather conditions, if I'm able i tend to let them get past and get well away from me.

[DT Ralge]

That many retards on one stretch of road? wow.

 

The notion that only "retards" (horrible word, by the way) get involved in crashes is a comforting one for all drivers - "it'll never happen to me" follows, therefore - the more uncomfortable truth is, as WallBuilder implies, that huge numbers of drivers drive a little or a lot too close in all contexts.

With that, they get involved in near-misses or worse and find out the hard way that the line between getting "it" right and wrong is very thin without a proper safety margin.

That Sally Traffic et al insist on calling these incidents "accidents" (with a distinct nuance of "diddums, never mind it'll all come out in the wash, it's just one of those things", "wrong place wrong time") rather than the beefier "crashes/collisions" ("bloody hell, more deficient drivers that ought to be put in the stocks for public ridicule") contributes to the ongoing too close, too fast, too late status quo on our roads.

Why else would the manufacturers dream up the loathsome technology of adaptive cruise control (does it have a snow, rain, fog button?). They've given up, it seems, on driver intelligence and good choices. Maybe they are right to.

[Gleadly]

Whist it was an horrendous accident, with 130 vehicles involved, it was lucky there were no fatalities,

 

It only takes a few idiots to cause accidents like these, so it's unfair to blame all the drivers.

 

Fortunately, I've only been involved in one shunt accident and that was clearly caused by the driver behind.

She was driving too fast, down the Parkway circa 08:00, went into me and I hit the guy in front. In this case there was no fog.

 

Both myself and the cars in front were temporarily stationary, due to Traffic Lights.

Fortunately there were no injuries.

 

Had myself and the driver behind been going faster, then who knows how many cars would have been hit.

 

Going across any bridge where there's a predominance of water underneath, with the change of overnight weather, then it's not surprising there was fog.

 

Perhaps the driving test should include a basic weather course as there always seems to be accidents where fog is to blame. Let's ban fog, not bad drivers.