Monday, 29 June 2009

'Blue Book' Roadcraft, and Hazards

Do you remember the old 'Blue Book' definition of 'hazards', from before DSA altered 'hazard' into 'ignore' and 'react' [to 'developing hazards'] for the hazard perception test?

"Anything which contains an element of actual or potential danger"

NB From memory, so humour me if it's slightly wrong.

And it went on to list:
What can be seen
What can't be seen
What may reasonably be expected to happen

So with that in mind, have a look at this picture:

OK, list of the hazards. Bit of help: no-one visible in the cars, no brake lights or exhaust smoke, etc. No-one on the pavements or nearby.

What can you see?

What can't you see?

What may you reasonably expect?

A little extra detail:
The photo was taken within a one-way system.

Q: So which way is the camera pointing? A: Correct direction of travel.

So why can you se the back of signs?

Yup, this is where the one-way ends. Note the signs warning drivers of two-way traffic . . . Nope, there aren't any.

Note the change in white line system . . . Nope, there aren't any.

I know the wheels of bureacracy turn slowly, but the hospital/Foundation's admin were aware of this in Feb. Which, perhaps, shows that signs aren't needed, because no-one's crashed yet.

Ah well, A&E is only a short ambulance ride away if needed.


No comments: