Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Sherlock Sep 1 2012, 06:25 AM

Based experience over the past few months, but particularly on a drive including the A34 and M27 yesterday, driving standards are falling of a cliff. A good percentage of drivers on the A34 were travelling at over 80/90mph while tailgating, failing to signal when pulling out etc. etc. We saw no less than 3 crashes during the day, one a 5 car pile up with at least two the cars written off. I hope no one was seriously hurt.

I don't mind idiots driving badly if they only kill or maim themselves, obviously, although this is unfair on the emergency services and creates unnecessary costs for the NHS. It's their complete disregard for others' safety that's so offensive.

Clearly no penalties - including their own death/maiming - are going to stop these morons so we need another solution. Something like this, perhaps, http://www.comparethebox.com/black-box-insurance with insurance companies imposing punitive charges on anyone who breaks the limit. I really don't see why such systems shouldn't be compulsory once a drive has accumulated a few points.

I'm sure everyone here agrees with me so perhaps our local MP could take up the cause on our behalf. What possible argument could he put forward against it?

His government are making huge reductions in front-line policing, and road deaths and injuries are already rising, so how else are they going to ensure that standards don't deteriorate further causing yet more unnecessary suffering?

Posted by: Darren Sep 1 2012, 07:10 AM

Road policing has been steadily reduced over the last few years because the public complain the police aren't "out catching real criminals".

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 1 2012, 09:19 AM

I don't think the driving standard on A34 was any different when the the police were 'out catching unreal criminals'.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Sep 1 2012, 10:03 AM

Driving standards aren't really getting any worse. There are just a lot more cars on the road than there used to be, therefore more bad drivers. Plus there are more hold ups and tailbacks than there were, so people get more short tempered and impatient and take risks they wouldn't have previously taken.

We all know the usual suspects. The fabled Lane Two Owners Club, which convenes its daily meetings on the nations motorways, blinkers on, eyes fixed on the two metres of tarmac in front of their car. Half the hold ups and slow moving traffic on the motorways is caused by those planks.

The uninsured, untaxed, unlicenced pikey in his clapped crapheap. The car is usually worth so little he just buys another one if the police catch him and crush it.

The many, many immigrants who have one licence which the whole family uses.

The mother and four kids who she spends more time keeping under control in the car than looking where she's going.

I don't usually agree with much that Clarkson utters, but he's right about the c*cks migrating to Audis from BMW's. If you encounter a tailgater on the motorway, it'll be Josh/Dan/Ed/Guy the Regional Manager in his A4, about 3 inches from your rear bumper at 80mph. Makes me want to tie him to a lamp post in his dreadful ill fitting Top Man suit and pour a gallon of unleaded over him, before asking if he knows why I'm about to fire up the Zippo. Am I over reacting to that one a bit?

There are many more examples of course. Such as the massive pr**k in a Ford Galaxy who cut across three lanes of roundabout to make the exit he'd missed, nearly taking the front off my car yesterday afternoon.

And if my neighbour in his chavved up Imprezza wakes me up at 7am on a Saturday morning again with his absurd drainpipe exhaust I'm going to empty a can of builders foam into it.

I feel better now.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 1 2012, 10:17 AM

I think you must live near me!
(It's not me by the way but I hear it! (or something like it))

Posted by: JeffG Sep 1 2012, 10:18 AM

Brilliant post altogether, but I picked out the above. Years ago, I had to negotiate the périphérique around Paris, and had banned my family from talking while I concentrated on that nightmare. I can't remember how many lanes there are, but in one of the middle ones, a woman in front braked, stopped, turned around and slapped her dog which was misbehaving in the back seat.

That's something I will never forget

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 1 2012, 10:23 AM

Was coming from Sainsburys yesterday towards Police Station Roundabout when car in front of me went straight through red lights and into the stream of traffic coming round the roundabout.
If it hadn't been for the quick thinking / braking of the car that nearly hit them it would have been messy

Amazing.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 1 2012, 04:59 PM

Whilst I fully agree with your main points, to pick out particular models of car is not at all rational. It just happens to be the lump of metal containing a moron. (you have three mentioned here alone).

To drive badly, is not bad driving alone, it displays a complete isolation from the society in which you belong. Only today, my wife and I got caught waiting for the train(s) at Thatcham station. We were opposite the football club entrance for about ten minutes in all. I switched off the engine whilst in front there were three cars with their brake lights on the whole time, wasting fuel. THAT'S a moron!!

Then, in Thacham, I was waiting for my wife for about fifteen minutes whilst she was in the Co-op. I was standing by the rear entrance. There was a car parked with the engine running the whole time. The driver had 'popped' into the shop, leaving a passenger in the car. THAT's a moron.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Sep 1 2012, 05:31 PM

More tongue in cheek than irrational. Sorry if that was lost on you.

Audi drivers are a particularly irksome bunch though. Many of them are also golfers, which says a lot. And none of it complimentary. Especially the clothes. They are prone to wearing polo shirts with the collar turned up. The hallmark of a tw*t, as everybody knows.

And all Imprezza pilots own a Burberry baseball cap. They give them out at the dealers. And they have tribal tatoos around the upper arm. Also the hallmark of a tw*t.

Ford Galaxy drivers just know nothing about cars. Or driving. Or anything.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 1 2012, 05:43 PM

Unless it's a Volvo of course.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 1 2012, 06:17 PM

I guess that I am one of those morons then; the engine is running to keep the climate control running in my case.

I pay for the fuel; I'll decide how it's used thank you.

Just to say, relative to the OP, that driving standards have fallen as the authorities have moved from proper road policing to policing by scamera.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 1 2012, 06:32 PM

Well, you made my point then. Thank you.

Posted by: Newbelly Sep 1 2012, 07:06 PM

I see the latest Audi advert claims their car makes 2000 decisions a second.

As cars have become much safer through design and technology, I wonder if the unintended consequence is that the driver mentally relinquishes some responsibility.

I seem to remember reading that when the wearing of seatbelts was made compulsory, vehicle-occupant injuries decreased but pedestrian injuries increased - as speeds and risk-taking increased as the driver and occupants felt safer.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 1 2012, 07:29 PM

How I see it;

Cars are driven by people and it's people who are idiots. Not a particular brand of car, it's unfair.

Black Box insurance is stupid. Driving within the speed limits does not make you safer. It also charges you up to £40 PER OCCURANCE (so can be daily) you drive between 11pm and 6am. If you brake sharply to avoid a pedestrian you incur points or whatever they call it which if you get so many you get screwed in the butt on price. if you are 17 and literally use your car to go to and from college then it's a good idea but when you are over 19 then forget about it!!!

Normally tailgaiting happens when people don't move out of the frickin' way. So if people used the correct lane 90% of the tailgaiting would stop by default

Posted by: Penelope Sep 1 2012, 08:01 PM

The safest car would be the one with a big Shiny sharp metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 1 2012, 08:08 PM

That is very true!

Posted by: Newbelly Sep 1 2012, 08:08 PM

Insurance companies cannot interview and individually profile each insured risk, so have to rely on statistical analysis in respect of claims. If that means a ban on driving between 11pm and 6am for most young/inexperienced drivers (if they wish to be insured) then that may become a fact of life.

We already have static ANPR enforcement, Sat Nav, GPS location for commercial vehicles and anti-theft systems such as Tracker. I do not see there being such a huge leap before it is common for cars to have video recording capability and black boxes – used for accident investigation and insurance purposes and...eventually, road-pricing.

Big Brother?

Posted by: Timbo Sep 1 2012, 08:18 PM

It applies to everyone who has black box insurance.

When I was younger I managed to insure my cars even while living away from home by myself through a little something called work, and I wasn't on particularly big money then either.. Now at my age it's not to bad..
But you can't help but feel bad for the younger drivers... not all are terrible, most are actually a lot better than some of the more seasoned drivers because they are not "arrogant".. "I've been driving for years I'm the best".

I know someone I used to help out, they were 19, had a 2001 or 2002 Vauxhall Corsa 1.2Sxi - Cost them £2350 for a years insurance. The car was only worth £1750!!

Posted by: Newbelly Sep 1 2012, 08:34 PM

Well, all power to Jack Straw MP, whom I believe is trying to put a stop to the selling of details and the "accident management company scam" that is increasing the cost of all our policies.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 1 2012, 09:28 PM

1 .Fully agree.
2. There is NEVER an excuse to tailgate. Period

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2012, 09:32 AM

Faster drivers do not have priority. Tailgating is usually caused by people driving too close to the car in front. It is a speed limit, not a target or a limit that must be conquered.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Sep 2 2012, 09:46 AM

In much the same way as death is usually caused by not being alive.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2012, 09:51 AM

No it isn't.

I was responding to the implication that it was cause by someone driving too slow, rather than someone driving too close.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 2 2012, 09:58 AM

Very good point. Most of us think the speed signs mean 'roughly x mph - at all times'

Posted by: stewiegriffin Sep 2 2012, 10:12 AM

Oh yes it is. To this day death remains our nations biggest killer. It's a scandal. What the **** are our politicians doing about it? Nothing, that's what. You might be willing to sit idly by and let this continue but I'm not.

And did you know that all of Newbury's crime is commited by criminals?

As for the thorny subject of immigration, it wouldn't be a problem if so many foreigners weren't coming into the country.

And driving too close to the car in front would never happen if it wasn't for those bloody tailgaters.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2012, 10:20 AM

Here's another go.

Timbo and I are arguing about who is responsible for tailgating. Tailgating has two components: 2 cars; one in front of the other. Timbo's point was that tailgating is the fault of the car in front going too slow and failing to get out of the way, I'm saying it is the fault of the car behind, driving too close.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Sep 2 2012, 10:32 AM

You should know better than to debate the finer points of anything with Timbo. Who, by the way has still to decide upon which car he's going to tell us he owns. Unless he claims to have bought the orange wheeled pratmobile from xjay. Loving the faux teutonic number plate by the way. A wise use of money if ever there was one.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 2 2012, 10:49 AM

Stewie, I do not have to tell you what car I own. So stop acting like you are some sort of higher-jury, gosh you are quite the stuck up one.
I would like maintain a modicum of privacy on the forum so refrain from telling you exactly what car I have. I do not have orange wheels on my car. Be happy to meet with you at the hogs head meet though.

I wouldn't say arguing!

I'm not saying it's an excuse but, if you are sat in the outside lane doing 65 when the inside lane is clear, then personally, I would maintain a good distance for a while, maybe a minute or so. If they do not move over, I will give a little flash from a safe distance.
If this does not work, I will close the gap slightly after a period of about 20 or 30 seconds (so about 3 flashes, every 10 seconds).
After this I would either undertake (sue me) or sit on the tail of the car infront**. Nothing annoys me more on the motorway or dual carriageways than people who sit in the middle/outside lane who are not going very fast when there is a perfectly clear inside lane to use.......

**I am an adult and an unfortunately fully grown one at that so do not care what any of you think. I am aware of the law/rules so your chastising does not bother me.

Some people just tailgate because they are *****. And that's not right, but if you are on a dual carriageway or motorway and are not using the left-most lane when possible, and a faster car wants to go by, why cause agro to both yourself and to the other drivers who want to go faster (it's a free-ish world) by not moving over, out of some sort of principle that they are tailgaiting you.
If you want them to stop tailgaiting you and you can move over to the left-most hand lane because it's empty, as you SHOULD be doing by law, then move and destress the entire situation.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 2 2012, 10:56 AM

On a three lane motorway when driving a car, unless the left hand lane is free of lorries chundering along at 56mph, I prefer to stick to the centre lane at 70mph rather than having to keep ducking in and out. The third lane is for the overtakers, so they can move over to pass and then move back again. There is no excuse for tailgating. If the car in front is either not overtaking because there is a line of traffic in front of him or is doing the maximum permitted speed and the right hand lane is reasonably clear of reps expresses then that's where he/she should go rather than forcing me out of the way.
I only move into lane one if I can see my way clear of lorries.
On a two lane such as the Newbury bypass then as far as I'm concerned, I stay in the right hand lane rather than weave in and out of the lorries but will move over if some nubhead is rushing up behind me so long as I won't get trapped in the left hand lane.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2012, 11:00 AM

That is pretty much how I see it. 3 lane motorways like the M4 are so busy these days, that one is nearly always in the middle lane overtaking slower left-hand lane vehicles.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 2 2012, 11:02 AM

A CLOD!

Posted by: Timbo Sep 2 2012, 11:10 AM

On a 3 lane motorway if you are able to use the inside lane for more than 20 seconds you should move over. With respect I have done about 6 journeys up and down the M4 this last week and have been able to use the inside lane for quite a good chunk of that time, even while doing 80. Admittedly this has not been in rush hour so might be different.

I've unfortunately had to do about 10,000 miles since April this year, most of it up and down the M4, M1, M40, M42, M6, and of course the M25. how we love the M25. I'm simply sharing what I have noticed. It's rare in my experience that there is such a proliferation of lorries that the inside lane is "unusable"

If I am doing 70 I find myself being in the inside lane quite a lot.. Staying in the middle lane because the effort of moving the steering wheel about 3 degrees to the left is probably the worst excuse ever! Aside from "the dog ate my homework..."
unfortunately I have a feeling it's due to people who only ever use the middle and outside lane on the motorway, who are responsible collectively for a majority of road rage and tailbacks/congestion on motorways.



Exhausted in the blue fiesta?


Cars like this, I overtake them and cut back in very close to the inside lane. Sometimes they get the message or they just sit in the middle lane still without caring.
People like this should be shot.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2012, 11:12 AM

I think you should have your licence removed. It is not for you to 'police' motorways as well as it is illegal to drive with defective brakes.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 2 2012, 11:16 AM

ps even with my 2 front brakes and 1 rear brake my car would stop quicker than yours.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2012, 11:17 AM

Hurling insults doesn't improve your argument.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2012, 11:18 AM

Let's see which one would pass an MOT.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 2 2012, 11:18 AM

While I agree with Timbo on the subject of CLODs which he illustrates well in his images, I do not agree with his methods of dealing with them.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 2 2012, 11:19 AM

Telling you to shut your face isn't an insult.
You must have had a fun time at school.

As for improving your argument, neither does talking about things which I presume you have no knowledge * of due to your obvious non-understanding of what is safe and what is not safe! (* mechanics that is).

I agree Biker1 it's probably not the responsible thing to do. It's just my one real bug-bear on the road.. Not an excuse though I know

Posted by: Timbo Sep 2 2012, 11:20 AM

Mine would with it's new pads and new, free moving calipers.
What part of "emergency/temporary fix" do you not understand. Maybe your life is empty enough to not have to drive to do things but unfortunately mine is busy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2012, 11:23 AM

Driving with defective brakes is an endorsable offence. It doesn't take any intelligence to know that.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 2 2012, 11:24 AM

I didn't say it was legal. I said it was a temporary fix.
Thick as two short planks. Simple minds though.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2012, 11:24 AM

What is it about driving a car with defective brakes do you not understand?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2012, 11:25 AM

So therefore, you should not have driven the car.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 2 2012, 11:54 AM

A couple of still pics as in Timbo's post, don't really show the circumstances. If in the first picture, the two lanes are both popping along at 70mph as normally happens on the busy M4 during the 'rush hours' then moving left would not resolve any problem for the car behind. I'm not sure why you want to be angry with other road users who by experience know that dodging about in traffic to gain a couple of spaces probably only gains a couple of minutes at the end of the journey.
In the second picture I fail to see why you need to teach the driver a lesson. I have no idea what speed he was doing but what you suggest is a life threatening manouver and anyway, just overtake in the empty third lane and quietly get on with your journey. You will arrive less stressed and your heart rate will remain at a normal level boding well for your longevity.
And as far as Biker is concerned, don't shout.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 2 2012, 11:55 AM

Just a brief foray into this two-person argument.

If I am driving in the nearside lane of a quiet 3-lane motorway, and I come up behind some idiot sitting in the middle lane, I too will pull right over to overtake then return to the nearside lane as quickly as it is safe to do so.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Sep 2 2012, 12:03 PM

Exhausted, when traffic is moving freely, lanes 2 & 3 are solely for the purpose of overtaking. Nothing else. You appear to be bewilderingly ignorant of that most basic of facts.

Plonking youself in the middle lane so as to avoid a bit of lane changing as you appear to think is fine, does nothing but cause traffic behind you collectively to slow down. There have been several studies of the effects of drivers like you on traffic flow. The percentages vary but they reckon approx 30% of slow moving traffic on motorways is caused by poor lane discipline.

Please buy (and read) the highway code.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 2 2012, 12:10 PM

That's the correct answer. However, I do not drive in the centre lane if the left lane is clear, that is bad manners.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 2 2012, 01:05 PM

I just stay in the near side lane and pass. Some times they get the message and pull back in afterwards, if I stay in the near side lane I normally find myself getting everywhere quicker anyway.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 2 2012, 01:14 PM

I'm sorry to say that that really is a dangerous attitude. An undertaking car might not be seen in the centre lane driver's mirror if he/she decides to move to the left after checking the rear view mirror. At even 30mph that will put both cars off the road if contact occurs and that would be your fault. Undertaking should only happen if all three lanes are moving slowly and this means at less than 15mph.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 2 2012, 01:19 PM

I do that sometimes. Especially if I am approaching my exit and the lane is clear right to the exit. Actually, the Americans have the right idea and pass legally in any lane. Then it doesn't really matter if someone hogs a lane.

They also have "right turn on red after stop" at traffic lights in many states, which is a great idea. It would be left here, of course, but often a safe manoeuvre.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 2 2012, 01:34 PM

Still a dodgy move for the reasons I have given and this is not America. Just because they do it over the pond where they never travel at more than 50mph, it wouldn't work here.



That might work. It certainly works for cyclists who in most cases are colour blind anyway.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 2 2012, 01:56 PM

Of course I would expect anybody pulling across any lane to check their mirrors first, but of course some people don't. But most of the time, in fact all the times I have done this nobody has pulled across, why would they if they are middle lane focused? On the same note though, I do see a lot of people who indicate start to come across (right, to overtake), and then check their mirrors before suddenly pulling back in when they realise someone is there!

Posted by: Strafin Sep 2 2012, 01:58 PM

The totally correct thing to do would obviously be slow down, leave a massive gap, pull out behind them, go across two lanes, overtake, indicate to come back and then manoeuvre back across two lanes again.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 2 2012, 02:21 PM

Where in heaven's name to you get that stupid idea from...?

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 2 2012, 02:50 PM

Does one always have to draw a winking eye

Posted by: blackdog Sep 2 2012, 02:52 PM

When have you come across a car in the outside lane doing 65 when the inside lane is clear? On motorways they are rarely going less than 80 unless it is really congested.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 2 2012, 04:29 PM

Seems that I agree with Strain and JeffG.
Nice to know there are some people who actually understand driving...........

Posted by: Timbo Sep 2 2012, 04:31 PM

Not threatening. I know how long my car is and will pull back past them as closely as is possible without being unsafe or causing an acident.
You do seem to be a bit ignorant to how motorways work. In both circumstances all of the cars pictured in the middle lane SHOULD be in the left hand-most lane irrespective of speed

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2012, 05:41 PM

Until the time you do.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 2 2012, 05:50 PM

Then that'll be a sad day indeed.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 2 2012, 06:25 PM

Possibly, but why do you feel you need to force your superior knowledge of motorway driving on everybody who doesn't fit your plan. It's not your job. Just relax and act like a reasonable human being.

Posted by: HJD Sep 2 2012, 06:32 PM

What gives you that idea, have you ever driven over there !!

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 2 2012, 07:01 PM

Oh for goodness sake......

It was a joke, I know they now travel at 65mph but it used to be much lower.

Ignore the Blues Brothers, it really isn't like that.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 2 2012, 07:19 PM

Sometimes 75!

Posted by: NORTHENDER Sep 2 2012, 07:19 PM

Very many states in the US have a 75 MPH limit and in two states it is 80. As I have said before on this forum they liked you to ride the Big 50 for safety and economy. The 50 campaign took place years ago.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 2 2012, 08:20 PM

I just expect people to know that they should use the left hand lane where possible. There's really no reason for it and no excuse to not.. my issue is normally they are the kind to just stare ahead, tunnel vision..

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 2 2012, 11:13 PM

If you really want to get your message across as part of your crusade, then get one of those illuminated boxes on your rear screen that pops up a suitable message that will make naughty drivers understand the error of their ways.

If there were more drivers around, like you, who are prepared to educate us in the error of our ways, I'm sure the roads and motorways would be a safer place.

Me, I have learned the errors of my way and will never move from the left hand lane and will allow you to drive by in your souped up, large braked vauxhall at ninety miles an hour, secure in the knowledge that with your considerate driving we will all be safer even though you feel that modifying your brakes is the same as having a bulb out.

Thank you and goodnight. Work tomorrow, see you on the M4 perhaps.

Posted by: Sherlock Sep 3 2012, 06:27 AM

Quite. Anyone who argues otherwise is unfit to drive.

Just to clarify what was happening on Friday, the tailgating occurred when cars and lorries were overtaking quite long lines of lorries. Often the cars overtaking were travelling at 70mph plus but were then aggressively tailgated by others which arrived in the overtaking queue at 80/90 mph. Those at the head of the tailgating queues had nowhere to go and yet were having headlights flashed at them.

I don't usually drive particularly slowly but the behaviour of a small number of incredibly stupid drivers on Friday stood out and I stuck at 50mph behind the slower traffic in the inside lane allowing plenty of space in case one of the morons triggered a crash. Having narrowly avoided a huge multiple vehicle pile up on the M6 many years ago (I was able to slip through on the inside lane) I try not to take chances. Walking back to that pile of mangled vehicles and people, the M6 suddenly silent apart from screams and sobs, is something I'll never forget.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 3 2012, 08:14 AM

It used to be "Not over 55" when the oil crisis was on. (Crisis, what crisis?)

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 3 2012, 08:38 AM

Who's shouting?
It's an acronym - usually typified by CAPITAL LETTERS!

Posted by: Strafin Sep 3 2012, 08:38 AM

Absolutely, the key to good driving in my book, is making sure you allow others the room to make their own mistakes.

Posted by: NORTHENDER Sep 3 2012, 08:59 AM

We all know that the states have different rules from state to state and these can be a bit confusing at times, turning right on red lights being one of them. In general I find the driving in small town America is quite good and drivers much more polite to each other. City driving is city driving wherever you go, dog eat dog, bayonets fixed and charge.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 3 2012, 08:59 AM

No because that would truly make me a bit of a ****.



To be honest if everyone used the correct lane and had better lane disclipline the motorways probably would be a safer place - the irony.



Excellent. Although that is not what I'm saying. I'm just saying don't hog the middle lane because there is a lorry 1500 yards ahead, you're doing 65 and he's doing 56 that's a good 2 minutes before you catch and pass him. So move over!!
Again with the brakes.. lol........... In terms of legality it's exactly the same. I don't drive a Vauxhall.

Hope you had a pleasant evening. My journey to work is about 1.2 miles so... no.

Posted by: Jayjay Sep 3 2012, 07:14 PM

I have done that and I know it is the correct thing to do, but must admit most of the time I undertake the middle lane hogger.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 3 2012, 07:48 PM

It appears to me that no matter how much you try to describe your own experience on here, it is never truly picked up on. There are even times when a reply completely distorts the original description.

No wonder there is chaos on the roads.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 4 2012, 07:54 AM

One of the most dangerous manoeuvres that anyone can make on a motorway. I would hope that an unmarked up behind you will let you know the error of your ways one day hopefully before you cause a major.

Posted by: andy1979uk Sep 4 2012, 08:02 AM

Depends how slow they are going, sometimes its not really undertaking as in you just drivr past them because they are donig 55 in the middle lane.

Posted by: Jayjay Sep 4 2012, 08:04 AM

So I am doing 70 in the inside line. You are doing 60 in the middle [u]overtaking[u] lane - and you think I am in the wrong!

Posted by: Strafin Sep 4 2012, 08:08 AM

Most countries allow it, so I don't think it is. I would say one of the most dangerous things you can do is change lanes without checking your mirrors.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 4 2012, 08:12 AM

Quite why 'an unmarked' would do anything is interesting. It is not illegal to overtake on the left if traffic in a lane to your right is moving more slowly.

What would cause comment from the Police is deliberately moving lanes to overtake on the nearside.

And I (of course) disagree that it is one of the most dangerous manoeuvres that anyone can make on a motorway - I take it that you have never driven on the M25

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 4 2012, 08:41 AM

With new legislation coming in it is more likely that the "unmarked" will pull over and book the CLOD.
I understand that centre lane hogging is to be made an offence, and about time!

Posted by: Timbo Sep 4 2012, 09:14 AM

I think it is already an offence.
Driving in the middle lane would be classed as careless driving...

Although it's from the Daily Fail...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159522/Drivers-face-90-spot-fine-points-wrong-lane-tailgating.html

There is simply no excuse for sitting in the middle lane when you can use the inside lane. It's just ignorance.. no excuse.

http://www.howmotorwayswork.co.uk/middle_lane.htm

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 4 2012, 09:17 AM

Thanks for finding the link Timbo.
I knew I'd seen or heard it somewhere.
Now they need to fine those lorries that take about 3 miles to overtake on a 2 lane dual carriageway!

Posted by: JeffG Sep 4 2012, 09:40 AM

I particularly like this quote:

... when their mortgages are being subsidised by savers with the current ridiculously low interest rates.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 4 2012, 09:48 AM

Wait, are you taking a very active thread off topic with a whine about not not getting enough free money?

Posted by: andy1979uk Sep 4 2012, 09:51 AM

I take it you dont have a mortgage then Jeff

Posted by: Timbo Sep 4 2012, 10:08 AM

Well no offense to those struggling on a mortgage, but if you can avoid a fine by driving in the correct lane then... surely it's easier to simply.. DRIVE IN THE CORRECT LANE?

After all you won't get fined for a minute or so, but if you sit in the middle lane for, 2 miles, for example, on an empty/quiet motorway, a fine is deserved in my eyes.

Posted by: blackdog Sep 5 2012, 07:22 AM

To be honesty I don't care if someone sits in the middle lane on an empty/quiet motorway - it's easy enough to overtake in the outside lane in those circumstances.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 5 2012, 08:18 AM

Although it is in contradiction of what is basically the first-law of motoring? That is, use the furthest left hand lane at all times unless overtaking?

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 5 2012, 10:00 AM

But why would they do that?
What's the point?
And anyway it is usually at busier times that they do it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2012, 10:06 AM

If it is busier, then they'd have a legitimate right to be there, wouldn't they? They might be overtaking.

Posted by: blackdog Sep 5 2012, 01:40 PM

Which is the point really - hogging a lane when the motorway isn't busy causes no real inconvenience; hogging a lane when the motorway is busy(ish) does hold up traffic, but the hogs have a reason (they are slowly overtaking the traffic in the inner lane).

Posted by: Timbo Sep 5 2012, 01:47 PM

It's the principle. If they don't use the correct lane when it's quiet do you really think they will when it's busy?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2012, 02:17 PM

I'm not sure I understand the logic here!

Posted by: Strafin Sep 5 2012, 02:25 PM

Running a red light is OK if there is nobody around then?

Posted by: Timbo Sep 5 2012, 02:27 PM

What I'm saying is, if they can't use the correct lane when it's quiet (thus absolutely no reason why to NOT use the correct lane) do you think they would when there is a lorry on the far horizon that they won't get past?

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 5 2012, 05:51 PM

Only if the inside lane was occupied and they are overtaking.
You know as well as I do that this is often not the case.

But more often they are not!

Posted by: Newbelly Sep 5 2012, 06:31 PM

I agree, Biker1.

"Middle lane cruisers" are lazy and/or selfish drivers, no matter how busy the motorway is.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2012, 08:49 PM

I'm not sure that is true. When the motorway is busy then all lanes tend to get occupied.


Rather like drivers who insist they have a right to travel at over 80 mph, and I'd guess I see more of those than 'genuine' middle lane hoggers. When the outside lane is empty, I find middle lane hoggers are of little consequence to me.

Posted by: Newbelly Sep 5 2012, 09:16 PM

What is a "genuine" middle lane hogger?

Posted by: Penelope Sep 5 2012, 09:19 PM

Err, Lib Dems?

Posted by: Newbelly Sep 5 2012, 09:20 PM

Posted by: x2lls Sep 5 2012, 09:31 PM

I absolutely agree with those points.

Middle Lane hoggers are not as prevalent as the arguments in this thread would have you believe. They are just pet hates. If true statistics were to be shown, they would not appear to be any different in occurrences as any other poor driving activity. If you are behind what you consider to be a middle lane hogger, you have three choices. Follow, overtake, or pull in to the inside lane, (assuming a three laner). Those are all normal manoeuvres, so don't get so upset when somone prevents you from driving as fast as you dare!!!
That said, the road system just doesn't always allow the highway code version of reality!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2012, 09:39 PM

Someone who is driving in the middle lane with no intention of yielding; often driving below the speed limit.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 5 2012, 10:02 PM

You must already know!!


"Middle lane cruisers" are lazy and/or selfish drivers, no matter how busy the motorway is.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2012, 10:03 PM

For me, the biggest single nuisance on the roads are people who travel at around 40mph on a 60mph A road. The biggest nuisance on the motorway are slow moving vehicles in the left hand lane that cause me to have to use the other lanes. In terms of frequency, these two types of driving far outweigh any other single nuisance on the road.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 5 2012, 10:05 PM

You must be talking the A4 to Junc 12

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2012, 10:09 PM

And the A339 to Basingstoke, but yes, a journey to Reading is a chore due to people who seem to not know what the speed limit is, or lorries who have a better excuse, but are no less irritating to me!

Posted by: Timbo Sep 5 2012, 10:35 PM

There is a speed camera on the A339 on the moors section. It's a 60mph limit but people always slow down to 50-ish. Very annoying.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 5 2012, 10:43 PM

Same as 20-25 through a 30 cam. The same people that freak out when they see a police car behind/in front / in VIEW!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2012, 10:58 PM

Yes, I meant A339.

Posted by: Sherlock Sep 6 2012, 12:14 AM

The A339 would be ideal for a set of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECS_(speed_camera) given the insanely poor driving and numerous serious accidents we all know about. But why not install them on all roads? Seems a no brainer to me. If you like driving faster than the speed limits think of it as a moron tax.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2012, 06:46 AM

Such as the Law?

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 6 2012, 07:15 AM

That's fair enough but to many they are a real nuisance, slowing down traffic and making people change lanes when they shouldn't have to.
Overtaking on the inside, although tempting, is illegal therefore if you are approaching a CLOD and you are on the inside lane you have to cross 2 lanes to get to the outside lane to pass them.
Then returning, once again across 2 lanes, back to the correct lane.
That IS if consequence to ME!

Posted by: biggus_richus Sep 6 2012, 07:48 AM

I find on the four lane sections of the M25, the centre lane hoggers are also prevalent in the third lane. In some sections (particularly going up Reigate Hill at J8) it's possible to overtake on the inside with a clear lane in between.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 6 2012, 07:57 AM

I'd like to think that you knew that is what I meant with my flippant choice of words.


I didn't say it was of no consequence, only that the frequency of the incident is low compared to other more common frustrating experiences on the motorway. It is quite common to get boxed in on the near side lane, between two slow vehicles, while you let a stream of vehicles pass in the middle lane.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 6 2012, 08:00 AM

Er, no it's not.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 6 2012, 08:01 AM

HGV are limited to 40 mph on single carriageway roads (like the A339)

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 6 2012, 08:03 AM

Yes ... I know ... that is what I was saying ... BUT ... it doesn't stop it from being annoying.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 6 2012, 08:15 AM

OK technically it's not but the Highway Code says you shouldn't and the police could interpret the manoeuvre as careless driving I believe.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 6 2012, 08:28 AM

No, the A339 would not be ideal for SPECs. SPECS are stupid and frankly only morons would think that spending more time worrying about your speed than paying attention to where you're going is a good thing.

A good, observant driver doing 70 will be safer than an unobservant or bad driver doing 50.

Speed is not the problem.


Also I used to work in Basingstoke for about 14 months in total, so went along it regularly - and I only saw 2 accidents, one involved a car that ran wide into the other lane, on that sharp corner at the top of the hill by the farms, and hit a motorcycle, and the other was something I don't know, just saw the mangled reckage. Not really bad at all.

Neither will your precious SPECs stop the insanely poor driving you talk about because all they do is measure speed. And we all know (well, at least those who are not morons)

Posted by: lordtup Sep 9 2012, 01:04 PM

Having just undertaken my weekly jaunt to Hungerford I feel compelled to add to this posting.
Roughly between the halfway and the Kintbury turn resurfacing is taking place ,the road has been skimmed which leaves the surface both dusty and strewn with chippings. Maximum 20 mph signs are in abundance and most motorists are aware of the dangers and driving accordingly .
One cretin in a dark hatchback decided that he was immune from such niceties and overtook me doing about 70 despite my feeble attempts to slow him down via hand gesticulation .The resulting hail of stones forced me to stop to avoid a broken windscreen .
I was incandescent !!!!!! Had I been able to take his number he would ,by now, no doubt be explaining his actions to a member of Thames Valley Constabulary , but I couldn't and he got away with it , which raises the question what is the life expectancy of a bad driver ? Eventually he ,and his arrogant contemporaries,will meet their driving nemesis and that will be that . I will take no comfort from the result because inevitably an innocent will also be involved ,but in this age of statistics overload I am sure there is a figure somewhere .
Anyway I feel a little better now I have got that off my chest and into print. Blood pressure back to normal and dog has extricated himself from the sanctuary of the kitchen table. Time for a G & T me thinks.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 9 2012, 04:28 PM

It is understandable that you are annoyed, but the principle of good driving is that it allows for poor drivers.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 9 2012, 04:52 PM

I don't understand the reasoning behind that AC.

Posted by: lordtup Sep 9 2012, 05:14 PM

Nor I .

Posted by: Strafin Sep 9 2012, 05:47 PM

I would be pretty annoyed at that too. I assume you were doing somewhere near 20?

Posted by: lordtup Sep 9 2012, 07:29 PM

Between 20 and 25 and as I was at the time the only vehicle in the immediate vicinity I posed no risk to anyone . Then speedy gonzales arrived and the wrath of hades let lose. Shortly afterwards a stream of cars from the other direction appeared and I am sure their vehicles must have been sprayed with chippings so sympathy to them too.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 9 2012, 07:37 PM

Good drivers drive in a manner that allows for other's indiscretions.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 9 2012, 07:49 PM

Oh OK, sorry Lordtup, it was your fault apparently!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 9 2012, 08:08 PM

Who said or even suggested that?

Posted by: x2lls Sep 9 2012, 09:22 PM

Perhaps you could help me understand by providing an example?

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 9 2012, 10:49 PM

That wasn't an indiscretion, it was sheer bad manners. If I had just had my paintwork restored and polished at great expense or my windscreen damaged, I would have been well p*ssed. I'm sure you would as well as there would be no way that you could legislate for that sort of irresponsible behaviour.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 9 2012, 10:55 PM

Quite!

And yes we do have legislation. Careless driving, driving dangerously.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 10 2012, 12:03 AM

The one above is an example. Because someone is a bad driver, doesn't excuse another to be one.


I quite agree.


I was replying to a part of the post where he said: "Eventually he ,and his arrogant contemporaries,will meet their driving nemesis and that will be that. I will take no comfort from the result because inevitably an innocent will also be involved ,but in this age of statistics overload I am sure there is a figure somewhere."

If other people are good drivers, then the effects of a bad driver are minimised.

Posted by: blackdog Sep 10 2012, 07:27 AM

Whilst that may be true, the same good, observant driver will be safer at 50 than at 70.

Speed is always a factor in road accidents.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 10 2012, 08:02 AM

Absolutely!
As a biker I am only too aware of this.
Being so vulnerable makes one drive extremely defensively, regarding all other users as a potential bad driver.
Example: when approaching a junction with someone waiting to pull out, always assume that they will and act accordingly.
Defensive driving such as this, whether on 2 wheels or 4 will lessen your chances of a crash.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 10 2012, 08:03 AM

I wish we could clear this one up because some say that it is and some say that it isn't!

Posted by: NORTHENDER Sep 10 2012, 08:28 AM

What do you mean by speed, high speed or low, all movement involve speed.



Some accidents will invole high speed and some low speed.
My mrs some years ago tried to park her car inbetween a rubbish skip and another vehicle outside our home. She duly hit the rubbish skip and although I did think she had done very little damage to the car (and none to the skip) the insurace company wrote the car off. Very little speed involved but a road accident no less. (The skip was not my Skoda )

Posted by: x2lls Sep 10 2012, 09:06 AM

Yes, but not always a 'contributing' factor.

Posted by: Sherlock Sep 10 2012, 10:16 AM

Meanwhile, another smash today.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/a34-multi-vehicle-collision

Let's hope no one has been seriously hurt.

And seriously, a discussion going on here about whether or not speed is a factor in accidents? Dear god. http://think.direct.gov.uk/speed.html

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 10 2012, 10:19 AM

I thought we had, or have you a short memory?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Sep 10 2012, 10:36 AM

Looks like a complete mess. There are a couple of lorries and what appears to be at least one car involved. Usual section of road up to Ilsley too.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 10 2012, 11:03 AM

Oh shut up about Ilsley. I saw the accident as I was driving back from the north this morning. It was nasty. I doubt speed was a factory in this collision. If anything people not driving fast enough (eg crawling up sliproads at 40) are more to blame.

Not a contributing factor.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 10 2012, 11:15 AM

I'm not sure that is necessary.


As you saw the accident, perhaps you could explain how the slow slip road drivers crashed?


In my view, it has to be.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 10 2012, 11:17 AM

So did I, my memory serves me well, and then someone comes up with a contradictory statement!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 10 2012, 11:21 AM

Yes, seriously!
There was such a discussion on here some while ago but I can't be arsed to find it!
The conclusion, I believe, was that it isn't.

Posted by: blackdog Sep 10 2012, 11:37 AM

Always a contributing factor - the only one that is always present.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 10 2012, 11:40 AM

Any time anything happens on the A34 guess who appears!

I didn't. I saw the aftermath. And lorries are not fast!

Posted by: Timbo Sep 10 2012, 11:42 AM

The only thing that is contributing is the fact you are moving. Officially something like 8% of accidents, when investigated, cited speed as being a contributing factor.
Most of it was lack of observation from drivers.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 10 2012, 11:42 AM

I believe opinion was divided, but it was an argument about semantics. Speed doesn't 'cause' accidents, but it will have a bearing on the outcome of an accident.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 10 2012, 11:48 AM

8% of accidents involved people speeding (driving too fast for conditions). Speed is involved in nearly all accidents. Without speed, it is hard to have an impact.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 10 2012, 11:55 AM

Which is what I said, Andy.
Speed should be replaced with "being in motion".

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 10 2012, 01:03 PM

Which makes no difference to the point being made. You said "The only thing that is contributing is the fact you are moving" is not true. Speed always contributes to the outcome of an accident and often determines the severity of that outcome. We all know that most pedestrians live when hit by a car that was doing 30, but will almost always die when doing 40.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 10 2012, 01:18 PM

To me something that contributes to an accident is something which can be in some part at blame.
And in most cases speed (or rather, excessive use of it) is not even a minor contribution to an accident.

After all we are not talking about the outcome we are talking about the cause.. Earths gravity could also affect the outcome!

Posted by: blackdog Sep 10 2012, 01:24 PM

Which really goes to show that drivers faster than they would/should if they took into consideration their own observational abilities and reaction times.

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 10 2012, 02:40 PM

OK this is the M11 not the A34 and I have come across some stupid slip lanes as well, although I don't know that road.

It is a long slip road from the A11. 2 lanes . I make sure I am the only one in the outside lane by hitting 70.
You get 4 seconds to judge the trucks as you approach because they have planted conifers in the way..
So I have 2 seconds to either brake or put my foot down when I hit the lanes to find a space.between the lorries.
I am usually in the outside lane by then. (Comfort Zone)

It might be offensive or defensive driving. And I don't think it would be sensible in a "sensible family car".
ce

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 10 2012, 02:44 PM

We are talking about accidents and an accident is an outcome.

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 10 2012, 02:45 PM

Yes . I know they use grey 5 series BMWs on the M11.
ce

Posted by: Timbo Sep 10 2012, 02:47 PM

Normally an outcome of stupid drivers. Nearly all accidents are not accidents, more like screw ups on the part of someone.

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 10 2012, 03:26 PM

It has to come back to your last point Timbo. Folk are timid. When there is a space....take it. get ready first though.
Check which gear you are in.

Without being patronising it is not old age .The drivers are not thinking. Other things on the mind.
That was my excuse when I hit a Pheasant at 80 mph. I had been following a caravan for ages...
Short stretch ---give it a go. Oh Heck he was nose to tail with a land rover towing a yacht.

(I know at the end I was doing more than 80 ) Very fond of the golf mk2
The bird left little behind except some structural damage in the engine area.
ce

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Sep 10 2012, 05:14 PM

If driving standards are a problem then every factor should be taken into account: driving beyond your actual capabilities is another (as opposed to the god like status some people take on the roads). There are always people on the roads with differing abilities, differing distractions, differing cars etc. I wonder what the impact would be on aggressive driving if everyone honestly drove with this awareness?

Posted by: Penelope Sep 10 2012, 05:22 PM

Exactly, some people are lethal at 20mph whilst others can be considered competent at the legal limit. It's competence or the lack of it that does the damage.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 10 2012, 05:30 PM

I agree.

The problem was summed up quite well by Jeremy Clarkson.
If you have no interest in cars then you have no interest in driving. If you have no interest in driving then you can't be any good at it.
This evening watched as a car driving down the A4 and indicating to turn INTO Pound Lane (from the Thatcham to Newbury direction along the A4).

A 4x4 was in the junction. Another car was sat on the junction crossing arrow bit to turn right into pound lane (from Newbury to Thatcham direction).

Said car who was driving down the A4 indicating flashed at the vehicle(s) to proceed a maneuvour. No other vehicles were present. I watched as the doddery old lady in the car turning right into Pound Lane sat there while the repeated flashes of the vehicle in front were indicating for it to proceed (thus helping to alleviate the mini-tailback).

It's little frigging things like that which cause problems, undue hesitation. Sunday drivers just on a Monday..

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 10 2012, 05:46 PM

Remember the Highway Code.

Rule 110: 'Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.'

Rule 111: 'Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.'

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070289

Posted by: Strafin Sep 10 2012, 05:51 PM

I once flashed my lights at my mate who had been driving in front as I was turning left and he was going straight on, to say goodbye. I did not realise that the car waiting to turn right would take this as an invitation. Fortunately I was able to hit he brakes in time, this was my fault, but a good example of how something can go wrong very quickly on the roads.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Sep 10 2012, 05:54 PM

Sounds like she was driving within her capabilities and your the aggressor by being intolerant to her level of skill.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 10 2012, 06:04 PM

Well, be that as it may, in the real world (do you live there?) that's not how it works. Generally you flash or gesture at vehicles to allow them to go before you. Such as strafin said, saying goodbye to friends, saying "no mate you first!"...

The car in question who was flashing was a good 150m away. There was ample time even if the vehicle was going at the speed limit.
@Adrian, sorry but you'll have to take my word for it - she was being a doddery old lady. The kind who won't turn if there is a car on the horizon. The kind who sit at Mini roundabouts for 20 minutes not knowing who should go (when it's her right of way........)

It didn't effect me as I was driving past anyway.. thus was not held up, just seemed daft to watch, that's all.
I should add regarding the A34 I was driving back from the North this morning and found that a large proportion of the rolling tailbacks (where everyone does 45 behind a lorry) were due to people in Kia Ceeds doing 53mph, meaning Lorries had to over take them. And the 3 mph difference meant it would take 2 minutes for the lorry to go past.

Now call it stupid but at what speed does a vehicle become a hinderance on a 70mph limit piece of road? Because I'd say unless you had a trailer or were a lorry or other speed restricted vehicle going at 50mph can cause many issues. I remember doing my motorcycle test years and years ago, on a national speed limit road if I was not doing at least 50 you would be deemed too nervous and not keeping up with flow of traffic. So.. on a 70mph limit road that should surely be 60?

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 10 2012, 06:30 PM

There is always some skill you miss. After the bird through the bonnet. I stopped to pick up another (still warm).
Being a country boy at heart I knew how to deal with it, So after a week being upside down in a far corner. Not me!
I got my own back and with guests enjoyed pheasant pate .

I have at this moment had 2 self inflicted accidents and both in reverse.

I reversed into a dump truck at a dump(now a recycling centre). It had a bit of gear which I didn't see.
The other a French Market place. "O la la la"" Everyone hits that post and we prop it up with our boxes." Which they did.

A 16 C cottage opposite mine had half of it's 'front wall demolished by a reversing relative.
I have never worked out how they managed to do that.
It wasn't even a Volvo, You could get an Abrams tank through in reverse.
ce

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 10 2012, 07:14 PM

And he narrowly avoided an accident which he would have been party to.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 10 2012, 08:04 PM

It's always risky taking right of way when you are not entitled. There are persons out there who are just waiting for a no fault accident even when they are the person who causes the accident by giving an "After you mate" signal. It's almost a business in some cities. Birmingham for instance. Nice little earner for the compensation.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 10 2012, 08:42 PM

Exactly, so I understand why some people are reluctant to trust other drivers sometimes.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 10 2012, 10:38 PM

Yes I agree.
However common sense reigns supreme. Vehicle is 175 yards away and going about 20mph you have ample time to turn into a junction. Even if they had a Veyron and floored it they wouldn't even get close.

Now I'm all for using your common sense but the majority of cash-for-crash schemes involve distractions on open stretches of roads approaching roundabouts, etc the A43 in Northhampton, prime location... long dual carriageway at high speed then roundabouts..

My point here is that even if the vehicle did not flash to indicate that that person could have gone, there was ample space for a safe turning even without the pre-emptiveness.
It's happened to my friend before, car has started to go to pull out and then decided "nahh" at the last minute and stopped, and into the back of someone else he hit!! Not his fault but he was by this time checking it was still clear and the car infront which had space to go had then stopped...

These are the same people who pootle down a slip road doing 40mph and cause everyone else to have to brake rapidly, swerve lanes, cut infront of cars, etc.. because they don't take their car above 2500rpm and one-quarter throttle.
Every slip road I often go full power through the revs and gears especially on shorter ones to make sure I am doing at least 95% of main traffic speed when I join. Unless of course there is a lorry or something else and it can't move due to congestion.

AS for your cash for cash...
Interesting reading............

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cars-bikes-n-afvs/179927-insurance-fraud.html

Posted by: blackdog Sep 10 2012, 10:58 PM

He drove into the back of another car and it's not his fault? How do you work that out? Did his insurance company agree with you?

The guy in front could stop for any reason - your mate should have been alert to the risk - his lack of due care and attention resulted in an accident.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 10 2012, 11:52 PM

I'm sorry but I'm afraid it is your friend's fault and I say this as someone who is guilty of doing the same thing as your friend. You should not proceed unless you path is clear. Your friend and I were guilty of not looking where we were going. I did this very early in my driving career and learned a valuable lesson.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 11 2012, 07:48 AM

You really should not be on the road.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Sep 11 2012, 08:23 AM

Isn't it interesting that some of those complaining about driving standards appear to be imposing their standards on others, and that these standards seem to be beyond the standards set out in the highway code - something we are all tested on. I wonder how these people are supposed to know your standards?

Punishing middle lane drivers is one example. They are **** frustrating and create tail backs, but we have no idea of their capabilities. Perhaps it is safer for us all if they don't change lanes. Are they worse than the people who cut them up to punish them?

Posted by: Timbo Sep 11 2012, 08:52 AM

Dannyboy you shouldn't be on the forum. How about that?

Adrian, the issue is that the highway code is not the be all and end all. If you do an Advanced driving course (or motorcycle, or swimming, or perhaps Leapfrog) then you are taught to drive in a manner which is often out side of the highway code. Because the highway code is a base line but is not the best for car control, safety, or forward vision. Because 90% of the general population are idiots they need something simple.
I'm pretty sure Jenson Button is a better driver than all of us and I'm sure he doesn't sit there shuffling the wheel.

Going "oh look" there's a car let's crash into it makes it your fault.
Dropping hot coffee on your lap and crashing makes it your fault. Driving on your phone etc etc.
When a car pulls out but then is hesitant and slams on the brakes when there is ample space to go I wouldn't say that's the rear-vehicles fault.

They sorted it out with was only a scratch on the bumpers.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 11 2012, 09:07 AM

1. Yes it is -
2. No you're not, you clearly have never been on an official advanced driving course for the road.
3. You clearly don't watch much motorsport, all the top drivers do it, if their steering allows it. Rally is an especially good example.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Sep 11 2012, 09:09 AM

The Highway Code is a base line that sets the minimum standards and expectations. Advanced driving doesn't teach you to go faster, brake later, cut people up or enter an F1 race - they are there to improve your standards and to increase your awareness of others. Being visible, recognising others limitations and being aware of the risks of these various levels of standards are key.

I can't find any example of the IAM site where they suggest any rules contradicting the highway code.

It's all about tolerance and awareness.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 11 2012, 09:18 AM

Yes it is!
Legally, and as far as your insurance company is concerned anyway.
Classic case of "sorry I thought you'd gorn"!
If someone drove into the back of you after you had braked would you say "sorry mate, my fault"?

Posted by: x2lls Sep 11 2012, 09:20 AM

You will find that overall, human estimation of speed and distance without any aids is notoriously error prone.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Sep 11 2012, 09:43 AM

Nobody's fault other than your mate. He wasn't looking where he was going and hit the car in front.

Pity your mate doesn't share your legendary car control skills, or he may have avoided that one.

As for me, I encounter exactly the same percentage of useless drivers on the roads as anyone else, but in 28 years of four wheeled fun I've yet to have an accident. It's called anticipation. Planning ahead and seeing it coming before it happens. It also gets me where I'm going more quickly too.

Like most younger drivers, you and your mate think it's always somebody else to blame. When you grow up and understand it's what YOU do on the roads that avoids accidents, then you'll stop having them.

On the plus side, I remain in awe of your superior machine handling abilities.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 11 2012, 10:11 AM

Mate I am hardly young. (as much as I try and pretend).
We're already grown up and have our own houses (well, I rent but it equates to the same thing), me and the mate in question earn more than the national average income by quite a large amount, have girlfriends, etc.
There's nothing more annoying that talking down to people as if they are children when they are not. Patronizing is not the way to get people to listen.

It's true if only he was such an awesome driver as me he would not have crashed. (??) . I wasn't there, I can only go on what he told me and what both he and the vehicle infront had written down and both signed and agreed on.
I believe that if the vehicle infront pulled out when there was space - of which there was according to my friend - instead of proceeding to pull out and then stopping at the last minute out of hesitation, there would not have been the bump.

You've never been in the car with me obviously I am not the best driver but everyone comments on how smooth etc I am, I do have decent car control skills, understanding slip angle, oversteer and understeer, scrub, etc etc - and I too drive in anticipation and avoid using the brakes when possible. Helps keep the MPG up!
Plus with the fact I do about 35k a year then you'd know I spend a lot of time in the car.

No offense buddy but the fact you haven't had an accident proves nothing but that you are lucky. I have had accidents and importantly I have learnt from them.
Everyone makes mistakes and there is no shame in admitting that. Humility is often better than bravado.

You could crash tomorrow... you sound sort of like the kind of person who assumes it never happens to them.. well, one day it will my friend.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 11 2012, 10:48 AM

Perhaps you could make a start by not posting things like this:





'Only fool breaks the two second rule'. If your mate looked where he was going, he would not have hit the car.


If you drive with the care and anticipation you claim, oversteer, understeer and scrub shouldn't come into it.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 11 2012, 11:35 AM

Unfortunately you just post copied and pasted extracts of "the law" which is not how the world works as there is no black and white.


In stationary traffic? On the A4?
How far back is 2 seconds when you're not moving..


I suppose you've never gone out "for a drive". There is also a difference between track driving and driving around town and driving on a nice, open country road.
Having an understanding of what happens to a car when you lift off in the middle of a corner, or enter with a trailing throttle, and how you can control the car does help in situations such as if you hit ice or oil in the road..

Posted by: JeffG Sep 11 2012, 11:46 AM

I like to think I am a safe, competent driver (don't we all?), so I'll never forget a stupid accident I had once.

I was waiting to pull out on to a busy roundabout, and was watching the oncoming traffic for a gap. As soon as there was a suitable gap, I pulled out at speed. Unfortunately, the car waiting in front of me didn't move.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 11 2012, 11:50 AM

So that entitled you to your cheeky comment? Like I said, if you want people to respect you (which is what you were complaining about) then you might think about reciprocating.


It is any distance. What is the braking distance when stationary? My instructor said that one should stop with enough distance so that you can see the road between you and the car in front.


Like I said; keep being cheeky isn't going to win you any friends.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 11 2012, 11:56 AM

Andy I have no issues with you but in discussion you tend to just post what the law says and as we all know that is not how things go down in the hood, yo.


Tyres and tarmac... again, an example of something highway code says but that is not really applicable in day to day life.




I'm not here to make friends I'm here to have good discussions. I have tried the whole "being nice and friendly" approach and just met resistance and insults, underhanded and snide comments from certain members so thought why bother.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 11 2012, 12:12 PM

You made a statement about someone signalling with their lights. The Highway Code states clearly that you should not do that. I don't make 'the rules', I'm not the one to argue with.


I find tyres and tarmac feature quite heavily in day to day life.


I'm not here to make Friends either, but you are quick to criticises others for the same behaviour as yourself.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Sep 11 2012, 12:15 PM

It's the very fact that I don't make assumptions that keeps me from crashing.

All this drivel about scrub and oversteer is just making you sound daft. Just because you talk it doesn't mean you can walk it, as your last few post make abundantly clear.

Posted by: Scott Donnelly Sep 11 2012, 01:14 PM

Well I got little bored of reading after page 5, however as I have a little black box fitted in my personal car for insurance reasons, I felt I had to comment. Before any of you ask, and yes I did attend the RTC on the A34 yesterday.

One of the main problems I have with my little black box is people tail-gating me... Not just on Dual Carriageway's, but on single carriageway's as well. My car won't accelerate from 60-70mph in a matter of seconds, so when I want to over-take a lorry, I generally have some impatient moron sitting on my back bumper. Funny how this never happens when I'm in my patrol car huh?

Black box... It's score based over three months. So breaking hard, going over the speed limit, taking a corner too hard or going out between 11pm - 6am once in a blue moon isn't going to know me out from level 5. Do this maybe 3 times a week and it will just class you as an average driver. Your insurance will not increase. Do this constantly and it will. Now I'm in level 5, I've saved myself over £600 in a matter of months. But I have my own qualms on how the score is calculated. But as previously stated, insurance companies won't assess or interview every single person.

Over-taking on the inside lane is now ILLEGAL. If caught doing it, 3 points and a fine. Hogging lane 2 (Which is classed as an over-taking lane), same rules apply. Even some of my colleagues prefer to sit in lane 2 of a motorway, because they feel safer that in the event of a collision, there's a smaller chance your going to hit a tree or barrier. Even still, unless Lane 1 is occupied, you can still receive points and a fine.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 11 2012, 01:28 PM

Is there a technical definition to overtaking on a motorway? In other words, how big a gap is 'allowed' before you would be deemed to be hogging the overtaking lanes?

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 11 2012, 01:37 PM

10 seconds is I think the accepted minimum - ie if you move into the inside lane but will only be it for 10 seconds or under before catching the vehicle in front, stay in the overtaking lane.

Posted by: Scott Donnelly Sep 11 2012, 01:37 PM

Well it's something open for debate. Whilst this isn't the biggest offence you can cause whilst driving, it still seems to be a big problem for some motorists.
I remember watching a video on one of our many health and safety days in which it was described that under-taking was illegal. However, in the case where you are forced to under-take, it is apparently acceptable. For example... HGV's, towing a trailer or caravan are not allowed to use Lane 3 on motorways. So if a vehicle is travelling at a slower speed in Lane 2, is it acceptable to under-take in Lane 1?

I would personally move back into Lane 1 if a vehicle will over-take me before I'm able to over-take the up-coming vehicle in Lane 1.

Here is some results on what others have voted on the Safe Speed forum

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=846

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 11 2012, 02:40 PM

So this reply is wrong then, and I was right?

Posted by: Timbo Sep 11 2012, 03:06 PM

That's why I don't like Black Boxes. If you brake to, I don't know, avoid something... you get penalised.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 11 2012, 03:08 PM

268 Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069862

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 11 2012, 03:15 PM

How many times a month are you having to do this?

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 11 2012, 04:25 PM

Yes, I saw that Andy but in the Highway Code the legal codes have the highlighted words "MUST" or "MUST NOT".
This rule does not have that so that is why I was not sure about the (il)legality of undertaking on the left.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 11 2012, 04:28 PM

Every day normally...

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 11 2012, 04:40 PM

Then maybe you either need to slow down or go for some retraining.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Sep 11 2012, 04:46 PM

Now, now.

Respect his superior car control. He knows about scrub.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 11 2012, 04:48 PM

Exactly Stewie!
Or you know, perhaps teach people that it's not okay to cross the road when there is a car coming.

Then again in 26 years you've been practising anticipation so I'm sure you have that front covered!

Posted by: lordtup Sep 11 2012, 05:11 PM

Had exactly the same scenario . Following a large 4x4 ,she pulled on to roundabout , I followed while still looking right only to find for some unfathomable reason she had decided to stop .
The damage to her Japanese war horse was minimal , my poor old bus suffered the ignominy of a bent bonnet and broken headlight .
Being the sort of chap I am I held my hand up and admitted culpability because I had driven into her, even though I would have delighted to ask " why the ****** did you stop, you ******** person !!!!"
Now I chose routes without roundabouts .

Posted by: Timbo Sep 11 2012, 06:47 PM

So is my friend not actually unreasonable? ... Since it seems to happen quite a lot..

Posted by: x2lls Sep 11 2012, 07:30 PM

Ditto.


There's a great game to play whilst on the road.................

Try to keep the distance between you and the vehicle in front such that you can stay a safe distance without having to use the brakes. If you are using your brakes to keep the distance, then you are a driver with a heavy right foot.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 11 2012, 07:31 PM

Just because it happens a lot does not make it reasonable.
It just means there are too many people making stupid mistakes.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 11 2012, 07:41 PM

It's a mistake most of us make until we learn to pay attention.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 11 2012, 09:12 PM

Oh come on Andy, are you saying most of us run into the back of someone?

Posted by: Timbo Sep 11 2012, 09:20 PM

i do the "dont' brake" game quite a lot. Often I can make it all the way home without having to brake.. 2 miles.. not bad.
The only thing Andy runs into is the back of other men.

Posted by: Sherlock Sep 11 2012, 09:33 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77MoOl5o5aM

Posted by: Strafin Sep 11 2012, 09:42 PM

If car A had been doing 80 he would have simply driven past the front of the lorry before it got there. Equally car B could have swerved. The speed was not the cause of the accident.

Posted by: Sherlock Sep 11 2012, 10:05 PM

See report summary and figure A in particular.

http://www.arrivealive.co.za/pages.aspx?i=1670

Posted by: MontyPython Sep 11 2012, 10:05 PM

About time you read the Highway Code then. Perhaps we need to take your driving licence away until you can drive properly and understand the rules of the road.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 12 2012, 12:38 AM

It is dangerous to assume anything, fatso.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 12 2012, 07:21 AM

Agreed
That's a stupid video and not scientific at all!!

Posted by: Sherlock Sep 12 2012, 07:34 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Motor_vehicle_speed

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 12 2012, 11:04 AM

My wife often chaired meetings between Highways,TFL, LGA,
and Thatcham data scrutineers, and Utilities who try and keep the lanes moving.
(That reminds me of a very old Sci-Fi story.)

Anyway the first thing the lady from Thatcham did was plonk a massive load of files on the table at 10 am.
5 minutes later she was snoring. That has always given me a great deal of confidence in statistics.
ce.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 12 2012, 04:48 PM

Yeh, thanks for that suggestion and threat. Try reading it again, digest what I have said and then if you have the mental capability you will see that I didn't say that I remained in the centre lane come what may, I only do that when the left lane is full of trucks. From experience, pulling into that lane will mean more often than not, that I get trapped behind those trucks and have to brake before I can return to my original speed. I do not poodle along at 50mph when I am in lane two and I also do not swerve about between lanes like some of the 'expert drivers' on here do.



Two miles home to work, not sure how you manage 50,000 miles a year.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 12 2012, 04:58 PM

Delivering Pizza at night must add some miles.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 12 2012, 06:34 PM

What does Pizza have to do with it? Seriously confused now..

I have never said I've done 50,000 in a year. More like 35 perhaps..
My office is less than 2 miles to my house.

Although it would be both very stupid and ignorant (which you both check on this occasion) to assume that those are my only journeys. For example while I do not often go out at work into the field *which I am quite glad about but at the same time miss*, I do a lot of mileage in my own free time.
I have a life, things to do and places to visit.

Those who count a day out as going to Basingstoke wouldn't understand.

Posted by: Jo Pepper Sep 12 2012, 07:17 PM

Perhaps your driving too much and, given your driving standards, it would be no bad thing for the rest of us if you discovered the train.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 12 2012, 08:13 PM

What does Pizza have to do with it? Seriously confused now..

wink, wink, nudge, nudge.....I'll say no more squire....

Posted by: Timbo Sep 12 2012, 10:58 PM

Coming from a woman, that's rich.
I'M JUST JOKING.


Your assumptions of my driving standards are laughable. I don't think anything I've said indicates anything other than I am a bit impatient with middle lane hogs (as they should all be shot) but unfortunately the TA is already woefully under funded.

I should also add that only I am able to decide what is "too much" driving, and is not something you should be commenting on. It doesn't affect you in any way, it's not your business and since I earn the money to pay for my fuel in my tank, road tax, tyres and what not...


But do you know scrub?

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 13 2012, 07:47 AM

Not sure what your point is, it's built into the steering design and is very much tied in with the camber angle which on some cars is adjustable but should always be within the manufacturer's tolerance. So, as a driver do you believe it can be controlled or altered whilst driving.

Posted by: Jo Pepper Sep 13 2012, 07:51 AM

I just fear for the rest of us. Getting people like you off the road and chilled out sounds good to me.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 13 2012, 07:54 AM

Timbo with think that this - http://think.direct.gov.uk/fatigue.html - is aimed at other drivers, not him......

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 13 2012, 08:27 AM

It's called "anticipation".
Drive on a motorway with you vision focussed much farther ahead than on a normal road and act accordingly.


Who said anything about "swerving about between lanes"?

C'mon Exhausted, admit it, you're a member of CLODS!

Posted by: Timbo Sep 13 2012, 10:31 AM

And why exactly do you fear for the rest of us? That someone who is able to drive attentively and with common sense won't have an accident with you? I'm perfectly chilled out when driving, I just stick on a good CD and relax.

Why don't we get people like you off the road instead?


I do not need some government agency telling me when I need to pull over to have a nap. Just like when I play games I do not need to have a 15 minute break every hour.
I can happily drive attentively for hours and hours at a time as I'm used to it. I know my own limits and what I am capable of.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 13 2012, 10:36 AM

That is what I said.

although this thread is getting a little tedious as you're only posting to get a reaction..........

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 13 2012, 10:51 AM

It seems one minute he lacks anticipation, the next, he's a CLOD!

Posted by: Timbo Sep 13 2012, 12:07 PM

Ah yes. I'm posting to get a reaction. Perhaps I misunderstood your post Dannyboy? Seemed that regarding the many miles I do, that was somehow unsafe because I wouldn't be following the "every 2 hours you need to stop" suggestion.

I'm posting relevant things to the topic of which people then jump on a "Tim is a dangerous driver" bandwagon.

So yes, I'm getting a reaction. ???

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 13 2012, 12:09 PM

I doubt you even have a provisional. Does the school know you are on this forum?

Posted by: Timbo Sep 13 2012, 01:21 PM

Now who is posting to get a reaction.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 13 2012, 01:29 PM

I'm perfectly chilled out when driving. I can happily drive attentively for hours and hours at a time as I'm used to it. I have to brake hard everyday to avoid crashing into things.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 13 2012, 01:41 PM

You should work for Fox News with that level of quoting ability.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 13 2012, 02:18 PM

That's right.
Because he lacks anticipation he feels the need to stay in the centre lane.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 13 2012, 03:46 PM

I didn't see this mentioned but thought it would provide food-for-thought regarding speed vs accidents vs fault vs blame.
From the NWN itself.

So basically it's a lorry drivers fault for not looking.
And people here are discussing/arguing speed causes accidents.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 13 2012, 03:51 PM

The rigid tanker driver was unable to stop. Travelling to fast.

The truck driver infront of him & ( therefore closer to the vehicle that pulled out ) managed to avoid hitting that vehicle though.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 13 2012, 04:01 PM

And you have data to back this up?

Posted by: Strafin Sep 13 2012, 04:05 PM

He's also driving whilst tired, that is to say every time we hear from him, "he's exhausted!"

Posted by: Timbo Sep 13 2012, 04:07 PM

I'm pretty sure you're trolling but just incase you're not;

Vehicle pulled out infront of another vehicle. Vehicle pulling out did not check his mirrors or misjudged speed/distance.
Causing an accident.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 13 2012, 04:13 PM

Sorry Timbo, but you are wrong on this, unless the vehicle pulling out hit the vehicle nest to him directly, then he is not to blame for the accident. He is stupid to have made the manouver, but everyone makes mistakes and the key to good driving is allowing enough room for people to do so.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 13 2012, 04:28 PM

So you're telling me that if a vehicle pulls out infront of another vehicle without warning, causing said vehicle to swerve (but avoid the vehicle that pulled out causing him to swerve to begin with) - the resulting accident of the vehicle that had to swerve is not the fault of the vehicle that pulled out?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 13 2012, 04:32 PM

I believe the rule of thumb is: if you run into the back of someone who is travelling in the same direction as you, you are at fault.

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 13 2012, 04:34 PM

Just a simple anecdote about Police and undertaking .
During the gloom of a morning we still call summer.
I was proceeding in an orderly fashion north on the M11.(3 lanes at that time).

Behind were 6 marked BMWs. 3 went past on the hard shoulder.
2 used the lorry lane which was mostly empty. The other one tailgated me.
("What have I done wrong?)

What complicates the issue is the middle lane drifters who are less than 3 metres apart .No room for me.
So I saw a gap ahead and put my foot down . It was about a mile away. I think I was doing about 115mph by the
time I got out of their way. AAAANd I got a jaunty "Thanks mate" wave from the passenger!. As they sped by.
I only held them up for a second or two.
ce.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 13 2012, 05:15 PM

No,

Vehicle pulled out, vehicle behind decelerated. If there had been no vehicle behind him, ( the one which was either travelling too close, driving too fast, driver not paying attention ) there would have been no accident.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 13 2012, 05:39 PM

Yes, he says "I get trapped behind those trucks and have to brake before I can return to my original speed".
This is caused by lack of observation well ahead of you on the motorway and a lack of anticipation.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 13 2012, 05:46 PM

Let's see the full passage:

Posted by: Strafin Sep 13 2012, 05:52 PM

The full paragraph tells me the same story. Your speed should be dictated by the road and traffic movement, not the other way around.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 13 2012, 05:53 PM

Would you explain; I don't know what you mean?

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 13 2012, 06:09 PM

Exactly.
If you anticipate and keeps your concentration well ahead of you you will not get trapped behind trucks and have to brake.
I agree, if the trucks are too close together for this not to happen the yes, stay in the middle overtaking lane.
By the way, when debating, why do many on here have to descend into personal comments? ("if you have the mental capability")
It does not help your argument!

Posted by: Strafin Sep 13 2012, 06:10 PM

That's too hard though, you could just stay in the centre lane....

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 13 2012, 06:15 PM

Oh they do, they do......

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 13 2012, 06:23 PM

As far as I can tell, that is exactly what Exhausted does, so I don't see the argument you are trying to make with him. He says, if the the inside lane is busy with trucks and he is travelling faster, he will use the overtaking lanes to drive past them.

I don't see the issue.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 13 2012, 06:30 PM

How I have read this, is that when there is a gap on the inside lane and a car behind him, he won't move over because he may have to slow down if the car doesn't pass him before he catches up with the next lorry.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 13 2012, 06:31 PM

He says............... he gets trapped behind trucks and has to brake.
Therefore he says stays in the middle lane instead to avoid this.
This is why many hog the middle lane, because it takes too much effort to use the inside lane when they should be.
If they drove with anticipation and focussed well ahead then it would not be an issue to use the inside lane when appropriate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 13 2012, 06:42 PM

Yes; overtaking. I understand that if you are overtaking, you may use the overtaking lanes.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 13 2012, 07:45 PM

Just to state the obvious - I think the problem lies with those who stay in the centre lane for the duration of their motorway driving, regardless of how busy, even if totally empty, the inside lane is.

I find driving a large dull coloured saloon with blue shirt & black tie & repeatedly flashing ones headlights on/off, on/off on/off in quick succession as you approach at speed soon has them in the L hand lane. Or in the ditch.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 13 2012, 07:50 PM

Unless there are 4 of them in the car, all wearing suits, dark glasses and homburg hats. Then I would be very wary...

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 13 2012, 09:58 PM

Exactly that, I can assure you that I am not a casual motorway driver like Timbo, and drive according to the conditions. My anticipation is good and when I say braking, it doesn't mean I slam my brakes on, just slow down so that I don't end up the ar8e of the guy in front and by doing that I leave myself enough room to be able to accelerate back into the middle (sorry, overtaking ) lane. Mycomment about swerving from lane to lane was really a bit sneaky and referred to what Timbo said when he punished what he considered to be the centre lane hoggers.
Biker seems to have the high ground now though so I might ask what qualifications he has to make those assumption other than he seems to like acronyms. OYBM "On yer bike mate".
Evenin' all.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 13 2012, 10:06 PM

By the way, anyone seen the trailer for the Sky 'Bond' series, now that really is some aggresive driving.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 13 2012, 10:23 PM

That is a rule of thumb.
Not a rule of fact or law.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 13 2012, 11:03 PM

"It has become a rule of thumb that, in the event of a car accident, if someone crashes into the back of you it is their fault. If you are rear ended and your car is hit from behind the car accident is the fault (or liability) of the driver of the car that crashed into the back of you."

"There have been cases where the car in front stopped abruptly causing the car behind to slam on the brakes and be crashed into the back of; but only when this has been on purpose, i.e. to cause a crash so they can make a claim, has the blame ever not been on the car behind."

http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/someone-crashed-into-the-back-of-my-car-whose-fault-is-it


BTW - so you know what 'rule of thumb' means: "A useful principle having wide application but not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable in every situation".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rule+of+thumb

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 14 2012, 07:46 AM

There you go again!
Debate over!
Why can't some on here have a sensible, adult debate without resorting to this?
Does it mean they are losing the debate and it is the only method they can resort to?
Sometimes this from lowers itself to be like the comedy show that is Prime Minister's Questions!
On this forum, in future I refuse to debate with those who resort to personal comments / insults so if you want to shut me up you know what to do. (What some do already.)

Posted by: Timbo Sep 14 2012, 08:02 AM

So Andy, with yet more copying and pasting of pointless information, the bolded section agrees with what I'm saying and that in this case realistically (and if it were on video) that it was not the fault of the vehicle that swerved.
The actions of the driver pulling out caused the crash.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 14 2012, 08:48 AM

Maybe in that particular instance ( I have not looked at the vid / evidence ) but that does not make it a rule of thumb.

If you are driving at 60 along a road with a 30 limit & someone pulls out of a side turning causing you to crash into the back of them, who is at fault?

Posted by: Timbo Sep 14 2012, 08:54 AM

The vehicle pulling out in that scenario.
Because yes while you should not be speeding the vehicle should not pull out when there is not enough space or what not.

It makes me laugh. In that situation said vehicle that pulled out would say "YOU WERE SPEEDING!".
Okay, if you know they were speeding then how come you pulled out infront of them...

Just because you are speeding does not make you "at fault" automatically. (my opinion anyway).

Going into someone at a roundabout or similar because you were on your phone or fiddling with your radio is the rear vehicles fault.
Going into someone because they pulled out on you because they misjudged the distance/speed is THEIR fault for pulling out.

in the case from what I understand, a lorry in a lay by pulled out abruptly causing a lorry in lane one to swerve into Lane 2 to avoid an accident.
In Lane 2 there was another vehicle side by side with the lorry. The whole chain of events was started by the lorry pulling out of the lay by. I doubt the lorry in Lane 1 was doing more than the speed limit of 56 for HGVs anyway... and you should not have to slow down every time you drive past a layby "just incase" some idiot might pull out because they are dork and can't use their mirrors.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 14 2012, 09:20 AM

The whole chain of events was started by the lorry pulling out of the lay by

Very true. but it was brought to an abrupt & unfortunate conclusion by the second truck on the carrigeway.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 14 2012, 09:40 AM

I'm am supplementing my post with variable facts, something you contested. That is not pointless in my view, although I wonder the point in arguing with a fool, as it might not be obvious to some people which one of us is... other than I strongly suspect you are simply on a wind-up, as I find it hard to believe someone can be as daft as you are sometimes.


That is not true.

I made a point that it is up to the driver of the vehicle behind to prove they were not at fault, as otherwise the default - the rule of thumb - is that they will be deemed at fault. If you took the time to check the link, you would see that it is rare that a vehicle running into the back of something is cleared of blame. Sometimes, 'blame' can be shared too.


I thought the driving test was meant to be harder these days; despite your being a 'diesel-head', you show a surprising amount of ignorance on driving matters.

Posted by: Timbo Sep 14 2012, 09:59 AM

Exactly. And I would believe the lorry driver who pulled out of the lay by should be the one held responsible for the collision. (my view anyway, with the facts out at present).



I'm a fool, Andy?
You are the one thinking that, in an accident where a vehicle goes into the back of another, the rear vehicle is at fault! Even if another vehicle pulled out. The thing is, the facts you pull out are not actually appropriate in this case.
As the fact the police are actively looking for the lorry that came out of the lay by, obviously they have an interest in the vehicle.




In terms of an "insurance claim" - yes. That's correct. But as I'm sure you're aware insurance does not always apply suitable justice or infact a factual outcome on actual blame.



If you feel that way.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 14 2012, 11:46 AM

With rare exception, that is the case. There's no argument. It is true.


Show me where I said that?


You are in no position to say that until it is proven.

But going back, I took the opportunity to point our a fact of life. You contested it.


Nor do the judiciary (the adjudicators of the law). I didn't ever claim that it was always just; only fact. It was you that said it is 'not fact'. Had you not come out with that ignorant statement, I would not have felt the needed to reaffirm my point.


I do, I do.

You see, I was young, arrogant, and stupid as you at one time, so I know what it is like. Now I am just the same, but older and more experienced at it!

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 14 2012, 04:24 PM

Is your earlier reply any less personal. You seem, like a few others, to speed read posts and totally miss the point(s) being made. It bothers me not what you post but if you don't like my replies because you are thin skinned, tough. I thought the acronym that I made up was quite humorous, you being a biker.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 14 2012, 04:34 PM

Yes. (Hence the "wink")
(I suppose I could have put "C'mon Exhausted, admit it, you drive in the middle lane when you don't need to" but it means the same thing. )


Thanks!
(Not because I am thin skinned, I enjoy a good debate - just don't see the need for it to get personal)

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 14 2012, 04:37 PM

You're welcome.
I'm afraid I don't understand what need you don't see.

Posted by: Sherlock Sep 14 2012, 04:39 PM

Drove on the A34 for the first time since my original post today. Seemed much quieter and I think there was less insane driving: perhaps the increased petrol prices are reducing unnecessary journeys and prompting people to drive more carefully? Obviously there were still some idiots who indulged in high speed tail gating of drivers who were already exceeding 70mph, but I live in hope that natural selection will run its course. Have a nice weekend y'all and drive safely.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 14 2012, 04:42 PM

The need to insult and make personal comments while debating.
What does it achieve?.
If it starts at the meet on the 17th it should get exiting.
Fisticuffs??

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 14 2012, 05:35 PM

Back to the 17th and fisticuffs. I am sure the road in question will be on another thread quite soon.So a quick diversion.
I might give the A34 a go on Monday or Tuesday.

It is amazing what you find when going through old collections of a parent.I was thinking of memorabilia.
At least she didn't keep my well used cricket "box".

Posted by: Sherlock Sep 15 2012, 07:52 AM

One thing I'm sure we can all agree on is that traffic flows much more smoothly when top speeds are better controlled. For those of us who see driving as a way of getting from A to B without, ideally, being seriously injured or killed a national 60mph limit enforced with 'black box' units in all vehicles http://www.comparethebox.com/ would not only be safer but quicker.

Once GPS units are installed in all cars, it would be easier t introduce road pricing. This is another no brainer: scrap vehicle licences and fuel tax and put it all on a by-the-mile charge, perhaps with lower charges for those travelling on business. It's insane that the motorways are packed every morning and evening with commuters travelling one per car. Charging by the mile would force people to take car sharing seriously.

Overall these ideas make so much sense that the only thing that's certain is that no government would actually introduce them, so don't panic petrol heads.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 15 2012, 09:03 AM

Just like the phone system, pay as you go would cost us all a lot more than now.

Stupid idea

Posted by: Strafin Sep 15 2012, 09:05 AM

How come as soon as they put on a variable speed limit on the motorway, it clogs up, and when the zone ends traffic starts moving again?

Charging by the mile would just penalise people who have to travel more, it would be another tax on the poor as the rich would just carry on. We rely on our cars as public transport is so poor.

I just got a quote from blacbox.com and it was four times as much as my renewal!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 15 2012, 09:39 AM

You have a "catch 22" situation as far as public transport is concerned.
It is not used due to the car so it is cut (rail line closures and bus service cuts).
So when you say we want to use it it is not there!
What DO we want as far as public transport is concerned?
Use it or lose it has been the message for over half a century now and the latter seems, inevitably, to happen.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 15 2012, 10:24 AM

Good summary! We ought not forget the significant minority, who for very many different reasons, can't drive. Add to those to the large number who really shouldn't and our disconnected transport policies can be seen to be seriously discriminating against a good few. For example, a colleague lives in Hermitage, in modest accommodation and has a modest income. Failing sight is making him a very bad driver - what should he do? Move away and away from his elderly parents who rely on him to get them around also? Ask his daughter to stay home? The Tory answer is a good 'bus service will be provided when there is a commercial demand and the LibDem answer is to by a bike!

Just take a few minutes out and think about it - disabling illnesses can strike at any time, age comes to us all. What would you do without a car?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 15 2012, 11:25 AM

Trains are only a part of 'public transport' and are of limited use. They are good for moving many people over long distance, but not much else. Most car journeys are within a few miles from home, so a train can't help there. Trains are rammed with passengers at peak times, so a lack of use by car drivers is not the problem there. Indeed, if there was a 20% swing to train use, the rail network would collapse.


The 'problem' is that cars are relatively cheap (and getting cheaper), and the well paid jobs are far away. Also, we probably need more schools nearer to where people live so there is not such a 'need' to drive.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Sep 15 2012, 01:26 PM

Is it a symptom (because they react to traffic problems by reducing the speed) or the cause?

Posted by: Penelope Sep 15 2012, 02:00 PM

Schrodingers cat.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 15 2012, 03:30 PM

You might have to explain the correlation between a theoretical cat locked up in a tin box and being in traffic on the M4.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Sep 15 2012, 04:03 PM

More like Pavlov's Penelope's Dogs. Keep ringing the bell Penelope.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 15 2012, 05:01 PM

Exactly, because we dispensed with two thirds of our rail network in the 1960's through short sightedness.
Now we are having to invest huge sums to cater for the growing demand for rail services.

Not sure that cars are "relatively cheap and getting cheaper".
How do you base this?

Posted by: Penelope Sep 15 2012, 05:28 PM

Because, and I didn't expect to have to explain this, the above statement is reminiscent of a thought experiment. Sigh.

Posted by: Penelope Sep 15 2012, 06:07 PM

No use you salivating, couldn't afford me, not by a long shot dear boy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 15 2012, 07:51 PM

I understand that the rail network was bankrupt, and that is why it was sold off.


New car prices seem not to be going up?

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 15 2012, 08:05 PM

We've already paid for the roads; now you want us to pay for using them?

Added to which, the tax income for HMG from the motorist is far, far more than is spent on transport. The increase in fuel duty (which has VAT on it!) necessary would be horrendous.

Also, the price of everything would increase significantly as most goods are hauled by road at some point.

Posted by: x2lls Sep 15 2012, 08:55 PM

You got it in one!

Posted by: Jo Pepper Sep 16 2012, 10:34 AM

look at me, look at me, ding ding, look at me (repeat)

yawn.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 16 2012, 11:12 AM

While I disagree with road pricing, that statement is a bit disingenuous. Roads need maintenance, so we have to keep paying for them, somehow.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Sep 16 2012, 11:26 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19614862, it's something that mentioned on this forum a long time ago and something I know various bits of government have been looking at too. My thoughts were to change 'road tax' to a 'road toll' so that UK and foreign vehicles had to pay the same amounts. This would bring us in-line with other EU states and vastly increase the competitiveness of all distribution platforms (rather than favouring other EU nation's road haulage networks).

Posted by: Penelope Sep 16 2012, 08:03 PM

That's ok sweetie, no need to be jealous, as I've always said, if you've got it, flaunt it.

Posted by: Darren Sep 16 2012, 09:13 PM

Get a room!!!

Posted by: Jo Pepper Sep 16 2012, 11:35 PM

I can't help thinking there is a lession you need to learn here