Driving standards are in melt down Options

[Andy Capp]

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

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.

[stewiegriffin]

Tailgating is usually caused by people driving too close to the car in front.

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

[Andy Capp]

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

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.

[On the edge]

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.

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

[stewiegriffin]

No it isn't.

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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

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.

[stewiegriffin]

I thought I explained it well enough already, so 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, I'm saying it is the fault of the car behind, driving too close.

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.

[Timbo]

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.

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.

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.

[Exhausted]

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.

[Andy Capp]

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 lorrbut will move over if some nubhead is rushing up behind me so long as I won't get trapped in the left hand lane.

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.

[Biker1]

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.

A CLOD!

[Timbo]

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.

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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

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.

[Timbo]

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

[Andy Capp]

Hurling insults doesn't improve your argument.

[Andy Capp]

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

Let's see which one would pass an MOT.

[Biker1]

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.

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.

[Timbo]

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

[Timbo]

Let's see which one would pass an MOT.

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.

[Andy Capp]

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)

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