Now I'm not condoning the behaviour of the Passat driver, but if there was sufficient space for an "undertake" then that suggest to me that there may have also been sufficient space to pull across to the left to allow them to overtake?
Just a thought.
|
ND,
I think the point he is making is that there wasn't enough room.
I go with your thought that plenty of drivers do 'bring it on themselves' by not moving over, but this doesn't seem to be the case here on face value.
PP
|
I agree that David has explained it thus, but there is an inference that the Passat driver managed to complete an undertake. If so, it suggests that there may have been sufficient space to pull over also. As I said, it's just a thought and was intended to give David a chance to respond to clarify the situation as he saw it as he's the only person posting who witnessed the incident.
ND
|
Hmmm, a Passat is 15'4" long - according to the car-by-car-breakdown. IIRC David drives a Mondeo, which I guess is pre 2000 and 14'8" (if later, 15' 6").
There must have been 3 cars' lengths for the Passat to pull in, over(under)take and pull out again. Let's assume a suicidal Passat driver who left only 3' gap between each vehicle - add another 12'. (Truck to Passat; Passat to back of David; front of David to Passat; Passat to car in front.)
This gives a whopping 57' gap on the inside lane for David to pull into - i.e. 21 feet both in front & behind him. If these really are the correct facts, I should have pulled over.
|
|
Hang on, aren't you being a little harsh on David? Would you really have pulled in, braking sharply and trapping yourself behind a lorry (hence having to wait for someone to let you out again - doesn't happen often) In order to let this person overtake?!?!
|
Sorry, it wasn't meant to be harsh; merely to illustrate the way I'd interpreted David's posting.
If the Passat was driving as badly as that, and the fact pattern as described, then yes absolutely. I'd always rather take that gamble than lose my back bumper! If it was as tight as described, then there would have been a minimum 60' space, and both lanes travelling at about the same speed. If the outside lane was doing only 10 mph (15 feet per second) more than the inside lane, then assuming a madman taking only 5 seconds to undertake, there must have been another 75 feet to play with. If much more speed differential, then the road was virtually empty!
With 60' space between two lorries to play with, there's (comparatively) loads of room. It's be a fair bet that Passat would put foot down the moment you moved over - in order to tailgate car infront - and so you'd be able to pull straight back out into the outside lane.
Anyway, over to David to find out what really happened.
|
Well, I'd not slot myself between a couple of HGV's to save anyone a few seconds, regardless of how close to my rear they were.
In fact, the closer they are, the less likely I am to complete my overtake quickly.
There is absolutely no need for tailgating, especially when the person being tailgated is in the right.
To keep this on the 'Speedo' thread, I must say that I check every few seconds and I find that I'm pretty good at keeping at a steady pace.
PP
|
PP 'In fact, the closer they are, the less likely I am to complete my overtake quickly.'
That, IMHO, is the sort of over-aggressive driving that leads to accidents. As a road-user, one is not a policeman, and so it is not up to one to regulate the driving of other road users - no matter how antisocial their tailgating may be. Infuriating an already irritable driver seems like a strange contribution to road safety and one's own likelihood of reaching home alive.
|
If I had said that I'd jump on my brakes or something equally dangerous then yes MM that would be 'over-aggressive' and likely to infuriate the tailgater - but I didn't.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying that allowing yourself to be bullied out of the way by the impatient driver is acceptable?
You appear to have come to the conclusion that I would hinder the tailgater, I wouldn't, but I'd also not speed up, I'd carry on regardless.
I would however let the tailgater pass at the first opportunity. Going back to the situation that David originally described, I think I would have done as he did.
The bad decision IMHO rests with the Passat driver.
PP
|
PP 'In fact, the closer they are, the less likely I am to complete my overtake quickly.' That, IMHO, is the sort of over-aggressive driving that leads to accidents.
Mapmaker, whatever you think of the merits of his approach, PeterPerfect is not the aggressive one here. He is deciding how to deal with someone else's aggression, which is a rather different kettle-of-fish.
For myself, I usually prefer to leave a bullyboy to shoot off ahead and work his own way to front of the organ-donor's queue rather than take me with him. But I'm not keen on endangering myself just to facilitate aggression
|
PP 'In fact, the closer they are, the less likely I am to complete my overtake quickly.' That, IMHO, is the sort of over-aggressive driving that leads to accidents. As a road-user, one is not a policeman, and so it is not up to one to regulate the driving of other road users - no matter how antisocial their tailgating may be. Infuriating an already irritable driver seems like a strange contribution to road safety and one's own likelihood of reaching home alive.
Are you suggesting that if somebody is following too closely the car in front should speed up, and exceed the speed limit? I don't think the police would see it that way.
|
|
I suspect, from reading between the lines, that David may well have intended to pull in once past the lorries, but the driver behind pre-empted him by undertaking. Had David succumbed to the pressure and pulled over sharply he may well have ended up colliding with the Passat driver.
I'm afraid I fully subscribe to the very slow left hand lane change whilst being tailgated, especially, like David, this morning a similar thing happened to me, without the undertaking however. Likewise, I was overtaking at 80mph so no dawdling.
Speedo wise, I only use my rev counter ;), no seriously, since I've had a Snooper S6, and a GPS PDA, I always use them as they are almost directly in line of sight and more accurate.
|
"That, IMHO, is the sort of over-aggressive driving that leads to accidents. As a road-user, one is not a policeman, and so it is not up to one to regulate the driving of other road users - no matter how antisocial their tailgating may be. Infuriating an already irritable driver seems like a strange contribution to road safety and one's own likelihood of reaching home alive. "
I would disagree, based on personal experience. I used to be that aggressive driver, always tailgating, always relying on other peoples reactions to save my own life.
It was other peoples reactions to me that made me realise what a prize tool I was being whilst driving.
|
Well said, that man.
I never advocate attempting to "regulate" other's driving.
It is however, possible that others might see it like that.
If I choose to create a bigger gap between me and car in front to restore safety margins when I am being tailgated, then I will do so.
If the Plonker behind chooses to think that is infuriating - that's his problm.
|
|
David said that he didn't know whether the Passat driver would be paying enough attention to notice that he was braking to pull in between the lorries. I would imagine that is why he elected not to pull into the gap the passat driver subsequently used to undertake.
|
Sorry PeterP, but I would most happily allow myself to be bullied to pull over into the inside lane. Along with NW, I quite enjoy life.
I don\'t understand your comments about \'especially [being] in the right\'. The right place to be in my book is getting home at the end of the motorway journey. If other people want to cause an accident, I\'m very happy to let them pass, in the hope that the accident will be several miles further on.
I also quite enjoy travelling in the folowing position when the inside lane is doing 56 and the outside lane 60:
------------------grass verge-----------------
Me HGV HGV HGV
----------------------------------------------
Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car
=================central reservation==========
In exchange for arriving at my destination 3 minutes later, I can either travel with 200 yards barking distance & nobody behind me, or bumper-to-bumper with 200cm barking distance. A \'no-brainer\', I\'m afraid. You\'d have to be barking to think otherwise.
|
Oh dear. HTMLart not working... there should be a large gap between Me & HGV... must remember to use preview.
..........me.........................hgv.hgv.hgv
car.car.car.car.car.car.car.car.car.car.car.car.car.car
|
Oh dear. HTMLart not working... there should be a large gap between Me & HGV...
Better now?
Like when using italics, underlining and bold, if you use the word "pre" (without the quotes) then the character spacing doesn't get ignored.
DD.
|
You're getting a tad too technical for me MM, the bottom line is that in the original situation I would not inconvenience myself to allow the tailgater to pass, once I've completed my overtake I then move back across and Mr Tailgater can carry on his way to hell.
You appear to be advocating the tailgaters as if they should be given priority.
As you quite freely admit to not partaking of the motorway network between 9am and 6pm then I feel your comments do not have experience to bolster them.
Nice picture though.
PP
|
Well, I would never allow myself to be bullied.
But I would do as per your diagram by choice.
|
Well said, that man. I never advocate attempting to "regulate" other's driving. It is however, possible that others might see it like that. If I choose to create a bigger gap between me and car in front to restore safety margins when I am being tailgated, then I will do so. If the Plonker behind chooses to think that is infuriating - that's his problem.
I agree entirely. If somebody is too close you need a larger gap ahead, as you will have to slow down more cautiously than usual.
|
Well said, that man. I never advocate attempting to "regulate" other's driving. It is however, possible that others might see it like that. If I choose to create a bigger gap between me and car in front to restore safety margins when I am being tailgated, then I will do so. If the Plonker behind chooses to think that is infuriating - that's his problm.
Exactly!
I'll move over when it's safe to do so, I wont speed up, I will increase the gap between me and the car in front.
If said tailgater decides to undertake, then I'll let him. It won't catch *me* by suprise because I have been paying attention to the idiot.
jaB
|
|
|
With 60' space between two lorries to play with, there's (comparatively) loads of room. It's be a fair bet that Passat would put foot down the moment you moved over - in order to tailgate car infront - and so you'd be able to pull straight back out into the outside lane. Anyway, over to David to find out what really happened.
A 60' gap between lorries travelling at 50-60 mph is a totally inadequate gap to pull into. If you pull into the centre of that gap that leaves you about 1.5 car lengths behind an HGV, with another one 1.5 car lengths behind you. If the HGV had to brake, God help you.
|
Yes, but the two lanes must have been moving at different speeds. Assuming 10mph difference and that the madman overtook in only 5 seconds, that leaves a further 75' as I mentioned. I dare say there was rather more than that.
|
Yes, but the two lanes must have been moving at different speeds. Assuming 10mph difference and that the madman overtook in only 5 seconds, that leaves a further 75' as I mentioned. I dare say there was rather more than that.
Quite, the fact that the other driver managed to pull off an undertake would suggest that there was sufficient space for him to accelerate into the space in the inside lane and then (reading between the lines) move back to the outside lane would suggest a fairly substantial space in the inside lane.
To be honest, I think it's unfair to try and minutely analyse and incident for which we only have one person's account and no first-hand knowledge ourselves. What I would say is that whilst tailgating per se is to be frowned upon, there are a significant number of drivers who almost invite people to tailgate them - and they are often those doing about 80, passing fairly widely spaced traffic and almost seem to have the mentality that as they are doing in excess of the speed limit they shouldn't move over to let anybody past.
|
Tailgaters are idiots. I don't do it and I find it annoying when others do it to me. I would suggest, however, that people who find themselves being tailgated frequently might ask why this is the case, and might look at their own driving.
Everyone who regularly drives on Britain's motorways knows that the 70mph speed limit is regarded as absurd by most drivers, unenforceable by the police and is ignored by almost everyone.
Surely, then, the '65mph in lane 3' club are guilty to at least some degree of provoking tailgating?
If some people want to drive at 65mph on the motorway by all means do so but could they please do their bit to reduce tailgating by simply getting out of everyone else's way while doing it.
|
To be honest, I cannot often recall having been tailgated. (And no, that's not because I'm doing it! - but possibly because I'm never on Britains roads between 9 and 6 on a weekday.)
|
I agree with you, Bradgate. I'm happy to pootle along at 65-70 on a dual or motorway, but would never dream of blocking up the outside lane. People who do that deserve to be tailgated.
I have to admit, though, that if I am being tailgated I find my speed dropping ever so slightly. Can't think why...
|
|
One point - if he was doing at least 80, that's well over the speed limit already. So Mr Tailgaiter wants to do 90+ ?! As far as I'm concerned, drivers like that need taking off the road !
|
One point - if he was doing at least 80, that's well over the speed limit already. So Mr Tailgaiter wants to do 90+ ?! As far as I'm concerned, drivers like that need taking off the road !
Er...
If we stick to the letter of the law BOTH drivers are in the wrong as far as speeding is concerned *BUT* I don't think this is the thread for *THAT* discussion
JaB
|
One point - if he was doing at least 80, that's well over the speed limit already. So Mr Tailgaiter wants to do 90+ ?! As far as I'm concerned, drivers like that need taking off the road !
I do not subscribe to the "speeding kills" point of view. Personally I stick to the speed limits on NSL roads and do not tailgate. Bad driving kills, not speeding.
|
Just another perspective - I commented elsewhere recently that when I go south, i.e. Dublin and beyond, on single-carriageways people are often, unlike here in the North, courteous to the point of pulling onto the (properly surfaced) hard shoulder to let you by. However, also unlike here, I find the standard of driving on dual carriageways and motorways down south to be fairly poor when it comes to lane discipline. I frequently end up sitting in the outside lane behind someone who is driving parallel to the car in the inside lane and matching their speed. In such circumstances, after several minutes of being held to a steady 60 mph on the motorway, I have given in to the temptation to give a brief flash of the lights, or put on my right indicator and drive up a bit closer than I normally would, although still maintaining enough stopping distance for safety.
Aggressive? I don't know - one is supposed to drive without holding up other road users' progress, and one is supposed to keep to the left unless overtaking (which I do). It's alright saying that I should just relax and allow a bit of extra time, but on a journey that takes me four hours without holdups, or five and a half with, other peoples' lack of awareness contributes to a much longer spell in the car and a more wearisome journey for me.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmmm, doughnuts
|
There are people here in the South West who don't seem to have a clue whatever is behind them!
Tailgating etc would not make the blindest bit of difference to their attitude. These are mostly holiday makers admiring the scenery, who seem to think that everyone else is on holiday too.
H
|
On the tailgating thread, I was out with my IAM Observer in readiness for my test, and making progress in lane 3 of a motorway, speed 70/75 mph. There were several cars jammed up my exhaust so I slowed to 60 and moved into lane 2 between a convoy of HGVs.
My Observer made the comment that I should not have done this as it resulted in my progress slowing, that I was already driving at the speed limit, and should have continued with the tailgaters behind until I could proceed safely. at 70mph, into lanes 1 or 2 when the 80mph+ drivers could have overtaken.
Who am I to argue with this logic?
|
AndyMc I couldn\'t agree with you more since I currently do about 20K PA around Dublin and points west & north.
However, yesterday I had the ultimate \"road-rage\" incident. On the N3 at Blanchardstown heading north, the guy in front is travelling at 40 in the overtaking lane on an NSL dual carriageway.
I come up behind, he stays there, I put on the right indicator, he gives me the bird out of the window, and next thing his paper coffee cup comes flying back towards me. He then proceeds to jam on down to about 20 mph in what I can only guess was an effort to force an accident. Obviously enough at this stage I had backed well off, and could only gape in amazement at his attitude. He then proceeded to floor it upwards (at a hazarded guess) of 100 mph and disappear into the distance.
I have examined every move I made in great detail, & I just can\'t understand it, I never came within two seconds of him. I didn\'t flash my lights, no horn parping or gestures. Just the right hand indicator.
Care in the community? me pink fluffy dice.
|
|
Just as an aside (and a question for the mods) why does a word that sounds like harping or carping get starred out? I don't perceive any rude connotations.
|
|
A hangover from earlier, more tedious days. I'll change it tomorrow.
|
I think there is no doubt that David is in the wrong here. If there was time for the Passat to undertake there would have been time for David to pull over safely.
Sometimes people just sit in the outside lane thinking that because they are driving at the speed limit they can stay there. This is not the case.
Alternatively they are nattering with their passenger or on their mobile phone and don't realise that they should pull over. In this case a flash of the lights or driving close behind them usually makes them pull over. It shouldn't be seen as aggressive, but an alert that there is a car behind.
|
>or driving close behind them usually makes them pull over
Nope. Sorry, but putting yourself in danger to "show someone something" is hardly good thinking.
|
>or driving close behind them usually makes them pull over Nope. Sorry, but putting yourself in danger to "show someone something" is hardly good thinking.
Unfortunately, sid1977's approach doesn't just endanger sid. It also endangers the driver and passengers in the other car.
The outside lane is for overtaking, and it's quite legitimate to use it for that purpose, even at speeds well below the limit.
Unfortunately, some drivers seem to think that thay have a right to exceed the speed limit, and that other drivers must abndon their maneouvres over to facilitate that. If we had more traffic police, the magistrate's courts could explain the situation quite clearly to some of these drivers
|
But we don't know all of the facts do we? David didn't say whether the Passat had inches to spare before pulling out to avoid the lorry and to cut up david. Had david have pulled over he may well have had to brake to avoid the lorry he has just pulled in behind, impeding his own progress. He will also have pulled infront of another lorry, causing it to brake.
The passat driver was clearly impatient and would have only had a few more seconds to wait before david had passed the second lorry.
for what it's worth, or not, it sounds like i used to drive like the passat driver, but i've come to appreciate my life, and that of others over the years.
|
Leaving the minutiae of this incident aside, no-one should have any problem with being behind any vehicle in the outside lane which is either overtaking slower moving vehicles, or at least keeping up with the traffic ahead. If it's doing neither, I will move a little closer to suggest he might like to pull over at his earliest convenience - not dangerously so, just a subtle preamble to somewhat more explicit communication on the same theme should he continue oblivious.
Frankly, day-to-day driving on the crowded roads of the South East of England is a difficult enough experience as it is without the thoughtlessness / self-righteousness of drivers who constitute rolling road-blocks.
|
if someone is in front of you needlessly and not pulling over, try putting your indicator on.
Not as confrontational as flashing your lights.
Not as mind-boggling stupid as closing the gap to intimidate them.
But, for some reason, they always pull over in the end. I think there is soemthing of the "chinese water torture" approach in a flashing indicator.
|
If it's doing neither, I will move a little closer to suggest he might like to pull over at his earliest convenience - not dangerously so, just a subtle preamble to somewhat more explicit communication on the same theme should he continue oblivious.
And there's nothing "self-righteous" about your comment is there?
any creeping closer to the car in front is an attempt at intimidation and that excatly the same as tailgating.
JaB
|
Fantastic. What a joy. How delighted I am to be British today.
We've got Peter Perfect up front, who fees that he's being tailgated and (understandably?) feels irritated. As a result he deliberately slows down a little bit, just to 'increase his own breaking distance' no matter how big it is - cannot be too careful, you know, old boy.
Then at the back, we've got Burnout2 behind, who is (understandably?) irritated by smug driver up front who is leaving a ridiculously large gap in front of him for no apparent reason other than he's possibly nodded off, or is just trying to irritate Bo2. So Burnout2 creeps just a little further forward.
So PP slows down a little more, ao Bo2 creeps forward a little more as he really cannot get over the extraordinary driving he sees in front of him. Et cetera ad nauseum.
With drivers like those on the roads, I'm ever more glad that there's a bus that takes me to work. If we all showed a little more consideration (tailgaters for the poor bloke in front; bloke in front for the chap behind who is desperate to get home to SWMBO who has had a dreadful day with the children & builders) then we'd live in a happier and safer world. This is not to condone or condemn either driver (both of whom think they are partly in the right, although knowing full well they're being just a bit naughty), but merely to ask both of them to be nice.
BE NICE! You don't get a second chance at life.
|
I once proposed a \"Be Nice\" day, where every Backroomer had to express absolute tolerance of all their fellow drivers. I advocated that each Backroomer passed this suggestion on to friends, family and colleagues. I suggested that no matter how discourteous your fellow road user was, absolute priority should be given to NOT remonstrating or retaliating. This way the protagonists might start to mellow out and by the end of their journey, start being nice to other drivers too.
Naturally it was dismissed as a load of codswallop and IIRC got zero responses.
We deserve what we get folks, we really do.
|
I find greeting people who cut me up with a cheery wave and a big smile makes me feel a lot happier than sticking two fingers up at them and calling them horrid names. It doesn't get me home any later, either.
Rembember, smiling releases nice hormones (or whatever they are) in the brain, and makes you feel happier.
|
|
Unfortuntely you are just as likely to get punched at the next set of lights for waving and smiling as you are for flipping the bird. What a sorry species we are.
|
I couldn't agree more with those sentiments - staying in control and being able to laugh at a situation will always make you feel a lot better about yourself, and less likely to do something silly and irrational.
I don't believe that closing the gap on the driver on front a little in this situation constitutes "mind-boggling stupidity" - the context being, I normally leave a far larger braking distance than 95% of other motorway traffic, and I wouldn't compromise my own safety by narrowing that to the point of no longer being able to react to stop suddenly. That's idiocy.
'Fraid I don't accept that ensuring that Mavis and Ted don't feel 'intimidated', or a more general conception of manners, is a good enough reason to accept that I should be stuck behind them for mile upon mile. If the obstructive driver was displaying any vestige of reciprocal good manners, they wouldn't be presenting an unnecessary obstruction in the first place.
|
Jsut be nice.
If you really travel so far behind M&T, are you certain they'll notice when you tailgate? If not, then why bother... if you think there's a point, then you're driving mind-bogglingly stupidly close to them.
|
|
On the contrary, with a particular kind of driver for whom regular checks of the rear-view mirror were discarded along with their L-plates (if they ever passed a test, that is), I'm sure they won't. Most people are quite reasonable and observant, however, so it's a good way to make the point without being unduly aggressive or unpleasant.
|
>Most people are quite reasonable and observant, however, so it's a good way to make the point without being unduly aggressive or unpleasant.
Nope and Nope.
1) We are all stupid - it's only the amount of stupidity displayed that varies.
2) Going closer to car in front, in the imagined belief that they will "understand" that they are obstructing you?
No No No - a thousand times No.
It is only a "ggod way" of demonstrating that you think you are more important than them, and are prepared to reduce your safety margin to "prove" that.
|
>
>2) Going closer to car in front, in the imagined belief that >they will "understand" that they are obstructing you?
>
>No No No - a thousand times No.
>
>It is only a "ggod way" of demonstrating that you think you are >more important than them, and are prepared to reduce your >safety margin to "prove" that.
Er, yes my time is a great deal more important to me than I expect it to be to a complete stranger; what precisely is wrong with that? And yes, if someone's looming in my rear-view mirror I think the message is easily understood, unless observation and anticipation are totally alien to your individual roadcraft.
The number of worthier-than-thous lurking on this forum never fails to amaze...
|
Hi Burnout2 [who's Burnout1?], I'm probably more on your side, I have frequently come across people mindlessly [there is no better word] drifting along in 'their' lane at 'their' speed who steadfastly refuse to move over no matter what you do.
However firstly, ain't you being slightly hypercritical saying 'The number of worthier-than-thous lurking on this forum never fails to amaze...' yet you just said basically you're better than other people you don't know...?
But on the thread itself I tend to keep a sensible distance behind, and if this doesn't work then undertake [as the inside lane is usually clear] or turn on headlights and sit patiently behind until they decide not to waste anymore of my life.
Funny how many drivers, once undertaken decide to flash their lights at you as though you were actually in the wrong...
Kev
|
Solution to tailgaters? A flip down number plate with a gattling gun/gpmg/rocket launcher ;-)
teabelly
|
I want the device for dropping spikes that 007 had on his 7 series BMW.
I searched the BMW options list for it but couldn't see it anywhere...
|
I want the device for dropping spikes that 007 had on his 7 series BMW. I searched the BMW options list for it but couldn't see it anywhere...
I'm surprised at that because a of them seem to think they have a Star Trek deflector dish on the front.....
|
Tailgating where they cannot overtake is trickier to deal with. Worst place is Rotherhithe tunnel which has a 20mph speed limit.
You can easily have a queue of 10 cars behind you, all flashing their lights & blowing their horns if you have the temerity to keep to the speed limit.
|
Blimey - what have I done!? Sorry about the delay in replying, but I had an A-Level exam this morning and didn't have time to reply last night.
OK, I think I need to clarify the situation. The A38 in Devon is two lanes, with a 70MPH limit. It's fairly hilly, and consequently, it's quite possible to have lorries slugging it out up the hill at 50-60MPH.
At this point I was driving up the hill in the right hand lane, doing 80ish, overtaking lorries. At this point I glance in the mirror and see a navy blue Passat, doing well over 90 judging by how quickly he caught up with me, closing fast. Not to worry, I think, I'll be less than a minute overtaking the lorries and then he can get past. Except he disagreed, finding it necessary to close to withing a few feet of my bumper and drive very agressively. He also had a small child in the car, who wasn't wearing a seatbelt. (yup, he was that close.) Oh yes, and an England flag. ;-)
Now, I don't know about you but I severely dislike someone doing this to me. As No Dosh pointed out, it's essentially bullying. If he'd held back at a reasonable distance until the end of the hill (within sight, for heaven's sake) I'd have happily moved over, and even slowed down for his benefit so he could get past. Respectful and polite drivers are rare, but when I come across one I try to return the courtesy.
OK, the gaps between the lorries. Yes, they were there, and yes, I could have got into one if I braked hard and moved over sharpish. However, as I said in my earlier post, this chap was so close behind I think he'd have run into me if I stuck the anchors on, and with him having a small kid in the front seat that wasn't a chance I wanted to take. Also, it would have meant being sandwithed between two HGVs, travelling at 60MPH, uphill. Why should I inconvenience myself and possibly put my car in danger just because he wants to drive up my backside?
As I also said, when he undertook he cut it pretty close, with me having to stick my brakes on so he could pull out. I admit that I might be partially in the wrong, but if he had waited a further 30 seconds he'd have been merrily on his way, and no harm caused. I even refrained from doing what I was sorely tempted to do and stick the brakes on, but as I said, he was that close... Turning the tail lights on didn't seem to affect him, he's obviously used to it.
I should add that the original "I don't believe it!" post was to highlight the tailgating and undertaking part, not whether I was holding him up.
|
Sounds fair enough David.
Being overtaken on the inside is usually an indication that you could/should have moved over, but from what you say there doesn't appear to have been enough time.
A nasty experience that I wouldn't want to go through, myself.
|
Being overtaken on the inside is usually an indication that you could/should have moved over
As you say, it's usually an indication that one could have moved over, but not always ... and even then not necessarily an indication that you should move over.
The nastiest example I had of this was from a few years back, on the M1.
The inner lane had a queue of trucks, and I set out to overtake a bunch of four or five vehicles doing about 65, each little further apart than the two-second safe minimum.
I was doing about 70, and because the speed differential wasn't huge, this maneouvre was going to take more than a few seconds.
All of us so far were driving legally and safely. But then in my rear-view mirror a big Jaguar appeared, probably having been travelling at well over 90.
The driver clearly resented any rif-raff like me being in his lane, so he put all his lights on full blast, and closed to within a few feet of my rear bumper.
I saw no reason to accelerate to an illegal speed, and stuck to my plan to return to the middle lane once I had safely passed the vehicles on my left.
Now, in an emegency I probably could have pulled into the middle lane before then ... but it would not have left a safe gap in front of me or behind me. To do so, those behind me would have had to slow.
However, the Jaguar-man lost his patience: thirty seconds was too long for him to wait. So when I was about half way through my maaneouvre he cut inside me, narrowly missing the car I was overtaking, and promptly pulled out again before the car in front, cutting so close to me that I had to brake.
Frankly, if I had known that I had such a complete lunatic on my tail, I would have cut in to the middle lane -- it would have been safer than risking this episode.
But the only way of doing that was for me to drive dangerously, all because this bully wanted to drive at an illegal speed.
Now, if he had been driving at legal speeds to start with, the whole situation would not have arisen -- he wouldn't have closed the gap with me. A lot of the frustration which some overtakers take on out others caused solely because their illegal speeds increase the speed differentials.
That's one of the reasons that most road safety experts oppose increasing the legal limit to 80 -- it would widen the speed differentials too much betwen the afstest traffic and the speed-limited trucks in the inside lane.
In the meantime, some drivers (and not just those in BMWs), sem to reckon that one third of the motorway should be exclusive preserve of those who drive ilegally. Even if the limit was 80 or 90, I expect their behaviour would be just the same: they simply want to go faster than everyone else.
Rigorous enforcements of the limits (whether by cameras or other means) would not just make the traffic flow more smoothly -- it would also make it flow much more safely. These situations arise because of excessive speed differentials, as well as excessive absolute speed.
Ironically, that safety point is well understood by the speed lobby, who howl about the dangers involved in overtaking slow-moving vehicles which (irresponsibly) don't pull in. They just conveniently forget it when trying to justify their bullying use of illegal speeds.
|
Another way of looking at the same incident:
You pulled out to overtake the slower moving vehicles without seeing Jag driver, he was closer than you realised hence you assumed he was driving at 90 for him to catch you up so soon. From his point of view some unobservant person has just made him alter his speed . You further compound the problem by sticking to 70 (which could actually be only 65 depending on speedo error) thus stopping him from actually making legal progress. You had no idea who this person was or why they were driving briskly. That person could have been a doctor on call and their journey could have been more important than you saving a few seconds by waiting until they had passed you. If he had room to go round you on the inside you probably had the room to move across and probably should have done so. Bearing in mind perception of gaps inside a car and outside a car is somewhat different there may have been a larger gap than you thought and which you could have reasonably moved into but may not necessarily realised it. Women and men have different spacial skills hence the disagreement about whether the gap was big enough for you and your car or not. You thought not and he thought it was hence the aggressive behaviour.
Alternatively you had seen the jag driver approaching quickly and you thought you would uphold the speed limit which any policeman will tell you isn't your job :-)
When overtaking on the motorway I make sure there aren't fast moving vehicles approaching from behind if I am only going to be going passed middle lane vehicles slowly. If the speed differential is only 5 mph perhaps I consider whether overtaking in these circumstances is essential and whether waiting for a larger gap in traffic would be better. If I find that someone is catching up to me quickly I make sure that I either move across into the lane to my left when there is a gap asap or I'll speed up and head for a gap further up so that I don't hold up the person behind unnecessarily. If there aren't any spaces then I will at least look to my left and keep looking so the person behind can see I am looking for a space and not driving on regardless.
A salient snippet from the highway code:
On motorways:
If you are overtaking a number of slower moving vehicles it may be safer to remain in the centre or outer lanes until the manoeuvre is completed rather than continually changing lanes. Return to the left-hand lane once you have overtaken all the vehicles or if you are delaying traffic behind you.
teabelly
|
I think Mark's concept of the constantly-flashing indicator as Chinese water torture is probably the best solution for hinting to someone that they're holding you up (except for MickF!). I have used it before, but I think I'll try to restrict myself to that method only for a while and choose not to blip the lights at all - it may be more effective, or perceived as less hostile. Anything to have less frazzled drivers on the road, including me!
I'd like to stress that the example I cited (driving down to Dublin) involved me wanting to exceed 60 mph on a 70 mph road, and being able to see two empty lanes in front of the two cars at the head of the queue. As for comments about speeding, I still think that even at 70, one should still keep to the inside lane unless overtaking another vehicle - I'm not going to try and impede another road user if they want to pass me at 90 or whatever. But if I want to get by someone, I wouldn't consider flashing the lights constantly unless I was in an emergency situation (have had to rush someone to A&E before now!), but even then I think I'd be using the hazards as well to try & show that it's a crisis rather than belligerence.
MickF, the level of dangerous stupidity you encountered is breathtaking. With a less able driver at the wheel of your car, that incident could have resulted in multiple fatalities. I'm assuming you weren't able to get the reg number - I doubt I would have had the presence of mind myself. I wouldn't normally say something like this, but I hope that someone with that kind of disregard for human life gets what's coming to him.
(... aaand relax ...)
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmmm, doughnuts
|
We've got Peter Perfect up front, who fees that he's being tailgated and (understandably?) feels irritated. As a result he deliberately slows down a little bit, just to 'increase his own breaking distance' no matter how big it is - cannot be too careful, you know, old boy.
?????? Just where did I say that ????????
You're making it up as you go along MM.
PP
|
Maybe I am, but perhaps, PP, you'd be so kind as to explain exactly what you meant by:
Monday 14th 17:18 'In fact, the closer they are, the less likely I am to complete my overtake quickly.'
My initial thought (Mon 14th 17.27) was that you dallied over your 'overtake' out of sheer b*****mindedness, but you said I'm wrong.
So my second thought (Weds 16th 11:57) was that you dallied over your 'overtake in order to increase braking distance, as per somebody else's post - cannot find it just at the moment.
If neither of these, why exactly does your 'overtake' take longer whilst you are being tailgated?
|
I've had a few unpleasant encounters with sort a slightly different sort of tailgating.
In a coned-of chunk of road, with reduced speed limit, driving at just below the limit. Some yob comes whooshing up behind with lights flashing etc, and sits on my bumper.
There is no way to pull in and let the idiot pass. If I stay at the speed limit, I got a maniac inches from me; but if I speed up, I may still have a maniac inches from my bumper.
So, I have twice tried the safest solution: slow down. If he (it's always been a he, and nearly always a BMW-driver) wants to drive that close, he can do so at 20mph rather than 40 or 50, let alone the 70 or 80 or whatever he wants.
Much horning, lights flashing etc, but dipping the rear mirror blanks that out ... and we all get through the cones safely, when I pull in to let Mr Angry zoom off at high speed.
A large male friend has tried an even more successful approach: promptly stop, get out, and ask driver behind what's wrong, cos he assumes there must be a crisis if he's driving so dangerously. Apparently it works every time, but it doesn't sound like a safe option for a woman driver.
Anyone got other ideas on how to handle the bullies in this coned-off situation?
|
Anyone got other ideas on how to handle the bullies in this coned-off situation?
There's no easy & safe way, NW. You have nowhere to go but forwards. Your only choice is your speed. Accelerate and you increase the risk unless you can outpace them - rarely possible to do so safely, and certainly not if there are cones about. Slow down and you irritate further, and spin the whole thing out.
Sometimes I slow down to create a space ahead, and then pull forward briskly into the space. This then re-creates the gap behind. They usually move up into it, so I then (gently) slow down as they get closer. Over time, some learn that my speed drops as they get close, and back off.
Some don't learn, at which point it's best to give up & cross your fingers.
Bottom line, if someone is that bad a driver then I'd rather they were ahead of me and disappearing into the sunset than sitting on my tail.
Re your earlier comment on "could/should" move over, I deliberately avoided any implication that you automatically should move over. I suspect that the Passat driver did not leave enough time for him to look, check it was safe to move over, indicate, and go. So even if he wished to pull in, it may have been impossible.
Having said that, this morning's M40 was a never-ending display of lane hoggers. Picture a 2 mile stretch of empty road interrupted only by a Jag XJ in the outside lane, driving oblivious to the two empty lanes to his left. I passed on the inside, in lane 1, well away from the Jag. I don't think he even noticed. I recognise that this was technically illegal, but feel it was safer than driving to my stereotype and "teaching him a lesson" with lights and horns etc etc.
|
I remember being tailgated on the M56 a few years ago. I was in lane 3, passing other vehicles on quite a busy stretch, just after the airport spur, and at the point where the M56 splits into 2, one route going to the M60, the other to Manchester.
A vehicle closed fast on me and then started to flash its lights. Back then my response was to speed up and show the idiot that my car was capable of doing the same speed. Because I had increased my speed it meant that nipping into lane 2 was made much harder as it would involve pulling in to a gap and braking sharply. The car was still stuck on my tail, and still being aggressive with the lights.
I decided enough was enough as I touched about 100 and pulled in. As the car passed I saw a sticker on the back of it. "Police driver under training"
I hope that he failed. I would have thought that if they were going to use unmarked cars for training that they would at least have blue lights and the alternating flashing headlights. This cars lights both flashed together and did not alternate, and gave no impression of being a police car.
I wonder if I would have had a defence had they pulled me for the speed they bullied me into doing. Wasn't there a similar case in the news a few years ago?
|
pdc, I would also hope that the police driver failed the training ... but I fear not.
In the 80s, a friend took that course: he was a civilian, no connection with police, just they had opened up the course for a while to civilians, and he took the opportunity.
A year or so later he was pulled over by an irate constable, asking "where on earth did you learn to drive so badly?".
His answer, of course, was "from you folks". The officer wasn't best pleased, but could see that there was no point in prosecuting.
My friend did at least realise that he had learnt bad habits, and took the IAM course to learn how to chill out. After that, it was much less scary to take a lift from him!
|
No, not technically illegal. It wouldn't help you much if you were in an accident, but undertaking is not illegal.
A quick google comes up with
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post?t=16130&m=162830
which saved me from starting a new thread on undertaking.
|
No, not technically illegal. It wouldn't help you much if you were in an accident, but undertaking is not illegal.
Gosh.
Well I certainly couldn't be done for driving without due care & attention as I took great care to check and paid undivided attention to the road to make sure that it was safe to go past!
|
|
And ND's scenario in that other thread fits very nicely with my picture above. Sit at a nice steady regulated 56mph in the inside lane as the outside lanes go from 80 to 20, nose-to-tail, all of them with their right-hand indicators going and dispensing 007's spikes out the back!
|
|
I do agree that a 2 mile stopping distance is preferable to a 2 yard distance. I've often moved over out of a slow lane 3 tail to sit in lane 1 or 2 while the idiots finish getting past the lorry (or whatever).
|
And ND's scenario in that other thread fits very nicely with my picture above. Sit at a nice steady regulated 56mph in the inside lane as the outside lanes go from 80 to 20, nose-to-tail, all of them with their right-hand indicators going and dispensing 007's spikes out the back!
I drive home along the M25 most evenings in exactly the manner you describe.
I dip into the other lanes as I need to, and seem to make better progress than a lot of others.
|
My latest commute is from Poole to Theale (just west of Newbury). This takes in the A31, M27, M3, A34, then mile after mile of glorious B roads :o)
I have a tendency to press on a bit on the dual carriageway and motorway, but this rarely gets me anywhere. As soon as I hit congestion (Winchester), the person I overtook back in Dorset on the A31 (Dual Carriageway) trundles up alongside me some 35 miles down the road. A bit alarming when they have been sticking to 60ish when I have been doing 80-85 when the road is clear and sometimes more when there\'s not another car in sight (rare).
So I\'m braking, accelerating, braking, accelerating and generally wearing the car and myself out whilst they, knowing there is always congestion at Winchester, go with the flow.
They get 45mpg, I get 36.
Hmmmmm.
So today I rumbled along at a moderate 65 - 75 (40 through the Twyford gap at Winchester) and was so much more relaxed when I got onto the fun roads between Whitchurch and Aldermaston. My 77 mile journey took 3 minutes longer today than my hard-pressed and frantic attempt yesterday.
Double Hmmmmm.
I\'m looking forward to this evening. I\'m leaving the office at around 5:30 and going to enjoy those traffic-free B roads as the beflagged masses scream at the idiot box in pubs and front rooms across the land, then I\'m going to trundle down the Mways and A roads at a steady 70. If my MPG isn\'t back into the 40s I\'ll be very surprised.
ND
|
Sorry, I didn't think that was a banned word (gets 'colloq.' in that context in the concise Oxford, whereas the word on its own gets 'coarse').
Sorry.
|
There you go again MM, making it up as you go along, did I say I would take longer? - NO - What I did say was that I would be less likely to complete the manouvere quickly, any quicker than normal, I won\'t speed up for Mr Tailgater, I won\'t be pushed along, he can wait until I have carried out my overtake - do you get it??? Has it sunk in yet???
Maybe there is a bit of \'narrowmindedness\', maybe there isn\'t, either way I think you\'ll find I didn\'t comment on that, and that in fact your thoughts are exactly that - your thoughts, in your head.
I feel that I should not pass any more comment on this thread as yet again you have drawn me into an argument.
What I will say is that parts of your profile make very interesting reading and had I read them earlier I\'d have not wasted the skin on my fingertips in typing any replies.
Good day old chap.
PP
|
Yes, well now the toys have been thrown around, can we get back to whether it's acceptable or desirable to move out of the way at the earliest opportunity when tailgated? And when I say earliest opportunity this may require (shock, horror!) a little braking on the part of the tailgatee.
Thanks ever so.
No Dosh
Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Peter please look at your own words and make it clear to this idiot exactly what you meant. I'm just trying to understand this for the sake of clarity. You wrote beautifully clearly that being tailgated causes you to slow down:
'In fact, the closer they are, the less likely I am to complete my overtake quickly.'
If in fact you meant to write:
'In fact, the closer they are, the less likely I am to complete my overtake more quickly,'
then perhaps you should have said it (rather than specifically stating that you would deliberately slow down and take longer) and we could have avoided this confusion.
PS Very sorry if you find my spoke tensioners irritating.
|
I don't entirely understand what's happened here, 'cos two people whose posts I have previously enjoyed seem to have wound each other up a bit. (And no, I'm not taking sides on who is right!)
I hope that this doesn't come across as an jab at either or both of you, but I'm just very glad that this disagreement has happened over the ether rather than bumper-to-bumper on the road!
|
You lot really need to chill out more, tailgaters, dont let them bother you! if you are overtaking and can't move back in
when a tailgater comes along flashing you, complete your overtake and move over when you can, let him sit there getting hot under the collar and shouting at his windscreen. What good is it really going to do him??
After all, they may be rushing somebody to hospital or rushing to be with someone is hospital, you never know!!! I know more often than not they are bullies but at the end of the day they will still be bullies and you will still be alive to tell the tale.
i honestly find laughing quietly to yourself helps, try it next time you come across an idiot, im not talking about rolling around on the tarmac but just enough to bring a smile to your face at that wally behind with the bright red angry face!!
|
|
I've found that keeping the windscreen washers on soon caused the tailgater to back off.
|
The problem though is not "what good is it going to do him" but what harm could the tailgaters poor driving do to you? I appriciate that they are in the wrong but an accident is more likely an accident happen when someone is driving so close. What if you recieve a permanent injury? What if they are uninsured or fight the claim? Perhaps thier aggression behind the wheel will translate to aggression to you person?
Right or Wrong life just ain't that fair.
|
>>People who do that deserve to be tailgated.
No one deserves to be tailgated no matter what the reason.and those that do should be taken off the road.impatience is a common cause of accidents.But seems to be getting worse
|
|
|
|
