ru'

I'd say it was - you should always allow for other motorist's speeds, not just distance; this is something which happens quite a lot to me.

Of course, 120 is a bit extreme but so many people pull out when I'm a bit of a distance away not realising I'm going at the national speed limit (where safe and legal, obviously zzzzzzzzzzzzz).

GC8

You know very well not Tiggs. You also know very well exactly what I mean.

davegtt

Nope, on the road the driver who performed the overtaking manouver should have seen a T junction sign and at that stage he shouldnt be overtaking near a junction, his fault.

trails

iTrader: (41)

yep, its not her right of way...she should be looking again to speed check the approaching vehicle too

trails

iTrader: (41)

in which case they both get done for care and attention

Chris L

There are some people with some very odd attitudes out there. I got flashed overtaking someone doing 40 in a 60 a few weeks back. I really would love to know what is going through their minds (do they really think they are safer? Probably the same attitude of people who drive at 55 on motorways - they are actually creating a hazard, but they would never see it like that).

Had the tailgate thing yesterday after overtaking a Fiat Coupe on a dual carrigeway. I couldn't give a monkeys as I was a little late for a meeting and didn't want to hang about. He seemed to take great exception. I mean it wasn't even the turbo version, which must be a good 90 bhp down on my RX8 (even in peak condition, not nearly 10 years old - as this was). Really not sure what he wanted to prove, but he was so close it was ridiculous. I pulled in when I could and then he does it immeadiately to the bloke in front. He must have made his journey at least 20 seconds shorter

ru'

I didn't actually notice the bit about overtaking, so my post above isn't really relevant.

GC8

I think that the answer Chris; is that the government has succeeded in its aim to demonise speeding and make people regard it as being as unaceptable as drink driving... I realise that you werent speeding, but the byproduct of this seems to be that people feel that any display of 'speed' is in itself dangerous. People are sheep arent they? Its quite frightening when you think about it. You have to wonder whether they'll be coming for us soon.....

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!


Citizen Simon

OllyK

That's easy:

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

I would disagree with that Chris; 70mph is a limit, not a target- just because you are going slower than this doesn't make you a nuisance or liability, the overtaking lane is there to get past slower moving trafic. If you are traveling below the posted limit on a road, that's you're perogative. What I -and many others, including you- take objection to is the negative behaviour of others when we choose to safely overtake others that are going below the limit. That is our perogative.

To say, however, that those who do not reach the posted limit are a hazzard is as bad as saying that those who wish to make progress at, or when conditions allow, above the limt are a hazzard.


Ns04

Chris L

Except when the traffic is moving considerably faster around you - that's a hazard - as most advanced driving courses and police will tell you.

And why German motorways very sensibly have minimum speed limits too

2000TLondon

Us normal folk have more important things to think about which prevent us from having the time to get offended when someone overtakes us without interfering with us in anyway whatsoever!

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Agreed, "failure to make good progress" is an issue that bains anyone stuck behind a dawdler. A situation where such a person pulls out on to a busy road when there is a decent space in traffic, but because their failure to make any attempt to get to an acceptable speed for the vehicle and conditions, they force following road users to brake hard. That, in itself is a hazard. As is a large speed differential of 30+mph between the slowest and fastest road user on a motorway, if the slower vehicle changes lane without proper caution (as so often happens) there is much less margin for a following vehicle to take avoiding action, hence, a pileup.

Although a learned driver who is approching slower vehicles would reduce their speed and proceed wth caution, even if the overtaking lane they are using is not blocked. As maximum safe speed on a motorway is dictated by conditions, and speed of the surrounding vehicles is one of those vital conditions to consider.

Just one common occurance with many accidents is that it's usually a slow moving vehicle getting caught up with, or instigating emergency action from a vehicle travelling at a faster speed. Ok, there is nothing strictly legally wrong with meandering at 30mph in a 60mph limit trunk road. But by providing what is essentially a rolling road block, drivers who wish to travel faster (where it is safe to do so) are put in danger because the obstruction becomes a harzard when or if they decide to overtake. So far law and government have concentrated on the faster vehicles by either clamping down and reducing speed limits on such roads or just tarnishing nearly every open road in the UK with double white lines. It is not a solution to the cause, it is only tackling the issue of what people do when they encounter slow moving vehicles.

For a complete solution people must be educated and understand the risks in driving for both driving too fast AND too slow for the prevailing conditions, and also a large emphasis needs to be placed on the limitation to a car's handling characteristics (i.e braking mid-bend, jerky or rapid steering or brake movements etc). But of course, that is too hard and expensive, so lets just use speed cameras instead.

hades

It's easy and you're right that the overtaker was in the wrong if you assume that she was pulling out of a junction. One person doing something wrong doesn't necessarily preclude the other also doing wrong, though. I'd imagine if you look up the right bit of the highway code, it'll say something about not pulling out of minor roads when you might come into conflict with users of the main road as well.

However as the post seemed to be talking about the road where she lived, who's to say it wasn't pulling out of a driveway/pulling away from parked on the verge or whatever? Remember when reading accounts that over 90% of accidents were someone else's fault, so only hearing one side of the story might also give a biased account. As I said, I wasn't there (and I assume nor were you) so it's a trifle stupid to pass definite judgements either way without all the facts, don't you think?

Leslie

I find that if I drive slower and slower they soon get the message and back off, even if they are waving and shouting!

Les

OllyK

The highway code doesn't limit your responsibility to "junctions" when overtaking. It states "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users" the junction is just an example.

OllyK

I did that to a truck on the M1 through the 40mph SPECS section at Leicester. I was doing 40mph on the dot and he was sitting within a couple of feet of my bumper. We got down to 10mph (no HGVs allowed in the second lane, plus it was busy) with his horn blaring constantly, before he relaised his actions were producing the opposite effect to the one he desired. He backed off, we sped up again, everybody happy

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

I agree that there slow moving traffic can be hazzard, it's a judgement call based on the conditions. However, I wouldn't deem someone doing 55 in the slow lane on a motorway a hazzard. I'd be much less happy with someone doing 35 on a national speed limit single lane road.

I think one also has to be careful with the not making good progress based on the speed of other vehicles argument, too. Just because everyone around you is driving at a certain speed does not necessarily mean it's appropriate to keep up with them. I recall many examples of motorway driving in conditions of very poor visibility (driving rain, fog etc..) when all the traffic around me was happily doing 85 and there was me in the slow lane at 65 apparently "getting in the way". I would like to bet that if a police instructor had seen the situation they'd be much more interested in speaking to the numerous drivers who thought 15 mph over the limt was ok in such conditions than they would speaking to me.

The point is that you make a judgment about the how appropriate someone's speed is based on the circumstances. Going under the limit does not necessarily mean that someone is unsafe in the same way that going over the limit does not necessarily mean that someone is unsafe.

Ns04

matchmaker

About a year ago I can remember a woman being (successfully) prosecuted for driving without due care and attention by driving too slowly on a NSL road.

hades

Interesting the possibilities associated with "you might come into conflict with other road users". Might implies possible but improbable. In most situations, when driving on your own side of the road, or overtaking when the road is clear, the probability is extremely low, but not zero. You "might come into conflict" when overtaking a parked car (although if done carefully it is very unlikely) - so does that mean you should sit and wait for the next morning when the owner comes to move the car? There is a point below where it is considered an accpetably low risk, and different people assess different risks as "acceptably low", which is part of what makes this complicated.

The highway also states "Move off only when it is safe to do so." - could well be that was breached too. We could argue semantics all day on a hypothetical situation applied by assumption to a stated case; I stand by point that it is at least pointless (and at most very stupid) to try and decide who is in the wrong when we don't have enough facts. It could well be both parties have some blame, who knows?