Road Rage - Small bump leading to assault.
Discussion
shakotan said:
Al U said:
Silverbullet767 said:
Read the highway code, and grow up.
Just admit that you're in the "inconsiderate git who pulls in late" camp.
ks sake, there is no 'pulling in late'. If you were too late to pull in you'd be through the cones or over the kerb.There is a difference between 'merging correctly at the zip point' and 'bulling your way in', the two do not go hand-in-hand.
There are three ways of doing it, merging 'too early', merging correctly and considerately at the merge point, and 'forcing your way in with no consideration of those in the other lane', however most people seem to be of an opinion that only Option 1 and 3 are ever a possibility.
As with most things in life, what you meant is irrelevant if it lands the wrong way with everyone receiving it.
Durzel said:
You can't control it, so why shouldn't you accept it?
I'm not saying it's right (it isn't), but fighting a one man battle against it - e.g. by trying to force them over or whatever is not only a war you can't win, but is more likely to result in you getting prosecuted if it's deemed to be aggressive driving. The road to hell is paved with good intentions et al.
I agree, but I would not expect to be penalised for driving correctly despite of everyone else.I'm not saying it's right (it isn't), but fighting a one man battle against it - e.g. by trying to force them over or whatever is not only a war you can't win, but is more likely to result in you getting prosecuted if it's deemed to be aggressive driving. The road to hell is paved with good intentions et al.
Which, it sounds like the OP is. It sounds to me like he correctly used the the right hand lane for as long as he could, he correctly moved into a gap that was available to him at the correct merge point, and then another driver incorrectly blocked his manoeuvre and drove into him.
Yet we are just meant to accept that somehow, the OP was the one in the wrong, because that's the "prevailing attitude"? Surely it's the woman in the Navara who's shown the most aggression.
jamieduff1981 said:
In the same way that bikers point out that there's no point in being right when you're dead, there's no point in holding your firm beliefs in lane merging when you're exposed to such hostile responses. If you don't mind being thumped again - crack on. If you don't want to be thumped again, rethink your policy on other road users.
+1It's probably a little unfair to speculate but I would hazard a guess based on the fact the OP has posted a thread about this specific behaviour that he just carried on moving into the lane with the Navara already occupying it, relying on her to blink first and give up the space. It's probably worked in the past, as no one usually wants to damage their own car, but like most things where you're taking a gamble on the other drivers frame of mind (in general or on that day) if you bet enough times eventually you'll lose.
Again, for all the support relating to the legitimacy of the OP's behaviour at merge ins and what-have-you, he's the one who was assaulted and needs to buy new glasses, when it could've easily been avoided.
Al U said:
I think this went a lot worse for you than it should of. BUT, I hate people like you that think their journey is more important than other people's and cut in at the last minute when people like me have been queuing for 5 minutes or so. Maybe in the future you'll just join the back of the queue now?
You merge where the merge begins. Not 5 miles before u get to itConscript said:
Al U said:
I'm genuinely not trying to annoy you. We both just clearly have differing opinions. This really is a marmite situation where you either think one way or the other. I'm a person that will queue, whereas you are a person that will cut in at the last minute. It really doesn't bother me that much because like the other people who are patient and just queue, we are quite laid back.
It's not "cutting in". That's the problem. You sit in the left hand lane and view everyone who uses the right-hand lane and merges at the correct merge point, as completely in the wrong and somehow queue jumping. They aren't. They are utilising the road space as it's intended. It's only "cutting in" when you get a bunch of people with your mentality in the left hand lane..."well, he's just cutting in, I'm not going to let him!"...who then deliberately close gaps to stop people merging and slow traffic down even further.
If the people in the left really were so patient and laid back they'd just crawl along, leave a gap in front of them big enough for a car to merge and then those queuing on the right would merge into those gaps and no one would even have to slow down. And we wouldn't end up with situations like the OP.
There is of course a 'proper' way to do it (imvho).
I'm a regular A12 user and there is a section where 3 lanes become 2 (lane 3 merging into lane 2). When 1&2 are congested I'd say it's appropriate to use lane 3 to the merge in point, reducing ones speed to match that in lane 2 and make a smooth merge. Drivers (and myself included) do take offence if someone zips up lane 3 it a much higher speed (say 80 when everyone is travelling at 65) gets to the merge in point a forces a manoeuvre.
A merge needs compliance from both parties. In the latter scenario the lane 3er makes no effort on his/her part to aid the merge.
As Opulent Bob outlines, by the letter of the law they are correct to use the whole road but I do think the manner in which it is done makes a difference.
Conscript said:
I agree, but I would not expect to be penalised for driving correctly despite of everyone else.
Which, it sounds like the OP is. It sounds to me like he correctly used the the right hand lane for as long as he could, he correctly moved into a gap that was available to him at the correct merge point, and then another driver incorrectly blocked his manoeuvre and drove into him.
Yet we are just meant to accept that somehow, the OP was the one in the wrong, because that's the "prevailing attitude"? Surely it's the woman in the Navara who's shown the most aggression.
(shrug)Which, it sounds like the OP is. It sounds to me like he correctly used the the right hand lane for as long as he could, he correctly moved into a gap that was available to him at the correct merge point, and then another driver incorrectly blocked his manoeuvre and drove into him.
Yet we are just meant to accept that somehow, the OP was the one in the wrong, because that's the "prevailing attitude"? Surely it's the woman in the Navara who's shown the most aggression.
Being penalised is just a fact of having to deal with this attitude. As said before it's no good being right if you're dead. Sometimes you have to pick your battles, and especially where you're sharing the road with people with completely different attitudes, experience and capability in all aspects of road craft - not moderating your behaviour accordingly, even if it's self-defeating, is only going to end one way.
You can't pretend you're driving in a bubble when other drivers and their vehicles co-exist with you are perfectly capable of ruining your day.
Al U said:
Silverbullet767 said:
Read the highway code, and grow up.
Just admit that you're in the "inconsiderate git who pulls in late" camp.Edit: Don't bother. It's clear you just don't understand. (Perhaps that's not your fault).
Have a read of this and see if things start to make a bit more sense to you.
OpulentBob said:
A related post I made on another thread about Self-Appointed Road Police AKA lane blockers some months ago...
OpulentBob said:
YOU'VE PAID FOR BOTH LANES. USE THEM.
I design roads and traffic management arrangements (roadworks layouts) for a living, I've done it for 15 years.
The merge is where it is because that is the most appropriate location to merge. You may not understand the reasons for it, but there WILL be reasons it is where it is. White Knights/SARPs are absolutely not welcome, not helpful, and in many cases actually increase the risk by holding up traffic and forcing merges/queues away from the designated, agreed point. Agreed with various highway authorities, AND THE POLICE. The real police, not the self-appointed lot.
If a left-hander gets offended, or thinks the right-handers are getting an unfair advantage, then that's their problem. They are wrong. They choose to queue in the left lane when the right hand lane is clear, then they are idiots and their opinion doesn't count.
I design roads and traffic management arrangements (roadworks layouts) for a living, I've done it for 15 years.
The merge is where it is because that is the most appropriate location to merge. You may not understand the reasons for it, but there WILL be reasons it is where it is. White Knights/SARPs are absolutely not welcome, not helpful, and in many cases actually increase the risk by holding up traffic and forcing merges/queues away from the designated, agreed point. Agreed with various highway authorities, AND THE POLICE. The real police, not the self-appointed lot.
If a left-hander gets offended, or thinks the right-handers are getting an unfair advantage, then that's their problem. They are wrong. They choose to queue in the left lane when the right hand lane is clear, then they are idiots and their opinion doesn't count.
Edited by monthefish on Tuesday 11th November 10:37
A-ha! It's finally happened!
I keep bringing up the point on these threads that if you're willing to do something that can be perceived as anti-social, aggressive or merely not very British, you MUST be happy to go toe-to-toe with someone as a result. It doesn't matter if you're right or doing "nothing illegal", at some point you will meet someone who solves disputes with fists.
You pushed into a lane, you got punched. I wonder if you'll re-think your principles from now on...
I keep bringing up the point on these threads that if you're willing to do something that can be perceived as anti-social, aggressive or merely not very British, you MUST be happy to go toe-to-toe with someone as a result. It doesn't matter if you're right or doing "nothing illegal", at some point you will meet someone who solves disputes with fists.
You pushed into a lane, you got punched. I wonder if you'll re-think your principles from now on...
I need to reiterate this because people aren't understanding it.
I did not push. I was not playing chicken or trying to edge in on the Nissan.
When the BMW moved, the Nissan did not. This left a car length space and, as I had been stationary and indicating, it stood to reason that the Nissan was letting me in. I knew she was there. I wasn't unaware of the cars around me.
As I moved forward, so did she. The difference being is that she hit the side of my car. My door mirror made contact with, I think, her rear passenger door and she continued moving after I'd come to stop against the back of the BMW. I don't know exactly where my mirror hit or how far, because I didn't think to check afterwards where the damage was and, after being punched, my main concern was getting myself away from both of them.
The reason I cannot claim from her is because the police officers told me I should have merged earlier and, having been hit around the head, I just wanted to get back to my office and be done with it. So I said fine, I'd just pay up. Of course hindsight is fantastic and I'd love to have gone back to the main road and shown them where we were and what happened, but even then, with no witnesses and two people with damaged cars, what foot do I have to stand on?
For anyone who bothered to click the link to the road in question, you'll see that the merge distance is close to a roundabout. A lot of people were merging on the roundabout exit. I saw no reason to do that, knowing the merge point was a little further along the road, so followed the car ahead of me. That car merged ahead of the BMW and it made sense to me that the Nissan would let me go. The concept of everyone-lets-one-person-merge was something I thought was more universally accepted.
I did not push. I was not playing chicken or trying to edge in on the Nissan.
When the BMW moved, the Nissan did not. This left a car length space and, as I had been stationary and indicating, it stood to reason that the Nissan was letting me in. I knew she was there. I wasn't unaware of the cars around me.
As I moved forward, so did she. The difference being is that she hit the side of my car. My door mirror made contact with, I think, her rear passenger door and she continued moving after I'd come to stop against the back of the BMW. I don't know exactly where my mirror hit or how far, because I didn't think to check afterwards where the damage was and, after being punched, my main concern was getting myself away from both of them.
The reason I cannot claim from her is because the police officers told me I should have merged earlier and, having been hit around the head, I just wanted to get back to my office and be done with it. So I said fine, I'd just pay up. Of course hindsight is fantastic and I'd love to have gone back to the main road and shown them where we were and what happened, but even then, with no witnesses and two people with damaged cars, what foot do I have to stand on?
For anyone who bothered to click the link to the road in question, you'll see that the merge distance is close to a roundabout. A lot of people were merging on the roundabout exit. I saw no reason to do that, knowing the merge point was a little further along the road, so followed the car ahead of me. That car merged ahead of the BMW and it made sense to me that the Nissan would let me go. The concept of everyone-lets-one-person-merge was something I thought was more universally accepted.
julian64 said:
Silverbullet767 said:
British Police? Really? So the ones enforcing the law don't abide by it? I'm pretty sure if a marked police car tried to merge correctly, the Nevara driver wouldn't have reacted the same way. The problem is not the OP, it was the BMW driver and the Navara driver. The majority view doesn't make it the right one. I'll say again, we need 'merge like a zip' signs to educate the public in something they should already know.
Actually if you looked at my previous link , you would see that it was a police officer trying to enfore the 'no pushing in'.
, that was a letter from a snotty cow on a power trip.IT WAS NOT a statement of the Police's position on merging, nor has it been confirmed that she was actually a police officer rather than a civilian working for the police, so please don't try and push that as confirmation from the police of your viewpoint that merging at the lane closure is wrong.
romeogolf said:
Nezquick said:
However, once all this blows over, I suspect Mr BMW driver and Ms Navaro driver will both put in PI claims against your insurance - they have 3 years to do so don't forget.
Have you told your insurers about this incident? I suggest you do if you haven't.
If I tell my insurers does this not affect my history with regards to having to declare accidents etc?Have you told your insurers about this incident? I suggest you do if you haven't.
The fact is, you have been involved in an "accident" and have a duty to notify your insurers as you'll see from the T&C's of your policy. If they don't know about it, they can't take steps to protect their position.
If something on the side of your car hit something on the side of her car then one of the cars was going left to right or right to left, not straight on.
I would imagine as she was in the lane she wanted to be in and you were not you were moving right to left.
BMW driver has a right to be pissed off, you drove into the back of him and he was doing nothing wrong but watching you drive into him. A fat lip is a bit out of order but i'd put it down to one of life's lessons.
I would imagine as she was in the lane she wanted to be in and you were not you were moving right to left.
BMW driver has a right to be pissed off, you drove into the back of him and he was doing nothing wrong but watching you drive into him. A fat lip is a bit out of order but i'd put it down to one of life's lessons.
romeogolf said:
As I moved forward, so did she. The difference being is that she hit the side of my car. My door mirror made contact with, I think, her rear passenger door and she continued moving after I'd come to stop against the back of the BMW. I don't know exactly where my mirror hit or how far, because I didn't think to check afterwards where the damage was and, after being punched, my main concern was getting myself away from both of them.
So she teleported forwards, or the cars were virtually touching already? How far into the lane were you at the point you were indicating? The picture you paint makes it sound like both of you just moved forwards and into eachother, locked in mutually assured destruction mode, unable to react.It's hard to believe that this woman was resolute in her decision to damage her own car out of sheer bloodymindedness, when you by your own admission and in previous threads treat these merge-in points like it's absolutely the only place you can merge, and as you're indicating and moving then by damn other people will just have to deal with that one way or the other.
Al U said:
OK then let me clarify that for you -
1. Pass other traffic at a politely low speed differential. - When you are doing this, you are passing people that are waiting because they are not inconsiderate.
2. Don't merge at the absolute last possible point - get in a bit before that. - This is called queuing.
3. Don't be at all pushy about who lets you in. If someone is being pushy, and you don't push back, the guy behind him will probably let you. If you do push back, you are just confirming everyone's suspicion that you're an arse. - If the person won't let you in 9 times out of 10 it's probably an indication that you have left it too late and that person thinks sod you.
4. Try not to drive an Audi, BMW, or anything else that makes people feel like you probably look down on them. - This is a valid point.
...is this guy for real?1. Pass other traffic at a politely low speed differential. - When you are doing this, you are passing people that are waiting because they are not inconsiderate.
2. Don't merge at the absolute last possible point - get in a bit before that. - This is called queuing.
3. Don't be at all pushy about who lets you in. If someone is being pushy, and you don't push back, the guy behind him will probably let you. If you do push back, you are just confirming everyone's suspicion that you're an arse. - If the person won't let you in 9 times out of 10 it's probably an indication that you have left it too late and that person thinks sod you.
4. Try not to drive an Audi, BMW, or anything else that makes people feel like you probably look down on them. - This is a valid point.
If you were suppose to merge earlier, the merge point would have been earlier. Why sit in pointless traffic when there's another lane free to use which will ease congestion by reducing tailbacks?
Your outlook on this whole situation is identical to those who sit at 65/70mph in Lane 3 of the motorway refusing to let people pass them as in their mind it's considered queue jumping.
OP, sorry you had to endure this but I would really press to get him charged for assault and would definitely go down the insurance route.
Jasandjules said:
press charges.
And sue the BMW driver in the civil courts for your losses including the injury and the cost of your glasses.
I would also be interested in any insurance bod's views as to whether or not a policy would pay out to the BMW driver when he has committed assault?
Yes, they would. The assault is irrelevant when it comes down to the PI claim of the BMW driver. He was "rear-ended" by the OP and has a right to claim for damages (inc injury if suffered).And sue the BMW driver in the civil courts for your losses including the injury and the cost of your glasses.
I would also be interested in any insurance bod's views as to whether or not a policy would pay out to the BMW driver when he has committed assault?
The OP could claim via Criminal Injuries Compensation for his injuries from the assault if the BMW driver was prosecuted for the assault. From the sound of it though, he won't be.
romeogolf said:
"Manners Cost Nothing" - I'm very much a let one person go, then go yourself. The BMW let the car ahead of me in and moved forward. I moved in to the gap he left and it was the Nissan driver who decided not to let me know. But it's my manners which need attention? Had she been nose-to-tail with the BMW there wouldn't have been a gap and I'd not have tried to merge there, I'd wait for the next gap. Manners work both ways.
She was nose to tail not to let you in.Sheep mentality.Next time B.M.W driver will be hit back and hard.hondansx said:
A-ha! It's finally happened!
I keep bringing up the point on these threads that if you're willing to do something that can be perceived as anti-social, aggressive or merely not very British, you MUST be happy to go toe-to-toe with someone as a result. It doesn't matter if you're right or doing "nothing illegal", at some point you will meet someone who solves disputes with fists.
You pushed into a lane, you got punched. I wonder if you'll re-think your principles from now on...
To be fair though that's not correct. He got punched because he hit the back of the BMW driver, which is completely inexcusable. The BMW driver probably didn't care that he'd been trying to merge.I keep bringing up the point on these threads that if you're willing to do something that can be perceived as anti-social, aggressive or merely not very British, you MUST be happy to go toe-to-toe with someone as a result. It doesn't matter if you're right or doing "nothing illegal", at some point you will meet someone who solves disputes with fists.
You pushed into a lane, you got punched. I wonder if you'll re-think your principles from now on...
I'd bet that the BMW driver would probably have got out and punched the OP if he'd simply driven into the back of him at a set of traffic lights; i.e. he was someone quick to use their fists and/or he was having a very bad day.
Firstly, sorry you were assaulted. Nothing on the road warrants that and its inexcusable. I would have pressed charges but I appreciate your predicament.
That said, this part I don't understand..
Either she shot forward which would effectively be ramming you and running down the side of your car / footpath whilst you were almost fully in the lane and impacting the BMW, or you were trying to force your way into a gap that wasn't there, essentially side by side until impact.
The police have seemingly thought the latter too. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, only you know what happened but I'd be interested to see any pics of the damage you have, as it'd tell us a lot I think.
Specsavers are doing free polarioid coating on some specs at the mo, if you get them they make your tinted windows look spotty - very annoying.
That said, this part I don't understand..
romeogolf said:
As I moved forward, so did she. The difference being is that she hit the side of my car. My door mirror made contact with, I think, her rear passenger door and she continued moving after I'd come to stop against the back of the BMW. I don't know exactly where my mirror hit or how far, because I didn't think to check afterwards where the damage was and, after being punched, my main concern was getting myself away from both of them.
For your door mirror to contact her rear door, she would have to have been a good bonnet length ahead of you at the point of impact, and well within your peripheral vision. Further, for you to have impacted the BMW as that point whilst she continued forward just doesn't sound right from a position/ lane point of view.Either she shot forward which would effectively be ramming you and running down the side of your car / footpath whilst you were almost fully in the lane and impacting the BMW, or you were trying to force your way into a gap that wasn't there, essentially side by side until impact.
The police have seemingly thought the latter too. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, only you know what happened but I'd be interested to see any pics of the damage you have, as it'd tell us a lot I think.
Specsavers are doing free polarioid coating on some specs at the mo, if you get them they make your tinted windows look spotty - very annoying.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff