Hit by an unmarked police car

[The Mad Monk]

La Liga said:

Wow, lots of speculation and rubbish on the thread since I last visited.

Yeah, well, that's the sort of thing that happens when you aren't here to stop people posting speculative comments and rubbish.

Do you understand now why you are needed?

[SK425]

Sheepshanks said:

It's not reasonable to assume that rule affords "priority".

Of course it is. What do you think priority means? "Priority" is just the name given to the answer to the question, "when two people come into conflict, wanting the same piece of road space at the same time, which of them gets to have it first?"

There are situations where that question comes up and there is no rule to provide an answer, meaning neither road user has priority over the other. Imagine you and I are both waiting opposite each other at a crossroads. We are on the two minor roads and we both want to turn right onto the major road. The layout is such that our paths have to cross. We cannot both go at the same time without hitting each other. When the main road clears, one of us needs to go before the other. You will not find a rule that tells you which of us goes first. We just have to be grown up about it, muddle through, work it out somehow and get on with our days.

There are other situations where the "who goes first?" question comes up and there is a rule to provide an answer. "Who goes first?" means exactly the same thing as "who has priority?". A lane change is one of the situations where there is an answer - rule 133 tells you that the driver established in lane gets to go first. If you don't think that's the same as saying the driver established in lane has priority, I'm baffled as to what you think "priority" means.

Sheepshanks said:

If you wanted to drive at around the speed limit (I'm not being houlier than thou here, I've been done for speeding on motorways twice) on the M40 at most times of the day then it's very difficult to get into lane 3 without slowing an approaching car at some point in the manoeuvre (which could take some time if the vehicle you're passing is doing a similar speed).

Which manoeuvre? The lane change or the overtake? Are you interpreting rule 133 (or anything I've posted) as suggesting that you are required to complete your overtake and return to your original lane before anybody catches you? That would be barking! As you say, the overtake might take some time. Indeed, if there's a lot of traffic about you might not even be able to see a space to return to your original lane yet. You might spend the next ten miles overtaking stuff.

I'm astonished this needs spelling out, but... if you have managed to change lanes without causing a driver behind to have to change course or speed, you have complied with rule 133. That's it. Job done. Responsibility fulfilled. What happens after that - when you are established in lane and a faster driver catches you - is obviously outside the scope of a rule that is about changing lane. And for the avoidance of doubt, what happens then is that the faster driver waits for you to finish overtaking.

Is this stuff really news to you? I know it probably sounds patronising or insulting, but I genuinely can't understand how someone can learn to drive without encountering this stuff. These are the basics.

[anonymous-user]

Black_S3 said:

ETA: The comment about ''what we can reasonably expect other drivers to do''. Is it reasonable for the average driver to expect someone doing 110+? Or reasonable for an advanced driver to expect an average driver to change lanes on them without realising exactly how fast they were going?

Perhaps not. I'm certainly not suggesting there's no possibility the police driver is without blame, just that it's not possible to tell.

The Mad Monk said:

La Liga said:

Wow, lots of speculation and rubbish on the thread since I last visited.

Yeah, well, that's the sort of thing that happens when you aren't here to stop people posting speculative comments and rubbish.

Do you understand now why you are needed?

I do, I think this forum requires badges for roles like others do just under the user's name.

[Sheepshanks]

SK425 said:

I'm astonished this needs spelling out, but... if you have managed to change lanes without causing a driver behind to have to change course or speed, you have complied with rule 133. That's it. Job done. Responsibility fulfilled. What happens after that - when you are established in lane and a faster driver catches you - is obviously outside the scope of a rule that is about changing lane. And for the avoidance of doubt, what happens then is that the faster driver waits for you to finish overtaking.

So the issue is: at what point are you deemed to be established in the lane?

[Roo]

Sheepshanks said:

So the issue is: at what point are you deemed to be established in the lane?

That's been answered several times.

[Cat]

Sheepshanks said:

So the issue is: at what point are you deemed to be established in the lane?

No, one of the issues is whether you allow the other vehicle sufficient time/distance to avoid you when you move into its path.

Cat

[ferrariF50lover]

SK425 said:

Which manoeuvre? The lane change or the overtake? Are you interpreting rule 133 (or anything I've posted) as suggesting that you are required to complete your overtake and return to your original lane before anybody catches you? That would be barking! As you say, the overtake might take some time. Indeed, if there's a lot of traffic about you might not even be able to see a space to return to your original lane yet. You might spend the next ten miles overtaking stuff.

I'm astonished this needs spelling out, but... if you have managed to change lanes without causing a driver behind to have to change course or speed, you have complied with rule 133. That's it. Job done. Responsibility fulfilled. What happens after that - when you are established in lane and a faster driver catches you - is obviously outside the scope of a rule that is about changing lane. And for the avoidance of doubt, what happens then is that the faster driver waits for you to finish overtaking.

Is this stuff really news to you? I know it probably sounds patronising or insulting, but I genuinely can't understand how someone can learn to drive without encountering this stuff. These are the basics.

You, sir, have the patience of a Saint.

Sheeps, give ways offer the same type of priority to traffic established on a road. Would you blithely pull out of a side road onto a main road because 'fk you I'll do what I want', as you seem to think is acceptable on a motorway?

[TooMany2cvs]

Sheepshanks said:

So the issue is: at what point are you deemed to be established in the lane

Ask your driving instructor, in a few years time.

[carinaman]

Would an accident of that magnitude involving a police vehicle not garnered any press coverage?

The road would have been closed to measure up the scene and remove debris?

[Cat]

Sheepshanks said:

Now you're making stuff up - Rule 133 doesn't say anything about "sufficient time".

I wasn't aware that the discussion was now limited to rule 133. I was not talking about rule 133. I was referring to the fact that if you move into the path of another vehicle in such a manner that they are unable to avoid you (because you leave them insufficient time) then it matters not if you have become established in the lane you will still be at fault to an extent.

Cat

[mph1977]

Sheepshanks said:

Cat said:

Sheepshanks said:

So the issue is: at what point are you deemed to be established in the lane?

No, one of the issues is whether you allow the other vehicle sufficient time/distance to avoid you when you move into its path.

Cat

Now you're making stuff up - Rule 133 doesn't say anything about "sufficient time".

If you are wondering aobut sufficient time and space being a factor then perhaps the answer is the manouvere is potentially inconsiderate ...

it's rather harder to be specific in generality ... as it's all aobut attidues , the attitude cycle and so on for that specific incident.

[Sheepshanks]

Cat said:

I wasn't aware that the discussion was now limited to rule 133. I was not talking about rule 133.

It would be helpful if you try to keep up.

You responded to a comment I made when somebody cited Rule 133 as if it gave absolute protection to the person approaching, and I was pointing out that this is clearly an impractical notion.

It must make a difference if the approaching car is travelling at a massive speed differential - a glance in the mirror sees a vehicle some distance away. It's not reasonable to expect that it might be approaching at very high speed.

[ferrariF50lover]

Sheepshanks said:

It would be helpful if you try to keep up.

You responded to a comment I made when somebody cited Rule 133 as if it gave absolute protection to the person approaching, and I was pointing out that this is clearly an impractical notion.

It must make a difference if the approaching car is travelling at a massive speed differential - a glance in the mirror sees a vehicle some distance away. It's not reasonable to expect that it might be approaching at very high speed.

It really is. It really, really, really, really, really is.

[Cat]

Sheepshanks said:

It would be helpful if you try to keep up.

You responded to a comment I made when somebody cited Rule 133 as if it gave absolute protection to the person approaching, and I was pointing out that this is clearly an impractical notion.

It must make a difference if the approaching car is travelling at a massive speed differential - a glance in the mirror sees a vehicle some distance away. It's not reasonable to expect that it might be approaching at very high speed.

Apologies for failing to keep track of your irrelevant ramblings.

It is absolutely reasonable to expect that a driver makes sufficient observations to be certain of the speed of an approaching vehicle before moving into its path. If they are unable to judge the speed of an approaching vehicle with a glance in the mirror then they need to do more than glance in the mirror.

Cat

[eldar]

Cat said:

Apologies for failing to keep track of your irrelevant ramblings.

It is absolutely reasonable to expect that a driver makes sufficient observations to be certain of the speed of an approaching vehicle before moving into its path. If they are unable to judge the speed of an approaching vehicle with a glance in the mirror then they need to do more than glance in the mirror.

Cat

True of course. The problem is that the focus on revenue raising enforcement - parking, bus lanes and speeding - rather than quality of driving means that the I'm not speeding so I'm safe mentality is gradually eroding observation and anticipation.

[cmaguire]

Cat said:

Apologies for failing to keep track of your irrelevant ramblings.

It is absolutely reasonable to expect that a driver makes sufficient observations to be certain of the speed of an approaching vehicle before moving into its path. If they are unable to judge the speed of an approaching vehicle with a glance in the mirror then they need to do more than glance in the mirror.

Cat

Spot on.
This thread could have been several pages shorter.
Every time I look in on here (PH) the amount of pedantic, argumentative, sanctimonious know-it-alls beggars belief.

[John D.]

REALIST123 said:

Mr2Mike said:

twistedsanity said:

she is a sensible girl who clearly couldn't have anticipated the approaching vehicle was doing nearly twice the speed limit

This really isn't a defence. Had she properly observed the car approaching (i.e. not just a glance in the mirror) then she would have been aware of the speed difference. I've had enough people pull out in front of me on DCWs and motorways to know that most of the time people either don't bother looking at all, or look but don't 'see'.

If she feels the Police aren't handling the situation correctly, has she spoken to her insurance company about this?

Utter bks. Anyone, even the Police, driving at 110 to 120 on a road with a limit of 70 should not expect other law abiding road users to allow for their recklessness. Driving at that speed without sirens and lights is just stupid.

Your experience is irrelevant and bears no relation to what has been posted.

If all is as said, the Police driver and passengers should be prosecuted.

I don't think it's utter bks at all. No one should assume anything - especially the closing speed of another vehicle. It's not that hard to watch for a split second longer in the mirror and understand there is not actually a gap to move into.

[anonymous-user]

Jesus, is this still going?

[Pete317]

Crossflow Kid said:

Jesus, is this still going?

It is now

[SK425]

Sheepshanks said:

SK425 said:

I'm astonished this needs spelling out, but... if you have managed to change lanes without causing a driver behind to have to change course or speed, you have complied with rule 133. That's it. Job done. Responsibility fulfilled. What happens after that - when you are established in lane and a faster driver catches you - is obviously outside the scope of a rule that is about changing lane. And for the avoidance of doubt, what happens then is that the faster driver waits for you to finish overtaking.

So the issue is: at what point are you deemed to be established in the lane?

You're perhaps in danger of overthinking this. When you're in an overtaking lane, have you ever been forced to slow down because someone's pulling out in front of you? The simple advice is: don't do that to people .

Perhaps if you've not known what the etiquette was until now you've never felt the inconvenience when people have done that to you. I kind of envy you that - it's a disappointingly widespread problem. I'd suggest that you spend a little while now when you're driving on multi-lane roads just observing how people go about their lane changing and their interaction with the drivers behind. I think it will be pretty obvious which drivers are treating others with respect and courtesy and which are acting selfishly. Be one of the first kind - watch how they do it and use that as a model for how you do it.

I see you've commented in another post about vehicles approaching with a high speed differential. The obvious point is that nothing says the priority described in rule 133 only applies up to a certain speed differential. If your lane change causes them to have to slow down, you're still in the wrong - you've still broken the rule. That said, I think anyone who travels at unusually high speed would be wise to remember that, at a distance, it is very easy for the human brain of the driver ahead to misperceive the closing speed, and so the fast driver ought to be prepared for people to sometimes not afford them proper priority (like changing lanes in front of them, or pulling out of side roads) at a distance that wouldn't be an issue if the fast driver was doing a more normal speed. That's doesn't excuse the driver who pulls out when they shouldn't, but in the unlikely event that they found themselves on an Inconsiderate Driving charge I imagine it might at least provide some mitigation.

Edited by SK425 on Sunday 17th May 19:39