Hit by an unmarked police car
Discussion
I hope everyone involved it OK. It's probably a good indirect example of why the "no speed limit" people need to think about their position a little more.
Eclassy said:
What happened to all the extra skills these police drivers have?
Do they include time-travel to see what the future will behold? Eclassy said:
I rememeber a white van man going to prison for crashing into a car that was stationary in the outside lane of a motorway and killing the driver.
You should be able to stop in the distance that is clear in front of you. Different circumstances to this as the stopping distance rapidly changed. Interesting how you can't see the difference. hedgefinder said:
I wonder if the Police "incident" van was called and carried out the relevant checks/investigation/report into the circumstances of the accident - ie speeds, vehicle positions etc?
RTC investigatory depth is nearly always dictated by the severity of the incident (mainly injuries). These sound like they are minor injuries. Hooli said:
La Liga said:
It's probably a good indirect example of why the "no speed limit" people need to think about their position a little more.
Not really as the full position is normally the limit should be removed & driving standards improved.It is surprisingly easy to get caught out by a fast moving car. I was following a learner in a wide 30 who was driving very erratically who then stopped in the middle of the road with no indication. As I moved out to go round them a marked police car came passed me doing about 3 times my speed. I as distracted by the learner and it never occurred to me that someone would be overtaking me a that speed. Obviously the driving instructor was paying more attention to mirrors than I was.
jpringle819 said:
It is surprisingly easy to get caught out by a fast moving car.
No it isn't if you check your mirrors properly. 
I notice regularly on motorways, that drivers pull out of lane 2 as soon as a lorry indicates to use that lane,
regardless of what speed the traffic in lane 3 is doing, and causing everyone to use brakes.
The Highway Code says you should not cause other drivers to change speed or direction.
PoleDriver said:
What speed was she doing when she pulled out?
I get this nearly every day. I will be travelling on an NSL dual carriageway in lane 3 at 70-80 (indicated) and some one will pull out, usually without signalling, going at about 50-60 and they don't accelerate!!
What would happen if you were driving at between 110 and 120MPH?I get this nearly every day. I will be travelling on an NSL dual carriageway in lane 3 at 70-80 (indicated) and some one will pull out, usually without signalling, going at about 50-60 and they don't accelerate!!
I think many of the comments here are out of order. At 110 you're absolutely flying compared to the rest of the traffic - you're upon things in an instant.
lbc said:
No it isn't if you check your mirrors properly.
I notice regularly on motorways, that drivers pull out of lane 2 as soon as a lorry indicates to use that lane,
regardless of what speed the traffic in lane 3 is doing, and causing everyone to use brakes.
The Highway Code says you should not cause other drivers to change speed or direction.
So should the lorry driver be prosecuted? The car driver in lane 2 had to change either speed or direction or he'd have hit the back of the truck.I notice regularly on motorways, that drivers pull out of lane 2 as soon as a lorry indicates to use that lane,
regardless of what speed the traffic in lane 3 is doing, and causing everyone to use brakes.
The Highway Code says you should not cause other drivers to change speed or direction.
As in a lot of accidents, theis wouldn't have happened if:
A) car wasn't going as quickly
B) your mate used her mirrors correctly.
Only the police can decide what the punishment is for the A part - but looks to me like either party could have avoided this and so it's not just a case of 1 person in the wrong.
A) car wasn't going as quickly
B) your mate used her mirrors correctly.
Only the police can decide what the punishment is for the A part - but looks to me like either party could have avoided this and so it's not just a case of 1 person in the wrong.
Sheepshanks said:
I think many of the comments here are out of order. At 110 you're absolutely flying compared to the rest of the traffic - you're upon things in an instant.
I take it you never drive at more than 40mph if you think such a differential compared to pedestrians etc. means you are "flying" and "upon things in an instant". Cat
Sheepshanks said:
lbc said:
No it isn't if you check your mirrors properly.
I notice regularly on motorways, that drivers pull out of lane 2 as soon as a lorry indicates to use that lane,
regardless of what speed the traffic in lane 3 is doing, and causing everyone to use brakes.
The Highway Code says you should not cause other drivers to change speed or direction.
So should the lorry driver be prosecuted? The car driver in lane 2 had to change either speed or direction or he'd have hit the back of the truck.I notice regularly on motorways, that drivers pull out of lane 2 as soon as a lorry indicates to use that lane,
regardless of what speed the traffic in lane 3 is doing, and causing everyone to use brakes.
The Highway Code says you should not cause other drivers to change speed or direction.
Braking and waiting for faster traffic to pass them would be preferred option.
Edited by lbc on Thursday 14th May 18:28
Sheepshanks said:
What would happen if you were driving at between 110 and 120MPH?
I think many of the comments here are out of order. At 110 you're absolutely flying compared to the rest of the traffic - you're upon things in an instant.
Only if you have slow reactions! At 110 things do happen quicker, it's not till you start getting above 150 or 160 that things start to get hairy!I think many of the comments here are out of order. At 110 you're absolutely flying compared to the rest of the traffic - you're upon things in an instant.
PoleDriver said:
Sheepshanks said:
What would happen if you were driving at between 110 and 120MPH?
I think many of the comments here are out of order. At 110 you're absolutely flying compared to the rest of the traffic - you're upon things in an instant.
Only if you have slow reactions! At 110 things do happen quicker, it's not till you start getting above 150 or 160 that things start to get hairy!I think many of the comments here are out of order. At 110 you're absolutely flying compared to the rest of the traffic - you're upon things in an instant.
Bigends said:
PoleDriver said:
Sheepshanks said:
What would happen if you were driving at between 110 and 120MPH?
I think many of the comments here are out of order. At 110 you're absolutely flying compared to the rest of the traffic - you're upon things in an instant.
Only if you have slow reactions! At 110 things do happen quicker, it's not till you start getting above 150 or 160 that things start to get hairy!I think many of the comments here are out of order. At 110 you're absolutely flying compared to the rest of the traffic - you're upon things in an instant.
Looks like a straightforward case of lack of observation and concentration and possibly failure to signal by the person pulling out!
Cat said:
Sheepshanks said:
I think many of the comments here are out of order. At 110 you're absolutely flying compared to the rest of the traffic - you're upon things in an instant.
I take it you never drive at more than 40mph if you think such a differential compared to pedestrians etc. means you are "flying" and "upon things in an instant". And it's a different thing (although no less excusable) to come upon things by chance, than to knowingly drive past other traffic with such a substantial speed differential, especially while not under the bells.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff