Discussion
Accelebrate said:
If you read the other thread on here you'd be led to believe that Golfs are allowed to undertake.Personally, I think people like that are nobbers - raining, forcing people to brake through his own antisocial driving.
Accelebrate said:
If drivers used the overtaking lanes only for overtaking actual vehicles and not wide open spaces then this sort of driving (as demonstrated by the Golf) would not be possible.Discuss.
4189 said:
Cliftonite said:
If drivers used the overtaking lanes only for overtaking actual vehicles and not wide open spaces then this sort of driving (as demonstrated by the Golf) would not be possible.
Discuss.
Totally agree, the first undertake by the Golf was perfectly justified, the second was stupid, probably borne out of frustration.Discuss.
Edited by Accelebrate on Monday 17th November 20:19
Accelebrate said:
I disagree, he gave the black car (Vauxhall?) ahead of me at the start of the clip no opportunity to move over after the two motorways merged. Looking at the change in road position of the Vauxhall the driver was thinking about moving over before he spotted the Golf steaming up the inside. Given that it was dark and wet with a reasonable amount of spray I'd say it was pretty dumb move rather than being perfectly justified.
Return to the left. You never once came out the overtaking lane!Edited by Accelebrate on Monday 17th November 20:19
The golf driver was brain dead but I'd book you for blocking the road (if anyone was crazy enough to give me such powers...)
ShaunTheSheep said:
Return to the left. You never once came out the overtaking lane!
The golf driver was brain dead but I'd book you for blocking the road (if anyone was crazy enough to give me such powers...)
Blocking for whom? There was nobody behind me.The golf driver was brain dead but I'd book you for blocking the road (if anyone was crazy enough to give me such powers...)
With the exception of the portion of the clip where I'm hanging back to see how the antics of the Golf unfold there isn't a portion of the clip where I'm not passing other vehicles in a timely fashion.
I can assure you I spend a lot of time keeping left rather than sitting in a constantly growing queue in the outside lane, but in the clip above it was not necessary.
ShaunTheSheep said:
Return to the left. You never once came out the overtaking lane!
The golf driver was brain dead but I'd book you for blocking the road (if anyone was crazy enough to give me such powers...)
Looks to me like the camera driver did nothing wrong. Motorway quite busy, damp surface, need to leave a 3 second gap, look at the whole picture.The golf driver was brain dead but I'd book you for blocking the road (if anyone was crazy enough to give me such powers...)
M4cruiser said:
ShaunTheSheep said:
Return to the left. You never once came out the overtaking lane!
The golf driver was brain dead but I'd book you for blocking the road (if anyone was crazy enough to give me such powers...)
Looks to me like the camera driver did nothing wrong. Motorway quite busy, damp surface, need to leave a 3 second gap, look at the whole picture.The golf driver was brain dead but I'd book you for blocking the road (if anyone was crazy enough to give me such powers...)
Camera driver nowt wrong with that if nothing behind.
Some of the comments on this these threads firstly make me wonder if the Internet directs some people to watch a different video, then just confirms to me the unreliability of witness statements. They've only watched it once in real time and only then had the opportunity to replay an imaginary perceived and adjusted version in their heads. Here people have the opportunity to watch things over and over and still get some strange interpretation.
I don't see the benefit in hopping in and out of lane 2 if you're not impeding the progress of anyone behind you and you can see that you'll be passing another car in lane 2 before anyone catches up with you. Changing lanes is inherently risky, particularly when it's dark and wet and you may miss a vehicle in lane 1 moving into lane 2. Checking blind spots means that you're briefly taking you're eyes away from the road ahead. I'm all for keeping left, but in this instance it made more sense to remain in the outside lane.
carreauchompeur said:
FiF said:
Agreed, Golf driver warranted words of advice after the first overtake down the middle lane, but reported for prosecution after that second set of madness.
Camera driver nowt wrong with that if nothing behind.
Really? Erm , keep left?Camera driver nowt wrong with that if nothing behind.
There was one bit early on where just after the Golf had wazzed past that a possible move to the left would have been considered. But there was a vehicle that had just joined in lane 1.
Considering the tendency for drivers to move out asap, which we all complain about, camera car was right in blind spot of that vehicle. Therefore imo it was right to stay out until past and then signal and move. It appeared that camera was going to move left from lane position adjust but the vehicle ahead moved left and signalled.
Ffwd and a number of overtakes to the point where the Golf moved left.
Yes at that point a move left was soon going to be possible once the llight coloured vehicle was far enough behind. At about that time the Golf then made his second move and frankly considering the risk of it all going tits up in lanes 1&2 then keeping as far back and right as conditions allowed was just sensible.
That's my view fwiw.
This argument is the same as those who say "I drive in the overtaking lane but if anyone comes up behind I'll move in".
You'd rather constantly scan lanes 1-3 behind for a potential overtaker (that means identifying other traffic AND evaluating their closing speed) from your lane 3 vantage point than just a casual glance every few seconds behind to see where people are with no need to figure out closing speeds.
Of course that's preposterous, you'd be tired after a few miles, so in fact what happens is people wait until someone is directly behind them. 1 journey needlessly held up for no reason. Now I admit plainly this is not crime of the century, but it is utterly pointless.
That's not the real problem anyway. The problem with this situation is a small group of cars approaches from behind at a higher speed. Instead of filling past unimpeded, you have cars slowing down and bunching up, add another couple and you have traffic held up.
Again, hardly a candidate for crime watch but completely pointless.
My position on these arguments is much simpler than all those above. Its simply: follow the highway code.
No one is served by drivers making up their own rules of the road. We have a first class highway code. When I deviate from it, its for a concrete reason and it doesn't begin with "so that I can..."
So to deviate from the code needs justification. It is not that the case needs to be made for whatever harm was caused by those flouting it.
In my humble opinion...
You'd rather constantly scan lanes 1-3 behind for a potential overtaker (that means identifying other traffic AND evaluating their closing speed) from your lane 3 vantage point than just a casual glance every few seconds behind to see where people are with no need to figure out closing speeds.
Of course that's preposterous, you'd be tired after a few miles, so in fact what happens is people wait until someone is directly behind them. 1 journey needlessly held up for no reason. Now I admit plainly this is not crime of the century, but it is utterly pointless.
That's not the real problem anyway. The problem with this situation is a small group of cars approaches from behind at a higher speed. Instead of filling past unimpeded, you have cars slowing down and bunching up, add another couple and you have traffic held up.
Again, hardly a candidate for crime watch but completely pointless.
My position on these arguments is much simpler than all those above. Its simply: follow the highway code.
No one is served by drivers making up their own rules of the road. We have a first class highway code. When I deviate from it, its for a concrete reason and it doesn't begin with "so that I can..."
So to deviate from the code needs justification. It is not that the case needs to be made for whatever harm was caused by those flouting it.
In my humble opinion...
ShaunTheSheep said:
Of course that's preposterous, you'd be tired after a few miles
I would argue that this is second nature to any reasonably competent driver. Keeping an eye on what's going on ahead and behind you really isn't that tiring. You seem to be assuming that I spent the entire 90 mile journey in the outside lane, I did not. For those couple of minutes, all things considered it made sense to remain in the outside lane.Towards the end of the clip I was hanging back to see how the actions of the Golf would unfold, from memory I was not comfortably clear of the Toyota I passed at around 30s. Does The Highway Code not stipulate that drivers should move left only when safely past? For the rest of the clip I was either allowing the traffic merging from my left to merge, or overtaking. I could have moved over after passing the black Vauxhall that the Golf undertook, but I had clear sight to pass the Kia in the distance and nothing behind me so I knew the overtake was on.
I can't see what you'd be hypothetically booking me for?
GrumpyTwig said:
EFA. It's been posted more times than there are days in the week.Gassing Station | In-Car Electronics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff