A risky undertake on the A11. Any opinions?

A risky undertake on the A11. Any opinions?

Author
Discussion

andy118run

Original Poster:

866 posts

205 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/video_dashboar...

This article popped up in my local paper today. Basically, it is dash cam footage of a car being undertaken and cut up in quite a dangerous manner on the A11 near Norwich.

The blue focus which did the dodgy manoeuvre was clearly being driven by a bit of a plonker but I've looked at this a couple of times and I'm thinking the car with the dash cam was sat in the outside lane for quite a while not overtaking anything (and we don't know how long he was sat there before the clip begins).

Is it my imagination? Should the fella with the dash cam be surprised someone went for a cheeky (albeit pretty silly) undertake?

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
Seriously? The dashcammer was following at a safe distance in a line of traffic that was overtaking those in the outside lane. He maintained a safe distance and no more. He was overtaking the tractor when the Focus carried out a really stupid and dangerous overtake that almost got him and potentially others killed.

Otherwise, yeah, all the dashcammer's fault rolleyes

Megaflow

9,347 posts

224 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
In the real world no he shouldn't. In the mind of the my journey is more important than yours type of person who sits in lane 2/3, they would be very surprised/angry/made to feel small/dickless or what ever reason they have for staying in lane 2.

Retroman

961 posts

132 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
I've been forced to pass people on the left before because they're sitting in the outside lane, doing 50mph in a NSL, and they're not overtaking anyone or turning right.
The way i've done it, is because the inside lane is empty i never have to move back to the outside lane to cut in front of the person i'm passing. I simply pass in the empty left lane and stay there.

I'd never do it as risky as the person in that focus. That was too close to being a serious accident.

The person driving is a bell end for hogging the outside lane for so long, but the person who passed on the left is a bigger bell end for taking such a risk

motco

15,919 posts

245 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
The camera car owner had been asleep in lane two for a while and this is borne out by the comment that the Focus "roared past" and took them by surprise. This doesn't excuse the Focus driver from carrying out a rash and risky manoeuvre, but it is just such disconnected driving as that of the camera owner that brings about frustration. All IMHO obviously... smile

untakenname

4,953 posts

191 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
police said:
But officers were unable to use the footage as evidence as Mr Seva had not calibrated the time and date settings on it at that point.
I fail to see the relevance of the date and time settings, what if you turned the timestamp off, would it be alright then? Surely all they should need is the numberplate?

I'm gonna have to check both my dashcams to make sure that the clocks gone back correctly yesterday otherwise it maybe inadmissible as evidence!

MrTrilby

935 posts

281 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
Retroman said:
The person driving is a bell end for hogging the outside lane for so long, but the person who passed on the left is a bigger bell end for taking such a risk
Did you watch the same clip as me? The dash cam driver was catching and passing traffic that was in lane 1. He couldn't have overtaken them any more quickly without driving into the back of the car that was clearly in front of him in lane 2. How is that possibly "hogging the outside lane"?

surveyor

17,768 posts

183 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
Need to know how long blokes been in outside lane really. It show's what can go wrong with undertaking though. I bet the camera car was not the only one with shaken occupants.

John145

2,447 posts

155 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
untakenname said:
I fail to see the relevance of the date and time settings, what if you turned the timestamp off, would it be alright then? Surely all they should need is the numberplate?

I'm gonna have to check both my dashcams to make sure that the clocks gone back correctly yesterday otherwise it maybe inadmissible as evidence!
The defence would be: I don't remember doing that, must've been the previous owner.

StottyEvo

6,860 posts

162 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
In my opinion the guy in the Focus is a knobber, even if the dashcamman was hogging the overtaking lane.

If you're going to go for an illegal undertake (which I admit I do) you make sure its safer than safe before doing so.

Sump

5,484 posts

166 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
It's only an issue if you crash.
Therefore by default, perfectly fine!

Eclassy

1,201 posts

121 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
StottyEvo said:
In my opinion the guy in the Focus is a knobber, even if the dashcamman was hogging the overtaking lane.

If you're going to go for an illegal undertake (which I admit I do) you make sure its safer than safe before doing so.
This.

Terrible overtaking on the left manoeuvre.

hornetrider

63,161 posts

204 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
Dodgy in the end.

When the Focus committed to the undertake, he probably thought that all the traffic on the road was moving at conventional speeds. The tractor in L1 was at that time obscured by another vehicle, and only revealed when that vehicle moved to overtake it. As such, it reminds me of that terrible late swerve crash in Belgium posted the other week. Could have been nasty.

I guess we would need to see further back in the footage to ascertain how long the camera car had been dawdling in L2.

the_lone_wolf

2,622 posts

185 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
Anybody notice that the camera car's speed dropped from ~70 to ~50mph quite rapidly shortly before the Focus came flying past, then speeds up as it goes past? GPS speed signals are delayed by a second or so so won't be quite real time

Focus approaching fast, flashes lights, driver responds by hitting the brakes, Focus then decides to perform daft undertaking manoeuvre perhaps?

No excuses for the dangerous undertake, but IMHO there's more to this than the article reports...

Pixelpeep7r

8,600 posts

141 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
slow news day clearly.

Car does risky undertake.

in other news, peado's use internet chat rooms to try and groom young girls.

and lastly, illegal immigrants are scared to seek medical care in the UK.

They must all be massive shocks to the general public

9mm

3,128 posts

209 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
the_lone_wolf said:
Anybody notice that the camera car's speed dropped from ~70 to ~50mph quite rapidly shortly before the Focus came flying past, then speeds up as it goes past? GPS speed signals are delayed by a second or so so won't be quite real time

Focus approaching fast, flashes lights, driver responds by hitting the brakes, Focus then decides to perform daft undertaking manoeuvre perhaps?

No excuses for the dangerous undertake, but IMHO there's more to this than the article reports...
I agree. Not condoning the undertake but I'd like to see the three miles preceding it.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
9mm said:
the_lone_wolf said:
Anybody notice that the camera car's speed dropped from ~70 to ~50mph quite rapidly shortly before the Focus came flying past, then speeds up as it goes past? GPS speed signals are delayed by a second or so so won't be quite real time

Focus approaching fast, flashes lights, driver responds by hitting the brakes, Focus then decides to perform daft undertaking manoeuvre perhaps?

No excuses for the dangerous undertake, but IMHO there's more to this than the article reports...
I agree. Not condoning the undertake but I'd like to see the three miles preceding it.
Why? Let's imagine that the dashcammer turns out to be a lane hog (of which there is no evidence in the clip). Would that make any difference at all to the assessment of the incident? Not for me. Still 100% the fault of the nob and awful driving.

tony wright

1,004 posts

249 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
the_lone_wolf said:
Anybody notice that the camera car's speed dropped from ~70 to ~50mph quite rapidly shortly before the Focus came flying past, then speeds up as it goes past? GPS speed signals are delayed by a second or so so won't be quite real time

Focus approaching fast, flashes lights, driver responds by hitting the brakes, Focus then decides to perform daft undertaking manoeuvre perhaps?

No excuses for the dangerous undertake, but IMHO there's more to this than the article reports...
Looks like he was slowing to allow the car to pull out as it approached the tractor in the inside lane.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
tony wright said:
Looks like he was slowing to allow the car to pull out as it approached the tractor in the inside lane.
Exactly. Pretty obvious. Not many driving gods around today.

9mm

3,128 posts

209 months

Monday 27th October 2014
quotequote all
ORD said:
9mm said:
the_lone_wolf said:
Anybody notice that the camera car's speed dropped from ~70 to ~50mph quite rapidly shortly before the Focus came flying past, then speeds up as it goes past? GPS speed signals are delayed by a second or so so won't be quite real time

Focus approaching fast, flashes lights, driver responds by hitting the brakes, Focus then decides to perform daft undertaking manoeuvre perhaps?

No excuses for the dangerous undertake, but IMHO there's more to this than the article reports...
I agree. Not condoning the undertake but I'd like to see the three miles preceding it.
Why? Let's imagine that the dashcammer turns out to be a lane hog (of which there is no evidence in the clip). Would that make any difference at all to the assessment of the incident? Not for me. Still 100% the fault of the nob and awful driving.
If you were filmed punching someone, should we just send you straight to prison, or would you like to explain why you punched them?