Six and two threes?

[donkmeister]

Colleague mentioned a minor road-rage incident where it sounds like she was lane hogging L2 of a two-lane motorway, and the car behind her got closer than she would have liked... Not quite how she phrased it, obviously her driving was perfect in her version. Instead of moving over, she brake-checked them... Stupid.
The driver behind then undertook her, and brake-checked her. Again, stupid.
She's now talking about going to the police to report him!!! I've suggested that might not be a wise decision, given her actions. Apparently her brake-check was ok because he was tailgating
I've heard on here of people getting letters from the police saying "oi, calm down!" or being "invited" to have a chat. Does that really happen with the limited resources they have?
If she goes ahead and the police don't send her away, what happens when they invite the other driver to the station and they either say "well she did it first!" or produce a video of her brake checking them?

[PorkInsider]

donkmeister said:

If she goes ahead and the police don't send her away, what happens when they invite the other driver to the station and they either say "well she did it first!" or produce a video of her brake checking them?

Hopefully they'll both get a ticket of some sort?

She should get an extra ticket for being thick enough to think her actions were fine and that she's within her rights to report the other tit!

[Jamescrs]

She is being rather stupid because as above if the other driver happens to have a dash cam and produces footage of her hogging L2 and then brake checking him she's going to land herself in trouble potentially.
I'd suggest she chalks it down to experience and doesn't brake check people in future, maybe some motorway driving lessons would also be appropriate but I doubt that would be well received.

[Flumpo]

If she was in l2 but she was going to somehow turn right in the next 50 miles or she was doing 70 (no more) then she had every right to be in l2.

No hang on that’s not right? But on a serious note, if I was behind her and flashed headlights and she decided to brake check. If I went into the back of her and had in on camera. Does that override the going into the back of someone you’re at fault rule?

How easy would it be for her to say the headlights panicked her and she slowed down?

Could she argue I should have stopped if I had been paying full attention?

[vonhosen]

Flumpo said:

If she was in l2 but she was going to somehow turn right in the next 50 miles or she was doing 70 (no more) then she had every right to be in l2.

No hang on that’s not right? But on a serious note, if I was behind her and flashed headlights and she decided to brake check. If I went into the back of her and had in on camera. Does that override the going into the back of someone you’re at fault rule?

How easy would it be for her to say the headlights panicked her and she slowed down?

Could she argue I should have stopped if I had been paying full attention?

Each case rest on it's own facts (which will include all manner of considerations including such as how close your following distance was).

[donkmeister]

Flumpo said:

If she was in l2 but she was going to somehow turn right in the next 50 miles or she was doing 70 (no more) then she had every right to be in l2.

Funnily enough "I was doing 70 so he had no business in going any faster" was what led me to suspect lane hogging was the factor that led to the tailgater tailgating.

Hopefully she's simmered down and won't pursue this (amusing though that might be).

[andygo]

donkmeister said:

Funnily enough "I was doing 70 so he had no business in going any faster" was what led me to suspect lane hogging was the factor that led to the tailgater tailgating.

Hopefully she's simmered down and won't pursue this (amusing though that might be).

She was doing 70 according to her speedo.

If she goes to the plod, how on earth is she going to prove it?

[poo at Paul's]

This is why it is just not worth bothering trying to pass such people legitimately. You can sot these muppets miles off, just cruise past them on the inside and carry on on the inside lane for the next few miles. They don't even notice you've done it.

[Jasandjules]

If we are lucky she will go to the police then be charged for driving without due care and attention....

[paintman]

Sounds like two perfectly matched idiots.
Hopefully they won't get together & breed.

[Ian Geary]

The problem with 2 idiots meeting is it then becomes a contest about who can "out-stupid" the other one.

I have (i'm ashamed to say) got sucked into those sorts of situations in the past, and it can take quite a bit of will power to turn the other cheek.

But then I did know I was being a dumbass, so I forgave myself.

[AJB88]

L2 hogging Milton Keynes biggest issue.

[Lonely]

Ian Geary said:

The problem with 2 idiots meeting is it then becomes a contest about who can "out-stupid" the other one.

I have (i'm ashamed to say) got sucked into those sorts of situations in the past, and it can take quite a bit of will power to turn the other cheek.

But then I did know I was being a dumbass, so I forgave myself.

That's a cracking description of a Pistoheads forum

[The_Nugget]

You should absolutely encourage her to go to the police and report this.

Then, you should go with her and film it and post it on here.

[martinbiz]

Flumpo said:

But on a serious note, if I was behind her and flashed headlights and she decided to brake check. If I went into the back of her and had in on camera. Does that override the going into the back of someone you’re at fault rule?

Surely your not serious with that comment, obviously no, too close is too close whatever valid reasons you may think you have and coming up behind and flashing would also seen as an aggressive and aggravating factor to any offence committed

[Tyre Smoke]

martinbiz said:

Flumpo said:

But on a serious note, if I was behind her and flashed headlights and she decided to brake check. If I went into the back of her and had in on camera. Does that override the going into the back of someone you’re at fault rule?

Surely your not serious with that comment, obviously no, too close is too close whatever valid reasons you may think you have and coming up behind and flashing would also seen as an aggressive and aggravating factor to any offence committed

Yet odly enough on my speed awareness course the instructor said there have been numerous occasions where the 'brake checker' has been prosecuted for dangerous driving.

[Rude-boy]

Tyre Smoke said:

martinbiz said:

Flumpo said:

But on a serious note, if I was behind her and flashed headlights and she decided to brake check. If I went into the back of her and had in on camera. Does that override the going into the back of someone you’re at fault rule?

Surely your not serious with that comment, obviously no, too close is too close whatever valid reasons you may think you have and coming up behind and flashing would also seen as an aggressive and aggravating factor to any offence committed

Yet odly enough on my speed awareness course the instructor said there have been numerous occasions where the 'brake checker' has been prosecuted for dangerous driving.

The internet is also filled with videos of what happens when brake checking goes differently to how the checker expected it to...

We've all been a tit at times in a car but brake checking is another World of stupid. I will admit that i have in the past brushed the middle peddle with my left foot to 'show' the brake lights to someone so close i could not see their headlights in the mirror but without any drop in speed - it did actually work and they dropped back to a couple of car lengths - but no way in hell would i have retarded my speed and risked being rearended!

OP's colleague sounds a bit of a twot and should be thinking more about what the ramifications of a report are to her than what might happen to the other driver.

She also sounds an entitled little madam - how could she possibly know that the other driver didn't have a need to go faster than she did and also who appointed her the lord high arbiter of road speed? As my old man would say "They should set fire to her licence in front of her and stick it up her arse!"

[4rephill]

donkmeister said:

Colleague mentioned a minor road-rage incident where it sounds like she was lane hogging L2 of a two-lane motorway, and the car behind her got closer than she would have liked... Not quite how she phrased it, obviously her driving was perfect in her version. Instead of moving over, she brake-checked them... Stupid.
The driver behind then undertook her, and brake-checked her. Again, stupid.
She's now talking about going to the police to report him!!! I've suggested that might not be a wise decision, given her actions. Apparently her brake-check was ok because he was tailgating
I've heard on here of people getting letters from the police saying "oi, calm down!" or being "invited" to have a chat. Does that really happen with the limited resources they have?
If she goes ahead and the police don't send her away, what happens when they invite the other driver to the station and they either say "well she did it first!" or produce a video of her brake checking them?

Assuming this is a colleague you actually talk with, rather than one who just unloads their version of events and then walks off, have you actually told her that she instigated the whole thing by failing to keep left on a motorway when not overtaking (as demonstrated by the other driver being able to under-take her), and was stupid to risk causing a serious accident by carrying out the initial reckless brake-test at high speed? - I suspect not.

I'd point out to her that her angry reaction to the retaliatory brake-test that was carried out on her, was the exact same reaction that the other driver had to her initial brake test.

I'd also point out to her that if she should decide to report this incident to the police, she should be aware that the other driver will most likely inform them of her actions, which could result in a prosecution coming her way too.

[PAULJ5555]

I hope they do nothing because they dont even have the time to sort out drug drivers and drug dealers that have been reported to them.

[Flumpo]

martinbiz said:

Flumpo said:

But on a serious note, if I was behind her and flashed headlights and she decided to brake check. If I went into the back of her and had in on camera. Does that override the going into the back of someone you’re at fault rule?

Surely your not serious with that comment, obviously no, too close is too close whatever valid reasons you may think you have and coming up behind and flashing would also seen as an aggressive and aggravating factor to any offence committed

It wasn’t comment, it was a question. But thanks for the passive aggressive gammon response.