An epidemic of insanely slow drivers

[trails]

M4cruiser said:

AlexNJ89 said:

Who was at fault here?
https://twitter.com/one_ernie/status/1770009972853...

Lorry driver should obviously have backed off ...

Hand your license in immediately.

[croyde]

Pit Pony said:

drpep999 said:

The missus and I went to Italy a few years ago, and we all know how they drive over there borders on lunacy sometimes. But some things they do are quite interesting. They're not precious or egotistical about being over taken.

In the UK if you overtake someone (safely), the subtext is read as, you're too slow and not good enough, followed by lights flashing and hand gestures.

On this trip to Italy, I was following a car, and that car wanted to overtake another car in front of it. It was a wide single carriageway. So he just pulled out (I'm assuming it was a he) and started overtaking despite a car coming the other way. What happened was amazing. The car coming the other way moved over to make more room, and the car being overtaken moved over as well so there was enough room down the middle. It was not a tight squeeze there was plenty of space.

No one got butt hurt, or offended or upset. Everyone just took a pragmatic approach to the situation.
That would never happen here, and actually this type of overtake is something that I would not advocate, because it actually is dangerous, but it was interesting to see a different approach.

There is definately a difference.

About 6 miles of my commute used to have a "chicken" lane down the centre. Not sure when they were all removed. I've only being going that way regularly for a year but I used to use it 23 years ago on a daily basis.

It's not like they added cycle lanes and moved the 2 remaining lanes closer either.

If you overtake on them, invariably, the car you are overtaking will move to the right, and if there is a car coming the other way in the distance, you can see them noticeably move to the right too (I only overtake if I consider the speed of the approaching car allows plenty of time to get back over to your side)

Filtering slowly past stopped lines of traffic on my motorbike and the opposite 2 lanes are clear, then you get an Herbert in lane 2 flashing their lights and/or making angry gestures. There's no one in lane 1 FFS! Just think!

Even worse is when they actually drive at you.

Incredible, they are happy to ruin someone's life and ruin their own just because of their self importance and idiocy.

[bigothunter]

M4cruiser said:

AlexNJ89 said:

Who was at fault here?
https://twitter.com/one_ernie/status/1770009972853...

Lorry driver should obviously have backed off ...

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[768]

Really, after reading his other posts in this thread?

[bigothunter]

768 said:

Really, after reading his other posts in this thread?

I'm always interested in other drivers' thought processes especially when their perception is so different from mine. Understanding their actions is crucial to road safety.

[Sofa]

Pit Pony said:

There is definately a difference.

About 6 miles of my commute used to have a "chicken" lane down the centre. Not sure when they were all removed. I've only being going that way regularly for a year but I used to use it 23 years ago on a daily basis.

It's not like they added cycle lanes and moved the 2 remaining lanes closer either.

If you overtake on them, invariably, the car you are overtaking will move to the right, and if there is a car coming the other way in the distance, you can see them noticeably move to the right too (I only overtake if I consider the speed of the approaching car allows plenty of time to get back over to your side)

I drive down one such road fairly regularly (the A46 between Stratford-upon-Avon and Alcester) and people will regularly overtake in what clearly used to be the suicide lane even with trains of cars and lorries coming the other way... freaks me right out- I've overtaken along there with oncoming traffic admittedly, but only when I've been absolutely certain there's only 1 vehicle oncoming and they're positioned such that I have room.

I'm convinced that one day I'm going to see a nasty head-on collision there.

[Glenn63]

Pica-Pica said:

AlexNJ89 said:

Who was at fault here?
https://twitter.com/one_ernie/status/1770009972853...

Clearly the car driver.
1) The cab view is from the dash cam, NOT the drivers eye position (which is to the right and further back)
2) There is a give-way line - wonder what that means?
3) The car has a better power to weight ratio, so can adjust speed more easily
4) There is still some road edging left to use up.

The car driver took a chance and fluffed it, big time.

ETA: an even worse scenario would be an overtaking car pulling in too early after overtaking the truck and the two cars colliding as well - it happens!

Edited by Pica-Pica on Wednesday 20th March 14:17

It always amazes me that people see some white paint as a brick wall. If there really is no way of merging just continue on the hard shoulder while you increase/decrease speed to join.

[cheesejunkie]

Glenn63 said:

Pica-Pica said:

AlexNJ89 said:

Who was at fault here?
https://twitter.com/one_ernie/status/1770009972853...

Clearly the car driver.
1) The cab view is from the dash cam, NOT the drivers eye position (which is to the right and further back)
2) There is a give-way line - wonder what that means?
3) The car has a better power to weight ratio, so can adjust speed more easily
4) There is still some road edging left to use up.

The car driver took a chance and fluffed it, big time.

ETA: an even worse scenario would be an overtaking car pulling in too early after overtaking the truck and the two cars colliding as well - it happens!

Edited by Pica-Pica on Wednesday 20th March 14:17

It always amazes me that people see some white paint as a brick wall. If there really is no way of merging just continue on the hard shoulder while you increase/decrease speed to join.

Slow drivers don’t annoy me anywhere nearly as much as drivers with slow reactions. I have learned to manage my road rage, unfortunately I’ve passed it on and can now see my problems in others.

I joke obi wan has taught you well but I grit my teeth.

Those that can’t adjust speed to merge in lane will get a happy nod and room left whilst I’m thinking you fking useless prick.

My father taught me to assume every other road user is an idiot and you’ll never be wrong driving accordingly.

I don’t think the roads are worse than they were years ago but they’re a lot more busy. When I see some dodgy overtaking manoeuvres my second reaction is to stay clear and ignore my more aggressive competitive first reaction.

[DonkeyApple]

bigothunter said:

M4cruiser said:

AlexNJ89 said:

Who was at fault here?
https://twitter.com/one_ernie/status/1770009972853...

Lorry driver should obviously have backed off ...

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[M4cruiser]

bigothunter said:

M4cruiser said:

AlexNJ89 said:

Who was at fault here?
https://twitter.com/one_ernie/status/1770009972853...

Lorry driver should obviously have backed off ...

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

"Unreal"'s comment is relevant. We can't really judge from just 6 seconds of film. You can swing it either way, depending on circumstances. But, given that we have only 6 seconds of film, it does look like the car driver made an initial poor judgment that he/she could speed up and get in front of the lorry, at which point the lorry driver should slow down, and accommodate someone else's mistake, but instead chose to keep at 56mph. Both at fault to a degree, but quite how much is impossible to determine without the full picture.

[bigothunter]

M4cruiser said:

"Unreal"'s comment is relevant. We can't really judge from just 6 seconds of film. You can swing it either way, depending on circumstances. But, given that we have only 6 seconds of film, it does look like the car driver made an initial poor judgment that he/she could speed up and get in front of the lorry, at which point the lorry driver should slow down, and accommodate someone else's mistake, but instead chose to keep at 56mph. Both at fault to a degree, but quite how much is impossible to determine without the full picture.

Thanks

From my viewpoint, the car driver misjudged or ignored the position of the truck and made little or no attempt to speed up. Truck driver had limited opportunity to avoid the collision.

[LunarOne]

M4cruiser said:

bigothunter said:

M4cruiser said:

AlexNJ89 said:

Who was at fault here?
https://twitter.com/one_ernie/status/1770009972853...

Lorry driver should obviously have backed off ...

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

"Unreal"'s comment is relevant. We can't really judge from just 6 seconds of film. You can swing it either way, depending on circumstances. But, given that we have only 6 seconds of film, it does look like the car driver made an initial poor judgment that he/she could speed up and get in front of the lorry, at which point the lorry driver should slow down, and accommodate someone else's mistake, but instead chose to keep at 56mph. Both at fault to a degree, but quite how much is impossible to determine without the full picture.

We CAN judge from 6 seconds of film. In fact we only need two frames. In frame one, the car is not in the path of the lorry on a high-speed road. In the second frame a second or two later, the car is partially in the same lane as the lorry despite there not being space. You seem to be of the opinion that drivers must give way to accommodate the stupidity/bloody-mindedness of others.

In a perfect world, the truck could have made a bit of space by braking to let the car in. But that's assuming that the lorry driver had seen the car driver's idiotic manoeuvre. The camera is pressed up against the glass windscreen of the lorry cab, but that's exactly where the lorry driver's eyes are not. Instead, his or her eyes are mounted in his/her head which is on the right hand side of the cab and a metre to a metre and a half back from the glass where there is a much more restricted view forward. What is happening directly in front of the nearside front wheel is obscured.

And even if the lorry driver had seen the car creep up it's clear there's nowhere near enough space to merge, so the lorry driver would likely not have imagined that the driver was actually going to try to push in.

And even if the lorry driver had had the wildest of wild imaginations, he may not have even had the capacity to slow down suddenly. Lorries have a much-reduced ability to change speed when compared with cars, and sometimes on downhill gradients, they have no ability to slow down at all. That's why on gradients like these, gravel traps exist for drivers to use.

M4 Cruiser, I might guess that you are one of those moronic people who use their indicators to demand that a space opens up in the lane next to you, and if it doesn't, you force your way in anyway. These drivers have still not realised that it's "mirror - signal - manoeuvre" exactly to prevent this kind of thing. Identify a suitable space, signal intent to move into suitable space, and then move into suitable space. You do NOT signal to ask someone to make room for you. And by the way, a suitable space is at LEAST SEVEN car lengths (three in front, three behind, plus your own car), not barely one and a half like we see in that video.

[768]

Sofa said:

I drive down one such road fairly regularly (the A46 between Stratford-upon-Avon and Alcester) and people will regularly overtake in what clearly used to be the suicide lane even with trains of cars and lorries coming the other way... freaks me right out- I've overtaken along there with oncoming traffic admittedly, but only when I've been absolutely certain there's only 1 vehicle oncoming and they're positioned such that I have room.

I'm convinced that one day I'm going to see a nasty head-on collision there.

Effectively still is a suicide lane, with added precariousness.

I can never understand why they don't engineer those, even with as little as double white lines, to just have an overtaking stretch for traffic in one direction and then further up for traffic in the other direction.

[Unreal]

LunarOne said:

M4cruiser said:

bigothunter said:

M4cruiser said:

AlexNJ89 said:

Who was at fault here?
https://twitter.com/one_ernie/status/1770009972853...

Lorry driver should obviously have backed off ...

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

"Unreal"'s comment is relevant. We can't really judge from just 6 seconds of film. You can swing it either way, depending on circumstances. But, given that we have only 6 seconds of film, it does look like the car driver made an initial poor judgment that he/she could speed up and get in front of the lorry, at which point the lorry driver should slow down, and accommodate someone else's mistake, but instead chose to keep at 56mph. Both at fault to a degree, but quite how much is impossible to determine without the full picture.

We CAN judge from 6 seconds of film. In fact we only need two frames. In frame one, the car is not in the path of the lorry on a high-speed road. In the second frame a second or two later, the car is partially in the same lane as the lorry despite there not being space. You seem to be of the opinion that drivers must give way to accommodate the stupidity/bloody-mindedness of others.

In a perfect world, the truck could have made a bit of space by braking to let the car in. But that's assuming that the lorry driver had seen the car driver's idiotic manoeuvre. The camera is pressed up against the glass windscreen of the lorry cab, but that's exactly where the lorry driver's eyes are not. Instead, his or her eyes are mounted in his/her head which is on the right hand side of the cab and a metre to a metre and a half back from the glass where there is a much more restricted view forward. What is happening directly in front of the nearside front wheel is obscured.

And even if the lorry driver had seen the car creep up it's clear there's nowhere near enough space to merge, so the lorry driver would likely not have imagined that the driver was actually going to try to push in.

And even if the lorry driver had had the wildest of wild imaginations, he may not have even had the capacity to slow down suddenly. Lorries have a much-reduced ability to change speed when compared with cars, and sometimes on downhill gradients, they have no ability to slow down at all. That's why on gradients like these, gravel traps exist for drivers to use.

M4 Cruiser, I might guess that you are one of those moronic people who use their indicators to demand that a space opens up in the lane next to you, and if it doesn't, you force your way in anyway. These drivers have still not realised that it's "mirror - signal - manoeuvre" exactly to prevent this kind of thing. Identify a suitable space, signal intent to move into suitable space, and then move into suitable space. You do NOT signal to ask someone to make room for you. And by the way, a suitable space is at LEAST SEVEN car lengths (three in front, three behind, plus your own car), not barely one and a half like we see in that video.

You can judge all right, but that is based on a range of assumptions. I'd make the same assessment as most people based purely on that clip, but I'd have to add the proviso that there might have been other factors at play. A single new piece of information could change that view and prove it to be completely wrong.

[popeyewhite]

Unreal said:

LunarOne said:

M4cruiser said:

bigothunter said:

M4cruiser said:

AlexNJ89 said:

Who was at fault here?
https://twitter.com/one_ernie/status/1770009972853...

Lorry driver should obviously have backed off ...

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

"Unreal"'s comment is relevant. We can't really judge from just 6 seconds of film. You can swing it either way, depending on circumstances. But, given that we have only 6 seconds of film, it does look like the car driver made an initial poor judgment that he/she could speed up and get in front of the lorry, at which point the lorry driver should slow down, and accommodate someone else's mistake, but instead chose to keep at 56mph. Both at fault to a degree, but quite how much is impossible to determine without the full picture.

We CAN judge from 6 seconds of film. In fact we only need two frames. In frame one, the car is not in the path of the lorry on a high-speed road. In the second frame a second or two later, the car is partially in the same lane as the lorry despite there not being space. You seem to be of the opinion that drivers must give way to accommodate the stupidity/bloody-mindedness of others.

In a perfect world, the truck could have made a bit of space by braking to let the car in. But that's assuming that the lorry driver had seen the car driver's idiotic manoeuvre. The camera is pressed up against the glass windscreen of the lorry cab, but that's exactly where the lorry driver's eyes are not. Instead, his or her eyes are mounted in his/her head which is on the right hand side of the cab and a metre to a metre and a half back from the glass where there is a much more restricted view forward. What is happening directly in front of the nearside front wheel is obscured.

And even if the lorry driver had seen the car creep up it's clear there's nowhere near enough space to merge, so the lorry driver would likely not have imagined that the driver was actually going to try to push in.

And even if the lorry driver had had the wildest of wild imaginations, he may not have even had the capacity to slow down suddenly. Lorries have a much-reduced ability to change speed when compared with cars, and sometimes on downhill gradients, they have no ability to slow down at all. That's why on gradients like these, gravel traps exist for drivers to use.

M4 Cruiser, I might guess that you are one of those moronic people who use their indicators to demand that a space opens up in the lane next to you, and if it doesn't, you force your way in anyway. These drivers have still not realised that it's "mirror - signal - manoeuvre" exactly to prevent this kind of thing. Identify a suitable space, signal intent to move into suitable space, and then move into suitable space. You do NOT signal to ask someone to make room for you. And by the way, a suitable space is at LEAST SEVEN car lengths (three in front, three behind, plus your own car), not barely one and a half like we see in that video.

You can judge all right, but that is based on a range of assumptions. I'd make the same assessment as most people based purely on that clip, but I'd have to add the proviso that there might have been other factors at play. A single new piece of information could change that view and prove it to be completely wrong.

You've done it now. Like what? I mean what single piece of information could justify a car crossing into another lane already occupied by a lorry and colliding with it? It was being chased by gunmen in a following car? The driver could have had a seizure I suppose - what else could explain a complete lack of awareness of a huge lorry? Even then the car has still crossed into another - already occupied - lane. I'm all ears... .

[Unreal]

popeyewhite said:

Unreal said:

LunarOne said:

M4cruiser said:

bigothunter said:

M4cruiser said:

AlexNJ89 said:

Who was at fault here?
https://twitter.com/one_ernie/status/1770009972853...

Lorry driver should obviously have backed off ...

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

"Unreal"'s comment is relevant. We can't really judge from just 6 seconds of film. You can swing it either way, depending on circumstances. But, given that we have only 6 seconds of film, it does look like the car driver made an initial poor judgment that he/she could speed up and get in front of the lorry, at which point the lorry driver should slow down, and accommodate someone else's mistake, but instead chose to keep at 56mph. Both at fault to a degree, but quite how much is impossible to determine without the full picture.

We CAN judge from 6 seconds of film. In fact we only need two frames. In frame one, the car is not in the path of the lorry on a high-speed road. In the second frame a second or two later, the car is partially in the same lane as the lorry despite there not being space. You seem to be of the opinion that drivers must give way to accommodate the stupidity/bloody-mindedness of others.

In a perfect world, the truck could have made a bit of space by braking to let the car in. But that's assuming that the lorry driver had seen the car driver's idiotic manoeuvre. The camera is pressed up against the glass windscreen of the lorry cab, but that's exactly where the lorry driver's eyes are not. Instead, his or her eyes are mounted in his/her head which is on the right hand side of the cab and a metre to a metre and a half back from the glass where there is a much more restricted view forward. What is happening directly in front of the nearside front wheel is obscured.

And even if the lorry driver had seen the car creep up it's clear there's nowhere near enough space to merge, so the lorry driver would likely not have imagined that the driver was actually going to try to push in.

And even if the lorry driver had had the wildest of wild imaginations, he may not have even had the capacity to slow down suddenly. Lorries have a much-reduced ability to change speed when compared with cars, and sometimes on downhill gradients, they have no ability to slow down at all. That's why on gradients like these, gravel traps exist for drivers to use.

M4 Cruiser, I might guess that you are one of those moronic people who use their indicators to demand that a space opens up in the lane next to you, and if it doesn't, you force your way in anyway. These drivers have still not realised that it's "mirror - signal - manoeuvre" exactly to prevent this kind of thing. Identify a suitable space, signal intent to move into suitable space, and then move into suitable space. You do NOT signal to ask someone to make room for you. And by the way, a suitable space is at LEAST SEVEN car lengths (three in front, three behind, plus your own car), not barely one and a half like we see in that video.

You can judge all right, but that is based on a range of assumptions. I'd make the same assessment as most people based purely on that clip, but I'd have to add the proviso that there might have been other factors at play. A single new piece of information could change that view and prove it to be completely wrong.

You've done it now. Like what? I mean what single piece of information could justify a car crossing into another lane already occupied by a lorry and colliding with it? It was being chased by gunmen in a following car? The driver could have had a seizure I suppose - what else could explain a complete lack of awareness of a huge lorry? Even then the car has still crossed into another - already occupied - lane. I'm all ears... .

You've just given two. They might be rare but they're not impossible. There will be more. What's so hard to accept about a position that agrees with the most probable cause and blame with the proviso that other factors may not be known?

[popeyewhite]

Unreal said:

popeyewhite said:

Unreal said:

LunarOne said:

M4cruiser said:

bigothunter said:

M4cruiser said:

AlexNJ89 said:

Who was at fault here?
https://twitter.com/one_ernie/status/1770009972853...

Lorry driver should obviously have backed off ...

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

"Unreal"'s comment is relevant. We can't really judge from just 6 seconds of film. You can swing it either way, depending on circumstances. But, given that we have only 6 seconds of film, it does look like the car driver made an initial poor judgment that he/she could speed up and get in front of the lorry, at which point the lorry driver should slow down, and accommodate someone else's mistake, but instead chose to keep at 56mph. Both at fault to a degree, but quite how much is impossible to determine without the full picture.

We CAN judge from 6 seconds of film. In fact we only need two frames. In frame one, the car is not in the path of the lorry on a high-speed road. In the second frame a second or two later, the car is partially in the same lane as the lorry despite there not being space. You seem to be of the opinion that drivers must give way to accommodate the stupidity/bloody-mindedness of others.

In a perfect world, the truck could have made a bit of space by braking to let the car in. But that's assuming that the lorry driver had seen the car driver's idiotic manoeuvre. The camera is pressed up against the glass windscreen of the lorry cab, but that's exactly where the lorry driver's eyes are not. Instead, his or her eyes are mounted in his/her head which is on the right hand side of the cab and a metre to a metre and a half back from the glass where there is a much more restricted view forward. What is happening directly in front of the nearside front wheel is obscured.

And even if the lorry driver had seen the car creep up it's clear there's nowhere near enough space to merge, so the lorry driver would likely not have imagined that the driver was actually going to try to push in.

And even if the lorry driver had had the wildest of wild imaginations, he may not have even had the capacity to slow down suddenly. Lorries have a much-reduced ability to change speed when compared with cars, and sometimes on downhill gradients, they have no ability to slow down at all. That's why on gradients like these, gravel traps exist for drivers to use.

M4 Cruiser, I might guess that you are one of those moronic people who use their indicators to demand that a space opens up in the lane next to you, and if it doesn't, you force your way in anyway. These drivers have still not realised that it's "mirror - signal - manoeuvre" exactly to prevent this kind of thing. Identify a suitable space, signal intent to move into suitable space, and then move into suitable space. You do NOT signal to ask someone to make room for you. And by the way, a suitable space is at LEAST SEVEN car lengths (three in front, three behind, plus your own car), not barely one and a half like we see in that video.

You can judge all right, but that is based on a range of assumptions. I'd make the same assessment as most people based purely on that clip, but I'd have to add the proviso that there might have been other factors at play. A single new piece of information could change that view and prove it to be completely wrong.

You've done it now. Like what? I mean what single piece of information could justify a car crossing into another lane already occupied by a lorry and colliding with it? It was being chased by gunmen in a following car? The driver could have had a seizure I suppose - what else could explain a complete lack of awareness of a huge lorry? Even then the car has still crossed into another - already occupied - lane. I'm all ears... .

You've just given two. They might be rare but they're not impossible. There will be more. What's so hard to accept about a position that agrees with the most probable cause and blame with the proviso that other factors may not be known?

Lol, shall we do that with every topic discussed on PH?

[Unreal]

popeyewhite said:

Lol, shall we do that with every topic discussed on PH?

Lmao no, just those where judgements are based on a snapshot and where there may be other unknown factors at play.

[DonkeyApple]

768 said:

Effectively still is a suicide lane, with added precariousness.

I can never understand why they don't engineer those, even with as little as double white lines, to just have an overtaking stretch for traffic in one direction and then further up for traffic in the other direction.

I think the science is that this would be more dangerous. The reasoning being that with a normal suicide lane the majority of drivers are alert to the danger from the outset of moving into that lane so drive the length of it aware. If the lane were to start as a wholly benign and safe second lane but then become a head on collision point half a mile later you will have a big increase in the number of dozy morons plodding in what was a safe lane suddenly hitting a high risk 'wall' plus they'll then be statistically meeting all the thick and mentally disturbed blokes to the left who either can't compute the concept of 'merge in turn' or are fully signed up Minuteman militia hell bent on enforcing God's Law that cars in other lanes must never be allowed back in.

Sometimes the safer road layout is the one that overtly the most dangerous from start to finish.

[DonkeyApple]

bigothunter said:

Thanks

From my viewpoint, the car driver misjudged or ignored the position of the truck and made little or no attempt to speed up. Truck driver had limited opportunity to avoid the collision.

Yup. 100% the fault of the individual with the most manoeuvrable vehicle, the clearest lines of sight and the legal requirement to give way.

The real question to be asking is why the driver of a car that can clearly see the enormous lorry and has the ability to either accelerate to be in front of it, brake to go behind it or in an absolute emergency go straight on via the hard shoulder made the decision instead to just drive into it. If they had tagged a car they could have set off a cascading accident with horrendous implications.

It's always a worry that these humanoid potatoes not just walk amongst us but have managed to obtain driving licenses as well as seemingly a fan base to support their actions!