Being Flashed etc

[vonhosen]

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

havoc said:

I'm not talking about trying for a gap that's barely longer than your car and requires the co-operation of another road user, I'm talking about the usual '1/2sec' not '2sec' gaps that most morons seem to think is sufficient nowadays.

I agree that putting yourself in a dangerous position is silly. But VH mentioned an 'offence', and that's a new one to me - it sounds like he's talking out of his arse, but I'm waiting to be proved wrong.

If you are forcing your way into inappropriate gaps the offence is inconsiderate driving.

Never heard of it VH. Care to share a hyperlink?

And another thing - who defines 'inappropriate'?!? By my own personal standards, I would never commence an overtake unless I was confident of SAFELY (in good time) reaching a gap large enough for me to pull into. That gap MAY be smaller than you would consider safe, it may not (I do not know your criteria!), but that then becomes a judgement call. And second point - when I commence the manoeuvre, the gap may be comforable, but by the time I complete the manoeuvre the actions of another driver may have closed that gap to a problematic size - WHO is then in the wrong - me for commencing a safe overtake, or the other numpty for closing the gap (consciously or unconsciously). Yet that person may be forcing me into two unpalatable options - force my way in (and commit your alleged offence), or nail the brakes on the wrong side of the road and try and find a gap further back (IMHO equally or more dangerous as your speed differential to the traffic increases as you slow down).


And excluding any 'change' in the size of a gap, why would the overtaker be prosecuted for said driving when the person who was clearly too close (tailgating) not be prosecuted for the same offence AND DWDCAA?!?


Sorry VH, but that whole thing smells like a pile of horse - if such an offence exists, WHY are the police not using it wholesale on all these tailgating muppets?!? And why would all-of-a-sudden an overtaker be subject to it?!?


Lot of questions there, but would appreciate answers to all of them.

It is Sec 3 RTA 1988.

Sec 3 RTA is two offences, without due care OR reasonable consideration.
There has to be another inconvenienced for driving without reasonable consideration. You've upset/inconvenienced the driver you pulled infront of & I observed it & considered that what you did was inconsiderate (in line with the inconvenienced driver). You would then get reported for the offence.

It's no good bleating about how dangerously close they were if you force your way in. Your actions were worse & I'll deal with the more serious matter.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 18th November 17:32

[havoc]

Well, that's two of my questions.

What if:-
a) They 'closed the door' on me (it's happened a few times!); or
b) They were just tailgating and I didn't overtake as a result - would you prosecute for tailgating? Because I've never seen ANYONE pulled over for that, despite it being one of the most obvious and common examples of dangerous driving.

[vonhosen]

havoc said:

Well, that's two of my questions.

What if:-
a) They 'closed the door' on me (it's happened a few times!); or
b) They were just tailgating and I didn't overtake as a result - would you prosecute for tailgating? Because I've never seen ANYONE pulled over for that, despite it being one of the most obvious and common examples of dangerous driving.

a) If the gap was in my opinion a suitable one & they closed the door on you then yes they would get reported.
b) If someone is tailgating yes again, but as I've said on other threads earlier, tailgating is not a simple as simply saying that being inside the 2 second rule amounts to it.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 18th November 17:45

[havoc]

vonhosen said:

b) If someone is tailgating yes again, but as I've said on other threads earlier, tailgating is not a simple as simply saying that being inside the 2 second rule amounts to it.

Of course - I agree with you there. Nonetheless, it IS fairly straightforward to spot, and I would argue that if someone is so close to the car in front that an overtaking car cannot SAFELY pull in between the two (except in a 30 or maybe 40, where in normal circumstances I wouldn't expect overtaking), then that would be a reasonable measure.


One final thought...you mention another driver being 'inconvenienced' is enough to crystallise the offence. Would I not be inconvenienced if I was behind 3 or 4 cars nose-to-tail, all travelling below the speed limit (say behind a truck and all sheep-like staying there), and I was as a result unable to overtake because of their lack of care?*



* Exact scenario I faced on way to Brackley, except it was 5 or 6 cars. After about 10mins I luckily found a long, empty straight and kept my foot in. Won't say what speed I got to, except to say that speed wouldn't have been necessary if:-
a) Some of them had taken earlier opportunities to overtake truck; or
b) They'd left reasonable gaps and I'd been ABLE to take them one at a time.

[vonhosen]

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

b) If someone is tailgating yes again, but as I've said on other threads earlier, tailgating is not a simple as simply saying that being inside the 2 second rule amounts to it.

Of course - I agree with you there. Nonetheless, it IS fairly straightforward to spot, and I would argue that if someone is so close to the car in front that an overtaking car cannot SAFELY pull in between the two (except in a 30 or maybe 40, where in normal circumstances I wouldn't expect overtaking), then that would be a reasonable measure.


One final thought...you mention another driver being 'inconvenienced' is enough to crystallise the offence. Would I not be inconvenienced if I was behind 3 or 4 cars nose-to-tail, all travelling below the speed limit (say behind a truck and all sheep-like staying there), and I was as a result unable to overtake because of their lack of care?*



* Exact scenario I faced on way to Brackley, except it was 5 or 6 cars. After about 10mins I luckily found a long, empty straight and kept my foot in. Won't say what speed I got to, except to say that speed wouldn't have been necessary if:-
a) Some of them had taken earlier opportunities to overtake truck; or
b) They'd left reasonable gaps and I'd been ABLE to take them one at a time.

I don't consider where they aren't tailgating, but merely have not left a sufficient gap for an overtakee (perhaps because they are looking for a safe legal overtaking opportunity themselves), that they are guilty of inconsiderate driving. If they are a distance off the car infront that is just outside that of tailgating, it is unlikely to be big enough for you to get into without causing them inconvenience.

I mean, imagine you have come up behind the 5 or 6 cars you were talking about at Brackley. There are no gaps as you said & you are looking to pass them. Are you going to back off & leave a gap infront of you if someone comes up behind you so that you aren't holding them up ? Are you going to still be looking for your chance with the 6 car overtake or are you just going to relinquish your place so the one behind you can have a 1 vehicle overtake on you ?

If you aren't going to relinquish your place, why is it inconsiderate for the one infront of you to not yield, but perfectly fine for you to not do so ?

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 18th November 20:01

[TripleS]

vonhosen said:

drakart said:

i live in lincolnshire; home of the overtake. i find that people nowadays are happy to sit at 30mph in a 60mph zone and bunch up very very closely. You have to make the choice to overtake all 12 cars or in 3-4 car sections. it is normally in sections, but they leave such small gaps that you have to fight your way in. The driver behind then flashes. The reason? you have forced him leave the comfort of sitting three feet from the guy in fronts tail. I always then slow down to leave some space between me and the car infront, which enrages them more (not on purpose!). i give them a hand gesture to indicate that there would not be a problem if he had left a bigger gap in the first place.
Most of the people on these roads are tourists and are packed with buckets, spades and children, yet they dont seem to understand breaking distances, how overladen cars handle etc. There are many accidents on the roads of Lincolnshire; its a suprise that there aren't more...

Not good.

There's a suitable sociable gap or there isn't, you shouldn't be forcing your way in anywhere.
No gap = no go.

I accept that now, but a few years ago I would have squeezed into a gap in order to facilitate my overtaking, and occasionally it did prompt a protest from the driver I'd just passed. In those days I didn't bother about it. My view was that it was his fault for not making reasonable provision for an overtaker along the lines recommended in the HC.

These days I won't push in, I'll forego the overtaking if necessary, but it is becoming more prevalent to see drivers following each other sheep-like and closely spaced, and it can be frustrating if you have a need to press on a bit.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[havoc]

vonhosen said:

I mean, imagine you have come up behind the 5 or 6 cars you were talking about at Brackley. There are no gaps as you said & you are looking to pass them. Are you going to back off & leave a gap infront of you if someone comes up behind you so that you aren't holding them up ? Are you going to still be looking for your chance with the 6 car overtake or are you just going to relinquish your place so the one behind you can have a 1 vehicle overtake on you ?

If you aren't going to relinquish your place, why is it inconsiderate for the one infront of you to not yield, but perfectly fine for you to not do so ?

Initially I did leave said gap. (! - I am no hypocrite, and will NOT criticise others for behaviour I am guilty of.) I expected at least one or two of the cars in front to take the (shorter) overtaking opportunities that presented themselves, given their positioning.

When none did I pushed up a bit and waited for a suitable opportunity, satisfied that they were NOT the sort of people to overtake.

TripleS said:

These days I won't push in, I'll forego the overtaking if necessary, but it is becoming more prevalent to see drivers following each other sheep-like and closely spaced, and it can be frustrating if you have a need to press on a bit.

My point exactly - I am learning to spot 'sheep' from those looking to overtake - the clues are there. And we are being stuck behind them because of their blinkered viewpoints and the lack of any police concern about this!
(VH being a case in point, IMHO. At say 50mph, even a 1-sec gap (22m or so!) is ample to pull into, so how can these people NOT be tailgating VH - IMHO a half-second gap is barely reaction time!!! - again I feel you are being a little disingenous!)

[Big Fat F'er]

havoc said:

At say 50mph, even a 1-sec gap (22m or so!) is ample to pull into, so how can these people NOT be tailgating VH - IMHO a half-second gap is barely reaction time!!! - again I feel you are being a little disingenous!)

Havoc - I don't get your point above.

You seem to be saying that at 50mph these people are driving so close it would be tailgating. But if you pull into that same gap, thereby reducing the gap to approximately a quarter of what it was, then that's okay.

How does that work then.

BFF

[havoc]

If someone is leaving a 1sec gap (22m, say 5 car-lengths - bit close but not tailgating), then that is ample for me to indicate, pull up and pull into without inconveniencing them much/at all (any overtake where you don't pass the last car will inconvenience someone A BIT).

And at that gap, I WOULD overtake.

Much less (Say the 2-3 car lengths I usually see = 1/2sec roughly, which IMHO IS tailgating as they will hardly react to an emergency stop), and I wouldn't dream of 'pushing my way in', which is what would be required.

Yet VH was saying that people could be too close to pull-into their gap, yet NOT be tailgating. I was trying to explain that I don't agree - 1sec is borderline close for following at NSL speeds, yet it leaves an ample gap.

[vonhosen]

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

I mean, imagine you have come up behind the 5 or 6 cars you were talking about at Brackley. There are no gaps as you said & you are looking to pass them. Are you going to back off & leave a gap infront of you if someone comes up behind you so that you aren't holding them up ? Are you going to still be looking for your chance with the 6 car overtake or are you just going to relinquish your place so the one behind you can have a 1 vehicle overtake on you ?

If you aren't going to relinquish your place, why is it inconsiderate for the one infront of you to not yield, but perfectly fine for you to not do so ?

Initially I did leave said gap. (! - I am no hypocrite, and will NOT criticise others for behaviour I am guilty of.) I expected at least one or two of the cars in front to take the (shorter) overtaking opportunities that presented themselves, given their positioning.

When none did I pushed up a bit and waited for a suitable opportunity, satisfied that they were NOT the sort of people to overtake.

TripleS said:

These days I won't push in, I'll forego the overtaking if necessary, but it is becoming more prevalent to see drivers following each other sheep-like and closely spaced, and it can be frustrating if you have a need to press on a bit.

My point exactly - I am learning to spot 'sheep' from those looking to overtake - the clues are there. And we are being stuck behind them because of their blinkered viewpoints and the lack of any police concern about this!
(VH being a case in point, IMHO. At say 50mph, even a 1-sec gap (22m or so!) is ample to pull into, so how can these people NOT be tailgating VH - IMHO a half-second gap is barely reaction time!!! - again I feel you are being a little disingenous!)

Those infront of you may still be looking for an overtaking opportunity. They may not be going for any number of reasons such as they are not confident with the gap available, they will only complete the overtake whilst staying within the speed limit etc, so need a larger safe gap to complete.

If you're saying that their 1 second gap is already too small, how does you squeezing into that gap make it any safer ? If the 1 sec gap was borderline tailgating & you are in a smaller gap closer than that how are you now not tailgating ?

I will view the circumstances & deal as I see fit.

If you overtake into a gap that I consider unsociable inconveniencing another, then it may not be a happy outcome for you.
If you have a sociable gap & they close the door on you, then it may not have a happy outcome for them.
If you have a sociable gap & don't incovenience them, there is nothing for me to do (in the absence of anything else that I may consider inappropriate).

Generally speaking a good rule of thumb to aim for is that you should be able to get into the gap pretty much without any braking & if you think they are already pretty close to tailgating the one infront then there won't be a safe gap for you.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th November 18:15

[havoc]

vonhosen said:

Some more sensible stuff.

I think we'll have to have a difference of judgement on the size of a suitable gap, but everyone will have their own view, and conditions, I would suggest, would affect that also.

Aside from that we're on the same lines...I'd just like to see coppers actually START pulling people over for tailgating (and by that I mean gaps of clearly <1sec.), as that is not only inconsiderate but dangerous.

[Don]

GreenV8S said:

Don said:

I NEVER flash my headlights before an overtake now - despite it being logical good practice. I find it tends to make the car in front accelerate as hard as they can whilst I'm alongside.

Far better to sneak up on them and then take them swiftly, smoothly and safely without ever actually waking them up...until its too late!

I assume you've got tongue firmly in cheek.

I prefer they do not see me coming.





More seriously.

I believe some of this "overtaking" trouble stems from the fact that in the highly developed parts of the UK there is virtually no need to do it. There are dual carriageways, multi-lane roads and motorways everywhere. In town there are multi-lane systems, congestion and crawling traffic. These things combined lead to a road system in which overtaking is either never required - or not even helpful in making your journey.

So there are people who have probably never overtaken anything in their life. Because of this they view overtaking as behaviour that is out of their experience and therefore they believe it to be highly dangerous.

All too often IT IS! Why? Because they see "yoofs" performing hair-raising overtakes into blind corners. Why? Because they've never learned to overtake safely either - their "bravado" is all they have to use to perform the manouevre.

So when someone who has, perhaps, learned to drive in a more rural environment or even away from the dual carriageway/motorway system and is well used to overtaking then performs an overtake? They are shocked and horrified whether or not it was safe. They simply believe that it is not safe.

Then there are the competetive ones, of course. For whom it is a race. They view anyone overtaking as a queue-jumper and get all huffy about it. These ones are the worse - because they "see red" more easily.

In any event - I have found, driving in the S.E. of England, that it is best to make overtakes with more than just due consideration for the safety of the manouevre itself. One must also take into account the likelihood of the car in front being driven by a . Overtaking s is a dangerous business and you need more room, more differential acceleration, and more margin for safety. To be honest? It may just not be worth it. If someone really doesn't want to let you by? Better to get your passenger to video it on their phone and make a complaint to the cops. They may do nothing! There again - it might be that the has been pissing them off for years and its a good opportunity to make his life unpleasant. Nice. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

[Big Fat F'er]

havoc said:

1sec is borderline close for following at NSL speeds, yet it leaves an ample gap.

Havoc - take this as intended, but what you are saying doesn't appear to make sense.

How can you define a gap as borderline close, but say it is ample to pull into. Obviously it's physically ample, lets face it we could get the vehicle into anything slightly longer than itself. But if it's too close to follow, then it's certainly too close once you have pulled in.

Whatever you think the safe gap should be (and that is a subject all of it's own) it needs to be more than twice that for you to pull into it. Otherwise you are driving dangerously and inconveniencing others.

Which bit aren't I getting ?

BFF

[havoc]

OK, fair point. And I agree.

But what I am suggesting (and not explaining up to now ) is that if you pull into a gap you would expect a reasonable individual behind you to pull back a bit to recover their 'safety zone', allowing you to pull back a bit from the car in front, and within a few seconds everyone's gaps are back at reasonable levels. It's what's happened with 90%+ of such overtakes that I've done.

If that didn't happen, there would be no overtakes which ended still in the same queue of traffic, as people would pull into a gap and the gap either side would suddenly be half of safe and stay that size, i.e. unsustainable.


If however the person behind is not reasonable and either tailgates or takes offence or both:-
a) is that your fault?
b) how were you supposed to know beforehand that they were an 'unreasonable' person?

I appreciate the points, and as always it's a bit of a grey-area. But are you telling me I should only overtake where the gap I plan to enter is the same size or bigger than the safe gap I need and the safe gap the person I'm passing needs? Because that'll never happen as people leave the gap they feel they'll need, not twice as much (if you understand where I'm going?).

[GreenV8S]

Don said:

I prefer they do not see me coming.

In the past people have said in all seriousness that if you give people advance notice you intend to pass them or pull in front of them, they'll act to stop you. In effect, you *need* to surprise people to make progress. Truly frightening that some people really do think like this.

I think that almost every accident comes down to surprise at some point. The principle that you should never be surprised and should aim never to surprise anyone, should be at the core of any driving system (little 'S').

Edited by GreenV8S on Monday 20th November 16:52

[havoc]

GreenV8S said:

Don said:

I prefer they do not see me coming.

In the past people have said in all seriousness that if you give people advance notice you intend to pass them or pull in front of them, they'll act to stop you. In effect, you *need* to surprise people to make progress. Truly frightening that some people really do think like this.

I would imagine that people who think like this have been given cause to by other road users acting in that way. I've certainly received such attention on more than one occasion.

As mentioned above - when overtaking I will always indicate, and will if I feel useful put my headlights on (as much for oncoming as for overtakees). But I won't actively flash or do anything that could be misconstrued as aggressive. If the overtakee doesn't use his mirrors and the first he's aware of me is when I'm actually passing him, then that's HIS issue, not mine. Might not be quite as safe when dealing with an unobservant driver, but is a lot safer when dealing with an aggressive driver.

[Big Fat F'er]

Havoc- a bit tricky this, ‘cos I can only say what I would do, and what I would expect those with me to do (if you see what I mean).

havoc said:

But what I am suggesting is that if you pull into a gap you would expect a reasonable individual behind you to pull back a bit to recover their 'safety zone'.

No I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t expect a driver to have to create the safe gap for me by pulling back. That’s not their responsibility, it's ours. But leaving that aside, I would NEVER, in ANY circumstances, put my safety in the hands of another. They may be indifferent, or uncaring, or antagonistic, or just plain stupid. Whatever it is, I aint trusting them with my safety.

havoc said:

But are you telling me I should only overtake where the gap I plan to enter is the same size or bigger than the safe gap I need and the safe gap the person I'm passing needs?

To be honest, that’s exactly what I would suggest you do. If there isn’t a safe gap, don’t go? Think about it logically. You decide to go on the assumption that there isn’t a safe gap anywhere, but you hope that the driver in front will create one when you get there. Dangerous for you and everyone else, and may very well be perceived as extremely antagonistic.

Sorry, but No Gap, No Go.

BFF

[Big Fat F'er]

havoc said:

If the overtakee doesn't use his mirrors and the first he's aware of me is when I'm actually passing him, then that's HIS issue, not mine.

It might be your issue when he pulls around a pothole, or gets a view, or pulls out to overtake, or turn right, or even drifts unintentionally, etc, and hits you side on.

Forget blame. It’s the impact you have to worry about.

Edited by Big Fat F'er on Monday 20th November 16:29

[A - W]

havoc said:

If the overtakee doesn't use his mirrors and the first he's aware of me is when I'm actually passing him, then that's HIS issue, not mine.

As said by others, you want to put your safety in the hands of other road users that arent aware of your presence! Suicide.

[GreenV8S]

Big Fat F'er said:

I would NEVER, in ANY circumstances, put my safety in the hands of another. They may be indifferent, or uncaring, or antagonistic, or just plain stupid. Whatever it is, I aint trusting them with my safety.

As always, it's a matter of degree. Every day we encounter situations where somebody could in principle put us at risk, every time you drive past a car waiting to pull out of a side road, or pass traffic going the other way on a country road, there is a period where they could hit you and leave you almost no chance to avoid them. What's a bad idea though, is to put yourself in a situation where something that is reasonably forseeable will leave you faced with an unavoidable accident. The driver in front being in 'zombie' mode and then pulling across without signalling is reasonably forseeable. Oncoming traffic swerving onto your side of the road for no apparent reason and driving at you head on isn't.