The "S**t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread (Vol 6)
Discussion
I'm with P1 fanatic
Moreover...I think we should be stricter about driving on the left. But that requires flesh-and-blood police on the roads, so it'll never happen.
As P1 also implies, staying in L1 is NOT undertaking - it's legal. Even moving from L2 to L1 to pass someone else in L2 is legal. The breach of law comes if you then move back to L2 soon after - there needs to be a move-left and then a move-right for it to be (illegal) undertaking.
...so if there is a L2 moron with nothing in front of him/her in L1, you can move left and pass under UK law. Just make sure you stay in L1 for a good amount of time to make the point that you're not undertaking.
J4CKO said:
Americans seem to manage with cars passing both sides without killing each other (and they love a reason to do that) you have a mirror on both sides and folk seem to 90% percent of the time check when something is coming by on the right, so not sure where the certain death thing comes from when a car comes past on the left ?
US accident rates on highways are quite a lot higher than ours. I don't think we should ditch the rule.Moreover...I think we should be stricter about driving on the left. But that requires flesh-and-blood police on the roads, so it'll never happen.
As P1 also implies, staying in L1 is NOT undertaking - it's legal. Even moving from L2 to L1 to pass someone else in L2 is legal. The breach of law comes if you then move back to L2 soon after - there needs to be a move-left and then a move-right for it to be (illegal) undertaking.
...so if there is a L2 moron with nothing in front of him/her in L1, you can move left and pass under UK law. Just make sure you stay in L1 for a good amount of time to make the point that you're not undertaking.
havoc said:
I'm with P1 fanatic
Moreover...I think we should be stricter about driving on the left. But that requires flesh-and-blood police on the roads, so it'll never happen.
As P1 also implies, staying in L1 is NOT undertaking - it's legal. Even moving from L2 to L1 to pass someone else in L2 is legal. The breach of law comes if you then move back to L2 soon after - there needs to be a move-left and then a move-right for it to be (illegal) undertaking.
...so if there is a L2 moron with nothing in front of him/her in L1, you can move left and pass under UK law. Just make sure you stay in L1 for a good amount of time to make the point that you're not undertaking.
Wasn't there a recent case where someone was prosecuted for dangerous driving by passing entirely in the left-hand lane? I can't find the details now but I'm sure there was. Not that it'll stop me mind, just gives me pause.J4CKO said:
Americans seem to manage with cars passing both sides without killing each other (and they love a reason to do that) you have a mirror on both sides and folk seem to 90% percent of the time check when something is coming by on the right, so not sure where the certain death thing comes from when a car comes past on the left ?
US accident rates on highways are quite a lot higher than ours. I don't think we should ditch the rule.Moreover...I think we should be stricter about driving on the left. But that requires flesh-and-blood police on the roads, so it'll never happen.
As P1 also implies, staying in L1 is NOT undertaking - it's legal. Even moving from L2 to L1 to pass someone else in L2 is legal. The breach of law comes if you then move back to L2 soon after - there needs to be a move-left and then a move-right for it to be (illegal) undertaking.
...so if there is a L2 moron with nothing in front of him/her in L1, you can move left and pass under UK law. Just make sure you stay in L1 for a good amount of time to make the point that you're not undertaking.
Krikkit said:
Wasn't there a recent case where someone was prosecuted for dangerous driving by passing entirely in the left-hand lane? I can't find the details now but I'm sure there was. Not that it'll stop me mind, just gives me pause.
Not heard of it and I would be very surprised unless the offender did something else in the same manoeuvre that was deemed dangerous. Its such a grey area that if you are sensible about it I doubt the police would waste their time even trying to prosecute you. Ashley Neal did a video on the subject a couple of years ago.havoc said:
Krikkit said:
Biffing a mirror so it folds itself back is a far cry from being able to hit it hard enough to break it (is that even possible?)
Julian - this was my thoughts when I wrote.Hitting a mirror hard enough to break it, even with a biking gauntlet, is probably more likely to break the biker's hand.
Not biking, but driving/overtaking - i've probably had a dozen instances I can recall (over 20++ years) where someone has closed a gap to baulk me mid-overtake. Same principle - road-captain behaviour hanging you out to dry on the wrong side of the road.
However, at no point have I felt the urge to physically clout the other driver's car or fold its mirror back, brake test or chase them up the road.
So could a biker (or a cyclist) who has done this car bashing thing explain what they feel justifies it and if they anticipate a reaction?
J4CKO said:
Need to get rid of the stupid "Undertaking" rule, as there is a whole swathe of complete trumpets on the road who take the right lane, especially on dual carriageways and sit in it, often below the speed limit to prevent anyone passing, or just in a dream world.
Here in Switzerland, we did exactly that last year!Since 2022 you are allowed to pass a car on the right (UK: left, the kerb side). You still are not allowed to undertake, i.e. change to the other lane to just over/undertake the MLH and the delta of speed must be "adequate". Also in case you are undertaking, it is a simple fixed penalty as opposed to a court case before. That said, the dangerous driving rule still applies! If they throw that one at you, it gets really expensive and you will be walking for a couple of months.
Unreal said:
havoc said:
Krikkit said:
Biffing a mirror so it folds itself back is a far cry from being able to hit it hard enough to break it (is that even possible?)
Julian - this was my thoughts when I wrote.Hitting a mirror hard enough to break it, even with a biking gauntlet, is probably more likely to break the biker's hand.
Not biking, but driving/overtaking - i've probably had a dozen instances I can recall (over 20++ years) where someone has closed a gap to baulk me mid-overtake. Same principle - road-captain behaviour hanging you out to dry on the wrong side of the road.
However, at no point have I felt the urge to physically clout the other driver's car or fold its mirror back, brake test or chase them up the road.
So could a biker (or a cyclist) who has done this car bashing thing explain what they feel justifies it and if they anticipate a reaction?
I don't think there's any well thought out logic to bashing the car, it's just the blood is up and you want some kind of retaliation to someone putting your health in danger. Same as if you're walking down the street and someone almost pokes your eye out with an umbrella - you feel more of a need to let them know what they almost did compared if they just brushed against you.
Unreal said:
I can recall similar incidents and I've learned to spot the vehicle/driver combinations most likely to do it so they've lessened over the years.
However, at no point have I felt the urge to physically clout the other driver's car or fold its mirror back, brake test or chase them up the road.
So could a biker (or a cyclist) who has done this car bashing thing explain what they feel justifies it and if they anticipate a reaction?
Different levels of vulnerability.However, at no point have I felt the urge to physically clout the other driver's car or fold its mirror back, brake test or chase them up the road.
So could a biker (or a cyclist) who has done this car bashing thing explain what they feel justifies it and if they anticipate a reaction?
Different levels of interaction with the world around you.
On a bike you're a lot more vulnerable, and lot less coccooned (senses-wise) from the world around you, so it's a far simpler job to slap a wingmirror out of alignment as you pass. Not saying you should, but if someone has actively tried to put you in harm's way, it seems a pretty low-level response. And if someone is that asleep that they're drifting across the lane, maybe waking them up could save someone else fom a proper accident?
Note that i'm not condoning physical damage here - just a slap to the wingmirror which knocks it out of position / wakes the driver of the offending vehicle up that they're not paying attention / being a t
t.Filibuster said:
J4CKO said:
Need to get rid of the stupid "Undertaking" rule, as there is a whole swathe of complete trumpets on the road who take the right lane, especially on dual carriageways and sit in it, often below the speed limit to prevent anyone passing, or just in a dream world.
Here in Switzerland, we did exactly that last year!Since 2022 you are allowed to pass a car on the right (UK: left, the kerb side). You still are not allowed to undertake, i.e. change to the other lane to just over/undertake the MLH and the delta of speed must be "adequate". Also in case you are undertaking, it is a simple fixed penalty as opposed to a court case before. That said, the dangerous driving rule still applies! If they throw that one at you, it gets really expensive and you will be walking for a couple of months.
ro250 said:
I thought that was the rule in the UK already? It's not illegal to pass on the 'undertaking' side, but it would be to change lanes to specifically do so.
Correct. As to how long one needs to be in lane 1 before passing is where the greyness starts. But common sense would say as long as you are not weaving between lanes to get past and / or speeding / tailgating then you should be fine. I’m also always aware that the person you are passing may not be aware of or expecting you so be extra cautious.Am I missing something, so some loon decides to stay in L2, you want to pass, why not just use L3 and be done with it.
On occasions I have been in L1 on a relatively empty motorway and some loon is in L2, I just use L3, pass them and move back to L1.
Unless you are already in L1, why would you need to move into L1 to pass except on a carriageway with only two lanes.
On occasions I have been in L1 on a relatively empty motorway and some loon is in L2, I just use L3, pass them and move back to L1.
Unless you are already in L1, why would you need to move into L1 to pass except on a carriageway with only two lanes.
Vipers said:
Am I missing something, so some loon decides to stay in L2, you want to pass, why not just use L3 and be done with it.
On occasions I have been in L1 on a relatively empty motorway and some loon is in L2, I just use L3, pass them and move back to L1.
Unless you are already in L1, why would you need to move into L1 to pass except on a carriageway with only two lanes.
So you have to do 4 lane changes because they're too ignorant? Why not just maintain a steady speed and carry on in your current lane.On occasions I have been in L1 on a relatively empty motorway and some loon is in L2, I just use L3, pass them and move back to L1.
Unless you are already in L1, why would you need to move into L1 to pass except on a carriageway with only two lanes.
Krikkit said:
So you have to do 4 lane changes because they're too ignorant? Why not just maintain a steady speed and carry on in your current lane.
Exactly this. I did chuckle once when someone mentioned a motorway game where you circle the L2 car from L1-L3 and back to L1 then slow down so they go past you and repeat. See how many loops you can score before they realise.havoc said:
I'm with P1 fanatic
Moreover...I think we should be stricter about driving on the left. But that requires flesh-and-blood police on the roads, so it'll never happen.
As P1 also implies, staying in L1 is NOT undertaking - it's legal. Even moving from L2 to L1 to pass someone else in L2 is legal. The breach of law comes if you then move back to L2 soon after - there needs to be a move-left and then a move-right for it to be (illegal) undertaking.
...so if there is a L2 moron with nothing in front of him/her in L1, you can move left and pass under UK law. Just make sure you stay in L1 for a good amount of time to make the point that you're not undertaking.
Having done quite a bit of driving in the US, it does seem to be one bit that works, as well as turning right on red if its clear.J4CKO said:
Americans seem to manage with cars passing both sides without killing each other (and they love a reason to do that) you have a mirror on both sides and folk seem to 90% percent of the time check when something is coming by on the right, so not sure where the certain death thing comes from when a car comes past on the left ?
US accident rates on highways are quite a lot higher than ours. I don't think we should ditch the rule.Moreover...I think we should be stricter about driving on the left. But that requires flesh-and-blood police on the roads, so it'll never happen.
As P1 also implies, staying in L1 is NOT undertaking - it's legal. Even moving from L2 to L1 to pass someone else in L2 is legal. The breach of law comes if you then move back to L2 soon after - there needs to be a move-left and then a move-right for it to be (illegal) undertaking.
...so if there is a L2 moron with nothing in front of him/her in L1, you can move left and pass under UK law. Just make sure you stay in L1 for a good amount of time to make the point that you're not undertaking.
Think the death rates are down to in a lot of cases, rashness and stupidity, coupled with driving more frequently for bigger distances, the road infrastructure tends to be less forgiving shall we say and most states have no concept of the MOT except for emissions so you see in some areas cars and pickup trucks that have no business being on the road.
I know the US is pretty big on clamping down on drink driving, but I have never seen as much drink driving as I saw while being over there, saw one guy helped from a bar to his van, assumed it would be a taxi but they helped him to his own van to drive home despite being barely able to stand, saw colleagues have a bottle of wine and drive. They say zero tolerance but I think that means to the rules.
Krikkit said:
Vipers said:
Am I missing something, so some loon decides to stay in L2, you want to pass, why not just use L3 and be done with it.
On occasions I have been in L1 on a relatively empty motorway and some loon is in L2, I just use L3, pass them and move back to L1.
Unless you are already in L1, why would you need to move into L1 to pass except on a carriageway with only two lanes.
So you have to do 4 lane changes because they're too ignorant? Why not just maintain a steady speed and carry on in your current lane.On occasions I have been in L1 on a relatively empty motorway and some loon is in L2, I just use L3, pass them and move back to L1.
Unless you are already in L1, why would you need to move into L1 to pass except on a carriageway with only two lanes.
Last week, I turned into a road which I hadnt used before and immediately come to a set of lights, realising I was in the outside of a two lane carriageway, no probs I will move of and move over, but another car had pulled alongside my near side. As I pulled away I was checking my left hand mirror to see when I could move over, I couldnt see him and wondered where he had gone.
Accellerating and checking I still couldn't see him, didnt know if he had pulled behind the car behing me, I finally leaned forward to see more in my near side mirror and saw him just slightly behind me and pacing me.
So yes that worries me. So whats a couple of lane changes.
Vipers said:
Last week, I turned into a road which I hadnt used before and immediately come to a set of lights, realising I was in the outside of a two lane carriageway, no probs I will move of and move over, but another car had pulled alongside my near side. As I pulled away I was checking my left hand mirror to see when I could move over, I couldnt see him and wondered where he had gone.
Accellerating and checking I still couldn't see him, didnt know if he had pulled behind the car behing me, I finally leaned forward to see more in my near side mirror and saw him just slightly behind me and pacing me.
Im going to be the first to say it...Accellerating and checking I still couldn't see him, didnt know if he had pulled behind the car behing me, I finally leaned forward to see more in my near side mirror and saw him just slightly behind me and pacing me.
From reading that you dont come across as a particularly good and/or observant driver.
You make the point about some cars having bad coverage on the left hand side, and while it is true that there can be mirror blind spots on cars it is always up to the driver to use proper observation...and with that in mind if you are in any doubt have you never thought of turning your head to look?
Ron240 said:
Vipers said:
Last week, I turned into a road which I hadnt used before and immediately come to a set of lights, realising I was in the outside of a two lane carriageway, no probs I will move of and move over, but another car had pulled alongside my near side. As I pulled away I was checking my left hand mirror to see when I could move over, I couldnt see him and wondered where he had gone.
Accellerating and checking I still couldn't see him, didnt know if he had pulled behind the car behing me, I finally leaned forward to see more in my near side mirror and saw him just slightly behind me and pacing me.
Im going to be the first to say it...Accellerating and checking I still couldn't see him, didnt know if he had pulled behind the car behing me, I finally leaned forward to see more in my near side mirror and saw him just slightly behind me and pacing me.
From reading that you dont come across as a particularly good and/or observant driver.
You make the point about some cars having bad coverage on the left hand side, and while it is true that there can be mirror blind spots on cars it is always up to the driver to use proper observation...and with that in mind if you are in any doubt have you never thought of turning your head to look?
But the fact I could t see him, knowing he was there initially I stayed in my lane, and a I said, leaned forward to see more out of mirror, anyway rime to stop clogging up the thread.
Edited by Vipers on Friday 31st March 20:34
havoc said:
As P1 also implies, staying in L1 is NOT undertaking - it's legal. Even moving from L2 to L1 to pass someone else in L2 is legal. The breach of law comes if you then move back to L2 soon after - there needs to be a move-left and then a move-right for it to be (illegal) undertaking.
I often see people making this distinction and wonder where it comes from. As far as I can tell the Highway Code only has this to say about undertaking (and that word is never used):Rule 268
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.
The only distinction made is where congested traffic is moving faster in your lane than in another. Other than that, passing on the left, moving to the left to pass, and weaving in and out of lanes is given an equal 'Do not'.
GiantCardboardPlato said:
The ‘do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake’ needs a ‘repeatedly’ added, perhaps, since in order to execute and overtake you do need to move into a different lane and then back out of it.
Doesn’t “weave in” indicate you are moving to a lane on your left, that’s how I interpreter it. Using the word weave, we weave out to pass and weave back in, don’t we?Or am I misinterpreting your comment.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff