# Family nearly killed today



## TwickenhamCyclist (18 May 2008)

Hi all
Just had a pretty nasty experience – in the car – I know this is a cycling forum, but I feel I need to share it.

Driving along M4 out of town this morning – with my partner and our three little girls in the car – heading towards M25. Traffic not too heavy, doing close to 70mph in inside lane, Get to junction for Heathrow, I’m in the left lane with little traffic in front. Car about 100m behinds us in middle lane, going at the same speed with a white van and trailer right, and I mean right, up his behind. Lots of traffic joining M4 from Heathrow junction so I move out to middle lane. Van and trailer takes inside lane and underetakes middle lane driver at speed and starts approaching us as traffic joins from left. He nearly undertakes us but doesn’t quite make it as joining traffic blocks him – he breaks a little and moves to middle lane literally inches behind us and starts flashing his lights. By now we have cars joining motorway on left, cars overtaking on right and WMV right up us – I had nowhere to go as cars now in front of us in middle lane as well – very worried about how close he was so I put on my hazard lights – this seemed to really infuriate him – he then went to overtake – very close – straddles middle and outside lanes, forcing outside lane traffic to break heavily and draws up level with us – he was literally standing up in the cab and gesticulating/shouting/going crazy and then violently swerved left into us, clipping our wing mirror – I managed to break and swerve to the left and luckily inside lane car spotted what was happening and swerved into hard shoulder. WVM then carried on intimidating cars in front of us.
It all seemed to be in slow motion and I’s still shocked that we survived it

I can’t emphasize enough that he knew what he was doing and deliberately drove into a car that he could see had a family of five in it.

Have just tried to report it to police - Twickenham station – but they say we have to report it to Heathrow police – who are shut until the morning. 

This tosser tried to kill my family today and I know that due to lack of police witnesses no action will be taken againdt his driving – he did however cause minimal damage to our wing mirror – it will cost a few pounds to repaint the scrapes, glass wasn’t broken , so perhaps they might look into it – this is not a dig at the police but it really gets me that someone can attempt to kill me and my family and I can do nothing about it.

It was a white van, with a trailer, at 11.30am reg no: X802 ANU

I’d love to be able to trace the driver just to have a little word with him and perhaps show him a few pictures of the little girls he attempted to kill this morning – little chance of any action being taken, bit I already feel better having written it down


----------



## Renard (18 May 2008)

I would love to be given 10 minutes with this individual  and it wouldn't be so I could lecture him on road safety!


----------



## Keith Oates (18 May 2008)

Very frightening, TwickenhamCyclist, I hope you follow up with the Heathrow Police and seeing you have the number they could just do something about it. Geting them to have a quiet work with him would also be nice to arrange!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MERV (18 May 2008)

People are idiots.I always keep this in mind.I saw an incident yesterday on my early morning commute between two cars.I hope you are okay mate.


----------



## magnatom (19 May 2008)

!

I absolutely hate tailgaters, probably more than I hate any other type of bad driving. I believe the advice if someone does that to you it to slow down so that there is a large gap between you and the car in front, allowing you time (and hopefully them time) to react to what is ahead. Of course that will also slow them down which defeats their purpose.

If I had the cash I'd love to have two cameras in the car (forward and rear). Of course would the police do anything about it....?

Of course, as this happened on the motorway there might be CCTV footage, so report as soon as you can.



Merv,

Just wondering, why have you removed your videos?


----------



## MERV (19 May 2008)

> Merv,
> 
> Just wondering, why have you removed your videos?



Closed my account.

They wern't doing the job I hoped they would do.

People seem to think i've been riding for five minutes and don't know f-all.

Im tired of it.Not worth the bother and aggravation.

I have had more serious things to worry about in my life so I really didn't need this.


----------



## User482 (19 May 2008)

Yes, the closer someone drives behind me, the more I slow down.

I was stuck in heavy traffic going north on the M6 on Friday - I stayed on the inside lane for the duration and managed to finish up ahead of the tosser in the BMW who was cutting everyone up, flashing his lights etc. No doubt he'll not learn from his experience.


----------



## domtyler (19 May 2008)

There are a number of ways of dealing with people like this, all of which require a larger and heavier vehicle than his or some kind of firearm. Failing that, slow down, get out of his way, let him by and note the registration plate, later reporting to the police, who will quietly file it under "Do fuck all about it".


----------



## LLB (19 May 2008)

Had this yesterday evening riding through Stroud on my m/cycle with my 15 y/o daughter on the back.

Road was empty and had just ridden from Cirencester. Passing through Chalford, I ride through a T junction as an old white Mazda emerges from it on the nearside, and the chavy looking knob driver deliberately rolls out onto the road towards me as I pass him (car had 4 people in it).

I carry on the still empty and mostly straight road dead on the 40mph limit, and he starts to tailgate me very close (within 5ft of the bike). after about 1/2 mile I roll off the throttle to about 35mph and he is still right there, so I roll off again to 30mph.

He backs off a bit but makes no attempt to pass me and drops right back  , so I wind back on to 40mph and he starts to tailgate again 

He sees a gap and overtakes me accelerating up to about 60mph off into the distance, and then gets stuck in traffic about 1/4 mile further on  before turning into a petrol station by the time I catch him up 

Flipping hate tailgaters. Especially when on a bike as it is instant death if you get a puncture, mechanical failure, pothole etc etc


----------



## bryce (19 May 2008)

What an eejit, don't know how I would have reacted if someone had tried that. Definitely worth reporting to the police.

I'm like User482, if someone 'tailgates' me, I'll slow down and also feather the brake pedal. They're usually so far up my bumper that they normally react to the brakelights and back off.


----------



## magnatom (19 May 2008)

MERV said:


> Closed my account.
> 
> They wern't doing the job I hoped they would do.
> 
> ...



Thats a shame Merv. I really don't think anyone here was getting at you. I think all we want to point out was that your riding works for you as you have a lot of experience. That experience allows you to see trouble before it happens and you can act accordingly.

However, what we did want to point out was that that form of cycling was not recommended for newbie cyclists who don't have your experience and foresight.

Of course it's your choice and if you found it a hassle, then fair enough. Anyway, you don't get anywhere near as much flack as I get!


----------



## MERV (19 May 2008)

> Merv,
> 
> Just wondering, why have you removed your videos?


Ironically I have an absolute classic film clip from yesterday.
I was not going to tape but I thought Sunday/Weekend drivers im bound to get something and I wasn't disappointed.


No doubt it was my fault yet again.

I will post it later when it is edited.



> However, what we did want to point out was that that form of cycling was not recommended for newbie cyclists who don't have your experience and foresight.



Ok I know it isn't perfect but I thought it was generally how a lot of newbie cyclists cycle.As I said a balance between the two is much better.


----------



## fossyant (19 May 2008)

Any company decals on the van - complain to the employers - it's taken very seriously in large companies.


----------



## CopperBrompton (19 May 2008)

Ideally with tailgaters, you want to have a more powerful car than the tailgater - which is rarely a problem as the most frequent tailgaters, in my experience, are White Van Men.

What I do is gradually reduce speed, then accelerate rapidly away. If they do it again, repeat. I don't think I've ever had to do it more than twice before they realise that they will make faster progress by staying a decent distance behind me.

Ben


----------



## domd1979 (19 May 2008)

Tends to be my reaction, though more recently I try to refrain since its got me into hairy situations a couple of times. The worst one (though probably not in the same league as that TwickenhamCyclist encountered) was on the M6 near Stoke. Basically some knob in a Renault people carrier came hurtling up behind me in the outside lane, I was overtaking stuff, but not fast enough for him. Cue full beam headlamps and foglights (it was night time), so I thought "f**k you" and slowed down alongside a truck. Renault man clearly got the message I wasn't amused so he cut across traffic in the middle and inside lane into the hard shoulder, floored it up the hard shoulder, cut back across the motorway, then started to brake waiting for me to catch up. Realising it might turn nasty, I retreated to the inside lane behind a truck, he continued to slow down. At this point not far off J15 so I did a disappearing act off the motorway. It really doesn't take much to upset knobs like this to the point of road rage. Equally I find it really difficult to just sit there and do absolutely nothing in response to tailgating. 

Other incident that had potential to get hairy was driving back home in Brum, some tw*t in an MG tailgating, after reacting to that he started to follow me. As I was close to home, I ended up having to keep making random turns, taking a different route rather than let him follow me home. Fortunately he got bored - good job for him, as I was going in the direction of a cop shop.

Also had a WVM experience a couple of year back, after I stuck to 40mph through a 40mph limit through some roadworks on the A38 near Lichfield. After leaving the limit, WVM who'd been glued to my bumper came after me. At the A5127 roundabout at Wall, he tried to cut across me leaving the roundabout but I saw what he was doing and out-accelerated him. But then he overtook and did an emergency stop in front of me before storming off at great speed to the next roundabout and he sat there to wait for me (obvious as there was no traffic). Again I managed to pull off a last minute disappearing act (into Shenstone) to lose him. But, another incident where my only "crime" was sticking to the speed limit.

It's scary to think that we encounter these loons when in cars, let alone cycling.



User482 said:


> Yes, the closer someone drives behind me, the more I slow down.
> 
> I was stuck in heavy traffic going north on the M6 on Friday - I stayed on the inside lane for the duration and managed to finish up ahead of the tosser in the BMW who was cutting everyone up, flashing his lights etc. No doubt he'll not learn from his experience.


----------



## Mr Pig (19 May 2008)

Terrible. I hate these people. What gets me is all the bleating about 'speed kills' and the erection of cameras on every corner. Speed dosn't kill, morons kill! And all these camers are not going to catch clowns like this. We need more cops on the road, and cops that are not lazy like so many seem to be these days.


----------



## John the Monkey (19 May 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> We need more cops on the road, and cops that are not lazy like so many seem to be these days.



We need a society where it's considered unacceptable to chance someone else's life because they've slightly annoyed you, rather than this seeming appropriate simply because you are both in motor vehicles, imho. There's an acceptance of bad behaviour from drivers in this country that utterly baffles me - I can't think of any other area of behaviour in public where the sort of twattery indulged in by far too many drivers would be considered acceptable.

More police would be very nice, but there will never be enough to make a dent in this without some sort of change in attitude in society itself.


----------



## domtyler (19 May 2008)

This is what I was talking about on the "20mph zones" thread when I said that cameras will eventually evolve from mere speed cameras to more intelligent ones that can recognise this form of behaviour. It will probably be quite a few years away though unless anyone wants to lend me several hundreds of millions of pounds to get the ball rolling? Anyone?


----------



## gambatte (19 May 2008)

User said:


> Twickenham Police are talking out of their arse. You can report the offence at any station.
> 
> I would ask them to consider a Section 3 offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 - driving without due consideration. You are the only witness required and the punishments can be quite steep.



Another case of a civilian police contact acting like a doctors receptionist?

If you can't report it, the figures stay low....


----------



## LLB (19 May 2008)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Ideally with tailgaters, you want to have a more powerful car than the tailgater - which is rarely a problem as the most frequent tailgaters, in my experience, are White Van Men.
> 
> What I do is gradually reduce speed, then accelerate rapidly away. If they do it again, repeat. I don't think I've ever had to do it more than twice before they realise that they will make faster progress by staying a decent distance behind me.
> 
> Ben



My m/cycle does 0-60 in a shave over 3 seconds with a top end of over 160mph so putting a distance between me and idiots like this with brute force is never an issue, however I'm not going to engage in a game of cat and mouse with them as for one, I risk putting others in danger making me no better than these idiots, and if they are already tailgating me, the likelihood is they wouldn't give a shoot if they knocked my off.

Funny thing is the only time I have ever had hassle in the 4x4 is from a 7.5 tonne lorry.


----------



## Fab Foodie (19 May 2008)

User said:


> Twickenham Police are talking out of their arse. You can report the offence at any station.
> 
> I would ask them to consider a Section 3 offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 - driving without due consideration. You are the only witness required and the punishments can be quite steep.



I would have dialled 999 immediately, if there was a patrol car sat bored within a few Miles distance they probably be pleased with the excitement.


----------



## beancounter (19 May 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> My m/cycle does 0-60 in a shave over 3 seconds with a top end of over 160mph



[off topic]

So why didn't you reply to my "Any bikers here" thread?

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=12701

bc

[back on topic]


----------



## LLB (19 May 2008)

beancounter said:


> [off topic]
> 
> So why didn't you reply to my "Any bikers here" thread?
> 
> ...




I did 

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=272945&postcount=11


----------



## beancounter (19 May 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> I did
> 
> http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=272945&postcount=11



D'oh!!!!! 

Sorry.

bc


----------



## domd1979 (19 May 2008)

Cameras are a second best option. The whole problem is "political acceptability", and gutless politicians. As a nation, we seem to express outrage at anything that is seen to take away from an individual's ability to exercise choice - quite why politicians think it is OK for a driver to be able to choose to break the limit is beyond me. 

Ideally all vehicles should be fitted with limiters, and then cameras could be done away with. HGVs and PCVs are because, no doubt, its seen as OK to regulate these in the context of commercial activities. Cars could quite easily be fitted with limiters, and the technology isn't beyond us to add GPS so the limiter knows what the speed is. Go a bit further, and bung a basic bit of radar kit could be added in, which could be used with the limiter to tackle tailgating. All of the technology is already there, but we're just too scared to adopt it despite the obvious benefits.

At the very least all vehicles should have a 70mph limiter for both safety and environmental reasons (prevent excessive fuel consumption). 



domtyler said:


> This is what I was talking about on the "20mph zones" thread when I said that cameras will eventually evolve from mere speed cameras to more intelligent ones that can recognise this form of behaviour. It will probably be quite a few years away though unless anyone wants to lend me several hundreds of millions of pounds to get the ball rolling? Anyone?


----------



## skwerl (19 May 2008)

domd1979 said:


> Cameras are a second best option. The whole problem is "political acceptability", and gutless politicians. As a nation, we seem to express outrage at anything that is seen to take away from an individual's ability to exercise choice - quite why politicians think it is OK for a driver to be able to choose to break the limit is beyond me.
> 
> Ideally all vehicles should be fitted with limiters, and then cameras could be done away with. HGVs and PCVs are because, no doubt, its seen as OK to regulate these in the context of commercial activities. Cars could quite easily be fitted with limiters, and the technology isn't beyond us to add GPS so the limiter knows what the speed is. Go a bit further, and bung a basic bit of radar kit could be added in, which could be used with the limiter to tackle tailgating. All of the technology is already there, but we're just too scared to adopt it despite the obvious benefits.
> 
> At the very least all vehicles should have a 70mph limiter for both safety and environmental reasons (prevent excessive fuel consumption).



So, another suggestion for removing personal responsibility and placing it in the hands of technology and the State. No wonder so many people now have no concept of taking responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## Nigeyy (19 May 2008)

Oh, bad news. Tailgaters are some of my least favourite folks out there.

I can't remember how many times I've been going a speed limit on a suburban road and have some idiot (and I'm sorry here, but usually in a big stonking 4x4 too) drive a metre off your rear bumper.

I don't think cat and mouse games are a good idea, and I do think if you are in a multi-lane highway the best thing to do is just get out of the way -saves you aggravation and working them up as well...... the problem I often have is when I'm in the slow travel lane and this happens! I just slow down -usually at least 5 mph below the speed limit. Hey, if you want to be that close, I want to be going slower in case I have to brake quickly.

Clearly some people are:
i. just in sooooo much of a hurry, nobody else matters except them
ii. don't think and don't care to and sod the rest of us
iii. are just plain idiots


----------



## domd1979 (19 May 2008)

In some ways I agree - but doesn't there come a point?

The alternative is that any kind of bad driving must be seen as socially unacceptable - which would most probably involve an element of state intervention. 

Even with speed limiters on vehicles, bad driving isn't prevented, but its certainly a start. Limiters could have a positive influence on behaviour, because the "get out of my way" attitude on the motorway would be entirely futile since everyone has the same maximum speed.

There isn't any one answer to the problem of generally worsening standards of driving.



skwerl said:


> So, another suggestion for removing personal responsibility and placing it in the hands of technology and the State. No wonder so many people now have no concept of taking responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## Mr Pig (19 May 2008)

I always think it's quite amusing when cyclists, who pay not tax, need no insurance and pass no test, start bemoaning the traffic laws. ;0)

You can't 'make' people better, how are you going to do that? How can you educate the terminally stupid? You need to hammer them. The laws against such behaviour already exist, the problem is enforcing it. Not enough cops and the ones there are are too busy filling in forms or picking drunks out of the A&E.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (19 May 2008)

Not that I think that this is a goo idea, but........I've been in cars with my brother in the past and when someone is tailgating or generally driving aggressively, and he will "box"them in. He lets them start to overtake and then matches their speed. Once they come up behind the next car, they've nowhere to go. On one occassion the guy in the car was foaming at the mouth, shouting out of the window, it was clear that he was going to miss his turn off (which he did!!). Like I mentioned, I don't think is the best way to handle as_hole drivers but it's amusing seeing them almost having a stroke from rage.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (19 May 2008)

Eat MY Dust said:


> Not that I think that this is a goo idea, but........I've been in cars with my brother in the past and when someone is tailgating or generally driving aggressively, and he will "box"them in. He lets them start to overtake and then matches their speed. Once they come up behind the next car, they've nowhere to go. On one occassion the guy in the car was foaming at the mouth, shouting out of the window, it was clear that he was going to miss his turn off (which he did!!). Like I mentioned, I don't think is the best way to handle as_hole drivers but it's amusing seeing them almost having a stroke from rage.



edit: I must mention that this is only on motorways, not when people are overtaking into oncoming traffic.


----------



## CopperBrompton (19 May 2008)

domd1979 said:


> Ideally all vehicles should be fitted with limiters, and then cameras could be done away with.


I would wager a very large sum of money that accident rates would then increase. We already have enough brain-dead drivers paying too little attention to their driving; with speed-limiters, they would then think they need pay no attention to their speed as the box will do it for them, so they'd just drive foot to the floor all the time.

The safe speed at any given moment depends on a great many factors, among them pedestrians, cyclists, traffic density, junctions, vision into same, weather conditions, road surface quality, light, braking performance of the vehicle, etc. A number painted on a bit of round metal (or programmed into a GPS) is an extremely poor substitute for intelligent modification of speed to conditions.

What we need is not further dumbing-down of driving, but the exact opposite: a higher standard.

Ben


----------



## domd1979 (19 May 2008)

Like I said - there's no one answer. 

Speed limiters take away the choice of maximum speed not minimum. Many cars already have variable limiters anyway in the form of cruise control. I'm not sure that has contributed to increased accidents? Do limiters on HGVs / PCVs cause increased accidents?

As things are, car design has evolved continually in a way which has arguably meant that modern cars have become far more forgiving of bad/sloppy driving so the engineering of cars lets people "get away with it". Yes, there are some safety benefits - ABS, crash worthiness etc, but on the other hand do these same features give people a false sense of confidence? For instance, I hear a lot of people saying they pay no attention to braking distances in the Highway Code because they know modern cars "have better brakes", in other words encouraging braking at the last minute. At the moment I drive two vehicles - a 1976 VW bus and a 2005 Fiesta. The Fiesta (a 1.6 turbo diesel) can be chucked round the place, sticks to the road extremely well, you can get away with being in the wrong gear quite easily and so on (it'll pull away in 2nd, do roundabouts in 4th). The van on the other hand takes a lot more thinking about - no power steering, not a huge amount of power, handling is much less forgiving (i.e. corners the car will comfortably go round without slowing down much, if at all, the van won't), gear changes aren't quick, and there's sod all power if you're in the wrong gear. I'd guess that some drivers with no experience of a vehicle that age would struggle to drive it properly. Point I'm making is that the skill needed to drive is already being engineered out of cars. Adding limiters in, therefore, could well be a benefit.

If standards are to improve, attitudes also need to change. The nations attitudes to cars are so embedded, changing them is something that will take some time. Attitudes won't change unless there's some pretty big changes in town planning and transport planning. Until car is not king - driver's attitudes will not change. 



Ben Lovejoy said:


> I would wager a very large sum of money that accident rates would then increase. We already have enough brain-dead drivers paying too little attention to their driving; with speed-limiters, they would then think they need pay no attention to their speed as the box will do it for them, so they'd just drive foot to the floor all the time.
> 
> The safe speed at any given moment depends on a great many factors, among them pedestrians, cyclists, traffic density, junctions, vision into same, weather conditions, road surface quality, light, braking performance of the vehicle, etc. A number painted on a bit of round metal (or programmed into a GPS) is an extremely poor substitute for intelligent modification of speed to conditions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr Pig (19 May 2008)

I don't agree with limiters. However they could be fitted as a punishment. Get to six points and you get limiter fitted! The Corsa boys would love that, slap a sticker on the roof too.


----------



## gambatte (19 May 2008)

What we actually need is the removal of driver seatbelts and the introduction of a 10" spike to the centre of the steering wheel....


----------



## Trillian (20 May 2008)

User482 said:


> Yes, the closer someone drives behind me, the more I slow down.
> 
> I was stuck in heavy traffic going north on the M6 on Friday - I stayed on the inside lane for the duration and managed to finish up ahead of the tosser in the BMW who was cutting everyone up, flashing his lights etc. No doubt he'll not learn from his experience.



my friend's car has reversing lights that are switched on by a switch in the dashboard (built before reversing lights) he likes turning those on when people are right behind him.


----------



## Trillian (20 May 2008)

i have to admit that I've had a 70mph bumper tap

someone came right up behind me in a red car, hung on the back bumper of the mini bus I was driving, overtook and cut me up before slowing to 60

I pulled out instead of breaking more, went round him, left a decent amount of room (my normal amount) and tucked back in to let traffic through on my right

he did it again, closer than before resulting in a very mild shunt @70mph while i was stood on the brakes to avoid a proper colision

the only damage i'm aware of was his rear number plate dropping off. 

and yes, it does sound a little far fetched, i don't know if he knew that our bumpers touched

i stopped in the right hand lane past a truck and didn't see him again.


----------



## Trillian (20 May 2008)

domd1979 said:


> In some ways I agree - but doesn't there come a point?
> 
> The alternative is that any kind of bad driving must be seen as socially unacceptable - which would most probably involve an element of state intervention.
> 
> ...



one of the mini busses i drive has a limiter to 60mph which in my oppinion is dangerous since its done on power and a truck can out pace me up a motorway hill. the speed limit for me on the motorway is 70mph, i need that to overtake slow moving traffic quickly so as not to slow flow of traffic in the right hand lane. 

i've found that it only works when in 5th gear and so take the 68mph i can get in 4th gear.

speed restricting on power is why trucks are so slow up hills, they're bouncing it off the rev limiter, if you limit cars in the same way people will just drive with their foot to the floor and get caught out occasionally by the change in speed limit.


----------



## Trillian (20 May 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I don't agree with limiters. However they could be fitted as a punishment. Get to six points and you get limiter fitted! The Corsa boys would love that, slap a sticker on the roof too.



nah

punishment for driving like a div

you must drive a reliant robin for a year after re-taking your test.


----------



## gambatte (20 May 2008)

My method of dealing with tailgaters:

Everyone who has gone for a driving test should have at least glanced at a highway code. A part of this that is usually stressed is braking distances. So everyone should have an idea about these.

Now I have no real influence on how close you drive behind me. However I can influence the speed you’re doing. So if you’re that close that the gap is suitable for a speed 20mph less than what I’m doing. I’ll drive 20mph slower. If you decide to close the gap even further at least I’ve limited the potential impact speed.

Should you run into the back of me be aware of 3 points:


I don’t know if I’m injured….. I will be calling the police and reporting it, hopefully getting them to attend.
I’ve got an old car with a very sturdy towbar – who’s gonna come off worse?
Standard insurance procedure, you ran into the back of me, you lose.


----------



## domd1979 (20 May 2008)

Trillian said:


> one of the mini busses i drive has a limiter to 60mph which in my oppinion is dangerous since its done on power and a truck can out pace me up a motorway hill. the speed limit for me on the motorway is 70mph, i need that to overtake slow moving traffic quickly so as not to slow flow of traffic in the right hand lane.



My understanding of how limiters work is that an electronic gizmo takes a feed from the speedo. At the point the speed limit is hit it restricts the flow of fuel to the engine. Therefore, its not power limited, since the speed is the deciding factor not the amount of power being delivered. If it wasn't a fully laden vehicle would never be able to hit the limit. 

The 60mph limiter on your bus isn't "dangerous" - there isn't any need to overtake, nor to maintain 70mph. If the bus has a limiter then using the right hand lane is illegal in any case.




> speed restricting on power is why trucks are so slow up hills, they're bouncing it off the rev limiter, if you limit cars in the same way people will just drive with their foot to the floor and get caught out occasionally by the change in speed limit.



Being fully laden is likely to be the slowing factor on gradients?


----------



## BentMikey (21 May 2008)

domd1979 said:


> The 60mph limiter on your bus isn't "dangerous" - there isn't any need to overtake, nor to maintain 70mph. If the bus has a limiter then using the right hand lane is illegal in any case.




+1

Bloody Safespeeder!


----------



## Trillian (21 May 2008)

i had not been informed that using the right hand lane in a vehicle with a limiter on it was illegal and will change my driving accordingly. 

i hope "bloody safespeeder" was not aimed at me Mikey as i have nothing to do with them and have a mutual dislike of them similar to most other people on this forum.

people should be able to judge if their speed is safe, for example a 30mph limit through my parents village at midnight, there is no one arround, so you can go upto the limit.

during the day its very busy, lots of people about so should slow down to about 20 or less just in case.


----------



## Mr Pig (21 May 2008)

Trillian said:


> I had not been informed that using the right hand lane in a vehicle with a limiter on it was illegal...



You word that to suggest that it's not your fault you didn't know, which it is ;0) 

Although they are few, there are times when blasting past the speed limit for a short time is sensible, to reposition yourself relative to an imposing cloud of motorway traffic for instance.


----------



## domd1979 (21 May 2008)

In case you need a reference - 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069862

Its 265, last bullet point. 



Trillian said:


> i had not been informed that using the right hand lane in a vehicle with a limiter on it was illegal and will change my driving accordingly.


----------



## Trillian (21 May 2008)

When i did my test for it (through the uni, i use uni vehicles) I was informed that it had just changed to allow mini busses to use the third lane and also to use bus lanes and 70 was allowed on the motorway (unless a lower limit in force).

when I collected the afore mentioned vehicle I was told it had a restrictor but everything else and road rules were all as any of the other vehicles. the person telling me this was the guy who'd overseen my test so i trusted his knowlage

I am aware that ignorance of the law is not a defense

the vehicles I drive can't exceed three tonnes, those listed seem to apply to 7.5T + such as busses and coaches...

slightly ambiguous wording really.


----------



## Mr Pig (21 May 2008)

I'm just happy that trucks are 'not' allowed in the 'fast' lane. You'd have three-lane elephant races all over the place.


----------



## domd1979 (21 May 2008)

Just consulted Croners Coach & Bus Operations - which is basically the standard reference used in the industry. It says (relevant bit in bold):

"Passenger vehicles first registered before 1 January 2005, constructed or adapted to carry nine or more seated passengers in addition to the driver, exceeding 7.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight (GVW) and required to have a speed limiter fitted are not allowed to use the outside lane of motorways which have three or more lanes (except in an emergency, when passing an abnormally wide load or when directed to do so by a police or traffic officer in uniform). *Passenger vehicles as defined above, irrespective of GVW, first used on or after 1 January 2005, which are legally required to be fitted with a speed limiter, are not allowed to use the outside lane of motorways as described above*."

Bit clearer than the Highway Code at any rate!

Should also be a notice in the minibus cab stating what the limiter is set to which will generally be 100kph (65mph-ish).

Person doing the training should really know about the law on the motorway, so might be worth mentioning to them!



Trillian said:


> When i did my test for it (through the uni, i use uni vehicles) I was informed that it had just changed to allow mini busses to use the third lane and also to use bus lanes and 70 was allowed on the motorway (unless a lower limit in force).
> 
> when I collected the afore mentioned vehicle I was told it had a restrictor but everything else and road rules were all as any of the other vehicles. the person telling me this was the guy who'd overseen my test so i trusted his knowlage
> 
> ...


----------



## Trillian (21 May 2008)

it legally doesn't have to be fitted with a restrictor, it just got supplied with one as it's needed on the continent, incase one of the societies goes abroard, which they can't as none of the drivers have mini bus licences, just MIDAS certificates.


----------



## domd1979 (21 May 2008)

Just done some more reading...!! If it was registered on or after Jan 2005, then the limiter has to (by law) be fitted - deadline for which was 1st Jan 2008 for buses of <5t GVW (which your average 16 seater would be) being used for national operations. International use would have required it before the Jan 08 derogation. 

If registered before Jan 05, I'm a little less clear on what Croner's is saying.... It says that a diesel PSV, GVW <10t, registered 1st Jan 2001 onwards, but before Jan 05, has to have a limiter Jan 06 on (if used internationally), or Jan 07 (if used UK only). Guess that includes minibuses.

The not driving abroad is an interesting one. Can't find reference to any legal restriction under the stuff on driving licences, though haven't read the zillions of pages on EU operation. Anyone who has passed their test Jan 97 onwards, can drive a 16 seater <3.5t, not for hire or reward, if they are 21+ and have had their licence 2 years+. Since driving licences are supposed to have been harmonised across the EU, that ought to apply on the continent?



Trillian said:


> it legally doesn't have to be fitted with a restrictor, it just got supplied with one as it's needed on the continent, incase one of the societies goes abroard, which they can't as none of the drivers have mini bus licences, just MIDAS certificates.


----------



## Joe24 (21 May 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I'm just happy that trucks are 'not' allowed in the 'fast' lane. You'd have three-lane elephant races all over the place.



Wait till you see an Irish truck in the outside lane.  Got to be doing a decent speed to keep up with them.
Trucks arent slow going up hills because of the limiter, its something to do with them being very heavy, and most of the trucks are low-ish powered.
If i am right, the limiters are set to 56mph instead of the offical speed limit for trucks because of fuel saving, and so some of them are having the limiter made lower to 52mph because of even better fuel savings. 
Just some random information.


----------



## domd1979 (21 May 2008)

The limit for limiters on goods vehicles is 90km/h = 56mph - anything lower than that would presumably be for fuel economy like you say.



Joe24 said:


> If i am right, the limiters are set to 56mph instead of the offical speed limit for trucks because of fuel saving, and so some of them are having the limiter made lower to 52mph because of even better fuel savings.
> Just some random information.


----------



## Joe24 (21 May 2008)

domd1979 said:


> The limit for limiters on goods vehicles is 90km/h = 56mph - anything lower than that would presumably be for fuel economy like you say.



But the official limit for them is 60mph IIRC.
But then that could be wrong.


----------



## domd1979 (21 May 2008)

Yep, HGV limit is 60mph - guess 56mph on the limiter is due to do with the limiter needing to be in km/h (& EU law?). Similarly, PSVs in theory can do 70mph on the motorway, but the law requires their limiter to be set to 100 km/h = 65mph. 



Joe24 said:


> But the official limit for them is 60mph IIRC.
> But then that could be wrong.


----------



## Mr Pig (21 May 2008)

Joe24 said:


> Trucks aren't slow going up hills because of the limiter, its something to do with them being very heavy



Why do I feel like Father Dougal McGuire right now? ;0)

These ones are small. The ones out there are faaaar away...

We were being tailgated by a truck one day. My mate in the passenger seat said 'Hang on a minute and we'll sort him out'. Just as we started going up a hill he said 'quick, slow right down'. I slowed to about forty and the truck had to slow too. Then we sped off up the hill and the truck, which had lost all its momentum disappeared into the distance! My mate gave him the finger out of the window, which I thought was uncalled for, but funny.


----------



## Joe24 (21 May 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> Why do I feel like Father Dougal McGuire right now? ;0)
> 
> These ones are small. The ones out there are faaaar away...
> 
> We were being tailgated by a truck one day. My mate in the passenger seat said 'Hang on a minute and we'll sort him out'. Just as we started going up a hill he said 'quick, slow right down'. I slowed to about forty and the truck had to slow too. Then we sped off up the hill and the truck, which had lost all its momentum disappeared into the distance! My mate gave him the finger out of the window, which I thought was uncalled for, but funny.




So you purposly slowed down the truck on a hill(on a motorway?), because he sat close to you? Bit stupid really, because he would of had to build up alot of momentum which would have taken a while causing other traffic to deal with the truck slowly getting back up to a speed.
Better ways to deal with tailgating then that.


----------



## Mr Pig (21 May 2008)

Joe24 said:


> So you purposely slowed down the truck on a hill(on a motorway?), because he sat close to you?



Yip. And indeed, it was stupid. Not something I'd do now but I was in my late teens at the time. One does a lot of idiotic things in ones teens. And if you don't, you should! ;0)


----------



## Trillian (21 May 2008)

domd1979 said:


> Yep, HGV limit is 60mph - guess 56mph on the limiter is due to do with the limiter needing to be in km/h (& EU law?). Similarly, PSVs in theory can do 70mph on the motorway, but the law requires their limiter to be set to 100 km/h = 65mph.



they get set to 100km/h as thats the EU law at a guess, 56 is something like 90.2km/h


----------



## Animal (23 May 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I always think it's quite amusing when cyclists, who pay not tax, need no insurance and pass no test, start bemoaning the traffic laws. ;0)



**** me!

Can you give me your accountant's name?

I pay 40% tax on my income, 17.5% tax on everything I buy, £185 per year on my VED, £1800 per year on my council tax. I pay £250ish per year motor insurance, and £60 bike insurance to cover me in case of incidents.

If he knows how riding a bike to work every day exempts me from all of this I'll save a fortune!

A fortune that helps prop up the NHS that keep smug-faced fatsos like you alive when your smugged yourself to death.


----------



## Animal (25 May 2008)

Sorry Mr Pig!

I just get that shoot so often. Mostly from brown-toothed, poverty stricken plebs in shoot cars.


----------



## Jaded (25 May 2008)

Joe24 said:


> So you purposly slowed down the truck on a hill(on a motorway?), because he sat close to you?



So you think it is OK for an HGV to tailgate a car?

It's one thing for them to do it to another HGV; the chances are that only the tailgating driver will be killed.


----------



## BentMikey (25 May 2008)

There's nothing wrong or dangerous with slowing down in nearly all cases. To say different is simple impatient get out of my road rubbish.


----------



## Mr Pig (25 May 2008)

Animal said:


> Mostly from brown-toothed, poverty stricken plebs in shoot cars.



Ehhh, guess you owe me another apology! ;0)

I was joking, but I do think cyclists should have to pass a test, say before they get to eighteen. Anyone using our roads should have to demonstrate that they know how to.



> So you think it is OK for an HGV to tailgate a car?



I wouldn't make too much of it. It happened so long ago that I can't remember who was right or wrong. At that time I would have only recently passed my test and might have been sitting at fifty on a busy trunk road. Although soon I was driving at ninety everywhere!


----------



## Joe24 (25 May 2008)

Jaded said:


> So you think it is OK for an HGV to tailgate a car?
> 
> It's one thing for them to do it to another HGV; the chances are that only the tailgating driver will be killed.



When did i say that?
What i ment was that to react by braking hard, slowing it right down and making it hard for the truck to get back to speed is unsafe. Not to the driver because it would have had a trailor behind, but to other car drivers. There could have been a family killed there. Theres alot of 'what-ifs' involved.
There are better ways to react then to endanger someone elses life. Which if you read my post properly you will/should notice.


----------



## Jaded (25 May 2008)

Pot/kettle

Where in any of the posts did anyone mention "braking hard" until yours?


----------



## Joe24 (25 May 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> Why do I feel like Father Dougal McGuire right now? ;0)
> 
> These ones are small. The ones out there are faaaar away...
> 
> We were being tailgated by a truck one day. My mate in the passenger seat said 'Hang on a minute and we'll sort him out'. Just as we started going up a hill he said 'quick, slow right down'. *I slowed to about forty *and the truck had to slow too. Then we sped off up the hill and the truck, which had lost all its momentum disappeared into the distance! My mate gave him the finger out of the window, which I thought was uncalled for, but funny.


Ok now then Jaded?
He slowed to fourty, no need for heavy braking. Infact, i dont even know where i even mentioned heavy braking
Do you know how long it will be for a truck, that lets say weighs full 44tonnes, going uphill to get back to a motorway cruising speed. 
Can you not see the dangers of having a truck going along doing 40mph, with other cars and trucks going past.
Do you think making a truck slow to 4omph on a hill to be a safe thing to do on a motoway?
Why has the pot and kettle been mentioned?


----------



## Jaded (26 May 2008)

You didn't mention "heavy braking" you said "braking hard". He didn't.

You just need to read the post of yours timed 16:53.

You embellished his post to try to make your point.


----------



## PBancroft (26 May 2008)

Oh for pities sake. Mr Pig has held his hands up and said it wasn't the smartest thing to do, and we all know that a tailgating HGV isn't pleasant or safe for the car in front. I imagine that being grown adults here we would all follow the Highway Code and pull over to let the tailgating vehicle pass.

Why are we arguing semantics?


----------



## Joe24 (26 May 2008)

I'm not botherd about it. I dont see where i said it was good for a HGV do do it.
The heavy braking doesnt matter, its the speed that does matter. I take it you, Jaded think its fine for a HGV to be going along at 40mph with other cars going much faster?
You seem to be bringing this braking thing into it, i dont care about the braking, it was the speed at which he slowed to. Now will i need to re write that for you to understand?
Now, if you really want to post back again then answer some of my questions. If not then dont bother to reply.
Thank you


----------



## Jaded (26 May 2008)

You mentioned heavy braking when there was no indication of this in the original post. If you don't care about it, why did you introduce it? It seems you are looking at this from a biased position.

Regardless of the actual reason, the car could have slowed for any number of other reasons: engine/technical failure, driver illness, debris on the road. The HGV was totally in the wrong and precipitated what happened. HGVs are normally driven by trained professional drivers and they should know better than to tailgate cars. The speed is irrelevant.


----------



## BentMikey (26 May 2008)

Joe, can you explain how an HGV going at 40 on a motorway type road is dangerous?


----------



## Joe24 (26 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Joe, can you explain how an HGV going at 40 on a motorway type road is dangerous?



Of course. 
If you go by the speed limit of 70mph. 40mph is 30mph slower. Thus meaning that 'if' a driver wasnt paying the proper attention, they could still think that the truck is going faster and approach it too quick. A collision could happen, or the truck which is tailgating another truck or car hits the back of the car infront. Sandwhiching the car or truck. To find out more go and driver down a motorway at 40mph.
I do not think that its ok for a HGV to tailgate. However, slowing it down on a hill wasnt the best responce to the situation IMO. 
Ok, maybe i did bring in the heavy braking, but i think i just miss interpreted that post.


----------



## Mr Pig (26 May 2008)

You know what, now that I think about I don't think the truck was doing forty. I think it was fifty. 

No wait, maybe it was sixty. And it might not have been a truck, maybe it was an elephant! 

Maybe I dreamt it. What day is it? :0.


----------



## Joe24 (26 May 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> You know what, now that I think about I don't think the truck was doing forty. I think it was fifty.
> 
> No wait, maybe it was sixty. And it might not have been a truck, maybe it was an elephant!
> 
> *Maybe I dreamt it. What day is it?* :0.


Now that is a very good point.
50mph, well that just makes it worserer


----------



## Jaded (27 May 2008)

Joe24 said:


> Of course.
> If you go by the speed limit of 70mph. 40mph is 30mph slower. Thus meaning that 'if' a driver wasnt paying the proper attention, they could still think that the truck is going faster and approach it too quick. A collision could happen, or the truck which is tailgating another truck or car hits the back of the car infront. Sandwhiching the car or truck. To find out more go and driver down a motorway at 40mph.
> I do not think that its ok for a HGV to tailgate. However, slowing it down on a hill wasnt the best responce to the situation IMO.
> Ok, maybe i did bring in the heavy braking, but i think i just miss interpreted that post.



What is the speed limit for an HGV on a motorway?

I don't think it is 70.

"Thus meaning that 'if' a driver wasnt paying the proper attention, they could still think that the truck is going faster and approach it too quick."

Is this the fault of the slower driver in front or the inattentive driver behind...

"Ok, maybe i did bring in the heavy braking, but i think i just miss interpreted that post."

I think you did, and it caused two pages of tailbacks, but the jam is cleared now.


----------



## Joe24 (27 May 2008)

You know its not just HGV's in lane 1 yes? Anyway, it could have been an Irish HGV so could have been. It wont be the fault of the truck but it is the truck causing the problem. Anyway you mentioned heavy braking more then me


----------



## Jaded (27 May 2008)

Is all that relevant? Doesn't look like it.


----------



## BentMikey (27 May 2008)

Joe24 said:


> Of course.
> If you go by the speed limit of 70mph. 40mph is 30mph slower. Thus meaning that 'if' a driver wasnt paying the proper attention, they could still think that the truck is going faster and approach it too quick. A collision could happen, or the truck which is tailgating another truck or car hits the back of the car infront. Sandwhiching the car or truck. To find out more go and driver down a motorway at 40mph.
> I do not think that its ok for a HGV to tailgate. However, slowing it down on a hill wasnt the best responce to the situation IMO.
> Ok, maybe i did bring in the heavy braking, but i think i just miss interpreted that post.




So what you're really saying is that the slow HGV is not the danger, only a stupid and inattentive driver following behind? No different to a queue on the motorway, a crash, etc., all things for which we are all supposed to be paying attention.

I think it's not just misinterpretation, but blaming the wrong thing entirely as well.


----------



## RufusA (27 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> So what you're really saying is that the slow HGV is not the danger, only a stupid and inattentive driver following behind?....I think it's not just misinterpretation, but blaming the wrong thing entirely as well.



From a recent coroners report, it was BOTH a slow HGV and the inattentive driver who appear to have been to blame when a recovery truck doing 60mph ploughed in to the back of an HGV doing substantially less:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7339624.stm

Rufus.


----------



## BentMikey (28 May 2008)

Oooh, that's really quite a substantial misrepresentation of what is actually in that link about the HGV veering from one lane to another.

The speed of a vehicle in front should not be an issue to any driver:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should

leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances PDF below)
allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads
remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance to stop. If driving a large vehicle in a tunnel, you should allow a four-second gap between you and the vehicle in front


----------



## LLB (28 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Oooh, that's really quite a substantial misrepresentation of what is actually in that link about the HGV veering from one lane to another.
> 
> The speed of a vehicle in front should not be an issue to any driver:
> 
> ...



I could take issue with a few of these points. The approach to roundabouts on dual carriageways are exercises in swearing when I tow due to the total knobs cutting into the safe braking gaps I leave between myself and the cars in front of me.

Also, many modern bikes have very good brakes. On my 172kg bike, the twin 6 pot calipers working on front disk brakes (which are are bigger than those on a Subaru Imprezza) can lift the bikes back wheel @ 100mph with the pressure of 2 fingers on the front brake lever.

I would say that the brakes on it are fairly effective given that it has less than 20% of the mass of a Ford Fiesta.


----------



## Jaded (28 May 2008)

Are you saying that because people cut into your braking distance it is silly to leave it?


----------



## Mr Pig (28 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The speed of a vehicle in front should not be an issue to any driver



In theory, but it doesn't work like that. A car driving at thirty on the motorway is a hazard, no question.

When my sister lived in Germany there was a girl she worked with who could hardly drive and drove really slowly. She could barely change gear actually. One day the police pulled her over and told her that she could not drive so slowly on the Autobahn and she either had to drive faster or not use it.


----------



## BentMikey (28 May 2008)

No, can't agree with that. See the queue example, or a traffic collision. You're expected to drive safely and properly, and to have the expectation that the motorway won't always be clear and that you might have to stop.

Anything else is stupid and bad driving from the drivers behind. They are the hazard here, not the slow HGV. It's just sad that this sort of poor attitude is acceptable.


----------



## Jaded (28 May 2008)

Absolutely, BM. 

The way Mr Pig is going, you'd expect wrecking crews at the ready on motorways, ready to bulldoze stationary vehicles off the road after a prang, lest they impede drivers doing 70.


----------



## Mr Pig (28 May 2008)

Jaded said:


> The way Mr Pig is going, you'd expect wrecking crews at the ready on motorways, ready to bulldoze stationary vehicles off the road after a prang, lest they impede drivers doing 70.



I think you're being silly. A car travelling at say thirty on an otherwise free-flowing motorway is a danger. I agree that all drivers should drive to the conditions and be fully aware of the speed and position of the traffic in front but to lay 'all' of the blame on the following driver is sometimes over-simplistic. It's easy to say what people ideally 'should' be doing in any given situation but people are fallible. Allowing driving behaviour that tests other drivers, like driving very slowly on the motorway, is an unnecessary risk to life.


----------



## Jaded (28 May 2008)

You should be able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear. Not the distance that you assume to be clear because you assume that all the lemmings are going the same speed as you.

Since you should be prepared for stationary vehicles up ahead it follows that a vehicle travelling at 30 is less of a hazard since your closing speed is less.

Assumptions lead to crashes. If you can't judge the speed of vehicles in front of you then consider if you should be driving.


----------



## Mr Pig (28 May 2008)

What you are saying is quite within the letter of the law. However it is easy to miss that a car is travelling very slowly if it's tucked away within a large cloud of other vehicles and you have a lot of other things to concentrate on. Yes, you should spot it, and most drivers will, but the odd driver will get caught out.

Slow moving vehicles can be 'more' of a hazard than stationary ones because you can tell at a glance that an object is stationary, were as it takes a longer look to accurately estimate the speed of a moving one. A busy motorway is a complex environment for most people and glances and 'assumptions' are commonplace.

Traffic ques are different in that to a large extent they are unavoidable. Saying that driving at thirty on the motorway is acceptable is like saying it's ok for teenagers to place snooker tables in the outside lane because it is the responsibility of drivers to see and avoid the hazard! 

Some risk is inevitable but that doesn't make it ok to create risk unnecessarily. Driving is difficult and dangerous. We should be trying to help people with it, not just hammer them all the time for not being perfect at it.


----------



## Jaded (28 May 2008)

I'm sorry - but that from an advanced driver.

"A busy motorway is a complex environment for most people and glances and 'assumptions' are commonplace."

Doesn't mean that they are right or that we should accept them. 

"However it is easy to miss that a car is travelling very slowly if it's tucked away within a large cloud of other vehicles and you have a lot of other things to concentrate on."

Yeah, like TXTing and eating sweets and whether the seat is set just right and Oh, I don't like this track, I'll just change it.

If driving a car was subject to the same rigourous scrutiny as flying a plane (which in this country kills far fewer people) your posts would be laughable, if not criminal.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 May 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> What you are saying is quite within the letter of the law. However it is easy to miss that a car is travelling very slowly if it's tucked away within a large cloud of other vehicles and you have a lot of other things to concentrate on. Yes, you should spot it, and most drivers will, but the odd driver will get caught out.
> Slow moving vehicles can be 'more' of a hazard than stationary ones because you can tell at a glance that an object is stationary, were as it takes a longer look to accurately estimate the speed of a moving one.



This is absolutely true. I'm a professional driver, and I'm pretty good at it, but very occaionally I've had to brake sharply because the bloke in front was going substantially slower than I thought he was, and more importantly, going much slower than was reasonable (perhaps 40mph on a free flowing motorway). Of course, it was my job to spot him and allow for this, but it's not always as easy as some on here would have us believe. Without commenting on specific cases, driving at 40 on a free flowing motorway, in clear weather, is a Bad Idea.


----------



## Jaded (28 May 2008)

Of course it is a Bad Idea. 

However it happens and drivers should be prepared for it, despite the "lot of other things to concentrate on".


----------



## Mr Pig (29 May 2008)

Jaded said:


> If driving a car was subject to the same rigourous scrutiny as flying a plane your posts would be laughable, if not criminal.



Yeah, you're full of daft if and buts. If the above were implimented most of us would be walking! You've never crashed your bike because you made a split second error of judgment? You've never pranged your car, if you have one? We're not robots, we can't drive flawlesly for hours on end and anyone who's been driving for more than a few years knows that it's by God's grace they've not been in more colisions rather than their own perfect driving, except you obviosly!

Although I do think driver training should be a lot better there is only some much you can do. People will always make mistakes and the driving enviroment should help them live to talk about when they do.

Why don't you ask the police if they think it's ok for you to drive your car at thirty on the moroway? Let me know what they say will you?


----------



## Jaded (29 May 2008)

Drivers are in charge of potentially lethal equipment. 

In other walks of life there are rigourous training and tight procedures The sanctions for non compliance are strong. Driving a car, however, is not under those controls and it appears to engender a load of "get out of my way you cock" and "Oh, dear, someone was killed. Only a mistake though, so that's OK" from people who should know better. 

Frankly the "split second error of judgment" is a red herring. Split seconds of judgement turn into bad things if the driver is making assumptions - about other drivers, about road conditions, about their ability. 

You ask the police if it is OK to have your car limp at 30 mph from Lane 3 to the hard shoulder after a mech failure or puncture on the motorway. Let me know what they say will you?


----------



## Mr Pig (29 May 2008)

I don't see any point in talking about this any more, we're just going to go around in circles. Have a nice weekend :0)


----------



## ScaredCyclist (2 Jun 2008)

I cant believe what you are all arguing about here!!
Have you not read the link that 'RufusA' posted???

This was a fatal crash on the M25 which killed 6 people, because a lorry was driving 19mph!!!

Anyone driving WELL under the speed limit on a motorway is really not quiet firing on all cylinders.

A speed limit is there not just as a limit, but as a guide for what speed is deemed 'safe' on that road.
Motorways are 70mph for a reason and driving anything under 50 is dangerous.
I also appreciate that it is the job of every driver to be alert and watch out for any potential danger.
But do we now also have to look out for George & Mildred driving at 30 on the motorway in the middle lane aswell!!!?? 

Just bloody amazes me some of the comments.
Ask a police officer/traffic officer they will agree that driving too slow is almost as dangerous as too fast.
I knew someone that was fined for driving too slow!!!!

Anyway my rant is over....

New drivers should have to take a motorway test i think, as there are too many nervous drivers that are a liability.

As for the knobs in 4X4's, BMW's & Audi's etc driving 110mph up your bum crack, well dont get me started on them. 

I normally just dont move, i wont slow down as its a bit dodgy doing that if you are going above 70mph.
I also wont speed up, i just remain at my speed and stay there just to annoy them.
When they flash their lights in my mirror i flash them the bird. 
Its so amusing watching some middle aged suited man get all stroppy cuz i wont move my little clio out the way!! ha ha ha 

Yes i know its childish, but it annoys the hell out of me when i am only in the 'fast' lane as i am over taking a bloody middle lane driver in the 1st place!!
To then be flashed because i am there just is unbelievable!! 
I NEVER over take slowly either i always make sure i am within the flow of the traffic so there is NO reason for these tailgaters to flash me or get up my bumper.
Stupid idiots, they never get much further.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jun 2008)

Wow, you're a great driver!!!


----------



## ScaredCyclist (2 Jun 2008)

im not saying im a great driver, i was merely saying that i dont give reason to be tailgated.


----------



## LLB (2 Jun 2008)

ScaredCyclist said:


> I cant believe what you are all arguing about here!!
> Have you not read the link that 'RufusA' posted???
> 
> This was a fatal crash on the M25 which killed 6 people, because a lorry was driving 19mph!!!
> ...



The 70mph on motorways is marked as the limit, not the target.

Many vehicles cannot maintain 50mph on some of the hills, and many are speed limited for their and the safety of others given their mass.

Without looking it up, can you name the speed limits of the different vehicles on single, dual and motorways as your post indicates an ignorance of the speed limitations in law of commercial and towing vehicles ?


----------



## ScaredCyclist (2 Jun 2008)

I didnt say that 70mph is a target speed, it is the speed limit, the maximum speed.
What i mean is it is also an indication of the speed of the flow of the traffic on that road.
Driving much slower can be also dangerous is what i was saying.
Yes i am aware there are speed limitations on heavy goods vehicles, commerical vehicles, coaches etc.
That is why they should not be in the outside lane on a motorway, *because* they travel too slowly, but i have seen it happen.
I did say UNDER 50mph also and the fact that it is all our responsibility as a driver to notice slower vehicles.

But i was referring to the tragic crash as a result of a lorry going 19mph and drivers randomly driving slow for no reason.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jun 2008)

Crashes like that are not due to lorries driving too slowly, but due to fu<kwit(s) behind them going too fast and not paying enough attention to be able to stop. There are often reasons to have to stop on a motorway, so trying to blame slow drivers is contemptible.


----------



## Jaded (2 Jun 2008)

ScaredCyclist said:


> I didnt say that 70mph is a target speed, it is the speed limit, the maximum speed.
> What i mean is *it is also an indication of the speed of the flow of the traffic on that road*.



How can it be if it is the maximum? All it indicates is the maximum, nothing else.

The best indication of the speed of the flow of traffic on that road comes from your eyes.


----------



## ScaredCyclist (2 Jun 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Crashes like that are not due to lorries driving too slowly, but due to fu<kwit(s) behind them going too fast and not paying enough attention to be able to stop. There are often reasons to have to stop on a motorway, so trying to blame slow drivers is contemptible.




So you are saying that the polish lorry driver driving at 19mph did not cause the crash??

Baring in mind this crash happened in the dark aswell.


----------



## LLB (2 Jun 2008)

ScaredCyclist said:


> So you are saying that the polish lorry driver driving at 19mph did not cause the crash??
> 
> Baring in mind this crash happened in the dark aswell.



Hmmm, he does have a point on this one. Do you recall the minibus crash on the M50 a few years ago which claimed the lives of a load of school kids when it ran in to the back of a cone laying van. Since then the have redesigned all of these vans with a large energy absorbing buffer on the back and huge lit direction arrow sineage to steer the cars around it whilst it works.


----------



## Jaded (2 Jun 2008)

ScaredCyclist said:


> So you are saying that the polish lorry driver driving at 19mph did not *cause* the crash??
> 
> Baring in mind this crash happened in the dark aswell.



Unless he was going 19mph backwards, no! He may have made it more likely to happen but wasn't the cause.

Dark? Goodness. 

I guess one answer might be to see if we can make lights and reflectors compulsory?


----------



## domtyler (2 Jun 2008)

I often put my hazards on if I need to slow down suddenly on the M Way, seems like a sensible precaution to me.

This is a difficult one though, BM and co are right technically, and this is borne out by the law as the person going up the ass is almost always at fault. However driving at 19mph on a M Way with no hazards or other warning to others also seems irresponsible at best.


----------



## Jaded (2 Jun 2008)

I think hazards can be counterproductive - if one of the lights is obstructed then it can look like a car is indicating. 

For this reason I prefer to pump the brake lights if I want to alert people behind me to a situation.


----------



## domd1979 (2 Jun 2008)

On the motorway they're very useful and help to alert others that things are slowing down significantly or coming to a standstill. People behind generally slow down sooner than if you just sit with your brake lights on (which in any case are limited by only working when you're braking...!!).




Jaded said:


> I think hazards can be counterproductive - if one of the lights is obstructed then it can look like a car is indicating.
> 
> For this reason I prefer to pump the brake lights if I want to alert people behind me to a situation.


----------



## Jaded (2 Jun 2008)

...which is why I pump them.

And I stand by what I said about hazards - too often I've seen one hazard and had to double take. 

A bright red light is a very clear indicator. A flashing yellow light is not.


----------



## Trillian (2 Jun 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Without looking it up, can you name the speed limits of the different vehicles on single, dual and motorways as your post indicates an ignorance of the speed limitations in law of commercial and towing vehicles ?



car, 60, 70, 70
towing, 50, 60, 70
van 50, 60, 70
van towing, 50, 60, 60
truck 40, 50, 50

thats my guesses


with regards to hazards on the motorway, i can't easily reach the ones on my last car while driving, I have to reach across almost to the glove box to get the switch.

don't like the hazard light switch on my mums car as I have to reach through the steering wheel


----------



## LLB (2 Jun 2008)

Trillian said:


> car, 60, 70, 70
> towing, 50, 60, 70
> van 50, 60, 70
> van towing, 50, 60, 60
> ...




Lifted from the direct gov website, excuse the formatting 

Close, but no cigar, that is 3 points on your license 

mph (km/h)

Cars & motorcycles
(including car-derived vans up to 2 tonnes maximum laden weight)


30 (48)Built-up areas *


60 (96)Single carriage-ways


70 (112)Dual carriage-ways 


70 (112)Motorways 

Cars towing caravans or trailers
(including car-derived vans and motorcycles)


30 (48)Built-up areas *


50 (80)Single carriage-ways


60 (96)Dual carriage-ways 


60 (96) Motorways 

Buses, coaches and minibuses
(not exceeding 12 metres in overall length)


30 (48)Built-up areas *


50 (80) Single carriage-ways


60 (96)Dual carriage-ways 


70 (112)Motorways 

Goods vehicles
(not exceeding 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight)


30 (48)Built-up areas *


50 (80)Single carriage-ways


60 (96)Dual carriage-ways 


70 (112) Motorways 

Goods vehicles
(exceeding 7.5 tonnes 

30 (48)Built-up areas *


40 (64)Single carriage-ways


50 (80)Dual carriage-ways


60 (96)Motorways


----------

