nathan1986 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 ppl who do this need to realise that if u hit someone in front of u its ur fault in the eyes of insurance companies so stop being fools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Umpley Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 ppl who do this need to realise that if u hit someone in front of u its ur fault in the eyes of insurance companies so stop being fools not if the person you hit was found guilty of undue care and attention which if they undertook, then pulled in and braked they would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 not if the person you hit was found guilty of undue care and attention which if they undertook, then pulled in and braked they would be. Or just slapped the brakes on for no good reason.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I think you might be trying to split hairs there. A single car is traffic, you just wouldn't normally refer to it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Umpley Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Or just slapped the brakes on for no good reason.. if they slap the brakes on and you hit them its your fault for driving too close. if someone pulls infront of you and then does it its theirs fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I think you might be trying to split hairs there. A single car is traffic, you just wouldn't normally refer to it that way. If this was meant for me and my post, I don't think I am being pedantic. Moving up on the inside of a slower-moving (line of) traffic on your right hand side is allowed (although a defensive driver expects those on his/her right to move across to the left). Passing (undertaking) a single car (i.e. not "traffic") on your right when not you are not part of a moving queue yourself is quite different and would be conspicuous in its dodginess to an observant PC. "Traffic", as mentioned in the HC rule, is the collective name we give to a number of vehicles, surely. The frustrating thing about such rules is that, since it is only a potted guide to road law, its wording is less than clear on occasions and open to differing interpretations. Furthermore, undertaking and overtaking in multi-lane situations is the norm in the States AND it seems to work from my own personal experience of driving over there, for example, in LA, San Francisco (could be wrong, though, without any stats.) Over here, we don't expect it and can get caught out by someone undertaking, for example on the new 4 lane bit of the M1 around Nottingham - there's one on-ramp on this stretch that seems to invite an approach of "here's your high-speed, multi-lane playground folks, put your foot down and weave your shortest and quickest route to lane 4 and don't worry about undertaking, no-one at this point will be planning to move leftwards ... and, if they do, they will know where you are by dint of their ESP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 ppl who do this need to realise that if u hit someone in front of u its ur fault in the eyes of insurance companies so stop being fools Don't let mods catch you using text speak:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 If this was meant for me and my post, I don't think I am being pedantic. Moving up on the inside of a slower-moving (line of) traffic on your right hand side is allowed (although a defensive driver expects those on his/her right to move across to the left). Passing (undertaking) a single car (i.e. not "traffic") on your right when not you are not part of a moving queue yourself is quite different and would be conspicuous in its dodginess to an observant PC. "Traffic", as mentioned in the HC rule, is the collective name we give to a number of vehicles, surely. The frustrating thing about such rules is that, since it is only a potted guide to road law, its wording is less than clear on occasions and open to differing interpretations. I asked an ex traffic officer about it once, he said he might pull you, but if you explained that you observed the situation and had the hard shoulder as an escape route in case the idiot moved left then he'd just let you go. Furthermore, undertaking and overtaking in multi-lane situations is the norm in the States AND it seems to work from my own personal experience of driving over there, for example, in LA, San Francisco (could be wrong, though, without any stats.) Over here, we don't expect it and can get caught out by someone undertaking True, when I do it I do it quickly and with the hard shoulder as an emergency exit. , for example on the new 4 lane bit of the M1 around Nottingham - there's one on-ramp on this stretch that seems to invite an approach of "here's your high-speed, multi-lane playground folks, put your foot down and weave your shortest and quickest route to lane 4 and don't worry about undertaking, no-one at this point will be planning to move leftwards ... and, if they do, they will know where you are by dint of their ESP. By dint of their mirrors I'd hope, but isn't this more about the persistent middle lane driver who's there despite the otherwise empty motorway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I asked an ex traffic officer about it once, he said he might pull you, but if you explained that you observed the situation and had the hard shoulder as an escape route in case the idiot moved left then he'd just let you go. True, when I do it I do it quickly and with the hard shoulder as an emergency exit. By dint of their mirrors I'd hope, but isn't this more about the persistent middle lane driver who's there despite the otherwise empty motorway? "persistent middle lane driver" is open to an individual driver's interpretation. I can be in lane 2 (or 3) for a very good reason that the closing driver behind me doesn't even consider. For example, on occasions I take up a lane 2 position on the bridge over Handsworth roundabout, not accelerating up to NSL (and overtaking someone in lane 1) in order to retain an escape route for anyone coming up the on-ramp. I can only assume that the driver(s) who end up too close to me, wishing to accelerate to NSL are thinking of me as a middle lane hogger. I m where I am for good reason that they aren't able to fathom until it goes wrong for them. As always the driver with a reactive style of driving gets caught out eventually. The proactive driver stays clear of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Do you imagine that the drivers behind you aren't aware of a slip road joining? A persistent middle lane driver is easy to spot if the road is quiet. They're not overtaking, there is no slip road and no debris in the driving lane, generally you are yourself in that lane, but gaining on them none the less. And that's the only circumstance I'd undertake in, when I don't move to the left, I simply stay in my lane and since the road in front of me is clear and I'm maintaining a constant speed I don't alter it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.