using hazard lights when approaching an accident

hartcjhart

hothothot wrote: »

ive got a good car that can cope with a bit of snowfall - and I already had been held up for 2hours on what should have been a 30minute journey, wanted to get home fast as possible.

so another accident waiting to happen then

Anihilator

Tbh sounds far more likely to me that the OP missed something like an overhead stop sign or police officer signalling these cars to stop or possibly a dangerous obstruction/debris.

Doubt two people would for no reason stop on a motorway

hothothot_3

Anihilator wrote: »

Tbh sounds far more likely to me that the OP missed something like an overhead stop sign or police officer signalling these cars to stop or possibly a dangerous obstruction/debris.

Doubt two people would for no reason stop on a motorway

There was a bridge thing just before the accident scene. Maybe I did fail to notice it to stop come to think of it, oops. but how would that explain why the other two cars put their hazards off and followed me afterwards? Im thinking its because they realised they had been rash in what they had done.

the police women was putting those blue flare things down (on the other side of the carriageway- where the lorry had crashed), so there wasnt any officers telling me to stop.

Anihilator

So there was police officers on the carriageways.

Probably answers the thread. they were being more attentive rather than having to do an emergency stop at 70MPH if necessary

hothothot_3

Anihilator wrote: »

So there was police officers on the carriageways.

Probably answers the thread. they were being more attentive rather than having to do an emergency stop at 70MPH if necessary

there was 2 traffic cars on the other side of the carriageway (not my side) but the side where the lorry had skidded into the central reservation. They had lots of strobe lights going and about 10 flares on the ground. However, this was viewable from a mile away - yet just because they had pretty much secured that side of the carriageway, doesnt mean that traffic on the other side has anything to do with the situation. As a result, im perfectly entitled to assume normal road laws apply and continue at 70 if I want to. What others dont have the right to do is incorrect use of hazards, and sudden braking unless there truly was debris on the road ahead (which was not the case at all).

Anihilator

hothothot wrote: »

there was 2 traffic cars on the other side of the carriageway (not my side) but the side where the lorry had skidded into the central reservation. They had lots of strobe lights going and about 10 flares on the ground. However, this was viewable from a mile away - yet just because they had pretty much secured that side of the carriageway, doesnt mean that traffic on the other side has anything to do with the situation. As a result, im perfectly entitled to assume normal road laws apply and continue at 70 if I want to. What others dont have the right to do is incorrect use of hazards, and sudden braking unless there truly was debris on the road ahead (which was not the case at all).

Well I know who I think was right here.

Approaching what appears to be a serious accident late at night, bad weather conditions and motorists nearby doing high speeds.

I would have slowed down. I would also note some cars automatically put on hazards under braking situations.

You approached this accident far too fast and if something unexpected had happened, such as debris, or a police officer suddenly appearing you would have caused fatalities quite possibly. The other two wouldnt have.

Now who was really in the wrong.

Police take dangerous driving a bit more seriously than a minor hazard light offence.

ben500

I'm inclined to go with most other posters here, 70mph is the maximum speed permitted it is not a target nor a regulatory minimum, and you really should only be travelling at such speed in optimum driving conditions, current inclement weather clearly poses increased hazard that coupled with night driving alone should have told you that 70mph was perhaps not a wise speed to be travelling at
Add to that the intermittent blues in the distance this should have made you further wary of your travelling speed as it clearly will have an impact on the hazard potential alone not withstanding the almost certainty of rubber neckers.
I suspect your admitted inexperience has left you with the impression that others over reacted when most likely you had underestimated the risk involved yourself.

I'd say the biggest problem here is your own hazard perception to be honest, this time you were lucky, the question you need to be asking is how many times you will be lucky?

hartcjhart

hothothot wrote: »

there was 2 traffic cars on the other side of the carriageway (not my side) but the side where the lorry had skidded into the central reservation. They had lots of strobe lights going and about 10 flares on the ground. However, this was viewable from a mile away - yet just because they had pretty much secured that side of the carriageway, doesnt mean that traffic on the other side has anything to do with the situation. As a result, im perfectly entitled to assume normal road laws apply and continue at 70 if I want to. What others dont have the right to do is incorrect use of hazards, and sudden braking unless there truly was debris on the road ahead (which was not the case at all).

normal road laws,but this was not a 'normal' road it was a road that had bad weather conditions,so the expert advice is to slow down,

you have the right to drive like a [EMAIL="tw@t"]!!!!!![/EMAIL] in bad conditions just as the others have the right to use extreme caution when approaching an accident on whatever side of the road,it does not matter how far away you could see the lights/flares untill you are actually at the scene you dont know what is going to be there

computershack

hothothot wrote: »

ive got a good car that can cope with a bit of snowfall - and I already had been held up for 2hours on what should have been a 30minute journey, wanted to get home fast as possible.

I expect to hear from you posting from a ditch sometime in the near future.

You can have the best car in the world for snow but it requires a good driver as well - something you've amply demonstrated you're not. In addition to that, you're also on the road with others who have varying levels of skills and vehicle suitability and need to take that into account, again something you've demonstrated you don't.

hothothot_3

computershack wrote: »

I expect to hear from you posting from a ditch sometime in the near future.

You can have the best car in the world for snow but it requires a good driver as well - something you've amply demonstrated you're not. In addition to that, you're also on the road with others who have varying levels of skills and vehicle suitability and need to take that into account, again something you've demonstrated you don't.

experts like yourself arent generated overnight.

Lady luck must be on my side, nearly 10 years licence and not a blemish on it whatsoever. Or could it be I have natural driving ability and able to more accurately assess what a hazard is before panic reacting and causing danger to other road users?

Unless you have been there, its not best to comment and I think should be giving me the benefit of the doubt, you seem to be siding with the ones who nearly caused another accident, as so often happens.

I havent clocked that many motorway milesas you, but have driven in Germany on the autobahn at speeds of 120mph that are far more reasonable than paltry 70 which is another indication how behind the times Britain is in terms of knowing how to design and manage its infrastructure.

I really think drivers like those who either unreasonably hold up other traffic should have more harsher penalties. If driving skill is the problem, more stricter examination needs to be put into place before cutting people loose with potentialy lethal weapon.

There shouldnt be an excuse of 'drivers of varying skill'. A licence is a privelege not a right, and high standard should be displayed to obtain one. Had I not had to spend the time swerving to avoid a collission, idve noted down their VRMs and reported them.