Too many idiots on the road!

Sandoval

Wkdwill wrote: »

There are just so many idiots on the road...

Well I just got home from work so now there's one less...

darich

moonrakerz wrote: »

Yes I entirely agree, it is entirely irrational to hate people to who ride on the footpath (better known as the pavement), ride through red lights, ride down one way streets the wrong way, ride in the dark without any lights, ride across pedestrian crossings - yes, totally irrational !

:D

Technically, when the "pavement" is adjacent to the road it's called a "footway". A "footpath" is a path for pedestrians that is remote from the road.

I am a driver of almost 20years.
I also have a bicycle and have cycled to work (5 miles urban traffic) numerous times.
I have no hatred of cyclists and I do not ride the footway where practical, jump red lights or cycle down one way streets the wrong way.
I think the OP is in a poor position to comment on the "idiots" on the road. I agree there are plenty bad drivers but given that the OP has no licence to drive it could well be that OP's husband is a bad driver and, as suggested in the OP's post, does attract them due to his poor driving.
I'm not having a go or stating any facts re driving ability - just pointing out the arguements made from an outsider's viewpoint.

tomstickland

Bear in mind that it is possible to reduce the risk of other idiots.
Taking the roundabout example, it's good practice to observe other cars and look to see if they might be about to do something odd. I've avoided scores of collisions when my 5th sense tells me something is going to happen. It's not a 5th sense of course, just a feeling based on something appearing to be suspicious.

Lum

People who sit in the outside lane doing "the speed limit" often aren't doing the speed limit at all because all car speedos overread and in reality you're more likely doing 63mph than 70.

The highway code is very clear on this one, "keep left unless overtaking", so unless the other guy had to drive right up your chuff, and then carve in front of you to undertake, you were in the wrong lane. Sure the other guy may have been legally in the wrong for speeding but it's not your job to enforce the law, just let them get past and at least then if they're going to crash they'll crash into someone else.

Unlike some others in this thread, I agree, based on your description of events, that the other two incidents were genuine idiots though. But yes you do need to learn to anticipate such things, it takes a few years at least after passing your test to develop a good idiot sense but once you do driving really isn't as bad as you make out.

Also bear in mind that if, like many people, you are illegally leaving L plates on the car even when the qualified driver is driving then you will bring out the latent idiocy in many people as no-one wants to get stuck behind a learner.

Mankysteve

Its a major fail a driving test if someone under takes you in normal driving conditions ie no traffic. Even if there speeding.

Lum

Correct.

A while back I was having a conversation with a retired police officer about this very topic. They attended a court case a while back where they had attempted to prosecute someone for undertaking (at the speed limit). It was your typical middle lane moron situation and the undertaker simply couldn't be bothered to change two lanes on an otherwise empty motorway.

The judge threw it out and told the officer that rather than trying to prosecute the undertaker for dangerous driving they should have pulled the MLM for driving without due care and attention.


As an aside, I love the term "undertaker" because it means those annoying car stickers that say "today overtaker, tomorrow undertaker" can be reinterpreted as saying "I drive in the middle lane all the time.".

mikey72

You could argue he wasn't even undertaking.
If it was solid traffic in all three lanes, (op couldn't pull back in because of cars on the left), it is permitted to pass on the left.

Highway code
"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 thing he did wrong was moving left into the faster moving lane. (But then if you move left, then that lane speeds up.....)

Lum

"The highway code is not a book of law". There is no specific law against undertaking, so the onus is on the officer to prove careless/dangerous/reckless driving.

Of course the opposite is also true. The undertaker must disprove it so if you can't be bothered with that hassle it's best avoided if there are other cars about).


There are some "rules" in the Highway Code, these are typically identified by the use of the phrase "must" or "must not" as opposed to "should" or "should not" but also by the fact that they make reference to specific points in the Road Traffic Act, or other acts.

The classic example is that you "must not" enter a hatched area that has solid white lines, and "should not" enter a hatched area that has broken lines. The latter design is often used as a replacement for the old fashioned "suicide lane" two-way overtaking lane, providing a two-way overtaking lane reserved solely for the people who have read the highway code and understood it properly, and causing the muppets to not attempt an overtake.

mikey72

Lum wrote: »

"The highway code is not a book of law". There is no specific law against undertaking, so the onus is on the officer to prove careless/dangerous/reckless driving.

Of course the opposite is also true. The undertaker must disprove it so if you can't be bothered with that hassle it's best avoided if there are other cars about).


There are some "rules" in the Highway Code, these are typically identified by the use of the phrase "must" or "must not" as opposed to "should" or "should not" but also by the fact that they make reference to specific points in the Road Traffic Act, or other acts.

The classic example is that you "must not" enter a hatched area that has solid white lines, and "should not" enter a hatched area that has broken lines. The latter design is often used as a replacement for the old fashioned "suicide lane" two-way overtaking lane, providing a two-way overtaking lane reserved solely for the people who have read the highway code and understood it properly, and causing the muppets to not attempt an overtake.

It may not be a "book of law" but it's a good defense if you're following it at the time, and not much excuse if you're in court having ignored it.

Lum

Well yes, following it will generally result in a reasonably well mannered and safe driving style, but people still need to think for themselves. eg. no point following the more ridiculous lane markings on large roundabouts if it's 3AM and there are no other cars nearby vs pulling that same stunt at rush hour and driving into the side of someone.

Sticking to it in all situations, even when it's not useful to do, so puts you in the same league as the jobsworth idiot that every council office has at least one of.