Filter lanes and right of way question.

Strider590

Unhappy_Camper wrote: »

The fact is, I was well ahead of that car, I was by the side of the van in front. When I dropped back to pull behind the van the car behind purposely closed the gap so I couldn't filter in. Had they not of done this there would not have been an accident.

They're idiots, they broke every rule in the book and their behaviour could be classed as "racing", which carries a penalty of up to 11 points.

Whether you hit the brakes or not and for what purpose, is entirely irrelevant as they were clearly far too close.

In future when your ahead and in the clear watch your mirrors and at the first sign of a car closing the gap at a merge point, cut in sharply. They'll be extremely upset by this, but they are deliberately placing your life in danger, so basically f**k em.

I used to wait in the right hand lane and merge with the road to give everyone plenty of time to see what I was doing and to avoid cutting anybody up, but i've found recently (last few years) that almost all drivers will race up the inside and close the gap if you give them half a chance.

Tinks74

Unhappy_Camper wrote: »

Wow, opened a can of worms here didn't I.

Just to clarify, I was in the right hand lane in a queue of traffic,
We were all doing about 10-15mph. So that kind of blows tinks theory that I was driving mad at 30mph trying to jump the queue.
I don't know why you have such a chip on your shoulder tinks but you need to chill abit.

Maybe you're one of those idiot drivers who can't stand anyone to get ahead of them and would rather cause an accident instead of being sensible.

The fact is, I was well ahead of that car, I was by the side of the van in front. When I dropped back to pull behind the van the car behind purposely closed the gap so I couldn't filter in. Had they not of done this there would not have been an accident.

They were at fault for being aggressive in the first place. The reason I stopped is because they were tailgating and shouting abuse, that is why they hit me when I stopped because they were to close.

Unhappy Camper

1. I never got personal regarding the scenario you described.
2. You never stated that you were the driver or the speeds involved until your last post.
3. I don't recall ever suggesting that the driver of car a was "driving mad at 30mph trying to jump the queue". Please feel free to highlight that bit for me.
4. Your use of language implied compulsion and therefore an element of aggression was not an unreasonable conclusion to draw.
5. I never denied that the driver of car b was being aggressive.
6. You don't like my interpretation of the incident, that is your prerogative.
7. I stand by my theory that the first consideration that should be made before making a manoeuvre is that given the conditions 'Is it safe?' and not 'Am I right?'.
8. I am very chilled right now

Drive safely.

Strider590

Tinks74 wrote: »

7. I stand by my theory that the first consideration that should be made before making a manoeuvre is that given the conditions 'Is it safe?' and not 'Am I right?'.

What the OP is referring to though is a case of "it was safe until !!!!head made it unsafe".
You can't always predict what other drivers are going to do and if we assumed all were idiots, the transport system would grind to a halt.

The best you can do is to look for the driving language (like body language). Are they driving aggressively or flowing with the traffic? are they driving near to the white line? what car are they driving? is it modified? does it have a private plate? do they care about their vehicle?

You can't judge based on gender, BUT:
If it's a woman in a newish car, they'll probably try to race (no matter what your driving).
If it's a man in a newish more expensive car, they probably won't.
If it's a man in an older medium/large family car, they probably will (frustrated middle aged man syndrome).
If it's a van driver and your in a normal family car, they probably will also, but not if your in a genuine hot hatch or sportscar.

Tinks74

Strider590 wrote: »

What the OP is referring to though is a case of "it was safe until !!!!head made it unsafe".
You can't always predict what other drivers are going to do and if we assumed all were idiots, the transport system would grind to a halt.

The best you can do is to look for the driving language (like body language). Are they driving aggressively or flowing with the traffic? are they driving near to the white line? what car are they driving? is it modified? does it have a private plate? do they care about their vehicle?

You can't judge based on gender, BUT:
If it's a woman in a newish car, they'll probably try to race (no matter what your driving).
If it's a man in a newish more expensive car, they probably won't.
If it's a man in an older medium/large family car, they probably will (frustrated middle aged man syndrome).
If it's a van driver and your in a normal family car, they probably will also, but not if your in a genuine hot hatch or sportscar.

I appreciate that, I am myself familiar with sucessfully predicting which of the cars heading down a motorway slip road will immediately pull onto the motorway and across every lane of traffic.

However given your own criteria, the driver of car a was aware that the driver of car b was driving aggressively by deliberately closing the gap between themselves and the van, that is the point at which the decision should have been made not to continue the manoeuvre and drop back into a space behind car b.

Strider590

The van driver could/should have seen the chaos behind and slowed down, forcing the gap closer to slow down and to allow the car to pass both of them. It's what I would have done tbh.....

We can say xyz should have done this, xyz should have done that.... I mean the OP could have left 2 minutes earlier and avoided the confrontation altogether. But the guy closing the gap committed the offence that lead to everything else. Overtaking isn't illegal, using both lanes isn't illegal, racing to close a gap however is.

Tinks74

Strider

Car b was in the wrong by doing what they were doing - we agree on that.
However my point is that by insisting on completing the manoeuvre in front of car b, car a becomes complicit - on this point it appears we will never agree.

I see no need to debate this further.