Tailgating should be made a criminal offence

Joe_Horner

Sorry, the poor explanation was probably by me. Good driving undoubtedly involves a big chunk of allowing for other people's faults and getting out of the way of a tailgater as soon as you can do so safely should be common sense.

But, again, the same applies to drink drivers. If you see someone swerving all over the road just after closing time then keeping well clear is the sensible thing to do.

But very few people I know would turn round to someone who'd been hit by an obviously drunk driver and suggest that their failure to allow for his drunkenness was a contributory factor (although, personally I'd say it was!)

Driving so close that you can't stop almost certainly causes more accidents than drink or "excess" speed, although in many cases the excess speed goes hand-in-hand with driving too close. Yet it's more or less ignored by those with the power to do something about it and more or less accepted as a "fact of life" on the roads by everyone else.

Until that changes people will continue to not stop in time, which is, fundamentally, the ONLY reason for two cars hitting each other!

Gin_and_Milk

I was always taught that if you're being tailgated, you should gently apply your brakes (not to stop). Sometimes that's easier said than done as some drivers can be really intimidating. However, I am stubborn and the way I see it is why should I risk anything for someone who is driving like a moron? If they don't like it tough, back off or overtake and we'll both be happy.
As an aside, anyone who drives in lanes 2 and 3 for reasons other than overtaking should be shot, (obviously not whilst driving).
Something that has been mentioned by others is driving below the speed limit in order to save fuel. Driving in such a way that causes other drivers to change speed or direction unnecessarily is a big no no. If you're driving a few mph below the limit, that's fair enough, but if other drivers are having to change speed/direction etc because you're driving too far below the speed limit, then I'm not sure saving fuel is a justifiable reason

interstellaflyer

Let me just correct this a little.

supermanjo wrote: »

My theory on 3 lanes have always been...

[STRIKE]Left: 60+[/STRIKE]
[STRIKE]Middle: 70+[/STRIKE]
[STRIKE]Right: 80+[/STRIKE]

Left: Up To 70
Middle: Up To 70
Right: Up To 70

All of coarse only apply where lower limits ie 40, 50 or 60 are not enforced.

Maybe if people played by these rules then they would be less stressed and there would be less aggressive behaviour on the motorways/Dual Carriageways.

anon1234

Yada yada yada..

When I join a motorway I wish to accelerate to 80 and continue at that speed until I leave the motorway. Anyone who gets in my way, for any reason, is wrong.

martinthebandit

anon1234 wrote: »

Yada yada yada..

When I join a motorway I wish to accelerate to 80 and continue at that speed until I leave the motorway. Anyone who gets in my way, for any reason, is wrong.

Can I be the first to thank you for your helpful and informative post, it has added so much to the discussion.

Is your real name Richard Head by any chance?

Blackpool_Saver

interstellaflyer wrote: »

Let me just correct this a little.



All of coarse only apply where lower limits ie 40, 50 or 60 are not enforced.

Maybe if people played by these rules then they would be less stressed and there would be less aggressive behaviour on the motorways/Dual Carriageways.

let me just correct this a little

course

Blackpool_Saver

Joking aside, is this thread still going on? seriously there is only one way way BACK THE HELL OFF

Crazy_Jamie

stugib wrote: »

Keeping up with the speed of traffic is good driving, which generally should mean at the speed limit. If you want to go slower in a multi-lane carriageway, fine. If you want to hold everyone else up because of personal benefits (fuel) to you, that's inconsiderate.

I agree that a general principle of keeping up with the speed of the traffic is sound. However, I would question your application of it in the situation that we're talking about. If I am in the third lane of a motorway travelling at 65mph overtaking a vehicle in the middle lane travelling at 60mph, who in turn is overtaking a vehicle travelling in the left lane travelling at 55mph, that must surely be 'keeping up with the flow of traffic' because I am overtaking vehicles travelling slower than me, which is what the middle and right lanes are for. If one solitary vehicle then comes up behind me travelling at 70mph, it is nonsense to suggest that that one vehicle can dictate 'the flow of traffic' if everyone else is travelling slower.

There are two further points to make here. The first, which I would suggest is the 'elephant in the room' in this discussion, is that we all know that a significant portion of those drivers that tailgate in the third lane are actually travelling notably over the 70mph limit, and therefore trouble those overtaking at 70mph just as much as they do someone like me who is travelling at 65mph. Of course, the principles that you're trying to apply fall apart when the person behind is breaking the speed limit. Now I know that you're not endorsing breaking the speed limit, as common as it may be, but it should be remembered that the specific example we're talking about of a person travelling at 70mph approaching a person travelling at 65mph is not as common as it should be.

The second point is a simple one. It is a speed 'limit'. Not a speed 'target'. Good driving is about a lot more than either travelling at the speed limit or below it. Whilst it is perfectly true that someone travelling below a speed limit may be open to criticism depending on the conditions, equally there is no implied or explicit rule that drivers should travel at the speed limit just because they are able to.

stugib wrote:

Look into traffic queuing theory. You pull out at a slower speed, forces someone to brake. Causes a chain effect of braking which concertinas into a jam.

martinthebandit wrote:

Its quite simple really, in heavy but free flowing traffic if someone pulls out into the third lane at, for example, 65 mph the first oncoming car in that lane will brake down to a slightly slower speed, say 64 mph, the car behind him down to 63 mph, unless there are sufficient gaps in the traffic in that lane 60 or 70 cars later the traffic is at a standstill.

If I pull out at a slower speed when there is insufficient room to do so, forcing the vehicle behind to brake as a direct result of me changing lanes, I would agree that that would be a contributory factor to any subsequent slowing of the traffic generally. But it is nonsense to suggest that blame attaches for the same effect when I am already established in the right hand lane and a vehicle approaches from a further distance.

Traffic jams that seemingly come out of nowhere are caused and perpetuated in the main by drivers leaving insufficient distances between themselves and vehicles in front to the extent that they need to brake too harshly when the car in front slows down, which in turn causes a domino effect with cars behind slowly down more and more (which is also worsened if the cars behind them have similarly failed to leave an appropriate gap). The matter is then not helped by drivers accelerating too quickly when the traffic starts moving again, leaving them needing to brake harshly again soon after.

Now, it is true that there is often a 'trigger' in such situations, which can be something as simple as someone changing lanes when there is insufficient room to do so. I'm not disputing that, and I'm also not disputing that changing lanes in those circumstances is poor driving. But I entirely disagree that blame can attach to someone who is simply moving at a slower speed in a particular lane than cars approaching them from behind at a distance. To blame those drivers in favour of implicitly offering at least partial exoneration to the drivers behind who fail to react to the slower moving traffic up ahead is incorrect in my view.

martinthebandit

Just one point that some posters might like to note,

Mirror, signal, manouver, means that you should check in your mirror for approaching traffic and not actually do the signal, manouver bit til there is sufficient space to complete your manouver without causing other vehicles to alter course, speed etc.

It is also good practice to actually complete the manouver as quickly and safely as possible.

I know, its never going to catch on is it? But if it did some people may not get tailgated quite so much.

Oh and before I get accused of approving tailgating (again)
TAILGATING IS WRONG, NO IFS OR BUTS.

But two wrongs do not make a right.

Mrs_Arcanum

People do have problems with judging the speed of others, particularly in rear view mirrors. So that vehicle you thought was back far enough for you to complete your overtaking manoeuvre at your chosen speed, could be right behind you before you can pull back in.

Only time I seem to be tail-gated is in 30mph areas with numpties who drive at 40mph everywhere.