Why do drivers speed up and close the gap when you try and change lanes?!!

timbotambo

Bongles wrote: »

I agree.



Correctly, it can only mean "I intend to move to the left/right". You're right - a lot of people use it to mean "I am moving to the left/right".

If the OP did start to move immediately they signalled, I'd be interested in their thoughts on what value the signal added.



Quite. When I want to change lanes, rarely do I care exactly which vehicles I change lanes behind or ahead of. I just care that I get to change lanes soon.

Normally, and you have to do this around Birmingham, I just indicate and go pretty much straight away and do the manouver quickly if the gap is safe as people do tend to close the door but nothing like the dangeous nature of the Merc driver. In this instance, I indicated and waited for a short time and moved slower (as per "highway code" driving) as the gap was a decent size and didn't expect the guys reaction. If I had of slowed down, the cars behind me would have had to slow down considerably too and the road was running out so I had to move lanes or end up in Walsall. The guy was simply being a !!!!!! for the sake of it.

(17 years driving, passed first time 3 months after my 17th birthday, not so much as a speeding ticket. No accidents my fault though I have been rear ended twice)

stevemcol

I try and leave a 2 second gap. If someone choses to or needs to move into it, it's not a drama really. I just back off to re-open the gap. It's never yet increased the ETA on my Sat Nav.
I do have grumpy days though.

Norman_Castle

Am yow calling Brummies crap drivers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaoIQOrMikE

jase1

Lum wrote: »

They're not compensating for an illegal fault with their vehicle. They are driving to the conditions. So long as the vehicle meets certain standards it is still roadworthy.

The conflict arises when a driver of a higher performance vehicle assumes that everybody can stop as quick as their car can.

But we're discussing people who deliberately close the gap due to a perceived infraction!

If the driver considers that they must keep a longer distance because of a deficiency in their vehicle respective to others on the road (for whatever reason; I didn't make any comment about a lack of maintenance), then reacting in this way is dangerous, precisely because they earlier considered their car deficient.

Lum

I was not in any defending or justifying their reaction. The guy is in idiot. I was just trying to explain why one person may see it as an infraction but the other sees it as a perfectly safe gap.

Of course the correct reaction would be to back of and regain your preferred following distance. A flash of the lights may also be tolerable.

I'm not really keen on the idea of one vehicle having a longer stopping distance being a "deficiency", otherwise any vehicle that can't stop as quick as, say, an Aston Martin would be considered deficient, and god forbid a lorry take longer to stop, better get all those defective vehicles off the road.

Wongsky

Lum wrote: »

I was not in any defending or justifying their reaction. The guy is in idiot. I was just trying to explain why one person may see it as an infraction but the other sees it as a perfectly safe gap.

Of course the correct reaction would be to back of and regain your preferred following distance. A flash of the lights may also be tolerable.

I'm not really keen on the idea of one vehicle having a longer stopping distance being a "deficiency", otherwise any vehicle that can't stop as quick as, say, an Aston Martin would be considered deficient, and god forbid a lorry take longer to stop, better get all those defective vehicles off the road.

Well there's various differing braking capabilities - true enough.

But I kind of got the impression that Mr Illogical-Merc-Man (surnames like that are what happens when the gentry interbreed...) was driving a reasonably late-model Merc. In which case, he probably wasn't driving to the conditions of a car that couldn't stop very well.

And there is an axiom to this angle of argument - it is inherently illogical for somebody to seriously reduce their braking distances - to the degree that they then needed to brake hard - in order to overly show displeasure at somebody moving into their braking distance.

jase1

Lum wrote: »

I was not in any defending or justifying their reaction. The guy is in idiot. I was just trying to explain why one person may see it as an infraction but the other sees it as a perfectly safe gap.

Of course the correct reaction would be to back of and regain your preferred following distance. A flash of the lights may also be tolerable.

I'm not really keen on the idea of one vehicle having a longer stopping distance being a "deficiency", otherwise any vehicle that can't stop as quick as, say, an Aston Martin would be considered deficient, and god forbid a lorry take longer to stop, better get all those defective vehicles off the road.

All I'm saying is that the last person who should be tailgating is the person who knows fine well that his car can't stop as quickly as the other cars on the road (to the point of actively holding back)!

Lum

^^^ again, not arguing that he should not have been reacting the way he did. I'd still dispute the idea that he was "holding back" though. It's all relative. People generally just settle into what feels safe to them rather than actively holding back.

Wongsky wrote: »

But I kind of got the impression that Mr Illogical-Merc-Man (surnames like that are what happens when the gentry interbreed...) was driving a reasonably late-model Merc. In which case, he probably wasn't driving to the conditions of a car that couldn't stop very well.

Well perhaps. The perceived stopping distance thing is actually quite a complicated topic and a lot of modern cars actually mislead the driver about how well they can stop. Usually due to a combination of short-travel brake pedals, too much servo assistance and ABS.

I know for example, unless I consciously put an effort in, I'll end up leaving a shorter gap driving the 2010 Mondeo than I do when driving the 1993 Cefiro, even though the latter has better brakes, better suspension, grippier tyres and weighs less. It just has a long travel brake pedal, giving me more fine control but making it feel like it's more work to stop the car. I know for a fact that the Cefiro would outbrake the Mondeo, but the Mondeo feels like it stops faster and so I unconsciously adjust for this.

I've never driven a C class, so no idea how the brakes on that feel.

And there is an axiom to this angle of argument - it is inherently illogical for somebody to seriously reduce their braking distances - to the degree that they then needed to brake hard - in order to overly show displeasure at somebody moving into their braking distance.

Not arguing with you there. The Merc driver was an idiot.

valk_scot

My OH thinks his !!!!!! will fall off if he ever willingly permits another driver to move into the lane in front of him. Me? I'm happy to cooperate with the vast majority of manuveres, on the principle that if I don't I'm going to end up in some sort of game of chicken that I won't or can't win.

Interesting thing is though that we both regularly drive the same 30 mile route at the same sort of time of day and the difference in our average times is...about two minutes? I can cope with that, on the other hand OH is going to have a coronary one day, he gets so worked up about these things.

It does get "interesting" if we're both in the car together, yes. He gets worked up about my allegedly wimpish attitude if I drive, I tend to end up with my eyes shut gibbering with fear if he does. I usually drive. I absolutely always drive if the kids are in the car. He hates this, but refuses to admit he's a total !!!!!! behind the wheel. Why is this? He's a perfectly reasonable human being most of the rest of the time.

Lum

One theory I've heard about this is that the human brain is only capable of dealing with a certain number of people as actual humans, by which I mean treating them with compassion, empathy etc.

The number varies per person but would typically be around 10-20. In normal situations such as a social gathering this is not a huge issue, and even in more crowded situations such as a pub or club it's not an issue as you tend to concentrate on your own circle of friends.

On the road it's different, suddenly there are hundreds of people around and you need to concentrate on, and process, all of them. The only way the brain can cope with this at a subconscious level is if it downgrades them all to the same level as trees or insects, things you really don't give a damn about annoying and that are just getting in your way.

The theory doesn't explain why it doesn't affect everyone in the same way, but I guess some of that is the fact that, at a concious level, some will override this, others will just not want to get into an accident regardless of whether it's a tree or a human.


The other theory is that getting into your little metal box has the same effect as being able to post anonymously on the internet. You have a layer of protection from the people you are winding up and it's unlikely they are going to track you down and confront you about what you are doing.