Anti-Social Driving/Tailgating fines

Jamie_Carter

fivetide wrote: »

My point was it isn't irrelevant. Driving on the left in the incident i referenced would have saved a life.

Even if the motorway is empty, without a crystal ball, it is impossible to know what is happening a mile down the road and generally, being on the left would be safer as, any car that goes off the left is going to end up either on a banking or onthe hard shoulder whilst anything to the right is likely to be in lane three with debris spreading to the middle lane.

As Joe Horner and NB London said, just because you assume the road to be clear doesn't mean it is and doesn't preclude you from driving as you should.

I accept you misread the initial post but you specifically said you agreed in part with what I was saying and said the inident hadn't happened as I described when in fact, it did. Hope that answers your questions.

I was in a similar situation (on a dual carriageway, not a motorway). I was driving at 70mph at night, on an unlit stretch of road. I had my headlights on dipped beam, as there was oncoming traffic on the other carriageway. I was concentrating on the road, when I suddenly noticed a car sideways across my lane. I had to brake very hard to prevent a collision. There was a car in lane two that wasn't travelling much faster than me, who would have hit the car, had it been in lane two. In fact he did come to a stop in the middle of the debris.

Now I am trained in high speed driving on the public roads. But even without distractions I only just avoided a collision. If I had been speeding, or using my mobile, I would have almost certainly T-boned the car on the driver's side, causing possible fatal consequences.

zappahey

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Why didn't they pull him over? (I was under the impression that they did).



The impression I got from their post was that there was a 50mph limit in force. And that they ignored it and did 70.

You don't appear to be too hot at this reading lark.

Lum

Well for the record I've just undertook someone on the motorway in view of a copper.

They were in Lane 3 doing 50mph. I undertook them by remaining in Lane 1 doing 70. The copper was about half a mile back.

The Lane 3 numpty got pulled over for it.

Jamie_Carter

zappahey wrote: »

You don't appear to be too hot at this reading lark.

If someone doesn't make something clear in their post, then it can be interpreted in different ways.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

Well for the record I've just undertook someone on the motorway in view of a copper.

They were in Lane 3 doing 50mph. I undertook them by remaining in Lane 1 doing 70. The copper was about half a mile back.

The Lane 3 numpty got pulled over for it.

And from your earlier post, I would say that it is possible that you have a summons on it's way to you, if the police car managed to read your number plate.

Lum

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

And from your earlier post, I would say that it is possible that you have a summons on it's way to you, if the police car managed to read your number plate.

Guess I get to update this thread in six months when it doesn't happen then.

z1a

If I'm on bike and I come up to middle lane hogger I'll undertake them, if I'm in car I'll move out to L3 to pass, then cut right across them to L1, as close as I dare risk. I know most will disagree with that, but it keeps me happy.

Joe_Horner

z1a wrote: »

If I'm on bike and I come up to middle lane hogger I'll undertake them, if I'm in car I'll move out to L3 to pass, then cut right across them to L1, as close as I dare risk. I know most will disagree with that, but it keeps me happy.

I'm afraid "disagree" doesn't quite cover it on that.

So, you'll take the machine that you (should) know is likely to not be seen and take it up the side that you (should) know people are less likely to expect you if they do decide to pull over.

Then you'll intentionally cut someone up at speed on a motorway just to "keep yourself happy".

To be honest, that sounds like exactly the sort of behaviour these new FPs will be useful for.

z1a

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I'm afraid "disagree" doesn't quite cover it on that.

So, you'll take the machine that you (should) know is likely to not be seen and take it up the side that you (should) know people are less likely to expect you if they do decide to pull over.

Then you'll intentionally cut someone up at speed on a motorway just to "keep yourself happy".

To be honest, that sounds like exactly the sort of behaviour these new FPs will be useful for.

Yes, I'll take my machine that may or may not have been seen, if a 3 foot wide silver bike with lights on hasn't been seen by the hogger whilst i'm approaching, then hogger shouldn't be allowed on the roads. I am also anticipating any move the hogger may make.

Yes, I will intentionally cut somebody up if they deserve it, if it ever caused them to panic and crash - good!

Also, no need to patronise me with the use of the word should in brackets, I'm well aware of what I'm doing, and have been doing for the last 30 odd years, and will continue to do so.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

Guess I get to update this thread in six months when it doesn't happen then.

I wouldn't have thought it would take that long. But then I wouldn't know.