If I'm in a que of 20 or 30 cars on a twisty single carriageway main road all doing 60 on the way back from work...does the pillock in the Vauxhall Zafira behind me think its a good idea to overtake me narrowly missing a car coming towards us and then squeezes into the gap in front of me making me brake - then stay there for the next 10 miles with the trophy of being 1 car length ahead? PILLOCK:finger:

Some people want to work their way through a queue of traffic - if he had to squeeze into a gap in front of you, maybe you were travelling too close to the car in front?

Chris (not a Zafira driver)

Yes, it's very frustrating on single carraigeways when a group of cars are all sat up each others arses.

yeah, the one car length thing irritates the hell out me. round where we are there's loads of 2 lanes to one merge/lane endings. The things people will do for an extra car length!

Had someone try to squeeze round me the other day, from right next to me he accellerated over hashed lines down the middle of the road to overtake me and started to pull in. Next thing I've no road, swiftly followed by a dented front end where he pulled in... blood pillock. Still that's with the insurers now.

yeah, the one car length thing irritates the hell out me. round where we are there's loads of 2 lanes to one merge/lane endings. The things people will do for an extra car length!

Had someone try to squeeze round me the other day, from right next to me he accellerated over hashed lines down the middle of the road to overtake me and started to pull in. Next thing I've no road, swiftly followed by a dented front end where he pulled in... blood pillock. Still that's with the insurers now.

So you didn't slow down and allow him to overtake as written in the highway code? Think I'd have backed off rather than force an accident or am I missunderstanding what you've wrote and he just drove into the side of you before you saw him?

Has he admitted liability? If not it may well go 50:50.

sorry, yeah there were a couple of other factors. traffic was a moderate paced line of vehicles. of course now i wish I had applied my brakes a little harder/earlier but I wasn't really expecting him to do what he did, it's lunacy on the piece of road where it was.

sadly, no he hasn't admitted liability so I guess 50:50 is a real prospect :( you live and you learn though...

Personally it deffinatly sounds like his fault, he hit you not the other way around, your not supposed to overtake unless its safe legal and convenient (i believe thats the saying) if he was in such a rush to pull back in he shouldnt have attempted it in the first place ^-^

Personally it deffinatly sounds like his fault, he hit you not the other way around, your not supposed to overtake unless its safe legal and convenient (i believe thats the saying) if he was in such a rush to pull back in he shouldnt have attempted it in the first place ^-^

But it's also the overtakee's responsibility to assist the overtaker in his overtake.........

Chris

Personally it deffinatly sounds like his fault, he hit you not the other way around, your not supposed to overtake unless its safe legal and convenient (i believe thats the saying) if he was in such a rush to pull back in he shouldnt have attempted it in the first place ^-^

But without witnesess all he has to say is it was safe to overtake but the person he was overtaking accelerated as he was pulling back in. Did the other driver hit the poster on his front wing or did the poster hit the other driver in the rear quarter? I doubt it can be proved either way, hence the 50:50.

I hate b4stards like that. Something will bite them in the a55 later in life, lol. I have mixed feelings about people overtaking me, sometimes i dont mind and i let them do what they want and prove what they've got to prove (i dont drive under the limit so theres no need to overtake me) and sometimes i put my foot down which is in some cases irresponsible, but if im doing the limit the what the hell is their problem?

With the fact that the person that hit you could turn around and say it was safe or say you sped up its a bit of a toughy :p I'd love to argue back and say your totally in the right, but it meens id have to do some reading up first :P I'm sure it will work out ok if the other driver isnt total scum ^^

but if im doing the limit the what the hell is their problem?

It's not your place to police the roads by obstructing overtakes, whether they be at the limit or not. You are supposed to drive defensively - doing what is required to to avoid accidents, rather than to be "right" about stopping people overtaking when you're driving at the speed limit...

Rob.

It's not your place to police the roads by obstructing overtakes, whether they be at the limit or not. You are supposed to drive defensively - doing what is required to to avoid accidents, rather than to be "right" about stopping people overtaking when you're driving at the speed limit...

Rob.

Oh yea I understand that, and i admit i am in the wrong when i do so, but unfortunatly im not a saint and i cant help but do it. At the end of the day i have twarted their attempts (in most cases) and i feel satisfied that they are embarresed they could not complete their overtake (especially around a skoda, haha), even though i may not be driving totally saftley.

if im doing the limit the what the hell is their problem?

Or they could say what the hell is your problem?! What you're basically saying is that you're going along perfectly predictably at a steady pace (aka the speed limit) and then when someone goes to overtake you, you deliberately break the speed limit simply to prevent them/make their overtake more dangerous?! Or are you trying to prove something about how great your car is? So glad we have people like you on our roads

Chris

Getting back to the original thread, I certainly wouldn't consider overtaking for just one car.

Or they could say what the hell is your problem?! What you're basically saying is that you're going along perfectly predictably at a steady pace (aka the speed limit) and then when someone goes to overtake you, you deliberately break the speed limit simply to prevent them/make their overtake more dangerous?! Or are you trying to prove something about how great your car is? So glad we have people like you on our roads

Chris

Haha, my cars not great and i can admit that.

The point im trying to make is simple, if they were driving the speed limit and were behind another car, and someone tried to overtake them, why in the world should they compromise their driving position and speed to accomodate for somebody alse breaking the law. They shouldn't. I know we could all argue the toss all day about whos in the right and wrong, but why should be defend those who have broken the law in the first place to overtake with no reason what-so-ever.

Yes i may feel inclined to prevent someone overtaking on the odd accasion, and i know im in the wrong in doing so, but im pretty sure that a lot of people on this forum have done something similar to this in the past. So why do we defend those in the wrong to begin with?

Getting back to the original thread, I certainly wouldn't consider overtaking for just one car.

So how many cars does there have to be before you'll overtake? :confused: Surely overtaking one car at a time is safer than multiple cars.

So how many cars does there have to be before you'll overtake? :confused: Surely overtaking one car at a time is safer than multiple cars.

The point is, why on earth was there a possible need to overtake one car and one car only, it gained the other driver once space with no seeable benefits. Unless of course their plan was to overtake one at a time but after the first overtake it then became unsafe?

The point is, why on earth was there a possible need to overtake one car and one car only, it gained the other driver once space with no seeable benefits. Unless of course their plan was to overtake one at a time but after the first overtake it then became unsafe?

That's exactly why.

That's exactly why.

We could quite easily say that was their ultimate goal, but we actually have no idea of their intentions at the time ^^

The point im trying to make is simple, if they were driving the speed limit and were behind another car, and someone tried to overtake them, why in the world should they compromise their driving position and speed to accomodate for somebody alse breaking the law. They shouldn't. I know we could all argue the toss all day about whos in the right and wrong, but why should be defend those who have broken the law in the first place to overtake with no reason what-so-ever.

And the point I'm making is what is your problem with being overtaken? Surely, it's much easier for you to just continue at the same driving position and speed. How are you compromising your position by being overtaken?! :confused:

Chris

So how many cars does there have to be before you'll overtake? :confused: Surely overtaking one car at a time is safer than multiple cars.

Sorry, I meant in that particular situation.

That's exactly why.

Completely agree. If people are happy sitting in a slow-train following something then so be it. However, some people don't want to and can safely overtake and work their way through a queue. Considerate and safe drivers leave a decent sized gap - if I was overtaking someone and they decided to speed up then I'd have to force my way in causing them to brake and me to get irate at them being a d***head. Not really good for world karma

Chris

And the point I'm making is what is your problem with being overtaken? Surely, it's much easier for you to just continue at the same driving position and speed. How are you compromising your position by being overtaken?! :confused:

Chris

I meen if you are in a que and in order for the overtaker to pull in, you have to brake to allow them room to pull in.

I meen if you are in a que and in order for the overtaker to pull in, you have to brake to allow them room to pull in.

Chris: I don't think he's listening! :P