Hi good old Soviet here,

I will apologise yet again to devonutopia as the first time I was taken to task over it after wards by Mr Wet Kipper.

To repeat my original apology for Mr Wet Kippers benefit:-

Hi good old Soviet here,

NO ONE WITH ANY THOUGHTS ON OVERTAKING TO THE RIGHT ON MOTORWAYS WITH NO PRIOR INDICATION OF INTENTION??????

CARS AND EVEN JUGGERNAUTS DO IT NOW A DAYS.

has no Briskolian any thoughts on my previous reply, about the dangerous practice of pulling out to the right on motorways without signaling the intention to do so? as no one has come back about it. i.e. most accidents are caused by human error, i.e. dammed right carelessness, or ignorance of the highway code.

Apologies to devonutopia, as I had no wish to hijack the subject and change it, but in this case I thought it was relevant.

Please see my earlier reply, as surely some other Briskolians must condemn the action of these thoughtless idiots as I do, or are they keeping quite as they have also got in to the way of perpetrating these dangerous habits?

HELLO IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE, (TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER)

I did not see any contribution to the threads subject matter from Mr Wet Kipper which is rather a shame.

I thought that the related topic was relevant because 80% of accidents are caused by driver error and not speed, but non the less speed claims lives. This is a scientific fact, which any one is welcome to look up.

Soviet:confused:

Hi good old Soviet here,

I thought that the related topic was relevant because 80% of accidents are caused by driver error and not speed, but non the less speed claims lives. This is a scientific fact, which any one is welcome to look up.

Soviet:confused:

Not quite; it's more like 8% of accidents are caused by "speed above the legal limit", which is surely the only sort that matters in this sort of thread. I'd suggest that "too fast for the conditions but within the speed limit" is a subset of driver error (accounts for the difference between my 8% and the politically oft quoted 33%).

I thought that the related topic was relevant because 80% of accidents are caused by driver error and not speed, but non the less speed claims lives. This is a scientific fact, which any one is welcome to look up.

Soviet:confused:

The root cause can be driver error , but at lower speeds you can make a mistake and have time to correct it before impact , or if you do hit someone/thing and were going slower to begin with then the consequences are likely to be less severe

I agree with that Alex.

Speeding is every bit as bad as driver error, which can be summed up as sheer carelessness or ignorance of the highway code.

We have all seen idiots performing Dr Death antics, especially on motorways, and I for one have many times gasped in disbelief at what I am witnessing.

My pet hate as I keep saying is lack of signaling of the intention to move to the right on motorways. I am sure that this one stupid action must account for a great number of accidents.

I always signal when going back to the left as well on the motorway, out of common courtesy, and to make sure that other know my intentions, even if the highway code states that there is no requirement to do so.

I wish I had some sort of ray gun device, and could push these non indicating idiots back over to where they sprang from. They annoy me beyond measure.

Soviet

I wish I had some sort of ray gun device, and could push these non indicating idiots back over to where they sprang from. They annoy me beyond measure.

But what qualifies you to judge their driving?

Chris

That was far too lenient for 48 in a 30.

80% of accidents may be caused by driver error, but how many driver error accidents are averted because the driver has time to react and rectify the error? What speed does is remove this reaction time which must make it a contributing factor in most cases.

It's not speed that's a factor in the final damage calculation but the mass of the objects and the rate of deceleration.

I was taught not to indicate a lane change to the left on dual carriageways as the reasoning is that you should be in the left hand lane when not overtaking, however you should do on 3 lane motorways. There is one thing worse than a person who doesn't indicate a lane change to the right and that is someone who decides to do it mid manoever or after the lane change.

But what qualifies you to judge their driving?

Chris

A basic understanding of the highway code I'd say.

Surely if a car has changed lanes without indicating, and somone else has had to take evasive action, then this is a pretty easy one for anyone to call......

Highway code says you should indicate.

Driver doesn't indicate.

Driver is in the wrong.

Phil

He made no mention of evasive action being needed. He simply said

My pet hate as I keep saying is lack of signaling of the intention to move to the right on motorways.

I'm not sure what qualified him to say that. I will only signal if there is someone in the immediate vicinity to benefit from it and, for example, won't signal if I see a car up ahead that I wish to overtake, instead taking up an early overtaking position in lane 2 or 3 so that as I approach he already knows my intentions...

Same with moving back to the left lane. People will be expecting me to return to the left lane, so a signal is only necessary where this isn't the expectation, eg wanting to move into a gap between two cars in the left lane to prepare to turn off the motorway....

Chris

I'm not sure what qualified him to say that. I will only signal if there is someone in the immediate vicinity to benefit from it and, for example, won't signal if I see a car up ahead that I wish to overtake, instead taking up an early overtaking position in lane 2 or 3 so that as I approach he already knows my intentions...

Same with moving back to the left lane. People will be expecting me to return to the left lane, so a signal is only necessary where this isn't the expectation, eg wanting to move into a gap between two cars in the left lane to prepare to turn off the motorway....

Chris

In the first case, unless the motorway is very quiet, I'd doubt that that is ever possible, if only in order to ensure that someone coming up illegally fast but paying attention is aware of your intention, and can plan their action accordingly.

In the second, are you sure? In the last few years I'd say I've met at least one MLOCer every 10 miles on 3 (or more) lane dual cabbageway.

In the first case, unless the motorway is very quiet, I'd doubt that that is ever possible, if only in order to ensure that someone coming up illegally fast but paying attention is aware of your intention, and can plan their action accordingly.

If there is someone coming up illegally fast but paying attention, then I will signal, if the signal will benefit them. More often than not, in my experience, the difference in speed is not significant enough for the signal to be of any use to them....

In the second, are you sure? In the last few years I'd say I've met at least one MLOCer every 10 miles on 3 (or more) lane dual cabbageway.

Just cos people drive in the middle lane, doesn't mean they don't expect others to return to the left most lane..... :P

Chris

If there is someone coming up illegally fast but paying attention, then I will signal, if the signal will benefit them. More often than not, in my experience, the difference in speed is not significant enough for the signal to be of any use to them....

Are you sure? I tend to make the assumption that they might be screened from me when I start the move, particularly if I'm on an turn at the time.

Just cos people drive in the middle lane, doesn't mean they don't expect others to return to the left most lane..... :P

Chris

MLOCers clearly don't know or at least don't care about what the HC actually says (in one extreme case I've seen a letter from one claiming that MLOCing is "safe because you only have accidents when changing lanes"), so why presume any more competence than they're actually showing?

But what qualifies you to judge their driving?

Chris

Nothing qualifies me to judge their driving, but I recognize stupidity when I witness it, and it is too late when either yours truly, or ones family is wiped out by it.

Do you ever feel this way, when you see madness in action? surely with out being accused of making judgements, you must.

Hi Scooby,

Just going on the rules in the highway code, and I am not making judgment's but adhering to the set of rules enforcible by law, but all to often arn't, causing loss of life.

(Those of you among us that are without fault, please cast the first stone.

Supposedly by Jesus of Nazareth!)

No, I am certainly not without my own faults.

Are you sure? I tend to make the assumption that they might be screened from me when I start the move, particularly if I'm on an turn at the time.

Overtaking on turns, eh? Risky especially as the people you're overtaking may also not see your signal until you're out.....

MLOCers clearly don't know or at least don't care about what the HC actually says (in one extreme case I've seen a letter from one claiming that MLOCing is "safe because you only have accidents when changing lanes"), so why presume any more competence than they're actually showing?

If I overtake someone in the MLOC, what benefit is it to them to signal my intention to move into the left lane? They are behind me, their speed is pretty much constant and they're not posing a threat to me....

Chris

Nothing qualifies me to judge their driving, but I recognize stupidity when I witness it, and it is too late when either yours truly, or ones family is wiped out by it.

So where do you draw the line? Is it stupid for someone to do 100mph down the motorway in good visibility? Is it stupid for someone to do 10mph down the motorway in good visibility? The HC doesn't seem very clear on what is "stupid"

Chris

my friend was caught doing 46 in a 30mph zone. She got a choice of the 3 points and a fine or paying

A friend of mine had that choice, he chose the course. Now some months later they haven't done anything about getting him on the course, even though he has paid, I told him to ask for a refund.

Overtaking on turns, eh? Risky especially as the people you're overtaking may also not see your signal until you're out.....

So you only ever change lanes on a dual cabbageway when on a straight? If not, then I don't see why you feel you can advance that argument.

If I overtake someone in the MLOC, what benefit is it to them to signal my intention to move into the left lane? They are behind me, their speed is pretty much constant and they're not posing a threat to me....

Chris

2 points here:-

1) Insurance claim forms frequently ask if a signal was given (not if it was required, just if it was given), so I'd be in a better position in the event of anyone attempting to claim against me.

2) Sometimes seeing someone signalling left and moving from the lane to their right to one to their left wakes an MLOCer up to themself, and gets them into the correct lane. You may not benefit, but surely the whole point of advanced driving is to benefit as many people as possible, not just to benefit yourself?

So you only ever change lanes on a dual cabbageway when on a straight? If not, then I don't see why you feel you can advance that argument.

Well depends on the road and traffic conditions, obviously, but pretty much yes. If I can't see enough of the road behind or in front to determine if I will inconvenience a high speed car or be inconvenienced by a slower speed car, I won't overtake. Either way, what benefit will a signal be to either of them as you'll be undertaking the manouevre at the time rather than signalling an intent.....

2 points here:-

1) Insurance claim forms frequently ask if a signal was given (not if it was required, just if it was given), so I'd be in a better position in the event of anyone attempting to claim against me.

2) Sometimes seeing someone signalling left and moving from the lane to their right to one to their left wakes an MLOCer up to themself, and gets them into the correct lane. You may not benefit, but surely the whole point of advanced driving is to benefit as many people as possible, not just to benefit yourself?

1) If I was likely to be involved in a collision (ie there was someone around to benefit from a signal) then I'd be signalling.

2) If I'm past an MLOCer, why should I be concerned about what they're doing? (assuming they don't pose a hazard?). Would you signal left after an overtake of a single car on a single carriageway road?

Chris

Well depends on the road and traffic conditions, obviously, but pretty much yes. If I can't see enough of the road behind or in front to determine if I will inconvenience a high speed car or be inconvenienced by a slower speed car, I won't overtake. Either way, what benefit will a signal be to either of them as you'll be undertaking the manouevre at the time rather than signalling an intent.....

I'm paranoid, and the flashing light makes my move more visible more easily.

1) If I was likely to be involved in a collision (ie there was someone around to benefit from a signal) then I'd be signalling.

2) If I'm past an MLOCer, why should I be concerned about what they're doing? (assuming they don't pose a hazard?). Would you signal left after an overtake of a single car on a single carriageway road?

Chris

As I said I'm paranoid. Do I take it that your failure to answer my point about advanced driving improving the general road environment, rather than just being about you means that you can't argue against it?

I'm paranoid, and the flashing light makes my move more visible more easily.

But by the time they see it, you'll be causing them to change course or direction. Best not to get into that situation in the first place

As I said I'm paranoid. Do I take it that your failure to answer my point about advanced driving improving the general road environment, rather than just being about you means that you can't argue against it?

:rofl:

Yes, that's right, my failure to signal to a MLOCer means that I have not done my bit to improve the general road environment and I shall not be sleeping tonight as result. I must change my ways immediately

Chris

Suggest we hang this one in "religious debates", you know that category reserved for arguments which only tend to convince both participants that they're right and the other person is wrong.

I'll agree with that Always open to discuss/be questioned on my driving so if you're ever down in Hampshire you're more than welcome to come out on a drive....

Chris

Likewise.

So where do you draw the line? Is it stupid for someone to do 100mph down the motorway in good visibility? Is it stupid for someone to do 10mph down the motorway in good visibility? The HC doesn't seem very clear on what is "stupid"

Chris

Hi Sooby,

I will agree there that the HC is not very clear on what is stupid, as it is purely a logical instruction/teaching manual, but common sense should also be used when interpreting it.

The general driving public vary considerably in common sense and thus in road sense.

Any way good old bangers and mash for tea, and my darling sweetie is calling me.

Soviet(bring back the gulags)