Tailgating

[swiss.tony]

Sorry I'm late chaps, just been digging up a body I found in the back garden.

hope your not snooping round my garden with that pervy night vision look for trophy's lol

[overandunder2012]

hope your not snooping round my garden with that pervy night vision look for trophy's lol

[keg]

Having just driven from London to Leeds, I have seen it all, and stopping distance is a minor problem.

 

No lights, middle lane hogging with lanes 1 & 3 empty, full beam and oblivious to everyone flashing at him to name but a few. The finest was as we entered roadworks and the m-way went from 3 lanes to 1. The dappy doris behind decides to overtake as we pass the 400 yrd mark and the cones are starting to close in. Was clearly marked ages back.

 

Lastly, driving along Wellington street in Leeds and come upon a young lad, earphones in with no lights at all on his pushbike.....

[karpman]

You guys take to much notice of what's happening behind you, I go everywhere at between 20 and 50 staring into the fields lol. I do occasionally glance forward.

 

Now what do nark me off is 16 year olds on scooters who assume there immortal and try there best to wipe out at every availble opportunity.

 

And carry on bickering was rather enjoying that.

 

Karpman

[Muddy Funker]

On the topic at hand it's strange how cars bring out the worst in most people, be it aggressive or passive aggressive behaviours. I guess it's because we think of them as an extension of our homes. If you were walking down the streat you wouldn't walk so closely to someone that you were doing the locomotive, equally you wouldn't just stop dead walking in the street to make someone walk into you.

 

Haha that's a really good analogy.

 

I think the general standard of driving on our roads is pretty shocking.

[Dougy]

Tailgating is dangerous driving. But there is no specific law for this.

 

And thats about it really !!!

[Kes]

5 pages on this topic since I was last on - the law isnt changed until the law is changed and one can reasonably argue anything - if it goes to court.

I however believe that Dekers has the right of it.

The Highway Code suggests that you should be prepared for any eventuality and being a safe distance from the car in front tends to stand out as rather advisable. Anyone who hits you is at fault for whatever reason unless a police investigation decides otherwise and the occasions when that happens are minimal and exceptional. I have been hit in the rear twice by - asian drivers and on both occasions they were uninsured and did not want the police involved and paid up on the spot.

Rather than the 'who hits who' discussion, maybe we should also look at who is driving without insurance?

With numberplate recognition I cant believe it happens at all or vehicle tax avoidance - now there's a private sector opportunity !

[Ca$h Money]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-21357409

 

There are some idiots out there......

[secretagentmole]

A second answer to this.

 

The person in the following car was too close because he was having a heart attack/epileptic seizure/diabetic event/sneezing fit, etc, etc and so wasn't responsible for how close he was to you.

 

Does he still committ an offence?

 

J.

Yes J it is their fault, as they are driving whilst unfit, in the case of an epileptic, cannot hold a UK driving license whilst on medication to control seizures, in the case of diabetic driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs (as an Insulin injecting diabetic with a motorbike license I have to know what my blood sugar is doing before I ride my motorikes). In the case of heart attack they are more likely to swerve off the road than ram you, but still their fault, as they were ill!

[Gordon R]

Expect a post saying that this could have been the first time they became ill. :innocent:

[Oli]

Still at least we dont drive like they do in ruska, there's some crazy videos on youtube about roadrage and general driving over there

[PhilR]

Expect a post saying that this could have been the first time they became ill. :innocent:

 

Gordon you're such a wag

[JonathanL]

5 pages on this topic since I was last on - the law isnt changed until the law is changed and one can reasonably argue anything - if it goes to court.

I however believe that Dekers has the right of it.

The Highway Code suggests that you should be prepared for any eventuality and being a safe distance from the car in front tends to stand out as rather advisable. Anyone who hits you is at fault for whatever reason unless a police investigation decides otherwise and the occasions when that happens are minimal and exceptional. I have been hit in the rear twice by - asian drivers and on both occasions they were uninsured and did not want the police involved and paid up on the spot.

Rather than the 'who hits who' discussion, maybe we should also look at who is driving without insurance?

With numberplate recognition I cant believe it happens at all or vehicle tax avoidance - now there's a private sector opportunity !

 

Did you report them?

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Yes J it is their fault, as they are driving whilst unfit, in the case of an epileptic, cannot hold a UK driving license whilst on medication to control seizures, in the case of diabetic driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs (as an Insulin injecting diabetic with a motorbike license I have to know what my blood sugar is doing before I ride my motorikes). In the case of heart attack they are more likely to swerve off the road than ram you, but still their fault, as they were ill!

 

If isn't their fault if they have an unexpected medical problem. They do not committ an offence in such circumstances. Yes some are avoidable in advance but very many (probably most) aren't. I would doubt that many people would know they were about to have a heart attack.

 

So, back to my original point. Someone is driving too close because of an unavoidable medical problem and you slam the brakes on because it hacks you off (and lets remember that people on this thread are saying it's perfectly fine to do this). You have just made a very big mistake. In fact, you would have made a very big mistake even if they were doing it intentionally and would still have been guilty of an offence.

 

I'm surprised that this thread still hasn't been closed given that lots of people posting on it (certificate holders, no less) are saying that it's quite acceptable to cause road accidents when someone annoys you. Still, it's a funny old place this.

 

J.

 

Expect a post saying that this could have been the first time they became ill. :innocent:

 

Gosh, you're right. No one ever has a heart attack for the first time. They're all repeat events.

 

J.

[proud dad]

If isn't their fault if they have an unexpected medical problem. They do not committ an offence in such circumstances. Yes some are avoidable in advance but very many (probably most) aren't. I would doubt that many people would know they were about to have a heart attack.

 

So, back to my original point. Someone is driving too close because of an unavoidable medical problem and you slam the brakes on because it hacks you off (and lets remember that people on this thread are saying it's perfectly fine to do this). You have just made a very big mistake. In fact, you would have made a very big mistake even if they were doing it intentionally and would still have been guilty of an offence.

 

I'm surprised that this thread still hasn't been closed given that lots of people posting on it (certificate holders, no less) are saying that it's quite acceptable to cause road accidents when someone annoys you. Still, it's a funny old place this.

 

J.

 

Lol, this just gets better.

[lumpy]

Lol, this just gets better.

He's not called JO NO FUN for nothing !

[overandunder2012]

Did you report them?

 

J.

be crazy if he did as his insurance premiums would get clobbered to one way or another

Edited April 26, 2013 by overandunder2012

[JonathanL]

be crazy if he did as his insurance premiums would get clobbered to one way or another

 

It's a touch hypocritical though, is it not, to not report someone yet at the same time state that something should be done to tackle uninsured drivers. If someone who knows about it isn't prepared to do it then why should they expect anyone else to?

 

He may have done though.

 

J.

[Oli]

putting aside the legality of it, it would be a pretty silly thing to do anyway as you could end up killing yourself

[overandunder2012]

It's a touch hypocritical though, is it not, to not report someone yet at the same time state that something should be done to tackle uninsured drivers. If someone who knows about it isn't prepared to do it then why should they expect anyone else to?

 

He may have done though.

 

J.

realistically in this case cash for repairs and not having my insurance clobbered would overide any principles i may have had if it had been me as nobody would thank you for reporting it and it would just cost you for years to come.

[LondonLuke]

 

It's a touch hypocritical though, is it not, to not report someone yet at the same time state that something should be done to tackle uninsured drivers. If someone who knows about it isn't prepared to do it then why should they expect anyone else to?

 

He may have done though.

 

J.

That said if hit by an uninsured driver it will still go down as a non fault claim and go against you at renewal. You are therefore losing out because of someone else's law breaking.

 

With regards to tailgating. If you are too close to stop when someone emergency stops on front of you (deliberately or not) then you are at fault.

 

It could happen with someone very close behind you in normal circumstances when you stop at a red light etc. if they are so close they hit you then its their fault. What is their defence? "You stopped too quickly" - no, they were too close to stop

[Kes]

JL is an acknowledged moral standard against which we should all measure ourselves - I dont think.

 

However, in answer to his puerile and petulant question, I offer the following -

My main concern in considering a campaign against uninsured drivers is for those cases where an innocent is injured and cannot claim legitimate redress for cost or injury incurred. My morality suggests it is wrong to grievously endanger others because you think insurance premiums are too high, or because you cant get insurance or because you are an illegal immigrant, or have been refused insurance etc, etc.

I reported both - to the police, my insurance company did not need to know, in my view, as I made no claim and the car was properly repaired leaving no residual problems for my insurers later.

My last recognition of JL I am afraid.

[Footu]

I got stopped for undertaking 5 cars in a row on the m1. I was in near lane, they the outer all held up by a mumpty doing 60. I was doing 70.

 

No charge made, it's not against highway code just got told to "watch myself'

 

Also a dual carriageway does not have a slow and fast lane or overtaking lane. Just two lanes, use either freely. (waits for incoming rockets) :-)

Edited April 26, 2013 by Footu

[debaser]

I got stopped for undertaking 5 cars in a row on the m1. I was in near lane, they the outer all held up by a mumpty doing 60. I was doing 70.

 

No charge made, it's not against highway code just got told to "watch myself'

 

Also a dual carriageway does not have a slow and fast lane or overtaking lane. Just two lanes, use either freely. (waits for incoming rockets) :-)

Think your mistaken.....

 

From the Highway Code :

Rule 137

On a two-lane dual carriageway you should stay in the left-hand lane. Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right. After overtaking, move back to the left-hand lane when it is safe to do so.

 

ATB

[Footu]

Ah I stand corrected. That must account for all the flashing headlights then. Thank god, I thought I might have a fault at the back of the old bus somewhere.

:-)