If somebody overtakes so aggressively, then the gap is being opened up rapidly anyway.
And if they're approaching fast in the face of oncoming traffic, then you've spotted the problem in your mirrors before it actually happens, right?
If somebody overtakes so aggressively, then the gap is being opened up rapidly anyway.
And if they're approaching fast in the face of oncoming traffic, then you've spotted the problem in your mirrors before it actually happens, right?
Yes, I saw him in my mirror approaching at speed, and anticipated that he would brake and tailgate me, I didn't expect he would overtake in such a reckless manner. There was nothing I could do about his actions without knowing his intention to overtake.
I was traveling at 30mph on a section of road which was undulating and curved, and has double white centre lines, and we were passing a yellow notice which reads "This is still a 30mph zone".
In the few seconds I had to guess his intentions, braking would have been stupid if he had tailgated me!
Why on earth not?
You could have guessed it and prepared for it as an option. Been ready to give him as much space as possible and hit the brakes to increase the gap for him to get into.
And had he shown the _slightest_ intent of obeying any of those...? What sort of approaching speed?
But you would have been ready when he DIDN'T tailgate you and pulled out instead.
And hope that when slamming the anchors on a car doesn't run into your own arse?
Have you actually read any of what you just quoted and replied to?
Seconded. Or you can join the FBHVC as a private member.
I guess you had to be there...
Quite. I repeat: it was on a bend and there was oncoming traffic, my eyes were on the road ahead, where they ought to be, after a glance in the mirror told me he was approaching at speed.
Yes, she did. Side-swiped on a roundabout. A camera may *possibly* have assisted, but we drew the diagrams and put a good case forward - and it was found in our favour.
I've had the conversation with her about defensive driving - and she now 'gets it'.
ie. although she wasn't to blame - she now understands how she could have avoided it.
But this wasn't someone running into the back of her (or me) - I still say that defensive driving, leaving a gap and braking / slowing appropriately prevents rear-ending incidents.
Advanced drivers are allowed to break the rules of the road?
Obviously he wasn't using flashing blue lights or a siren (or you would have known it was a police car) therefore he was driving dangerously.
You can often see this on the TV Police chase programs where the commentator will tell how badly the car in front is being driven but fails to mention that chasing car will still hit the sight or hearing deficient pedestrian if they step out, or the kid on the bike who has little road sense/experience.
Even motorists do the most stupid things when they see a blue flashing light. Only yesterday I witnessed an incident. Dual carriageway, light traffic and flowing freely. Most motorists had seen the ambulance with blue flashing lights in the distance and pulled across into the nearside lane. One driver didn't notice until the ambulance was close and sounded the siren. She then braked hard, moved over to the far offside and stopped totally blocking the lane that the ambulance was travelling in.
There were no lights or sirens, it was around midnight in a built up area, the overtake/high speed did not endanger anyone (due to the time/lack of traffic) Presumably there must be dispensation for Police to learn to drive quickly, or they could never get good.
I cannot now remember if the Police said it was an advanced driver on a training or car familiarisation run or whether it was actually on a call (too many years ago)
I called it in because if it had been a hooligan, drunk, theft or whatever the info. might have helped in recovery/apprehension.
I once went on a driver safety course which included a long run as a passenger with a Police advanced driver, we were regularly over 100 on main roads.
A typical example of "legislation by default". Someone e.g. on the internet or elsewhere annouces what he thinks or would like to be the law. Nobody checks, and the law sticks the same way as an urban myth. A reference to EU further delivers a smoke screen.
It is of course not the law. A private car is a historic vehicle if it is build before 1 January 1975. End of.
Not quite, it must also be registered as an historic vehicle or tax will still be liable.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.