Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

More interesting driving

Recommended Posts

Are you both seriously arguing that if you join the motorway and find that lane one is a) full as far as you can see ahead, b) doing 50 mph and c) lane 2 is empty. You shouldn't use lane 2? Because that's an overtaking maneuver where you can't see the point at which you'll be pulling back in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I commented on a thread on here a while back about the pinch point at the top of Halifax Road as you come into Grenoside. It was surprising the number of people who thought queuing in the left hand lane really early is the appropriate way to use that stretch of road.

 

 

I have a related question. On Penistone Road, travelling from the city centre towards Hillsborough, the bus lane tapers out after the Morrisons junction. This means any buses, taxis and motorbikes have to join the general traffic.

Does anyone have priority here? I can see this being a dangerous junction as drivers rush to make it across the hatched markings and don't pay full attention to the bus lane to their left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a related question. On Penistone Road, travelling from the city centre towards Hillsborough, the bus lane tapers out after the Morrisons junction. This means any buses, taxis and motorbikes have to join the general traffic.

Does anyone have priority here? I can see this being a dangerous junction as drivers rush to make it across the hatched markings and don't pay full attention to the bus lane to their left.

 

Taxis certainly seem to think they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you both seriously arguing that if you join the motorway and find that lane one is a) full as far as you can see ahead, b) doing 50 mph and c) lane 2 is empty. You shouldn't use lane 2? Because that's an overtaking maneuver where you can't see the point at which you'll be pulling back in.

 

I’m certainly not advocating that, just pointing out what I believe to be mixed messages and lack of clarity in the Highway Code. Also how are people trained (if at all) to navigate the information so that we understand the intent and best way forward in all conditions. The fact that some people believe different to others seems to indicate that there is not coherent training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m certainly not advocating that, just pointing out what I believe to be mixed messages and lack of clarity in the Highway Code. Also how are people trained (if at all) to navigate the information so that we understand the intent and best way forward in all conditions. The fact that some people believe different to others seems to indicate that there is not coherent training.

 

Training and the HC both include keeping a safe distance between yourself and the car in front.

 

If people didn't insist on driving bumper to bumper when approaching merge situations then this would allow zip type merging.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of drivers insist on keeping as close as possible to the car in front simply to thwart other drivers who are following the HC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that the perp, landrover109, has not posted on here since the day in question.

 

On the matter of police involvement, I know at least one forum member who linked the dashcam video to SYP under that incident number. I assume at least some of the 180,000 facebook viewers also did.

 

If I remember rightly, the dashcam footage time and date was completely wrong. I know it was obviously from the incident being discussed, but a good defence lawyer could make mischief out of the fact so remember kids, set the time and date when you first install your dashcam.

 

Oh, and the clowns slagging off women drivers, don't forget that before it was outlawed, motor insurance for women was cheaper because women were statistically much less likely to be the cause of an accident and significantly less likely to be involved in a road rage incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to many drivers dont know the rules of the road,all self self ,and that causes accidents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m certainly not advocating that, just pointing out what I believe to be mixed messages and lack of clarity in the Highway Code. Also how are people trained (if at all) to navigate the information so that we understand the intent and best way forward in all conditions. The fact that some people believe different to others seems to indicate that there is not coherent training.

 

The best training and the message given in HC (top of Page34) is at one in that it is always best to avoid a crash by giving way even though you might expect to have a level of priority.

Edited by DT Ralge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I notice that the perp, landrover109, has not posted on here since the day in question.

 

On the matter of police involvement, I know at least one forum member who linked the dashcam video to SYP under that incident number. I assume at least some of the 180,000 facebook viewers also did.

 

If I remember rightly, the dashcam footage time and date was completely wrong. I know it was obviously from the incident being discussed, but a good defence lawyer could make mischief out of the fact so remember kids, set the time and date when you first install your dashcam.

 

Oh, and the clowns slagging off women drivers, don't forget that before it was outlawed, motor insurance for women was cheaper because women were statistically much less likely to be the cause of an accident and significantly less likely to be involved in a road rage incident.

 

Time and date stamps prove nothing, they could even be added after the fact very easily and the metadata of the file changed.

Women were statistically cheaper. Not fewer accidents per se, but cheaper accidents overall.

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2018 at 07:44 ----------

 

I’m certainly not advocating that, just pointing out what I believe to be mixed messages and lack of clarity in the Highway Code. Also how are people trained (if at all) to navigate the information so that we understand the intent and best way forward in all conditions. The fact that some people believe different to others seems to indicate that there is not coherent training.

 

Speaking of which, the HC has rules for multi lane rules that don't say only start an overtake if you can see where you will finish it.

 

"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.

138

On a three-lane dual carriageway, you may use the middle lane or the right-hand lane to overtake but return to the middle and then the left-hand lane when it is safe."

 

This is what you were refering to I think, from the section specifically on overtaking, which appears to be related to two lane roads only (ie one lane each way).

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road-overtaking.html

 

"162

Before overtaking you should make sure

 

there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake."

 

I don't think that is supposed to apply to roads where there are multiple lanes travelling the same way.

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2018 at 07:45 ----------

 

There is the added issue that all but the left hand lane are usually for overtaking (except if marked for junctions etc), and you should only overtake (and therefore only enter an overtaking lane) if you can complete the manoeuvre (which includes getting back into the near side lane).

 

I don't think you're correct with reference to roads that have more than one lane of travel in a given direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I notice that the perp, landrover109, has not posted on here since the day in question.

 

On the matter of police involvement, I know at least one forum member who linked the dashcam video to SYP under that incident number. I assume at least some of the 180,000 facebook viewers also did.

 

If I remember rightly, the dashcam footage time and date was completely wrong. I know it was obviously from the incident being discussed, but a good defence lawyer could make mischief out of the fact so remember kids, set the time and date when you first install your dashcam.

 

Oh, and the clowns slagging off women drivers, don't forget that before it was outlawed, motor insurance for women was cheaper because women were statistically much less likely to be the cause of an accident and significantly less likely to be involved in a road rage incident.

 

I suspect that the thread was removed from here at his request.

 

The date on the footage is wrong however on the original FB thread which bore the footage someone also posted screenshots of landrover109 boosting on the LR forums, gleefully stating how he "taught the beeper a lesson" and showing bodywork damage.

 

Because of the date however it's unlikely that the police will charge either driver with any offence. It's an easy out for the defence.

 

However it'll be a different story for the insurance companies involved, they require far less in the way of evidence..

 

Landrover109 will likely have his policy cancelled. He'll have to declare that to any new insurance company, most of which will either refuse cover or inflate the cost massively.

 

If he still tries to claim the BMW hit him then it's possible that his insurance Co will refer the case to police for insurance fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Time and date stamps prove nothing, they could even be added after the fact very easily and the metadata of the file changed.

Women were statistically cheaper. Not fewer accidents per se, but cheaper accidents overall.

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2018 at 07:44 ----------

 

 

Speaking of which, the HC has rules for multi lane rules that don't say only start an overtake if you can see where you will finish it.

 

"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.

138

On a three-lane dual carriageway, you may use the middle lane or the right-hand lane to overtake but return to the middle and then the left-hand lane when it is safe."

 

This is what you were refering to I think, from the section specifically on overtaking, which appears to be related to two lane roads only (ie one lane each way).

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road-overtaking.html

 

"162

Before overtaking you should make sure

 

there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake."

 

I don't think that is supposed to apply to roads where there are multiple lanes travelling the same way.

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2018 at 07:45 ----------

 

 

I don't think you're correct with reference to roads that have more than one lane of travel in a given direction.

 

Sorry I confused things. I agree with you that being able to complete an overtaking manoeuvre must apply to single carriageway roads as it doesn’t make sense for dual carriageways. My points were aimed at the way the HC is written. It seems to have general comments. Then, where there are more specific requirements, I don’t think it is clear whether that is in addition to or in place of the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it could definitely be reworded to be more precise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.