Safe Speed Forums

Same as the Green party, UKIP, Varitas and umpteen others. At least you have the option to vote for someone that you think represents you.

In fact I seen the Greens have failed to get an MP yet again......shame, after all these years....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Yes, I didn't think I would ever be caught again after my first one. I vowed to drive at or below the speed limit at all times and for a year I did exactly that. Then one day a driver in a Silver Astra Estate going 15mph below the limit on a 60 limit dual carriageway pretty much forced me to overtake, but then he suddenly discovered a need to drive at whatever speed I was doing but level with my rear axle effectively preventing me from pulling back in again. OK thought I, I want turn right in a mile, I will stick at the limit in the right lane. Check my mirror - red BMW 200 yards away, few seconds later check it again - red BMW 20 yards away and still closing. So caught between a driver that refused to let me pull in, and one that obviously want me out of the way, I did what I thought was the only safe thing to do: I accellerated then checked my mirror to see if it was safe to pull in - the BMW and Silver Astra estate were side by side and they seemed to know each other! in fact the passenger of the BMW gave a thumbs up to the Astra driver! I indicate and pull in expecting BMW to go screaming past, but he now is quite happy to pull in behind me and drive at 60...WTF? Two weeks later a brown envelope drops through the letter box, and because I had continued with the I will never get caught again attitude I knew exactly when it had happened. Funny thing is that both the BMW driver and passenger, and the driver of the Astra all had white shirts and black ties on!

Now in that situation what would you have done? I cannot think of any other safe and considerate action that I could have taken.

Nowdays I am much more switched on, can spot the virtually invisible cameras and if something like it happens again I will do a Montoya and "brake test" the BMW.

The reason for my 90% confidence is that I will be reducing my annual mileage by something like 60% and hours in the car by something like 80% as a result of a geographical move nearer to work in the next couple of weeks!

What would I have done in that situation? What have I done in the past? Either maintained speed, or slowed down - particularly if I felt the guy behind was too close for stopping distance at that speed. I probably wouldn't "brake test" the light as that would be a red rag to a bull, I slowed gradually using gravity / engine braking and easing off the accelerator very slowly. This happened to me on the East lancs road a little while back, and has happened on the A13 as well.

So they were all going to funerals? You can understand why they weren't concentrating on the road, being bereaved and all that.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

In this type of situation you need a dent in the back of your car and the front of someone else's. Easy to say - more difficult to achieve.
A brake test would certainly have woken them up to reality (takes off assertive rally driver hat).

My view point has always been that overtaking lanes are for just that purpose - overtaking. Especially when the next junction is a mile away. If somebody comes up behind you like a bat out of hell, then get out of their way - do not sit in front of them doing nothing, or even worse slow down - that will really wind them up.

And the Astra driver must have had an awful lot of tragedies in his family because he was still wearing the black tie and white shirt on the four other occasions that I have seen the vehicle, although on these occasions it was rather obvious that it wasn't a funeral because his Astra has miraculously gained flashing blue lights in the back windows and behind the grill, along with a very odd full beam mechanism which can't work out what state the lights are supposed to be in. On none of these occasions has it been safe to stop and have a chat, although him reversing from L2 into a sheltered area behind some armco in the central reservation of exactly this road, at exactly the position that the nice video still of my car was taken was a very dangerous manoeuvre in my personal opinion. And yes I am certain that it was the same car, because silver Astra Estates were not particularly common at that time - in fact in 18,000 miles that year I didn't see any others at all - and I looked.

Back then the brake test wouldn't have been particularly firm, because a Rover 216 with worn shocks didn't brake that well, but these days the ABD, EBD, all-round vented disk system on my current car stops very, very quickly indeed...

My point was that I won't be intimidated into doing something I don't like doing (in this case, breaking the speed limit).

Just to check, are you suggesting that slowing down gradually in order that I can get out of their way (as the speeding up option was frustrated by the funeral director in the left lane) is a 'bad thing' as it may 'wind them up'?

You can spot the contradiction between not wanting to wind someone up that way and your suggested 'brake test':



Would I rather
a) wind someone up
b) have a red beemer on my back seat (and, in all probability, an even more wound up driver).

Hmmm, let me think about that one.

It's a really difficult choice but I still think my option works better than yours.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Well I am not quite sure how, when the BMW is too close, and the car that won't let me complete the overtake is by my rear wheel, it is possible to slow down without really winding up the BMW. To do so would force the BMW to slow significantly below the limit, and force him backwards relative to the Astra. Most agressive drivers (as I believed the BMW to be) seeing a vehicle in front slow down such that the one that they were passing, is now passing on the inside, would simply duck left behind the Astra and try to pass on the inside - leaving me with still nowhere to go to get out of the way, and looking like a complete prat in the process. The positioning was such that the only way to get out of the way was to go forwards relative to the astra, even though it means exceding the speed limit by a little bit - I believe that this is one of the scenarios where going faster than the limit is perfectly justified - once I was clear and back in L1 I slowed back to the limit and was amazed that BMW did exactly the same - the reason why I remember everything so clearly is because the behaviour of these two drivers was so unusual.

The speed limit on the road was also lower than necessary, as it had been reduced from 70 a few years earlier for the whole road, and the particular section of road was dead streight for 1/2 mile (followed by gentle bend) with no junctions or potential hazards. A year earlier I and virtually everybody else was comfortably doing 90+ and there were zero accidents on this section, then they had a blitz and I and almost everybody else using the road was caught speeding - you could tell because everybody started sticking to the limit at exactly the same time. The only reason I can think of for what happened, was that the "funeral directors" had been so successful the previous year that they were being pressured into achieving the same results, but everybody was now obeying the limit, so they came up with a creative mechanism for being seen to be productive.

Maybe it is because I try to drive with full consideration for other road users, rather than being one of those drivers that bloodymindedly sticks to what they are happy doing and totally ignores what is going on around them. This means that overtaking means overtaking, not sitting side by side with another vehicle for mile after mile. I also do things like changing into L3 on a motorway to allow cars in L1 to pass a slow lorry before they indicate, or change to L2 from L1 when I see a vehicle coming down the on-ramp (taking relative speeds into consideration).

If placed in this position again (by normal drivers following normal behaviour patterns) I would do exactly the same thing: speed up - I still believe that it is the only safe action in the circumstances. The Brake Test scenario is for when I suspect that it is a deliberate attempt by "Funeral Directors" top force me through a similarly hidden trap. If the Funeral Directors ended up on my back seat then they would probably arrest me, and we would then have some nice discussions (with legal assistance) about dangerous and intimidating driving - in particular not keeping to a safe following distance. I probably wouldn't win because everything is stacked on their side, but I would be happy to give it a go.

You may be interested to know that 10 days before this incident I had been a passenger in my wifes car on the M40, and we were in L3 gently passing traffic in L2 at 80mph. A BMW (brown this time) came right up behind us and after a few seconds flashed his lights. My wife said that she wasn't going to be bullied into speeding up, and stuck to her 80mph. The BMW flashed the lights again and got even closer, obviously frustrated, and against my advice my wife flashed the brake lights without lifting off. 30 seconds later it was safe to pull in and the BMW passed then cut in front of us a did a proper Brake Test that forced us to swerve back into L3. He sped up and did the same in L3 and we moved back into L2 only for it to happen again - we were now doing 40 and I have no idea how an accident was avoided. The BMW continued to hastle us and we only got rid of him by me making it obvious that I was calling the police on the mobile. Had my wife simply accellerated to 85 for 10 seconds then pulled into the gap, then the problem wouldn't have happened.

at any point during either incident were indicator lights used to signal an intention to return to the left lane when it was safe to do so?

The M40 must breed this kind of nutter - one time I had a similar interaction with an MR2, must have been about 10 years ago. The driver was obviously very upset, it probably didn't help when I burst out laughing at him. He was indicating to me that we should pull off to have 'words'. As I slowed down my mate (who had been asleep in the passenger seat) woke up and sat his chair up. At the sight of there being 2 of us in the car the Mr2 bloke drove off at high speed.

The thing that makes it stick in my mind more than anything else was that throughout the whole incident, the female passenger in the Mr2 was obviously giving the driver serious grief about it. I guess he didn't get any that night.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Ah indicators, another useful tool. No indicators were not used until it was safe to actually change lanes - nothing winds me up more that drivers that with a token flash of the indicators cut right in front of you, and even worse if they then slow down (as would have happened in my speed trap incident). Indicating when you are not actually planning on changing lanes is misleading and can cause problems to other innocent drivers:

I knew a guy that worked in what was then the Rover Group Part Recall Centre in Cowley (were the bits taken off cars under warranty are sent to so that Rover can claim the costs back from the part manufacturer). One nice day I was his passenger going down the M40 (again!) and he demonstrated his technique for dealing with those that wound him up the most - undertaking drivers. There was the usual stack of cars in L3 and inevitably some impatient drivers were moving up the inside in L2 then indicating and forcing their way into virtually non-existant gaps in L3. Queue jumping no less, and one of the main reasons (I think) why everybody else drives too close to the vehicle in front. Anyway when such a driver tried it to this guy, he waits until he is almost next to us then indicates and simultaneously feints a lane change - the undertaking driver hits his brakes hard, and doesn't try it again.

The problem with the indicating approach (when it is obviously not safe to do so) is that it is effectively the same as flashing the brake lights, except that it impacts on the lane next to you - forcing relatively innocent other drivers into precautionary avoiding action.

I am still convinced that given the choice between:

a) becoming the target of a road rage attack, or at least being forced to brake by a frustrated driver cutting you up because you just ignored them,
or
b) flashing the brake lights, inviting a brake test on yourself and possibly causing an accident behind,
or
c) misleadingly indicating and possibly causing an accident in the lane to the left
or
d) changing lanes too close to the vehicle to the left forcing them to slow and possibly causing an accident,
or
e) speeding up slightly for a short period and pulling in to the first safe gap, even if it means breaking the speed limit

That e) is the safest, least stressful, most considerate and easiest way out of the situation for all concerned.

I am even certain that if the vehicle coming up behind you has blue lights flashing (but is not after you), that the drivers of the fire engine, ambulance or police car, would prefer that drivers did e) as opposed to any other option. Perhaps someone that does the blues and twos thing professionally would like to comment - on this general situation rather than the first incident I described which is perhaps clashing with other professional considerations.

Famous last words.
A favourite trick of theirs is to reduce the speed limit on a road to 30 by simply removing the (usually hard to spot anyway) repeaters.
So people who have been travelling that road for years don't notice that the repeaters have disappeared, and get nicked as a result. They usually catch thousands before people wise up to their tricks. Too late for some, of course, who have sometimes lost their licences within the space of hours because they have travelled the same road several times, completely unaware that the limit had changed.
And they have many more tricks besides.

If, after being nicked in such a fashion a few times, you still believe that this is justice, then you must be incredibly naive.

Cheers
Peter

Yes, I once had a cop with lights and sirens come up behind me. As there weren't any half-decent gaps to pull into I had to speed up to over 100mph to get out of his way. When I got out of his way he passed me with a cheery wave. Good thing it was one of the 'good' guys.

Cheers
Peter

not famous last words, it's MY WORDS accepting that when I am driving EVERYTHING THAT THE CAR DOES IS CONTROLLED BY ME AND IS MY RESPONSIBILITY.

That includes BEING AWARE OF THE ROADS AND NOT BEING SO COMPLACENT TO ASSUME THAT IF IT WAS OK TO DO ONE THING ONE DAY THEN IT IS OK TO DO IT EVERY DAY.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I was talking about indicating as defined in the highway code:

Highway code on changing lanes



"indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear move over"

I can see how that might have helped you in both your situations.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I've just sat and looked back through all of Handy's posts.

I've come to the conclusion he's either a Troll or *** edited *** edited *** edited *** edited *** edited ***

I hope you remember all the words you've written here, Handy. Sooner or later it will be your turn to get fleeced and robbed. When it happens, I will of course extend you every sympathy....

But do bear in mind that sympathy is actually found between shit and syphilus in the dictionary.

Have a nice day!

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

I will remember all the words I've written on this entire forum, I'll paraphrase my position here:

1. Personal responsibility. If it happens when you are in control, it's your fault.
2. Speed limits exist. They may not always be right, but they exist. Deal with it.

Now take this thought with you:

Can you think of any reason why someone would be anti speeding other than being part of the enforcement regime? Think REALLY hard about this, think REALLY hard.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I don't appear understand what you are suggesting - I think that the Highway Code is perfectly clear - you should NOT use your indicators UNTIL it is safe to actually complete the manoeuvre - if you have a vehicle in your blind spot (i.e. exactly where Astra has chosen to maintain a position) then you should not use your indicators. You have to keep on going until it is actually safe to complete the lane change. The highway code is backing up exactly what I did with regard to use of indicators in both situations - I am not trying to justify the actions of my mate that uses them as a weapon - I was giving this as an example of what happens when they are incorrectly used.

So when exactly are you suggesting that indicators would have helped with the funeral directors?

Temper, temper...

As a driver it's your primary responsibility to drive safely, and that includes selecting a safe speed for conditions at the time.
Nobody can do this for you, not the police, not the scamera partnerships, nobody - it's all down to you.
Other important responsibilities are to maintain the flow of traffic to the best of your ability, and to extend courtesy to other road users.
Ensuring that you're within the speed limit comes a long way down the list of important responsibilities - but the current system is trying to make it the most important responsibility, indeed it's becoming the only responsibility in the eyes of more and more drivers. And it is the most important responsibility if you're trying to avoid losing your licence.
This is the rot, and it must be stopped - for all our sakes.



It's got nothing to do with complacency.
Before you walk along the pavement, do you first check the newspapers to ensure that they haven't perhaps made it illegal overnight to step on cracks? Before you start accusing me of being absurd, this is not much more absurd than a lot of the things they do.

And if it's so vitally important that drivers drive below a certain speed along a certain road that they need to reduce the limit, then why in heaven's name don't they put up the proper signage, so that nobody can be in any doubt as to what speed to drive?

Cheers
Peter

C'mon, give us a clue, please, please, pretty please. Just a tiny little clue...

Cheers
Peter

Handy,

Regarding my earlier post that you demand be removed... Couple (or more) of things.

The first thing is that I have passed FAIR COMMENT about you and your views based on my perceptions of you from what YOU post and pontificate about yourself.

Secondarily, if you feel that agrieved that you must send me personal messages, I would respectfully suggest you remember your manners in the way you address people. Please don't be rude to me - it is a poor reflection on your upbringing.

You don't have a monopoly on beligerance or indeed rudeness, and I further respectfully suggest that if you can't stand the heat of "FAIR COMMENT", that you get yourself out of the kitchen.

Have a nice day. won't you.

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

Actually, Handy I actually DON'T accept I was speeding. But those who abuse the law wouldn't let me have the pictures they said they had, etc, etc. So I have to "trust" the police's word just the way you spout - because as you say, they can't be corrupt and they never make mistakes, do they?

Wake up and smell the coffee, Handy. You should always have a drop before you go on a picnic.

Have a nice day, won't you

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.