[Closed] Pulled over for my actions after driver that pulled out on me from a slip road..

edlong - what you did there was follow MSM.

that is you checked your mirrors - is it safe to manuver - oh no its not ill wait.

then once it was clear in your mirrors - you signaled and you manuvered.

signaling doesnt absolve you of all right to check the way is clear - nor does signalling mean speedy fred must slow down to allow you to move into his path.

and on a 60+ DC, have you ever looked back, seen a car indicating and taken some kind of action when you wouldn't have done so had the car NOT been indicating

Well it would mean I was aware that it was now moving into the lane I was in or intending to do so would have to be more cautious.

Blimey....some bored people on this thread!

Don't you have any work to do?? 😐

I generally go for "if I can see another road user, indicate, if not, then maybe I don't need to". If it's a big RAB where I'm turning right then there might be someone on the other side of the RAB who I can't see yet, so when I get to where I can see them, the indicator will be useful. Likewise, someone might approach a junction and be unsure as to my intentions because I'm not indicating.

As for edlong's example of when it's better NOT to indicate....

[i]He still indicated[/i]. Did exactly what I would do tbh, but still indicated. It's just using the indicator at a sensible time, by anticipating, being aware of what is going on around the car, then doing mirror-[b]signal[/b]-manouvre when safe.

Edit:

and on a 60+ DC, have you ever looked back, seen a car indicating and taken some kind of action when you wouldn't have done so had the car NOT been indicating

Yes, at least twice. I'm in lane 3, just passed a car in lane 2. I check my mirrors, look over my left shoulder as I'm about to put my indicator on. I see a pickup/lorry level with me in lane 1 start to indicate, it then obviously moves out to lane 2. If it hadn't indicated/I hadn't looked to the left then we would have been going for the same bit of road at the same time.

Not that this is relevant to the OP. He seemed to be punishing the other driver for what he'd done. That's not his job. Cutting people up, with or without indicating, is daft, whether you're teaching them a lesson for 'not driving properly' or not.

Don't you have any work to do??

No, don't you?

Don't you have any work to do??

I'm on holiday this week but just about to pop out and get some bits for the shepherds pie.

DD, I think my position has been consistent and was initially in response to people suggesting that ALL manoeuvres MUST be indicated, but then people began presenting ME with increasingly specific events:

I tend not to indicate back in if I'm going into the left lane and moving faster than the vehicle I've overtaken. I don't slam my way in just after passing, so they don't need to know what I'm intending to do - I'm ahead of them and moving away so they are in no danger of needing to react to my action. If I'm merging into traffic moving at the same speed as me then of course I'd have to

Doesn't necessarily help though - you have to consider why indication is made. As has been said, if you're 100 yards ahead of me and pulling away, I don't need to know that you're moving into my lane and in 5 seconds you'll be 150 yards ahead but in the same lane. If there's nobody ahead of you either, then there's nobody who'll be helped by your indication. You [b]could[/b] even argue that superfluous information can only distract other drivers (if it achieves anything)

I stand by both the above - what do you think is wrong with them ?

Well it [b][u]would[/u][/b] mean I was aware that it was now moving into the lane I was in or intending to do so [b][u]would[/u][/b] have to be more cautious.

So this hasn't happened ?

I can't recall every incident I've encountered on the roads.

Any one'll do 😀

I stand by both the above - what do you think is wrong with them ?

Well, they're quite specific and far removed from the realities of most folks' driving on crowded rush-two-hour DC/MWays and seemed to be created by you to support the patronising comment that indicating by default was for those who aren't aware of what's going on around them. Also, you ought to be checking your rear view mirror a bit more than "rarely", even when it's quiet.

EDIT: What I'm trying to say is that we could all make up specific situations where indication isn't [i]absolutely[/i] necessary - I can think right now of a few situations where I might not bother indicating myself, but given the general level of indicating I see on the motorway these days, I'd [i]rather[/i] everyone indicated by default when it's busy rather than not bothering convinced of and by their own awesomeness (present company excepted of course), that everybody else can guess what they're up to.

so I'd use the visual cues of the actual movement of the vehicle

I use both movement and indications.

I could make up an example to try and justify it if you like but either way indicators are their to show your intensions to other roads uses as of yet no one can read minds.

- even hypothetically; if you were that worried I assume you'd want to continue watching this suspect car closely so you're then riding along a DC for 10-15 seconds while looking over your shoulder waiting to see if it does something dodgy ?

I could make up an example to try and justify it if you like but either way indicators are their to show your intensions to other roads uses as of yet no one can read minds.

Yeh, all I'm saying is that it's not always necessary to show your intentions

Can you demonstrate an example where it is discourteous or unsafe to do so?

DD:

those people who think that merely indicating gives them carte blanche to make whatever manoeuvre they fancy or, even better, those who start to indicate whilst (or even after ) they start to move

- or you can have my slighly hypothetical / tongue in cheek (i did acknowledge that when I posted it initially) offering of superfluous information never being useful and just possibly distracting

it's actually the manoeuvre that's discourteous

The salient part of the sentence. Therefore, indicating in this case isn't unsafe or discourteous. In fact, at least it would give you an idea of what a stupid manoeuvre (why does it take me two or three attempts to type that bloody word?!?) the arsehole in question is about to execute. 🙂

superfluous information

There's also a hypothetical argument that information relating to an event or action happening close to you is never superfluous (but I'd concede we'd be heading down a philospohical argument there, and we've already digressed from the frankly PISS-BOILING ACTIONS of the OP that have made me want to leave my darkened bedroom and KILL someone. 😀 )

- or you can have my slighly hypothetical / tongue in cheek (i did acknowledge that when I posted it initially) offering of superfluous information never being useful and just possibly distracting

You're in the middle of a group of three cars driving along a quiet Mway in lane 1. Mr Driving God is 'making progress', on a 'determined drive' or whatever he wants to call it in lane 1 behind you. He indicates, moves out to lane 2. He passes you, indicates left when he's at least a couple of seconds ahead of you and the car ahead of you. Then moves left into lane 1.

How on earth is that confusing, dangerous or discourteous?! It might not be a lifesaving use of the indicators (like a left turning lorry), but (unlike on a bike) it's absolutely no effort or risk to indicate, so why not follow the highway code, MSM, show what you're doing? Just say "I CBA sometimes, so I don't bother when I don't bother when I think I can get away with it". Stop dressing it up as some kind of superior driving skill.

You're in the middle of a group of three cars driving along a quiet Mway in lane 1. Mr Driving God is 'making progress', on a 'determined drive' or whatever he wants to call it in lane 1 behind you. He indicates, moves out to lane 2. He passes you, indicates left when he's at least a couple of seconds ahead of you and the car ahead of you. Then moves left into lane 1.

How on earth does that confer clarity, safety or courtesy ?! Stop dressing it up as if it did.

If you do it when there's no need, are you still an arse if you begin the manoeuvre without waiting long enough for everyone to see the indication first and plan ahead ?

(I'm just about to go for a poo - I know you didn't need to know, but, y'know ...)

Oh, and Darcy - That's close to you. Oh yes; so very, very close !! 💡 <-- and that's a goatse just for you )

I do so love a good driving thread, there's almost as much ignorant bobbins spouted as there is on religion threads. Let's deal with this indication business first.

New drivers are taught that they must [b]always [/b]signal before a manoeuvre. We all remember mirror-signal-manoeuvre, yes? The reasons for this are many and should be obvious; you're learning a new skill and trying to develop automatic responses, your observation might not be up to snuff yet, you need the process to be as simple as possible so it's easier to learn, and so on.

(Based on personal experience) in further training, you're taught that this isn't always necessary. As an "advanced" driver, you're expected to make more complicated decisions and take more into account rather than just follow the basics by rote. For example, in order to pass the basic driving test, you need to be able to choose the correct lane; with advanced driving techniques you're encouraged to think about whereabouts in that lane you're supposed to be, moving around within that lane to gain a better vantage point on the road ahead (eg, moving left on a right-hand bend to see further round).

As you improve your driving, you're expected to be capable of assessing when indication isn't necessary. I'm not wholly sure personally what this gains other than "you don't need to so why would you?" but that's what's taught. Nonetheless, I fail to see why this is even worthy of argument; side A says there's no point in doing it, side B says there's nothing gained by not doing it so you might as well, the fact of the matter is that it [i]simply doesn't make a fig of difference either way.[/i] Both sides are correct, you might as well be arguing about which colour of charging cable you should use for an iPhone as you were told to always use white ones. Daft.

lets refer back to the OP - should he have indicated - even if he is magical mystery driver trained.

No, he shouldn't have indicated

your right - had he checked his mirror - he would have noted there was a car advancing and would be occupying the space he wanted to occupy if he manovered.

there's nothing on my right - it's safe for me to pull out 😉

In the specific case of the OP, I'd say he should have indicated.

Under normal circumstances, yes, he shouldn't have indicated. Or, rather, there'd be no point in him indicating so it doesn't really matter whether he does or not. In this specific situation, where he's planning on moving in front of a vehicle moving faster than he is (which I'll get to in a bit), he should have indicated IMO. It's an atypical situation.

One of them tells me that I was 'millimeters' from the front of the guys car when I pulled back in

Well there you go, in the opinion of the Police you were driving very dangerously, regardless of the right of wrongs of what the other driver did.

Don't know if it's been mentioned already, life's too short to read every post across 5 pages, but:

Have we established why the OP was only doing 60mph on a dual carriage way?

I'd have booted it up the inside rather than get stuck behind Driving Miss Daisy weaving about all over the place!

That is a very worrying point of view.

lots of people here reckon you don't need to indicate to pull back into the left lane after an overtake, unless there is another road user than will benefit from the indication:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090421091536AAw5jTv

So I think that would only possibly be the case if you have passed the left hand car by at least the minimum safe braking distance, which is a very rare event in overtaking in this country.

I was driving back from Wales on Thursday night, with torrential rain and strong winds and lots of standing water on the motorway. The motorway was very empty and I was trundling along at about 65mph in the left hand lane, but it didn't stop people pulling out to overtake me and then cutting back in leaving me less than one second of gap, when there were absolutely no cars between me and the horizon in front of me. To55ers.

Nah, he clearly shouldn't have indicated, cougar - nobody's daft enough to pull left in that situation so all he'd do is cause confusion regarding his true intentions

oh

A better question might be "should he have performed the manoeuvre at all?"

I'm a little confused by the OP and the subsequent explanation. One minute you're so acutely aware of the other vehicle that you can gauge it's behaviour from the attitude of the headlights, the next you admit you've no idea how close it was. These would seem at odds with each other to me?

Anyway. You're in the second lane doing around 60mph. A vehicle is merging and, it's probably safe to assume, reasonably likely to be accelerating up to the NSL. It seems to me that the safest course of action here would be to stay put until it's clear whether the traffic in the leftmost lane is going to be travelling faster than you or not. Which is a perfectly acceptable situation, despite what the ignorantly self-righteous would have you believe. There's no law against undertaking slower-moving traffic.

What I'd probably have done in the OP's situation is indicate to signal my intention to move over, and wait to see whether the other vehicle is going to pass on the left, move out to pass on the right, or stay behind me. Then manoeuvre accordingly.

If I were the merging vehicle, and I was met with someone bimbling along in the middle lane at 10mph under the speed limit and merrily changing lanes without indicating or, it would appear, looking, I'd probably have stood on the loud pedal as well; I'd want them some distance behind me at the earliest opportunity. (-:

Have we established why the OP was only doing 60mph on a dual carriage way?

To save fuel and because he can.

Got pulled over just before xmas. Three lane motorway, I was in outside lane, coming up to a junction (approx 3/4 mile away), completed over take of two lorries drag racing each other in inside and middle lane, once past lorries indicated from outside lane and in one manouvere moved from outside lane into inside lane (now approx 1/2 mile from junction, no other vehicles around) Exited on junction and Panda car who had sat behind the lorries whilst i did this put his lights on and gesticulated out of the window for me to pull over.

Reasons given:

1. Shouldn't complete move from outside to inside lane in one move, should do it in two!

2. Shouldn't have overtaken lorries with 3/4mile to junction and just sat behind them like he had before leaving junction

3. His LED!!??! on his dashboard indicated to him that i might be doing in excess of 70mph.

Then asked me if i had been drinking (no suspicion).

In response to his reasons, which were all incorrect, I asked him if the reason he was out of uniform was because he was off duty, and whether i could look at this state of the art LED in his Vauxhall Astra which indicated to him my speed. At this point he told me he was right about what he had said then got in his car and drove off. There are some good police out there, and then there are some complete muppets.

I can kind of understand that there's an argument for "if it doesn't affect anyone or no-one's there, there's no point", but I'd rather be in the habit of using my indicators when there's no-one around, than not using my indicators when there IS someone around*. Far, far too many nobbos driving around like that already, IMO.

* Even worse are people turning right at a roundabout who don't cancel or counter-indicate when they reach their exit. Now THAT makes my sh1t itch.

What I'd probably have done in the OP's situation is indicate to signal my intention to move over, and wait to see whether the other vehicle is going to pass on the left, move out to pass on the right, or stay behind me. Then manoeuvre accordingly.

Let's have a look at some of the other points here.

Apparently he braked and the police van behind him 'nearly went up the back end of him too'

Then the police vehicle was driving far too close, or without due care and attention. Or quite possibly both. Were they actually traffic police?

They then went on to explain that the way slip roads work, it's common decency to pull out to the right lane to let them filter in.

The way that slip roads work, as others have said, is that the onus is on the merging vehicle to merge safely. As far as THC and the law are concerned, it's nothing to do with you.

It is of course common courtesy to attempt to make life easier for those merging, by allowing sufficient space to them to join or to change lanes if doing so doesn't inconvenience other road users who are already in that lane.

I would expect the police to enforce the first case, but not the second. If they'd stopped me for the heinous crime of "being impolite" then they might well have experienced further discourtesy.

I wonder if the pigs would have pulled the other guy over for undertaking if you hadn't moved back in?

If they were pulling people over for being discourteous then who knows what other spurious nonsense they might pull people over for, so probably.

If, on the other hand, they actually pulled the OP for carving in front of faster moving traffic without indicating, then I'd guess the answer would be "no" as they've no reason to.

There are some good police out there, and then there are some complete muppets.

+1.

Back when I was in my late teens, I was approaching a cross-roads, about to cross over the major road so I was slowing to give way. I'd to jam on the brakes short of the junction however, to avoid a panda car who'd come steaming round the corner from the left practically on two wheels, on completely the wrong side of the road.

As I stopped he swerved round me, and when he'd eventually managed to grind to a halt and reverse back up next to me he wound the window down. So I did likewise.

He leaned across and with a face like thunder, spat across at me, "you're in for a bollocking now, aren't you mate?"

19-year-old me looked at him incredulously for a moment, then said indignantly, "I [i]beg [/i]your pardon?"

He glowered at me, then booted it off down the street again. I sat there waiting for him to turn round and try and book me for god only knows what, but that was the last I saw of him. Nobber.

Indicating left now means - "I'm jumping to the front of this queue, so let me in LOSERS"
or "Oops, I've now jumped into this queue, didn't expect that did you? LOSER"

Me

BTW if it was a 'normal' police van they shouldn't really be pulling cars

Drac - Moderator

Of course the(y) can.

Although it's getting OT, other than [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/35 ]officers in uniform[/url] having powers to regulate traffic (e.g. stopping / directing vehicles if the road ahead is blocked), only [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/2 ]designated traffic officers[/url] are authorised to stop vehicles beyond that, and in the OP's case only a police DTO can advise drivers on their conduct (other DTO's from VOSA / the Highways Agency can only advise on safe loads / red diesel / etc).

Whilst any officer in uniform can stop any vehicle, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of something other than a road traffic or vehicle excise offence; these powers don't extend to (rightly or wrongly) giving drivers a telling off.

Saying that though it could be that a DTO was driving a 'normal' police van.

Can we get onto fog lights yet?

[edit] spllelling

DezB - Member
Indicating left now means - "I'm jumping to the front of this queue, so let me in LOSERS"
or "Oops, I've now jumped into this queue, didn't expect that did you? LOSER"

😆

😯

The onus is upon the person joining the DC / MW to move into a sufficiently suitable gap in the traffic. Its no coincidence that the view to the right, for the driver wishing to join the DC / MW. Is kept clear, so that said driver can look right to view and select their entry into the traffic, without causing other drivers to brake or change lane.

In general, theres a lot less courtesy and indicating from drivers today. This may have once been the preserve of the BMW driver, but it would seem to be a flourishing trend for folk to just whizz around without using the yellow lights on the corners of their cars. Or otherwise to use their indicators as some sort of 'indicator of immunity' that is, if you use your indicator, you can get off with really crap, inconsiderate, driving decisions.

Its a continuation of how rude people in society are becoming towards each other, like those who walk straight at you on the foot path and cyclists who ride through red lights.

Its an asshole fest out there these days, and quite why this is, I've yet to discover. Perhaps theres a prize for it or somethingt.

😯

Not that this is relevant to the OP. He seemed to be punishing the other driver for what he'd done. That's not his job. Cutting people up, with or without indicating, is daft, whether you're teaching them a lesson for 'not driving properly' or not.

This is where some people are getting lost in it all. I didn't pull into or close as possible to the front of the driver on purpose or for spite. I believe he was accelerating a lot quicker than I expected having just driven completely past him approx 65mph/70mph? while he was in the slip road going approx 45-50ish at a guess.

Tonight I cruised home, around 60-65 on the same stretch (because 'he wants to save fuel, and because he can' - Thanks for that one,Drac :O))and as I drove past the slip road I took note of the speed. Somewhere around 60-65 and to pass someone in that short slip road, while you are passing it at 60, there should be more than enough time to flow back into the left lane. (Bedmaker that posted earlier knows the slip road and how short it is, I'm sure some others reading will know it too) As I drove past it tonight,I pictured the incident and pictured the driver, me pulling out to let him in, and I thought about the speed I must've been going at the end of the slip road as I was pulling back in. For him to be there next to me would be an exaggeration (not that anyone has said that) but considering that I was in the lane and it took a few split seconds before he came on with the full beam, I really do believe he made it look far worse. When the cop told me how close I was to the car,he thought that I pulled in on him on purpose. I told him that I 100% did not do it on purpose. I'm the kind of person that if I did do it for spite, I couldn't lie and try and wiggle my way out of it in front of two policemen, that's for sure. I'd crack and come clean! This is why my answer was a firm 'No' when he asked if I knew why I had been pulled over.

In my eyes I moved out to the 2nd lane to avoid braking behind him (wasn't just going to back off the power, so I'd have to at least show the brake lights for the following traffic) but instead I chose to move into the 2nd lane. I drove past a car pulling out of a very short slip road going approx 65 (I was also accelerating until I was fully back into the lane I was in) ..having just passed a car pulling out of a junction doing approx 45-50mph. I've driven past cars pulling out of that slip road many times and flowed back in to the 1st lane without any problems. Cars (because of how short it is) are usually quite far back behind you at this point. He didn't make it easy by flooring it, and he certainly did floor it having just looked at the road on the way home earlier. Without a shadow of a doubt he did this on purpose. Nobody has ever accelerated and matched my speed coming out of that short slip road (whether I was going 60 or 70, it would take one heavy foot to the floor in most cars to be able to do what he'd done)

My version of it and the police version of it will always be different. Nobody will ever know. Don't get me wrong, when it's possible and worth doing, I'll pull over to the next lane to let folk filter. This wasn't a car waiting to pull out or getting up to sufficient speed to pull out in front of me, he pulled out at a point where I had to slow down or go into the 2nd lane. On a longer slip road this would never have happened as he would have had enough time to gain the speed and it would have caused no problems. He pulled out in front of me going approx 20mph less. To me,the majority of you guys on this thread and to the traffic cop I was speaking to earlier at work, it seems that we all believe the guy shouldn't have pulled out if he couldn't match the speed.Infact, even with me going 10mph under he still never managed to match my speed of 60mph.

I could go on and on about how it wasn't my fault and that some of you believe I was the main driver at fault. I will always see a driver pulling out of a junction and causing drivers that have the right of way, to be at fault. Also,any driver that I've moved into another lane for because of their wrong actions, that drive right up behind me and put full beam on when there was absolutely no need to,will always be the driver at fault. The police weren't traffic cops and seemed a bit speechless when I explained my actions and reasons for driving in the left lane and not moving over. The reason being, they knew too well what junction is and how it works. The only thing they got wrong, (their own words)is that he believed the way to deal with the problem of people pulling out on cars at slip roads is to always move into the right lane for common courtesy. This is the bit that peeves me off,the fact that the police pulled me over for letting someone out and pulling back into the lane, having just seen someone pull out on me in the first place, then putting full beam on me having continued accelerating towards me. All something he completely brought upon himself.

I could go on.. but it's all pointless. I think about it and ask myself why this and that happened. Like how it is possible for a police van to appear with a few other cars on a dual carriageway having just seen a clear road behind me minutes earlier, reel me in over a 4 mile + stretch when I was going 60mph.. If he was going the speed limit for his van, or even a bit more, he still wouldn't have there behind me. Not to mention the distance he drove behind another driver after the talk we had.

It's funny, as a cop that's out on the road most days that's far more experienced than this younger cop, was telling me that the driver was at fault to begin with for pulling out and causing me to alter my driving, before I even got to explain the rest of it. The opposite views on slip roads from the same force? One is telling me to move over out of common courtesy and to follow what the majority of people do, the other is older and knows what a junction is and how it works.

Why any cop would pull over a driver that (in his eye's) made a wrong move due to what was basically someone else's wrong move in the first place is beyond me.

Anyhows,good reading,folks. Please don't get too carried away with arguements on the rules of the road and falling out with each other!

Cheers.

Nobody likes being told off by the Police, but in this case what the other driver did may have been inconsiderate, while what you did was dangerous and careless, as you admit you don't see why you should MSM and shoulder check if necessary. I'd try to chalk it up to experience and be glad it was only a near miss.

schnor - Member
Me
BTW if it was a 'normal' police van they shouldn't really be pulling cars

Drac - Moderator
Of course the(y) can.

Although it's getting OT, other than officers in uniform having powers to regulate traffic (e.g. stopping / directing vehicles if the road ahead is blocked), only designated traffic officers are authorised to stop vehicles beyond that, and in the OP's case only a police DTO can advise drivers on their conduct (other DTO's from VOSA / the Highways Agency can only advise on safe loads / red diesel / etc).

Whilst any officer in uniform can stop any vehicle, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of something other than a road traffic or vehicle excise offence; these powers don't extend to (rightly or wrongly) giving drivers a telling off.

Saying that though it could be that a DTO was driving a 'normal' police van.

Can we get onto fog lights yet?

[edit] spllelling

Designated Traffic Officers within the legislation above are not police officers at all. The Highways Agency is a typical organisation envisaged as appointing traffic officers. As further evidence, see s.4(1) where any constable can instruct any traffic officer what to do! s.6(2-5) adds words to (using OR) the road traffic act - not replacing the existing provisions for constables. s.7 grants traffic officers the powers of constables in certain circumstances (not vice versa, since constables already have the powers)

Whilst any officer in uniform can stop any vehicle, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of something other than a road traffic or vehicle excise offence;

Completely wrong. Any cop in uniform can stop any vehicle being driven on a road. No reason or suspicion of an offence is needed.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/163

Even cops out of uniform can stop vehicles (although the failing to stop offence only relates to constables in uniform).

Just for a different Police story, a work colleague was driving home from Newcastle at the weekend. Stopped by Police. Please watch your speed, we have been following you for a few miles and we don't think you should really be doing 90-100mph. Apparently they then went on to explain that the husband was driving very well, keeping distances, indicating, etc etc, so they would not take any action. Thank god for common sense!