OK – let’s say I’m number 8 in the “queue” to overtake. Its been a while and no one has gone, so I decide, seeing a good opportunity, to go for it. How am I supposed to know which of the drivers ahead of me is (a) planning to overtake, (b) happy to sit in the queue? Surely, once I’m committed to the manoeuvre, it’s safer for me to pass everyone cleanly and not be trying to cut in between each car in order to wait a while and suss out if that driver is wanting to overtake?

If I’ve been able to overtake safely from 8 cars back, then the drivers who do want to overtake and I then pass are either not paying attention or have positioned themselves so badly behind the preceding vehicle that their view is impaired.

Incidentally, veering dangerously back on topic,

Isn’t flashing lights to warn people of speed traps actually illegal? I’m sure people have been done for it, ‘perverting the course of justice’ or some such, perhaps.

Indeed couger but the fact remains if the police focus on speed they catch a significant number of unobservant and over confident and impatient morons so its all good.

Last I heard, being a moron wasn’t against the law.

More’s the pity.

As someone already said – think of it as a “poor observation” fine. As regards regards headlamp flashing, doesn’t the Highway Code say something about flashing only to be done to alert other road users to your existence?

I think the person saying “speed kills” is the one who needs to get a grip. I’ve done 600mph without dying, so it’s plainly incorrect

Dear me.

Nobody is saying that simply increasing your speed causes death. It’s so obvious that I can’t believe you think that we are saying that. Why are you even bothering to type out things like that? You are being ridiculous.

The ‘speed kills’ slogan is NOT a basic statement of physical fact, quite bloody obviously (and we’ve been over this time and time again). It is a warning against driving too fast for the conditions.

Many people can drive fast and it wouldn’t be dangerous. 90mph on an empty motorway is not dangerous.

The problem is that people are not good at judging what speeds are appropriate, so we need speed limits. I can’t believe you don’t get this.

You know we didn’t have speed limits on motorways originally, and they imposed them because of all the accidents. People were not satisfactorily able to control their speed. You may feel invincible and that you can make better decisions than anyone else, but that’s not the point. The law needs to be egalitarian.

Seriously, the speeding thing is not difficult. Just don’t speed, drive well, and there’s no problem. If you start thinking you ought to be able to go faster then you’ll start getting annoyed at speed limits.

Some of you people are like spoiled children being told they can’t have ice cream for breakfast.

Oh yeah – back to the flashing lights thing. It slows people down at that exact point, yes, but it lessens the overall deterrent. So you might help speeds for 100 yards or so but that’s not the point. The threat of a fine should be stopping you speeding all the time.

Speed is not a right. Neither is using the roads for that matter. So I don’t see it as unreasonable that conditions are imposed on your use of the roads.

We didn’t used to have speed limits out of town. The NSL sign really meant “end if speed limit”. It wad changed to reduce fuel consumption, not accidents.

Some of you people are like spoiled children being told they can’t have ice cream for breakfast.

ice cream for breakfast what a great idea!

It wad changed to reduce fuel consumption, not accidents

Sceptical.

The ‘speed kills’ slogan is NOT a basic statement of physical fact, quite bloody obviously (and we’ve been over this time and time again). It is a warning against driving too fast for the conditions.

You’re right, but, that’s not what it says. The slogan should be “inappropriate speed kills”. That’s why I said I thought it was disingenuous. It’s almost as though it’s intentionally misleading, hm?

You know we didn’t have speed limits on motorways originally, and they imposed them because of all the accidents.

That’s not true, I’m afraid. Speed limits were introduced on motorways because motor manufacturers were using the M1 as a test track.

EDIT for fact checking. It was officially introduced as a temporary measure due to fog causing accidents, but AC testing the Cobra at silly speeds was almost certainly a contributory factor (as reported by the media at the time).

I used to drive a lot for work, about 200k miles in 4 years.

Every single time I got in the van I broke the speed limit, sometimes I ate food/drink while driving, and even used the phone!!!!!!!!1111oneoneone

When I left that job, I had 0 points and had only been involved in one incident.

This was with a woman reversing into the front bumper/wing of my van while I was stationary in a car park, because she was too busy faffing around with her make up while her dog jumped around in the back seats.

Outside of work I did several trackdays in my own car, which involved reaching speeds of over 70mph (where fluffy bunnys, kittens and small children died), these were again incident free.

Now either I have godlike driving skills (perhaps), or in actual fact, I am able to perform the task of driving while undertaking some of the other items depending on the conditions at the time which I have judged to be suitable.

The problem is that some people are unable to understand basic physics and judge the conditions for themselves, remember all those morons doing 60mph in the snow because they have a 4×4 which can get enough grip to go, but can it stop, fat chance. Or the people wheel spinning down the road rather than using some throttle control.

The UK is full of idiots fueled by the media, see the latest fuel “shortage” for evidence of this.

Glad I left and can’t say I’m missing it much.

Yes! That’s why I get annoyed! Alright I’m not fully in the opposite lane but I’m on the white line craning my head around the car looking down the road. I start to signal, look in my mirrors and bam, Mr Wankface is charging through, outta my way you scumbags.

Ah then that’s your problem. How can someone 12 cars back see that you are craning your neck if you’re not even positioned correctly across the white line. They are not mind readers. Ideally for an overtake you want to be almost fully over to the opposite side of the road before you commit to going for it. Only that way can you see all the hazards to the right and left of the vehicle you are about to overtake. If it’s good then you go for it. If it’s not then you just slot back where you were on the left hand side.

How can someone 12 cars back see that you are craning your neck if you’re not even positioned correctly across the white line

They should be waiting their turn. I pull out when it’s safe and right.

Jesus Christ. I know how to fin well do it.

I can’t believe you are sticking up for people you don’t even know, are not on the thread, and have no idea how they act.

I think in the “people vs molgrips” case, you’re arguing about different situations.

In a queue of slow moving traffic where people are passing the obstruction when safe to do so, then some hooray further back ‘jumping the queue’ is a selfish tosser, which I think is what Molgrips is getting at. However, if several passing places have come and gone and no-one’s made any attempt to overtake, I’d say it’s wholly justified to start moving up the ranks.

Ie, the ‘wait your turn’ approach is the correct thing to do, but it falls apart if more than just the lead vehicle is perfectly happy trundling along at a third of the limit.

In an ideal world, it’d be nice if something only capable of doing 20mph on a NSL single carriageway would pull over once in a while to allow the tailback to clear. It does happen occasionally but rarely; the only time I’ve really seen that sort of driving with any regularity is on the rural backroads of Scotland.

Oh, and,

If your idea of overtaking is to pull out into the middle of the road a yard behind the next vehicle before deciding whether to commit or not, you’re Doing It Wrong. The key to overtaking is to drop back and apply a bit of forward planning. That way you’ve got vastly improved visibility and the opportunity to build up relative speed before starting the overtake.

100% disagree with you on the overtaking molgrips. People should be leaving enough space so that if others decide to overtake they can, regardless of their own intentions. It’s a fairly typical British motoring (in fact anything) attitude, “I’m not doing something so you’re not.”

Edit: I’m not saying you don’t leave space, but what has what people behind you do got to do with you as long as they are safe?

I was speeding and running red lights, going down the wrong way on one way streets, pavements, zipping over zebra crossings, weaving in/out of traffic and you know what it was fun.

I was on my roadie hacking through That London.

Even had a couple of races with other roadies out playing.

“turns back, walks off and snubs all the “OMG!!!’ers””

I often find it rather silly when people reply to a thread before reading it all, but this time I am making an exception. I just have to know!

“Many motorists feel entitled to something they are not entitled to. They get stroppy when they don’t get what they want and the emotion means that any logical thought is thrown out of the pram together with ther toys.

The problem is that they were sold a lifestyle, a dream, a trophy that they have now failed to receive. Welcome to modern marketing… “

Are you currently strung out on crack or just really stupid?

Thats what happened – ever seen any advertising for cars? All anyone actully needs is a basic vehicle – fiat panda or the like

I often find it rather silly when people reply to a thread before reading it all, but this time I am making an exception. I just have to know!

“Many motorists feel entitled to something they are not entitled to. They get stroppy when they don’t get what they want and the emotion means that any logical thought is thrown out of the pram together with ther toys.

The problem is that they were sold a lifestyle, a dream, a trophy that they have now failed to receive. Welcome to modern marketing… “

Are you currently strung out on crack or just really stupid?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1805999/pdf/bullnyacadmed00392-0017.pdf

All anyone actully needs is a basic vehicle – fiat panda or the like

TJ, I like you, but you really do say some ill-conceived things sometimes.

[video]http://youtu.be/y60YQOzNWYE[/video]

“I was only speeding slightly”

epic youtube video embed fail

Cougar – its true tho – all anyone needs is a basic vehicle – modern cars are so good that any car will fulfil the role of transport. Anything else is about dreams and aspirations that can never be fulfilled on the UKs crowded roads.

You’re going to get a family of six plus bikes in a Panda?

You’re going to get a Panda up unmade rural roads if you live out in the sticks?

You’re going to do 50,000 miles a year for work on the motorways in a Panda?

Arguably, by your argument no-one “needs” a car at all, it’s a luxury.

Fiat Panda or the like

A panda is at least as good on unmade rural roads – not that we have many here. They do a 4×4 for that reason and Italy has a lot of gravel roads.

How many folk need a car for a family of 6 plus bikes – other basic cars are available

50 000 miles a year? why not?.

TJ – you are a comedy genius – I salute you sir!

Most people describe bikes in the way you describe cars 😆

However you want to put it the basic premise is true which is

Many motorists feel entitled to something they are not entitled to. They get stroppy when they don’t get what they want and the emotion means that any logical thought is thrown out of the pram together with ther toys.

The problem is that they were sold a lifestyle, a dream, a trophy that they have now failed to receive. Welcome to modern marketing… “

A car for utility does not need 100+ bhp etc etc. A family car 25 years ago weighed half what it does now and had half the power and half the gadgets

TJ, am i guessing you don’t drive or do little mileage?

TandemJeremy – Member

A car for utility does not need 100+ bhp etc etc. A family car 25 years ago weighed half what it does now and had half the power and half the gadgetsAnd was less than half as safe. IIRC, most of the weight gains are to do with crash protection 🙂

You’re right though. As a family of 4 (and a dog) we’d load up a Morris Traveller and go off camping for two weeks. I don’t recall feeling squashed in it, but seeing one recently brought home just how small it was.

The big car fascination does seem to be quite UK-centric though. In France and Italy, it’s more common to see small cars being driven fast than fast cars.

I have a car with a bit of poke. I love getting the thrill of the oomph even though it doesn’t actually get me anywhere quicker.

It’s fun, that’s why I prefer a car with more power than I need.

Utilitarianism is ok but I like a bit of fun in my life.

Glad to see I’m not the only one who thinks that making progress on a single carraigeway isn’t akin to mugging grannies in a supermarket queue.

Common sense prevails

How many folk need a car for a family of 6 plus bikes

Everyone with four kids? Going on an extended camping trip I can fill a family sized car without any kids at all.

50 000 miles a year? why not?.

Because you’d spend the next year in traction.

What I’m getting at is, it’s about the right tool for the job. I could pound in nails with a rock, but I’d rather have a hammer, and if I did it professionally then I’d want a nail gun.

To say “all *anyone* needs is a Panda or the like” is utter nonsense. It might be true for some people, sure, but different people have different usage requirements.

What bike do you ride, TJ? Because all anyone actually needs is a basic bike.

To extend on a similar point, when will people learn to use motorways correctly? My understanding is that everyone should be in lane 1 unless overtaking (as in France – works perfectly). The key point is to always move back in once you have overtaken.

Very few people actually do this, and this is why motorways tend to crawl along at the same speed across all lanes.

My understanding is that everyone should be in lane 1 unless overtaking (as in France – works perfectly). The key point is to always move back in once you have overtaken.

Very few people actually do this, and this is why motorways tend to crawl along at the same speed across all lanes.

Yes it does my head in. There seems to be a good proportion of motorway drivers who want to do their entire journey in the middle lane. But we should probably accept that there are things in this country that we do well on the roads – general courtesy and not killing that many people generally and things we do badly – overaking and lane discipline.

Yes the French are great at lane discipline but they tailgate like maniacs and parking that only results in a single dent is considered successful.

Yes the French are great at lane discipline but they tailgate like maniacs and parking that only results in a single dent is considered successful.

Yes, on my frequent trips to France it always makes me chuckle at how many (nearly all?) cars have small dents in them.

Kind of makes me think they’re less bothered about their cars than we are.
Not saying that’s a good or bad thing, just different viewpoint.

If you want to see dented cars, go to Rome…

Will you lot stop flirting and get on with the angry sex please.

My understanding is that everyone should be in lane 1 unless overtaking (as in France – works perfectly).

In France they use the right hand lane except when overtaking? Just like here then.

I drive for a living, and everyday I see near misses and dodgey overtakes caused by slower drivers,or poor driving not necesserily the ones speeding.

driving slowley increases driver fustration and creates more hazzards imhe.

As a motorcyclist theres a clear definition between making progress safely, and dangerous speeds on the road.

Its only courteous to warn other motorists of accident blackspots identified by camera vans or other “saftey camera devices” 😉