Dipstick tailgator

[ARW]

So is Coronation Street and EastEnders but at least Harry's post was entertaining and interesting.

[Roland Perry]

In message [e-mail]>, at 20:43:50 on Thu, 9 Sep 2021, Tim Lamb [e-mail]> remarked:

When it last happened to me, I was in L1 (obeying a temporary road-works speed restriction), and the two lane dual carriageway in question has a fairly rare ban on HGVs in L2 (to try to avoid uphill elephant-races choking the road).

[Harry Bloomfield, Esq.]

on 09/09/2021, Tim Streater supposed :

..and say what exactly? That you are hogging the middle lane at 60 and some bright spark is running rings around you? What do you think they would say to you, about your standard of driving?

[Harry Bloomfield, Esq.]

nightjar brought next idea :

Similar layout, but the southbound gets even busier with more vehicles squeezing through to change lanes at speed. I make quite regular use of both the north and southbound sides.

[Harry Bloomfield, Esq.]

ARW has brought this to us :

I saw a speeding coach driver miss his A1M turnoff last Saturday afternoon. He had kept his speed up for far too long, failed to move over to the left lanes, then three times he tried to find a way through, but all far too late. He had to continue along the M1 south instead.

[Tim Streater]

It's not about my standard of driving; I wouldn't be doing that in the first place. But whether I was or not, if someone is treating the road like the dodgems, with you as the other car, you might be a bit concerned.

[Robin]

What they would say to the other driver is nothing to do with you. You were in no way a victim. You were not even inconvenienced as you were able to overtake safely and did so.

In contrast the other driver could claim to have been a victim of your repeated, patently unnecessary, overtaking manoeuvres. I doubt the police and CPS would see scope for charging you given there's no crime of "road rage" in this country and the public order offences don't seem relevant.

OTOH I'd like to think they would at least consider charging you with driving without due care and attention. Your behaviour seems to me to four square within "below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver".

And good luck with any defence based on you being the good guy alerting the "middle lane hog" to their bad behaviour. Such people are a pest. But what makes you think your actions will improve their behaviour? What about the risks of a collision every time to overtook? Do you consider the possible mitigation circumstances - up to and including medical events? Where do you think you'd be for the next few months or years if you caused a fatality by your aggressive driving?

I'm just glad you appear to do most if not all of your driving well away from me.

[Scott]

You obviously don't understand the concept of a speed limit. It is not a safe speed; it is a maximum speed. The actual speed should be determined by the driver taking into account all the circumstances. If you look at your stopping distance at the speed you were travelling (see table in Highway Code) then question then becomes, could the driver behind be relied on to stop in that same distance.

Safety comes first.

[Harry Bloomfield, Esq.]

Robin has brought this to us :

Where is the 'aggression'? Rather it is amusing. You cannot be both amused and aggresive at one and the same time.

[Harry Bloomfield, Esq.]

on 10/09/2021, Scott supposed :

Good grief, granny and sucking eggs comes to mind! I am and was throughout the video well aware of safe speed.

I have 60 years of considerable annual mileage behind me with zero claims.

[JNugent]

All two-lane trunk road and motorway carriageways should have that ban,

07:00 - 19:00, Mon-Sun.

A5 Karlsruhe - Swiss border had it virtually all the way the last time I did that route. They might have widened it now.

[Scott]

Were the actions of the driver behind dangerous or not. If not, why are you posting this video? If yes, what did you do to mitigate the danger?

[Harry Bloomfield, Esq.]

Scott expressed precisely :

Drove slower than I would have done otherwise.

[Harry Bloomfield, Esq.]

Harry Bloomfield, Esq. submitted this idea :

..and took extra car to slow down gently.

[Chris Bacon]

But you've seen no end of crashes in your rear-view mirror.

[Scott]

Okay. Fair enough. I didn't pick that up from the earlier explanation, where I thought you were focusing on the speed limit.

[Harry Bloomfield, Esq.]

Chris Bacon formulated on Friday :

Actually, no! I have happened upon a lot and seen a lot happen ahead of me, but never one in my mirrors.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <shi95k$5jg$ [e-mail], Harry Bloomfield <?.?@harrym1byt.plus.com.invalid> writes

Ever thought it might have been that those ahead were distracted by looking in their rear mirror for too long, and wondering "What the hell IS that idiot behind me up to?" [No offence - just saying!]

[Andrew]

But not all at the same time, unless she has her torso out of one window and legs out of the other

[Harry Bloomfield, Esq.]

Richard formulated on Sunday :

I doubt anyone is completely pure, but it's more a matter of degree. I don't object to anyone slipping a few MPH over the limit, we all tend to do that - but there are some who completely ignore the limits and these are the ones who need to be sorted.