Tailgating and Undertaking on Motorways

lawred2

Swanner wrote: »

Well if we managed to get it right when the road is half empty you might have a point but even on my early morning airport runs at 5am I regularly come across some idiot cruising at 90kph in the middle or overtaking lane.

That aside though, the M50 is not that over subscribed. I rarely find myself in bumper to bumper standstill traffic apart from one or two of the usual spots. If everyone adopted correct lane discipline traffic would move much more efficiently. The road is designed to work that way.

You must only travel at 5am then if you think it's not oversubscribed.

But I agree. There will always be someone dawdling along in the middle or right lanes.

But it's not hard for an empty motorway to move efficiently. All keep left can not work on a motorway with moving traffic in all three lanes.

Tell me how

bmwguy wrote: »

Whatever about most Irish people not being able to drive on motorways I think some of the responses here have highlighted a more pressing problem, most of you can't read!

The OP did nothing wrong except for possibly exceeding motorway limit. You all want her to do a violent lane merge the instant she was finished overtaking. Cop on to yourselves.

Fact - she was in overtaking lane when she was overtaking. No problem there. Doing slightly above motorway limit which is ok in my

Fact - she said she was getting ready to merge back left but was undercut by someone's impatience immediately.

Your opinion on whether or not such a merging act was violent is based on your subjective understanding of the OP's story. This is the same way that others have a subjective view that the OP maybe stayed in the overtaking lane for an excessive amount of time before merging.

As others have said, there is no evidence here, it is opinion based and we all know how varied opinions are.

bmwguy

Swanner wrote: »

Fact - She wasn't even indicating..

How long does it take to "get ready" to merge back into the left lane ?

She mentioned 5 seconds just waiting until there was adequate room.

I abhor overtaking lane joggers but that's not what we have here. Not even close.

gramar

seachto7 wrote: »

Do what I do. Just touch the brake enough so the light comes on. Usually slows them down or just be pig ignorant and take your foot off the accelerator and gradually slow down and laugh at them as they pass you in a rage.
Better to be John Smith late than the late John Smith.

Don't even touch the brake. Just pop on the hazards for a second which has the same effect.

I was in the overtaking lane the other day about to pass a truck.
There was a car coming up behind me flashing the lights. I was doing about 125 and about to pass a truck uphill doing barely 90 so there was no way I was pulling back in behind it and slowing right down for this dick who decided to drive right up behind me so I popped on the hazards and eased up and cruised alongside the truck for half a mile. I can be a dick too you see. When I did pull in unsurprisingly they pulled right across me and braked. A predictable repsonse if ever there was so I was already braking in anticipation.

If someone is dawdling in the overtaking lane by all means flash to let them know but if I'm going at a reasonable speed and I'm there for the right reasons, like I said I'll be a dick too.

The Bishop Basher

bmwguy wrote: »

She mentioned 5 seconds just waiting until there was adequate room.

So does she wait 5 seconds till there's adequate room, then indicate for another 5 seconds or how does this work ?

Because most people indicate their intentions well ahead of making the manoeuvre.

She seems to need time to think about indicating and then more time to think about making the manoeuvre. I would find that concerning.

The Bishop Basher

lawred2 wrote: »

You must only travel at 5am then if you think it's not oversubscribed.

But I agree. There will always be someone dawdling along in the middle or right lanes.

But it's not hard for an empty motorway to move efficiently. All keep left can not work on a motorway with moving traffic in all three lanes.

I'd be on it at all times but I do try an avoid peak times. Only place I ever really get held up is the M11 / N11 interchange.

I agree though that lane discipline becomes irrelevant on a grid locked road however we're far from that. The irony is we would significantly improve traffic issues if we enforced correct lane dicpline. Motorways are designed to work efficiently when used correctly but we can't even get it right when it's empty.

bmwguy

Swanner wrote: »

So does she wait 5 seconds till there's adequate room, then indicate for another 5 seconds or how does this work ?

Because most people indicate their intentions well ahead of making the manoeuvre.

She seems to need time to think about indicating and then more time to think about making the manoeuvre. I would find that concerning.

5 seconds!

How late for work is everyone on this thread that 5 seconds drives them irate? She wasnt crawling either she was up over 120. Or is it just keyboard warrior stuff? Attack the OP no matter what they write?

galvo_clare

You are completely wrong here. Why not just move over into the driving lane?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I tend to potter along at about 130 on the motorway.

As a result, I tend to overtake the vast majority of cars i come across. So what I usually do is just stay in the overtaking lane.

First Up

On the M50 I stay in the left lane except when overtaking someone very slow. Approaching junctions, if the middle lane is free, I will move out to allow merging traffic join. If the middle lane is busy that sometimes means slowing to give room for merging traffic. It might cost me 5 seconds.

Staying in the left lane means you will pass many cars sitting in the middle lane. If anyone legitimately in the middle lane (i.e after passing slow traffic) wants to move back left, all they need do is indicate. The sensible drivers in the left lane (who understand how a motorway works) will let them in.

At peak times it makes sense to use the middle and (sometimes) outside lanes, especially if the left lane is blocked by traffic queueing to exit. Just be sensible about it and get into the left lane in good time for your own exit.

There is no doubt that most M50 problems are caused by the middle lane hoggers. The number of supposedly professional drivers in commercial vehicles doing it is an utter disgrace.

Sam Kade

dunleakelleher wrote: »

you can indicate your intention to pull in even before you clear the car you are overtaking. the driver behind will see a flashing orange/yellow light that will tell him that you intend to pull over.

Not if they are up the arse of her car.

Dravokivich

This kind of carry on isn't limited to motorways. I don't drive on any and see it all over the place around Dublin/Kildare. Driver sees an empty road and wants to eat it up, or pass anything before'em to eat up the empty road ahead.

Anyone who's considering the op's behavior to be justification for the undertake described needs to think long and hard about what they are saying. It's valid to put oneself and others into a risky position, because one was provoked by what one perceived as the inaptitude of another driver?

I'd rather give'em all the room I could between me and them. Preferably in front of me.

knucklehead6

bmwguy wrote: »

Whatever about most Irish people not being able to drive on motorways I think some of the responses here have highlighted a more pressing problem, most of you can't read!

The OP did nothing wrong except for possibly exceeding motorway limit. You all want her to do a violent lane merge the instant she was finished overtaking. Cop on to yourselves.

Fact - she was in overtaking lane when she was overtaking. No problem there. Doing slightly above motorway limit which is ok in my

Fact - she said she was getting ready to merge back left but was undercut by someone's impatience immediately.

FACT: She was in the overtaking lane long enough after completing an overtaking manoeuvre that someone behind her had enough time to contemplate, initiate and complete an under taking manoeuvre.

All the while accelerating to what the op reckons was 180km/h.

It'd be some van to accelerate to 180 from whatever speed the op was doing in such a short distance as she is alleging.

Dravokivich

knucklehead6 wrote: »

FACT: She was in the overtaking lane long enough after completing an overtaking manoeuvre that someone behind her had enough time to contemplate, initiate and complete an under taking manoeuvre.

All the while accelerating to what the op reckons was 180km/h.

It'd be some van to accelerate to 180 from whatever speed the op was doing in such a short distance as she is alleging.

Forget the numbers. People who tailgate will pull infornt of others as soon as they've the dimensions to without any regard as to checking it's being done safely. Just because they were able to accomplish it, does not mean the other driver was wrong not to.

Just this morning I saw someone undertake a truck. Then slide right into the next lane over without any chance to see what may have been coming from beside the truck.

But sure... if they could get in front no one should have been in that overtaking lane next to the truck...

dunleakelleher

bmwguy wrote: »

Fact - she said she was getting ready to merge back left but was undercut by someone's impatience immediately.

Getting ready, jazus wept whats needs to be done. a little bit of makeup, brush the hair, sent a couple of text, put the cat out...
come on how long does it take to put on the indicator, after all, she always intended to pull in as soon as she was clear.

I think we all know what went on here, just a little delay in doing anything to piss the car behind off.
yes, nothing illegal but definitely intentional

siobhan08

siobhan08 wrote: »

If the other drivers had waited 5 seconds. I would have started to move over. Saw them going to the left lane to undertake when I was giving my left wing mirror a final check before commencing the land change

But if you were giving a final check why wasn't your indicator on?
It should be on to signal you're going to be making a move, it's no use to anyone to put it on while you're moving.
While the undertaking cars sound like dangerous numptys, it's important to remember you need to communicate with the other cars on the road. They've no other way of knowing what you're about or not about to do.
Do signal early on to say hey I'm about to pull over here give me a sec
It doesn't stop the crazy ones but it helps a lot

hawkwind23

some nonsense on this thread and weird justification of what could be considered attempted murder
I drive a couple of times a month on the M50 and its disgraceful , end of and as simple as that.
How there arent more deaths is pure luck.
Ive been driving for 30 years both private and commercial so ive enough time on the road to judge.

I have overtaken in the outer lane and witnessed what the OP has , come on ffs we all have and much worse!
Ive seen people swerve over two lanes and back over 3 at very high speed.
regular occurrence to have people right on my bumper , maybe inches at 140km , when ive a lorry on the right that i cant move over and i cant increase my speed because of a car in front.
Im an experienced driver and dont get too annoyed but im always glad to get onto the M1 , i imagine the aggressive attitude of these drivers must force the less experienced driver into a life threatening situation.

Its rush hour lads and lasses and a large city bypass with an excessive amount of metal doing high speeds , use a bit of cop on ffs

And serious , ive seen several moves this year alone that if there had been an accident i would of been pushing for manslaughter by dangerous and reckless driving

siobhan08

knucklehead6 wrote: »

FACT: She was in the overtaking lane long enough after completing an overtaking manoeuvre that someone behind her had enough time to contemplate, initiate and complete an under taking manoeuvre.

All the while accelerating to what the op reckons was 180km/h.

It'd be some van to accelerate to 180 from whatever speed the op was doing in such a short distance as she is alleging.

FACT - when I got past the last car in the line and intended to merge back to the left lane. When looking in the mirror I noticed the van moving to the left and I stayed in the overtaking lane long enough to complete his illegal manoeuvre.

At this point I was doing 150 to clear the traffic to my left as fast as possible to get said van off my arse so getting a van to approx 180 from 150 wouldn't be that unrealistic. Especially when it was a new van.

Those who think I was the issue are clearly those who think it is justified to tailgate and undercut. Simply because they perceived the driver in front of them to be too slow and have likely done it themselves to other divers.

Even saw it happen this morning. I was in the left lane jeep overtook me and was then undercut by a Mercedes who cut in in front of me

Dravokivich

bluewolf wrote: »

But if you were giving a final check why wasn't your indicator on?
It should be on to signal you're going to be making a move, it's no use to anyone to put it on while you're moving.
While the undertaking cars sound like dangerous numptys, it's important to remember you need to communicate with the other cars on the road. They've no other way of knowing what you're about or not about to do.
Do signal early on to say hey I'm about to pull over here give me a sec
It doesn't stop the crazy ones but it helps a lot

The OP did not expect this car to pull into that Lane. So chances are whenever they've checked prior to final check, they had no indication this person was going to be their either.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

The OP did not expect this car to pull into that Lane. So chances are whenever they've checked prior to final check, they had no indication this person was going to be their either.

They'd have to let whoever is in the driving lane know as well, whomever they'd just overtaken.

I mean I'm not justifying people being crazy on the roads here, don't get me wrong

antodeco

shar01 wrote: »

In a couple of hours time, I'm going to be joining the M50 at Cherrywood to head to the airport.

Any time when I'm on the M50 and the traffic is relatively light, I get into the left lane after Sandyford, stick the cruise control on at 100km and, except for having to move into the middle lane where there is merging traffic, I will spend most of the journey in the left hand lane. I guarantee you I will undertake many cars pootling along in the middle lane.

What I'm doing is illegal but as there's no enforcement... big swinging mickey!

Shush! Don't tell them the secret!

dr.fuzzenstein

dunleakelleher wrote: »

Getting ready, jazus wept whats needs to be done. a little bit of makeup, brush the hair, sent a couple of text, put the cat out...
come on how long does it take to put on the indicator, after all, she always intended to pull in as soon as she was clear.

I think we all know what went on here, just a little delay in doing anything to piss the car behind off.
yes, nothing illegal but definitely intentional

But it's the fault of the arsewanker behind who couldn't wait 5 fcuking seconds.

hawkwind23

I have sat in the outside lane because there is slow moving traffic to my left and it would cause a dangerous incident for me to move over and try squeeze into a small space and immediately brake to maintain a safe distance from the car in front.
I can see that if i clear the next car then there is ample space to then move over and not have to use my brakes or decelerate.
Thats standard and i fail to see why the tailgaters cant see that? I can see the whites of their angry and stressed out eyes they are so far up my hole so they can see this too

What some on here are justifying is doing some stunt trick where they put all road users at risk and pull of manoeuvrers that are reckless
What the reality is that the space they think was there has to be created by the ordinary drivers around these lunatics so they pull of their stunt and have put several cars at risk of an accident at high speeds.

robarmstrong

I had a really special case last night. I was turning onto the N3 (where you can go straight to Blanch centre, or right to the N3) and whilst the green arrow to turn right was on I had completed just about 80% of the turn, some absolute numpty tries to merge in front of me from the left for absolutely no reason other than to try be cheeky and get ahead of a few cars, even though they had broken a red light.

Naturally I flash the full beams and give them a beep (they unexpectedly broke a red light and almost caused a collision) only for them to brake extremely hard for some reason - not sure if they were brake checking me but they did it twice before throwing up the w*nker hand signal and getting whomever it was in the back of the car (171 Merc jeep) to take a picture of my reg plate presumably to report me to the police or shame me on social media despite them being absolute horrendous drivers. Literally makes no sense but it's the attitude of majority of drivers in this country, "f*ck you I'm not in the wrong you are".

People pulling into the third lane on the left also need to have a bit of cop on as people are merging from that side - allow the merge and come into the lane when it's safe to do so, to me it's common sense, allow the merge to keep the flow of traffic going rather than sitting in the lane causing mass traffic on a slip road..

lawred2

robarmstrong wrote: »

I had a really special case last night. I was turning onto the N3 (where you can go straight to Blanch centre, or right to the N3) and whilst the green arrow to turn right was on I had completed just about 80% of the turn, some absolute numpty tries to merge in front of me from the left for absolutely no reason other than to try be cheeky and get ahead of a few cars, even though they had broken a red light.

Naturally I flash the full beams and give them a beep (they unexpectedly broke a red light and almost caused a collision) only for them to brake extremely hard for some reason - not sure if they were brake checking me but they did it twice before throwing up the w*nker hand signal and getting whomever it was in the back of the car (171 Merc jeep) to take a picture of my reg plate presumably to report me to the police or shame me on social media despite them being absolute horrendous drivers. Literally makes no sense but it's the attitude of majority of drivers in this country, "f*ck you I'm not in the wrong you are".

People pulling into the third lane on the left also need to have a bit of cop on as people are merging from that side - allow the merge and come into the lane when it's safe to do so, to me it's common sense, allow the merge to keep the flow of traffic going rather than sitting in the lane causing mass traffic on a slip road..

you mean the left lane/inside lane?

Diemos

shar01 wrote: »

Any time when I'm on the M50 and the traffic is relatively light, I get into the left lane after Sandyford, stick the cruise control on at 100km and, except for having to move into the middle lane where there is merging traffic, I will spend most of the journey in the left hand lane. I guarantee you I will undertake many cars pootling along in the middle lane.

What I'm doing is illegal but as there's no enforcement... big swinging mickey!

What you are describing there is not undertaking, although you are passing on the near side of a vehicle. As a result it is not illegal, though more caution should be excerised, because you know, people are idiots.

CalamariFritti

This is for the impatient lads. Just a thought.

Which is not me condoning ignorance or lane hogging or anything like that. Just a disclaimer - which is probably futile - but I wanted to say it anyway.

I was commuting for 50 minutes each way for a number of years. And since commuting is sort of wasted time by nature commuting always means we try to get it over with as quickly as we can. We're always sort of in a hurry commuting. And it doesn't help if you commute like me on a cr@ppy road.

For year I was like an antichrist on that road. Right up behind the car in front of me. Always looking for opportunities to move on. Weaving, looking, putting the pressure on. Foot down at the earliest opportunity and on I go. I hated that drive. Never arrived in work rested and in good form.
And because it was such a frustrating experience - there will always be another car in front of you no matter how many cars you overtake - I decided to try something different.

So I timed my runs. 50 minutes average. And then I changed my attitude. For a whole week I just went with the flow. Left enough space, didn't care whether I was going 100 or 80 or whatever. Never pushed. Just went with the flow listening to the radio. Took it easy.
Turns out after a week when I did the averages again I spent 53 minutes on that road instead of 50.

Then I thought what am I doing to myself? This is ridiculous. And I changed my driving. And it helped. I still arrived at the same time but no stress. Used less petrol too.

I'm still an impatient driver thinking half the people around barely know what they're doing. Which is probably true. But I changed my attitude. I recognise situations where me driving the sh1t out of it will not change a thing only it will stress me out.

robarmstrong

lawred2 wrote: »

you mean the left lane/inside lane?

Yes, sorry probably should have explained a good bit better.

Tigger

siobhan08 wrote: »

FACT - when I got past the last car in the line and intended to merge back to the left lane. When looking in the mirror I noticed the van moving to the left and I stayed in the overtaking lane long enough to complete his illegal manoeuvre.

At this point I was doing 150 to clear the traffic to my left as fast as possible to get said van off my arse so getting a van to approx 180 from 150 wouldn't be that unrealistic. Especially when it was a new van.

Those who think I was the issue are clearly those who think it is justified to tailgate and undercut. Simply because they perceived the driver in front of them to be too slow and have likely done it themselves to other divers.

Even saw it happen this morning. I was in the left lane jeep overtook me and was then undercut by a Mercedes who cut in in front of me

what van does 180?
you were doing 150? you were accelerating up to 150kmph which is what 95 miles an hour and you were under taken by two vehicles??

is that what you are saying cos i'm incredulous

dudeeile

siobhan08 wrote: »

I was going a good bit over the speed limit and it still wasn't good enough for them.

When I was finished overtaking and intended to move over they didn't give me a chance and just flew up on my inside. Only saw them when I looked in my wing mirror to check the distance from the car I had just overtaken before starting to move over.

siobhan08 wrote: »

At this point I was doing 150 to clear the traffic to my left as fast as possible to get said van off my arse so getting a van to approx 180 from 150 wouldn't be that unrealistic. Especially when it was a new van.

Now I may be wrong but were you by any chance alternating your speed and making it a little bit more difficult for the drivers behind, I spend a lot of time travelling, both 4 wheels and 2 and most vehicles and by most I mean practically all, do not reach 150km/h especially during heavy commutes.

I'd also like to see the van that can hit 180km/h as quickly as you say, must have been Sabine driving.

Sam Kade

bluewolf wrote: »

They'd have to let whoever is in the driving lane know as well, whomever they'd just overtaken.

I mean I'm not justifying people being crazy on the roads here, don't get me wrong

You can't just cut in front of cars in the driving lane you need to go a certain distance ahead to go back in safely. Obviously in the op's case the impatient drivers behind did cut in front of cars in the driving lane.

Diemos

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But it's the fault of the arsewanker behind who couldn't wait 5 fcuking seconds.

Agreed, the tailgater was 100% wrong. But it sounds like the OP could have done more to diffuse the situation, like indicate their intent to vacate the over taking lane in a timely manner. Speeding up to 150kmh because you are intimidated by the car behind you is not the action of a competant driver.

If the van had time to cut up the car in the left hand lane and the OP had not even begun indicating then it think it's fair to say that more could have been done.
That is in no means to validate the action of the van driver, they are a dangerous a$$.

All of this talk of brake testing and other actions to piss off an a$$hat behind you just drops to their level. There are no winners in these pi$$ing contests.

Diemos

Sam Kade wrote: »

You can't just cut in front of cars in the driving lane you need to go a certain distance ahead to go back in safely. Obviously in the op's case the impatient drivers behind did cut in front of cars in the driving lane.

There is a difference between indicating your intent to make a manouver and actually completing said manouver.

siobhan08

Tigger wrote: »

what van does 180?
you were doing 150? you were accelerating up to 150kmph which is what 95 miles an hour and you were under taken by two vehicles??

is that what you are saying cos i'm incredulous

Yes that's exactly what happen. I was doing that speed to get by the line of traffic as fast as possible to get the Ahole in the van off my arse as quickly as possible. 180 was a rough estimate going by my speed of 150 and how quickly he dusted me on the inside and the other vechicles ahead. He was so far into the distance that he was totally gone from my sight within a about 3 minutes.

I never usually go so fast but was very conscious of the moron so close to me that I wanted to clear the traffic as fast possible to enable me to get out of his way. Which he didn't even give me the opportunity to do so because he cut in as soon as there was any type of large gap into the left lane.

That fact that I was going that speed and was tailgated and undertaken is what I found so astonishing. Like what speed is fast enough for those idiots ??

Zubeneschamali

Diemos wrote: »

What you are describing there is not undertaking, although you are passing on the near side of a vehicle. As a result it is not illegal, though more caution should be excerised, because you know, people are idiots.

It is illegal. There is no legal definition of "undertaking", but you may only pass on the left in 3 situations, and slow numpty in the middle lane is not one of them.

Sam Kade

Diemos wrote: »

There is a difference between indicating your intent to make a manouver and actually completing said manouver.

Like I said before tailgaters can't see indicators.

dudeeile

Sam Kade wrote: »

Like I said before tailgaters can't see indicators.

Hard to see someting that wasn't there.

Dravokivich

dudeeile wrote: »

Hard to see someting that wasn't there.

Cut the nit picking. The OP didn't come here to expect a pat on the back, or to have their driving glorified. They wanted to understand if madness is expected on the M50.

lawred2

Sam Kade wrote: »

Like I said before tailgaters can't see indicators.

?

The Bishop Basher

This story doesn't add up..

You were intending to move left but not indicating, you needed 5 seconds to think about indicating, another 5 seconds to think about the manoeuvre while being undertaken by a van doing 180 while overtaking other traffic..

Don't know who is wrong or who is right as I wasn't there but if I was a judge, based on the facts presented, and given the prevalence of this behaviour on our roads, I'd say you were hogging the lane.

Also by your own admission you were driving faster then you were comfortable with and breaking the limit. I wouldn't be that fussed about the limit as many of us exceed it on motorways from time to time but driving faster then you're comfortable with is nothing short of lethal.

dudeeile

Dravokivich wrote: »

Cut the nit picking. The OP didn't come here to expect a pat on the back, or to have their driving glorified. They wanted to understand if madness is expected on the M50.

Just trying to get a better understanding of the actual facts, or nit picking as you call it, I'm unsure why the op came here.

Dravokivich

dudeeile wrote: »

Just trying to get a better understanding of the actual facts, or nit picking as you call it, I'm unsure why the op came here.

They were about to, when they saw the car pull in from behind them.

Over use of indicators is just as problematic as under use, to those who suggested she should have put them on much earlier.

dudeeile

Dravokivich wrote: »

They were about to, when they saw the car pull in from behind them.

And then vehicles undertook her doing 180km/h.

Dravokivich wrote: »

Over use of indicators is just as problematic as under use, to those who suggested she should have put them on much earlier.

Yep, too many indicators are a major cause of accidents

siobhan08

dudeeile wrote: »

Now I may be wrong but were you by any chance alternating your speed and making it a little bit more difficult for the drivers behind, I spend a lot of time travelling, both 4 wheels and 2 and most vehicles and by most I mean practically all, do not reach 150km/h especially during heavy commutes..

No the only time I slowed down considerably with home behind me was to go through the toll and sped up once through to the 120 and kept going up a bit when he came so close to me. Each time I sped up a bit to get a bit of distance between us he would speed up and get closer

Diemos wrote: »

Agreed, the tailgater was 100% wrong. But it sounds like the OP could have done more to diffuse the situation, like indicate their intent to vacate the over taking lane in a timely manner. Speeding up to 150kmh because you are intimidated by the car behind you is not the action of a competant driver.

If the van had time to cut up the car in the left hand lane and the OP had not even begun indicating then it think it's fair to say that more could have been done.
That is in no means to validate the action of the van driver, they are a dangerous a$$.

Like I have said a number of time already here I was checking my mirrors to check it was safe to move over and saw the vechicle in question begins to move over. I was taught when learning to drive to check it's clear, the signal and then move. Which it what my intention was. Clearly it wasn't enough for the impatient kn0bheads on the roads. That system has served me well since I passed my test.

No penality points in 9 years of driving and only one accident. Which I wasn't at fault for as I was rear ended. Which I why I kept increase the speed to get some distance. As I do not like people so closes to my arse as I've felt the pain of a collision from behind.

dudeeile

The easiest method to get a tailgater off yer rear end is to pull over and let them pass, safest place for you is behind them.

Dravokivich

dudeeile wrote: »

And then vehicles undertook her doing 180km/h.



Yep, too many indicators are a major cause of accidents

I'd suggest forgetting about the numbers. OP was caught up in the excitement of being tailgated so aggressively.

Keeping an indicator on for a longer amount of time than perceived to be required will undermine the use of it. The person behind you won't be confident in it and move as they see fit to get around you.

I see it every day on a bus, where people drive in front of the bus (going straight) so they can turn left, instead of holding back and coming in behind the bus.

The OP was just an obstacle to the driver behind them. Doesn't matter how good or bad a driver they are, that other person was always going to pull such a stunt, when they knew they had the room to.

dudeeile wrote: »

The easiest method to get a tailgater off yer rear end is to pull over and let them pass, safest place for you is behind them.

And when they wanted to do that, the tailgater was there. Can't win!

dudeeile

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'd suggest forgetting about the numbers. OP was caught up in the excitement of being tailgated so aggressively.

Keeping an indicator on for a longer amount of time than perceived to be required will undermine the use of it. The person behind you won't be confident in it and move as they see fit to get around you.

I see it every day on a bus, where people drive in front of the bus (going straight) so they can turn left, instead of holding back and coming in behind the bus.

The OP was just an obstacle to the driver behind them. Doesn't matter how good or bad a driver they are, that other person was always going to pull such a stunt, when they knew they had the room to.



And when they wanted to do that, the tailgater was there. Can't win!

Look man, first ya say stop nit picking (from op's story) and now it's forget the numbers (from op's story), let's just pull wild assumptions out of our ass and use those as the new basis for discussion shall we.

dev100

siobhan08 wrote:

That fact that I was going that speed and was tailgated and undertaken is what I found so astonishing. Like what speed is fast enough for those idiots ??

Look it's like this no matter what you drive there's always someone who wants to go and can go faster than you it's difficult to have the high moral ground when you were driving well above the speed limit . you just have to recognise when someone is going faster and move out of their way in good time so you don't end up in a tailgating situation . Just get used to it . If you were @ 150 that's a fair oul speed you wouldn't need 5 seconds to move into the left lane after you've overtaken a vehicle

Zubeneschamali wrote:

It is illegal. There is no legal definition of "undertaking", but you may only pass on the left in 3 situations, and slow numpty in the middle lane is not one of them.

So your saying I can't go faster than a car which is on the outside of me ?

siobhan08

Swanner wrote: »

This story doesn't add up..

You were intending to move left but not indicating, you needed 5 seconds to think about indicating, another 5 seconds to think about the manoeuvre while being undertaken by a van doing 180 while overtaking other traffic..

Don't know who is wrong or who is right as I wasn't there but if I was a judge, based on the facts presented, and given the prevalence of this behaviour on our roads, I'd say you were hogging the lane.

Also by your own admission you were driving faster then you were comfortable with and breaking the limit. I wouldn't be that fussed about the limit as many of us exceed it on motorways from time to time but driving faster then you're comfortable with is nothing short of lethal.

You have clearly not read my other posts. I have stated a few times that as soon as I passed the last car I glimpsed in my mirror to check the distance before indicating and saw the guy begin to move left. Realised what he was doing so stayed in the overtaking lane to let him get by

I never said I was uncomfortable doing the speed I was doing. You have made that assumption because I said I would never usually do that speed and only did to try and get the Ahold off my back. I don't usually do that kind of speed because I would rather not get done for speeding

Dravokivich

dudeeile wrote: »

Look man, first ya say stop nit picking (from op's story) and now it's forget the numbers (from op's story), let's just pull wild assumptions out of our ass and use those as the new basis for discussion shall we.

That wasn't the first time I've said that. The OP's perception is not overly reputable. I agree with everyone that's questioning how they "estimated" the other guy did 180 to pass them. There is no way the OP could have been doing 150 and then the Van shot to 180 to go by in a matter of moments. No matter how new that van is, it's not a sports car. It's why I don't see them to be relevant. There isn't a proper gauge on what they were actually doing. And the same set of manouvres would have happened regardless.

First Up

siobhan08 wrote:

No penality points in 9 years of driving and only one accident. Which I wasn't at fault for as I was rear ended. Which I why I kept increase the speed to get some distance. As I do not like people so closes to my arse as I've felt the pain of a collision from behind.

Has the OP told us where this happened?