Flashing to overtake; acceptable?

Alun

Blitzkrieger wrote:

Well my copy of the Rules of the Road states that you cannot use the hard shoulder for driving at all. My copy is getting on a bit now though. Fair play if they changed it.

If I recall correctly there was a discussion on this either here or over on the now defunct Motornet forums a while ago. As far as I can remember, the consensus was that both the intention and the letter of this rule was to allow slow moving traffic that was impeding progress to pull over onto the hard shoulder, stop and then to pull back out again and continue when the backlog of cars had passed. It was not to pull over while still driving at 100 km/h to allow someone past who's just simply in a hurry.

Speaking as a "blow-in" I personally find this rather peculiar and, I think, unique Irish habit/rule an exceedingly dangerous one and try to avoid it whenever possible, both from an overtaker and from an overtakee's perspective. I only pull over when I consider the risk to myself greater from the idiot behind me than the potential risk of driving on what, in many cases, is nothing more than a tarmac'ed rubbish tip that may disappear at any moment without warning.

dudara

People often don't pay enough attention when there is a car behind them and fail to notice when they try to pass out

I think this is a general trend. I don't think those annoying drivers are aware of what they're doing. They're so miseducated and uneducated that they toodle along blissfully unaware of the danger they pose.

Driving from Waterford to Cork one Sunday, we were following a woman in a 4x$ (we only found out she was a woman afterwards). There was another car behind us as well. We came to a climbing lane, and the 4x4 took the outside lane at 50 mph. My bf was driving, so when it was obvious she wasn't pulling in he flashed her, and she pulled in just enough to let us by. She was still just over the white line in our lane. As we drove by, she pulled back out, right into the path of the car following us. There was literally inches to spare. Her driving was just downright reckless. I just think that she hadn't looked in her mirrors before pulling back out, She couldn't have missed the other car if she'd had.

Now, I don't normally flash people, so I won't argue that point, but one of my favourite peeves is misuse of climbing lanes. I think though, that calling them "Slow lanes" is mainly to blame as there is a high sector of the Irish population who don't want to drive in a lane called the "slow lane"

8bi1ctzegfouva

SouperComputer wrote:

So I did the courtious thing, whipped the handbrake! , let off a bit of smoke rather than predictable brake lights.

he dropped back then for some reason

absolute legend!

my dad did something like this a while back, we were driving along the stillorgan dualer, doing 50ish in the right hand lane. traffic in the left lane was fairly busy, so there wasn't a chance to move over. this flatbed truck with three knackers in the cab comes flying up behind us, and drives right up our arse. he just stays there about 2 feet back from the car. so my dad after a bit slams on the brakes, the brakes on the knacker wagon were ****e, so the thing skidded like mad, it even started to jacknife(not sure if that is the right word). but the pricks stayed back from then on.

edmund_f

the detective wrote:

absolute legend!

my dad did something like this a while back, we were driving along the stillorgan dualer, doing 50ish in the right hand lane. traffic in the left lane was fairly busy, so there wasn't a chance to move over. this flatbed truck with three knackers in the cab comes flying up behind us, and drives right up our arse. he just stays there about 2 feet back from the car. so my dad after a bit slams on the brakes, the brakes on the knacker wagon were ****e, so the thing skidded like mad, it even started to jacknife(not sure if that is the right word). but the pricks stayed back from then on.

well done Supercomputer and the deceives Dad.. sure your honorary Garda membership will be in the post shortly for such a suitable maneuver.

I feel so much safer driving on our roads knowing people like you are out there.

just wonder how you would explain to someone how it was worth the 5 people dying in the multiple car pileup that you (or your Dad) caused in the name of righteous

cormie

John R wrote:

Where do you get this sh!te from? I have lived in that area for over 20 years and I cannot remember ever seing ONE speed camera, never mind six at one time.

I'm not sure if the location is Glenegeary, but the place I am talking about is the stretch of road between the two round-abouts, at one round-about there is a Spar and a Dominos Pizza, at the other there is a Super-Valu and a pub. The stretch of road that leads down there has it is infact, 8 cameras, 2 at the roundabout at Super-Valu, 2 at the Dominos roundabout and 4 in between (I think) They are fixed on top of the traffic lights.

galactus

When flashed from behind, I find putting on the rear fog lamps works a treat.

Alun

cormie wrote:

I'm not sure if the location is Glenegeary, but the place I am talking about is the stretch of road between the two round-abouts, at one round-about there is a Spar and a Dominos Pizza, at the other there is a Super-Valu and a pub. The stretch of road that leads down there has it is infact, 8 cameras, 2 at the roundabout at Super-Valu, 2 at the Dominos roundabout and 4 in between (I think) They are fixed on top of the traffic lights.

If they're the little things mounted on top the traffic lights, they're not cameras but sensors to detect when cars are waiting at them in lieu of the wire loops in the road.

That section could easily be 60 km/h instead of 50km/h anyway with all those huge ugly stone walls either side. The only (legit) way across it for pedestrians is via the pedestrian crossing about half way along it anyway.

cormie

Are you sure they are not speed cameras? How do you know? I always thought they were everyone alllllways goes 50km/h (im learning) there anyway, so I'm not the only one who thought they were speed cameras :rolleyes:

Yeah, it should definitely be 60km/h there. Considering it is just up the road from it which has pedestrian crossing and driveways to houses which would have cars coming onto the road.

Alun

cormie wrote:

Are you sure they are not speed cameras? How do you know? I always thought they were everyone alllllways goes 50km/h (im learning) there anyway, so I'm not the only one who thought they were speed cameras :rolleyes:

Positive! Gatso's are much bigger, usually grey, boxes on their own very sturdy poles. Go to Google Images and type in Gatso, you'll see plenty of examples

Also, they cost several tens of thousands of euros apiece, so I seriously doubt if DLRCOCO would fork out that kind of money for just one road, do you?

irlpotato

cormie wrote:

Are you sure they are not speed cameras? How do you know? I always thought they were everyone alllllways goes 50km/h (im learning) there anyway, so I'm not the only one who thought they were speed cameras :rolleyes:

Yeah, it should definitely be 60km/h there. Considering it is just up the road from it which has pedestrian crossing and driveways to houses which would have cars coming onto the road.

i dont think theyre speed cameras, because theres a couple of spots on that road the guards like to sit in and zap people.. if there was a camera they wouldnt need to do that.

that road really annoys me. Some people bloody park on it right at the exit of the roundabout so they can run into the shops. every morning there's nearly an accident.

Steevo

First, if someone is in a hurry then it is only common courtesy to move over (if it is safe to do so) and let them pass. OK, maybe they are speeding, but as so many people here have said you are not there to police the roads (we have a new traffic corp for that !).

I drove here 15 years ago and at that time it was an unwritten rule that a slower driver on an a road would pull towards the hard shoulder to let a faster driver past. The faster car would overtake and flash their hazards to say thanks. It was polite, and it worked.

I then spent some time driving in other countries and found the same to be true there. I came back here 6 years ago to find that things have changed beyond belief. Now many drivers are just too ignorant or aggressive to simply pull over a little to let someone pass. Even worse are the overtaking lane hogs who sit in the overtaking lane on a motorway/dual carriageway oblivious to the queue of cars behind them.

I'm not excusing the tailgaters (one of my pet hates !) they are stupid and downright dangerous. But braking or pulling the handbrake is nothing short of lunacy ! To me that is even worse than the tailgating in the first place.

So, please dont focus on the rules of the road and the letter of the law, use your common sense, and try to make the roads as safe and pleasant as possible for everyone.

edmund_f

well said Steevo

Alun

Steevo wrote:

I drove here 15 years ago and at that time it was an unwritten rule that a slower driver on an a road would pull towards the hard shoulder to let a faster driver past. The faster car would overtake and flash their hazards to say thanks. It was polite, and it worked.

I continue to find it a potentially dangerous and mostly totally unnecessary manoeuvre considering the state of the hard shoulders here. There's a wealth of difference between not holding someone up who's speeding by hogging the overtaking lane on a dual carriageway, and deliberately having to execute a potentially hazardous manoeuvre to let them pass.

The other problem with unwritten rules is precisely that ... they're unwritten. How often do you see people "merging" onto dual carriageways and M-ways here by barging onto them assuming the other traffic will be "polite" enough to pull over, or worse still, brake to let them on? It's the traffic on the main road that decides whether or not it is safe to do so, not the merging traffic.

That having been said I have been known on occasion to do it, but only if I consider the guy behind to be more of a danger to me than the state of the hard shoulder would potentially be to me.

I've never seen this habit anywhere else in Europe BTW. Where did you see it done?

mackerski

Alun wrote:

I continue to find it a potentially dangerous and mostly totally unnecessary manoeuvre considering the state of the hard shoulders here.

I'd certainly never do it on a dodgy hard shoulder - some roads, though, have well-surfaced shoulders, where I would. It doesn't often happen, having said that, but I've often been on the receiving end of another driver's friendly gesture. Truck drivers can be particularly courteous this way, no matter what people tell you...

Alun wrote:

The other problem with unwritten rules is precisely that ... they're unwritten.

The thing is, this one has become a written rule. At least, written into the leaflet that is our supposedly definitive "Rules of the Road". At least nowadays we have the actual statute books on the web - when I was learning to drive, it always troubled me that we had nothing as comprehensive as, say, the UK highway code or the German StVO. Since all of the "teach youself to drive" texts of the day were UK-based anyway, I had no option but to learn the missing bits from the highway code. It's no wonder that so many of the folks that actually do have licences manage such breattaking ignorance of how to drive.

Dermot

Alun

mackerski wrote:

I'd certainly never do it on a dodgy hard shoulder - some roads, though, have well-surfaced shoulders, where I would. It doesn't often happen, having said that, but I've often been on the receiving end of another driver's friendly gesture. Truck drivers can be particularly courteous this way, no matter what people tell you...

In my experience the only cases where the hard shoulder is well surfaced and wide and isn't a mess are when the road is over-engineered and wide enough (including hard shoulder) to take 5 or more cars abreast anyway, so "normal" safe overtaking shouldn't be a problem.

I don't do it very often either since I'm nearly always either at, or slightly above the limit, but you always get one ... I have also been known to 'refuse' an overtaking opportunity offered in this way because I judged the chances of the overtakee having to swerve or otherwise take evasive action due to debris,a sudden ending of the hard shoulder, or a blind summit to be too high. I've also been on the receiving end of quite a bit of gravel and other debris being thrown up by the wheels of trucks on hard shoulders too, hence my reluctance.

The thing is, this one has become a written rule. At least, written into the leaflet that is our supposedly definitive "Rules of the Road". At least nowadays we have the actual statute books on the web - when I was learning to drive, it always troubled me that we had nothing as comprehensive as, say, the UK highway code or the German StVO. Since all of the "teach youself to drive" texts of the day were UK-based anyway, I had no option but to learn the missing bits from the highway code. It's no wonder that so many of the folks that actually do have licences manage such breathtaking ignorance of how to drive.

The UK Highway Code isn't "definitive" either, but is in most cases just a rewording of the underlying legal code for laymen, plus a liberal dose of "hints" and "good ideas" many of which are not necessarily grounded in law. I've never actually read the Rules of the Road, having passed my test in the UK, but I'm assuming it is much the same. I'd be interested to see the legal definition of the "pulling onto the hard shoulder" rule.

mackerski

Alun wrote:

The UK Highway Code isn't "definitive" either, but is in most cases just a rewording of the underlying legal code for laymen, plus a liberal dose of "hints" and "good ideas" many of which are not necessarily grounded in law. I've never actually read the Rules of the Road, having passed my test in the UK, but I'm assuming it is much the same. I'd be interested to see the legal definition of the "pulling onto the hard shoulder" rule.

The "Rules of the Road" is to the rules of the road what the Reduced Shakespeare Company's work is to the bard himself, only not as funny. I didn't call it a leaflet for nothing. I reckon the briefness of the ROTR reflects the old school of driving teaching - "get out there and give it a shot!". You wouldn't think they'd have to do much soul searching to work out why the standard of driving was so bad, would you?

Have a free read of it at your local bookstore. You can pretty much get cover to cover before the shop assistant does a "can I help you?".

Oh, and I just went searching the statute books for references to the hard shoulder stunt. It isn't there. However, my earlier points about broken versus solid lines still apply. The acts have a specific prohibition of driving on any part of a motorway not a carriageway, which technically leaves it open for us to do so on a normal road. That would be subject to the usual stuff about watching out for pedestrians and parked cars, so the only compelling reason to be driving there is to allow other folk to pass. The specific guideline in the ROTR must have been placed there by a civil servant.

Dermot

SouperComputer

edmund_f wrote:

well done Supercomputer and the deceives Dad.. sure your honorary Garda membership will be in the post shortly for such a suitable maneuver.

I feel so much safer driving on our roads knowing people like you are out there.

just wonder how you would explain to someone how it was worth the 5 people dying in the multiple car pileup that you (or your Dad) caused in the name of righteous

Its all within acceptable tolerances,

Same way a stuntmaster meticulously judges his stunts. Yet to people who do not understand the full equation think it is "crazy", "irresponsible" or impossible.

Simply applying full throttle during the applictaion of handbrake means minmal speed loss, therefore reducing the difference in speed between the vehicles. The smoke is enough to put them off.

Iits a delicate mix of judgement, experience & science.

To make a long story short, I dont just pull that handbrake for the laugh, only when it is safe to do so, and yes there are safe times, again within certain tolerances.

8bi1ctzegfouva

edmund_f wrote:

well done Supercomputer and the deceives Dad.. sure your honorary Garda membership will be in the post shortly for such a suitable maneuver.

I feel so much safer driving on our roads knowing people like you are out there.

just wonder how you would explain to someone how it was worth the 5 people dying in the multiple car pileup that you (or your Dad) caused in the name of righteous

get off your high horse. it is more likely that this guy who was tailgating us will cause an accident, rather than my dad giving him a little scare.

this guy probably drives up people's arses all time, bullying them to change lanes, while my dad gave him a scare once. the law of statistics or probability(or whatever it is) means that it is more likely for him(the knacker) to cause an accident.

BrianD3

I don't do it very often either since I'm nearly always either at, or slightly above the limit, but you always get one ... I have also been known to 'refuse' an overtaking opportunity offered in this way because I judged the chances of the overtakee having to swerve or otherwise take evasive action due to debris,a sudden ending of the hard shoulder, or a blind summit to be too high.

I do this quite often too. I'd can imagine the guy in front who has politley (but dangerously) moved into the HS to let me pass is thinking "why the hell doesn't this eejit go!"

Just imagine what would happen if a 40 ton truck moves onto the HS to let you past, you start to overtake and halfway through the maneouvre someone pulls out of a concealed entrance into the truck's path. The truck will swerve, you will collide with it, you'll lose control and over onto the wrong side of the road you go at 60+ mph where you smack head on into another 40 tonner going 50 mph in the opposite direction. :eek:

As far as pulling onto the HS myself I will do it if the HS is in good condition and I have very good visibility. But I would never do it at night. If you're behind me at night and I'm doing the legal limit then tough luck, I'm not moving over.

BrianD3

AMurphy

the detective wrote:

absolute legend!

my dad did something like this a while back, we were driving along the stillorgan dualer, doing 50ish in the right hand lane. traffic in the left lane was fairly busy, so there wasn't a chance to move over. this flatbed truck with three knackers in the cab comes flying up behind us, and drives right up our arse. ...... but the pricks stayed back from then on.

While I may have done this one or twice, it's not to be recommended. ie the idiot behind may be totally that, drunk, whatever and drive over you.
But you are correct, there are some "cowboy" truckers out there. Most are professional grade, but there's the one rotten apple that should be turned in.

Aim one of your windscreen washers high so it goes high and far behind you. Most find it irritating enough to keep away.

On a side note. some bright sparks down in LA were participating in an insurance scam. A car would get in front of a 18wheeler, some safe distance ahead. No problem there. However, suddenly a second car would jump into the open slot and at the same time the leading car would brake, resulting in the inevitalbe second car being rear-ended, but the truck. The second car invariably had 4 passengers who would all suffer greatly, until the next scam....
unfortunately one day the picked the wrong target and got squashed.

AMurphy

Alun wrote:

.....
The other problem with unwritten rules is precisely that ... they're unwritten. How often do you see people "merging" onto dual carriageways and M-ways here by barging onto them assuming the other traffic will be "polite" enough to pull over, or worse still, brake to let them on? It's the traffic on the main road that decides whether or not it is safe to do so, not the merging traffic.
.......
QUOTE]

Regarding merging onto highways.
If the cars in the slow lane were spaced sufficiently far apart, there is room for the oncoming car to merge without any sweat. however thereare two problems I have seen. Cars drive up each others sas, so there is no room for the oncoming/merging car. Now it's not as though they were trying to merge from a hidden entrance, they are not, you can see them come down the onramp from 1/2 a mile away and pre-determine where they will hit the line of traffic already on the raod. If it's you, just lift off a fraction off the accelerator and in that 1/2 mile, you have a slot big enough for an average car.

Next problem, suppose you open up a slot, some eejit either from the fast lane or jumping the line on the on-ramp will race up and occupy the slot, therby, gaining all of 10 feet, cutting off the leading cars entry and generally causing havok in the process.
Course the other other problem it the eejit that goes the opposite way and stops on the end of the on-ramp and at some point "jumps" out into an oncoming line of speeding traffic and then wonders why all the other are hooting and flashing at their very careful driving style.

As for moving over into the fast lane on approaching an on-ramp point. Excellent idea. 100 yds down the line you can get back into the slow lane again... no big deal.

As for this It's the traffic on the main road that decides whether or not it is safe to do so, not the merging traffic.
I do not agree, I think there an equal burden of responsibility on the thru traffic to accomodate the merging traffic, not to establish itself as the dictator of terms necessary to enable merging. You're falling back into this "I own the road" mode that seems to predetermine 90% of ROI driving bad habits.

Given a long line of unyielding traffic, I'll continue to drive along the shoulder (if there is one) for a while and "force" a merge if necessary.... it shouldn't be necessary. But I'm not going to stop either.

edmund_f

I am politely going to bow out of this argument.

i will stand by what i said earlier. With the accepted levels of tailgating in Ireland and then a number of people admitting standing on the brakes as being a good idea to achieve what i do not want to even contimplate. Irrespective of how it is done, or why, or when, or to who, i do not believe in my opinion that you have the brains between you to figure out that the risks you are taking, the danger to the lives of everybody, is worth you proving a point. If you are in any doubt to this fact try convincing a Garda, explain to him how you were driving along, and due to someone coming too close to your car you locked up the wheels. Do that and come back on here with their response before relpying to this message. In fact i think i will copy this thread and forward it to my local Garda station myself.
I wonder if someone on here freely admitted to attacking someone with a hammer would it be so readly accepted?

At least there is now a face to the totally wreckless driving in Ireland.

FX Meister

I think hitting the brakes is dangerous, why not just slow to a crawl instead? Same point except it's safer and lasts longer.

mackerski

AMurphy wrote:

As for moving over into the fast lane on approaching an on-ramp point. Excellent idea. 100 yds down the line you can get back into the slow lane again... no big deal.

This is sometimes reasonable behaviour, other times not. It's never technically legal, as you're not overtaking. The problem with advocating such a practice is that the roads are full of people who assume that if an idea's ever good, it's always good. And it is not reasonable for a left lane car to hop into the overtaking lane in such a way as to cause the cars already in it to brake. Remember that you always have to yield on lane change. Which brings me to...

AMurphy wrote:

As for this It's the traffic on the main road that decides whether or not it is safe to do so, not the merging traffic.
I do not agree, I think there an equal burden of responsibility on the thru traffic to accomodate the merging traffic

The law is the law in this case, even more so than with speeding. As the joining motorists change lane, they must yield. Right of way must exist, or deadlock can occur. To be overly candid about it, when two cars crash, the insurance companies have to be able to blame one of them. And it would be madness to expect mainline cars to yield at every junction, and it wouldn't achieve anything. However, it is reasonable to expect mainline cars to make space. As noted earlier, they have plenty of space to do this. This "They'll rob me space" worry puzzles me too. If the left lane is moving fast enough for you to be happy there, you shouldn't be troubled by the rate at which cars joining the motorway hop into the gaps. If things start to be too slow for you, then you can overtake. Far better, IMHO, than just hopping in the overtaking lane just in case.

Dermot

AMurphy

BrianD3 wrote:

I do this quite often too. I'd can imagine the guy in front who has politley (but dangerously) moved into the HS to let me pass is thinking "why the hell doesn't this eejit go!"

...... But I would never do it at night. If you're behind me at night and I'm doing the legal limit then tough luck, I'm not moving over.

BrianD3

If someone pulls over for me, I'll pass by. give em a wave and be on my way.
However, I do try determine that they ahve sufficient room, etc to remain there while passing them. ie If I see a bridge or "T" junction ahead. It might be safer NOT to pass right then.

however, I have seen one in particular that hogged my tail for a while. Nice powerful Audi. I pulled over a bit and they stayed right on my tail. So I said to hell with this and sped up.

On other occasions I have some trucks pull over for someone ahead of me, and unless they can also pull right across to the opposite side of the road will not pass in the space between the truck/car/whatever and the center white line.
If the opposite lane were so empty that driving in it were possible the truck need not have gone on the shoulder in the first place....

The other other problem I see here is now I have some mutt sitting between me and a chance to get by the truck and sooner or later the trucker will pull back into the lane and I'll be stuck behind both of them for the next 20 miles. Great....

BrianD3

The practice of relatively fast moving vehicles moving into the HS is a bit mad IMO and I'd prefer to see it stop - even if that meant that some journeys took longer due to not being able to overtake lorries etc.

And maybe it's my imagination, but I think the "art" of overtaking safely and decisively is lost on a lot of Irish drivers. Lots of them seem incapable of overtaking unless the guy in front pulls into the HS for them. What often happens is that they will ignore perfectly decent and clear overtaking opportunities and instead will just tailgate the guy in front till he gets pissed off and pulls into the HS. Only then will they overtake.

One cautionary tale about the HS - one day I was going at 60 mph in the daytime and pulled in to the HS let a faster car by. HS was clear for a good distance ahead, no junctions or obstructions etc. However, I had failed to spot a small concealed laneway that led up to someone's house. So there I am doing 60 in the HS and I only realise there is a lane ahead when some feckin bollox on a bicycle zooms out of it without looking and takes a right turn into the HS (i.e cycling against the traffic directly towards me) Had I been a few seconds further down the road, I would have wiped him out and as well as the trauma of killing someone, would surely have gotten most of the blame for the crash. So that's why I urge caution when it comes to the hard shoulder.

BrianD3

AMurphy

BrianD3 wrote:

.....

And maybe it's my imagination, but I think the "art" of overtaking safely and decisively is lost on a lot of Irish drivers. Lots of them seem incapable of overtaking unless the guy in front pulls into the HS for them. What often happens is that they will ignore perfectly decent and clear overtaking opportunities and instead will just tailgate the guy in front till he gets pissed off and pulls into the HS. Only then will they overtake.

.... However, I had failed to spot a small concealed laneway that led up to someone's house. So there I am doing 60 in the HS and I only realise there is a lane ahead when some feckin bollox on a bicycle zooms out of it without looking and takes a right turn into the HS (i.e cycling against the traffic directly towards me) Had I been a few seconds further down the road, I would have wiped him out and as well as the trauma of killing someone, would surely have gotten most of the blame for the crash. So that's why I urge caution when it comes to the hard shoulder.

BrianD3

I'll agree with you on both of those.
However, your second point is even more valid on those narrow 2 horse roads where there is NO HS at all.

Like you, I didn't ovetake something once, no idea why not... and was I lucky, same thing a bike can zipping out a blind lane and right into what could have been my path.

But then I did have a CoCo tractor and a "white van" commit the same error as the bike, so if parents do it with their wheels, why not children.

SouperComputer

edmund_f wrote:

I am politely going to bow out of this argument.

i will stand by what i said earlier. With the accepted levels of tailgating in Ireland and then a number of people admitting standing on the brakes as being a good idea to achieve what i do not want to even contimplate. Irrespective of how it is done, or why, or when, or to who, i do not believe in my opinion that you have the brains between you to figure out that the risks you are taking, the danger to the lives of everybody, is worth you proving a point. If you are in any doubt to this fact try convincing a Garda, explain to him how you were driving along, and due to someone coming too close to your car you locked up the wheels. Do that and come back on here with their response before relpying to this message. In fact i think i will copy this thread and forward it to my local Garda station myself.
I wonder if someone on here freely admitted to attacking someone with a hammer would it be so readly accepted?

At least there is now a face to the totally wreckless driving in Ireland.

christ you're full of $hit!

The problem is that YOU dont understand the risks, thats why you think its wreckless! You clearly have no concept of limits and tolerances.

If you feel the need to print this thread and present it at a garda station, so be it. Maybe ill keep a copy, just in case I kill five people with a 6Kph reduction in speed that caused a massive pileup. :rolleyes:

The fact that the wheels were locked in the first place means a minmal scub off of speed (the ultimate determining factor for the potential collision in this case), but you probably dont understand that.

you have the brains between you to figure out that the risks you are taking, the danger to the lives of everybody

Please elaborate on this, im VERY interested to know your experienced opinion on accident prevention, collision avoidance, situational anylasis and car control.

So far I have been clear and concise in my explantion of how this was carefully judged. Your defence/argument was a childish insult on my intelligence because you dont understand the logic behind it. Furthermore, you probably dont believe there is logic behind it!

Maybe at least consider looking into the various effects of controls at and beyond "limits" before jumping to conclusions and assuming that those who exploit them are reckless. That IS brainless!

AMurphy

mackerski wrote:

.... It's never technically legal, as you're not overtaking. .....
And it is not reasonable for a left lane car to hop into the overtaking lane in such a way as to cause the cars already in it to brake.

Not really interested in the legalities of changing lane if it makes accomodation. And I am not suggesting or implying to hop slowely into a fast moving lane so as to cause braking in the other lane. That's not to be encouraged, whether you are getting from the ramp/shoulder to the slow lane or from the slow to fast or fast to slow for that matter, .. match speeds and change. What I am suggesting is, if there is space to slip over into the other (assume empty for miles in each direction), do so.

mackerski wrote:

....

The law is the law in this case, even more so than with speeding. As the joining motorists change lane, they must yield. Right of way must exist, or deadlock can occur. To be overly candid about it, when two cars crash, the insurance companies have to be able to blame one of them.

Around here they blame both equally. Unless there is some mitigating circumstance.

mackerski wrote:

....
And it would be madness to expect mainline cars to yield at every junction, and it wouldn't achieve anything. However, it is reasonable to expect mainline cars to make space.

Agreed, OK, let's call it accomodate rather than strictly yield. Sometimes it may be better to speed up, sometimes it may be better to slacken off a notch (or change lane, if you can do neither and that's the only alternative).

Lets say you are on the mainline and a car is coming down the ramp ... unless you are blind, incapable, etc you can gauge whether the car will come behind, before or into you.... and if into you, it serves you well to do something, either speed up or slow down. Again, the car on the ramp is in full view, and again unless you are brain dead at the wheel, you can tell if they are accelerating, or at a fixed speed. If a fixed speed, you can accelerate, if the car on the ramp is accelerating, you accelerating would probably insure that you meet, so holding steady or slackening off may work best to avoid collision.

the point being, dont just sit there, blinkers on, brain in Neutral, with the idea; "I'm mainline, I got the right of way, I drive the ultimate inertia object, therefore it's up to everyone else to navigate about me, particularly if you are joining from an on-ramp or interchange slip road. And don't make me have to do anything to make your life easier as changing tack just ruins my day".

mackerski wrote:

....
Far better, IMHO, than just hopping in the overtaking lane just in case.

Dermot

I dont see it as "hopping in the fast lane jic" I see it as using the fast (other) lane to avoid any unpleasentness while merging AND at the same time not inflicting the same problem on anyone else that may happen to be using the fast lane.
So does that also mean if you have 3,4 or 5 lanes you'd stick to your bible and hog that slow lane instead of going one lane out where you are not bothered with cars slowing to get off or speeding up to get on...

Far better, IMHO, to change lanes if conditions warrant and allow, and if you were watching the ramp activity you have enough warning to determine the requirements, cruise by without causing anyone any harrassment and return to the "slow" lane when practical.
I would see it as a "Win-Win" manouver.

So now are you going to say the car (it's a Z4) leaving the onramp is now duty/legally bound not to pass or progress ahead of me (remember I'm in the fast lane) and must throttle back to match my snails (Toy Corolla) pace, wait for me to pull in ahead of them so they can then get into the passing lane....

galactus

People! People!

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Rear Fog Lamps.

Although I must admit maybe the rear windscreen washer gets the message across as well.