Courtesy too far.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Green MP
Next: Motoring policy
From: Clive George on 10 May 2010 21:06 On 11/05/2010 00:53, Mortimer wrote: > "Clive George" <clive(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message > news:H8adnWmP5qp7CHXWnZ2dnUVZ7vGdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... >> On 11/05/2010 00:07, Mortimer wrote: >> >>> I'd seen two white transit vans, one UK reg and one Dublin reg, >>> travelling together and playing leapfrog as I was travelling south on >>> the A1. At one point as I overtook them in Lane 2, they both pulled out >>> from Lane 1 to Lane 3 immediately I'd gone past, passing *very* close >>> behind me. So I was aware that they were playing silly buggers. >> >> And I'm guessing they wanted you to move to L3 to allow them to do >> their stuff while you passed. > > No doubt. But why should I leave an empty lane between me and the > vehicles that I'm overtaking. There may even have been faster traffic > overtaking me in L3, I can't remember. Depends on what the vehicles are doing in the other lane, but if you see a vehicle in L1 who wants to overtake, sticking in L2 can be unhelpful. >> I'd have probably just tickled the accelerator a bit more so he'd not >> have caught up. 80 isn't really that fast on 3 lane DC. >> >> "abort your acceleration" - 50-70 doesn't take that long... > > In the time that I did 50-60, Chummy had moved into L3, still travelling > at 50. As I carried on accelerating, I could see him retreating from me, > but in L3. Should I stop accelerating and maybe brake to let him past or > should I carry on accelerating and let him say "oh well, worth a try" > and move back into L2 behind me? The answer to that one is obvious : carry on accelerating as normal. > I chose the latter. Had he been a > powerful car which was gaining on me, I might have stopped accelerating > to make it easier for him to get past me, and then resumed after he'd > got past and was disappearing into the distance. On a 3 lane DC? I'd not have stopped accelerating for that. There's space - let them sort themselves out.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 11 May 2010 02:24 On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q" <manatbandq(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >You said "several cars behind her had to brake rather sharply". That >implies they were to close in the first place. if the lead car braked sharply and then the following cars did the same and stopped, doesn't sound like it. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 11 May 2010 02:25 On Mon, 10 May 2010 18:01:15 +0100, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1byt(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >You should always leave an adequate gap ahead of you. If none of the >drivers do and the one at the front stop sharply, you get sharp braking >throughout the line of vehicles. If just one leaves a sensible gap he >and those behind him can brake much more gently. you are going to have to leave a lot of space in a lot of queues to allow following cars to brake gently when the lead car makes "a near emergency stop". -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 11 May 2010 02:28 On Mon, 10 May 2010 15:50:21 +0100, Mike Barnes <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >>A variation on that is that the car in front is slowing down to turn >>right, and actually stops to let somebody else turn right from the side >>street. > >In NZ, that's the *law*. It seems to work quite well. good for them. Much more sensible. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 11 May 2010 02:31
On Mon, 10 May 2010 17:22:45 +0100, "Zimmy" <z(a)y.x> wrote: >Where does it say main road users should give way to traffic coming from >side roads even though they have the give way lines painted across them? nobody suggested it should say that. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine. |