Undertaking MLOCers - pet hate
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Nkosi (ama-ecosse) on 10 Aug 2010 08:05 On 10 Aug, 12:34, Ian Dalziel <iandalzi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 Aug, 09:29, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:12:40 +0100, Ian Dalziel wrote: > > > or have > > > another go at understanding the thread. > > > stop being a prat. > > I have no answer to such incisive, devastating logic. It should be expected if they are hogging the outside lane of a dual carraigeway or a motorway and are refusing to move over to an inner lane (when the road ahead is clear in both lanes) through sheer stubbornness when a vehicle has come up behind you and is obviously driving quicker. It is inconsiderate to say the very least. The highway code says allow faster vehicles to overtake and judging by the opinions on here (and that is just what they are), then it is illegal not to move over. You are driving without due care and attention if you are not observing your rear view mirrors for traffic approaching from the rear, if you have noticed them, and don't move over then it can be argued that you are driving dangerously because you are instituting a scenario where a problem could occur because of your driving, you are therefore guilty of the higher charge of Dangerous Driving by failing to move over to the inner lane when it is clear to do so. I say Dangerous because I am not sure if there is such a charge as negligent driving where you put people at risk unwittingly as opposed to dangerous where people are put at risk because you just don't care. Now for the fuckwit in the Bannerman white van on the M9 this morning, my MGF will always be faster than your transit van. If you had moved over when you should have I would not have had to move into the inner lane to pass you, the inner lane coincedently where I could stay for the next 3 miles of clear motorway. That would mean you would not have gone red in the face, pumped up your blood pressure and nearly broken you indivcator and full beam switch stalk they way you must have as witnessed by the way in which you flashed your lights at me.
From: Nkosi (ama-ecosse) on 10 Aug 2010 08:08 On 9 Aug, 16:43, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:18:33 +0000 (UTC), boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: > > So why > > do they feel that undertaking is dangerous? > > because its unexpected. > -- > Mike > Gone Beyond the Ultimate Driving Machine It should be expected if you are hogging the outside lane of a dual carraigeway or a motorway and are refusing to move over to an inner lane (when the road ahead is clear in both lanes) through sheer stubbornness when a vehicle has come up behind you and is obviously driving quicker. It is inconsiderate to say the very least. The highway code says allow faster vehicles to overtake and judging by the opinions on here (and that is just what they are), then it is illegal not to move over. You are driving without due care and attention if you are not observing your rear view mirrors for traffic approaching from the rear, if you have noticed them, and don't move over then it can be argued that you are driving dangerously because you are instituting a scenario where a problem could occur because of your driving, you are therefore guilty of the higher charge of Dangerous Driving by failing to move over to the inner lane when it is clear to do so. I say Dangerous because I am not sure if there is such a charge as negligent driving where you put people at risk unwittingly as opposed to dangerous where people are put at risk because you just don't care. Now for the fuckwit in the Bannerman white van on the M9 this morning, my MGF will always be faster than your transit van. If you had moved over when you should have I would not have had to move into the inner lane to pass you, the inner lane coincedently where I could stay for the next 3 miles of clear motorway. That would mean you would not have gone red in the face, pumped up your blood pressure and nearly broken you indivcator and full beam switch stalk they way you must have as witnessed by the way in which you flashed your lights at me.
From: Nkosi (ama-ecosse) on 10 Aug 2010 08:11 On 9 Aug, 17:10, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > <boltar2...(a)boltar.world> wrote in message > > news:i3p8bh$3fq$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:43:40 +0100 > > Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >>On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:18:33 +0000 (UTC), boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: > > >>> So why > >>> do they feel that undertaking is dangerous? > > >>because its unexpected. > > > So is someone pulling out of a side road but that doesn't inherently make > > it dangerous. > > Pulling out of a side-road is normal behaviour and taught to every driver - > this is something to anticipate and expect. Undertaking is the opposite on > all counts (in the UK), making it dangerous (just playing devils advocate). They are not taught to pull out from a side road as indicated in the highway code i.e. wait for gap in the traffic where you can enter safely and accelerate to the roadspeed of the other vehicle(s) without causing them to slow down. In fact they seem to have been taught the exact opposite. Nkosi
From: Nkosi (ama-ecosse) on 10 Aug 2010 08:14 On 10 Aug, 12:37, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:03:34 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >> just stop wasting everybody's time with a load of pedantic bolox. > > > The word is "bollox". > > if you want to be pedantic it's "bollocks". Nothing changes the simple fact > that if you are being followed by a traffic police car driving down the > road and you overtake the car in front (or try!) on the left outside of the > accepted exceptions, they will nick you. That's all that matters. > -- > Mike > Gone Beyond the Ultimate Driving Machine And if you are driving in the outside lane and they come up behind you they will nick you for that as well, therefore they should also nick the car in front in the original post. Nkosi
From: Brimstone on 10 Aug 2010 10:21
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1ejusacpl0pp3$.11jyfvb9rlyjz.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:03:34 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >>> just stop wasting everybody's time with a load of pedantic bolox. >>> >> The word is "bollox". > > if you want to be pedantic it's "bollocks". If I wanted to be pedantic I'd have spelt it that way. > Nothing changes the simple fact > that if you are being followed by a traffic police car driving down the > road and you overtake the car in front (or try!) on the left outside of > the > accepted exceptions, they will nick you. That's all that matters. > I agree they may well stop you for a chat. As for nicking you, it probably depends. |