Safe Speed Forums

Thanks for the illuminating, if rather technical, responses. I take the general point that I should be much more circumspect about overtaking in future. I would like to add another issue for discussion, below. But first, I would like to get back to the substance of my solicitor’s complaint, which was only incidentally to do with speed differentials, braking distances and the like.

When I tell my friends about my solicitor’s views their reaction is generally on the lines of: “it doesn’t make sense”, meaning common sense. Essentially, he thinks you shouldn’t overtake if there is another car visible in the outside lane. I have heard of a Sheriff who takes the same view. I should think many overtaking manoeuvres on today’s roads are carried out with a gap of a good deal less than the 100m that I allowed. Does this mean that almost all drivers who overtake are at risk of prosecution? All a following driver would have to do is claim he was impeded, so long as he has a witness. Leaving aside drivers who have a legitimate reason for getting from A to B in good time, I would have thought that being impeded is not so much a physical reality (people are impeded in their lives all the time) but a state of mind. In the case I have related, the other driver probably felt he was being impeded and then chose, quite deliberately, to make something of it. He knew exactly what he was doing – trying to intimidate me; I very much doubt if he had to brake; he probably has tailgating down to a fine art – coasting up behind his victims until he’s half a car length away. I estimated, by the way, that he was doing 70 to 75mph on his approach.

The law might make more sense if the crime was not balking or impeding following traffic, but moving into an insufficient gap. To avoid doing this you need to accurately estimate the speed of following traffic. It is not easy to judge the speed of a vehicle in one’s mirror, particularly if it’s a long way back. And it becomes more difficult when there is a big difference in the speeds cars are travelling at – this is surely one good reason for having speed limits on motorways.

SCE is suspicious of the rest of the story. Well, he is entitled to be. If I myself had been on the Bench, I might have had trouble believing my story against the three others. I had no witnesses and no evidence that could contradict the prosecution’s claims.
As for what they got out of it, I have no idea of why anybody would go to such lengths, or how the car driver got his friends to commit perjury. There was no financial gain that I am aware of, except what they would get paid as witnesses.
They made a fool of me – some satisfaction there, I suppose. But they also made a fool of the justice system. By not doing anything to check their statements, the prosecutor has effectively allowed them to carry road rage into the courts.
As far as making a complaint to the police, my solicitor poured cold water on that idea. Since the witnesses were found to be “credible and reliable” in Court, and I myself have no witnesses, I don’t think a complaint would get very far.

Ian H wants more details of the prosecution case. The witnesses said I undertook them 3 or 4 times (they weren’t totally consistent; the car driver even said I undertook him twice in succession – a physical impossibility). The motorcyclist said the first time it happened, he had to brake and swerve “slightly”. Another such manoeuvre (see below) was supposed to have caused the car to hit the central reservation. The driver reported damage to the police, but withdrew this in Court. As you may know, such discrepancies cannot be challenged in Court.

This brings me to another issue for discussion. The car driver said I undertook him, then pulled into the outside lane in front of him, causing him the brake sharply, swerve, and hit the central reservation. Being cut up is not an uncommon occurrence, particularly for those who’ve driven in southern Europe, urban Australia or parts of the States. I do not recall ever having to brake, let alone swerve, after one of these incidents (with one exception). Maybe my reactions are a bit slow, but I should think that by the time you realise what’s happening, the other vehicle is several car lengths ahead and any evasive action is pointless. The exception was the car driver above – in the true story, he cut in front of me, then deliberately slowed down, causing me to brake, though not sharply.

Think Ian has observed and experienced the same as me - Paul. We see this all the time. Lots of people do as burnbanks did (- and we do not know the full story here - he apparently was not prosecuted for the balked overtake but for some other incident - of which we know nothing other than his statement that the other driver and some alleged acquaintances "made it up". There must have been something tangible offered as evidence to secure the conviction - and if not - he needs to explore any appeal procedures available to him.)

But - for a new driver or one inexperienced in fast dual carriageways - the faster flow of traffic can be intimidating. We really do need Pass Plus to be made compulsory or a dual carriageway/motorway drive tested as part of the L-test as they do in Germany and now France is considering introducing this.



Ah - but Paul - like us - you are a seasoned motorway driver and have all the Advanced doo-dahs framed and gathering dust on the walls.




They probably are. There are a few things people cannot handle criticism over - and one of these is driving. Perhaps it is the underlying knowledge that a mistake can be expensive in both life and monetary terms.

But - to resolve this - we have said it before ... we need to invest in better driver education - which does include a motorway drive.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

My initial reaction here is that you've listened to too many liars - on present evidence, I can't honestly make sense of it any other way.

This bit is interesting:


I don't really believe that there are 'other causes' - but I'm very prepared to listen.

Obviously there's a small minority of aggressive drivers who lend a degree of plausibility to the claims.

Obviously there are far too many tailgating drivers, but most of those are tailgating through ignorance not through aggression.

The point about the training overdraft is very well taken - I think training and especially information and management of the culture are the real ways forwards.

But the bottom line is this:

The underconfident L2 inhabitants certainly feel intimidated by other traffic around them. It's possible that they would feel less intimidated if no traffic was going faster than (say) 80mph. But getting to a point where no traffic is going faster than 80mph on the motorways is an impossible dream. I don't even believe it would improve safety if we could achieve it and I don't for a second believe it's achievable.

One day we might fit speed limiters, but if we're stupid enough to do that I'm certain that crashes will go through the roof. I can't imagine anything much more frightening than a nation of drivers with their foot on the floor trusting a satellite to adjust their speed.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

It depends upon the approach speed. He was travelling well in excess of the speed limit and you moved out into his path at the speed limit to overtake the truck.

Two wrongs do not make a right: he was breaking the law by exceeding to limit by a significant excess - but you misjudged his speed and pulled out in front when it would have been wiser to have waited until he passed and then plan your overtake.



Depends on the nature of your action. As stated - you would have been 100% liable on some of the German roads per German law - but they would have used the CCTV against the driver who tailgated you as well - and blame apportioned accordingly.



Pity there was no CCTV footage of this incident. But cannot see what advantage this driver gets from this action.



One of the reasons why Germany (lamentably) is considering a blanket 130 kph on all A/bahn - especially after the Turbo Rolf incident last year.

However, you still need to be able to judge the speed of approach inyour mirrors a little more accurately than you appeared to - and if a car does move into a space - generally they are matching the speed within the flow.


Am baffled as to why anyone would do this



Your solicitor still comes across as if he was not trying his best for you at any point in this. Perhaps he was swayed by the number of witnesses claiming you were undertaking them all. I would consider getting advice from the Law Society (or its Scotish equivalent)



Why did your solicitor not pick up on the inconsistencies: his job is to cast reasonable doubt on allegations against you. It is what he is paid to do. Did they provide photographic evidence of the car's damage to substantiate their claim that your undertaking caused them to collide with the central reserve?



perhaps - but their stats and general standards are nowhere close to ours. Even the French are placing our supposed courtesy as a role model

In this country - we do not cut people up.

But in any case - if the driver hit the central reserve - presumably he'd try to claim the repairs from your insurer? Surely you all exchanged names and addresses so that uinsurers could sort out the repairs - and in this instance - is the court case one brough by the insurance companies to ascertain the apportionment of blame?

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

It was the Sheriff who noted the inconsistecies. The witness said he was shaken and confused. Nothing further was said. When I asked my solicitor about it, he said that witnesses are allowed to make a few mistakes. The Sheriff "winnows out the chaff" and makes his decision based on the balance of ‘good’ evidence".

The Copy Complaint stated that I caused "his car to collide with the central reservation". The statement from the investigating officer merely said he looked at a scuff mark on a tyre. He took no photos or measurements. In Court, the car driver said that when he checked the tyre, "it was OK". Nothing more was said about the alleged damage.
Nobody stopped to exchange names and addresses for the simple reason that the incident did not happen!

I don't have much experience of solicitors, but I felt that most of the time this one was pretty hostile towards me. During the case he declined to say what my chances were, which I suppose is the correct, professional attitude. Afterwards, he actually said he thought I was lying.
He declined to mark an appeal, saying there were no grounds for supposing the Sheriff had done anything wrong. Evidence, (and there was no tangible evidence - only witness statements) as you know, cannot be raked over.

I don't think so Paul .

There are lane two residents who will sit in the middle lane when there's nothing else on the motorway. these are a nuisance, and an irritant but are not causing serious flow or volume problems. Their reasons for sitting in the middle lane are varied, some are plain lazy, others are tired and want to have a decent amount of road either side of them should they fall asleep ! Their presence in lane two has little to do with traffic in lane one.

The lane two hoggers I'm talking about are those who are affecting flow, sitting at 70 straddling the half mile gap between the two HGVs in lane one. They cause a bottleneck of traffic filtering past in lane three, with chav and his mates using the undertaking route . When stopped he's been sitting in lane two because he finds the regular manoeuvre into lane two causes too much grief from cars trying to maintain their speed.
'Hogger' simply pushes his rear view skywards and puts his blinkers on.

It's not them all, but a good percentage. What's your contradictory evidence?


The other major cause is the excessive speed. Why would it not be?


... and the ignorant ones are much more dangerous than the aggressive ones (if you take 'aggressive' to mean 'keen to overtake'). Paradoxically, the 'aggressive' ones are the more intimidatory.


Please! No! This concept is already on the bad policy conveyor belt . It will happen unless a lot of noise is made against it! .

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Ah! Scottish Law appears different to English Law if this is so - my evidence has to be exact as we are dealing with reputation and in some cases - liberty and livelihood.

CPS can lose a case if our evidence is not up to scratch. Sometimes I think our paperwork is really on trial and not the accused.

Your solicitor is not coming across well - if your post is a true account of this affair. Was this a duty solicitor? How did you come to appoint this particular person to represent you? I rather think I might have sought another opinion after the first inkling of hostility towards me - had I been in your unfortunate position - assuming you are telling us the whole truth, and nothing but the truth




But I have to provide endless amounts of forms and paperwork for the CPS to get a "careless/undue" etc to actually stick! Still do not get this story....sorry! You sure there is nothing else in the wood work (rubber? paint? metal?) here?




If you really believe he was not trying his best on your behalf - then perhaps you really should consider contacting the Law Society(or Scottish version) over the matter - as this is not the conduct you should expect from someone you are paying to represent your legal interests. He is supposed to be objective and the judgement on you rests with mags, sheriffs, judges and juries....per a relative of mine who happens to be a lawyer. He is not paid to judge you - but represent you in a court case and try to secure the best outcome for you. Most defences I deal with go out of their way to get the lowest prison term or fine - once the guilty verdict is returned



They can never say as they are not clairvoyant. However, I would agree that his other comment should give you food for thought.



Perhaps. It does seem from your post (assuming we have the full and true story - and I only qualify it thus as it does seem a very odd story as these accusers (from your post) do not seem to gain very much - apart from satisfying some psychological factor which I really cannot fathom at all) as if you have had rough justice and a very peculiar solicitor defending as well. Most defence lawyers I meet are usually very hostile towards cuddly ol' me - and they usually give me a hard time in court......


However," burnbanks," I am a firm believer in "what goes around comes around" - and if these individuals really did lie for some reason to "teach you a lesson", then they will get their come-uppance sooner or later.

However, you say you are a little slow to react? Is this because you are recently qualified or perhaps in your twilight years? Good practice , judgement and expertise is the result of practice, brutally honest self evaluation and self-assessment making perfect. Perhaps you should consider just booking some refresher lessons to gain a little more confidence on the fast roads. We all need to practise and refresh from time to time - and plods have the advantage in so far as we are required to undertake the odd retrain in any case. You should at least consider this to build confidence and rekindle your judgement of approaching speeds and COAST skills - and of course it will help restore your self confidence after such a traumatically negative experience - just a thought to help you.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I suspected English law was more rigorous than Scottish! Since Tayside Police were not involved, except at the reporting stage, they were not called to Court. So there was no paperwork. All evidence was oral. One witness made a precognition statement, which I was allowed to hear, but not see. The others did not cooperate when asked for statements. On the day of the trial I learned roughly what they were going to say when my solicitor showed me a transcript of a phone call he'd had from the Procurator Fiscal. It was not detailed enough to be of much value, however. In Court they mentioned things which I would have liked to have checked out beforehand. For example, a Gas Board van was alleged to have been seen broken down at the locus of the main incident. But, even if the Gas Board had told me they had no records of such a breakdown on that day, I am quite sure my solicitor would have dismissed it as irrelevant, as he did with most of the issues I raised. For example, since two of the witnesses were supposed to be independent of one another, I thought it worth asking for their phone records but he dismissed the idea, saying it was irrelevant.

My original solicitor had another appointment on the day of my trial, so he passed me on to an acquaintance. He told me, and my solicitor himself confirmed it (many times!) that he was the foremost expert in road traffic law in NE Scotland. His manner at the one interview I had with him before the trial was oppressive, to say the least. But he did sound as though he knew what he was talking about - he had been a prosescutor and he did a lot of name dropping. He knows the Lord Advocate and his fishing beat is next to Lord Marnoch's (of the Appeal Court). I gave him the benefit of the doubt, believing that he was playing devil's advocate and toughening me up for the hearing. I wasn't alone in being disparaged though - he described the Prosecutor at the trial as a Numpty because she was inexperienced and claimed he'd helped her out on points of law. But I should say that after the trial, he genuinely believed he had done well for me: he was cock-a-hoop that he had 'got me off' the original Dangerous Driving charge.

As for the truth of my tale, I can't prove a thing to anybody else's satisfaction. Roll on the day when cars need tachometers, black boxes and video cameras! I could send you a transcript of the trial if you like. But, since Scottish Summary Courts do not make any records of the proceedings, it is my own transcript and therefore open to a charge of bias! I must say I have moments when I doubt myself, wondering if I wasn't fast asleep when the alleged incidents occurred. The memory can also play odd tricks, especially on events that took place 6 months ago. Fortunately, there are some memorable things about the incidents which bring me back to what really happened. One such was when the motorcyclist, who had been a background observer, passed me shortly after the car driver had pulled sharply in front of me. He twisted right round in the saddle to look at me and pointed at the driver. Later, I thought he might be saying 'that's a copper you've just cut up'. It transpired in Court that the driver is not a policeman; but he did use the phonetic alphabet to give my registration number. When asked about this, he said he was a radio amateur, but I do wonder if he might be an ex-copper who has intimate knowledge of the criminal justice system.

As far as my driving skills are concerned, I would never say I was a good driver. But I don't think I'm particularly bad. In this regard my solicitor was fond of applying psychological techniques to elicit a confession: he would say, "We all drive dangerously. I drive dangerously. The Lord Advocate, Lord so and so and Sheriff such and such all have convictions for Careless Driving." I didn't take the bait.
I haven't been an aggressive driver since my twenties and my friends would say being driven by me is quite relaxing. I agree about taking refresher lessons - I work offshore and we all have to take survival refreshers every 4 years. I don't know about twilight years! I've been driving since 1967, with no accidents. I've had 2 speeding tickets, the last being in 1992. Incidentally, when I told my solicitor this, he said, "that might be construed as a propensity to speed". I said it might be construed that I have learned my lesson!

I did wonder whether or not the original charge was "Dangerous Driving" given the description you gave.

Very difficult to secure conviction - which is why CPS will usually go for the lesser charge to get a result - apparently what occurred in your case. I have spelled out the differences between dangerous/careless/ undue care on this forum in the past... but since you are new...

The test to decide if the driving fell below the required standard must always be objective. - and it focuses on the manner of driving and not the driver's state of mind - and what would be obvious to a hypothetical careful and competent motorist. There is no specific requirement to prove intent to drive dangerously - but the jury (in this case Sheriff) to decide what constituted the dangerous driving.

This does apply to some extent to the "careless" charge: once you have proved - objectively - that the defendant departed from the required standard - then the offence is complete: there is no need to prove the defendant was aware that the driving fell below that standard.

Howver, this is a matter for the court to decide - and in so deciding - magistrates normally take into account local factors, time of day, prevalent weather and traffic conditions, peculiar hazards.. etc. There is also an overlap between criminal and civil law in - and the burden of proof in a civil case is not as rigorous as that in a criminal case.

However in cases I have been involved in... if a witness reports a driver of a vehicle of having committed a driving offence - then it is critical they provide direct evidence of what they actually saw. It would not be enough to provide evidence from the police to show they had received details of the vehicle which they subsequently traced back to you. Both driver and vehicle must be linked by admissible and relevant evidence - in this case - appears to be affidavits stating the other road users were inconvenienced by your driving - and a scuffed tyre. Another example could be a person splashed - deliberately - by a puddle. (Lancs plod brought such a charge against a motorist last year when he splashed a policeman on duty! - He was acquitted as he could not have avoided said puddle apparently... )

Breaching certain road traffic regulations will always potentially provide evidence of careless driving - but are not always conclusive in themselves - even colliding with another vehicle has been held by a court to be insufficient evidence! (OK - so it was a police car..... not one of ours - was a case in Manchester a few years ago). The onus of proof really depends on what a normal competetent driver should reasonably have anticipated at the time - this is why even our audible and visual warning lights do not necessarily absolve us if we hit something at traffic lights and crossings. - if it is reasonably foreseeable that something may move into our path - for example at red traffic lights - where we are required to stop, and proceed only if safe to do so (ie - if Joe Public stops to let us through! )



b-b-black boxes? Some of us have them in the plod cars these days - they log the car's engine and mechanics. Fortunately, it does not record conversations....

Unfortunately - have video recorders which do .. but not in my own private car. Would not like anyone to eavesdrop on the sweet nothings I say to my wife when we are travelling... and as for our kids..




Perhaps he was trying to reassure you by pointing out that you are not alone in this. If you like - I drive fairly dangerously when involved in training the lads... They have to chase and apprehend me.....sometimes. My mate Will on here disapproves of this training technique - I find it "challenging." They always "arrest" me for it too.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Perhaps someone ought to expalin to them how satellite navigation actually works - very slight time lag as target moves between the grids and the little factor that the satellit can lose them in poor weather, interference, hills, tunnels, and beneath long bridges.....

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Stuff that! Let's explain to them how driving actually works...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Lets put this into olde fashioned worlds words - "Any manouvere that causes a vehicle to brake/change impetus/lane is a poor one. " - In other words - i pull out to overtake a vehicle - i do so without causing the vehicle in the outer lane to slow down, or the vehicle in the outer lane has seen my intention and has signalled that it will allow me to do so.I pull out at a road junction - i do so without causing any vehicle near that junction to slow down/change direction , UNLESS the vehicle signals that it will allow that move.
There is also a requirement that in the case of a vehicle being first behind a slow moving vehicle that this vehicle is given the first oppertunity of passing that vehicle.
Old fashioned, but a practical solution to driving

Whats known as COURTESY ON THE ROADS



Courtesy means that we drive for each other , we respect others speeds and ideas, WE abolish QUEUES giving way, not pushing in.
Add another c to COAST
[/b]ALMOST 40 years on i still apply the same principles - i dont get flashed by trucks,( unless to pass) i dont get BMWs up my ar**e , (wel not often, most BMWS CANT LIVE WITH ME IN A NORMAL CAR) i do get trucks giving me a thumbs up as i pass them , i don't get blue lights bothering me - i still drive at speeds comensurate with the conditions , possibly even higher , i learned on roads about 12 in wider than my car and learned how to control my car, i learned about negative cornering( make the rear end go into the oposite direction puting negative spin on the car), and other things they dont teach you at cop motoring school.
I can drive in nasty conditions - ask IG how many cars got from Newcastle to Edinburgh in the snows of 1978- i was one , by desperation and skill.

That is all well and good in theory but what happens when the first person, or the first 10 people, after the slow moving vehicle are all too timid to pass.

I have been know to pass a line of 15 cars in a single manoeuvre because the 13 in front of me simply refused to pass and were bunched together at less than 1 second intervals.

I can tell you that this was a scary move but after following the queue for miles the only other alternative was to stop and wait for 10 minutes or so to let them get ahead.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

yep - usual phrase - dont wait - IS THIS WHAT MODERN MOTORING IS ABOUT


No patience - p** on the person who doesent seem to want to take chances ( he/she might have a loved one on board who is nervous)

I GOT SIMPLE ADVICE ON MOTORING FROM MY FATHER - HE'D DRIVEN FOR 70 YEARS WITHOUT AN ACCIDENT, -BE A LIVE COWARD, NOT A DEAD HERO

M3RBMW - PLEASE TAKE IT - IT MIGHT JUST SAVE YOUR LIFE

Accelerating all the way past 15 is bloody dangerous or at least it is if you haven't got 15 feet of lateral separation. (Not that you did say you accelerated all the way). The real problem is the speed differential and the effect on you if one of the lemmings pulls out to make his own overtake when you're close.

But there's another way to make the move that isn't scary or dangerous.

If you treat each overtake individually accelerating past each one and slowing alongside each gap (half second gap at 40mph = 29 feet; plenty of room in an emergency). You don't need to pull into the gaps - you just need to be able to. Some time 2 or 3 will be too close with no possible return gap and overtaking 2 or 3 can be quite safe.

But if you're not going so fast it isn't scary and the small gaps are a tolerable size. You're far less vulnerable to one of them pulling out because you can take your time to ensure that each one is 'stable' and has seen you. If one does pull out, even after that, you have a fighting chance of braking in time because you don't have that much speed to lose. And finally if something does appear oncoming you're ready to slid back onto your own side of the road.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I'm not a "hero" but I do have a very powerful car and can pass quickly.

I have NEVER had an accident which was my fault and the only accidents I have had were at very low speed and were caused by the other driver.

I may not have been driving for 70 years but I have been driving for over 30 years and I consider my driving skills to be excellent. I have done extensive training in all aspects of high performance driving and have spent many hours driving on racetracks, closed roads and mountainous public roads.

Doing that very l o n g passing manoeuvre was scary because of the amount of time on the wrong side of the road, not because of the speed differential. I made sure that I could see each driver in their mirror as I approached and kept as far to the right as possible.

Patience is a good thing but after being stuck behind traffic doing 10mph below the speed limit for 10-15 minutes is enough to test any driver who likes to travel at or above the limit.

I am in no way attempting to be derogative towards the other drivers. They were happy at that speed and that is their right. I was merely pointing out that when you have that many in a row it makes it very hard to get past.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

and of course i think i'm a flawless driver too

I’m far from flawless. I make mistakes, but fortunately I have not made one yet that has resulted in a crash.

I'm afraid that when hit with the sort of response I got from botach I react a little aggressively. Fortunately I manage to keep the aggression off the road for the most part.

BTW, is your avatar you or just a nice photo? If it is you I envy you a little because driving on snow is something I have never had the chance to do and it really looks like fun.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

M3RBMW - i think i must apologise - when i hear of anyone ovetrtaking a line of 10 cars i remember an accident in which some friends died - red mist syndrom im afraid - the idiots who bumper kiss and prevent overtaking per car should be treated to labotomy. your lucky-you drive a powerful car, mine is a 1.6 bog standard, with built in curse plates for these idiots.Secondly you drive on long straight (WE aretold) roads.
Sorry , but when hit by someone saying (even with regret) that they passed a line of 10 cars , my hackles rise up.
My record by the way - i gave up counting at 1M miles, some years ago,getting on for 40 years driving now. My NCD = 75% ,cars - from reliant robins( 3 wheels & good fun, specially in windy conditions ) to sporty saloons/ 4x4 . Have driven in UK and in all weathers in parts of Africa ( 4x4 means you know when to say no).No , i'm not one of the old fogies club - i curse them - i drive to the limit ( and to a safe speed if given the chance). At work i drive big vans.
As for snow - you should try it and ice - sorts the boys from the men, not even driving a 4x4 in sand compares.
So if my hackles rising hit a sore spot with you - i apologose again,those friends got torched when a car behind rammed them when the driver tried to take avoiding action for a driver overtaking a line of cars from the other direction

botach My C stands for "Courtesy, Consideration, as well as concentration!" and my A stands for "Anticipation and Attititude"

So should be C-C-COA-AST - but it spoils me "poem!"

As for a long overtake...do it all the time on a motorway!

Think Ross is in a different situation than we are - probably lots of nice wide long straight A roads - could make this kind of overtake just about feasible - but would still treat each car individually as Paul suggests - which is what we basically do when overtaking a long line when on a shout - and we do have all warning doo-dahs as well.



Defective cars and people who knowingly drive whilst unfit have simialr effects on every member of this family. One of them (Wildy - who was the victim) has given on-line maulings to people who appear in favour of legalising hard drugs, using "Handy" phones and and so on.

Er - some of you have "met" her on PH - and the cyclists encountered her big sister for a while as well. Both are complete nutters!





Certainly did just that around here end February/early March...

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.