Safe Speed Forums

If I read you right then you appear to suggest that if we just continuously defer to the pushiest drivers on the roads then we effectively re-inforce the idea in their (and others) minds that they will gain right of way simply by 'upping the safety ante'.
It is a fair point (if thats the one you are making) and the safe shouldn't have to defer to the arrogant, but I know that personally I am always on the lookout for instances where my right of way may be overidden by a pushier driver so that I can just let them get on with it. I guess its just another symptom of the 'me first' society and the lack of any realistic enforcement

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Yeah. I think so too.

There's the argument regarding legal priority. In the 'simple' circumstances this is well defined, but there are all sorts of shades of grey.

- What if the obstruction is long or even indefinite? This is the case on many residential roads where the habit is to park on one side only. One might pull out to pass the parked cars half a mile before anyone oncoming can be seen.

- What if the width of the road is such that one driver thinks there's still room to pass the oncomer alongside the obstruction but the other driver does not?

- What if the vehicle pulling out judges (correctly or incorrectly) that he can go through first?

- What if the vehicle pulling out correctly judges that he has time to pass, but then is forced to travel much more slowly for some other reason? (Pedestrians?)

- What if the road is single track?

- What is there are white lines or no white lines?

- What if both sides of the road have obstructions (a 'slalom')? How does that affect the priority of the drivers arriving both at the same time in identical circumstances?

Given the dodgy definitions that will apply in many cases as above we also need to consider good driving practice.

- Good practice requires co-operation. I'd be very happy to give way, even in a case where I might have legal priority if I judged that it would be more efficient to do so.

- Good practice puts safety first. That means allowing as far as possible for errors and misjudgements made by others.

- Good practice means NOT depending on right of way for safety. If someone pulls out on me, I'll make it safe as soon as possible by stopping if necessary.

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

Maybe - or maybe they just misjudged things? It is easy to make a mistake. Once made, there may or may not be a way to correct without others' co-operation. Withholding the co-operation is IMHO as bad as, or arguably worse, than the original "offence".

That is a nice way of putting it.

I am not a policeman but I can (within reason) manage my own safety and stay within the law. I draw the line quite a long time before those doing 70 in the outside lane of a motorway and holding up 'speeding' drivers though! (But I might take a little longer to move over for the Mr BMW_up_my_chuff at 80.....)

Back to the OP. "The other driver is claiming that this is my fault (or partly so) because they had started the overtaking manoeuvre of the stationary vehicle) and I should have waited!"

Was that a misjudgement and an excuse after the event? I don't think so and it doesn't matter anyway. They are responsible, whether they understand the Highway Code rules or not, for what they did.

Yes, that's a good point. If it results in a crash I'd go for 'worse' every time. In fact participating in a crash that you could have easily avoided is surely careless driving? (Morally: every time. Legally: frequently.)

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

I think we need to look at the original post. It dosent seem to run quite to script.


The worst you can do is adopt the "I'm in the right so I'll teach him a lesson" attitude - that makes YOU guilty of dangerous driving, because you PLAN your action, where as the other driver might simply have miscalculated.
The BEST you can do is adopt the DEFENSIVE driving strategy - drive to allow for others mistakes, whether it be unnecessary braking, not indicating, or overtaking with insufficient distance and you having to drop back to allow the overtaking vehicle into a line of traffic.

It boils down to [eventually] relying on better driver training and assessment, and having the right number of traffic officers to SEE that those who slip the net are stopped and admonished, since it would be dangerous for us motorists to try and influence their driving on the road.
Unfortunately as far as I can see, it just aint happening.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Don't be silly. I use my indicators and brake lights in an attempt to influence others driving all the time.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Of course one inflences driving in a micro-way. We all tend to control situations - influencing decisions of others - with many things. What was meant is that we should not try and mend drivers' ways with our action.

That is not being in the slightest bit obtuse, '...not try and mend drivers' ways' was not what was written and I do attempt to influence others driving.

For instance - by using signals.

A bit more clarity of thought before posting would help a lot of people on here.

Without casting aspersions on either party in the original incident, my uncle taught me a little rhyme when I learned to sail - it works for driving too...

Here lies the body of Mike O'Day
Who died defending his right of way
He was right - quite right - as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong!

I wonder how much can also be attributed to LA's as well, for deliberately artificially congesting roads, that in turn, help to create 'a lot of impatient, ignorant jerks'...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Well it certainly does not follow:
I use my indicators and brake lights in an attempt to influence others driving all the time
is not nearly the same as:
"I'm in the right so I'll teach him a lesson" attitude
The former informs and/or requests; the latter forces - big difference!

That is one thought on the matter,which I agree with. Very close to me is a DSA office, so the roads round here are littered with learners. What I do notice is a lot of them pulling out to pass an obstruction on their side creating a situation where the oncoming vehicle( IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAP) has to take evasive action. Is there something in driver training nowadays where on a driving test the candidate gets marked down for exercising courtesy

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Are you are presuming that these learners pass their tests after doing this?

If the other driver had entered the restricted section of road while you had time to safely stop then that is what you should have done.

There is no "my side" of the road. Where the road is narrowed by an obstruction such as a parked vehicle then you should treat it as a single track road.

Vehicles entering a restriction caused by parked vehicles should give way to those already within the restriction. In the event of 2 vehicles arriving simultaneously then the one travelling on the side with the parked vehicle should give way.



before passing

And as you are so fond of quoting the Highway Code...



That's a MUST NOT





galanidt: If you get off with 50/50 then consider yourself lucky, you could have done everything to avoid this accident, if you can call it an accident.

I'm not sure. If you are passing a line of parked vehicles you still don't have a right to force the oncoming vehicle out of the way- which is how I have interpreted the OP's "The other driver is claiming that this is my fault because they had started the overtaking manoeuvre .... and I should have waited! (Apart from the fact that this isn't true!)"

I'm fond of all road users following the only instructions we have. I have very little time for those that think thy know better...... whatever they are driving or riding!

For sure! But this should be taken as read by all drivers. If (as I read it) the oncoming driver did push into the path of galanidt and then clam that galanidt should have given way they are not understanding the 'consideration' part at all are they?

One thing that has not been mentioned is road positioning. If I believe I cannot pass the oncomming vehicle I choose a center of the tarmac position. rather than a left hand position.
I use road position to influence other drivers. If I am tight time scales I might claim the centre line a bit earlier to indicate my intention to go through without stopping. I see this as a sort of negotiation for the space. but it is an ongoing negotiation, If the other driver appears more determined than me then I would do some hard braking, eitherto pull in or in the worst senario in the center of the road. I would not try to scrape through. Also as I have driven larger vehicls I take responsibillity to decide if the two can pass at the same time. If I don't think they can pass I take the center of the tarmac as a non verbal communication.

In the original situation both drivers must have decided they could pass initially.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Well, the 3rd party has finally accepted 100% liability. It would have taken very little time except my insurance company basically did nothing at all for most of the time!

Judging by the increasing numbers of drivers doing this -yes.

- Another thing I now tend to do ,as I have found that more and more, removing the option removes any chance of a misunderstanding . If someone decides to force a way through ,then I'll pull right over and stop.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on