Murder. Not Dangerous Driving. Not reckless driving etc etc . Murder.

I find a blast of screenwasher usually makes tailgaters drop back.

Thank you Tony, that's by far the best solution I've heard.   

Yep that's the new approach to this problem.

Sorry it took this long to reply, language 'ran out' yesterday.  I was struggling to read never mind typing.

Saw a funny bumper sticker on a slow-poke recently....

"Do You Follow Jesus This Close?"

That certainly made me back-off.

Huge posted:

Thank you Tony, that's by far the best solution I've heard.   

Yep that's the new approach to this problem.

Yes. Because inciting road rage is always good.

Bananahead posted:

Huge posted:

Thank you Tony, that's by far the best solution I've heard.   

Yep that's the new approach to this problem.

Yes. Because inciting road rage is always good.

If you think that dangerous tailgating is acceptable and washing your windscreen isn't... ?

Huge posted:

Bananahead posted:

Huge posted:

Thank you Tony, that's by far the best solution I've heard.   

Yep that's the new approach to this problem.

Yes. Because inciting road rage is always good.

If you think that dangerous tailgating is acceptable and washing your windscreen isn't... ?

I like Tony's idea, but let's be clear...........it's got nothing to do with cleaning windows, and most certainly could be unnecessarily disasterous for the idiot behind, and lots of innocent people behind him.

Don Atkinson posted:

I like Tony's idea, but let's be clear...........it's got nothing to do with cleaning windows, and most certainly could be unnecessarily disasterous for the idiot behind, and lots of innocent people behind him.

I think it's considerably less dangerous than continuing the tailgating at high speed, it's only water (+detergent and antifreeze), not ink!

Can't say I've ever incited road rage - there's nothing agressive about cleaning one's windscreen. The car behind will just drop back a bit.

I learned this little trick when I was a passenger in a car being driven by a lady who for some reason thought it necessary to drive really close to the ar in front, not to try and force it to move over, and I spent most of the journey with my right foot buried hard into the footwell. After the driver in front had squished her a couple of times, she asked me why he was doing it, giving me the opportunity to quietly suggest she was driving a smidgeon too close. She was quite surprised at this & duly dropped back.

Death by dangerous driving.

A man who crshed into another car and killied the lady driver, whilst he was driving on the wrong side of the road, at 95mph in a 30mph zone, whilst almost twice the blood alcohol limit, has been convicted of Death by Dangerous Driving and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

He also left the scene to hide the fact that he had been drinking.

Huge posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I like Tony's idea, but let's be clear...........it's got nothing to do with cleaning windows, and most certainly could be unnecessarily disasterous for the idiot behind, and lots of innocent people behind him.

I think it's considerably less dangerous than continuing the tailgating at high speed, it's only water (+detergent and antifreeze), not ink!

Why not adopt my first recommendation, then you won't have to use Tony's.......

1  Is there a reason I should have to slow to 56 behind the lorries, rather than them slowing to a legal speed (which they are in the wrong for exceeding in the first place!).  Perhaps you are thinking that I should drive to the same standard as they are?  Do you think I should be tailgating the lorries?  Perhaps you think lorry drivers should never use the middle lane to overtake, in case they impede someone else?  The same principle applies.

2  They will have to wait less time for me at 70 than I would have to wait for the lorries at 56, so they are being impeded less than you think that I should accept (even though my action is legal and theirs isn't).

Your logic would only hold water if you consider me responsible for their choice to break the law.

There's a (partial) technical solution to this tailgating issue that occurs to me. Cars could be configured with a rearward facing proximity detector (many new cars already have these as parking assist devices). If a car came within a certain distance, the brake lights of the car in front would automatically be illuminated, thus encouraging the following car to drop back. The trigger distance would have to automatically adjust for speed, but that would be trivial.

Winky,

That's a good idea, may I suggest a small modification...

Have the high level brake light flash at about 1Hz 50% m/s ratio (slow enough not to induce photosensitive epileptic attack in people with controlled epilepsy).  This will distinguish it from actual braking and reduce the tendency to a sustained panic reaction, but still inform the tailgater that not only are they too close but acting illegally.

If they still don't back off, the driver of the front vehicle can still use their brake lights for a longer period, thus showing intent.

Huge posted:

Have the high level brake light flash at about 1Hz 50% m/s ratio (slow enough not to induce photosensitive epileptic attack in people with controlled epilepsy).  

Changing the subject somewhat, but I never understand why there is not more carnage on the motorways whenever an emergency vehicles passes, as they seem to have more high intensity flashing lamps than the Blackpool Illuminations, and I would have though these would be highly toxic to someone with photosensitive epilepsy ... especially at night.

Huge posted:

1  Is there a reason I should have to slow to 56 behind the lorries, Yes, overall it's safer  rather than them slowing to a legal speed (which they are in the wrong for exceeding in the first place!).  Perhaps you are thinking that I should drive to the same standard as they are? No, not at all  Do you think I should be tailgating the lorries?  Absolutely not. Perhaps you think lorry drivers should never use the middle lane to overtake, in case they impede someone else? No. But I do consider they should be more aware of the situation they sometimes create when overtaking at 0.5mph faster than the lorry they are trying to overtake - and not overtake The same principle applies.

2  They will have to wait less time for me at 70 than I would have to wait for the lorries at 56, so they are being impeded less than you think that I should acceptYes, but you claim to be a responsible motorist and a little self-sacrifice would avoid a potentially dangerous situation developing (even though my action is legal and theirs isn't).

Your logic would only hold water if you consider me responsible for their choice to break the law. Not at all. I'm simply looking at how responsible drivers can avoid creating unnecessary dangerous situations.

If you've got epilepsy you're not permitted to drive.

Ok, that explains that then... 

Wow, interesting debate, folks.  I'd like to state at this point that I am the best driver in the world.  Yet weirdly, so is everyone else.  I made a misjudgment once though, and as a result smashed a Peugeot 205 into a tree head-on at about 45mph.  Doesn't sound very fast does it?  Despite this 'low' speed, and bearing in mind only the front of the car made contact with the tree, every panel on the car was mangled, and the roof looked like this 'V'.  

Point is, every day I see people driving at sensible speeds, and at the same time endangering the lives of others with insane acts of impatience, and general incompetence.  Driving slowly will not save you, learning how to drive might.

Songstream, you were very lucky.

About 35 years ago I was driving along the A4 to the airport early on a Sunday morning in January. Coming towards me were two or three cars. It was cold with a very heavy frost but no obvious ice. The speed limit is 60mph.

I was doing about 30, possibly 40 mph and the oncoming cars all said they were doing about 30 and I reckoned that was about right. The lead car left the road and hit a small cherry tree.

I nearly didn't bother to stop. Well, the driver would obviously be feeling a right pratt wouldn't he ! Any way I did stop and so do one of the following cars.

The driver wasn't wearing a seat belt and he died of his injuries about 5 or 10 minutes later, before the ambulance or police arrived.

His father, who had been a passenger in the front, had gone through the windscreen and rolled down the embankment. He survived with a broken collar bone and ribs.

At the Coroner's Inquest I learned he had left a wife and two children aged about 4 and two. My eldest two are now 39 and 36. I think about him and his family every time I pass that spot.

I understand.  And whenever I have cycled passed the tree that featured in my own story, I stop.  Even now, 19 years later.  I was lucky, my brother in the passenger seat was lucky.  However, had there been someone standing in front of that tree, I'd be a murderer.  Makes you think.

SongStream posted:

I understand.  And whenever I have cycled passed the tree that featured in my own story, I stop.  Even now, 19 years later.  I was lucky, my brother in the passenger seat was lucky.  However, had there been someone standing in front of that tree, I'd be a murderer.  Makes you think.

No. You wouldn't. Involuntary manslaughter perhaps. Or some such charge. Winky might agree with you, but as my opening post sets out, murder is deliberate.

None-the-less, a sobering and no doubt very frightening experience with lasting memories. Sounds to me as if you have learned a lot from that day and are a better person because of it. I'm not suggesting making mistakes is the best way to learn. but.......

Don Atkinson posted:

Huge posted:

1  Is there a reason I should have to slow to 56 behind the lorries, Yes, overall it's safer  rather than them slowing to a legal speed (which they are in the wrong for exceeding in the first place!).  Perhaps you are thinking that I should drive to the same standard as they are? No, not at all  Do you think I should be tailgating the lorries?  Absolutely not. Perhaps you think lorry drivers should never use the middle lane to overtake, in case they impede someone else? No. But I do consider they should be more aware of the situation they sometimes create when overtaking at 0.5mph faster than the lorry they are trying to overtake - and not overtake The same principle applies.

2  They will have to wait less time for me at 70 than I would have to wait for the lorries at 56, so they are being impeded less than you think that I should acceptYes, but you claim to be a responsible motorist and a little self-sacrifice would avoid a potentially dangerous situation developing (even though my action is legal and theirs isn't).

Your logic would only hold water if you consider me responsible for their choice to break the law. Not at all. I'm simply looking at how responsible drivers can avoid creating unnecessary dangerous situations.

 

Don, I assume then that you find that you quite frequently have to deploy your "slow down and don't overtake method" yourself?

Mike,  HGVs of classes required to be fitted with a speed limiter, if travelling at 60mph in the UK, are breaking the law.  Not the RTA (which is the legislation under which speeding penalties are issued) but the EU legislation concerning the fitment and operation of seed limiting devices!