Conference terri::cars_uk

    It should be worth checking out the Cutting Edge programme about Road
    Rage. I think it is on tonight or tomorrow. Can anyone confirm the time
    and channel ?
    
    Royston

Inside Story, 9:30PM, BBC1.

Chris.

    There seems to be 2 programs about the same thing on, on 2 different
    channels! Accident or design?
    
    
    Ian.

You sure about cutting edge?  I couldn't find it.  Perhaps it's a regional
variation, or I'm just unobservant (which I do seem to be renowned for...)

Chris.

    C4 tonight is repeating a prog from last year on Road Rage. It was a
    last minute schedule change, presumably to spoil BBC's audience. BBC's
    program is tomorrow night.
    
    Paul

    I watched about 10mins of Road Rage on C4. Utter rubbish! 

Stereotyped sensationalism.

    
    were these the same people who had to have an 'i' on the back of there
    Diesel rep-mobiles ??
    
    G

    	I saw possibly less than two minutes of the prog...it showed a
    woman telling how her husband had been run over by a lorry.  I thought
    this sounded quite sad?
    
    mikef

    Is it going to be repreated later this week ?
    
    Cheers,
    
    Chris

    re .190
    
    This was the bloke who got so pissed off with the lorry driver, that he
    tried to force the lorry to stop, and was mashed as he got out of his
    car?
    
    Balders

    Serves him right for being such a dickhead then.
    
    Laurie.

    re-1
    
    From the little I heard, thats a bit harsh, the lorry driver was being
    a d**khead.
    
    

    re .194
    
    I would suggest that the car driver was being a dickhead as well. A
    motor vehicle in the hands of an idiot is like a gun in the hands of a
    mad man. They are both lethal weapons. Now just suppose that you were
    walking down Newbury High Street and a nutter with a gun got in your
    way. Would you run off down the road after him and "have a go"?
    Unlikely in the extreme, I think. You're much more likely to contact
    the Police and let them deal with it. So why not do the same with bad
    drivers? It is a darn sight safer than wading in and trying to sort it
    out yourself.
    
    Clive

    RE: .195
    
    Wot 'e said.
    
    Laurie.

    this is true, but a little naive.  Its difficult to judge how we would
    react in the heat of the moment.  I don't know what happened to this
    guy to make him try to talk to the lorry driver, but I guess it must
    have been pretty serious.  On a couple of occasions I have gone and
    remonstrated with people who have done something dumb to me, although I
    haven't gone so far as to try and stop anyone.  
    
    mikef     

    "Awwww, gawd blimey guv'nor, what the hell is she doing? Gotta be a
    woman, y'see. Betcha."
    
    "...there, see? Toldchya... woman, innit? Bloody hell... HEY, ever
    'eard of indicators, woman, eh?"
    
    What a character.
    
    What a tosser.
    
    Cheers,
    Dan

    I've got a metro diesel now and have calmed considerably.   :-}
    
    Seriously IMO I think it's because people are in too much of a rush 
    these days.  I drive a very short distance to work (Chineham to Viables), 
    but the speed and aggresion on the road is highly visable.
    
    
           
    Chris.  

Chris, I thought the geezer in the red Metro might've been you.  Don't 
disappoint me!

Anyone notice the err...common ground between the C4 prog and the BBC1 prog?
Mike Fiddler should've had his chance to see that woman's story (about her 
husband standing in front of a juggernaut) in full, this time!

I still don't like this business of some of the women saying things like, 
"He had to get past me because I'm a short, blonde woman, driving a fast car".
I think they'll find that anyone driving a relatively fast car is likely to 
come up against some "w****r" in a Fiesta popularplus, who thinks it's really 
clever to screw the life out of his 0.95l engine just to get in fron t of a 
fast car.

    RE-1
    
    I haven't seen the BBC1 prog either, sorry...
    
    I know that my wife gets a lot of hassle when she is out driving our
    car (an Astra SRi), so much so that if we are going along a motorway
    for some distance, I will do most of the driving.  The most problems
    seem to come from Escort drivers (please dont ask me why). They will go
    mad to overtake, then pull in front and not maintain their speed, just
    slow down...it is soooooo irritating.  I don't understand it at all.
    
    mikef

    A couple of points...
    
    Reception was so bad in Brussels last night that I couldn't see the
    programme, but I'll comment on some comments here. Firstly, until
    you've spent some time over here, you've seen nothing. This lot are
    possessed...
    
    Next, even I, an ugly, hairy male, have tossers messing me about on the
    road, and I drive a Pug 405 Diesel Estate. People who insist in
    overtaking and then slow down drive me crazy. Fortunately, at motorway
    speeds (60-100mph), there are few cars on the road that can out
    accelerate me.
    
    Laurie.

    
    I can see why people get stressed in cars, but all it takes is a little
    restraint and the situation is diffused (unless somebody tries to kill
    you wittingly or unwittingly - see my note on great motorway journeys
    of our time in the motorway topic).
    
    I used to get stressed, but I prefer to laugh at people that try to piss 
    me off these days, if they get stressed by that, too bad; they
    shouldn't...
    
    Chris.

    Last night's prog gave a very gloomy impression of driving in this
    country, but I'm not sure how representative of reality it was. There
    is a vast difference between shouting inside your car if someone cuts
    you up or does something you perceive as stupid, and having a go with a
    pick axe handle. Also - why have you GOT a pick axe handle in the car
    in the first place!
    
    I've been driving for 20 years now and have only been involved in one
    face to face barny, with a motor cyclist about 10 years ago who
    "undertook" me when I was signalling left and then decided to try and
    punch me through the car window. However, as I'm sure everyone will
    empathise with I have taken (and to be fair) dished out a lot of
    flashing of lights, gesturing and in-car abuse.
    
    While I have no sympathy for people who punch or physically threaten
    people, it takes two to tango. For example, the guy in the TR7 last
    night said he was pretty unhappy with the other guy so he followed him
    onto the hard shoulder to have a word. Also, the woman who now carries
    a replica pistol around is surely being a little, err, unwise?
    
    I would have like to have seen some statistics on how many physical assualts
    there were last year caused by this.
    
    As for the cyclists - well if they will ride two abreast what do they
    expect! :-) (Lots of smilies - but having seen three cyclists go
    straight through red lights yesterday while I sat in the queue I do
    wonder about their sanity.
    
    Paul

Well in the few years I've been driving (about 4), I've had one minor accident, 
which funnily coincided with my one episode of "road rage".  Now, I wouldn't 
class this as road rage, but I guess the term is now being used for almost 
anything that makes you annoyed on the roads....

I was in the right hand lane of a 2 lane roundabout, indicating to turn right.  
A tanker pulls up in the left hand lane, indicating left (I was watching in my 
mirrors - good boy!).  I pulled out to go round the roundabout, upon which, the 
truck driver shot straight across the front, left side of my motor.  My front 
wing was jammed between two of his wheels, so he couldn't really move forward.  
I had beeped my (extremely loud - I'll demonstrate at the pub, shall I Dan?) 
horn as I saw him come across the road, but he continued.  Had I not slammed on 
my brakes, he would have probably crushed most of the car.

Obviously I was in shock, and extremely annoyed.  At first, all I did was shout 
out of the window, and tell him to pull into the layby the other side of the 
roundabout, so I could get his details.  He replied, "F*** off!  You must be 
f**king joking!".  I realised that if I pulled out from under his truck, he'd 
just sod off.  I took his number down, and took a photo with the camera I 
always carry in the car.  He started shouting again, so I calmly walked up to 
the cab, and err...threatened him.  He said he'd pull over, so I said I'd move 
the car (as damage was minimal thanks to evasive action).  I reversed out, and 
he drove off into the distance.  I gave him 5 minutes to come back, while I 
wrote the details of the incident down on a piece of paper.  He didn't come 
back, so I went down the police station.  

This incident could easily have turned into a brawl if he had got out of his 
cab.  Fortunately, though I don't profess to be "hard" or anything, I am rather 
er..."well built".  Had I been a foot shorter, and 6 stone lighter, I'm sure he 
would have knocked me out.

Considering the training HGV driver have to go through, I'm surprised at how 
many of them are totally unaware of any other vehicles on the road.  Maybe they 
should be forced to ride mopeds for 6 months before getting their license.  
This would force them to look out for other cars etc.


Matt

>  I used to get stressed, but I prefer to laugh at people that try to piss 
>   me off these days

I laughed once and was submitted to verbal abuse and threats, so I don't
recommend it if you can help it.

What happened was I was driving along in the centre lane on a three lane road in
heavy traffic, I was approaching a point where the right lane went right only.
Just before that point a van overtook and cut in front of me, immediately after
the van a car tried the same thing, ran out of road, causing me to brake heavily
and swerve. The car then ran into the back of the van. I laughed because no
serious damage was done and I thought they both deserved it. Turns out the car
was following the van and trying to keep up. The guys in the van took exception
to my amusement. I only got rid of them when I suggested we all go to the police
station to sort it out.

Dave.

	It's stress, plain and simple.  When I drive in the more
	quiet parts of the country people are much more polite and
	less aggresive.  I think that if you could corrolate 
	incidents of "road rage" with places that everywhere with
	50 miles of London would be covered.

	The roads are crowded, people have less time and they're 
	repetitively doing the same (and often long) journey.  You
	can see it in people's faces when you pass them.  Few are
	smiling.

	This coincides with my own attempts to mellow out and carry
	out random acts of road kindness.  It does make driving
	much more pleasant if you let people into queues and so on.
	Try it, you never know, it might get to be a habit.

	Dave

Like many people, my pet hate is middle-lane drivers.  I tend to get wound up 
by the idiots who sit in the middle lane, doing 60.  Some other person tries to 
creep past them on the outside at 65, and causes a 2 mile tail back.  I don't 
see why I should have to break the law by "under-taking", so a flash of the 
lights is the best way to inform them of the error of their ways.  I won't get 
into sex/age related stuff here, but I have noticed that these people are 
rarely businessmen or buses.  Both these categories seem to spend virtually 
their entire journey in the 1st and 3rd lanes.

This is starting to go over old ground again, so I'll stop.

>> see why I should have to break the law by "under-taking", so a flash of the 

    Matt, I  have it on good authority (from an instructor and occasional
    'special' driver with Staffs police) that passing someone on the inside
    is, in itself, not under-taking. If the lane of traffic in which you
    are travelling is moving faster than that on your outside then it's
    perfectly legal, undertaking is when you change lanes to specifically
    pass someone on the inside. If they choose to drive down the middle
    lane at 50, and the outside lane is congested with people doing 65,
    then just keep driving down the inside at 70 - but watch out for
    them pulling back into to the inside without checking their mirrors.
    
    G.

>>>>them pulling back into to the inside without checking their mirrors.

Indeed.  The manoeuvre has to be conducted at speeds in excess of the speed 
limit to ensure your safe passage.  It's quite likely that someone who is 
unable to grasp the concept of 3 lane motorways is also unable to use their 
mirrors for anything other than checking their hair etc.

The trouble with all that is you haven't got a leg to stand on if they were to
change lanes and hit you - I can't believe that even a civil court would accept
your story that he changed lanes and hit you!

T

    re .36
    
    You could argue that technically it was a queue of traffic.
    
    I think.
    
    Chris

I think `road rage' may often be caused by little irritations building
up, until one fairly minor incident becomes the straw that breaks the
camels back?  I get annoyed by lots of insignificant things, like the
car bouncing around after I hit a series of potholes on poorly maintained
roads, having to break hard, swerve or try to anticipate the movements
of ill mannered drivers who can't bother themselves to indicate, give
way or whatever.  The longer the journey, the more minor annoyances, and
by the end of it the worse mood I'm in.

Chris.

As .38 said - lots of minor things build up - and it becomes difficult to break
the 'cycle' of annoyance - since by stopping and resting on a long (in time)
journey, you will only make yourself even more late!  I find that if someone
else does something wrong - and acknowledges it - by a wave or something like
that, then it tends to diffuse my annoyance a bit - (cos we all make the
_occaisional_ error of judgement, don't we :-)  )

Another thing, - the faster the potential journey time (ie the maintainable
average  speed of the vehicle), the more hold-ups/annoyances are exagerated. 
If I'm driving my Land Rover, where I know I can't really overtake much, I'm
probably more relaxed, (or is that resigned :-)  ) to the fact that my journey
will take me a bit longer, and so plan accordingly, if I was in the car I would
probably leave less time for the journey. ( And of course on the motorbike no
one can hold me up as I'm invisible to a large number of motorists anyway :-) 
so consequently I get far less upset by things...... )

    
    re:.28
    
    Totally different context Dave, but I take your point in that instance.
    Obviously it isn't a good idea to burst out laughing at some pr**k
    who's just had an accident, I was talking about easing the nerves, not
    taking the piss out of someone.
    
    Chris.

                                        
    Excellent point Phil. 
    
    I get the same sort of thing with my diesel.
    
    As it's slow off the block I leave loads of room at roundabouts and
    don't nip into gaps that aren't really there.
    
    Once on the motorway I just chug along.  
    
    A friend of mine had a car (VW Bug) that could only do about 60 mph top 
    speed, but it was really relaxing to drive as it couldn't go fast so all 
    you could do was enjoy the ride.
    
    
    It seems to be traffic congestion that fuels the temper of drivers.
    After a reasonable hold up drivers really put the boot down to make
    up lost time and to release the tension that has built up.
    
    If you could find something to take your mind off the traffic so
    that you weren't wasting time I'm sure that would help.  The trouble 
    is that, all that is on most peoples mind is...
    
    Loop:
    "I'm stuck in traffic due to <enter excuss x> "
    "When I get back I've got to <enter list of jobs>"
    "When I've finshed <enter list of jobs> it's going to be to late
     to start anything usefull"
    
    Tension = Tension + 1
    Goto Loop
    
    
    
    If you could reduce the list of jobs then maybe people would be
    in less of a rush.
    
    Just some thoughts,
    
    
    Chris.
    
    

    Once I flashed some business man in Sierra type to move over, so I
    could overtake. His response was to slam on his brakes!

    
    I agree entirely with .41 and .43.
    
    I have a diesel and have noticed the difference in my driving
    'attitude'. I had a diesel two company cars ago, then changed to
    petrol. You then gradually 'slip back' to the old ways ie. driving
    faster etc.
    Since changing back to a diesel I am more relaxed when I arrive at any
    destination.
    
    Doug.

    I've found that quite a good tactic to employ against HGV drivers who
    are more than normally homicidal is to note the reg number, note the
    company who owns the lorry and then phone the transport manager of the
    company and describe his employee's behaviour. I'm informed by an
    aquaintance who is an HGV driver that if this happened to him he would
    receive a severe b******ing for a first offence and worse for any
    subsequent offences (good name of the company and all that)
    
                          Dennis

    Maybe Digital ought to place a logo on the back of all company cars
    with a contact number for any comments someone might like to make about
    their driving.
    
    Noone in here has anything to worry about, as we are all perfect
    drivers.
    
    Ian.

re.46:

My experience says that transport managers are quite sympathetic towards drivers
who have complaints made against them. Anyway, without a court appearance little
can be done.

Dave.

	re flashing headlights to overtake.  

	Some people take this as being aggresive, mind you some
	people take your car being in front of theirs as aggresive.
	A tip that I was once given, and that appears to work very
	well is to sit behind at a respectful distance and use my
	right hand indicator.  How this will work on the M25 at 5pm
	is not certain.

	Dave

    
    Re .49
    
    That's the 'normal' way of doing it in Germany. Flashing lights and 
    hurling abuse usually only occurs if the car behind is a 7 series BMW
    or a Mercedes (of any type) :^)
    
    On the other hand, as far as I could tell on a recent trip to France
    about 1 in 10 of cars there have one or the other indicators on all the
    time regardless of speed, intention to turn or degree of drug induced 
    coma...
    
    Mark

    >> On the other hand, as far as I could tell on a recent trip to France
    >> about 1 in 10 of cars there have one or the other indicators on all the
    >> time regardless of speed, intention to turn or degree of drug induced 
    
    I noticed this a couple of years ago driving in France. I stayed off
    the Autoroutes and took the scenic route down to Provence. every time I
    caught someone up they'd have their left hand indicator on ! What
    appears to happen is that when they catch someone up and there is no
    safe place to overtake, they indicate left anyway so that everyone
    knows they will overtake when there's an opportunity. This works fine
    in theory, but I used to get pretty annoyed waiting behind 2CV's and
    baby Fiats's etc who were all queuing behind a tractor or slow moving
    lorry while I sat behind in my 2.8 Capri, not daring to pass more than
    one of them at once, for fear that they _were_ going pull out and overtake.
    
    Had a great two weeks though, and didn't see another Capri 'til I got
    back to Britain.
    
    Graham
                                                                      

    RE: .49
    
    In my experience using indicators in that manner is mostly a waste of
    time on most British roads and a total waste of time on most mainland
    European roads.
    
    Laurie.

    Re .52 and .49
    
    Actually, Laurie, I've used it often and it works well.  I learnt the
    technique 'en France' and have imported it.  I've also shown it to
    other drivers and they've commented on how often it works without
    inducing aggression.
    
    Nick

To be perfectly honest, if I looked in my mirror and saw someone with their 
indicator on (in the outside lane), I'd think that they were just idiots for 
forgetting to switch their indicator off...Mind you, this has yet to be 
tested...

Also, I should think that a heck of a lot of motorway drivers are oblivious to 
what's going on behind them.  At least that's the impression I get when I'm 
driving directly up some moron's butt, flashing my lights and flicking Vs at 
her!  <joke, okay!>

re.54:

>> <joke, okay!>

Matt, this is CARS_UK, you only have to point out an obvious joke on the other
side of the Atlantic.

Helpfully,
Dave.

Force of habit...

8-)
;-)
=8*)
8-$
%^}

etc. etc.

Well, I experienced a good example of road rage this afternoon, on my
way back from Leighton Buzzard.  Some git in an Escort van decided he
didn't like being overtaken, so he overtook on the inside, swerved in
front of me and slammed his brakes on.  He progressed from rude gestures
to trying to force me off the road several times, to threatening me with
a crowbar.  Obviously I called the police, but they said that I'd need
to make a statement, and I guess that as there are no witnesses I'm not
likely to have much luck with that.  I resorted to contacting his company,
hopefully his manager will give him a good yelling at.  I'll probably
contact them in a few days time, and contact a more senior person if
no action has yet been taken.

Chris.

    
    re:.57
    
    Ouch; there are some really intelligent souls out there.  Sorry to hear
    of that...
    
    re: indicators
    
    I think this only works in mainland Europe if you're driving a Belgian
    car, or a very large car.  The reason behind the Belgian theory is that
    everybody gets out of the way of Belgians anyway, they're oblivious to
    everything!
    
    If someone is behind with their indicator on it normally means
    they're up your proverbial arse trying to get past when there's no-
    where for you to go anyway (e.g. in a line of traffic).
    
    Chris.

    Yes, the technique most often employed here and in France, is to drive
    about 12 inches from the rear bumper of the car in front, and to swerve
    from side-to-side in a meaningful manner. Most people get out of the
    way simply as a means of self-protection, which of course rewards the
    driver for his behaviour, and only makes him do it more.
    
    Laurie.

    I was told that in France you can break the speed limit in order to
    overtake. Therefore lefthand indicator = overtaking = no speed
    limits.
    
    Ian.

    
    Good concept Ian.
    
    I thought it was possible that the overtaking rule applies over here if
    administered (i.e. the rate of acceleration up to and above the speed
    limit, then deceleration after the manouvre) safely and in a controlled
    way, where appropriate of course.  (damn - too many constraints!)
    
    Chris.

re .61

That's what the IAM advise, innit?

    
    isn't there a magical distance that the manouvre needs to be completed
    in ? somethine like 3/10ths of a mile I think. So, on an ordinary 'A'
    road, following another vehicle at 60mph, you can overtake, as long as
    you get past and back down to 60mph within that distance...
    
    there must be some formula for working out the acceleration/max
    speed/deceleration required ....
    
    Graham. 

Accelerator + muchas beans + right turn + left turn - beans = overtaken?

    
    Something like that Matt, yes ! I was thinking more along the lines of
    needing a car that can do 60-100-60 in n seconds, so as not to have
    covered more than 3/10ths' of a mile - and got around the 'obstacle'
    of course...
    
    	G.

careful, or you'll have the likes of me going on about fitting cars
with inappropriate engines again!  Having said that, the 27 litre V12
out of a Challenger tank should fit quite nicely in the back of the
average estate car [...con't page 94]

Chris.

    
>>> Having said that, the 27 litre V12 out of a Challenger tank should fit quite
>>> nicely in the back of the average estate car [...con't page 94]
    
    been reading Car & Car conversions again have we ?
    
    G

    
    I think the issue with temporarily breaking the speed limit when
    overtaking is that if it decreases the time you're over the opposite
    carriageway's right-of-way then it can be safer (in context of course).
    
    Chris.

    "Police,camera,action!" tonight is covering road rage as its theme.
    Should be worth a watch. ITV 8pm (I think).
    
    Royston

I noticed that this note has not been accessed in a while so I though I'd see if
there was any new ideas or stories out there.

From what I can gather there have been a few studies done on 'road rage' but I
haven't heard of any ways to elimiate/reduce the problem. Did any of the TV 
progammes mentioned in previous notes say anything about solving the problem.

I noticed a few weeks ago in the Telegraph (on vtx) that there was a statement
that a study had found that 80% (I think it was) of drivers had experienced
'road rage'. They didn't say if they were the recipeints or the providers.

There was also an article about a man who killed another because he was
overtaken.

I only commute about 10 miles each way to work and don't experience much in the
way of road rage. I have notice though that I seem to get upset with people who
break the law by not stopping at stop signs, not giving way at give way signs
(Yield signs over here) crossing doule lines etc.. But when it comes to someone
driving at about 1 MPH less than the speed limit, I get upset at them.

    I read that eating red meat was supposed to make you aggressive. So now
    that everyone is boycotting beef will there be a notable reduction in road
    rage?     

    >boycotting beef
    
    Nothing will ease my frustration whilst waiting behind someone
    at a junction or roundabout whilst they wait for the entire population
    to pass by before attempting to pull out.
    
    Royston (King of the Road Ragers and off of red meat)

    And not indicating in the process!!!
    
    			Stretch.

    Yup...peeps traversing roundabouts in Basingstoke is one of the things
    thast can make my blood boil...it should be so easy..just stay in your
    lane!!  grrrr....
    
    mikef

    But which lane? Some people think *all* lanes are their's to use at a
    time.
    
    Goldy.

    re-1
    
    Exactly!!
    
    m

    	It's the same with people trying to exit the DECPark carpark onto
    Imperial Way, they won't move unless there is nothing in sight even! 
    What's worse is the fact that they are not even all of the feminine
    gender ;^)
    
    	Then they do the same at the Post House round-about!  Yes, it can
    wind one up a little unless one tries quite hard not to get wound up. 
    They seem to not realise that the one on the round-about (ie. the one
    with a wheel over the white line first has the right of way - mind you,
    if it is a 30 ton truck bearing down towards the round-about from your
    right, one must be a little more circumspect.
    
    				Malcolm.

    
    	RE: .-1
    	There are two types of women drivers:
    
    	1) Women drivers.
        2) Men that drive like women.
    
	*grin*

There was a story on the TV news this morning (here in the U.S.) about road rage
it was reported by the Washington Post. I'm not sure that I heard all of the
details correctly.

It appears that two guys (driving separate cars of course) got into a bout of
verbal and gesturing abuse because of a roadway incident. Apparently the
exchange got so intense that they (without realising) crossed the median and
drove into the oncoming traffic. After the dust had settled from the head-on
collisions and other crashes, I think they said there were three people dead. 

Perhaps they had just eaten those 42 oz.steaks in a local Steak House! 

re.80:

There is nothing wrong with driving at 40mph or taking your time at junctions.
In fact such a driver appears to have safety rather than saving a few minutes
uppermost in their mind.

Dave.

    re. men vs. women drivers. 
    
    Both will cut you up, but male drivers do it on purpose!
    
    I also got irritated driving home last night. I am a slower driver (I
    drive a slow car) and I try to leave braking distances from the car in
    front. This means I get lots of people pulling out in front of me from
    side roads. I can usually tell the gender of the driver of a car
    waiting at a junction by whether they pull out or not. Male drivers are
    very good at judging when they can pull out without actually causing an
    accident but making me brake heavily. Women drivers hardly ever do
    this. 
    
    I generally put up with this behaviour from other drivers because
    there's nothing I can do about it. Using the horn will just get a V
    sign or raised finger from the other guy and just makes you more
    annoyed. I've learned just to sit back and take it easy. 
    
    When you encounter a driver who feels safer at a slower speed maybe you
    should adopt this approach too, then maybe drivers of all inclinations
    can share the public roads without pissing each other off.
    
    Just a thought...
    
    Tony I
    
    
    
                    

    Is there not something in the law about "delaying the flow" of traffic?
    Scenes like Chris describes - Clear road, national speed limit, driver
    in front doing 30/40 is a common occurence. 
    I know that the speed limits are safe driving speeds, but some people
    do take things a little to slow for everyones good.
    
    
    			Stretch.

    A mate of mine failed his test because the examiner felt he waited
    too long at a junction and held up the flow of traffic.
    I also remember being told when I was learning to drive that the
    examiner would expect you to drive at (but not over) the speed limit
    of the road you are on.
    
    I sympathise with Chris and agree with Dave and Tony that there is no
    law against going slow.
    
    Its damn frustrating especially at rush hour times when drivers
    doddle along on roads where a much higher speed can be legally and
    safely attained. 
    
    Royston

I often drive at 40mph on fast clear roads because
1) it's safe
2) it saves fuel
3) there's invariably a bottle neck head and driving any faster won't help me   
   reach my destination faster.

The majority of the time, I catch-up less patient drivers a few miles up the
road, stuck at the next bottleneck.

Dave.

>1) it's safe

not when other drivers start to get frustrated.

>2) it saves fuel

no it doesn't.

>3) there's invariably a bottle neck head and driving any faster won't help me   
>   reach my destination faster.

maybe, maybe not.

Chris.

    I don't know.....all this hoohah about road rage..etc!  Come to bloody
    belgium people....spend a few hours on the Bruxelles roads....makes one
    really appreciate english drivers, no matter how bad!
    
    
    Shaun.

re .82,

I find that, in the Herts/Essex area, the majority of people who pull out on 
you with the apparent attitude of `I'm more important, you can just bloody 
well slow down', followed by amusing hand signals if you object, are of the 
female persuasion.  Perhaps it's just a regional thing; I've noticed that 
driving habits seem to differ depending on where you are in the country; ie. 
Bishop's Stortford seems to have a disproportionate amount of inconsiderate 
drivers.

Chris.

    Royston, 
    
    I bet if you really went into the details your mate would have failed
    his test on more than just waiting too long at a junction. Maybe that
    was just symptomatic of his general driving style and the examiner
    thought he was not confident enough to be given a pass.
    
    [General]
    
    I also bet that those laws mentioned about holding up traffic flow
    would not be exercised on someone going at 40 in a 60 zone. 20 maybe. 
    
    The trouble is that all these things come down to individual judgement
    and in a shared road system with drivers of different ages and
    abilities driving vehicles of different capabilities, you just have to
    accept that other drivers may not turn when you would have turned, or
    may not go as fast as you would have done.
    
    This is different from when drivers deliberately tailgate, pull out or 
    overtake in stupid places just because the driver in front's style
    doesn't meet with their approval.
    
    FWIW, I usually travel at about 55-60 on a clear single carriageway,
    but in the frontera it does take a while to get to that speed. This
    probably sometimes annoys drivers behind who want to accelerate away
    from every junction at 0-60 in 8s!
    
    cheers, 
    
    Tony I 
                   

    Ref failing tests - I thought I had failed my car test as soon as I
    pulled out of the centre because someone was straight behind me. I
    thought delaying the flow was a fail issue and that was the end of
    that. I made some comments about "How fast was he going" etc and the
    examiner concurred that he was "travelling" but said no more. After the
    test he put the blame squarely on the other driver therefore, I was not
    failed. 
    
    ref "I drive at forty on national speed limit roads" - If no one else
    is around that is not a problem, however the bottleneck you next
    encounter is likely to be the next 40 in a 60 zone driver!! I have to
    drive to St Austell fairly often and after Exexter it is mostly NSL
    roads. All nice and open, no danger for anyone, day or night as long as
    the conditions are good, but people insist on driving at 30/40 with no
    regard for other road users. If you want to potter along at that speed 
    - fine. If you see cars building up behind you though, either pull over
    or accelerate as you are being as inconsiderate of other drivers as the
    "road raged", overtake at any cost idiots!!
    
    
    			Stretch.

re.86:

>>1) it's safe
>
>not when other drivers start to get frustrated.

To say I should drive faster because some maladjusted person might flip is a
stupid argument. You can just see it coming up in court..."but he was going so
slow I had to pull out without looking, the blame clearly lies with the car
going only 40mph".

>>2) it saves fuel
>
>no it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Dave.

    Something that irritates me....
    
    The people who drive along a slip road to join a motorway or dual
    carriageway and believe they have right of way, expecting the main flow
    of traffic to yield. 
    
    Bozo's!  Slow down and you get an artic. lorry up your jacksy.
    
    I'll move out to another lane if it's safe but I'm not prepared to put
    anyone else out - let the d%^#brains wait.
    
    Dave
    

    Eeeerrrr Dave, I think you, as a safe driver, are meant to be aware of
    upcoming junctions, and the *people* who are about to join, and move
    over accordingly. Anticipation, and all that. 
    
    
                           Stretch.

    -1 has a good point, Bstoke is full of peeps who don't like to
    anticipate...and I'm talking about light traffic situations mainly.  
    
    mikef

    I know what I'm supposed to do, but there are times when it can't be
    done ( volume of traffic and all that ) and the idiots still try to cut
    in - that's what started this.
    
    So now, I just don't care. 
    
    

          <<< Note 2425.78 by IOSG::LOCKWOOD "Do you like our owl?" >>>
                                 -< *Ducking* >-
    
    
   >>>         RE: .-1
   >>>         There are two types of women drivers:
   
   >>>         1) Women drivers.
   >>>         2) Men that drive like women.
    
    
    	I don't agree with that:  I believe that there are only "old women
    drivers" - of any age and either sex.
    
    	Mr Kerrell, very many years ago, in order to supplement my meagre
    RAF income (as it was in those days), I used to pump petrol at a garage
    on the old A11 (I think) at Red Lodge.  We had one irregular customer
    who boasted that "nobody needs to drive faster than 40 MPH, I drive
    every day from Newmarket to Norwich and back and I've never had an
    accident ...."  He didn't mention the ones he'd seen in his rear view
    mirror (no outside mirrors in those days!) 'cos he probably never
    looked in it except to comb all three hairs!
    
    	However, and this is absolute truth, when he had left on that
    particular day, the garage mechanic took me into the workshop and
    showed me the brake shoes and drums (pre-disk brake days these,
    remember).  They were hanging on the wall as trophies.  The shoes had
    worn through the lining material AND the metal backing, leaving only
    the "vertical" part of the "T" section in the middle of the shoes.
    The drums, one was actually cut right through into 2 pieces by the
    Shoes and the other drum was very nearly so.
    
    	This driver claimed to be all in favour of road safety being
    enhanced by driving slower!
    
    				Malcolm.

    Ahh... this is a good one. Driving a Frontera at 70mph on the
    motorway/dual carriageway you come up to a busy junction with lots of
    cars joining. You do the "decent" thing and move to the centre lane to
    let them join. What then happens is the joining drivers start
    accelerating to 80-90mph and overtaking you on the inside. You then
    have to try to negotiate your way back to the inside lane with all
    these buggers cutting up the left of you. (and woe betide you if you
    cut into the path of someone trying to undertake you!).
    
    Unfortunately this lack of courtesy shown to me because I dare to drive
    a car that can't accelerate to 90mph with a dab of the foot has
    resulted in me not being very willing to show courtesy to people
    joining at a junction, unless they are driving a slow vehicle and I can
    be sure I'll be able to pass them pull back in afterwards.
    
    cheers, 
    
    Tony I

    Malcolm,
    >> "nobody needs to drive faster than 40 MPH, 
    
    At that point in history I was not aware that they could!!! Boom Boom!
    
    			Stretch.

      <<< Note 2425.98 by CHEFS::CROSSA "Insane in the membrane!" >>>
                                   -< Only joshing. >-
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    	Of course you are, I don't expect anything else in this conference!
    
    	The SS100 could break 100MPH before the war.  The fellow
    concerned had an Austin Somerset if you go back that far - it was in
    the early to mid '60s.  I think they could break 70MPH, but I could be
    wrong there!
    				Malcolm.

>To say I should drive faster because some maladjusted person might flip is a
>stupid argument. You can just see it coming up in court..."but he was going so
>slow I had to pull out without looking, the blame clearly lies with the car
>going only 40mph".

I don't care how you phrase it; driving much more slowly than the speed limit 
only antagonises other drivers.  I personally *hate* driving, and really 
begrudge anyone who causes me to spend one more second than I have to on the 
road.

I class people who hold up traffic as just as inconsiderate as the sort of 
people who speed excessively.  Noone's saying that a person has to drive at a 
speed that they're uncomfortable with, but it would be nice if they pulled 
over occasionally to let people past.  In the whole time I've been driving, 
I've only seen someone be this thoughtful two or three times.

>>no it doesn't.
>
>Yes it does.

so 40mph is the most economical speed to drive at?  That's news to me.

Chris.

re.100:

You don't sound like a person who should be driving, if you are so easily upset.

>so 40mph is the most economical speed to drive at?  That's news to me.

It depends what you are are driving - generally speaking slower equals more
economical. As 40mph is the minimum speed I can travel in fifth gear - it suits
me fine.

Dave.

    Dave, I imagine you pottering along smoking a pipe, wearing a hat
    with a tartan rug and nodding dog on your rear parcel shelf.
    
    Tell me, as you look into the clear road ahead of you do you notice
    the queue of cars tailing up behind you ? Do you get some sort of 
    sadistic pleasure out of holding people up ? Do you really drive
    a diesel that already does bundles of mpg at a minimum speed just to
    save a few droplets of fuel ?
    
    Lifes just too short for driving that slow IMO. 
    
    Royston

    
    	What is it about hat wearers...
    	Has anyone else noticed that too? *grin*
    

    
    re -1. ...doesn't every Volvo come with a free hat in the glovebox ?
    
    G.

>You don't sound like a person who should be driving, if you are so easily upset.

okay, answering seriously (as if this wasn't another wind-up), I don't react 
in a negative or aggressive manner when I'm being held up, I just silently 
fume, and if I can overtake safely I'll do so, otherwise I'll keep my 
distance.  So now you know.  If you are indeed being serious, I suggest you 
keep ill informed comments such as that to yourself; I know my limitations 
when it comes to driving, which appears to be more than can be said of many 
drivers.  Perhaps the people who are unable to drive near the speed limits in 
appropriate conditions are those who should not be driving?  :)

Chris.

Isn't the truth of the matter that "gone are the days of yesteryear when people
would take a leasurely drive to wherever they were going". People used to check
out houses and gardens as they drove passed, and admire the scenery.

Today the object of driving is to get to your destination as fast as possible,
to hell with the scenery. Its just a sign of the times.

I personally agree with the problem of slow drivers. I have noticed that many of
the drivers who creep along are not concentrating on their driving. They forget
to stop at stop signs, they never used their indicators (or use them as they
make a turn), they fail to anticipate other road users speed (they pull out in
front of people because they think the other car is also going slow).

I think that the people who drive fast concentrate on their driving more.

(Please note I have stereo typed here - this may not apply in 100% of the cases)

nigel

And another thing - the worst drivers are in the Reading - Basingstoke 
- Guildford area. You lot have thw worst drivers and the worst traffic 
jams I have ever encountered - is this coincidence ?

Alan

    The offence referred to in the .80s replies is 'causing a moving traffic
    obstruction'.  The police don't use it very often, but it hasn't fallen
    into total disuse.  It's unlikely to be used on someone doing 40 in an
    NSL area, unless their road position is also thwarting other road users
    from overtaking.
    
    In the last year I've done a lot of driving in Holland.  It's
    notiveable how they are much more considerate of others - they let you
    pull out and overtake - when they overtake they do it quickly and then
    pull back to let others have a go - they 'wait' by adjusting their
    speed when joining motorways from the slip - etc. etc.  But beware cars
    with B or D country plates.
    
    Nick

>    The offence referred to in the .80s replies is 'causing a moving traffic
>    obstruction'.  The police don't use it very often, but it hasn't fallen
>    into total disuse.  It's unlikely to be used on someone doing 40 in an
>    NSL area, unless their road position is also thwarting other road users
>    from overtaking.

I've only once ever heard of this being used.  Some old guy who lived locally 
used to drive on the main road between Bishop's Stortford and Harlow daily, 
always choosing the rush hour, and caused *huge* tailbacks by driving along at 
between 15 and 18mph.  The Police eventually nicked him after giving him a 
couple of warnings; he was reportedly very indignant and blamed everyone else 
for being in too much of a hurry.

Chris.

re.102:

> Dave, I imagine you pottering along smoking a pipe, wearing a hat
>    with a tartan rug and nodding dog on your rear parcel shelf.

I don't smoke. In fact I disapprove of people who smoke whilst driving - it's a
distraction that leads to accidents. I actually loath people who treat the world
as their ashtray and flick lighted cigarette ends out of their car windows.

I do not wear a hat, except in the summer, I might wear a baseball cap to keep
the direct sun out of my eyes.

I do not have a tartan rug - although this is a good idea in winter, you could
freeze to death if you broke down in a remote location.

I do not have a nodding dog or anything else on the rear parcel shelf. I
consider it dangerous to place anything but very soft objects on the parcel
shelf. In an accident or under heavy braking, an object on the parcel shelf
could fly forward and injure someone.

>Tell me, as you look into the clear road ahead of you do you notice
>    the queue of cars tailing up behind you ? 

I'm always aware of the cars behind me.

>Do you get some sort of sadistic pleasure out of holding people up ?

No. I don't see any reason why I should drive faster when I'm already doing a
perfectly reasonable speed. Why should anyone want to go faster - when they will
only catch up with other slow traffic ahead or join a jam at a bottleneck? No
wonder road rage exists if people are always in such a hurry, it must cause a
lot of stress and anxiety.

>Do you really drive a diesel that already does bundles of mpg at a minimum
>speed just to save a few droplets of fuel ?

Hardly a few droplets. I get an extra 10 mpg.

>Lifes just too short for driving that slow IMO. 

Driving faster could make it even shorter.    

Dave.

re.106:

>Today the object of driving is to get to your destination as fast as possible,
>to hell with the scenery. Its just a sign of the times.

Does that make it acceptable?

>I think that the people who drive fast concentrate on their driving more.

I don't agree. I use observation techniques when driving - this technique means
you are never driving too fast for the conditions. As a self-confessed expert on
driving, perhaps you could let us know what techniques enable a driver to be
safer than someone travelling at a more moderate speed using the same technique?

Dave.

>    
>    Lifes just too short for driving that slow IMO. 
>
That seems to be the crux of it for me. In your opinion it is too slow, but 
in Dave's opinion it is too fast. Why not simply acknowledge each others 
right to drive your own car at whatever speed your comfortable with.

I don't see any harm in that. We're all entitled to drive at a speed that 
were comfortable with. To suggest that one should speed up simply because 
less patient people behind need to get somewhere is silly.

I'd be interested to know IAM/ROSPA's "official" line on this.

My 2-penneth FWIW

Best Regards,

Craig.

    Dave,
    >> Why should anyone want to go faster. 
    
       Perhaps they are comfortable driving at the speed limit. Perhaps
    they need to be somewhere etc etc. If you are aware of the traffic
    behind you is it too much to pull over allowing the bottleneck you are
    causing to pass? Whether this means they just end up in the bottleneck
    ahead is not something that should be bothering you. A reasonable
    driver should be aware of, and adapt to the other road users needs as
    long as they are not endangering themselves, or others.
    
    
    			Stretch.
    
    
    P.S If I had an irate/impatient "road rager" up my rear bumper I would
    sooner pull over and have them in front of me!    

re.113:

Whilst I would not seek to stop anyone from overtaking me, if I pulled over
everytime someone wanted to go faster, I'd never reach my destination.

Dave.

    re: .114 
    
    This implies that an infinite number of people want to overtake you,
    does this not tell you something :-)
    
    Seriously, tho' a car doesn't have to stop (or even necessarily slow
    down) to help someone overtake them. It is easy to facilitate (sp?) a
    safe overtaking manoevre by sensible road positioning both distance
    from the kerb and distance from the vehicle in fron (if any). Just look
    at the way someone drives if they obviously *don't* want to be
    overtaken, and do the opposite. "Making normal progress" is the driving
    test metric for whether or not a car is a moving obstruction, and is a
    single point of failure on the test (or was 15 years ago).
    
    Petrol comsumption - 56mph is generally considered to be most
    economical. Its quoted in government tests, and car manufacturers who
    want to look good, tune their engines accordingly.
    
    When I'm driving, sometimes I want to get from A to B, sometimes I want
    to enjoy the scenery, sometimes I just want to make it to the next
    petrol station, sometimes I'm courteous and helpful to other road
    users, sometimes I'm downright selfish. I know I'm all these things and
    can live with it, however, I'm always aware of other traffic. People
    who aren't aware of what's going on around them (IMO) are more
    dangerous than slowcoaches / speeders who are.
    
    Andy
    
    P.S. I do have a tartan rug (and a pair of wellies, and a tow rope, and
    a shovel, and mud splashed down the side of my car). I've always wanted
    a nodding dog (but my Frontera doesn't have a rear shelf).

    To rathole slightly...
    
    I think the '56mph is the most economical speed' is an old wives tale.
    
    I saw a graph once for the mpg of a car in top gear going from 30mph to
    90mph and it was most economical at 30 and a straight line to being
    most uneconomical at the highest speed.
    
    I think its most economical (but not very practical) to travel at the
    slowest speed in top gear without labouring the engine. I have to agree
    with Dave's 40 mph being the optimum speed with a 5 speed transmission.
    I'm sure the money saved with the extra 10 miles per gallon goes a long
    way for supplies of that 'condor moment' :-).
    
    The problem comes with economy at lower speeds when there is a need for 
    more frequent gear changes which equates to the governments poor urban
    figures.
    
    Royston                                      
    
    PS Lighten up Dave. I was only joking about the pipe :-)

Re:111

Dave,

it is purely an observation on my part that people who drive fast appear to
concentrate on their driving more. I have noticed that people who drive slowly
are ususally thinking of/doing something else than observing the traffic around
them. Ref 115 Andy hit the nail on the head, its all to do with observing what
is going on around you. 

Perhaps you would like to try something, next time you are driving on a clear
road (if there is such a thing left) try driving at half the speed limit. See
how long it is before your mind starts wandering and you start losing
concentration on your driving.

nigel

>Whilst I would not seek to stop anyone from overtaking me, if I pulled over
>everytime someone wanted to go faster, I'd never reach my destination.

so perhaps you do understand why people get irate when they're being held up? 
(I don't know why I'm replying to this, I'm still convinced you're just 
playing `devil's advocate'!)

Re most economical speed,

this is probably not easy to calculate; common sense says that it's the 
engine's most economical operating speed (probably 2000 - 3000 rpm; could this 
coincide with the speed at which maximum torque is produced?) in top gear, but 
all sorts of other things have to be taken into consideration, ie. drag 
coefficient, tyre pressures and optimum transmission operating speed, amongst 
others.

Chris.

PS why is it that on just about every roundabout I've driven around today, 
I've found my exit blocked by a lorry or a bus which has meandered across my 
path causing me to stop?  And, yes, I do indicate correctly...

re.117:

I would argue that concentration is a more due to the number of 'hazards' you
encounter than speed. My evidence is motorways - people drive at very high
speeds with very little concentration - some even fall asleep!

>so perhaps you do understand why people get irate when they're being held up? 

Last night I was behind a car doing 30mph in a 40 limit. When we got to an open
stretch of road and passed the GLF signs, the car continued at 30mph and even
braked for bends to about 20mph. Despite being unable to overtake, I felt
perfectly calm. I did notice however, that behind me, cars were driving nose to
tail - a touch of my brakes and there would have been at least a three car
pile-up even at that speed. I find this behaviour very strange - why don't they
just accept that there will be a small delay and relax? Life's too short to get
stressed over a few seconds or minutes delay. I would bet that when such drivers
reach home, they plonk themselves in front of the tv, and fume about how they
were made late for such an important activity.

Dave.

    As coincidence would have it, there was a Cutting Edge documentary on
    over the weekend called "A is for Accident" that looked at reasons for
    road accidents. From memory, the reasons that came out most often were
    excessive speed, often combined with not enough care (eg at a blind
    bend) and drink driving. (There was also one case of someone going the
    wrong way down a dual carriageway!) They followed a pair of traffic
    policeman around and at each accident scene the policeman always seemed
    to say something like "well he was obviously coming round this bend too
    fast and...."
    
    The programme did not mention driving below the speed limit and/or
    taking too long at junctions as being a significant cause of road
    accidents. Come to think of it, I can never remember hearing a police
    spokesman after an accident blaming the accident on someone going too
    slowly.
    
    There was also a very interesting statistic quoted at the end of the
    programme: 9 out of 10 deaths on the roads are caused by men.
    
    FWIW, 
    
    Tony I

    
    Re . 120
    
    I remember a documentary some while ago about the traffic police who patrol
    the M1/M25/M10 area. The patrol guy said "There are no accidents, only
    mistakes". I think this is a very accurate description of what really 
    happens.
    
    I would have to disagree that most accidents are caused by excessive
    speed. Think about the number of accidents that occur in London and
    other major cities. Maybe they were only looking at motorways and
    major roads?
    
    .120 There was also a very interesting statistic quoted at the end of the
    .120 programme: 9 out of 10 deaths on the roads are caused by men.
    
    I'm not so surprised by this. Most commercial vehicles are driven by
    men (lorries, coaches, vans, taxis) and I would have thought that men
    on average, do a much higher mileage than women and so spend much more
    time on the roads. As always with these statistics I'd be much more
    interested if I knew what was included in the figures and what had been
    excluded.
    
    Richard.
    
    

>>    I would have to disagree that most accidents are caused by excessive
>>    speed. Think about the number of accidents that occur in London and
    
    Yeah, but in a busy city street 30mph can often be excessive. Outside
    my house there was recently a near head-on avoided only because one of
    the cars swerved and mounted the pavement. Both cars were probably
    doing less than 30 (and therefore not 'speeding'), but in a residential 
    street with parked cars and a bend approaching, this was too fast. If
    someone had been on the pavement then they could have easily been
    killed. 
    
    (I realise this is a bit off the subject of road rage though!)
    
    cheers, 
    Tony I

    BTW of the 9 out of 10 being men. A Third of those were under 21. So
    much for the women driver stereotypes that crop up in this conference! 
    
    
    
    			Stretch.

    
    re .122
    
    How can 30mph in a 30mph limit be "excessive speed"? What's the
    offence? Whose judgement says 30mph is excessive? This is not an
    attack on you (.120) - but IMO this sort of TV reporting is worthy
    of the Sun.
    
    
    re .123
    
    Obviously there are bad men drivers as well as bad women drivers!
    
    Also, another comment on .120  "9 out of 10 accidents CAUSED by men"
    Who says? How do they know? I'll bet that insurance statistics don't
    find fault in 9 out of 10 cases. Does this include motorbikes and all
    forms of transport? 
    
    Richard.

I get the idea that many drivers do not understand what is meant by excessive
speed. Where I live, there are a lot of accidents involving cars and tractors.
In fact, I know of one death, and two serious injuries in our Parish alone in
the last year, plus many other minor accidents. Bearing in mind that there are
not that many tractors, what do you think the cause is?

The answer is excessive speed. People do not allow for the fact that tractors
are far slower and they are not prepared to stop when they discover an
obstruction, such as a tractor, just around the next bend. 

In other words, by always travelling as fast as you can, you are not allowing
for hazards and are a danger to yourself and others. What does a few minutes
saved on your journey matter when there are lives at risk?

Dave.

>    
>    re .122
>    
>    How can 30mph in a 30mph limit be "excessive speed"? What's the
>    offence? Whose judgement says 30mph is excessive? This is not an
>    attack on you (.120) - but IMO this sort of TV reporting is worthy
>    of the Sun.
>    
I think the point he was trying to make is that because the speed limit is 
30mph that doesn't mean it is safe to do 30mph. Clearly if the road was iced 
you wouldn't do 30mph, so perhaps if there are other hazrds on the street 
(i.e. ones you are not aware of) it might be better to choose a lower speed 
rather than the maximum legal speed for the road.

>    
>    re .123
>    
>    Obviously there are bad men drivers as well as bad women drivers!
>    
>    Also, another comment on .120  "9 out of 10 accidents CAUSED by men"
>    Who says? How do they know? I'll bet that insurance statistics don't
>    find fault in 9 out of 10 cases. Does this include motorbikes and all
>    forms of transport? 
>    
IMO, i'd probably agree with that.

I fail to understand how come peole don't link speed with accidents. Driving 
faster requires solid concentration and should a hazard suddenly appear in 
front of you you have less time to react and to plan your manovouer (spelling 
police pls?)  to get yourself out of a predicament of your own making.

To suggest that driving at a higher speed is safer than at a lower speed is 
beyond me (by a long way, I might add)

As I understand it, the IAM teaches people how to drive safely to the limit 
of the road.

Dave's own self-imposed limit is 40. Someone else limit might be 60. With 
some IAM training, the person who drives at 60 might be safer than Dave at 
40. 

The issue is not about what the speed limit is, what speed you drive at, what 
type of engine you have, etc.. at the end of the day it is going to come down 
to how good a driver is.

Between Dave at 40 and A.N. Other at 60, my money is on Dave being safest.

Remember, last years TV Advertising Campaign - SPEED KILLS!

Craig.

Forgot to add....

The majority of people would argue 'but I am a very good driver'. That's 
fine. You are also 6'2", dashing good lucks, drive a BMW Z3, have a licence 
to kill and drink the odd Vodka Martini, shaken not stirred.

Get real.

Most people behind the wheel are pretty average drivers and have no idea how 
to react in an emergency.

I include myself in the above, BTW!

This thread could go on and on and on with people still exercising the right 
to drive at the maximum possible speed allowable. That is your choice. 

In a few months time, I intend to enrol with the local IAM club and, boy, 
what an eye-openner that'll be!!!

(Sorry for the rant - when you've had a few friends killed and maimed in 
accidents, one does get passionate about the issue at times)

Craig
 

    re .126 and his last comment that "Speed kills."
    
    	Is this why there are so many dead astronauts then?  What a load of
    tosh!!!!!
    
    	Speed in the wrong circumstances may be a contributary cause of
    many accidents indeed, but there is no way in which speed can kill,
    otherwise, where are all those dead astronauts, fighter pilots and
    Concorde passengers (wonderful experience to fly back from New York
    last year!).
    
    	To reach 30MPH outside a school as all the kids are rushing about
    is likely to be speeding in those circumstances, but the same speed at
    3AM is highly likely to be perfectly safe, in fact it may (depending
    upon the road etc. be perfectly safe to do 45MPH in that place at that
    time.
    
    	Speed is only dangerous in the wrong place and/or time and cannot
    ever kill anyway.  Only accidents can kill.
    
    	My two penn'orth.
    				Malcolm.

    Ref .124 questioning the figures in .123. 
    
    The figures quoted (9 out of 10 being males, One third of those being
    under 21) were from the Police as I understood it. Taken at scenes of  
    accidents. Does that answer your question?
    
    
    
    				Stretch.

     The "Speed Kills" ads were to do with location (the example Malcolm cites
    is precisely the area they mean - outside schools). They meant "the
    faster you go the higher the risk of a fatality" . In this context
    speed kills as survival of pedestrians at speeds of over 20 mph is
    drastically reduced. Common sense really. Sadly "common sense" is an   
    oxymoron! 
    
    
    				Stretch. 

    
    I think what is intended by 'Speed Kills' is 'The wtrong speed in the
    wrong place/time kills', but that wouldn't roll off the tongue (or make
    nice tabloid headlines) would it ?
    
    G.

re: .129

Nice one, Malcolm..

Lets slag Craig's comments while adding in my own masterpiece and then allow 
me to get a cheap plug about Concorde in ;-)

Seriously, though, we have to recognise that sometimes it is appropriate to 
do 30 in a 30 and sometimes its not. It depends on the conditions.

45 in a 30 is asking for trouble and anyone doing that deserves the full 
clout of the law.

Craig.

    Sorry to break the flow, but is the Craig Adamson in the previous note
    of AHQC00 fame (didn't see a who are you entry)?

    > (didn't see a who are you entry)
    
    Craig, can you please sign in #3
    
    Thanks
    
    Royston

    <<< Note 2425.132 by COLA1::CADAMSON "Could I have a word with you
    please?" >>>
    
    re: .129
    
    Nice one, Malcolm..
    
    Lets slag Craig's comments while adding in my own masterpiece and then
    allow me to get a cheap plug about Concorde in ;-)
    
    
    	Sorry Craig, I didn't realise I had put ANY names on my entry, I
    thought that I was being very general about speeding and people's
    attitude towards same.
    
    	By the way, do you have a problem with Concorde?  Do you think
    it shouldn't go so fast?  I think that it is a brilliant piece of
    technology, even today and worked for several years on the major
    fatigue test at Farnborough whilst in Field Service.  Or do you have
    problems with that too?  I would recommend anyone to fly Concorde if
    you get the chance (and, believe it or not, I may be able to bring that
    to be for you at a price you could afford) and if you were interested).
    
    	I had hoped that forgetting the smiley on my previous reply would
    have been rectified by the headline that I left.  Never mind, some
    people have a strange sense of humour - and I'm one of them.  Bit like
    cruising at 40MPH like Dave, I suppose.
    
    				Malcolm.

    
    	Go on then:
    	How much to New York on Concorde?
    
    	Interested of Reading.
    

re `speed kills'; this is, of course, crap.  Speed is a contributory factor in 
the seriousness of an accident, but not the causal effect.  (Every accident 
I've participated in has been under 30mph, and the usual cause is someone 
failing to give way.  One interesting observation I'd make about the 
statistics mentioned before are the number of occasions when someone has 
caused an accident by not respecting another person's right of way, and quite 
often, this causes other vehicles to be damaged as they swerve out of the way, 
whilst the instigator of the accident drives off unscathed and probably 
ignorant of the situation that they've just caused)

Chris.

    re .129 (using police stats)

    You make my point for me. The police don't know about most accidents
    that take place. Ever tried reporting an accident where no-one was
    injured and you exchanged names and addresses? The police don't want
    to know. Also, when we talk about deaths are we talking pedestrians?
    cyclists? coach passengers? 

    It makes good TV but it's hardly factual.

    ps. I reckon that someone doing 10mph up the M1 on a normal day is 
    much more likely to cause accidents than someone doing 90mph. 
    

    
    Getting back to road rage - the trouble is it is so crowded out there..
    
    -as Groucho Marx said "No wonder nobody comes here - it's so crowded."
    
    Concorde is rather slow when compared with the speed of the earth in
    its orbit round the sun. The mean value is 66,000 MPH - yes if speed
    killed we would all be dead....
    
    Taking a scientific approach - SPEED can't kill becuase it is an
    abstract quantity derived from the fundimentals of DISTANCE over TIME
    and here lies the rub. The inverse of speed is time - the faster you go
    the less TIME you have to react if something goes wrong and sinse none
    of us are as good at driving as we think are, and we are all human(?),
    things do go wrong very often.
    
    IIANM (If I Am Not Mistaken)
    
    What kills is ENERGY. It takes energy to crush and mangle...
    
    Kinetic energy to be precise.
    
    Kinetic energy is the product of MASS and VELOCITY.
    
    VELOCITY is RELATIVE SPEED in a given direction (a vector quantity).
    
    Practically, all this adds up to the fact that two cars travelling down
    an empty motorway at exactly the same speed - say 120 MPH will not kill
    - energy availble is zero, and if there is sufficient gap between them
    they should stay out of trouble. (OK they can crash into the barrier
    but lets keep things simple). The situation changes completely if
    another vehicle comes on the scene travelling much slower...
    
    What matters is the DIFFERENCE in speed between road users.
    
    The situation is also very different if the scene changes to an urban
    street. The difference in velocity between a person waiting to cross
    the road and a car coming towards them is - the speed of the car. The
    higher the speed of the car the less time there is available to react
    if the person steps out and the more likey the person will be killed.
    So ... speed does not kill, BUT, the faster you go the less time there
    is to react if something goes wrong and the more energy is avaiable to do
    the work of killing and maiming....and people have the consistancy of a
    tomato with stiffeners inside... and if you are unlucky enough to be
    hit by a "bull bar"...(now we can get into PRESSURE and AREA!!)
    
    Its much easier to say "SPEED KILLS".
    
    Ian.

   >> now we can get into PRESSURE and AREA
    
    Oh do we have to? I'm nearly asleep already.
    
    Phil Gill.

Malcolm,

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I objected to speed. This is, of 
course, ridiculous. Speed is perfectly safe under the correct conditions.

Since the aviation rules are very different to rules for cars, it is silly to 
try and link the two.

Bottom line...

I do not object to speed in the right circumstances.

I do object to people who say do and say things like 'But the speed limit was 
60 mph and I was doing 60 mph but I didn;t see the mud on the road till the 
last minute and I did the best I can and and and and'

Common sense dictates what speed you should be doing not a road sign.

FWIW, I am currently in Germany and unlike England the Autobahns seem to be 
very quiet on a weekend. On a quiet stretch with no other cars round me 
(where I know the road and can see for miles) I am happy to sit at 120mph. 
Though this does require solid concentration. Not that I am in any particular 
rush to get anywhere. The speed just seems appropriate for the conditions. 
Now if there were any cars near me NO WAY would I do that speed since German 
drivers have a habit of pulling out all over the place and tail-gating and 
being very generous with the horn, etc.. ;-))

Craig.

(Who will put his details in #3 as soon as he can figure out how to ;-)

    	Craig,  I reckon that if you type "3" at the Notes prompt and then
    "rep," you'll be able to enter your details.
    
    	Hope that helps.
    				Malcolm.

    On the charge sheet, the offence for driving too fast & causing an
    accident should read :
    
    "Failing to be able to stop within the distance seen to be clear"
    
    I think that covers the "too fast" issue.
    
    
    On the subject of Road Rage, my experience is this :
    
    I was merrily driving along an open single carriageway road in Bucks &
    I approached an old car that was doing 40. As I overtook it, it
    accelerated & made a safe manouevre into a potential hazard. The driver
    then followed closely at 60 mph until we reached roadworks some miles
    later. The driver jumped out at the temporary lights and had a
    screaming blue fit, whilst identifying himself as a police officer.
    
    Needless to say, negotiation was out of the question with this madman.
    It left me with an unpleasant taste in my mouth for some time,
    & my impression of the police remained jaundiced just as long.
    
    So, what does the team think, was this (if it came to an accident) a
    case of my excess speed (60 in a 60 zone), or a fault caused by someone
    driving too slow, was this guy just a D!(khead, or something else ?
    
    Tony.

	Couldn't resist exiting read-only mode.   

	If 40mph in top gear is the most economical, then why does
	my MG BGT get 30mpg on a motorway run (at ~70mph) and 22mpg
	around town?   It being impossible round here to stay at 40mph
	for more than 10s.

	Speed versus progress.   My old dad used to be a driving 
	instructor and then an examiner.  He is a no-rush smooth
	driver.   He doesn't speed, but he does make good progress.
	He overtakes when it makes sense and has very good anticipation.
	He almost never loses his cool.  I've been driven by people
	who fling you around the inside of the car like a rag doll and
	they don't get from A to B as fast as my dad.  Oh, and his
	brakes/clutch/cars last forever.

	People in cars.   Have you ever looked at peoples faces in
	cars?   A lot of them look awfully miserable.   Maybe they've
	just got rotten lives.  Quite a few look like they'd get 
	pretty angry pretty quickly.

	Women drivers.   As the next millenium is fast approaching
	can't we drop this "women are no good with machines" nonsense?
	Most of the accidents on the road are caused by testosterone.

	Dave

    re .145
    
    Can you try measuring your fuel consumption at constant 40mph in top
    gear ? I would guess that it would be better than 30mpg. (Does anyone
    have a car with a trip computer that can indicate mpg ?)
    
    Andrew

 	A trip computer in an MG?  I did note today that in 
	overdrive 4th (eg 6th) I was doing ~200rpm at 40mph.
	This is a rathole - the MG does not like town driving.

	Dave

    Try taking the advanced motoring tests. They advise driving AT or JUST
    BEYOND the speed limit if it is safe to do so. That way, no one else
    has any justification for being annoyed at YOU.
    
    Alan
    

      >>re .129 (using police stats)
    
      >>You make my point for me. The police don't know about most accidents
      >>that take place. Ever tried reporting an accident where no-one was
      >>injured and you exchanged names and addresses? The police don't want
      >>to know. Also, when we talk about deaths are we talking pedestrians?
      >>cyclists? coach passengers?
    
      >>It makes good TV but it's hardly factual
    
    It was not *good* TV, it was pretty darn harrowing. 
    
    Ref:factual.
    The point is, as far as I am concerned, that men are responsible for
    90% of accidents. Whether these stats cover all accidents, reported or
    otherwise, is irrelevent. The main point is men, especially young
    males, are behind the wheel of* major* accidents that the Police attend.
    Even if you lop off a few that got away from being reported that is
    still going to be a huge percentage of males.
    Are you saying women have a large number of small accidents that go
    unreported? I do not really care about dented bumpers, my main concern
    are the speeding/unattentive/dangerous drivers who cause major carnage
    on our roads (3,700 deaths, 20,000 injured. Police stats again I'm
    afraid). 
    
    I was making a point about stereotyping, as much as anything else, given 
    some of the male/female/better/worse driver comments made in here. 
    
    
    			Stretch.            

 >>   Try taking the advanced motoring tests. They advise driving AT or JUST
 >>   BEYOND the speed limit if it is safe to do so. That way, no one else
 >>   has any justification for being annoyed at YOU.
    
    Ah, now I understand where the idiots who drive at 75 in the outside
    lane of the M6 come from - the advanced school of motoring !
    
    G.

    10 people a DAY die in road accidents in Britain. You either knew
    someone who's died, or you know someone who knew someone. How close
    does it have to be ? Howcome it's not all over the papers like devil
    dogs, necrotising fasciitis, gun law, you name it. Because murder by
    car or truck is socially acceptable ? Because the great British
    motoring public like their "freedom" to go where they want when they
    want at the speed they want ?
    
    Re: "accidents caused by failure to give way". That seems to imply that
    someone thought they had "right of way" and continued regardless. There
    is supposedly only one circumstance in which British motor law
    recognises right of way: a pedestrian on a zebra crossing has right of
    way (but any pedestrian who tries to exercise that right is asking for
    trouble). "accidents caused by failure to read the road" could be a
    more accurate description - now whose fault is it ?
    
    regards
    john

>    Re: "accidents caused by failure to give way". That seems to imply that
>    someone thought they had "right of way" and continued regardless. There
>    is supposedly only one circumstance in which British motor law
>    recognises right of way: a pedestrian on a zebra crossing has right of
>    way (but any pedestrian who tries to exercise that right is asking for
>    trouble). "accidents caused by failure to read the road" could be a
>    more accurate description - now whose fault is it ?
    
eh?!  Okay, you're driving along a main road, minding your own business (maybe 
you're doing 40 mph, maybe 60, it doesn't matter)  Someone appears out of a 
side road, which has both stop lines and a give way sign, perhaps traffic 
lights, straight in front of you causing a collision, which may or may not be 
fatal.  Seems pretty obvious to me which party is to blame.  If you want to 
take the responsibility for not anticipating that someone may not bother 
looking and stopping that's fine by me, but don't expect everyone else to!  
One of the scariest things that's ever happened to me is when this situation 
occured, I was driving along the A120 when someone appeared out of a side road 
right in front of me, I had to swerve around them to avoid a 50 or 60 mph 
crash and nearly had a head-on collision instead.

Just to make it *perfectly* clear, the side road was such that it was 
impossible to see from the main road if anyone was on it and vice versa, but 
had the other driver actually stopped where it says `give way' he would have 
had a clear view of the road and seen me coming.  This sort of thing seems to 
occur all too frequently, and how you can blame the person with right of way 
for not anticipating something they can't possibly see or know about is beyond 
me - perhaps you're all telepathic on your planet?  :)

Chris.

    Certainly some emotive stuff coming out here.
    
    I like the point in .148 about driving at or just above the speed limit
    so noone gets annoyed at you.
    
    Royston

re.152:

A difficult situation to judge from your description but I wonder if you would
have seen the side road and been able to take the incident in your stride if
you'd be going just a little bit slower.

Dave.

    re .147
    
	overdrive 4th (eg 6th) I was doing ~200rpm at 40mph.
    					    ^^^
    
    Now thats a real overdrive !
    
    Andre

    re: .150 :
    
    
    >>>   Try taking the advanced motoring tests. They advise driving AT or
    >>>   JUST BEYOND the speed limit if it is safe to do so. That way, no one
    >>>   else has any justification for being annoyed at YOU.
    
     *   Ah, now I understand where the idiots who drive at 75 in the
     *   outside lane of the M6 come from - the advanced school of motoring !
    
     *   G.
    
    Eh ? Who said anything about the outside lane ???  You are maligning
    the IAM here. 
    
    Tony.
    

    Sorry Tony, I should have put a smiley on that !
    
    I know the IAM teach correct lane usage as well....
    
    G.

    
    	Most people conveniently forget that the death rate in particular,
    on our roads is coming down, not going up.  In fact there were more
    people killed on the roads at the turn of the century, when the
    population was smaller too, than today.
    
    	Only railway locomotives could reach or exceed 40MPH then!
    
    	How does that equate to going slower and have less accidents, AND
    they had traffic jams in those days too.
    
    				Malcolm.   ;^)

	Re: .152

	The highway code says something about "driving at a speed and distance
	at which you can stop in the distance that you can see to be clear"

	Therefore if you are driving at a speed whereby you cannot see
	a junction until it is too late to stop, regardless of whatever other
	idiots may be on the road, you take your life in your hands.

	Passing the blame won't help you avoid upset, the only way you
	can try to do that is to drive at a speed that is safe for the
	prevailing conditions (blind junctions, oil/mud/leaves on road,
	idiots who ignore stop signs etc..)

	If you can't see what is coming around the next bend...slow down
	it might be a 4 year old kiddy with a football who doesn't understand
	the rules.

	<<off soap-box>>

	Kevin.

>	Therefore if you are driving at a speed whereby you cannot see
>	a junction until it is too late to stop, regardless of whatever other
>	idiots may be on the road, you take your life in your hands.

you're suggesting that we should always slow down to a crawl whenever we pass 
a side road, lay by, something which may or may not be a side road, a car 
coming in the other direction, a pedestrian, etc, etc, etc in the event of 
someone doing something foolish?

>	Passing the blame won't help you avoid upset, the only way you
>	can try to do that is to drive at a speed that is safe for the
>	prevailing conditions (blind junctions, oil/mud/leaves on road,
>	idiots who ignore stop signs etc..)

who is passing the blame?  Unless you are one of those people who consider 
speed (excessive or otherwise) to be the one and only cause of accidents.  
Personally, I think poor or inconsiderate driving is the main cause (no, I 
don't except myself from this, I know that on occasions I have made some 
appalling mistakes) and to try to blame someone for not anticipating another 
driver's stupidity or carelessness is frankly stupid.

>	If you can't see what is coming around the next bend...slow down
>	it might be a 4 year old kiddy with a football who doesn't understand
>	the rules.

Sounds pretty much what I do anyway.

>	<<off soap-box>>

Thank God for that.  Sorry, but I consider your reasoning to be absolutely 
ludicrous; you seem to consider the rights of a careless and inconsiderate 
driver above those of someone who is, quite rightly, sticking to the highway 
code but is not so fortunate to have the powers of seeing into the future.

Chris.

    
    Re .159
    
    I think I've followed you a few times.... but I haven't run into you.
    Maybe you were just lucky.
    
    Richard.

re.160:

There are advanced driving techniques that teach you exactly what to do. If you
are interested in road safety then get yourself on a course. The more people
that can be pursuaded the better.

Dave.

    Advanced driving is for Terrys....its all a load of tosh!
    
    Helpfully, Shaun.

>There are advanced driving techniques that teach you exactly what to do. If you
>are interested in road safety then get yourself on a course. The more people
>that can be pursuaded the better.

I'd be interested in learning more techniques.  Unfortunately, I absolutely 
hate and despise driving, and will do anything to avoid doing it (haven't been 
very successful so far, in my first year of driving, which I wasn't keen on to 
start with, I ended up doing around 30,000 miles)  On the other hand, when I 
have to hand back my company car on leaving, I don't intend to get a 
replacement.

Chris.

    Ok, I'll take the bait.
    
    Is this the same Shaun Menzies who bent a front wheel when he hit tram
    lines while avoiding road works ? :-)
    
    Tony.
    

    re .152 and following
    
    Suppose your junction has traffic lights. Clear enough then isn't it,
    if you had the green light.
    
    No it isn't, because green means "proceed when it is safe to do so".
    
    Suppose, as an example involving no "blame" on either driver, the
    traffic lights had an "all-on-green" fault (it happens occasionally
    even though it's not supposed to). Then what ?
    
    Suppose, as another real-life example, you have green and an HGV with
    no brakes comes rolling downhill from the side, unseen to you, and goes
    through the red in front of you at (your) 60mph. Then what ?
    
    You can let the insurance companies, the victim's solicitors and the
    courts argue about the blame. Isn't it better to reduce the risk in the
    first place ? Or are accidents those things that "happen to other
    people" ? Whether or not the accident RATE is decreasing, there are ten
    too many deaths every day, and a collection of survivors whose lives
    may never be the same.
    
    I'm not suggesting everybody slow to 5mph for every set of lights. I am
    suggesting driving with due care and attention, according to the
    circumstances around you. 
    
    Taking account of the potential actions of other road users is one of
    the bits of "defensive driving" which used to be trendy. You don't have
    to take _responsibility_ for their actions, just take note. And act
    accordingly.
    
    regards
    john

    I don't like driving much either, but 'spot the iriot' is a good
    constructive time passer. BBP to Slough and back today in the sun, the
    heat seems to have induced midsummer madness already (my a/c works
    nicely though). Only a few dozen hand-held cellphones counted.
    
    Anyway, one more then I'm out of here: (See also Volvo drivers topic):
    
    On the road, there is no such thing as Right Of Way. The highway code
    offers sensible advice on how to behave and what one can generally
    expect in terms of 'priority'. But 'Right of Way' does not exist. I
    hope you're just using words a little imprecisely, in which case I'm
    happy. But some drivers appear to genuinely believe they have Right Of
    Way. (They think they bought it when they bought the BMW or the
    Discovery, usually).
    
    regards
    john

    I'm getting very behind with this topic, but I feel I must correct
    something that is now buried way back.
    
    Re. 9 out of 10 ... caused by men. 
    
    The statistic is not 9 out of 10 accidents, but 9 out of 10 DEATHS. I
    presume that to mean deaths of self, other driver and/or pedestrians
    that is somehow related to driving a car. That is why the statistic
    shocked me. 
    
    I would suggest its highly unlikely for a road death to go completely
    unreported 8*)
    
    cheers, 
    
    Tony I
    
    PS. I used to hate driving. Then I bought a slower car and sit back and
    make my own progress while everyone else zooms around. I now enjoy
    driving much more than before. I get involved in less confrontations,
    less road rage and feel much more relaxed when I arrive, even though it
    takes me a bit longer. Clearly your mileage may vary!

    Tony - From what I remember of the 9 out of 10 stats. I am sure it
    related to accidents, not deaths. Either way the figures do not reflect
    well on the males of the species!!!
    
    			Stretch.
    

    re .-1
    
    Maybe, just maybe, 9 out of 10 accidents/deaths are caused by men,
    whilst the other 10 percent are caused by animals or inanimate objects.
    
    Did the article/report say that 1 out of 10 accidents/deaths are caused
    by women?
    
    Perhaps the figures do not reflect well on the species!!!
    
    Chris

    Re .160 & .161
    
    Firstly, to avoid any further angst let me recreate
    a paragraph or two from "Roadcraft - The Police
    Drivers Handbook"....
    
    "A hazard is anything which is potentially dangerous.
    A hazard can be immediate and obvious, such as a car approaching
    you on the wrong side of the road, or it may be less obvious
    but just as potentially dangerous, such as a blind bend
    which conceals a lorry reversing into your path.  Much
    of the skill of Roadcraft is in recognising haxards - the
    situations that are potentially dangerous - and then taking the
    appropriate action to cope with them.  One of the main causes
    of accidentsis the failure to recognise hazardous situations
    If you fail to see the possible danger you cannot take actions
    to avoid it.
    
    Now that may seem obvious but from the replies in .160 and .161
    it would appear not !  If the driver of .161 fame is only
    just avoiding driving into the rear of my car (smiley intended
    I'm sure !) then he certainly isn't "recognising" a hazard.
    
    You can bleat all you like about the "other" idiot being
    in the wrong....and I don't disagree, but _you_ are the one
    at risk if you drive around a blind bend without time to
     react. 
    
    I don't advocate slowing to 5 mph to negotiate the bend but
    road positioning etc. can all help to reduce the effect of
    the bend thus allowing you to react in time.
    
    Does that clarify what I was saying ?
    
    Kevin.

    Good quote. Good book (from what I remember...). Certainly that's the
    message I was hoping to get across, but the words are much nicer.

    re .169
    
    Actually 'Right of Way' does exist, 'Right of Doing Damage To Other
    Vehicles' does not however :-)
    
    <4X4 Mode On>
    Byways Open To all Traffic are public vehicular rights of way
    Roads Used as a Public Path are public vehicular rights of way
    Classified Roads are public vehicular rights of way
    <4X4 Mode Off>
    
    Andy

      everyone chip in and buy a knackered old landrover and see how many 
Volvos can hit us in one day. 

You will (obviously), explain that you did your best to avaoid smacking their 
shiny lump of metal.

Craig.

    Yeah, poison the Volvo drivers with unburned petrol fumes & oil smoke,
    as well, that'll serve 'em right. What these people need is more
    discipline.
    
    Yours correctively,
    
    Colonel Maude (Buffy) Hargreaves DSO DFC 
    
    
    :-)
     

    <<< Note 2425.177 by CMOTEC::JASPER "Stuck on the Flypaper of Life">>>
                              -< Scallywags, all of 'em >-
    
    Yeah, poison the Volvo drivers with unburned petrol fumes & oil smoke,
        				^^^^^^^^
    	
    	Well Tony, The burned stuff has just as much Benzene in it, I'm
    told.
    				Malcolm.

Re .178
     
>        The burned stuff has just as much Benzene in it, I'm
>    told.

   Do you mean that you were told that Benzene isn't flammable ?

Dave

    Careful, Boys. Dave Flanders is a Doctor of Chemistry!
    
    This friday there is a 999 special entitled "Speed Kills". Maybe we'll
    find out whether it does or not.
    
    Tony I
    
    PS. If speed doesn't kill, why don't armies save money on expensive
    guns during wartime and just throw bullets at each other 8*)

    As someone once said "speed dosen't kill it's the stopping that does"
    unless of course your talking about class A substances.
    
    Gary M 

    
    Yes. Another hysterical tv drama documentary coming up that'll be short
    on facts and high on emotion.
    
    Richard.

    re -.1 
    
    You'll be approaching it with an open mind, then 8*)

An apt couple of lines that I came across in a book a few days ago....
    
Here lies the body of William Jay
Who died mantaining his right of way -                     
He was right, dead right, as he sped along
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong!

    

    Every time I see some prat come flying out of a side-road into a busy
    main road over here, asserting his "right of way", I think of something
    along those lines.
    
    Laurie.

    
    Anyone read the John Betjemen poem about the company Cortina? Can't
    remember the title but it aptly depicts road rage. This was probably
    written circa 1963/64 thus proving its nothing new.
    
    Richard

    >John Betjemen poem about the company Cortina
    
    That brings back memories. I still have a video of him reading this
    on a documentary done in the early 80's about the demise of the
    Cortina. He was interviewed and confessed that he didn't even know
    what one looked like. He prefers trains !
    
    I'll have to watch this again and if I get chance I'll post the words
    to the poem as its classic stuff.
    
    Royston

	
	I did once post that poem as a note in this notes file,
	so, where did I put it...

	Dave

    Dave if you can't find it, hopefully McWegg will come to the rescue
    (if he's not too busy swanning around with sexy ladies in Astra Cabrios
    :-) ).
    
    Royston

    An excellent poem, but there is either a missing verse or its a
    different poem as I definately remember him specifically mentioning
    the Cortina.
    
    Royston

	hmm, I'll look it up tonight...

	Dave

RE: 181, also 183 & 184

	The "Speed Kills" programme on Firday night, did anyone watch it?
	Could anyone give an opinion? (not always a good thing to ask ;-) )

	

Another question, has anyone got any ideas on how to reduce or eliminate the
occurance of 'road rage'? 

There is a theory that having a pint or two before you get in your car can
significantly reduce the possibility of getting angry at other road users. 
Of course, there are disadvantages of using this method.

If you think about this theory you may notice from the statistics (for what 
they are worth) that the number of deaths from drunken drivers has gone down
and the number of deaths from road rage has gone up. The end result is the 
same number of deaths per xxxxx.xxx road users.

nigel

    
    Re the poem. That was the poem I was thinking of in fact. I thought the
    title was something like "A Civil Servant contemplates.....". Having
    thought about it I'm not sure the Cortina one was about road rage.
    Probbaly just a cynical poke at the company car driver. I must check
    all this out tonight, I have his complete (well almost) works at home.
    
    Richard

    I'll check out the Cortina video I have and post the transcript of
    his short interview about his attitude to cars. It is very amusing. 
    He was a truly great character.
    
    Royston

    re .194    ..................
    
    1./ Make it cool to use indicators.... As in "I've got street cred' 'cos I
    used my indicators just then so that everyone else knew what I was
    doing."........... or "Bet I impress that young lady in front of me if
    I use my indicators when I pass her..."
    
    2./ Make it cool to have lane discipline (on roundabouts, motorways,
    etc.)
    
    3./ All men leave their egos at home when they go out driving.
    
    Reargards,
    
    
    Stephen
    
       

RE:197

Stephen, I agree with you on 1/ and 2/ those things are common coutesy and 
would make a lot of diferance to how people reacted on the roads. 

As far as 3/ is concerned I'm not sure about the mens ego thing. Acording to
a report I heard on the radio the psychiatrists (could have been psychologists
or even psychics) ;-) the problem of road rage stems from the basic human 
adversity to being closed up in a metal (or fiberglass, or some kind of plastic)
box. This means of course, that if you drive a convertable with the top down you
should notice a diference in your attitude towards other road users.

Has anyone else heard of research about the cause of road rage?

nigel 

    
    re .198 
    
    I personally think that's not really the case.  I think people get
    stressed as they use the car to get from A - B, and go mad when they're 
    held up on there way. If people didn't rush and were more patient/relaxed 
    it would be better all round.  
                       
    I always drive the 30 zones at 30 and the 40 zones at 40 etc, which
    drives my passengers mad and probably the people behind me.  A few
    points on the license help me remember this, but I have to say, it so
    much more relaxing.  Concentration is still high, as you're always on
    the look out for obstacles and going slightly over 30 (whatever).
    
    So to cap that all off, I reckon road rage is caused by impatient,
    egocentric individuals.   FlexiTime and FlexiPeople would probably help
    clear Road Rage....
    
    Cheers,
    
    Chris 
    
    
    
    

Git...

Chris.

Que ?

    For the benefit of those not 'in the know'. There is a notes tradition
    (at least seen in the EF noresfile) where the .100 .200 reply etc 
    contains the word SNARF.
    
    Don't ask me why.
    
    Royston

    There *was* a tradition in EF, but not any longer. Actually, if I
    remember correctly, the snarfing was started about 7 years ago by
    a Dutch noter.
    
    Goldy.

    Re .187 >John Betjemen poem about the company Cortina? Can't
            >remember the title but it aptly depicts road rage.
    
    These are in fact two seperate poems.
    I am resurecting Dave Rusling's original note 435 with JB's
    Road Rage poem (I'm surprised this wasn't used in any of the recent
    road rage progs) followed by a reply containing the 'firm's Cortina'
    poem. I personally think its excellent stuff.
    
    Royston

    <<< Note 2425.203 by COMICS::SHELLEY "Don't get mad, get even." >>>
    
        For the benefit of those not 'in the know'. There is a notes
    tradition
        (at least seen in the EF noresfile) where the .100 .200 reply etc
        contains the word SNARF.
       			  ^^^^^
    
    	So what is the meaning of this word?
    
    				Malcolm.

    I think SNARF is a verb, as in "to snarf", and it means "To
    pointlessly and childishly grab an .x00 note, post no text, but put
    'SNARF' as its title". It was indeed started (to my knowledge) by a
    Dutch noter a good few years ago.
    
    HtH, Laurie.

RE:199

I think you have to agree that not all road rage is cause by people being
impatient or infleible. There are numerous accounts of road rage which have
stemmed from an incident where the angered person was not inconvienenced by
the other driver. The angered person can be annoyed because the other person
broke the law e.g. an incident which was seen to happen half a mile ahead on
the motorway or seen to happen in the rear view mirror. Think of the situation
where a driver overtakes on the wrong side (undertakes) (the subgect of another
note in this conference) the driver who is overtaken is not inconvienienced 
by this (in a lot of cases) but will almost always be angered by it.

Maybe the examples I've given are not the best to make my point, but I think
that a lot of road rage is caused by the "private cops of the road". lets face
it. as pointed out in an earlier note, we all make mistakes while driving, both
intentional (speeding) and unintentional (forgetting to turn off fog lights).

The question is why do we get so angry at other's mistakes when we are driving
a car more so than in other environments. This was the theory about the basic
human adversity to being closed up in a metal box.

nigel

re.207:

My memory tells me that snarfing pre-dates grabbing .x00 notes and actually
means to seek out and grab something at an opportune moment and perhaps comes
from hacking culture. I believe it is the combination of the words sniff and
snare. I think you would snarf before you spoofed, for example.

Dave.

    RE: .208
    
    Good point.  My wife was chased all the way to the Police Station by
    someone.  
    
    Initially he was angry because she hadn't driven through a gap which he
    had judged she should be able to drive through, she didn't trust her
    judgement because she was tired, driving home from a night shift at the
    hospital.  When she realised he was chasing her, she tried to go
    through junctions without having to stop or indicate to try and get rid
    of him.  When she went into the Police Station he had the cheek to go
    in and accuse her of "breaking the law because she wasn't indicating".
    
    tmp
       

    I think the term 'road rage' is being used a bit too liberally here. To
    me, road rage is not when someone is impatient to overtake or waves
    their fist at another driver. That sort of thing has happened for
    years, as references to those old poems noted. 
    
    However, in more recent times there have been cases of drivers actively
    persuing someone and physically assaulting them because of something
    relatively minor that happened on the road. The scary thing is that
    seemingly anyone can behave like this. Remember the TV programme last
    year about road rage incidents where a supposedly "respectable" local
    council leader started punching a woman in the face through her car
    window because she cut in front of him in slow moving traffic? There
    was also a case of one female driver attacking another.
    
    These sort of stories pop up in the news every couple of months now,
    and I think they are a new (<10 years old) phenomenon. The cases
    highlighted in the programme I mentioned showed people undergoing what
    can only be described as a personality change. I too think it is more
    to do with the way modern cars more effectively isolate drivers from
    their surroundings and make them forget that even in their car, they
    are in a crowd of people.
    
    Tony I

    ... sorry my note (-.1) doesn't flow very well now as others have gone
    in!
    
    My wife was also verbally assaulted by another female driver because
    she was forced to stop half way round a roundabout by the traffic and
    ended up blocking the path of someone who wanted to get onto the
    roundabout (hey - it's a traffic jam - that's what happens!). The other
    driver thought my wife should have left a gap for her. She got out of
    her car, opened my wife's door and started shouting at her. This was a
    middle aged woman. Although no actual violence took place it left my
    wife very shook up.
    
    Tony I
          

    >opened my wife's door...
    
    I guess your wife didn't execute the code that goes -
    
    IF ANGRY PERSON APPROACHES CAR
    THEN 
     LOCK THE DOORS AND WIND UP WINDOWS
    ENDIF
    
    Royston

RE:211

I don't really think this is a modern phenomina, its more likely that the
incidence of it has increased because there are more people driving and the news
media have made us more aware in the incidents.

I do agree that the is an apparent "personality change" to people when they are
behind the wheel of a car and some other driver does somthing wrong.Another
place I've noticed the same kind of personality change is on a plane.

As an example:

Scene 1: you are taking an evening walk with you wife and you see someone pull
out of side street right in front of a cor coming along a main road. You either
say nothing or say to your wife "wow! did you see that person pull right out in
front of that car". Then you most probably forget about it.

Scene 2: you are driving with your wife down the road and some person pulls out
from a side street right in front of you. You say "did you see what that bloody
idiot did ?" (or perhaps more explicit wording with reference to his/her
heritage and whether the parents were marrind). You then accelerate to within
inches of rear bumper of the car flashing your lights and beeping your horn. You
let your wife know that if you get hold of this person the least you will do is
beat the livng daylights out of him. Hopefully the other car turns off and you
don't have to deliver on your words. You will be angry for quite a while after
that and will be looking for someone else to make a mistake.

 

I think that one of the causes of `road rage' is because people think that 
they can get away with unsociable behaviour because of the supposed anonymity 
that being encased in a car provides.  If anything, this causes a person's 
`true' personality to come to the surface, which would normally have been 
hidden by social etiquette.

I read somewhere, years ago, that certain companies conducted job interviews 
whilst the interviewee was driving around, as this was a good indicator of how 
a person *really* thinks and acts; putting a person in such a situation was/is 
thought to break down any barriers of pretence that person may erect.

I tend to agree with these thoughts.  I think that if a person drives in a 
rude/inconsiderate/aggressive manner (or, in a considerate/professional/etc 
manner, for that matter), this really reflects their attitude towards other 
people, in a way that would not normally be noticed because of the 
aforementioned social constraints.

One thing that surprises me (although it shoudln't, given that I've just said 
I agree with the above theory) is how many slightly built blokes and petite 
women drive around in an offensive, aggressive and threatening manner, when in 
real life, the majority of the people responsible for this probably wouldn't 
dare behave in such a manner.

Chris.

RE:               <<< Note 2425.215 by CBHVAX::CBH "Mr. Creosote" >>>

>> One thing that surprises me (although it shoudln't, given that I've just said 
>> I agree with the above theory) is how many slightly built blokes and petite 
>> women drive around in an offensive, aggressive and threatening manner, when in 
>> real life, the majority of the people responsible for this probably wouldn't 
>> dare behave in such a manner.

    Reminds me of Notes! I'm not slightly built, a petite woman (or a woman
    of any sort actually), nor am I shy, and my noting style is a fair
    reflection of my personality. However, I've noticed that the anonymity
    of notes is such that many people are much more forceful when noting,
    than they are in real life. Driving a car is much the same, methinks.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

>    Reminds me of Notes! I'm not slightly built, a petite woman (or a woman
>    of any sort actually), nor am I shy, and my noting style is a fair
>    reflection of my personality. However, I've noticed that the anonymity
>    of notes is such that many people are much more forceful when noting,
>    than they are in real life. Driving a car is much the same, methinks.

I guess I tend to be more forceful in notes, although this has nothing to do, 
in my case, with notes providing any degree of protection or anonymity; I'm 
just not a great speaker.  Still, I have a fair repertoire of unpleasant 
expressions to make up for it.  :)

Chris.

    Not so much as road rage but goodly come uppance.
    
    Driving to Thruxton race track on May bank holiday monday to see the
    touring car races (Very Popular) there were several signs stating that
    thruxton race meeting trafic keep to near side lane. This lane was
    moving quite slowly and the other lane (dual carridge way) was mooving
    freely.
    These message were on the road for aprox 5 miles. Keeping in this lane
    with the other good behaved trafic and letting others out from the slip
    roads all was going quite well.
    Aproaching Thruxton race turn off the road was then coned for aprox 1
    mile to stop people cutting in. As this was done just over the brow of
    a hill any body in the "wrong lane" was then forced to either miss the
    turn off or PUSH IN. A Escort did just this a few cars infront of me.
    Yes I called him a few quite names (kids in the car). Only to find that
    there was a motorbike plod sitting on the inside waiting for this
    behaviour and he pulled the escort out of the que as we passed we did
    laff a little.
    So lane diciplin can be only enfored if the people want to do it. When
    I was driving a comapny car I used to keep the 3" from the other car
    in traffic and go head to head with anybody trying to "jump in".
    Now its my own car I dont push the point nearly so far.
    PS as for motorway driving I found that when towing a caravan at 60ish
    and not impeding any truck ect the inside lane is a more liesurley
    place to drive. 
    Trev.

    re. -1
    
    Laurie, Chris: don't even think about it.
    
    Phil Gill.

>    Laurie, Chris: don't even think about it.
    
heh heh, if someone's trying to push in, you couldn't fit a pound note (oh 
alright, a fiver, then) between me and the car in front, unless it's obvious 
that the pusher-in made a mistake.

Encountered one of my least favourite category of drivers today, which isn't 
strictly `road rage', more sort of `road dismay, or at least disappointment'.  
The person in question was some old git (yes, I realise the implications of 
that phrase, and think it's thoroughly appropriate in this instance) who I 
overtook as he was doing 45 in a 60 limit.  Later on, at a junction, Mr Old 
Git, who obviously isn't in a hurry, otherwise he'd have been travelling 
nearer the speed limit (after all, the roads were quite clear) decides he 
doesn't have the time, or is too important, to wait in the correct lane with 
the rest of the traffic, so uses the right hand lane to turn left, almost 
causing a collision with traffic going straight ahead (no, of course he didn't 
indicate!)

What really disgusted me was the fact that he maintained his 45mph through a 
residential area; just to get an impression of how inappropriate his speed 
was, he was completely unable to stay on his side of the road, and frequently 
crossed entirely over the white lines.  I may also add that he went past a 
school, not too long after the kids were out, continuing this sort of 
behaviour.  The usual sort of other behaviour you'd expect from this driver 
applies; no indicators, failure to stop or slow down at `give way' signs, etc. 
I know that my driving is less than perfect, but this sort of thing is really 
unacceptable, IMO.

Chris.

PS just before someone points out that I must have been doing the same speed 
as him, I wasn't.  So there.

>    Laurie, Chris: don't even think about it.
    
>>heh heh, if someone's trying to push in, you couldn't fit a pound note (oh 
>>alright, a fiver, then) between me and the car in front, unless it's obvious 
>>that the pusher-in made a mistake.
    
    Actually I was talking about ODE.
    
    Phil Gill.

    Plenty of opportunities; I'd probably overload!
    
    Laurie.

>    Actually I was talking about ODE.
    
you don't expect me to notice at that time of the day!  Even I'm not that 
pedantic...

Chris.

    Chris,
    
    Was the old fella driving a volvo !?!?!? %*)
    
    - MARK -
    

>    Was the old fella driving a volvo !?!?!? %*)
    
nah, it was a Seat something or other (Cordoba?)

Time for a `road lack of rage' comment; I was following a taxi driver today, 
and was pleasantly surprised to see that he was actually a very good driver 
(not something you see too often)...

Chris.

    Careful, Chris, that sort of attitude is bordering on tolerant!
    
                       Stretch.

RE:225

Chris,

maybe you have hit on a solution here. I've been asking if anyone has heard of a
solution or something which aleviates 'road rage'. Maybe the answer is to
compliment GOOD drivers WDYT?

nigel

>maybe you have hit on a solution here. I've been asking if anyone has heard of a
>solution or something which aleviates 'road rage'. Maybe the answer is to
>compliment GOOD drivers WDYT?

I'm not so convinced that's a solution... I think I appreciate good drivers 
when I see them, which makes me get all the more irate when I see an 
inconsiderate one...

Chris.

re.220:

>heh heh, if someone's trying to push in, you couldn't fit a pound note (oh 
>alright, a fiver, then) between me and the car in front, unless it's obvious 
>that the pusher-in made a mistake.

We encounter this strange and primitive kind of behaviour outside DEC Park every
morning. The dual-carriageway becomes single carriage after a short distance
from the M4 J11 roundabout. Drivers in the right lane trying to merge with the
left lane are often treated to this ridiclous behavior - as if being held up by
a whole car was any kind of big deal!

Dave.

    I would suggest two reasons why RR is increasing.
    
    Firstly more and more people spend far too long in their cars. Spending
    a long time in any one place doing the same thing makes people
    irritable. Then they feel a need to vent this annoyance.
    
    Secondly fewer and fewer people have sufficient physical release during
    their day. In the past a much greater percentage of people worked doing
    real jobs, making and building things. They therefore felt fulfilled
    etc. Today many many people work in service jobs where they have to be
    nice all the time and they have no physical outlet. Hence when they
    leave that environment they again look for ways to blow off steam.
    
    Andrew

    On the topic of Not Road Rage, Surrey Constabulary embarked on a season
    of stopping drivers for the purpose of congratulating them for a good
    deed, good example or good manners shown to other road users. The
    Police were treated with some cynicism by the motorists as they
    generally felt they had been harranged by the Surrey Constabulary for 
    many years & that SC would no doubt regress to their normal behaviour.
    This was some time ago, I'm sure all their vociferous officers are now
    employed elsewhere.
    
    Are there any more occurances of the Police showing a recognition of
    good drivers elsewhere ?
    
    Tony.

   >> stopping drivers for the purpose of congratulating them for a good
   >> deed, good example or good manners shown to other road users. The
    
    ...just what you need when you're in a hurry to get somewhere ! One
    lapse of concentration, letting someone pull out in front of you or
    stopping at a Zebra crossing, and you get your journey delayed even
    further by a well meaning Police Officer %^)
    
    G. 

    I should be extremly dischuffed at being stopped for such a stupid
    reason.
    
    Laurie.

    .230
    
    I'd suggest a third reason - the political climate of the last few
    years has encouraged self-reliance, with an inference that an attitude
    of 'the Devil take the hindmost' is acceptable.
    
    Under which circumstances, why should we be caring and tolerant of other
    road users and/or their mistakes?  And why should we expect any
    sympathy when we make mistakes?

>We encounter this strange and primitive kind of behaviour outside DEC Park every
>morning. The dual-carriageway becomes single carriage after a short distance
>from the M4 J11 roundabout. Drivers in the right lane trying to merge with the
>left lane are often treated to this ridiclous behavior - as if being held up by
>a whole car was any kind of big deal!

'ere we go again, Dave's being all controversial.  Well, anyway, I view queue 
jumpers in cars in much the same way as I view ones without cars, and I don't 
have much patience with someone who pushes in front of me in a chequeout 
queue, or in the queue for the coffee machine, or anywhere else, so it's not 
that strange after all.

Besides, one car may not slow someone down, but several dozen will.  Why are 
they too important to wait in line like everyone else?

I must say, this sort of impatience sounds a little odd coming from someone 
who advocates holding up traffic if they feel like it (and for that reason, I 
would be most irate to find the likes of you pushing in front of me!)

Chris.

    
    	Hi Chris, I think you missed the point of Dave's reply - it is a
    DUAL CARRAIGEWAY that ends.  There are, therefore, TWO lanes of traffic
    and at the end of the dual carraigeway, those two lanes have to merge
    into one lane.  It isn't, then, a case of pushing in as in the case of
    the turn off to Thruxton mentioned elsewhere.
    
    	I come down that dual carraigeway nearly every working morning and
    I come along the west-bound M4 having to come around the roundabout - most
    times the left hand lane of the A33 dual carraigeway is full right back
    to the east-bound M4 slip road and have little choice but to use the
    right hand lane.
    
    	Even so, where the two lanes have to merge, there is always
    "arguments."
    
    	So what is your solution to this?
    
    	A few weeks ago, I saw the ultimate in "dog-in-a-manger" attitude
    on this dual carraigeway - a large Curtainsided articulated lorry,
    right from the top of the dual carraigeway, literally swinging from
    lane to lane to ensure that no-one was able to use the right hand lane! 
    When anyone attempted to overtake, he swung the tractor part right
    across both lanes!!!!!!!!  I saw him do this on two mornings in the one
    week.  Naturally, vehicle carried no ownership markings.  I was some
    vehicles back in the right hand lane at the time.
    
    				Malcolm.

    re -.1
    
    You missed out people who approach a roundabout in the left lane then
    go all the way round it so they don't have to wait in the queue of
    people turning right and using the correct lane.
    
    Tony I

    Road design also contributes to the problem. When I used to live in
    Portsmouth I used the Eastern Road a lot. This had two lanes, but at
    two sets of traffic lights widened to 3 lanes, then after the lights
    immediately back to 2. I could never see the point in this, as all it
    did was encourage people to use a road junction as an overtaking
    opportunity. During rush hour you would get 2 queues of sensible
    drivers using the 2 continuous lanes, but then you would always get
    "the one" who was too important to wait and so used the short 3rd lane,
    then forced his way back in.
    
    I believe they have changed the layout now.
    
    Tony I

    re: .238
    
    There is nothing illegal about approaching a 2-lane entry roundabout in
    the left-hand lane and taking a right exit (unless the lanes are
    specifically marked). There is nothing immoral either, so long as the
    roundabout has room for two lanes as you drive around, and the exit
    also has 2 lanes, and you clearly signal your intentions.
    
    What _really_ p*sses me off is people who "sneak" up on the nearside
    without indicating, ignore a "left turn only" arrow, then force their
    way into the right-hand/inner lane of the roundabout.
    
    mb

    re -.1
    
    So what? There's nothing illegal about lots of the behaviour discussed
    in this string. Just because something's not actually against the law
    doesn't mean it's an OK thing to do.
    
    Tony I
    

    I also said that it is not immoral either!
    
    If you can safely proceed around a roundabout by taking the left hand
    lane as you enter, and without causing anyone else to brake or swerve,
    continue around and exit beyond 180 degrees, then where is the problem?
    
    Many roundabouts actually encourage thus, take for example the M42
    southbound to A34 exit!
    
    We all get angry when people force past you in an aggressive and
    inconsiderate way, but if someone else simply makes better use of
    available roadspace, then you should be kicking yourself for not
    spotting the opportunity!
    
    mb

    >>> This had two lanes, but at two sets of traffic lights widened to 3 
    >>> lanes, then after the lights immediately back to 2. I could never
    >>  see the point in this
    
    I guess this is to get more cars through the set of lights in the available
    time. The Regent Road / M602 roundabout is a classic example of this.

    ... well I'm talking about yer bog standard, common or garden
    roundabout that has 4 exits at more or less 90 degrees to each other
    with no road markings (not even lane markings) like the majority in
    Basingstoke do. The highway code says that if you want to turn right at
    one of these you should approach it in the right hand lane. Makes sense
    really, since if you approach it in the left lane there could be
    someone on your right wanting to go straight on and a conflict will
    arise. You are also putting yourself in the blind spot of people
    using the lane that the highway code recommends, but who will probably
    want to move back to the left lane as soon as possible after exiting
    the roundabout. 
    
    If the roundabout is an unusual shape or has clear markings or signs 
    saying that both lanes should be used then I would think it obvious
    that the above does not apply, but thank you for pointing this out
    as I guess there may just be someone out there who couldn't figure this
    out for themselves.
    
    Tony I

    
    I generally use whichever lane has least cars in it %^)
    
    G.

    I agree with Mr Imbierski...Basingstoke has too many people who
    suddenly appear on your inside as you come off a roundabout.  If they
    can't be bothered to indicate, then I don't bother to go out of my way
    to avoid them.  
    
    mikef

    RE .247
    
    > Basingstoke has too many people
    
    Basingstoke has too many roundabouts.
    
    Goldy.

         <<< Note 2425.249 by CHEFS::POWELLM "On 101457.2636@compuserve.com" >>>
          -<     And Bracknell - maybe it is the town's initial letter.    >-
    
    Nope. Barnsley's fine. Having said that, Bradford has some interesting
    roundabouts.
    
    Clive

    
    	>Basingstoke has too many roundabouts.
    
	Basingstoke *IS* a roundabout - at least that's all I've ever
    	managed to see of the place!
    

It is apparent to me that the vast majority of us, when driving, are angered by
other road users who display (in our judgement) impatience, discourtesy, bad
manners or break the rules of the road. It does not take a degree in rocket
sceince to conclude that we must also display this behaviour to other road
users, it can't be be jsut a small number of people who move around the country 
causing this problem.

nigel

How about a bit of RR at the road menders.

Last night I had to go round the M25. At one point, they funnelled 3 
lanes down to 1 for about 1/2 a mile. I won't ask you to guess how long 
the queue was..... Boy was I pissed off. I could have gone the 'long 
way' round and made it home quicker.

Alan

    
    	Related to road rage:
    
    	Dunno if this has been asked before, so I will...
    	
    	WHY do cars have the horn activated by a hard-to-press button in
    	the middle of the steering wheel?  Since the horn is meant to be
    	used to warn others of your presence, and thus it's likely that this
    	will be in a potentially dangerous situation, why have it in a
    	place which forces you to remove a hand from the wheel?
    	Crazy.
    
    	Pete

    If I remember rightly, my ex-husband's 1987 Sierra Sapphire has the 
    horn button in the centre of the steering wheel.
    
    Goldy.

    ... as did my Rover Cabrio, as does my Frontera. I think the central
    horn push is making a come back !
    
    Andy

    I think Malcolm has hit the nail with his comment. Airbags have to be
    in the centre of the wheel which leaves no room for the horn (this
    would happen on all models in the range I assume) wether you have an
    airbag or not.
    
    On a small aside - News in America reports a 7 year old child dying due
    to the plastic cover on the airbag slitting his throat upon deployment.
    I knew the flying plastic was potentially hazardous but......
    
    
    			Stretch.  

    My current car, a Mondeo, has an airbag in the centre of the steering
    wheel and it's where the horn is as well, so airbags don't seem to stop
    that.
    
    I often wonder if the horn goes off when your head hits the airbag, but
    I would *not* like to find out.
    
    Graham

My Laguna has a horn button either side of the steering wheel. it ALSO 
has a horn button on the end of the indicator stalk.

Alan

    I think that putting the horn button in the centre of the steering
    wheel makes it's use more aggressive - you are tempted to punch it!
    
    Putting the button on, say, the indicator stalk, makes it a more gentle
    movement - for warning rather than anger.
    
    mb

I agree. 

I believe the police look unfavourably at the habit of lorry drivers to drive 
side-by-side as soon as the 800 yds sign has been passed.

IMO this only leads to more tailbacks.

Craig.

>I believe the police look unfavourably at the habit of lorry drivers to drive 
>side-by-side as soon as the 800 yds sign has been passed.
>
>IMO this only leads to more tailbacks.

I wonder... I was under the impression that one of the reasons the traffic 
grinds to a halt in situations where a lane is closed off is largely caused by 
people pushing in at the last minute and causing others to brake hard (in 
fact, I think that some research into motorway traffic jams was done a while 
back, and one of the most common causes was supposedly very similar, ie 
someone cutting in front of another car when changing lanes, and the effect of 
having to brake hard sort of rippled back, causing a fully fledged traffic jam 
to form in less than a minute)

Chris.

    
    More RR on the radio this morning.....
    
    M25 J???  driver stabbed to death after being cut up and stopping at
    traffic lights just off M25 to "discuss" the incident.  The murderer
    drove off in an "L" reg land rover disco...
    
    - MARK -

    RKE was the victim of Road Rage today coming up the B3349 (Hook to Three 
    Mile Cross). He pulled out to overtake but didn't see in his
    rearview mirror that the guy behind was doing the same. For the next
    two miles the other car followed RKE as close as he could, eventually
    overtook him and then stopped the car. RKE stopped as well and as he
    saw the bloke getting out of his car and coming towards him, he
    reversed back a bit and overtook. As he did he felt his car being hit.
    He's just arrived at DECpark and there is a dent in the passenger door,
    so the bloke obviously kicked the car. Unfortunately RKE didn't get the
    car registration so he can't do anything about it. But it's not a great
    way to start the week.
    
    Goldy.
    

    This happened the day after someone was stabbed to death!!! What is
    going on?!?!?
    
    
    			Stretch. 

I read yesterday that the police may interview all owners of dark colored 'L'
registered Land rover Discoverys. Anyone out there with one of these had a visit
from the police yet?

nigel

    What about the guy they have arrested over the w/e? Any more details?

    He was eliminated from their enquiries...

RE: -1

As I said in a previous note, you never know what will make people angry on the
road. It could have been some manoever you did five miles back down the road or
it could have been the colour of you car that angered this motor cyclist.

I know I get angered on my commute to work (its only 10 miles in light traffic)
but I don't let it get to me. The thing that angers me most are discourtious
drivers. Perhaps my idea of courtesy is different to theirs.

nigel

I met Mr Road Rage in a maroon Sierra last night outside DEC Park. I think my
crime was that I was in front of him. When he eventually overtook me, doing his
best to try and clip my front bumper, I was surprised to see a Digital sticker
in the back window. I was laughing so much at his antics I failed to get his
registration number...maybe next time.

Dave.

    re. .274
    I agree - discourtesy and thoughtlessness annoy me as well. I try to
    apply psychological stress reduction techniques (mentally switch off) 
    whenever it happens to me. It does seem to be happening a lot more 
    lately, and I don't ~think~ my driving has changed that much.
    
    I have noted that it does depend on what car I am driving (wife's white
    Cavalier SRi - very little aggro, my little old XR2 - loads of aggro). 
    Lots of problems I see occurring between other motorists on my drive
    through Reading each morning seem to involve white Ford Transits.
    Thoughtlessness often seems to come from parents dropping children at
    the various schools I pass.
    
    DaveT 

One thing I have noticed recently.

On a dual carriageway or motorway. You pull out to overtake a lorry. A 
lorry also pulls out in front, thus slowing every body down. Some wally 
decides he can't wait and drives up the inside lane, cuts in front of 
one of the cars and zooms off.

Thats the time I wish I was an unmarked police car.

It seems to be getting more frequent - has the law changed or are there 
more idiots on the road ?

Alan

    >> has the law changed or are there more idiots on the road ?
    
    I noticed this happening a lot on Monday coming down from the M40 at
    Oxford to the Newbury M4 junction. Dual carriageway but the outside lane was
    matching the insides speed, effectively reducing it to a single
    carriageway . 
    
    The proposal was put forward to allow undertaking last year and was
    knocked on the head straight away. Perhaps some peoples reading ability
    matches their driving skill!!! 
    
    
    
    			Stretch.

    Undertaking seems to work quite well in the USA, with no sign of
    resultant aggro.  Turning right (or left to us) at red lights is a good
    idea too. - Ken

    Lane discipline in the UK is diabolical, with far too many people
    cruising in the centre lane, and even more refusing to pull over to the
    inside lane on a two-lane dual carriageway. I undertake often when in
    the UK, it's the only way to make any progress.
    
    Laurie.

    
    
    As I've said in this conference before, undertaking isn't necessarily
    against the law. You may overtake on the inside if the traffic in the
    inside lane is moving faster than that on the outside - which surely by
    definition it must be %^) - and you aren't changing lanes just to
    overtake. This is at least how friend who's a Traffic Cop/Instructor
    for Staffs Police explained it to me. Basically if you start weaving
    about you'll get nicked, if you just drive up the inside lane of the M6
    at 70 whilst the outside two lanes do the usual 30-90-30 stop/start
    stuff, then you won't (at least not if he's on patrol).
    
    Graham
    

    
    A long long time ago on the North Circular at 7:30 in the morning
    I was stuck behind a line of six vehicles driving in the outside
    lane (of three). I was in the innermost lane and slowed roughly 
    opposite the last car in the tail. They were doing 30mph in a 40mph.
    After a couple of minutes I simply undertook them. 
    
    What I hadn't realised was that the second vehicle in the line was
    an unmarked police car. Next thing it's pulled into the centre lane
    and undertaken the car leading the procession. They stopped me and
    booked me for undertaking and speeding. I protested about the
    undertaking at the time. My view is that even if undertaking is
    an offence (by the way I was never charged) it can only happen
    when other road users are "driving without due care and attention"
    or somesuch. If they were driving in the correct lane for those
    not overtaking instead of swanning around in the centre/outer lanes
    it would be impossible to undertake them.
    
    It's also now a fact of life. On very busy motorways I've found it 
    quite common for the outside lane to be moving more slowly than the two
    inner lanes. I always try and use occurences like this to my advantage.
    
    Richard.
    
    

Not good news.....

Just got wind of another incident in North London today where 2 men were 
shot, 1 fatally, the second condition unknown following a Road Rage incident 
(or so it would seem)

Sorry to the bearer of bad news :-((

Craig.

    If only you were joking.

    Hot weather adds to the behaviour unfortunately.

Is there a solution to this madness?

Perhaps a high visibility campaing getting the AA, RAC, IAM, RoSPA, Police 
etc.. together.

I am amazed that very little is being done about what I would call one of the 
major problems, i.e. poor lane discipline (aka middle lane hoggers)

Why not these people over give them a 40 QUID fixed fine and 1 penalty pont 
(possibly two) - surely they will soon get the message?

I did hear something where police on the M1 were using a review LED diplsya 
to move drivers over, but surely a TV-based capmaign would be better.

What about re-tests for all every 5 years?

Craig

>>> What about re-tests for all every 5 years?
    
    Don't even think about it ! apart from the logistics involved, can you
    imagine the potential which would be seen by the bean counters in
    Whitehall ? now that we've got x million guaranteed re-tests each year
    we can knock 5p off income tax and put the price of re-tests up... and
    of course, it wouldn't get spent on the roads...
    
    Graham

In my opinion, ;-) it is very easy to annoy some other driver without knowing
how or why (RE: 275). 

The important thing is not to agravate the situation by getting annoyed at the
person who was annoyed in the first place. There are enough hazards out there
without adding the potentially life threatening 'road rage'. Someone needs to
find out what makes perfectly normal, calm people to get so angry at some minor
and sometimes insignificant thing. 

nigel

One of the more ludicrous excuses I've heard for a driver not to pull in from 
the `executive lane' on a motorway is `because I don't want to have my tyres 
damaged from the rough road surface caused by lorries in the slow lane'.  Hmm.

I must admit that, if someone is clearly hogging the outside (or middle) lane 
with no good reason, I tend to overtake on the inside without even indicating 
that they should perhaps move over; experience has taught me that I am likely 
to be rewarded with brake lights and sudden deceleration if I suggest that it 
would be nice if they moved over (and, no, I'm not the sort who tailgates)

Chris.

Just an addendum, judging from various things said by a number of people, some 
people *really* believe that dual carriageways and motorways don't have 
overtaking lanes, but have `slow' and `fast' lanes, and the choice of lane 
depends on whether one is driving `slow' or `fast'.  Obviously `slow' and 
`fast' are open to vast degrees of interpretation.

Chris.

    The point about not aggravating the situation.
    
    Last week I read an item about an old man who was dragged from his
    car, and beaten, for waving at a car that let him out. He was thanking
    them, they thought he was giving them the finger! 
    
    
                           Stretch.

re.291:

Last night I had someone gesticulate at me for have the temerity to be
travelling a long a piece of road they wished to join from a t-junction. The
lady in question approached the junction very fast and braking so late that she
overshot the give-way line by a metre. I merely drove around her having made
sure it was safe to do so. 

Dave.

re.293:

Right as always Malcolm.

Dave.

    You are an example to us all, Dave.
    
    Goldy.

    An example of what ?
    
    Rik

    How many people saw The Bill on Friday evening. The story centred
    around a Frontera (!) driver who became a maniac once he was behind the
    wheel. He caused a major smash involving a 6 months pregnant woman (she
    rolled the car avoiding him), punched another driver who would not let
    him pass once they pulled up at some lights, and all this followed him
    cutting up the Chief Inspectors car!! 
    After being questioned back at the station he starts off being all
    pleasent, gradually loses his cool and then erupts in fury saying
    things like "I was going to give her another mile and then I was going
    to ram the silly ***** off the road if she did not pull over" and the
    gem of a line about him "being surrounded by a**holes on the road!" All
    of this has been taped and the police questioning him just say "Thankyou"
    as he tucks himself up! Classic episode IMHO
    
    Excellent timing given the current news sories and safety ads
    relating to road rage.
    
    
    			Stretch.

    ... and did you notice that he was a computer salesman? :-)
    DaveT

Taking a slightly different direction here, it appears to me that a factor which
contributes to 'road rage' in Britain is the frustration caused by road works.
It seems that there are road works every few miles wherever you go, and each
time you encounter them you get stuck and get irritated and frustrated.

I wonder if the benefit of the road works outways the cost and frustration.
Maybe there is some political or business reason for the amount of road works.


nigel

I dunno, I find that driving over endless potholes gradually increases my 
irateness over time.  On the other hand, most roadworks seem to create 
potholes rather than fix them.

Chris.

It seems that there is some master planner who decides where the traffic
congestion is going to be and for what duration. This is the planner of the 
road works throughout the country. He/she makes sure that everyone gets their
fair share of traffic hold up and frustration, just so road rage won't be
concentrated in one part of the country.  

nigel

    re .301
    Certainly Reading seems to be the target at the moment. At the same
    time as Sonning Bridge is closed for repairs, the new slip road off the
    IDR is being constructed. All the extra traffic that cannot go over
    Sonning bridge, now heads into one lane of the IDR from 8:00 am onwards.
    DaveT                 

The problem is that they have too much money now, with higher taxes (road fund
license) and more cars. Now instead of doing the road works sequentially they do
them all at the same time.

nigel

    
>> too much money now, with higher taxes (road fund license) and more cars
    
    Nigel, just coz they collect lots of money from Road Fund licenses it
    doesn't mean they spend it on the roads you know ! If they did, we
    could stop all this squabbling over by-passes and 'save the trees',at a
    stroke they could just tarmac everything south of birmingham %^)
    
    No, I think the planning of roadworks has more to do with the weather,
    have you ever seen a Roadworker without a permanent tan ? I thought
    not, they fill pot-holes in Hawaii and then Oz each winter you know,
    before returning via the Med in time for Roadworks season in the UK .... 
                                                                       
    Graham

    
    	I heard a rumour, that in Germany, the government rents the
    road/carraigeway to the contractor at some huge amount per hour/day (?)
    which gives them a very large incentive to finish the works as quickly
    as possible, the contract being fixed price.   Anyone know the truth
    of that?
    
    	I don't think that workers have any less of a tan.
    
    				Malcolm.

Sorry that we're off on a tangent here with roadworks, but I do think the delays
and hold up caused by road works contibute to road rage. The frustration is
hightened when you are siting waiting in a line of traffic at a road works site
and you see some really idiotic thing that they are doing.

Maybe there should be another topic "Idiotic and stupid things seen at road
works sites"

nigel

>Maybe there should be another topic "Idiotic and stupid things seen at road
>works sites"

usually nothing at all.  Hundreds of yards of coned off road, causing
sometimes miles of queues, and not a sign of anything having been done,
often for days on end.

Chris.

    re: 2425.305
    
    I don't know about Germany but lane rental has become part of tenders
    for roadworks in this country for a little while now. Basically what
    happens is that the tender specifies how many days and the lane rental
    for that many days is included as part of the costs by the civil
    engineering companny. So there is an incentive to finish early or they
    end up paying lane rental for the extra days.
    
    Regards,
    
    Jim
    p.s. I only know this because one of my sons-in-law is an estimator for
    Breheny's, a civil engineering company.

    
    re. .305, there may be some foundation to this but I too am
    not sure. However I was driving in Germany a few years ago
    and the only motorway traffic queue I encountered was at
    roadworks where a lane was coned off, at the head of which
    some commotion was taking place between uniformed police
    and the roadwork contractors.
     The police were visibly agitated, appeared to be arguing
    with the contractors, and were physically lifting up the
    traffic cones and throwing them on to grass verge, pointing
    at wristwatches to indicate the time. The traffic began
    flowing again immediately.
     I'm not sure this is typical, but it seemed unusual to me
    until I read .305
    
    Brian
    

Hi,

On Friday at around 1845, driving up the A43 from the M40 to the M1 I noticed a
Rover 620 trying to  touch bumpers with me at about 70moh as I overtook some
lorries.  I was slightly annoyed, and pulled over when I could as the driver of
the Rover was obviously more important than I.   

The Rover drivers haste was soon brought to a halt as we appraoched a 
roundabout (Near the little chef) where I took the inside lane and cruised 
past him, he on the otherhand was now stuck behing a lime green boy racer 
machine with blackenen windows.  I watched as the Rover nudged up to the rear 
bumper of the lime green fiesta, the fiesta was having none of this behaviour 
and tried braking, speeding up and braking and poping the old fog lights on.  

The fiesta had nowhere to go as the slow lane (the one I was in) was full, but
not slow (about 60-70mph).  The fiesta driver was signalling in no uncertain  
with his hands that Mr.Important should back off, naturally Mr. Important just 
got closer to the fiesta (probably to check what the fiesta driver wanted).   

After about a minute (seemed like a very long minute) the fiesta got to a 
clear piece of duel carriageway, but didn't pull over (Great I thought), so 
the Rover driver tried to undertake. On undertaking the fiesta tried to run 
the Rover off the road, that's when the car-chase-road-rage-battle commenced.
The Rover managed to get in front, with the fiesta hot on his tail, the Rover 
was braking, swerving and putting the fog lights on.  This dog fight carried on
for at least 2 =-3 miles.

The last I saw, as the chase appraoached 80mph+, was the Rover slam on the 
brakes the accelerate away.  At this point the fiesta slid all over the "fast"
lane, I thought he'd lost it for sure and I could be a witness, but the
fiesta driver managed to handle it and zoom of into the distance, but he was
out of control for ages.   

I was annoyed with the Rover driver myself and I'm fairly placid, but I know
people that would have taken the same aggressive stance as the fiesta driver. 
The pair of these drivers were lucky not to end up on the wrong end of a drip.

I couldn't believe what I saw and have resolved to get a small camera for the
car for such instances.  This chase was just so dangerous, other road users
were put at risk and the speed and manourvers would have made any chase on
Police Stop look like childs play...


Chris

    mmm... perhaps I ought to make my fiesta less distinctive...
    :-)
    dt

    Chris,
    Given the time this took I hope you got the number plate of the morons 
    involved.
    
    
          		Stretch.

    I'd like to say I did, but I had nothing to right it down with (hence
    the bit about buying a cheap camera), I know what model the cars were
    and the time, but that's it.  The Rover was N registered, but that's as
    far as my memory will go.  If I'd had a car phone, I'd have snitched to
    the rozzers.
    
    It really was a few minutes/miles of extreme madness.
    
    
    Chris.
     
    

    On the general thread of road rage...
    
    My wife drives what was my car before we got married - an Astra SRi. 
    She gets no end of hassle from male drivers - blokes driving inches from
    her bumper, trying to beat her away from roundabouts/traffic lights,
    going mad to overtake her on motorways then pulling in and slowing down. 
    Its happening almost every week, and is really making us think we
    should change the car. She is not an aggressive driver by any stretch
    of the imagination, although she does like driving fast.
    
    What is it with Blokes and their attitudes to Women in powerful cars?
    Maybe I'm just wierd in that I don't understand it?  
    
    hmmm
    
    mikef
     

    
    	Chris,
    
    	maybe you'd remember the number plates under hypnosis?
    	Anyone trained?
    
    	:-)
    

    >> hence the bit about buying a cheap camera
    
    operating a camera whilst keeping up with an 80mph car chase would
    probably be viewed quite seriously too %^/
    
    G.

    Remembering number plates and telling the police won't make any
    difference. They are not interested unless there is an accident.
    
    Royston

    
    They don't seem too interested if there's an accident either ! I
    exchanged reg no., name and address with a driver who drove into the
    side of my car whilst I was overtaking him. The Insurance Co. didn't
    get a reply to their letters so I went to the Police, they took the
    details I had and my description of the driver.
    
    It turned out that the address didn't exist so they contacted the previous
    owner who said he'd sold the car two days before the accident; At this a
    point I thought they'd now issue a description of the driver and
    vehicle and its' reg. but no, that was it - case closed !
    
    Basically a complete waste of time, of course if I'd mentioned that the
    car didn't have a tax disc, some of it's lights didn't work and one of
    the tyres appeared to bald it might have been a different story, but
    what the hell it was only going to be my insurance premium which was
    affected %^/
    
    G.
    

It seems to me that the best way to avoid such problems is to claim that you 
have a slight injury (whiplash?) in order to have the police attend the scene 
of an accident.

I admit a waste of resources for the ensuing ambulance but letting people get 
away with this type of thing is outrageous.

Similarly, I think I'd be tempted to take legal advice. It cannot be right 
that they are not interested in such things. We pay our taxes for the police 
to protect us.

Craig

    
    Craig, hindsight is a valuable thing %^) This all happened a few years
    ago as I drove from my home in Staffs. back to Solent one Sunday
    afternoon. The guy had an elderly copule in the car with him who I
    assume were his parents, as he gave me all of the details except his
    Insurance Company which he said he could not remember I didn't thing
    anything was amiss - of course I now know different  !
    
    Carrying a camera in the car is a good idea for occasions such as this,
    a 'team photo' of driver, vehicles and witnesses wouild come in handy -
    however I still think you'd be asking for trouble if you show the
    Police photo's taken (by the driver) from a moving vehicle.
    
    G.

Can't the police be made to attend such incidents if you have doubts about 
the other party?

Possibly a quick call to your Insurance Company might help (assuming you've a 
mobile)

Perhaps insisting on proof of address (driving licence etc..) might put your 
mind at rest.

FWIW, I understand that not carrying your documents (driving licnese, MOT, 
insuranCE - not sure about V5 though) *is* an offence but the police never 
prosecute, they always give you 7 days grace - aka a producer.

Craig

    The police are interested, it's often the Crown Prosecution Service
    that decide if an incident should be investigated or not. As for
    reporting someone's dangerous driving, it's best that there are at
    least two independent witnesses (two people in the same car making the
    statement doesn't count!).
    
    Goldy.

    
    The CPS decide if an offence should be prosecuted, not whether it
    should be investigated.
    
    That's how it seems to work in "The Bill".
    
    Andrew

    Investigated, Andrew. The Bill is not a true reflection of police life.
    
    Goldy.

    Goldy,
    I have to side with Andrew on this. The Police present the evidence
    (obtained by the investigation) to the CPS (Can't Prosecute Service!)
    who decide wether or not to pursue the case with a (very) good chance
    of prosecution. Often to the annoyance of the Police they decide not to 
    therefore rendering a large amount of man hours as worthless.
    
    
     
    			Stretch.

    re .321 >not carrying your documents ... *is* an offence
    
    Can you shed more light on this. 
    
    I don't believe there is any law that requires you to keep these
    docs with you. Thats the very reason why you are allowed 7 days
    to produce it.
    
    Royston

RE : 310

I think Chris did the right thing to get out of the way of the person driving
the Rover. It seems to me that its becomming a basic rule for survival, "get out
of the way of anyone who displays the symptoms of road rage".

BTW did the police ever find the person with the 'L' registered Discovery who
shot the other person in the head after a road rage incident? RE: I think about
reply 287, it was two people in North London.

nigel

    Re .325
    
    From experience (I was married to a policeman who spent most of his
    time being continually frustrated by the (non)efforts of the CPS), 
    I know that the CPS can also decide not to even investigate a matter. 
    The police will give some details to the CPS who can decide whether 
    evidence should be obtained prior to a possible prosecution.
    
    Goldy.

    I know this is being pedantic but I'm like that. The CPS may indeed say
    at an early stage that they will not prosecute a case, it then makes
    little sense to investigate further. I understood that the CPS can not
    tell the police not to investigate.
    
    I'm sure they are a source of great frustration. Another good idea
    badly implemented?
    
    Andrew

On Sunday morning  at the junction of Basingstoke and Hartland Rd.
A car was 'cut up' the car that did this then sropped and pulled a
shotgun on the occupants of the other car. Luckily no one was hurt

Simon

I got this first hand from a mate who is in the force. Apparently the police 
could give a caution if you don;t have your documents with you, but as i've 
said already, they NEVER do. They simply give you 7 days grac.

Craig.

    .328. Goldy, I think .325 says, basically, the same thing. 
    
    
    .327. Nigel, re the road rage killings. I think you have two incidents
    blurring into one there. The L reg Discovery driver was the guy who stabbed
    the bloke in front of his fiance (Kent/M25?), and no suspect has been
    identified. 
    	The shootings happened in London and two men were shot, one
    fatally, the other survived being shot in the head! I believe the
    shooter is still on the loose. Scary stuff eh?, and the heat only makes
    it worse!
    
    
    			Stretch.                       

    Re .332
    
    It was early!
    

	A police constable in uniform can stop a driver of any vehicle on
	a public highway for the purposes of examining their driving licence.

	If you cannot produce your license at the time of the stop you
	technically _do_ commit an offence.  However, the issuing of
	an HO/RT1 form (seven day wonder) allows seven days grace for
	the production of the licence.  But....the PC can report you
	at the roadside for "consideration for prosecution for the offence
	of driving without a licence"...then if you fail to produce
	within 7 days you will be prosecuted for the offence which took
	place at the time you failed to produce at the roadside.  If he
	doesn't report you at the roadside and you subsequently fail
	to produce in the 7 day period the police will call at your
	home address and report you for prosecution there.

	Failure to produce other paperwork such as Insurance, MOT etc. does not 	
	constitute an offence _at that time_.  However, the failure to
	produce them within 7 days will result in prosecution.

	HTH,
	Kevin.

In the States your driving license is used more for identification than anything
else. In a lot of states, if you are stopped (while driving walking or riding)
and you can't prove who you say you are (i.e. with some form of picture I.D.)
you get thrown in jail for vagrancy.

A few years ago while driving to the supermarket about mile from my house I got
stopped for speeding (34 mph in a 30 limit). As the policeman approached the car
I realised I didn't have my wallet or anything with me.He proceded to tell me
that he could throw me in jail etc. I proceded to tell him that I lived just
down the street and I could walk back and get my driving license. I then told
him that the reason I was there was because I had run out of tea and was going
to the supermarket to get some. I think he must have thought this was a pathetic
story because he let me off with a warning on both counts. 


nigel

RE: 332 Road Rage Killings

Todays Telegraph says that the person who was killed on the M25 was Stephen
Cameron and the person detectives want to question is Anthony Francis. Is it
really that difficult to find Anthiny Francis? I would have thought the
detectives would have found him and talked to him before the newspapers would
print his name.

This article from Wednesdays paper seemed to be relevent to road rage:

   AN MP fed up with sitting in traffic jams urged the Government yesterday
    to allow jugglers and acrobats to perform on the M6 to soothe motorists'
    jangled nerves.
  
nigel

    
    Wanst this guy also wanted as part of the brinks matt gold robbery and
    police have been after him for a long time, I think this is the one the
    radio was on about.

It was reported that this name was the same as an alias used
by one of the Brinks Mat robbers.

Well, it does not appear anyone has entered much here in a while.

There was a television programme here in the U.S a couple of weeks ago which
included a section on 'road rage'. The problem here is quite bad and getting
worse, they gave a few examples of incidents which included some where people
were killed. They also interviewed and drove around with people who got quite
angry almost all the time when they were in their car. These people were quite
normal (non aggressive) when out of their car.

The bottom line advice for the motorist who is NOT the aggressor and is
subgected to road rage was:

Do not make eye contact with the aggressor
Do not make any signal (hand, finger or otherwise) to the aggressor
Move away from the other car, preferably not fast forward (this can be difficult
in heavy traffic).
Be very very tollerant of anyone who indicates annoyance or aggression on the
road.

What compounds the problem over here is that a lot of people carry guns in their
car, and a seemingly average, quite, responsible person gets into a car and one
tiny incident makes them change into a different person. 

    I'm on a roundabout over a motorway.... Am about to approach my exit of
    the roundabout and am indicating left... Geezer approaches roundabout
    from motorway off-ramp and basically cuts out in front of me. (Let's
    give him the benefit of the doubt, he must have thought I was going to
    go down his off-ramp the wrong way.) 
    
    No matter there's nothing else on the roundabout and so I manouevre to 
    simply drive round him. Turns out he's taking the same exit as me... I 
    say "turns out" because he's not planning to give away any strategy by 
    using his indicators.
    
    Now the exit that we are both taking has a left hander almost as soon
    as you are off the roundabout. Paddy-wack is in the inside lane and I
    have exited the roundabout in the right hand lane. As we go round the
    bend, bugger-lugs decides that he is going to have the right-hand lane
    as well. However there is too much of my car (like all of it) in the
    way.... he realises at the last minute. 
    
    I manage to get by without cars colliding, and as I drive on I see that
    the driver of the other ve-hicle is remonstrating wildly at me... His
    car is now fully in the right hand lane and he is about to be
    undertaken by a Ford Transit... Bit of a risky move by the van driver
    as Mr. Angry is now indicating left. I suspect, but I don't know, that
    the indicator came on when attempts were made to blast the horn... This
    is not as good as getting the horn, by the way ;-)
    
    Anyway, as luck would have it, the lights on the next roundabout are on
    red. I am now back in the nearside lane as I am taking one of the exits
    before 12 o'clock... (Don't worry there was plenty of time 'cos it was
    only 5-2-10 !)
    
    This gives the enemy the chance to draw up beside me (left hand
    indicator still on).... Out of the corner of my eye, I can vaguely see
    that he is still waving his left arm wildly in my general direction,
    and I am also aware that his head is moving in short, sharp, jerky
    movements, so I guess he wuz a-cussin'-and-a-swearin' too. What I was
    really worried about was that this clown was going to get out and
    attempt to punch me in the noggin'. 
    
    Nothing further untoward happened though, and I'm guessing that as I
    did not react in anyway to the verbal taunting and hand signals, that's
    the reason he remained in his car as opposed to getting out and
    thumping me.
    
    Mind you, I was dying to tell him to use his bloody mirrors, or even
    just look out of the windows of his car from time to time. 
                                            

    Much as I see the wisdom in ignoring/avoiding/hiding from these
    maniacs there comes a time where you cannot get away. What are you
    supposed to do ????
    
    
    			Stretch.

Why not simply run them over? I am serious. Yeah, OK, you'll no doubt have to 
explain your reasons for doing so but, hey, you'd still be alive and the 
perpetrator would be put out of action. A far better scenario than getting 
assaulted with god knows what a lunatic might pull out of his car. 

Does anyone else get the feeling that the correct reponse to incidients such 
as this is, generally, never the legal one?

Its a pity the guy in .340 didn;t croak it with a heart attack. Now that 
*would* have made my day ;-)

Craig.

If you had seen some of the incidents they talked about on the programme I
mentioned in 339, you can see why they gave the DO NOTHING advice.

In a couple of cases where people were killed, the person had reacted in what
seemed to be a normal way, by giving some gesture of disapproval of what the 
aggressor had done (nothing really offensive). They also interviewed the people
who were in prison for the killing, not exactly your Charles Manson types.

DO NOTHING, it seems to be the only sound advice I've heard so far.

nigel

    The past few remind me of the old saying with regard to motivation.
    
    
    	Talk quietly ......  and carry a big stick.
    
    Chris