 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / May 2008FAO BMW drivers !
The other day I was cruising along as usual coming onto one of my motorways, which was very busy with inferior cars. First off, I couldn't believe that the volume of traffic DIDN'T slow down for me AT ALL as I came off the slip road! I had to squeeze into a barely big enough gap between two cars in order to get onto my motorway! The driver of the car behind me did realise his mistake though and honked an apology to me with a long blast of his horn. Unbelievably, I had to do the same again before I could get to the BMW lane. Anyway, once I was in the BMW lane and posing along at 110 mph enjoying the adulation that the inferior car drivers were giving me, I noticed an inferior car ahead of me which was not only in the BMW lane of my motorway, but was driving at a ridiculous 70 mph! Naturally, I got within a foot or so of his rear bumper and flashed my headlights to remind him he shouldn't be in the BMW lane of my motorway and to get out of my way. Of course, once he realised it was a BMW behind him, he did just that, but I could hardly believe it when he pulled straight back out behind me! He also tried to keep up with me and when he realised I would out-run him, he put on some blue lights in his front grill and urged me to get onto the hard shoulder so that he could congratulate me on my excellent car. Needless to say, I was eager to oblige and when we had stopped, the man gave me a piece of paper confirming what I already knew - that my car goes fast! Apparently he wants everyone to know what a superior car I have, so I had to take my drivers licence to a police station to be sent away to have some points put on! (They're not free points either - they're �60 each and I was only allowed 3.) But the man at the police station said that because I drive a BMW, it won't be much longer before I earn the full 12 points, and then I won't even NEED a driving licence, so they will take it off me! See, now THAT'S the sort of respect you get when you own and drive a BMW! " There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red BMW M3. Also you should, perhaps, move to lane 2 if there's a car on a slip road of a fairly quiet dual-carriageway. > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red > BMW M3. > > Also you should, perhaps, move to lane 2 if there's a car on a slip > road of a fairly quiet dual-carriageway. Just what planet are you from?! > > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red > > BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Just what planet are you from?! Planet Fuckwitte, I think. Either it's a failed troll, or just a failure. No doubt when someone picks hte fleas off it again it will have been ranting about cars driving without headlights on during daylight. Although since it can't explain itself, no one will ever know. >>> There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red >>> BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Although since it can't explain itself, no one will ever know. I think it's quite amusing in (as I mentioned the other day) a 'car crash Usenet' way! > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red > BMW M3. > > Also you should, perhaps, move to lane 2 if there's a car on a slip > road of a fairly quiet dual-carriageway. Maybe the driver on the slip road could just merge onto the dual-carriageway when safe to do so? MrBitsy >> There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red >> BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe the driver on the slip road could just merge onto the dual-carriageway > when safe to do so? If only....  Signature"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one." [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk] > > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red > > BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe the driver on the slip road could just merge onto the dual-carriageway > when safe to do so? Where traffic allows, I always pull out into lane 2 to make it easier for those merging from slip roads. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # >> > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red >> > BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Where traffic allows, I always pull out into lane 2 to make it easier > for those merging from slip roads. I pull into lane 2 to avoid window lickers who don't understand what a give way line is... >> > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red >> > BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Where traffic allows, I always pull out into lane 2 to make it easier > for those merging from slip roads. But, but! That gives them the wrong idea, and they then need people like Ray to not move out on an otherwise empty road in order to teach somebody a lesson. (I'll move out too...) cheers, clive >>> > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red >>> > BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > (I'll move out too...) ...doesn't everyone? I thought that was 'the done thing'? S'what I always do anyway, you'd have to be a right twat to not move over for people if you can heh. SignatureDan Clio V6 > >>> > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red > >>> > BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > do anyway, you'd have to be a right twat to not move over for people if you > can heh. I don't move over unless forced to. But I will adjust my speed slightly (no need to brake), to lengthen the gap at either front or rear to allow someone in. SignatureCarl Robson Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >>>> > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red >>>> > BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > ...doesn't everyone? I thought that was 'the done thing'? The 'done' thing' - see what I mean :-( MrBitsy >>>>> > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red >>>>> > BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > The 'done' thing' - see what I mean :-( As posted by someone else - Page 89 of "How to Be A Better Driver: Advanced Driving the Essential Guide" says "Slip Road Courtesy As you approach and pass an entrance slip road consider whether you should change lanes to help vehicles merge. Lorry drivers will be appreciative of your courtesy. If they are forced to slow down they become a hazard." And I'm not even in the IAM, yet it appears, I am already awesome enough cos I do that anyway. Now please, do explain why I shouldn't move over? SignatureDan Clio V6 >>> > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red >>> > BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > But, but! That gives them the wrong idea, It does - drivers now think traffic on the motorway has to give way. > and they then need people like Ray to not move out on an otherwise empty > road in order to teach somebody a lesson. The lesson my son learnt was a good one - do not assume others know whyat is in the HC. > (I'll move out too...) Thus demonstrating your lack of knowledge also. MrBitsy >> > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red >> > BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Where traffic allows, I always pull out into lane 2 to make it easier > for those merging from slip roads. I guess you feel the strain of adjusting ones speed and merging safely is too strenuous, or requires one to use three brain cells? MrBitsy > > Where traffic allows, I always pull out into lane 2 to make it easier > > for those merging from slip roads. > > I guess you feel the strain of adjusting ones speed and merging safely is > too strenuous, or requires one to use three brain cells? Why is it wrong, in Ray's world, to make life easier for other drivers? Usually, I'm sat there, with cruise switched on, so it's much less of an issue for me to move out than it is for me to adjust my speed. Obviously, if conditions don't allow me to move out, I won't, and I will adjust my speed, but it usually makes more sense to move out. It's just courteous. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # >> > Where traffic allows, I always pull out into lane 2 to make >> > it easier [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why is it wrong, in Ray's world, to make life easier for other > drivers? Because he doesn't think for himself. He merely repeats what he has been taught without questioning it. > Usually, I'm sat there, with cruise switched on, so it's much > less of an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's just courteous. Seems obvious to me, but presumably the IAM etc, have different ideas. Maybe Ray would like to explain why we shouldn't do it. Mike. "Seems obvious to me, but presumably the IAM etc, have different ideas." My quote above on the subject is from an IAM book. > "Seems obvious to me, but presumably the IAM etc, have > different > ideas." > > My quote above on the subject is from an IAM book. Looks like Ray has made a 'boo boo' to quote a certain politician. :-) Mike. >> "Seems obvious to me, but presumably the IAM etc, have different >> ideas." >> >> My quote above on the subject is from an IAM book. > > Looks like Ray has made a 'boo boo' to quote a certain politician. :-) Maybe he can think for himself and not just follow rules? MrBitsy >>> "Seems obvious to me, but presumably the IAM etc, have >>> different [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe he can think for himself and not just follow rules? Seems your assertion is not taking account of the conditions that there'd need to be, before I and others would require before moving into the middle or 2nd lane. I thaught it was quite clear that no one was suggesting moving over if it could cause any anxiety to another driver. Mike. >>> > Where traffic allows, I always pull out into lane 2 to make it easier >>> > for those merging from slip roads. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Because he doesn't think for himself. He merely repeats what he has been > taught without questioning it. The IAM bless them, believe one should make it easier for the poor dears to join. >> Usually, I'm sat there, with cruise switched on, so it's much less of an >> issue for me to move out than it is for me to adjust my speed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Seems obvious to me, but presumably the IAM etc, have different ideas. > Maybe Ray would like to explain why we shouldn't do it. Simple. Drivers drive too close on motorways, leading to an over reaction to events in front. If a driver on the motorway changes lanes for no good reason, or adjusts speed for no good reason, those behind will stab the brakes or make late lane changes. We all know the cosequences of this, with regular shunts. If the driver joining always merges into a suitable gap, this will cut down on incidents created by poor drivers on the motorway. Unfortunately, it has now become standard practice to move over as soon as a vehicle is seen on the slip road. This quite often sees the car in lane two stranded there, as the joining driver accelerates away in lane one. Of course, any sensible driver will move over or adjust speed to maintain safety, but this should only be required occasionally if drivers new how to join properly. This 'over courteous' behaviour can now be seen when vehicles are turning right into a minor road - quite often they will give priority to the driver joining the main road - even if there are no other vehicles in sight! Mrbitsy >>>> > Where traffic allows, I always pull out into lane 2 to make it easier >>>> > for those merging from slip roads. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > brakes or make late lane changes. We all know the cosequences of this, > with regular shunts. On the other hand, stupid people do stupid things and *no amount* of your belief that somehow you're teaching somebody a lesson is going to change this. > If the driver joining always merges into a suitable gap, this will cut > down on incidents created by poor drivers on the motorway. Unfortunately, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > priority to the driver joining the main road - even if there are no other > vehicles in sight! It takes two. One to respond, one to try to be helpful. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >> > Where traffic allows, I always pull out into lane 2 to make it easier >> > for those merging from slip roads. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why is it wrong, in Ray's world, to make life easier for other drivers? It makes it easier for everyone if the driver joining adjusts speed - not those already on the motorway. Consider the majority of drivers that drive too close and over react to others changing speed. These drivers change lanes without looking properly, stab the brakes etc. If the driver joining hasn't a clue, or is just plain lazy, then I would of course change lanes or adjust speed, to maintain safety. > Usually, I'm sat there, with cruise switched on, so it's much less of an > issue for me to move out than it is for me to adjust my speed. Wouldn't it be better if the joining driver adjusted speed, allowing you the priority and obeying the give way? > Obviously, if conditions don't allow me to move out, I won't, and I will > adjust my speed, but it usually makes more sense to move out. Of course it is, but that courtesy should only be required in the minority of cases. Unfortunately, drivers now believe the drivers on the motorway HAVE to give priority to those joining. > It's just courteous. If overdone, it leads to drivers expecting you to move over. MrBitsy >> Obviously, if conditions don't allow me to move out, I won't, >> and I will [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If overdone, it leads to drivers expecting you to move over. My other replies cover that issue. Mike. >>> Where traffic allows, I always pull out into lane 2 to make it easier >>> for those merging from slip roads. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Usually, I'm sat there, with cruise switched on, so it's much less of an > issue for me to move out than it is for me to adjust my speed. is the correct answer. > Obviously, if conditions don't allow me to move out, I won't, Is also the correct answer. > and I will > adjust my speed, but it usually makes more sense to move out. > > It's just courteous. Is also the correct answer. Unfortunately some morons choose to view this as 'the traffic on the motorway must give way to me', which is where I think Ray is coming from. >> > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you >> > drive a red [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > easier > for those merging from slip roads. So do I. Why force someone coming on to the m/way to adjust their speed if it can be avoided without compromising any safety issues? Mike. >>> > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red >>> > BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Why force someone coming on to the m/way to adjust their speed if it can > be avoided without compromising any safety issues? Back to front - the driver joining who does not give priority, is forcing the driver on the motorway to adjust speed or change direction. MrBitsy. >>>> > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you >>>> > drive a red [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > is forcing the driver on the motorway to adjust speed or change > direction. No one is forcing me to do anything. I only move over if it is safe to do so. Allowing the joining driver to comfortably get on the m/way, without having to be concerned about my presence. Mike. >>>>> > There is no point putting just the sidelights on if you drive a red >>>>> > BMW M3. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > having to be concerned about my presence. > Mike. Yes, that's the way I look at it. It works both ways - if I'm joining the motorway in a Saab 900 Turbo, I don't care if people move or not, I can generally out accelerate them and fit in any gap I like... If I'm in the 2CV however, it's a different matter. The last thing I want to be doing is slowing down when joining a motorway , then being in the inside lane at 40-odd mph when everyone else is doing 60+.. if people move over, I can keep the valves bouncing in third and get on at 60... ;-) Mike P > Why force someone coming on to the m/way to adjust their speed if > it can be avoided without compromising any safety issues? What does that line at the end of the slip road actually mean? SignatureCarl Robson Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >>Why force someone coming on to the m/way to adjust their speed if >>it can be avoided without compromising any safety issues? > > What does that line at the end of the slip road actually mean? It means something really heavy, like, there's no more slip road. >> Why force someone coming on to the m/way to adjust their speed if >> it can be avoided without compromising any safety issues? >> > What does that line at the end of the slip road actually mean? Check speedometer, make calculation as to average acceleration achieved. SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com >> Why force someone coming on to the m/way to adjust their speed if >> it can be avoided without compromising any safety issues? >> > What does that line at the end of the slip road actually mean? For many drivers, it is a line where drivers on the moronway will all suddenly dart into lane 2, required or not. It is also the point where a joining driver accelerates in lane 1, leaving the vehicle that moved out into lane 2 stranded, as the next moron passes them on the left. Why do people have to keep re-inventing the wheel, when the HC is simple and clear on the matter? >>> Why force someone coming on to the m/way to adjust their speed if >>> it can be avoided without compromising any safety issues? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > joining driver accelerates in lane 1, leaving the vehicle that moved out > into lane 2 stranded, as the next moron passes them on the left. Now I don't get this "stranded" in lane 2 thing. If conditions are such that moving over to L2 to let someone in from the slip road is easy, which it normally is when I'm driving, when they zoom off into the distance it's trivially easy to move back into L1. Heck, even if the traffic isn't light and there's a speed differential it's pretty darn easy to move left a lane - signal, and people will stop undertaking. clive >>>> Why force someone coming on to the m/way to adjust their speed if >>>> it can be avoided without compromising any safety issues? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it normally is when I'm driving, when they zoom off into the distance it's > trivially easy to move back into L1. Following the HC and merging safely is even more 'trivially easy' than this. What about those other drivers that drive too close, over react to lane changes and brake lights? > Heck, even if the traffic isn't light and there's a speed differential > it's pretty darn easy to move left a lane - signal, and people will stop > undertaking. Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge into the flow of traffic. MrBitsy > Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge > into the flow of traffic. Easier than allowing a driver to enter the n/s lane without having to merge or adjust their speed? What sort of logic is that? Mike. > > Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge > > into the flow of traffic. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What sort of logic is that? > Mike. This guy has it sussed! http://www.humorpix.com/images/3253-BMW-hater.html >> Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge into the flow >> of traffic. > > Easier than allowing a driver to enter the n/s lane without having to > merge or adjust their speed? > What sort of logic is that? In an ideal world, all drivers on the motorway would look ahead, anticipating the moves by others. In that ideal world, drivers will see a car on the sliproad and anticipate the vehicle in lane 1moving to lane 2. As we don't live in that ideal world, very often a move to lane two is accompanied by tailgaiting, heavy braking and rage. sometime the vehicle joining accelerates in lane 1, requiring another move back to lane 1 by the driver being over courteous. None of this would happen if the muppet joining, adjusted speed to merge safely into the flow of traffic. Of course, when traffic allows, there is going to be a benefit to the joining driver AND a safety benefit to oneself, then a move to lane two makes sense. Unfortunately, at the first sign of a vehicle on the sliproad, it is becoming automatic for drivers to move over and the joining driver to expect it - not good. >>> Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge into the >>> flow of traffic. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > joining accelerates in lane 1, requiring another move back to lane 1 by > the driver being over courteous. Um, which vehicles would those be doing the tailgating, heavy braking and rage? I get the feeling you really don't understand the "when the conditions allow" bit that several of us are talking about. clive >>>> Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge into the >>>> flow of traffic. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > rage? I get the feeling you really don't understand the "when the > conditions allow" bit that several of us are talking about. I am talking about those drivers that don't understand that concept, or allow hormones to rule them - the motorways are full of them. MrBitsy. >>>>> Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge into the >>>>> flow of traffic. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I am talking about those drivers that don't understand that concept, or > allow hormones to rule them - the motorways are full of them. Can you elaborate on that? Y'see, if I'm on an otherwise empty motorway with one car trying to join, I'm struggling to understand how the road could be full of anything. Or are they disguised as catseyes? BTW your desperation to sustain your dogma is noted. clive >>>>>> Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge into the >>>>>> flow of traffic. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > with one car trying to join, I'm struggling to understand how the road > could be full of anything. Or are they disguised as catseyes? If the motorway is empty, how does a joining driver need to 'try' anything? > BTW your desperation to sustain your dogma is noted. You being pedantic is also noted. MrBitsy >>>>>>> Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge into the >>>>>>> flow of traffic. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > If the motorway is empty, how does a joining driver need to 'try' > anything? Bugger me, your inability to understand the english language is stunning. Or did you just miss the "otherwise" bit? >> BTW your desperation to sustain your dogma is noted. > > You being pedantic is also noted. Um, I'm not being pedantic. You're the one who seems to be saying those of use who move out to let people on when conditions allow are being dangerous nutters. Why does it hurt you so much to admit there are often times when such actions are sensible? clive >>>>>>>> Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge into >>>>>>>> the flow of traffic. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Bugger me, your inability to understand the english language is stunning. > Or did you just miss the "otherwise" bit? What does 'otherwise empty' mean, if not empty apart from the vehicle joining? >>> BTW your desperation to sustain your dogma is noted. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > use who move out to let people on when conditions allow are being > dangerous nutters. I see you do not understand english either. I have been quite clear - drivers are moving out of lane one as soon as they see another vehicle joining, regardless of any need to actually do so. This 'over courtesy' is leading to a general belief that joining vehicles have priority. As we all know driving standards on motorways are appalling, so introducing a manoeuver that actually isn't required, will only add to the hazzards on a given road. Of course, if one needs to move out of lane one to maintain safety, then of course the move needs to be done. I have never sais any driver moving to lane two is a 'dangerous nutter', or anything like it. What I do not accept that the joining driver has some sort of difficulty to wrestle with - a pressure change with the right foot and using the eyes are all that is required. MrBitsy > Why does it hurt you so much to admit there are often times when such > actions are sensible? > > clive >>>>>>>>> Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge into >>>>>>>>> the flow of traffic. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > What does 'otherwise empty' mean, if not empty apart from the vehicle > joining? Empty apart from the vehicle joining and the driver who's already on there, making the move to L2 to allow the joiner to join without any need to change speed. >>>> BTW your desperation to sustain your dogma is noted. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > drivers are moving out of lane one as soon as they see another vehicle > joining, regardless of any need to actually do so. If one is behaving unhelpfully, you could say there's never any need to move to L2. However it does make it easier and hence safer, so I'll do it when conditions allow and appreciate it when others do the same for me. Which seems to be the behaviour espoused by all on this NG but you. > This 'over courtesy' is leading to a general belief that joining vehicles > have priority. As we all know driving standards on motorways are > appalling, so introducing a manoeuver that actually isn't required, will > only add to the hazzards on a given road. > Of course, if one needs to move out of lane one to maintain safety, then > of course the move needs to be done. I have never sais any driver moving [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to wrestle with - a pressure change with the right foot and using the eyes > are all that is required. Removing the need for the pressure change of the right foot where conditions allow improves the situation. clive >>>>>>>>>> Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge into >>>>>>>>>> the flow of traffic. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > there, making the move to L2 to allow the joiner to join without any need > to change speed. Oh, the car joining and the one already on it - but you weren't being pedantic. >>>>> BTW your desperation to sustain your dogma is noted. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > when conditions allow and appreciate it when others do the same for me. > Which seems to be the behaviour espoused by all on this NG but you. I have not said any such thing. I will move to lane two if safety is maintained or enhanced. >> This 'over courtesy' is leading to a general belief that joining vehicles >> have priority. As we all know driving standards on motorways are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Removing the need for the pressure change of the right foot where > conditions allow improves the situation. Sometimes yes, but my point has nothing to do with those times. My point, which you seem unwilling to understand, is that over using the move to lane two (being over courteous), can lead to extra hazzards (because of poor driving standards) and a belief that the joining driver actually has the priority. Overall, I believe these two problems are not outweighed by 'saving effort' for the joining driver. MrBitsy A new one today Golf in lane 1 didn't let me pull out but carried on at the same speed only to undertake a LGV, which was itself being overtaken by a LGV. The only benefit the Golf got was catching up to traffic on the slip road quicker. (Lane 1 became the slip road) In article <a51308d3-e593-4824-b980- 5fb7cbe5985c@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, baggy1963 says... > A new one today > > Golf in lane 1 didn't let me pull out Why should they? If you're on the sliproad, you're supposed to give way to traffic already on the motorway. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams > Sometimes yes, but my point has nothing to do with those times. My point, > which you seem unwilling to understand, is that over using the move to lane > two (being over courteous), can lead to extra hazzards (because of poor > driving standards) and a belief that the joining driver actually has the > priority. No, everyone gets where you're coming from. Just not sure why the hell you've picked on this one particular manoeuvre to get all preachy about. The road is full of hazards constantly, and everyone's driving - including yours - is "poor" by some measure. Try being more accepting of others mistakes and more critical of your own, and try to see things through the eyes of other road users a bit more. In otherwords take your preacher's hat off when you're behind the wheel. > Overall, I believe these two problems are not outweighed by 'saving effort' > for the joining driver. Again, you could pick on misuse of indicators, poor positioning, poor anticipation or anything. You could even pick on your own mistakes (what, you don't make any?!) and address those before taking it on yourself to force your principles onto others on the road. SignatureChris >> Sometimes yes, but my point has nothing to do with those times. My point, >> which you seem unwilling to understand, is that over using the move to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, everyone gets where you're coming from. Just not sure why the hell > you've picked on this one particular manoeuvre to get all preachy about. It is a driving newsgroup is it not? If you don't like driving subjects maybe you need an exit? > The road is full of hazards constantly, and everyone's driving - > including yours - is "poor" by some measure. Yes, agreed totally. Exactly the reason why I am always taking driving courses. > Try being more accepting of others mistakes and more critical of your > own, and try to see things > through the eyes of other road users a bit more. In otherwords take your > preacher's hat off when > you're behind the wheel. I gave a point of view - why in your mind does this equal dngerous driving on the road? >> Overall, I believe these two problems are not outweighed by 'saving >> effort' >> for the joining driver. > > Again, you could pick on misuse of indicators, poor positioning, poor > anticipation or anything. Yes, and all these cases it doesn't follow I get wound up and get road rage :-) > You could even pick on your own mistakes (what, you don't make any?!) Somebody who believes themselves perfect does not take extra driving tuition for a start. Secondly anybody who thinks they are perfect is likely to be a danger to themselves and others on the road. > and address those before taking it on yourself to force your principles > onto others on the road. In what way does a point of view expressed on this group equal forcing anybody to do anything on the road? MrBitsy > > No, everyone gets where you're coming from. Just not sure why the hell > > you've picked on this one particular manoeuvre to get all preachy about. > > It is a driving newsgroup is it not? If you don't like driving subjects > maybe you need an exit? Poor attempt Ray. I'm asking you a question about your attitude to driving. > > Try being more accepting of others mistakes and more critical of your > > own, and try to see things [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I gave a point of view - why in your mind does this equal dngerous driving > on the road? You've previously described an experiment in which you came into conflict with, and angered, another road user. You would prefer people to not move over (and thus increase space) as it sends the wrong message. The former was dangerous, the latter is more dangerous than it needs to be. > >> Overall, I believe these two problems are not outweighed by 'saving > >> effort' [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes, and all these cases it doesn't follow I get wound up and get road rage I never said you did. I'm saying that you could pick on any of these things to adopt a moralistic stance in this newsgroup, but are fixated on motorway sliproad joining for some reason. > > and address those before taking it on yourself to force your principles > > onto others on the road. > > In what way does a point of view expressed on this group equal forcing > anybody to do anything on the road? Have another go at reading the actual words that I typed. SignatureChris >> > No, everyone gets where you're coming from. Just not sure why the hell >> > you've picked on this one particular manoeuvre to get all preachy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Poor attempt Ray. I'm asking you a question about your attitude to > driving. Isn't that evident with the attempts I have made to become a better driver? I have no doubt at all there are many better drivers than me, but taking the courses shows my intent to drive to a high standard. >> > Try being more accepting of others mistakes and more critical of your >> > own, and try to see things [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > message. The former was dangerous, the latter is more dangerous than it > needs to be. No, another road user didn't know the correct way to join a motorway - there was no conflict. It was a valuable lesson for my 17 year old son, who is now 22 and hasn't had a single point or incident. I have not said I never want drivers to move over. I have never said I don't move over either. What I have said is many drivers are moving over automatically when they see a vehicle joining, whether they need to or not. I believe this is leading to a belief amongst drivers that joining vehicles actually have priority. To me, this is bad on many levels - extra hazzards, mainly due to poor driving, more incidents at sliproads as drivers assume priority and force their way on. Of course there is a place for courtesy, but if overdone is not in my view good for safety. MrBitsy >> >> Overall, I believe these two problems are not outweighed by 'saving >> >> effort' for the joining driver. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Have another go at reading the actual words that I typed. > I see you do not understand english either. I have been quite clear - > drivers are moving out of lane one as soon as they see another vehicle > joining, regardless of any need to actually do so. This 'over courtesy' is > leading to a general belief that joining vehicles have priority. I see the real problem here - you feel it is your duty to educate other drivers as to their responsibilities. Well you're wrong. Stop being such an insufferable bastard and swallow your bloody pride. > As we all know driving standards on motorways are appalling, so > introducing a manoeuver that actually isn't required, will only add to > the hazzards on a given road. Utter horseshit. Why pick on that particular manoeuvre? In what way is it "introduced"? You might as well say that when someone barges onto a roundabout without paying attention, your anticipating their mistake and adjusting your own position and speed to compensate sends the message that such behaviour is acceptable. Of course - the correct thing to do is doggedly stick to your guns Ray, and teach them to stop and look! You never tire of telling people that you're an advanced driver. But you somehow feel unable to use your above-average skills to compensate for other people's below-average skills, to the benefit and saftey of everyone. I ain't your job to go around teaching people or punishing them. They absolutely WON'T learn from that. The mindset you reveal here is the same as a below-average driver allowing themselves to get wound up by, say, a tailgater, and getting to the point where they want to "teach them a lesson" so they don't taligate again. > Of course, if one needs to move out of lane one to maintain safety, then of > course the move needs to be done. Good lad - now try also doing it when it helps everyone and inconveniences no-one. Leave the learning to the drivers who need it. > What I do not accept that the joining driver has some sort of difficulty to > wrestle with - a pressure change with the right foot and using the eyes are > all that is required. Funny, that's pretty much all that is required anywhere, so your comment is worthless. For example that's "all that is required" to move to the second lane. Want to stop digging yet? SignatureChris >> I see you do not understand english either. I have been quite clear - >> drivers are moving out of lane one as soon as they see another vehicle [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > drivers as to their responsibilities. Well you're wrong. Stop being > such an insufferable bastard and swallow your bloody pride. I hope to influence by driving to a high standard, yes, but I never drop standards to 'teach a lesson'. >> As we all know driving standards on motorways are appalling, so >> introducing a manoeuver that actually isn't required, will only add to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that such behaviour is acceptable. Of course - the correct thing to do > is doggedly stick to your guns Ray, and teach them to stop and look! I pick on that manoeuver, because the HC is clear the joining driver should give prority to those on the motorway. The HC of course doesn't give the advice to 'barge onto a roundabout without paying attention'. Sticking to my guns would be to drive safely, so I will make allowances for any driver making mistakes. I have given my view on drivers not joining motorways correctly, and that does not mean I drive to annoy the drivers getting it wrong. > You never tire of telling people that you're an advanced driver. But > you somehow feel unable to use your above-average skills to compensate > for other people's below-average skills, to the benefit and saftey of > everyone. You seem quite ready to make many assumptions based on a point of view. For example, I would quite like people to park their trolleys at the side of the aisle in a supermarket, rather than leave it across the aisle making it more difficult for everyone else. I imagine you would agree with this, yet I bet we both don't go around the supermarket blocking others shopping trolley!! I would like drivers to join motorways correctly, as I believe many drivers now think joining drivers have priority. I would like drivers to stop moving over automatically, because they have seen someone on a slip road. Why you think this means I drive badly, I don't know. > I ain't your job to go around teaching people or punishing them. Agreed. > They absolutely WON'T learn from that. Agreed. > The mindset you reveal here is the > same as a below-average driver allowing themselves to get wound up by, > say, a tailgater, and getting to the point where they want to "teach > them a lesson" so they don't taligate again. Easy there boy. Both of us do not like tailgators, yet I do not believe either of us would try and teach them a lesson. My preferred option is to time my entry to a junction so they get positioned behind someone else. If dangerous, I pull over and allow them to pass. I don't like the way people join motorways, but that doesn't stop me driving to a high standard. For the record, I do not get wound up when driving - my pleasure comes from anticipating and avoiding confrontation. >> Of course, if one needs to move out of lane one to maintain safety, then >> of >> course the move needs to be done. > > Good lad - now try also doing it when it helps everyone and > inconveniences no-one. Leave the learning to the drivers who need it. I do do this - I havn't a clue why you assume otherwise. >> What I do not accept that the joining driver has some sort of difficulty >> to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is worthless. For example that's "all that is required" to move to the > second lane. It is not required to move to lane 2 if the joining driver joins correctly. That is my point of view that you do not share, but it does not mean I respond badly to it or try to 'teach lessons'. MrBitsy > I pick on that manoeuver, because the HC is clear the joining > driver should give prority to those on the motorway. Granted, but where does it say that a driver on the m/way shouldn't make it easier for a driver to join, by moving into the next lane if it is safe to do so? The HC of course doesn't give the > advice to 'barge onto a roundabout without paying attention'. > > Sticking to my guns would be to drive safely, so I will make > allowances for any driver making mistakes. I have given my view > on drivers not joining motorways correctly, and that does not > mean I drive to annoy the >drivers. getting it wrong. You are missing the point. Why stick rigidly to HC advice? An experienced driver will, or at least should be, able to drive according to conditions, and hopefully, if safety is not compromised, will be courteous and considerate to other road users. There is nothing inherently wrong or dangerous in moving over to allow another driver to come onto a m/way with no need to adjust their speed. Obviously if traffic doesn't allow, you don't move over. It's very simple really. Your point about joining drivers making assumptions about who has priority falls on deaf ears AFAIC. Most are probably inexperienced, but they will soon learn that the few that do give them easy access are only being courteous and they wont expect it as a right. Mike. I wrote "Golf in lane 1 didn't let me pull out" Conor wrote "Why should they? If you're on the sliproad, you're supposed to give way to traffic already on the motorway. " It would have been safer than undertaking the 2 LGVs that were side by side and would have saved him petrol. Today - white van moves into lane 1 as a small white van enters slip road then moves back to lane 2 to overtake a car transporter, carrying BMWs.Time for an eye test? >I wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It would have been safer than undertaking the 2 LGVs that were side by > side and would have saved him petrol. Exactly one of the points I am making. Rather than join safely, waiting in lane 1 while the LGVs pass and move back to lane 1, a pass on the left is done. There is the added danger of appearing ahead of the LGVs just as another vehicle is planning a move to lane 1 after passing the LGVs. SignatureMrBitsy >> I pick on that manoeuver, because the HC is clear the joining driver >> should give prority to those on the motorway. > > Granted, but where does it say that a driver on the m/way shouldn't make > it easier for a driver to join, by moving into the next lane if it is safe > to do so? Agreed. My point from the begining concerns the many drivers that move over when it is not required. It is the same situation as a driver that will stop to let you out of a minor road, when there is nothing behind them! > The HC of course doesn't give the >> advice to 'barge onto a roundabout without paying attention'. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to conditions, and hopefully, if safety is not compromised, will be > courteous and considerate to other road users. Of course - agreed again. > There is nothing inherently wrong or dangerous in moving over to allow > another driver to come onto a m/way with no need to adjust their speed. > Obviously if traffic doesn't allow, you don't move over. It's very simple > really. Agreed yet again! My point concerns the many drivers that move over without a benifit to anyone, just because they see a vehicle on the hard shoulder. Given the poor driving standards displayed on motorways, this introduces more chances of late braking, tailgating etc in rear of the sliproad. This move to the right is becoming automatic for many drivers, leading to a belief that joining drivers actually do have the priority. > Your point about joining drivers making assumptions about who has priority > falls on deaf ears AFAIC. Most are probably inexperienced, but they will > soon learn that the few that do give them easy access are only being > courteous and they wont expect it as a right. I don't agree - joining drivers do expect drivers to move over, regardless of the traffic situation at the time. MrBitsy > This move to the right is becoming automatic for many drivers, leading > to a belief that joining drivers actually do have the priority. I don't believe that this follows, nor that there is this "automatic" problem in the first place. > I don't agree - joining drivers do expect drivers to move over, regardless > of the traffic situation at the time. Some drivers do, but your sweeping generalisation is ridiculous. SignatureChris >> This move to the right is becoming automatic for many drivers, leading >> to a belief that joining drivers actually do have the priority. > > I don't believe that this follows, nor that there is this "automatic" > problem in the first place. I found this error with many new drivers at the IAM. I certainly found it on DCs as a driving instructor. >> I don't agree - joining drivers do expect drivers to move over, >> regardless >> of the traffic situation at the time. > > Some drivers do, but your sweeping generalisation is ridiculous. Many drivers display this behaviour - I never said all. MrBitsy > I pick on that manoeuver, because the HC is clear the joining driver should > give prority to those on the motorway. The HC of course doesn't give the > advice to 'barge onto a roundabout without paying attention'. "The lesson my son learnt was a good one - do not assume others know whyat is in the HC." - you, in <9MYSj.8810$EH2.821@newsfe1-win.ntli.net> I never said that the HC advised drivers to "barge onto a roundabout". I doesn't tell drivers to drive straight off the sliproad without looking either. I said that the logic you apply to motorways equally applies to roundabouts, yet you are for some reason fixated with motorways. > > You never tire of telling people that you're an advanced driver. But > > you somehow feel unable to use your above-average skills to compensate [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > difficult for everyone else. I imagine you would agree with this, yet I bet > we both don't go around the supermarket blocking others shopping trolley!! What on earth are you talking about? > I would like drivers to join motorways correctly, as I believe many > drivers now think joining drivers have priority. I would like drivers > to stop moving over automatically, because they have seen someone on a > slip road. Why you think this means I drive badly, I don't know. I don't know why you think that when I move over it's sending the wrong message to other drivers. If Joe Public is behind me and sees me move over, he has no idea whether I did it "automatically" or whether it was in informed decision. Just concentrate on your own abilities and use them to assist others where possible, and let the powers that be concern themselves with overall driving standards. > > Good lad - now try also doing it when it helps everyone and > > inconveniences no-one. Leave the learning to the drivers who need it. > > I do do this - I havn't a clue why you assume otherwise. <Xns95E85E7F7459Araykeattchnowherecom@217.158.240.10> Has your driving has become less reckless since then? > It is not required to move to lane 2 if the joining driver joins correctly. > That is my point of view that you do not share, but it does not mean I > respond badly to it or try to 'teach lessons'. Want to take a few days to get your story straight and try again? SignatureChris > None of this would happen if the muppet joining, adjusted speed > to merge safely into the flow of traffic. Of course, when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it is becoming automatic for drivers to move over and the > joining driver to expect it - not good. All of those who say they move over into the next lane to allow a driver to come onto a m/way, have said they only do it if it is safe to do so. A fact your earlier posts on the subject appeared to ignore. Seems you have changed your mind. Agreeing now that as long as it can be done safely it's ok. Throwing a load of ifs and buts into the debate doesn't alter that simple fact. Mike. >>>>> Why force someone coming on to the m/way to adjust their speed if >>>>> it can be avoided without compromising any safety issues? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Still much easier to join safely, adjusting speed to merge into the flow > of traffic. S'weird. The way I let it happen, nobody has to adjust speed - not me, not the joiner. We both get to go at the speed we want to go. What's so bad about that? clive > Now I don't get this "stranded" in lane 2 thing. If conditions are such that > moving over to L2 to let someone in from the slip road is easy, which it > normally is when I'm driving, when they zoom off into the distance it's > trivially easy to move back into L1. Unless you're in a lorry where you can guarantee the fuckwit in the car which you've just let out will sit alongside you for a good mile. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams > Unless you're in a lorry where you can guarantee the fuckwit in the car > which you've just let out will sit alongside you for a good mile. Well, lorry drivers do the same or worse. Last week on the A34 approaching an antry slip the artic that I was overtaking swerved (that's swerved, not moved) into lane 2 to allow a 7.5 ton truck into lane 1. There was already room fro the truck to pull out so the swerve seen unecessary, but there was a whole car length from me to the artic so I suppose that was OK. The artic moved up to overtake the truck and the truck driver accelerated to 60 (ish) and then they sat there, for mile after mile after mile. Not just 'a' mile but all the way to sodding Oxford. Not a brain between them, it seems. >>> Why force someone coming on to the m/way to adjust their speed if >>> it can be avoided without compromising any safety issues? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Why do people have to keep re-inventing the wheel, when the HC is simple > and clear on the matter? I don't know, why do the IAM tell us to do it differently? SignatureDan Clio V6 > Why do people have to keep re-inventing the wheel, when the HC is simple and > clear on the matter? I don't understand why you are so determinedly fuckwitted about this specific part of driving, when you seem so much more sensible about everything else. If you can assist the vehicles joining the motorway by moving to the second lane, *** and there's no disadvantage to anyone else ***, then do it. It's safer because it creates more space and pre-empts any mistakes by the joining driver, and it's helpful to the joining driver as it gives them more flexibility, especially for slower/larger vehicles. I would not do this if I could see a vehicle in the third lane overtaking one in the second lane behind me, or if a vehicle was closing on me in the second lane or behind me. The HC is simple and clear on what traffic lights mean, but that doesn't imply that when they're green you keep your foot on the gas and ignore the driver who's made a mistake and is now in front of you. The HC has also changed some of its advice recently, raising brows in some advanced driving quarters, so falling back on it as the bible is a bit naff for someone in your position. SignatureChris >>> Why force someone coming on to the m/way to adjust their speed if >>> it can be avoided without compromising any safety issues? >>> >> What does that line at the end of the slip road actually mean? "Give Way". > For many drivers, it is a line where drivers on the moronway will all > suddenly dart into lane 2, required or not. It is also the point where a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why do people have to keep re-inventing the wheel, when the HC is simple and > clear on the matter? Quite so. Signature"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one." [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk] >>>>Why force someone coming on to the m/way to adjust their speed if >>>>it can be avoided without compromising any safety issues? >>> >>>What does that line at the end of the slip road actually mean? > > "Give Way". No, actually; it's the wrong sort of line. > Why do people have to keep re-inventing the wheel, when the HC is simple and > clear on the matter? Well, I find it is much less clear on that matter than on whether you can drive at over 70mph without headlights on at night on a motorway with street lamps. >> Why do people have to keep re-inventing the wheel, when the HC is simple >> and clear on the matter? > > Well, I find it is much less clear on that matter than on whether you can > drive at over 70mph without headlights on at night on a motorway with > street lamps. Explain how the HC is unclear about joining a motorway. MrBitsy >>>Why do people have to keep re-inventing the wheel, when the HC is simple >>>and clear on the matter? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Explain how the HC is unclear about joining a motorway. e.g it says that vehicles limited to 56mph must match speed with the traffic already on the motorway. It does not say what to do when joining from the right. It does not explain 'give priority' (which normally means let everything else go first). >>>>Why do people have to keep re-inventing the wheel, when the HC is simple >>>>and clear on the matter? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > from the right. It does not explain 'give priority' (which normally means > let everything else go first). The HC is quite clear: 259 Joining the motorway. When you join the motorway you will normally approach it from a road on the left (a slip road) or from an adjoining motorway. You should a.. give priority to traffic already on the motorway b.. check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane c.. not cross solid white lines that separate lanes or use the hard shoulder d.. stay on the slip road if it continues as an extra lane on the motorway e.. remain in the left-hand lane long enough to adjust to the speed of traffic before considering overtaking The phrase 'Normally' approach it from the left must mean that sometimes you may approach it from another direction. 'Give priority to traffic ALREADY on the motorway' is also quite clear. 'Match speed to fit safely into the traffic flow' is also very clear. MrBitsy >>>>>Why do people have to keep re-inventing the wheel, when the HC is simple >>>>>and clear on the matter? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > e.. remain in the left-hand lane long enough to adjust to the speed of > traffic before considering overtaking Why did you bother asking a question? > The phrase 'Normally' approach it from the left must mean that sometimes you > may approach it from another direction. And what does it (clearly) say to do when approaching from another direction? >'Give priority to traffic ALREADY on the motorway' is also quite clear. Explain what 'give priority' means, and why it can not mean anything else. You do not have to shout already. >'Match speed to fit safely into the traffic flow' is also very clear. Explain how LGVs are supposed to do that. Do you find the HC unclear about exceeding 70mph on motorways? >>>>>>Why do people have to keep re-inventing the wheel, when the HC is >>>>>>simple and clear on the matter? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Why did you bother asking a question? To try and understand why you had a difficulty with it. >> The phrase 'Normally' approach it from the left must mean that sometimes >> you may approach it from another direction. > > And what does it (clearly) say to do when approaching from another > direction? It is very clear on how one should join a motorway - why should this be different if one is joining from another side? >>'Give priority to traffic ALREADY on the motorway' is also quite clear. > > Explain what 'give priority' means, and why it can not mean anything > else. You do not have to shout already. You do not understand the phrase? >>'Match speed to fit safely into the traffic flow' is also very clear. > > Explain how LGVs are supposed to do that. The same as anyone else, obviously. I used to join motorways in speed limited busses and coaches. > Do you find the HC unclear about exceeding 70mph on motorways? No. MrBitsy > It is very clear on how one should join a motorway - why should this be > different if one is joining from another side? Out of interest, did you offer an option of a motorway lesson for your newly qualified pupils? Also out of interest, did your pupils actually learn anything from you that they couldn't have just read in the "very clear" Highway Code? Do you see where this is going? SignatureChris >> It is very clear on how one should join a motorway - why should this be >> different if one is joining from another side? > > Out of interest, did you offer an option of a motorway lesson for your > newly qualified pupils? Yes. > Also out of interest, did your pupils actually learn anything from you > that they couldn't have just read in the "very clear" Highway Code? Yes. > Do you see where this is going? Yes. MrBitsy >Do you see where this is going? It depends on the number on the sign - the M1 goes to London, for instance. SignatureIan D >>Do you see where this is going? > >It depends on the number on the sign - the M1 goes to London, for >instance. Only half of it does! The other half goes towards Leeds. >>>Do you see where this is going? >> >>It depends on the number on the sign - the M1 goes to London, for >>instance. > >Only half of it does! The other half goes towards Leeds. No, the other half comes from London. Where's Leeds? Is that somewhere near Emmerdale? >>>The phrase 'Normally' approach it from the left must mean that sometimes >>>you may approach it from another direction. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It is very clear on how one should join a motorway - why should this be > different if one is joining from another side? Because experience shows that it is. >>>'Give priority to traffic ALREADY on the motorway' is also quite clear. >> >> Explain what 'give priority' means, and why it can not mean anything >>else. You do not have to shout already. > > You do not understand the phrase? I do not think the phrase is clear, nor unambiguous, in this context. Previous HCs were clearer; in other contexts it means 'let everything else go first' as I already wrote. If you do not explain it, I shall have to deduce that you do not understand it. >>>'Match speed to fit safely into the traffic flow' is also very clear. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No. Do you have a problem with people making their own rules about exceeding 70mph on the motorway, instead of using the HC one? >>>>The phrase 'Normally' approach it from the left must mean that sometimes |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message