Just been cut up big time!!

[paul ashton]

you shouldnt off been speeding

of not off

[paul ashton]

Try riding a bike for a few years then it makes you a better driver and you realise what antisipation is all about.

[Scoboblio]

Tough - it was his right-of-way.

 

Was It? Why? (not being argumentative, just can't see why he would have right of way on what I assume was a single carriageway).

 

I can't help thinking that some of the original post has been misinterpreted, as far as I can see he didn't say he moved out when he was a meter and a half off the van's bumper, but that the van pulled out infront of him as he was about to overtake it - in which case regardless of his speed (reckless or not), the van driver should've seen him coming and stayed where he was.

 

In other words he could've moved out 100 yards away and the van driver pulled out infront of him as he was a meter and a half away from overtaking.

 

Regardless of the speed that puts a bit of a different perspective on it.

[MrRalphMan]

Oh... bit of a mix of views here eh?

 

Although you're a bit naughty doing 100+ leptons, I would agree that the van should have looked before pulling out.

 

I always do this, normally twice to ensure that car coming up isn't doing warp 9, apart from driving home from a night shift,where I rarely open my eyes at all.

 

I did cring a bit when the £2 comment come up..

 

PS WTF did you mean Paul with

 

of not off

[Scoboblio]

PS WTF did you mean Paul with

 

 

At least it's closer to the correct word usage

 

Please please please people, learn the difference between "of" and "have".

 

i.e,

 

"You shouldn't have been speeding"

[rik]

Just realised you are talking about overtaking on a single carriage way! In that case if the van was winding up to put a move on the vehicle you were both catching, he probably checked his rear view first and saw you a little way back, commited to overtake while checking for oncoming hazzards and possible junctions etc.

 

If you were doing ton+ then you were potentialy traveling twice as fast as him. I'd say if you're going to drive that way, it's not safe to assume all other drivers are on the ball.

 

In that situation, i'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Supradoopa]

Was It? Why? (not being argumentative, just can't see why he would have right of way on what I assume was a single carriageway).

 

I can't help thinking that some of the original post has been misinterpreted, as far as I can see he didn't say he moved out when he was a meter and a half off the van's bumper, but that the van pulled out infront of him as he was about to overtake it - in which case regardless of his speed (reckless or not), the van driver should've seen him coming and stayed where he was.

 

In other words he could've moved out 100 yards away and the van driver pulled out infront of him as he was a meter and a half away from overtaking.

 

Regardless of the speed that puts a bit of a different perspective on it.

 

 

Thanks mate you got that in one as i said the van pulled out on me when i was a metre and a half away from his bumper while i was on the other side of the road i'd already been on the other side of the road (about 3/4 mile straight road, no little pesky side roads) for more than 35metres with my indicator on when he pulls out on me. Oh and the straight before the one i overtook on he never even attempted to overtake.

 

Now from what i was taught it is MSM obviously they dont teach that anymore.

 

Anyhow thanks for the comments guys i have taken them on board and i didn't want to start this thread to have a go at anyone

 

[Ark]

Was It? Why? (not being argumentative, just can't see why he would have right of way on what I assume was a single carriageway).

 

Simple: in a line of traffic it is always the perogative of the earliest vehicles in the line to overtake first. Just because someone else doesn't want to wait until it's his turn, doesn't mean he has right-of-way, and committing to an overtaking maneuvre out of turn also doesn't confer priority (except for the obvious point that you don't want to crash into someone who's passing you).

 

So if this guy was attempting a double-overtake when the van ahead of him decided to overtake, the van retains priority.

 

Plus if you smack into the back of someone it's pretty much always your own fault for not anticipating or leaving enough room to stop, and this doesn't change just because you're performing a maneuvre.

[Scoboblio]

I understand you're point, but I still can't believe that it's correct.... so if I'm actually in the act of overtaking someone and they pull out infront of me because of a lack of observation, it's my fault? Surely if you're already overtaking a vehicle then it's up to them to wait for a gap?

 

Surely you can't leave enough room for the vehicle to maneuvre if you're already overtaking it.

 

edited: And another thought, how do you define the first vehicle in the line due to overtake, considering you can't predict how quickly the traffic infront of you wants to go? How would in this instance, the supra driver know that the van driver wanted to overtake at all (given no indication)? The van driver could've been perfectly happy sitting in the line of traffic and not wanting to overtake, possibly therefore making the supra driver the first in the overtaking queue?

[Ark]

Well, as someone else has already mentioned, it takes time for a van to build up speed, so maybe he had been accelerating for some time already, preparing to overtake. Plus you just don't expect someone to come up from behind at 100+ and try to go straight round.

 

I don't think there's a strict definition of who's in an 'overtaking queue' or a line of traffic. The point is that the person at the front (ie the second car) has the right to overtake first. I think the waters in this case have been somewhat muddied by the "well over 100 leptons" issue - a new arrival in the line of traffic would have been SO fast that any 'normal' observations would be rendered invalid - remember they are covering a mile every 30 seconds or so...