Tailgating

[Andy_Bangle]

The roads, as we all know, are teaming with arseholes. With that in mind, the police have launched a new road safety campaign in a bid to stop inconsiderate drivers. Operation Safeway looks to target motoring bullies who tailgate and drive too close to other drivers.

Police will employ these cars and motorbikes fitted with video cameras, in a bid to tackle offending drivers, such as the one shown below, who was recorded travelling at 70mph, tailgating like a madman, flashing his lights and taking both hands off the wheel to make ‘gestures’ at the officer driving the car.

Bet he needed 'new pants' when the blues came on

[m4ttm4son]

Any other footage showing why the Police car didn't move back to the next lane after overtaking?

[Andy_Bangle]

Matt, in answer to your question.

The officer was unable to make a natural over-taking manoeuvre whilst remaining within the speed limit because of the position of cars around him, out of view of the camera.

[garcon magnifique]

To be quite honest I wouldn't mind if the police vehicle stayed out in the lane occasionally if it traps arseholes like this.

They should also try sticking the cruise on 50mph in lane 2 through roadworks - it'd only be a matter of time before some dangerous moron puts 40 tonnes of artic two feet off their back bumper.

[patently]

The comments do raise that point, which also struck me as I was watching it. It does rather look as if the police car was hogging lane 4 - there was a long gap in lane 3 behind them at the start of the video, and he doesn't move over after his overtake. I'd guess that the Transit driver was quite frustrated by the time the police car finally overtook him, and couldn't see why he didn't move over.

We can't be certain though, without the remaining video which the police have decided not to release. I have to say, though, if I saw that in my mirror, I'd think I was in the wrong - at least partly

Sadly, the YouTube comments are all either "it was all plod's fault" or "so you're condoning the van driver, then??". No-one seems able to make the obvious point - that the van was being driven appallingly and the driver should have had more than a FPN, but that it was a shame the police driver didn't set a better example.

[patently]

Matt, in answer to your question.

Ah - our posts crossed. Simple solution is to fix the speed limit and book the drivers in lanes 2 & 3 for hogging I find that's often the cause of outside lane frustration.

Garçon - I do disagree, police cars should set an example.

[Scotty]

At the start of the video the Police car may have just pulled out to overtake Mr Tailgater.

Then Mr Tailgater appears to swing out quickly after he's passed as he's at VMAX and doesn't want to lift and he's approaching the back end of a van in lane 3.

Traffic then seems to slow as Lane 3 Van Man then goes back up inside the copper. The copper therefore can't pull over.

Given the above how did the Police car do anything wrong? It's simply an insane **** in a van.

[m4ttm4son]

Hanging out in Lane 4 for a little longer than necessary is the only way to catch this kind of footage though, so means to an end and all that

[garcon magnifique]

Garçon - I do disagree, police cars should set an example.

Yes they should, but if someone behind them is already too close or driving erratically then I'm all for them staying in the lane to get a bit more footage for the court. And this is unmarked cars we're talking about (one assumes) so the example is less obvious.

Poor lane discipline is a bugbear and a frequent cause of delays, but it is less of a crime than dangerous tailgating. Drivers need to get the message that they can't and shouldn't try to police others. How often do you see cars cutting back dangerously in front of a car hogging the middle lane of an empty motorway? Why do it? Your doing something far more dangerous to try and make a point to someone who probably doesn't realise their mistake.

Edited February 11, 2013 by garcon

[patently]

At the start of the video the Police car may have just pulled out to overtake Mr Tailgater.

Doesn't look that way, but it is a possibility. It would suggest a fairly aggressive overtake by the police car, which would surprise me.

Traffic then seems to slow as Lane 3 Van Man then goes back up inside the copper. The copper therefore can't pull over.

That's after the police driver has stayed out for a bit. If he had been looking to go back, he could have.

It's simply an insane **** in a van.

Oh yes, absolutely He deserved everything he got, and more.

Yes they should, but if someone behind them is already too close or driving erratically then I'm all for them staying in the lane to get a bit more footage for the court.

OK, with that proviso I'll agree with you - although the officer shouldn't stay around so long as to potentially cause a more serious incident.

And this is unmarked cars we're talking about (one assumes) so the example is less obvious.

That's an interesting point. If he was driving a marked car, then I can see the justification in sitting in lane 3/4 at 70mph and seeing who is unobservant enough to try and cut past. In an unmarked car, though, should he not be looking for people whose driving is below the general standard (like, say, this van driver... ) - in which case I'd say he should fit in with normal driving standards, which don't include sitting in the outside lane at 70mph like a self-righteous tw@t.

Poor lane discipline is a bugbear and a frequent cause of delays, but it is less of a crime than dangerous tailgating.

I'll agree it's less serious than tailgating, but I think it's more dangerous than you suggest. I've often seen dangerous situations develop when people are forced out into outer lanes that they don't feel safe in - and aren't safe at the speed they want to travel at.

Drivers need to get the message that they can't and shouldn't try to police others. How often do you see cars cutting back dangerously in front of a car hogging the middle lane of an empty motorway? Why do it? Your doing something far more dangerous to try and make a point to someone who probably doesn't realise their mistake.

When you say people shouldn't try to police others, does that apply just to the people cutting across lane-hoggers or to the people who lane-hog at 69.9999 (indicated) mph as well?

I'll often cut across like that, but only when safe to do so - with plenty of clearance and only after proper lookout over several lanes. There could always be someone doing a naughty left-side overtake, which would be embarrassing

Oh - and "someone who probably doesn't realise their mistake"? - need their eyes testing, then.

[Scotty]

That's after the police driver has stayed out for a bit. If he had been looking to go back, he could have.

I'd say it's a judgement call and I reckon since the copper had the benefit of seeing forwards and could see the traffic and hence the gaps closing, I don't think it would have been advisable to pull in. I don't think he had the safety margin of a proper gap and I'd defer to his judgement rather than trying to second guess it on a few secs of footage that covers very little of what was going on in front or to the side.

Hard to really know based on the footage though.

[Andrew]

I don't think it matters what the plod car was doing - that van driver is a danger. I'd love to know what he got in court and I'd love to see the video once he realised he was doing that to plod.

[DanG]

Just to throw an idea into the mix that came up a second ago when I showed someone the video...

What about banning 'commercial' vehicles from the fast lane entirely?

So keeping lane 3 for cars and bikes only? Logic being that this is the fastest lane and that commercial vehicles don't have the stopping ability / usually carrying more weight. So anything like a van, minibus, truck, lorry, bus, perhaps even pick up trucks.... Maybe a weight restriction?

One additional safety point would be increased visibility for car drivers (unless you are behind a Range Rover)...

[Andrew]

I thought large vehicles were already banned from the outside lane?

[Scotty]

Interesting idea but some big barges would weigh more than an empty transit van. It would be hard to enforce.

[patently]

I'd say it's a judgement call and I reckon since the copper had the benefit of seeing forwards and could see the traffic and hence the gaps closing, I don't think it would have been advisable to pull in. I don't think he had the safety margin of a proper gap and I'd defer to his judgement rather than trying to second guess it on a few secs of footage that covers very little of what was going on in front or to the side.

Fair enough

I don't think it matters what the plod car was doing - that van driver is a danger. I'd love to know what he got in court and I'd love to see the video once he realised he was doing that to plod.

I don't think the police car's actions affect the fact that the van driver was completely out of order. All he got was a FPN, though - £30 and no points, is that? Not enough, imho.

Even so, I do think it is valid to look at the police driver's actions. I think Scotty is right to class it as a judgement call that is hard for us to make after the event on only part of the evidence, but it's still right to look at the officer's driving as closely as they look at ours.

[garcon magnifique]

bastard bastard **** bastard

just typed a ****ing bastard long reply with multi quotes and everything and lost the ****ing lot

bastard

****

[garcon magnifique]

FPN will have been 3 points and £60 I would have thought.

[garcon magnifique]

OK, with that proviso I'll agree with you - although the officer shouldn't stay around so long as to potentially cause a more serious incident.

That's an interesting point. If he was driving a marked car, then I can see the justification in sitting in lane 3/4 at 70mph and seeing who is unobservant enough to try and cut past. In an unmarked car, though, should he not be looking for people whose driving is below the general standard (like, say, this van driver... ) - in which case I'd say he should fit in with normal driving standards, which don't include sitting in the outside lane at 70mph like a self-righteous tw@t.

I'll agree it's less serious than tailgating, but I think it's more dangerous than you suggest. I've often seen dangerous situations develop when people are forced out into outer lanes that they don't feel safe in - and aren't safe at the speed they want to travel at.

When you say people shouldn't try to police others, does that apply just to the people cutting across lane-hoggers or to the people who lane-hog at 69.9999 (indicated) mph as well?

I'll often cut across like that, but only when safe to do so - with plenty of clearance and only after proper lookout over several lanes. There could always be someone doing a naughty left-side overtake, which would be embarrassing

Oh - and "someone who probably doesn't realise their mistake"? - need their eyes testing, then.

Long complicated reply to the effect of

Yes

Yes

Good point

They're all clueless feckers who should have their licences replaced with bus passes

and

You weren't "cutting across", you were "safely returning to lane 1".

[Tipex]

I somewhat suspect the police had already noticed him driving like a tw@t and just set the trap for him.

70mph on a motorway is unrealistically slow, and they know it, hence why most people drive at 80mph without issue, it does give them the option to follow the letter of the law to catch c*nts like this van driver though.

I often spot these type of ar5ehole drivers long before they get near me, I spotted one driving one of those fecking huge tipper trucks a few weeks back, he was about 4 cars behind me as we exited a roundabout, and I could see he was already right up someone else ar5e and generally driving like a d1ck, about two or three miles down the road all the cars separating us had turned off, and I was happily doing just over 60 odd in a 60 limit (which means it's a 50 limit for him), waiting for him to sit on my arse as I knew he was going to, and sure enough, that's what he did.

I was very tempted to brake test him, but figuring he was so close, and sat so much higher up, that he probably couldn't even see my brake lights, so thought better of it.

In the end, I just crawled away from the next roundabout at about 20mph and stayed at that speed for about half a mile or so, didn't work though, he just started flashing his lights and gesturing for me to pull over for a fight, ultimately he overtook me on a roundabout and proceeded to tailgate the car that was in front of me, I was turning off at that roundabout anyway.

I'll tell you one thing though, those trucks can't half shift.

[bazza_g]

If the police can clear more of the fast lane for me, that'd be great

[patently]

Drivers need to get the message that they can't and shouldn't try to police others. (...) Why do it? Your doing something far more dangerous to try and make a point to someone who probably doesn't realise their mistake.

vs

I often spot these type of ar5ehole drivers long before they get near me, (...)

I was very tempted to brake test him, (...)

In the end, I just crawled away from the next roundabout at about 20mph and stayed at that speed for about half a mile or so, didn't work though, he just started flashing his lights and gesturing for me to pull over for a fight, ultimately he overtook me on a roundabout and proceeded to tailgate the car that was in front of me (...)

:roflmao:

I somewhat suspect the police had already noticed him driving like a tw@t and just set the trap for him.

That's a good point, provided they could do so safely then that would be good police work.

[Calm Chris]

I'm disappointed, I thought "tail gating" was some form of sexual exploit that Andy did on holiday.

If I'd been the policeman I'd have done him for DD10, DD30 or DD40

[garcon magnifique]

garcon vs Tipex

:roflmao:

Different rules for taxi drivers innit.

[Luke]

Everyone please note. A van was caught in this video. Not every van driver is a cnut. Lots of dickheads in cars tailgate, especially great big 4 wheel drive cars, weighing 2 tonnes. Banning vans from the outside lane are you serious?