To not want to be intimidated by an HGV driver on a busy motorway.

(238 Posts)

I was on the motorway today. Fairly busy but fluid and freely flowing traffic.

I was travelling at about 55-65mph in the slow lane. I wasn't in a hurry and found myself approaching a car +caravan in lane 2.

As I was doing an acceptable and safe motorway speed and I was in no hurry I decided that I wwasn't going to weavve out to lane 3 to overtake and I wasn't going to break the law by 'undertaking'. I was also approaching my junction. I sat behind the caravan in my lane (ie ensuring I wasn't in the caravan blind spot).

An HGV approached from behind, and continued to drive in my estimation, less than 2 car lengths behind me. It was so close that all I could see in my mirror was the radiator grill. I literally could not see his winscreen. I could not see the number plate.

I touched my brakes gently couple of times to indicate that he was uncomfortably close.

A couple of minutes late rhe was using his horn to tell me to move.

As it was a 4 lane motorway it would have been legal for the lorry to move out to lane 3 if he was tgat desperate. Meanwhile I felt intimidated and unsafe.

BrianTheMole Mon 30-Sep-13 23:54:34

If you had to go slow behind the van anyway, and didn't want to move to lane 3, why didn't you just move to lane 1 and maintain the lower speed there?

Buttercup4 Mon 30-Sep-13 23:58:25

Sorry, OP but YABU. It is illegal to hover in the middle lane like that. You should be on the inside land unless you are overtaking. Moving back into the correct lane would not be viewed as 'undertaking'

You were forcing the van into the fast lane.

Nombrechanger Mon 30-Sep-13 23:59:06

That's happened to me a few times when I was probably a little over the limit not under it.

I can see how it's infuriating for a driver to be sat behind someone going up to 15 mph below the speed limit, but he shouldn't have tailgated like that or used his horn.

He could have moved into the third lane and buggered off. The twat.


Ablababla Tue 01-Oct-13 00:02:37

No op was in inside lane but not wanting to undertake some numpty sat in the middle lane or move out to lane three. I can understand the lorry driver's frustration as he was trapped but you were not anything wrong and he should not mmthreaten you like that.

I was in lane 1.

The caravan was hovering in lane 2 at a slow (er) speed.

FutTheShuckUp Tue 01-Oct-13 00:04:15

You can get fined for middle lane hogging. Either drive at the correct speed for a motorway or get back into the first lane

Bumpotato Tue 01-Oct-13 00:05:25

I have a wee rule that I don't argue with HGVs on the road. Have you seen the size of them?

You should have overtaken the caravan rather than being the person on the motorway "not making normal progress". Just because the caravaner was driving terribly didn't mean you had to as well.

If you're unsure about motorway driving, or are nervous of the outside lane, either avoid the motorway or take motorway lessons or an advanced driving course. Next time you could cause an accident.

FutTheShuckUp Tue 01-Oct-13 00:07:33

Apologies assumed you were in lane two. In that case the lorry driver is being impatient and is in the wrong. But you should still try to maintain the correct speed but lorry drivers shouldn't drive so dangerously they are essentially in charge of a killing machine

Doodledumdums Tue 01-Oct-13 00:07:37

OP wasn't hovering in the middle lane tho was she, the caravan was? Or have I read that wrong?

I don't think yabu OP, I hate being intimidated on the roads. Why should you have been forced to move over to the faster lanes just because the caravan was a middle lane hogger, especially as your junction was coming up. Like you say, on a four lane motorway, the HGV driver could have moved over if he was desparate.

The caravan was really U, you were a tiny bit for creating, albeit by default, a rolling roadblock for the lorry. If you were doing 55-65 (a massive difference there) then I imagine the caravan was doing 50 so the lorry must have been pretty delayed. Fuel to speed up again really costs them so the driver must have been pretty annoyed.

Why was everyone doing 50 on a motorway? It does really affect traffic flow.

LessMissAbs Tue 01-Oct-13 00:08:36

You were driving correctly in theory but more advanced driving involves taking consideration of other drivers and acting in advance, so it would have been slightly better if you had overtaken the caravan using lane 3.

However the lorry driver has the HGV license and should be capable of overtaking a caravan or taking avoiding action without harassing other road users.

There is no such thing as a "slow lane". Your speed is generally rather low for a motorway.

BrianTheMole Tue 01-Oct-13 00:09:04

Sorry, I read your op wrong. Apologies. Yes, he was a twat.

honey86 Tue 01-Oct-13 00:11:33

good point but beside the point too. its intimidating and dangerous to tailgate, and highway code states you only use the horn to make people aware of your presence. he/she was doing it to express annoyance. if the hgv driver was that desperate then there was a lane to overtake. plus a caravan being in front at a similar speed to op, would mean it wouldnt make a difference to the hgv's position if op had moved.
its a tad obnoxious to expect all other drivers to get out of his way just cos he has a big vehicle and he cant be bothered to simply overtake.

StickEmUp Tue 01-Oct-13 00:11:55

Aren't lorries limited to 56 anyway??

I shoukd point out that I am confident on the motorway.

I typically use all lanes as appropriate and use the speeds...yes including 70+ that go with them.

I didn't today because when I first approached the slow vehicle in lane 2 it was not safe for me to pull out to overtake. Then I was approaching my junction, although I probably had time to make the maneuvere.

My only other option to move past was to undertake - which is illegal.

It was the presence of the slower moving caravan which forced me to moderate my speed. Not my choice per se.

15mph is below the speed limit is perfectly safe or vehicles wouldn't have 56mph speed limiters fitted.

And I only described it ss the slow lane to make it clear which lanes I was talking about.

Buttercup4 Tue 01-Oct-13 00:20:13

Ok, apologies OP. I read it that you were in lane 2.

The caravan was being very unreasonable. The lorry driver shouldn't have taken his frustration out on you.

Your speed for the motorway was very low, and I think YABU to drive in a certain way just because you aren't in a rush, equally you should never drive as if you are in a rush.

Ablababla Tue 01-Oct-13 00:26:27

And the irony is mr caravan driver will be oblivious to the difficulty he's caused from other road users.

Thats ok.

I wouldn't have driven that slow if I hadn't been forced to by the caravan.

But seeing as the caravan was blocking my progress, I wasn't in a rush to overtake in the senario abovd (heavier traffic behing caravan, junctoon approaching).

Dominodonkey Tue 01-Oct-13 00:28:58

Surely it is not illegal to undertake in that situation. It's not like you moved into the inside lane with the purpose of overtaking the lorry. If the inside lane is going quicker than the middle one I am sure it is acceptable to pass.

EagleNebula Tue 01-Oct-13 00:35:23

It wouldn't necessarily have been illegal for you to undertake in this situation. You can undertake in congested conditions, how busy was it? Also how near to your junction were you?

That said, the actions of the HGV driver were intimidating, but I drive on the motorway every single day and do my utmost to get out of the way of HGVs and do as little as possible to piss them off. The caravan was at fault here but I think you should have clocked it sooner and moved to lane 3 in time to overtake before your junction, it sounds like your driving was too laid back for the situation.

GobbySadcase Tue 01-Oct-13 00:42:16

Travelling at the speed of your lane isn't undertaking. If there is traffic going slower in other lanes and you happen to pass on the inside then it's not undertaking.

Undertaking would be if you were in lane 2 then went to lane 1 to pass on the inside. Maintaining your existing speed and staying in lane is perfectly legal.

It wasn't congested. The traffic (apart from Mr Caravan) was flowing freely.

I was on the motorway for less than 4 miles total. I think the caravan was within view from the time I joined the motorway, but I could not move out because of traffic to the right of me on the sliproad which was merging with lane 2, causinv a bit of a buikd up behind the caravan. I could not move to lane 2 because of this build up.

GobbySadcase Tue 01-Oct-13 00:44:54

But it wasn't congested. There was nothing in sight in front of me or caravan.

Rule 163 makes specific reference to it onky being allowed if the caravan was moving slowly (it wasn't) and in queuing traffic (it wasnt).

mrsmalcolmreynolds Tue 01-Oct-13 01:04:58

Not every traffic situation fits neatly into situations described in the HC. On balance I would not consider passing the caravan with you in the left hand lane as undertaking in this situation., although it is not v clear. Obviously though YANBU to want not to be intimidated in this dangerous manner but overall I would have driven somewhat faster, staying in the left lane and giving the caravan judicious evil glances as I passed.

gobbynorthernbird Tue 01-Oct-13 02:01:16

You wouldn't have been undertaking. You must also have been going pretty bloody slowly if a speed limited vehicle is wanting to get past you.

kiriwawa Tue 01-Oct-13 03:51:29

See the link that Gobby posted. It isn't illegal for you to undertake in those circumstances and you were driving too slowly.

PlayedThePinkOboe Tue 01-Oct-13 04:15:33

You are a dangerous driver. Unless you can keep up with the pace of traffic on the motorway, you shouldn't be there. sad

Whilst you feel you are "safe" (because you are slow) - one of the fundamental rules of driving is that you do not cause others to take evasive actions.

YABU (obviously) and very dangerous and I hope you don't cause an accident.

Catsize Tue 01-Oct-13 04:25:49

Not sure why the lorry didn't pull put and grind his axe with the caravan.

Tiredtrout Tue 01-Oct-13 04:30:51

Sorry Edwinia but I think that you were just as at fault, the hgb driver shouldn't have tried to intimidate you and the caravan shouldn't be just say in lane 2. Both sound terrible lazy drivers but, if you saw the caravan as you joined the motorway and made no conscious effort to get around it you caused as much of a problem to other road users. You say you were only on there 4 miles at the hgv beeped 1 mile prior to the junction, so you were unable to overtake a caravan for 3 miles on a motorway that you say was uncongested? Low speed is as dangerous as high speed

IloveJudgeJudy Tue 01-Oct-13 07:58:46

Contrary to most of the people on here, I don't think you were at fault. You don't have to travel at the limit of motorway speed if you don't want to. 50 mph is fine. The HGV was completely at fault. Loads of them do it. They drive far too close to the vehicle in front. Why should you have to go right out if your junction is the next one. The HGV could quite as easily have overtaken the caravan itself. Many HGV drivers like to intimidate other road users. They also drive very close to each other, to use the others' slipstream. There's none of this "two second rule".

southeastastra Tue 01-Oct-13 08:01:43

of course the driver of the hgv was in the wrong and bloody dangerous, if you had to brake suddenly you and the car in front would have no chance

similar has happened to me on m25 and i was driving quite fast, was a foreign driver and i wonder if they actually understand the rules

Funny that my police officer neighbour had no issue with my actions.

The motoway was uncongested in front of me.

Traffic was not congested per se but coming frequently behind tge caravan giving me few, if any, opportunities to move out.

Undertaking is for queuing traffic which it wasn't (this was specifically discussed with my neighbour cos I was talking to her about being pissed off that lorry was trying to force me to break law).

That part of yhe highway code is there to protect me from thr caravan moving into me as I undertake. Especially seeing as he was in lane 1 of 3 before my jpining junction at which point his lane became lane 2. He coukd have realised he was no longer in 1 and decided to move across.

ILetHimKeep20Quid Tue 01-Oct-13 08:07:00

Yabu. It's not undertaking. You don't fall into line and go slower than every other shit driver and your speed, or lack of, is dangerous.

skittycat Tue 01-Oct-13 08:09:24

Why ask if YABU if you are just going to argue against the people that tell you you are?

For what it's worth, I think you caused a problem. The caravan may have been in lane 2 when you approached, but you sitting just behind him in lane 1 would have made it more difficult for him to move into lane 1 even if he wanted to. You say you weren't in his blind spot, but you still could have appeared very close behind in his mirrors so that he would not have been comfortable to make the manouvre across without risking an accident.

Regarding the HGV, he should not have driven in an intimidating way.

24again Tue 01-Oct-13 08:10:44

For heaven's sake - 55 miles an hour - put your foot down!!! Someone going so slowly is quite dangerous on a motorway, Can't stand drivers who seem to think that motorways are for pootling along on - they are to get somewhere fast!

Neena28 Tue 01-Oct-13 08:17:34

My background is road haulage. Mrsterryprachett has this bang on i'm afraid. Although I dont think the lorry driver behaved well, if you are driving all day though this happens so many times (and other very dangerous situations) that the drivers get very frustrated.

Neena28 Tue 01-Oct-13 08:18:46

The caravan driver was the main problem though.

I asked if IABU to feel intimidated by another driver.

Even if I was driving at 30 mph on the motorway the question is IABU to feel intimidated.

It is debatable that I was in the wrong (based on a selection of opinions on here and the opinion of a police officer that knows thw road layout and how drivers suddenly realising they are in lane 2 and panickig at this particular location). But at the end of the day I wasn't asking for comment on that.

HomicidalPsychoJungleCat Tue 01-Oct-13 08:19:29

But you have admitted that you probably had time to overtake the caravan before you got to your junction. The caravan driver was driving dangerously as he was too slow and in the wrong lane. Instead of joining him you sold have overtaken him.

your police officer may have had no issue at all, but you are asking a question in AIBU, which is a thread on which people express their opinions. Getting annoyed when they don't match yours is futile.

FWIW I don't think you were being as unreasonable as the caravan driver, but unreasonable nonetheless to choose not to make safer an unsafe situation when you admit to having time to do so.

Motorway driving in AIBU-never a good mix.Everyone knows best.

I'm getting 'annoyed' because I don't think I'm explaining the scenario clearly.

For example I put 'probably' in italics because I was trying to say that I probably had time to overtake but I wasn't 100% sure.

The HGV driver was an arse that we do know.

plantsitter Tue 01-Oct-13 08:34:03

God people are awful When it comes to driving talk aren't they? Jeremy Clarkson had a lot to answer for. Quite obviously the lorry driver was being a knob ender and there is no excuse for aggressive driving - if you're tired and frustrated take a break.

However I'm with a previous poster - I never argue with hgv drivers. I would've undertaken in this situation, assuming it was safe.

It's because everyone is an expert plant. grin

MrsHoratioNelson Tue 01-Oct-13 08:38:44

I suspect that a PP had it right when they said that the caravan probably felt they couldn't move in because of your position.

"Not in their blind spot" doesn't mean "enough space to move in if they wanted to". 55 is too slow on the motorway unless the weather or congestion dictate otherwise. And it would have been fine to move past the caravan - it is not undertaking in those circumstances.

SuperiorCat Tue 01-Oct-13 08:41:51

I can't see that YWBU at all, you were following the HC.

The caravan hogging the middle lane was in the wrong.

The HGV tailgating and intimidating you was in the wrong.

kiriwawa Tue 01-Oct-13 08:47:34

You were all driving badly but you were driving less badly than the caravan or the HGV wink

MurderOfBanshees Tue 01-Oct-13 08:49:39

YWBU for not just doing a normal speed in your lane
The caravan was BU for hogging the 2nd lane
The HGV was BU for being an aggressive pillock

shellbot Tue 01-Oct-13 08:49:42

I thought that lorries weren't allowed in the 3rd lane. If so then I think ywbu as you should have moved into the 3rd lane yourself and overtook the caravan driver so the lorry wasn't trapped behind you both.

FreudiansSlipper Tue 01-Oct-13 08:51:12


so was the hgv driver for driving like a twat

motorway speed unless bad weather conditions is 70pmh or as close as not for doodling along you should have taken over

ajandjjmum Tue 01-Oct-13 08:54:48

The caravan driver was an idiot for not being in the first lane.

IMHO you were driving badly for not overtaking the caravan in the 3rd lane and then pulling straight back into the 1st lane assuming it was clear.

The lorry driver was in the wrong for driving aggressively, but it was the poor driving of the other two vehicles that caused this reaction - although that's really no excuse, as he is supposed to be a professional.

The standard of driving on motorways staggers me at times.

The speed LIMIT on a motorway is 70. It's not a requirement. However driving excessively slowly - as the OP was - is not safe. The caravan was very much at fault, sounds like they hadn't noticed the lanes change which is alarming. The lorry driver is very much at fault for unsafe and aggressive beahviour. The OP is very much at fault for driving unsafely, of all the vehicles involved she could have acclerated to overtake the caravan and then move back in. Ideally she would have moved out to Lane 2 and then Lane 3 as soon as she saw a slow moving vehicle ahead. By the time she was up with the caravan it was too late.

That said - no harm done except to the blood pressure of the participants.

BadRoly Tue 01-Oct-13 09:01:41

I wouldn't have undertaken. Caravan driver was being a muppet. Not sure that I wouldn't have nipped round BUT I do worry about missing junctions.

Lorry driver came across the situation - for all he knew, the caravan was trying to overtake you and therefore thought you were the problem.

Easier said than done but try and chalk it up to experience and forget it smile

MurderOfBanshees Tue 01-Oct-13 09:03:42

It's not undertaking though. Someone linked to the highway code earlier which explains this

There should be set times that caravans are allowed on the Motorway. Like during the hours of darkness.

Flossie82 Tue 01-Oct-13 09:08:11


I don't see why so many people think you were wrong, although it explains why there us so much bad driving!

To go past in lane 1 would have been illegal undertaking, as traffic wasn't queuing.

If caravan realised it needed to pull on but wasn't sure if it had room it should have indicated, sp you weren't dropping it. As you say, undertaking dangerous because cars in 2 ,/ 3 shouldn't be expecting you there.

Caravan driving badly, HGV being v unreasonable (& could have gone out to l 2 to get past you )

ILetHimKeep20Quid Tue 01-Oct-13 09:20:46

Just because someone I'd being a twat and going to slow in the middle lane does not mean that you are obliged to sit behind them in the inside lane this creating a rolling road block.

I don't think I approached the caravan from behind. I think it was alongside me as I merged onto the motorway.

Initially I could not move into lane 2 as there was traffic there so overtaking was not an option.

Initially I stayed a long way back because I expected the caravan to move back into lane 1, so there was plenty of space. I did move forward a bit once the lorry started intimidating me, and I realised caravan unlikely to move into lane 1.

By the time the lorry was on my tail I still couldn't move to lane 2 behind the caravan because of frequent (but not congested) flow of traffic). There was an opportunity I considered taking but I wasn't sure I could safely complrte my manoeuvre before needing to be on the sliproad of my exit.

I would happily and confidently overtaken the caravan if it was safe to do so. At no point whilst I was on the mitorway was I in a position to do this. And me looking ahead was irrelevant because for me to do that would have meant me causing a danger to traffic on my joining sliproad..

So I was left with 2 options.

1. I undertake. Which would have been an unsafe manoeuvre in its own right. And for those that read the highway code it is not allowed.
2. I stay behind the caravan in my own lane. I take on board that slow driving is unsafe but (other than choosing #2) I was not choosing my speed. I was travelling at the speed of the traffic ahead.

The lorry driver could legally overtake in lane 3 of a 4 lane motorway. But made a choice not to. Incidentally, he also took the next exit which I suspect is why he didn't overtake because, like me (more so in fact) he was not confident of being able to complete tge manoeuvre before the junction.)

PlayedThePinkOboe Tue 01-Oct-13 09:27:57

FGS, you asked if you were BU, loads of people said "yes, you were - and dangerous to boot".

Don't poke the bear in AIBU if you can't handle it!

If you're scared to overtake a caravan (or any vehicle really) then you shouldn't be on a motorway. Stick to being a passenger on public transport. You'll kill someone one day if you drive like that on a motorway.

Jude89 Tue 01-Oct-13 09:29:06

maybe he was beeping at the caravan?

MinesAPintOfTea Tue 01-Oct-13 09:30:20


The law about undertaking in such situations is slightly unclear, drivers should judge for themselves whether they are in congested traffic or not. I wouldn't have undertaken, especially as its a long trailer vehicle driven by an amateur driver (presumably).

And the HGV driver was delayed for about 20 seconds and didn't need to accelerate up again and waste fuel. He presumably already knew he was leaving at that junction. If he can't drive without taking frustration out on other drivers then he is in the wrong job.

The caravan driver needs a middle-lane hogging fine though.

Played lots of people have said the OP wasn't BU.

Don't poke the bear in AIBU? What? confused

Highway code rule 163

If the queue to your right is moving faster.

There was no queue!

The 'rule' on undertaking is open to interpretation, but there was NO QUEUE.

It is fair yo say I am being argumentative.

People are saying you should have moved into lane 3. I didn't ask if I should do that, because that was never really an option because of traffic conditions alongside and behind me. So yes I am challenging this point.

Should I have undertaken? I am challenging peoples interpretation of the highway code. And I am repeatedly stating that there was no congestion and no queue...therefore IMO undertaking was inappropriate.

I am not scared to overtake. I am comfortable on the motorway. I am happy drivng at 80mph on the motorway and using all lanes when safe to do so. I got trapped on the inside of a slowish moving vehicle from the point I joined the motorway. I did not feel comfortable undertaking it because IMO I woukd have been breaking highway code rule 163. IMO I would have been putting myself at risk during the undertaking.


Rooners Tue 01-Oct-13 09:47:49

This is why I never even go NEAR a motorway and I've been driving for 20 years.

ScottishInSwitzerland Tue 01-Oct-13 09:48:49

Could you have moved into lane two behind the caravan and let the lorry do the illegal undertaking?

(I have only ever driven on a motorway with two lanes so genuinely don't know about these things)

FreudiansSlipper Tue 01-Oct-13 09:50:16

op this thread could end up winding you up more than the original incident

not all will agree with you so the thread will go round and round in circles unless you enjoy a good argument debate

and lets face it that is why most of us out on here grin

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Tue 01-Oct-13 09:50:24

Contrary to most of the people on here, I don't think you were at fault. You don't have to travel at the limit of motorway speed if you don't want to. 50 mph is fine.

No. It. Isn't.shock

OP, you were not BU to feel intimidated. You were however, BU in driving like a jerk.

As has been pointed out multiple times, passing the caravan on the left would not have been undertaking.

Please stay off motorways until you understand how to drive on them.


Tbf I hadn't considered that at the time. I probably could have (when there was my questionable overtaking opportunity). I have no idea how much, if any traffic was behind the lorry - probably a reasonable amount preparing to come off at a very busy junction. It may have been difficult for me to get back in to come off.

MidniteScribbler Tue 01-Oct-13 09:53:14

If you're sitting close to the caravan, he may have been swearing about the idiot sitting too close to allow him to merge back in to the lane.

thistlelicker Tue 01-Oct-13 09:56:11

Perhaps u were moving
Too slow for the caravan to move back in to lane 1? You were
Lazy not to overtake and you were just as much as a risk as the bu mahoosive lorry

DameDeepRedBetty Tue 01-Oct-13 09:59:11

yanbu, I'd have done the same as you in the same situation.

Tuppenceinred Tue 01-Oct-13 10:00:12

I'm afraid I laughed out loud when the "police officer neighbour" suddenly appeared up-thread. If you have such a useful source of information why bother on here?
Here's another scenario - You are happily pootling along in the left hand lane on the motorway. Ahead you can see a caravan that is staying in the middle lane and not pulling in. So, as a good driver who plans and predicts traffic, you look for an opportunity to pull into the middle lane well before you reach the caravan, then you pull into the outside lane, pass the caravan and move back in. Whether or not the vehicle you are approaching at higher speed is in the same lane as you, or the one next to you, plan ahead and predict what you need to do so that you can make your moves safely. This guidance would apply just as much to leaving room to pass a vehicle in the middle lane as one directly ahead of you in the inside lane. As said above, it sounds possible that your position was actually putting the driver with the caravan off pulling in. How close were you to them?
I think you were too insistent on what your "rights" were and not being aware enough of traffic around you. You could have undertaken, but if you had thought ahead you wouldn't have had to. You could do as you did and stick to your rights, but in doing so you effectively created a rolling road block for traffic behind you. The HGV driver was in the wrong, so were you.
You don't say how big this HGV was, but have you noticed that they don't often move out into the outside lane?

I'm sorry. I'm going to take the opinion of a real live police officer on the 'is it undertaking?' Issue over a collection of people on the internet.

The rl police officer said "you SHOULD only pass on the left if there are queues in all lanes" it then lead onto a discussion about traffic sitting in lane 2 on that stretch and undertakinv on that stretch being a problem and cause of accidents because of the road layout. We talked about the fact that people do it because the lane 2 hoggers are frustrating on that stretch and that in terms of assigning blame after an accident it is often the lane 2 driver but the lane 1 driver in my circumstances would be the one that feels most guilty.

We talked about that what I did wasn't wrong (no minimum speed limit on motorway. I was not driving at a dangerous speed for lane 1. Some vehicles would be breaking the law if they did). We also talked about whether i woukd be in the wrong to undertake. The answer was - on paper yes. In practice it would depend on the investigating officer (ie open to interpretation.

DameDeepRedBetty Tue 01-Oct-13 10:05:13

If I go at about 50 my fuel consumption improves by nearly 30%. If I'm doing that speed I will be in Lane 1. If someone wants to overtake me, Lane 2 is available to him or her. If they don't feel confident to overtake me, they shouldn't be on the motorway. If their junction is coming up so soon that they don't have time to overtake me, the saving of time will be so miniscule as to be irrelevant.

SelectAUserName Tue 01-Oct-13 10:08:10

When you saw the traffic behind the caravan in lane 2 that was stopping you from pulling out to overtake along the whole four-mile stretch (despite there apparently being "no queue"), did you put your indicator on to show the traffic behind the caravan that you wanted to pull out? Other drivers aren't psychic but I've found that if I indicate, very quickly someone will leave a suitable gap or move over into the next lane to let me move out.

Regardless of how 'unhurried' I was, if I couldn't get past a caravan within a four-mile stretch of uncongested motorway, to the point a driver of a speed-limited vehicle felt he had to sound his horn at me for driving too slowly, I'd be seriously considering my fitness to drive.

The caravan driver was BU to hog the middle lane, the lorry driver was BU in using his horn - but you made a bad situation worse by not reading the road properly and not reacting to the hazard (caravan) appropriately.

footballagain Tue 01-Oct-13 10:08:12

You 'touched your brakes a few times'?

That is twattish behaviour.

onlytheonce Tue 01-Oct-13 10:09:56

Bloody hell there's some idiots on this thread. If the OP had undertaken they could have been fined and got points. It is clear that it wasn't a queueing situation where undertaking is OK. The only people at fault are the caravan and HGV drivers.

70 mph is the maximum limit, not a target speed. You always drive to the conditions of the road and in this case the caravan was in effect setting the speed in the inside lane. It is dangerous to undertake. Lots of people pull in without looking left. You are not allowed to undertake simply because you think the other vehicle is driving a bit slow.

There was no opportunity to safely overtake.

If the caravan was ahead of me I would have planned ahead. It was next to me from the point I merged onto the motorway.

And I had talked to my neighbour about feeling bullied and should I have been bullied into breaking the law by undertaking.

onlytheonce Tue 01-Oct-13 10:11:58

^You 'touched your brakes a few times'?

That is twattish behaviour.^

Why? Some idiot is driving 40 tonnes of metal far too close behind her. If it gets them to back off thats a good thing surely.

gobbynorthernbird Tue 01-Oct-13 10:13:11

So, the caravan driver wasn't really middle lane hogging, more that their lane turned into lane 2 at a junction. At which point they can't pull to the left because you're sat there matching their speed. Thus causing the lorry driver, and everyone sat behind the caravan, to get agitated with you.

Have you never noticed that if you get 'stuck' behind a sliw vehicle on any multi-lane road it can be a pain to pull out because the faster moving traffic coming up behind you gets there first?

And I always thought that indicators were there to be used once you had a safe place to move to not to beg people to make it safe for you...

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 01-Oct-13 10:16:06

For all the hgv driver knows, that's as fast as you can go. Perhaps you were limping to the exit with engine troubles. It's never, ever ok to tailgate and intimidate.

I think you could have sped up, but you assumed the law was interpreted differently.

Jollyb Tue 01-Oct-13 10:18:17

I wonder if we'll see a post from the caravan owner saying 'AIBU to be annoyed with driver who wouldn't let me back into the low lane'?

I really don't see why you couldn't have overtaken the caravan if it was there when you joined. As a PP had said caravans are hazards - I always try to get away from them.

thistlelicker Tue 01-Oct-13 10:18:44

Ok! I now wondering what the point of thread is ..op doesn't think she was unreasonable! Why should we tell her otherwise when she(presume she) thinks otherwise !!!!

Op ... All involves in this scenario were twats!

And when I touched my brakes it was lightly to show my brake lights without sliwing me further.

Initially I left LOTS of space for tge caravan because I EXPECTED him to move across.

It was only when I was feeling pressured by the lorry that I realised I was getting closer to it but at all times I feel I left room for it to move in.

It is a notourious stretch for people to sit in lane 2 because lane 1 disappears again at the next junction..

I would love to see a 'caravan driving on the motorway' AIBU Jolly. shock

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Tue 01-Oct-13 10:23:15

I am not scared to overtake. I am comfortable on the motorway. I am happy drivng at 80mph on the motorway

Did you ask your friendly local cop for his opinion on driving at 80mph on the motorway? Why so bothered about undertaking when you are a habitul speeder? grin

MidniteScribbler Tue 01-Oct-13 10:26:25

Why? Some idiot is driving 40 tonnes of metal far too close behind her. If it gets them to back off thats a good thing surely.

Because they are being twats and sitting too close. You don't know if they're paying attention to your brake lights, or texting on their phone, or eating a sandwich. It takes a hell of a lot longer for a large vehicle to stop than a small one, and a large vehicle is going to do a hell of a lot more damage to the small car. You are risking your life playing these sort of games with other vehicles.

Here's a tip - If someone is being a prat and is so damned desperate to get in front of you, then MOVE OUT OF THE WAY! You will not be able to "teach them a lesson" or make them see the error of their ways. They will get more angry, they will make silly mistakes, you will be concentrating on their behaviour more than your own driving and make silly mistakes. All while in control of a metal machine which can cause a hell of a lot of damage to you or another person. The road is not the place for silly games.

angelos02 Tue 01-Oct-13 10:27:05

It isn't the 'slow lane'. You can do 70 in that lane assuming the other 2 lanes are clear. The other lanes are for overtaking.

onlytheonce Tue 01-Oct-13 10:29:41

But tapping the brakes doesn't slow you down, it is to hopefully get them to back off. It's not slamming on the brakes to make them crash into you.

What you are saying is that the OP should have carried out an illegal manoeuvre because someone else is driving aggressively.

Weller Tue 01-Oct-13 10:30:31

HGV driver should not of driven so close but he cannot overtake caravan on the middle lane and after breaking and showing your lights after a couple of minutes (so 3 or 4 miles) he beeped his horn. But you still could not overtake in free flowing traffic. While I like to be in the left lane nice and early for exit I am usually talking a mile.

FutTheShuckUp Tue 01-Oct-13 10:30:50

That's rubbish onlytheonce. You cannot amble along at a speed you feel safe at on the motorway. You are meant to drive as lose to 70 as possible or you are endangering other motorists and also being a huge PITA

StickEmUp Tue 01-Oct-13 10:32:09

I saw a HGV with a television in the front this summer. Really, it was on the dashboard somehow.

angelos02 Tue 01-Oct-13 10:32:27

Lorry drivers aren't allowed to drive in the 'fast lane' so you were holding them up. They have targets to hit so YWBVU.

Jollyb Tue 01-Oct-13 10:32:59

I know there isn't a 'slow' lane. I just tend to get my inside versus outside lane muddled - as the inside is really on the outside!

Suzieismyname Tue 01-Oct-13 10:33:16

I'm with Bumpotato. If you don't know how or want to overtake or keep around 70 then stay off the motorway!

StickEmUp Tue 01-Oct-13 10:33:26

to be fair brake testing is a very agressive thing to do. He probably took it as a 'come on then'.

onlytheonce Tue 01-Oct-13 10:34:34

Want to show me that bit of the highway code FTSU? And in this case, the OP could not drive faster or they would be doing an illegal manoeuvre.

onlytheonce Tue 01-Oct-13 10:36:27

To quote the highway code:

When you can see well ahead and the road conditions are good, you should

- drive at a steady cruising speed which you and your vehicle can handle safely and is within the speed limit (see the Speed limits table)
- keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front and increase the gap on wet or icy roads, or in fog (see Rules 126 and 235).

Anything there about driving as close to 70mph as you can? Thought not.

onlytheonce Tue 01-Oct-13 10:38:08

And people are misunderstanding the OP. This was a 4 lane section of motorway, so the lorry can go into the third lane to overtake.

MidniteScribbler Tue 01-Oct-13 10:38:30

But tapping the brakes doesn't slow you down, it is to hopefully get them to back off. It's not slamming on the brakes to make them crash into you.

It can have that effect. It's a stupid game to play. And even if the truck driver manages to slow down before he hits you, you don't know if there's another vehicle behind him that is drafting and travelling too close who may not see the silly game going on ahead.

And in this case, the OP could not drive faster or they would be doing an illegal manoeuvre.

She could have moved out behind the caravan and let the lorry choose to undertake them both.

angelos02 Tue 01-Oct-13 10:39:55

The amount of people that don't know how to drive on the motorway is astounding. Keep in the lane nearest the left unless you are overtaking. Not complicated.

For the majority of the problematic distance I coukd not safely pull out behind tge caravan.

Tapping my brakes did not slow me down. It was just enough to illuminate my brake lights. My intention to ask the lorry to be more considerate, although I appreciate it may have been taken another way.

gobbynorthernbird Tue 01-Oct-13 10:47:06

the lorry can go into the third lane to overtake
OP in a car hasn't got space to pull out and overtake, how is an HGV with minimal acceleration going to?

Merrylegs Tue 01-Oct-13 10:48:00

If there were four lanes then you indicate to move out and the traffic behind moves to the third and fourth lanes. It's not a dual carrigeway where there is nowhere for the approaching traffic to move to.

That said, my Dragons den invention is a light up 'back off, you're too close' sign on the rear window.

Suzieismyname Tue 01-Oct-13 10:49:42

Use your indicators to let other drives know what you intend to do. They are they to let other drivers help you.

OcadoSubstitutedMyHummus Tue 01-Oct-13 10:50:46

If the caravan had been doing 40 in the middle lane would you have slowed down to match him?

onlytheonce Tue 01-Oct-13 10:52:07

She could have moved out behind the caravan and let the lorry choose to undertake them both.

Now you're just getting dumb. She said she was wanting to pull off at a junction coming up. And why should she move out of the way. She was doing nothing wrong!

MidniteScribbler Tue 01-Oct-13 10:54:24

And why should she move out of the way. She was doing nothing wrong!

Because you don't play silly buggers with someone bigger than you. If they're that desperate, then let them go.

footballagain Tue 01-Oct-13 10:58:10

Onlytheonce - no one is 'getting dumb' but, unfortunately for you, you are just sounding like an insulting arse.

squeakytoy Tue 01-Oct-13 11:01:46

"because that was never really an option because of traffic conditions alongside and behind me"

says it all really..

you and the caravan towing twat were effectively blocking the motorway.

FutTheShuckUp Tue 01-Oct-13 11:05:24

The motorway is one of the few places where driving fast is safer than driving slowly. Sticking between 60mph-70mph will keep the traffic flowing, and allow people around you to overtake safely.

You shouldn’t brake on the motorway unless there is slowing traffic or an obstruction ahead. Braking unnecessarily on the motorway can be very dangerous because other drivers may not expect it and might not have time to react safely. Driving slowly is equally as risky, as it may force cars behind you to brake suddenly or to overtake, pulling into the path of other cars. In fact, you can actually be stopped by the police for driving too slowly on the motorway. The same goes, of course, for driving in excess of 70mph, which can be just as dangerous.

If there is slowing traffic or an obstruction ahead, it’s a good idea to use your hazard lights in order to warn motorists behind you. This will grab their attention and ensure that they react safely, and, in turn, will make sure they are able to warn drivers behind them in the same way.

MurderOfBanshees Tue 01-Oct-13 11:06:43

"There was no queue! "

But if there was traffic backing up behind the caravan, as you said here

"Initially I could not move into lane 2 as there was traffic there "

Then there was a queue, it's just you were level with the start of it.

FutTheShuckUp Tue 01-Oct-13 11:06:59

This is from the AA. Who actually do have motoring experience, shockingly

I did not brake.

I wasn't excessively slow. Yes there were points when I may have been below 60 but for the main I was around 60.

juneybean Tue 01-Oct-13 11:08:38


I would have undertook in anger (quite wrongly!) but the caravan and the HGV were the ones in the wrong in your situation.

FutTheShuckUp Tue 01-Oct-13 11:09:29

I didn't say you did. This is for the benefit of the numpty who was saying its okay to amble along at a speed you feel comfortable at. It really isn't.

onlytheonce Tue 01-Oct-13 11:10:14


Whilst you're contributions to the thread are to accuse the OP of 'twattish behaviour', and call me an 'insulting arse'. Beams and motes come to mind.

There can be traffic without a queue.

Traffic was travelling faster than the caravan, approaching and moving out sk there was a constant flow of traffic approaching and moving round.

There was also traffic from my slip road trying to join behind the caravan (my lane merged to become lane 1. The traffic inthe left lane of the slip road had to merge with lane 2).

FutTheShuckUp Tue 01-Oct-13 11:14:13

Onlytheonce. I suggest you go back to bed. Then attempt to wake on the right side.

onlytheonce Tue 01-Oct-13 11:14:32

FTSU, where did I say you could drive as slow as you want? I said that in this situation, the OP was driving at an appropriate speed.

There is no lower speed limit (unless specifically signed on rare occasions), but driving too slowly can be deemed to be dangerous driving. People need to get out of their heads that 70 mph is a target, it's not.

FutTheShuckUp Tue 01-Oct-13 11:20:14

Anything there about driving as close to 70mph as you can? Thought not.

Except there is, isn't there.

Yes you can be charged with dangerous drivinv for driving too slow (55-60 id not too slow and 60 is the upper limit for some vehicles).

Yes you can be charged with dangerous driving for undertaking.

Yes you can be charged with dangerous driving for middle lane hogging.

Yes you can be charged with dangerous driving for tailgating.

Netguru Tue 01-Oct-13 11:24:33

I just don't get why the OP posted in a forum which essentially asks a question unless it was to get congratulatory or commiseratory posts.

If you want people to validate your behaviour it seems you already got that from your neighbour.

I drive 300 miles a day on the M4. I see loads of people like you who are intimidated by using the motorway full stop as they don't seem to be able to think ahead. You are an accident waiting to happen regardless of what the Highway Code says because your 'anxiety' at your 'intimidation' lead to you trying to get an HGV to break sharply. Use your hazard lights if you need to convey a message in future or better still stay away from the motorway or get more training.

onlytheonce Tue 01-Oct-13 11:31:27

FTSU, umm no there isn't. 'Within' =/= 'As close to'.

edam Tue 01-Oct-13 11:32:43

OP did the right thing by tapping her brakes so the lorry could see her brake lights. According to my driving instructor who presumably knows more about the rules and keeps up to date with the Highway Code than most drivers.

Undertaking would not have been correct according to the Highway Code.

Hazard lights are NOT appropriate in this situation.

The problem was the caravan, not the OP. But loads of people develop bad habits and forget the Highway Code once they have passed, so loads of people will tell her off.

AKAK81 Tue 01-Oct-13 11:48:19

Your driving instructor doesn't have a clue

Netguru Tue 01-Oct-13 11:56:59

Agreed AKAK. Edam, you may think you know it all but why not gain some personal experience on the motorway before quoting your 'driving instructor's' somewhat questionable advice.

Brake lights means a car is braking which will cause others to do the same. An HGV does not have the same stopping distance as a car so has to be more aggressive in their braking. He may well have been too close for the OPs comfort but would have been looking ahead anticipating ahead. Unexpected breaking can cause an accident.

ILetHimKeep20Quid Tue 01-Oct-13 12:04:06

My driving instructor showed me how he could roll a fag and drive! They attendants of the road. Tapping your brakes is never appropriate.

Flossie82 Tue 01-Oct-13 12:58:52

Op you didn't do anything wrong!

I am Getting worried about driving on a motorway after reading the comments on this thread saying otherwise. Scary how many bad drivers are out there!

Flossie82 Tue 01-Oct-13 14:27:29

Netguru - yes, it will take hgv longer to stop. Therefore they need a longer dropping distance and are being very unreasonable not to leave one.

How do you know the hgv driver in question was looking and anticipating ahead? its a good idea for them to do so (obviously!) but they can't assume that because they haven't seen a reason for the car in front to break it won't.

If touching break lights on will make them crash they definitely shouldn't be in charge of a lorry!

Pendeen Tue 01-Oct-13 14:59:19

OP, my answer to your question is - YANBU to want not to be intimidated by a HGV.

There is obviously considerable difference of opinion on here as to whether your actions were reasonable or not but I can't see any justification for the HGV driver's aggression.

One question I don't think has been asked is, did lane 1 (i.e. the lane you were in) eventually become the exit or would you have to pull off that lane to leave the motorway? That is imporant because if so it would explain why the caravan stayed in lane 2.

Bigbadgladioli Tue 01-Oct-13 15:14:35

Netguru - interesting point. I was in a similar situation on a single lane road, dark and stormy night a couple of weeks ago. In a queue of fairly fast moving traffic (55-60). No chance of overtaking. Van behind was tailgating. I did slow down as I'd rather have a crash at low speed than at high speed. Even when the van had the chance to pass on the dual carriageway it wouldn't go past. Not until I had dropped to forty.

I didn't realise that sticking your hazards on was what the professional driver would advise. I certainly wasn't happy at having to brake but felt for the safety of my family and other drivers it probably was the best option. If hazards is the answer I'd be happy to give it a go.

Any other pro's out there care to comment on the use of hazards as a way of saying you are driving to close?

Bigbadgladioli Tue 01-Oct-13 15:19:21

too close!?

Dh was told to 'tap' the brakes on a driving course he had to take as a result of a speeding infringement........It was mostly geared at people who had done over 30 in a 30 limit and justified this by complaining that people tailgate you. Not ever so helpful for dh (78 in a 70 limit)

I have to say I'm confused by what the op has said. At first she said 'I was travelling at about 55-65mph in the slow lane. I wasn't in a hurry and found myself approaching a car +caravan in lane 2' - which means that she should have been able see and avoid the whole situation by moving out earlier. When asked about that she then said 'I don't think I approached the caravan from behind. I think it was alongside me as I merged onto the motorway'. So that would mean she was boxed in as soon as she joined - and yet the traffic behind her was able to move out.

Tbh the more I read the more I think the OP was not paying attention to what was going on. Your indicators are there to show other drivers what you intend to do. If they are driving up behind you they need to respond to your indications not simply roar past. That goes for cyclists and cars too btw - anybody who sees a cyclist indicate right should stay back till they've completed the manouvere. Funny how many drivers don't but simply carry on, on the outside. Indicating is informing that you will me moving (if it's safe to do so). It's not asking permission. The cars coming up behind the Op should have slowed and moved if she'd been indicating, which she wasn't.

Bigbadgladioli Tue 01-Oct-13 15:41:42

Northern Lurker: Was the OP indicating? Edwinia, you didn't say you were sitting on the inside lane indicating to pull out?

I read it that you were just sitting in the inside lane, unsure whether to undertake the caravan pootling along in the middle lane. And you were being intimidated by a great big HGV.

Edwinia, faced with the same situation would you do anything different? For your own safety/heart rate?

(We are all bound to be in this kind of situation at some point in the future.)

I know she wasn't indicating. She should have been.

Catsize Tue 01-Oct-13 16:26:29

Can't believe this is still going!
There is a beautiful irony about roadblocking. HGVs 'overtaking' one another for ten minutes at a time, forcing everyone else into lane 3.
Still think the OP was a tad incompetent, but the caravan was worse.
Hate middle lane hoggers. Grrrr.

Bigbadgladioli Tue 01-Oct-13 16:29:27

Ah! So that the traffic in lane 2 would slow down and enable her to pull out. Yes

But she didn't want to pull out. Do you think she should have pulled out then? And sat behind the caravan? Or go into lane 3.

If it was me, I suppose I would sit because I wouldn't want to miss my junction.

Well that's where I'm confused about what happened - because yes if she caught up with the caravan then granted she may have worried about missing the junction BUt should have anticipated the problem by looking ahead and avoided the scenario. If on the other hand the caravan was there as soon as she joined then she would have had longer to move and should have done so. Do you see what I mean?

The advice if you are being tailgates is first and foremost to move out of their way if it means going around a roundabout to lose them so be it.

If you can't get out if the way you should drop back from the vehicle in front of you, so that if you do have to brake suddenly you are less likely to get shunted into the vehicle in front.

You should never ever tap your brakes. You can cause an accident by doing this, causing people behind you to brake suddenly.

For what it is worth, my understanding of undertaking is that it is not illegal if your lane is moving faster than other the other lanes. This doesn't apply if you deliberately change lanes to the left to get past someone, but entry of times I've found myself in the inside lane doing a reasonable (within the limit) speed and come across a numpty sat in the middle lane doing 60 for no apparent reason. By maintaining my speed and passing him, I am not in the wrong - he/she is for lane hogging.

Bigbadgladioli Tue 01-Oct-13 16:52:30

Northern: Yes, I do see what you mean.

As I wasn't there, my feeling about this is: it all happened too fast.
If her motorway was joining another motorway (on a curve for example as happens on my local road) it can be difficult to see what is happening ahead and the chance to change your course is gone very fast. Even faster if you are hurtling along at 80mph.

FWIW and to answer the OP I think the HGV was BU: We are a long time dead.

To all those people who think that 55 on the inside lane is unreasonable, you must be getting very frustrated all the time, you poor souls. I have noticed a drop in the average speed of cars since the hike in petrol prices these last few years. Definitely more people travelling below 60. And less and less cars doing 80, 90, 100mph.

NeverGetTheBestOfMe Tue 01-Oct-13 16:53:44

If a car/caravan was doing 50mph in the middle lane I think OP you should seen this well in advance and not waited until you were almost level with them in your lane to decide it was not safe to overtake so I think YABU. Also doing that speed on a motorway is not always safe because you are not keeping the flow moving. The caravan was also BU.

Bigbadgladioli Tue 01-Oct-13 17:10:10

Great post Frankel. grin

DuckToWater Tue 01-Oct-13 17:10:28

The way I see it is the caravan was in the wrong by remaining in lane 2, and the HGV was even more in the wrong by driving dangerously. The only thing the OP was doing was going a bit slowly, in the correct lane. Though 55 mph might feel a bit slow on the motorway, anything over 50mph is an acceptable speed.

70mph is an absolute limit, not a target. In any event, most lorries cannot go faster than 60mph so the driver shouldn't have been in such a hurry.

It's not generally good driving to overtake and weave in and out of lanes near a junction just to get two cars in front of where you were. Much safer to drive defensively and stay in lane one.

What the OP could have done, if near the junction, is to speed up in lane 1 and in fact pass the caravan. But it isn't obligatory.

What the caravan should have done is either overtook or dropped back into lane 1, they were hogging the middle lane and could be fined.

The lorry driver will soon find him or herself either being done for dangerous driving, or causing an accident. Hopefully the former before the latter.

choccyp1g Tue 01-Oct-13 17:14:50

FrankelInFoalTue 01-Oct-13 16:48:25
<<<The advice if you are being tailgates is first and foremost to move out of their way if it means going around a roundabout to lose them so be it.

If you can't get out if the way you should drop back from the vehicle in front of you, so that if you do have to brake suddenly you are less likely to get shunted into the vehicle in front.

You should never ever tap your brakes. You can cause an accident by doing this, causing people behind you to brake suddenly.>>>

Are you suggesting that when being followed closely by a much heavier vehicle than yourself that the correct thing to do is to slow down without touching the brakes? So that they get even closer to you rather than touching their own brakes.

Because the worst thing someone tailgating you could do is to slow down themselves. ???

I'm repeating the advice. You can slow down by easing off the accelerator, you don't have to brake.

Like I said, the number 1 piece of advice is get out of the way!

edam Tue 01-Oct-13 17:45:17

Netguru, there's no need to be rude. I made it clear that I was quoting my driving instructor, who is qualified to teach people to drive safely and in accordance with the highway code.

If you feel the need to get snotty so quickly with anyone who dares to disagree with you, perhaps you should consider avoiding debates and discussions.

specialsubject Tue 01-Oct-13 17:49:39

I think the OP did nothing wrong. Her junction was approaching so she was waiting in the left most lane, not in the way, not wasting fuel and adding risk by doing stupid extra lane changes. The only possible change would be to slow down even more so that the caravan moves further ahead relatively, then dickhead in the lorry can go behind it and still leave a safe stopping distance. However sounds like he doesn't know about that.

the lorry driver is allowed in lane 2 and should have moved to that and waited until the caravan driver woke up and moved to the left. Neither of them are allowed in lane 3. If he can't get past, tough. So he'll have to wait a few extra minutes. There's probably a traffic jam coming up anyway.

Lorry drivers used to be really good drivers. Don't know what turned so many of them into intimidating idiots like this. Possibly too much pressure to do long hours?

Tailgaters should have their right foot amputated. And who suggested hazard lights? Jesus.

choccyp1g Tue 01-Oct-13 17:52:52

But the brake lights are supposed to help the vehicle behind notice that you are slowing down. FrankelInFoal

If you slow down surreptitiously they are more likely to run into the back of you.

Tapping your brake lights is more likely to cause the vehicle behind you to brake suddenly, with the potential to cause a domino effect of braking behind them.

As others have said, it can also fuel the situation by winding the other driver up. The potential repercussions are just not worth the risk. From the link I posted earlier:

“Avoid braking sharply. Flashing your brake lights isn’t going to help. It’s better to just ease off your accelerator.
This is because if you repeatedly brake, the flashing of your brake lights will start to lose impact.
It’s better to slow down gradually with your foot off the juice.
Then, if you do need to brake suddenly, the brake light should hopefully prompt the tailgater to take some evasive action.
This won’t entirely eliminate the risk of getting rear-ended but at least there’ll be less damage at a slower speed."

BTW, that quote was given by the head of driving standards at the Institute of Advanced Motorists. I'm not going to argue with him grin

TheWickerWoman Tue 01-Oct-13 18:11:32

The HGV behind wouldn't have even seen your brake lights being that close.

I saw one of those motorway cop programmes a while back where a HGV driver (playing on his phone) hadn't seen a queue building up on the motorway and went straight into the back of a car, killing the woman outright.

He thought he'd hit the car in front of the one he killed because from the height of his vehicle and the damage he'd done, he couldn't see her car.

NeverGetTheBestOfMe Tue 01-Oct-13 18:20:57

Apart from the fact the OP should have not left it until they were almost side by side with the caravan to decide it was too dangerous to overtake by going out to lane 3, they also decided to sit in the inside lane and keep the caravan just ahead of them in the middle lane meaning the caravan could not move to the inside lane if they wanted to because when they look in their left side mirror all they can see is the OP driving slowly so think they cannot pull in.

The wise thing to do in future is plan ahead, so you look ahead and see there is a caravan in the middle lane and start changing lanes to overtake in advance then pass the caravan and move to the inside again without leaving anything to the last minute. The whole thing could have been avoided had the OP thought ahead (and of course the caravan drove in the correct lane.)

I could not plan ahead for the caravan. This would have meant moving from a motorway lane to the sliproad to rejoin the motorway.

As I was joining the motorway on a bend where technically the motorways merge rather than a classic sliproad setup.

If those that have come to point out the 'fact' that I left it too late to overtake read the thread you will see that there was never any real opportunity for me to overtake. The caravan was there when I first (or very soon after) I joined the motorway.

Of course the 'fact' is that I was so close to the caravan to let him pull in. I seemnto have missed the part where I explained that I EXPECTED him to pull in, thus ensuring there was space.

He 'fact' that the lorry isn't allowed in lane 3...hmm I thought it was only the fastest lane they weren't allowed to use (lane 3 isn't the fastest lane)

The best advice ive been given is to plan ahead in I'll check my crystal ball before I approach the motorway and if there is likely to be a slow moving vehicle in the way I will put my foot down; break the speed limit and make sure I reach the motorway 45secs earlier so I arrive ahead of the idiots..

In similar situations (a middle lane blocker hogging the lane, us in the inside lane) both dh and I have passed the middle lane hogger in the inside lane, as it was our belief that undertaking involves moving in from one of the outer lanes, going past another vehicle, then pulling out again - ie. a deliberate manoeuvre, rather than simply passing a vehicle on the inside because one is going faster than they are - this is what dh has told me.

But it seems from this thread that this is not actually correct. All I can say is that I have never got in any trouble for doing so, thus far.

In your situation, EdwiniasRevenge, I would have sped up, as long as it was safe to do so, so that the arsehole on my tail could pass me when we had both passed the caravan. In purely practical terms, that would have felt like the safest option, to me.

However, you are absolutely not unreasonable to say that the HGv driver should not have tailgated you - as a professional driver, he should have known how dangerous that is. Even if you were driving badly or inconsiderately, that is never an excuse for another driver to drive dangerously.

I do not believe that on a 4 lane motorway it was impossible for you to safely move out and around this caravan in the time between two junctions. Tbh op I was quite sympathetic to you to begin with, though I thought you (and the other drivers were all in the wrong) but you're stroppy response is doing you no favours.

juneybean Tue 01-Oct-13 19:05:43

Why should the OP have to move any where. The lorry is completely in the wrong for being intimidating and tailgating.

I see your point, juneybean, but in that situation, my priority would be my own safety, which is why I would have sped up to get past the caravan and allow the lorry to overtake - even though it would seem to the lorry driver that he'd got his way.

pianodoodle Tue 01-Oct-13 20:34:49

I think it would only be classed as undertaking if you had sped up and then pulled out in front of the caravan.

SDT that is my understanding of undertaking too. I also have never got in trouble for it.

MurderOfBanshees Tue 01-Oct-13 20:45:29

SDTG You're right, that isn't undertaking. Says so in the highway code.

268 - Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

NeverGetTheBestOfMe Tue 01-Oct-13 20:47:14

"I was travelling at about 55-65mph in the slow lane. I wasn't in a hurry and found myself approaching a car +caravan in lane 2.

As I was doing an acceptable and safe motorway speed and I was in no hurry I decided that I wwasn't going to weavve out to lane 3 to overtake and I wasn't going to break the law by 'undertaking'. I was also approaching my junction. I sat behind the caravan in my lane (ie ensuring I wasn't in the caravan blind spot)".

So your OP was misleading because you made it sound as though you were travelling along in the "slow lane" at 55-65mph and you caught up with a caravan in the middle lane and wasn't in a hurry so decided to not overtake the caravan instead choosing to drive a little bit slower in the inside lane than the caravan until you came to your junction.

This meant the caravan had no chance to pull in if they wanted to and the lorry was unable to overtake either because of you and the caravan. The caravan was in the wrong but you didn't help the situation either. Just because you aren't in a hurry doing 55-65mph so don't want to overtake doesn't mean everyone else isn't.

WMittens Tue 01-Oct-13 20:59:31

15mph is below the speed limit is perfectly safe or vehicles wouldn't have 56mph speed limiters fitted.

This is at best, naive; at worst, completely moronic. It's the brainwashed attitude of 'speed kills', that if you're travelling under the arbitrary speed limit you are "right".

A speed is neither safe nor unsafe; speed differential is unsafe. If every road user on a particular stretch is doing 90mph it could be perfectly safe; on another road with 98% of people doing 60mph and one person doing 20mph could create a very dangerous situation.

15mph is below the speed limit is perfectly safe

But you weren't doing 15mph below the limit - you matched speeds with the caravan which, you claim, was doing about 50mph, so you were actually going 20mph slower than the limit. Given that speedometers can be out by up to 10%, you may have been doing 45mph, or 11mph slower than the HGV's speed limiter.

No, you didn't do anything wrong, but you also didn't spare much thought for the drivers around you.

LynetteScavo Tue 01-Oct-13 21:02:54

I have never driven a lorry, but my understanding is that it takes them a lot longer to slow down when breaking than cars.

Basically you are saying the lorry should have braked a lot earlier, rather than attempting to maintain a constant speed.

If you had undertaken the caravan, it would have to prevent an accident (the lorry driving into you).

Touching the break to indicate you have no intention of going any faster seems a bit idiotic under the circumstances; no wonder the lorry driver sounded his horn.

At one point you say you refused to "weave" to lane three, and later you say you couldn't drop behind the caravan and let the lorry undertake (which is the maneuver which would have made most sense, surely). I'm confused.

WMittens Tue 01-Oct-13 21:05:58

I could not plan ahead for the caravan.

Then you aren't observing and reading the road or the traffic correctly.

I seemnto have missed the part where I explained that I EXPECTED him to pull in,

In our current driving culture, that's a mistake. Also, as quoted above, you said you couldn't plan for the caravan, but now you're saying you expected it to do something (which turned out to be wrong) and planned your driving based on that incorrect assumption.

WMittens Tue 01-Oct-13 21:08:29

I have never driven a lorry, but my understanding is that it takes them a lot longer to slow down when breaking than cars.

Not as much as you might think:

It's accelerating they have trouble with.

DoBatsEatCats Tue 01-Oct-13 21:12:16

OP, in answer to the question you asked, YANBU. I have driven on a motorway with an HGV practically touching my back bumper, and it was the most terrifying experience I've had in 25 years of driving. (Different scenario, before everyone piles in to tell me I'm a crap driver too: there were roadworks, 'stay in lane' signs and a 50mph speed limit, I was doing bang on 50 and the HGV driver obviously wanted to go a bit faster.) I really thought I might die that day: if I'd had to brake suddenly there's no way the HGV could have stopped in time. I would have reported him but was alone in the car, couldn't see his numberplate in the mirror because he was too bloody close and once I got through the roadworks I just wanted to speed up enough to get away from him.

There are no other circumstances in which it's regarded as acceptable to threaten someone with a lethal weapon, but that's what this HGV driver was doing. Doesn't actually matter what OP was doing or how annoying she was being, it's still not acceptable to risk killing someone because you're fed up and might be late.

I couldn't plan for the presence of the caravan. When he first came into my view I was travelling up an uphill slip road which was curving away from the motorway.

At this point ut would have been travellig faster than me and probabky overtook me as I increased my speed after the bend.

Me EXPECTING him to pull in was used in reference to those saying I wasn't leaving space for him to do so. I was making the point I specifically left him space to do so in anticipation.

gobbynorthernbird Tue 01-Oct-13 21:24:12

I don't think anyone thinks that the lorry driver behaved well, just that the OP could have got out of the situation very easily. And that it didn't need to happen in the first place.

WMittens Tue 01-Oct-13 21:24:44

Doesn't actually matter what OP was doing or how annoying she was being, it's still not acceptable to risk killing someone because you're fed up and might be late.

No it's not acceptable, but it does matter what the OP did, because like it or not we always have some element of control - brake testing another driver is not usually the smartest idea (although sometimes tempting, I admit); brake testing a 40 tonne truck a few metres off your bumper is lunacy.

Our actions influence the perceptions, moods and actions of those around us. Defensive driving does not mean being inconsiderate just because "the law says I'm right! Harrumph!"

LynetteScavo Tue 01-Oct-13 21:27:16

I don't think anyone thinks that the lorry driver behaved well, just that the OP could have got out of the situation very easily.


DoBatsEatCats Tue 01-Oct-13 21:30:35

So if she was dawdling in the street in an inconsiderate way and being irritating to someone with a Really Important Meeting to go to it would be all right to point a gun at her? The driver knew he was risking killing her (or if he didn't know he's too thick to be allowed out alone). She arguably made errors of judgment, possibly because she was scared (I was petrified when it happened to me). It's hardly equivalent.

mmmdonuts Tue 01-Oct-13 21:33:58

Aren't HGV's limited to 50 anyway? Apologies if it's 60. YANBU

WMittens Tue 01-Oct-13 21:36:03

So if she was dawdling in the street in an inconsiderate way and being irritating to someone with a Really Important Meeting to go to it would be all right to point a gun at her?

Are you selectively reading? The very first bit of my post:

"No it's not acceptable,"

"it would be all right to point a gun"

So no, it fucking wouldn't.

But, it's the reason you don't flick the Vs if you're driving in South Central LA or Joburg, because there's a much higher chance of getting shot.

It's not 'acceptable' for someone to commit a crime, but you can take steps (and probably do, every day) to reduce the risk that you will be a victim of crime.

Can you really not understand the difference?

WMittens Tue 01-Oct-13 21:36:55

Aren't HGV's limited to 50 anyway? Apologies if it's 60.

It's 56mph (90kph).

gobbynorthernbird Tue 01-Oct-13 21:53:24

Dobats how about this comparison? Would you hand over your bank cards and pin code to a mugger with a gun, or refuse because the bank tells you to not give out your pin?

PrincessFlirtyPants Tue 01-Oct-13 21:54:19

WMittens seems to be the voice of reason.

Weller Tue 01-Oct-13 22:10:32

If you are driving between 55 and 65 bearing in mind for the hgv to be tailgating you are under the 60 could imply that as the op slowed to not undertake she was shortening the braking distance between both vehicles. The caravan must of also not been driving at one speed which could be because the person was trying also to get over. I hate driving behind people who cannot maintain an even speed when no one is in front of them.

blobandsnail Tue 01-Oct-13 22:11:47

You have to be kidding me!? This thread could be ended in one post. OP you were 110% in the wrong. Your driving skill level is not suitable for a 4 lane morotoway if a lorry felt the need to do that. Anyone being overtaken in a fully functioning car by a lorry on a motorway or duel carriage way is in serious need of some driving tuition. Look up pass plus courses. Or get someone who can actually drive to take you out on a motorway and teach you the ways of driving safely and sensibly. Your driving was not safe. Driving like that would more likely cause an accident than speeding up to go past the caravan in the inside lane and keeping consistently ahead of it without swapping lanes. No policeman would ever pull you over for doing that. The same way as a policeman wouldn't pull you up for doing 80mph to perform such a manoeuvre. But a decent policeman would hopefully pull you over for doing 55mph on a motorway!

GiveItYourBestShot Tue 01-Oct-13 22:19:58

What a load of bollocks, blob. My car only does 60mph tops, lorries drive up my arse all the tme when Lane 2 is perfectly empty and all they have to do is mirror, signal and pull out to overtake. Baffles me why they don't. Tailgating me is not going to give my car an extra 10mph.

I think a car which will not top 60mph is probably best kept off motorways.

mmmdonuts Tue 01-Oct-13 22:31:02

Don't be daft. 60mph is what the slow lane is made for.

FutTheShuckUp Tue 01-Oct-13 22:36:04

Where does anyone get a car that wont go above 60mph? Little Tikes?

A modern functioning car will do considerably more than 60mph as it's maximum speed. If the OP's car won't do that then I'm suggesting it may not be in a suitable condition to drive on a road where generally speeds will be higher and drivers will expect that it can go faster. What sort of car is it? Even my mil's ancient mini would do more than 60 ok.

Not the Op's car (though that would explain a few things) I meant giveit's car.

gobbynorthernbird Tue 01-Oct-13 22:38:21

There is no slow lane. If all the other traffic is doing 65, then a car which will only do 60 is dangerous.

ExcuseTypos Tue 01-Oct-13 22:40:46


The lorry driver was very much in the wrong and a complete tosser IMO.

What was he/she trying to achieve anyway?
It is illegal to undertake on the motorway unless the motorway is very contested. So even if you had moved out, the lorry driver shouldnt have gone anywhere, as the caravan driver was only doing 55. So by beeping and flashing at you, he clearly intended to undertake and break the law.

In that situation, I would have tried to pull out and just let him break the law tbh, because I wouldn't want to be infront of such an idiot. However as you said your junction was coming up, I'm not sure what I would have done.

maddening Tue 01-Oct-13 22:44:01

but I thought the minimum speed for a motorway in a non congestion situation (where speed limit is restricted temporarily) was 50mph - so even slowing to match the caravan till her upcoming junction the op was still legally correct.

both the caravan and lorry drivers wbu

maddening Tue 01-Oct-13 22:48:31

and the op wash't stopping anyone from overtaking

SelectAUserName Tue 01-Oct-13 22:56:35

The OP says the caravan was already there in the second lane as she joined the motorway and that she was on the motorway for a little less than four miles. At 55mph that's about 4.5 minutes to take in the situation, realise the caravan is maintaining its speed and making no attempt to pull in to the inside lane, assess the traffic behind, pop indicator on, move out accelerating smoothly when gap appears (as it almost certainly would have), repeat manouevre from lane two to three and return calmly to inside lane with plenty of time / space before her junction.

That would have been the actions of a calm, confident, competent experienced motorway driver. No 'weaving' across lanes - just one smooth, controlled, entirely legal overtaking manouevre. No brakes-tapping with all the risks inherent in that course of action. No more worrying about or trying to second-guess the caravan tower's actions. No last-second swerving in just before the junction. Just a controlled, measured way of removing oneself from a less-than-ideal situation and putting a safe distance between oneself and the drivers originally causing it - the caravan and the HGV.

ExcuseTypos Tue 01-Oct-13 23:02:29

As the OP was only on th emotoer way for 1 junction, the lorry must have been just behind her. So I would presume the lorry would have had exactly the same amount of time to assess the situation and overtake the caravan.

Unless he was breaking the speed limit of course.

FirstVix Tue 01-Oct-13 23:10:37

Except, as another thread a while ago stated, many people see an indicator on a motorway as an intention to move now not a request to 'let me in'. So many people (eg me) will only use the indicator when we can in fact move soon after. And freak if some fool indicates that they're 'moving now' (by indicating) as I come up alongside them.

OP, I don't think YWBU.

And anyway, as you've stated that the HGV left at the same junction as you he could have eased off the accelerator himself as he was leaving the motorway soon.

Those saying that cars with a max 60mph limit shouldn't be on a motorway - things limited to 56mph have already been mentioned and yet are prevelent on them so what, precisely, is the difference??

SelectAUserName Tue 01-Oct-13 23:12:41

Except if the caravan was, as claimed, maintaing speed alongside the OP, who has estimated her speed at around 55mph, then the caravan was also travelling at around 55mph and therefore the speed-limited HGV would have been overtaking at approximately 1mph faster than the caravan and so would have taken substantially longer to do so, unlike the OP who could easily, quickly and safely have accelerated to a speed closer to 70mph and completed the manouevre in a much shorter time and with much less inconvenience to other road users.

neunundneunzigluftballons Tue 01-Oct-13 23:20:04

I think the main person at fault was the driver towing the caravan followed by you then the HGV driver. Caravan should have been in lane 1, you in lane 2 overtaking and tbh if you were closer to the 55 mark you were going too slow and causing a hazard given the circumstances. By the way your neighbour sounds very nice and the sort of neighbour we would all like for keeping her mouth closed when you told her the story.

ArgyMargy Tue 01-Oct-13 23:47:33

Yesterday I was tailgated by a lorry on the M6. We were driving through roadworks with 50mph limit and I was doing 50. He got fed up with me and moved out to lane 2 to tailgate another driver who was also driving at 50mph but slightly further ahead. Then to my astonishment he moved out into lane 3 and overtook, then stayed in lane 3, presumably doing 56mph. Lorry drivers are frequently arseholes, dangerous and utter tossers. YANBU, OP.

MidniteScribbler Tue 01-Oct-13 23:49:13



The difference is that everybody driving on a motorway should know that lorries and caravans are speed limited. There's no way to know a car won't go over 60 unless it's actually pedal powered.

GiveItYourBestShot Wed 02-Oct-13 00:07:23

It's a very old car with a very small engine. We don't go on motorways often but sometimes they are unavoidable.

GiveItYourBestShot Wed 02-Oct-13 00:08:46

Most people looking at it would realise it was "special". I occasionally contemplate getting a bumper sticker which says "please do not attempt to ram me, we are doing our best." Downhill we occasionally breach 65...

GiveItYourBestShot Wed 02-Oct-13 00:12:38

I will stop talking to myself in a moment. On reflection "unusual" would have been a better choice of adjective. Apologies for any offence caused.

musicismylife Wed 02-Oct-13 00:51:32

Don't caravans have to drive 10mph below speed limit?

musicismylife Wed 02-Oct-13 00:53:52

This is like a whodunit hmm

SelectAUserName Wed 02-Oct-13 01:52:02

It was the butler.

Sinful1 Wed 02-Oct-13 08:50:01

You can overtake in the inside if the other lane is slow moving etc, I've done it regularly to police cars when I used to commute in the m56, and they've never batted an eye

Sinful1 Wed 02-Oct-13 08:57:34

You've for to remember though hgvs arnt deliberately trying to get up your arse they're just say at there speed limiter the entire time, they hate having to change speeds because the amount of bloody gears they have to go through makes it a night mare. Just keep your speed to a 60minimum and you never have to worry about them.getting close, it's much better to be away from them than thinking "oh they can just over take me if they want to so bad" because having one of those big things along side you does our you at greater risk.

Not sure if you've ever seen a truck tyre blowout up close but it's an epic boom.

Since we're talking about motorways though can we all agree that if you want to use the outside lane your speed should be at least 3 digits? The amount of people who pull out in traffic doing 95+ in the outside lane while they're only doing 70 is just scary

TheFuzz Wed 02-Oct-13 09:09:20

There is alot of 'got to get in front' mentality going on. This is the major cause of poor driving and accidents.

The OP "ideally" should have overtaken, or indeed undertaken if it was safe. The truck driver WAS driving dangerously.

As the OP was coming off at the next junction, then I don't see it as a problem.

Just because someone has a bigger veihcle (and I'm talking school run 4x4's too) doesn't mean you can bully people. Same goes for anyone in a vehicle bullying more vulnerable road users. DON'T.

As a cyclist I see far too much inconsiderate driving (and stupid cycling also - no-one is exempt) but those in bigger vehicles have a much reduced chance of injury.

Back to topic, the driver was an idiot. Shame you couldn't have got the reg and name of company, then reported him to his Transport Manager.

flipchart Wed 02-Oct-13 09:18:56

So you have posted on MN and you have spoken to a police officer neighbour about it as well.
You seem het up about it

Does it really matter? You aren't going to see the lorry driver or the caravan owner again.
Let it go.

Davsmum Wed 02-Oct-13 09:34:04

The Caravan should not have been in Lane 2 when he could have been travelling in Lane 1. He was hogging the middle lane.
If you are in Lane 1 then you need to overtake the Caravan and then move back into Lane 2 & then Lane 1.
The rule is to keep left and overtake if necessary and return to the left, not keep travelling ion lane 2 when Lane 1 is clear.

There are no fast or slow lanes.

Heavy lorries are not permitted to use lane 3 and as Sinful 1 says - Lorries have to use lots of gears to get back up to speed so its not helpful if you are driving slowly in Lane 1 and they are behind you and there is someone even slower hogging the middle lane.

DuckToWater Wed 02-Oct-13 09:57:36

Yes, doing anything which causes others to break sharply is dangerous, but people shouldn't be doing anywhere near 95 mph on a motorway, you are looking at points on licence and a fine if there are police cars or cameras. Over 100, you are looking at a ban from driving.

A lot of contributors on this thread need to do a defensive driving course, and stop treating the motorway like a race.

gobbynorthernbird Wed 02-Oct-13 10:00:48

As the OP was coming off at the next junction, then I don't see it as a problem.

But if OP had had to brake, had a blowout, whatever there would have been a massive problem. So the OP should have driven defensively, not brake checked a HGV (seriously, who does that with 40 tons and not enough stopping distance behind them?) and got out of the situation.
Nobody should tailgate, but if someone does, the only thing to do is take evasive action, not try to police their behaviour.

Davsmum - it is my understanding that either a) the caravan had been in the inside lane, until the lane that the OP was on ran in alongside the caravan's lane, making it lane 2, and the OP's lane, lane 1, or b) the caravan had moved over to lane 2 to allow traffic from the slip road onto the motorway (which is the right and proper thing to do) - and then either way, the caravan couldn't move back into lane 1, because the OP was there.

Davsmum Wed 02-Oct-13 14:14:05

So the OP had time to overtake the caravan before she reached the next junction - Surely the next junction was not within yards of the slip road for traffic joining the MWay?

So the OP and caravan were driving alongside each other?!

gobbynorthernbird Wed 02-Oct-13 14:37:39

Davs, exactly.

NeverGetTheBestOfMe Wed 02-Oct-13 15:05:54

"it is my understanding that either a) the caravan had been in the inside lane, until the lane that the OP was on ran in alongside the caravan's lane, making it lane 2, and the OP's lane, lane 1, or b) the caravan had moved over to lane 2 to allow traffic from the slip road onto the motorway (which is the right and proper thing to do) - and then either way, the caravan couldn't move back into lane 1, because the OP was there."

That is how I read the situation too. Plus it seems more like the OP didn't overtake the caravan because they couldn't be bothered to "weave" in and out the lanes because they weren't in a hurry so instead chose to sit and do 55mph in lane 1. The lorry driver and the caravan were wrong but the who thing just sounds like lazy driving to me and the whole situation could have been avoided had the OP not been lazy and just overtaken the caravan in the first place which is a what a good, confident driver would do on a motorway.

In my driving test I got a minor point for doing 30mph in a 40mph zone because it showed lack of awareness of the speed limit for the road and I wasn't going in flow with the traffic. Going too slow can be just as dangerous as going too fast.

Please read what I have said.

Yes I had time to overtake.
There was no opportunity. Traffic was constantly approaching the caravan from behind in lane 2 (as it does if there is a vehicle moving comparatively slowly on a multi lane toad).
The only opportunity that I had to move safely into lane 2 would have put me at risk of missing my exit.
No I was not driving alongside the caravan. I was following the caravan at a safe distance, but in my own lane.
The caravan could have pulled in if he wanted to.

I did not cause a change in my speed by breaking.
The HGV was not following me for the entire 4 miles.
In theory the HGV could overtake as it was a 4 lane stretch of motorway but would have had the same problems pulling out I did etc.
I know there are no slow and fast lanes - I merely used those terms as it is clear which lanes I mean (I have seen confusion on previous threads when some people use nearside/offside or just numbers.

I spoke to my neighbour when I got home to ask if I should have been bullied into making an illegal maneuver.
I posted on MN to have a bit of a rant late at night because I was still feeling intimidated. Different purposes.).

Bumpotato Thu 03-Oct-13 18:03:49

Why post an AIBU if you clearly think you WBR?

Tavv Thu 03-Oct-13 18:14:54

YANBU to expect courtesy and patience from other drivers.

Well said Tavv.

Bumpotato Thu 03-Oct-13 19:17:10

That expectation must be lowered, however, when you drive like a dick.

Everyone is just trying to get from A to B. Why does it have to be so stressful?

Tavv Thu 03-Oct-13 20:19:06

> That expectation must be lowered, however, when you drive like a dick.

So do you think road rage is acceptable and some kind of justified monitoring of other people's driving skills?

Bumpotato Thu 03-Oct-13 20:22:13

Oh good gracious no, but it is a fact of life these days, unfortunately.

kiriwawa Thu 03-Oct-13 21:25:42

I can't believe this thread is still going. But then I can't believe the OP is stubbornly refusing that maybe her driving wasn't brilliant either.

I clearly need to manage my expectations about other drivers!

inabeautifulplace Thu 03-Oct-13 22:58:23

It's the 11th commandment;

Thou must never admit to driving like a twat.

DolomitesDonkey Fri 04-Oct-13 03:53:56

OP is not only denying that she drove badly but is contradicting herself directly in her explanation/proof re: "I had plenty of time to overtake" vs. "Had I overtaken I'd have missed my exit". Pathetic.

mirai Fri 04-Oct-13 04:52:33

Undertaking isn't illegal and it's what I would have done.

ilovecolinfirth Fri 04-Oct-13 06:02:45

Yanbu at all. I hate the way other road users feel its ok to intimidate. There was little you can do as your junction was coming up, and as you correctly state, you cannot undertake as one slow caravan does not mean the motorway is congested.

FergusSingsTheBlues Fri 04-Oct-13 06:40:09

Caravans aren't allowed to go more than 55, I which it's a case if tough luck....lorry should have moved lanes

WMittens Fri 04-Oct-13 08:34:30

Caravans aren't allowed to go more than 55, I think


Bumpotato - in my opinion there is never an excuse to drive dangerously. Whether or not the OP could or should have gone past the caravan either in lane 1 or lane 3, the HGV driver was driving dangerously by tailgating her - he did not have to do that.

I have been stuck behind slow drivers, and yes, it is irritating, especially if you have a deadline or an appointment - but I still choose to drive safely.

Better to be late in this life than early in the next.

Bumpotato Fri 04-Oct-13 14:17:21

I didn't say there was an excuse for it, just that it is a fact of life these days.

I personally don't road rage anyone but witness plenty of instances of it and I only do a 10 school/work run twice a day and seldom drive otherwise.

I saw someone speed up and veer towards a car that pulled out to turn right on on to the road I was on in front of me just yesterday. It was an attempt to intimidate the driver and completely unnecessary.

Bumpotato Fri 04-Oct-13 14:18:14

*10 minute

Amateurish Fri 04-Oct-13 14:56:46

The three of you were all driving badly. Brake testing the HGV is particularly dangerous, so definitely YABU.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now