Practically Classics Forum

Mitsuru wrote:If they are too close to your rear, touch the brake peddle just enough
to get your brake lights on or switch the rear fog lights on for a couple
of seconds!

That should warn them to back off a bit!

No! That will only serve to provoke the eejit who's right up your boot lid and they're likely to become even more aggressive in their driving. Maaarrghk's bang on; much as it pains my inner lunatic to admit this, the wiser plan is to let the bugger go by when an opportunity presents itself.

Unless of course you're on a steep hill in a car with little weight and plenty of lovely torque from its 3-pot Diesel. Then what you do is slow down to the point where the car's climbing on its own, engine at idle speed and matey's struggling to follow in his high-revving warm hatch with its gutless petrol engine. As soon as he's dropped back a bit, stop dead and then, just as he looks likely to overtake, mash the throttle pedal into the floor and take off in a lovely big black cloud of soot, leaving matey looking like a prize tit in front of his homeys. They don't take kindly to that and those little petrol jobbies don't like starting off on a 1 in 4.

Yup. Some great examples of dangerouse behavior there without a single speed limit being broken.

Did you all know that around 95% of RTA's occur when all vehicles involved are travelling at or below the posted speed limit?

I'm starting to understand why.......

Yep, I should have said that I normally follow Maaarrghk's advice and let the bu**ers past! They soon discover that it's a lot easier seeing what is ahead when there's someone ahead of you lighting that little bit further along the road! That's one of the few good driving tips my father taught me...

The other thing that annoys me is the people who sit in a queue with their foot on the brakes - especially at night, when the high level brake light shines straight into your face! I suppose it's the modern method (the foot brake should stop the car moving so far if it's rammed up the rear), but I was taught to put the handbrake on (by the driving instructor) - but it was also one of Father's "good manners" lessons!

I had that discussion many years ago in another forum with a guy who always drove autos. Now driving autos I can see where he was coming from. I will put the car in neutral if I know the traffic lights will not change for a while, such as at a 4 way junction or if stuck in traffic for a while, otherwise I'll just keep my foot on the brakes. For some reason it just seems more fiddly to put an auto in neutral and then switch back to drive when compared with a manual, you have to check its in the right place rather than just "knocking" it out of gear in a manual... Talking to my daughter who was taught in an auto it seems that they are only told to use the handbrake/change into to neutral if they are going to be there for a while, to use her words "if the lights have just changed to red in front of her"...

I ‘fixed’ the high level brake light issues for drivers behind in my Rover 400 by pulling it off as the sticky stuff kept on getting hot in the sun and leaving it dangling in the back.
If someone isn’t driving right up your arse then they should be able to see your brake lights come on without needing one at eye level to assist observation anyway.

It would be a bugger in the Daimler to pull on the handbrake at every red light I must admit, it is an auto and the handbrake is snuck tightly on the right hand side of the drivers seat.

Its pokey in the MG as well so I must admit I do use my footbrake a lot at junctions/lights etc whilst waiting for a gap – those waits do seem to be getting longer as the years go by.

I was out last night in the MG and spotted a focus come into the 30 limit road a few hundred yards behind me and knew he would be right behind in 3 seconds as he was obviously hitting around 50 (like 60% of the rest to be honest), so I pulled in by a field gate and let him go.

Again this morning doing 52/3 ish in a 50 limit and another one, estate of some variety right up my bum within 5 seconds of appearing in the mirror before overtaking and heading straight into the right hand lane at the oncoming lights.
They then pulled off a dangerous cutting in manoeuvre once overtaking as many as possible on the off from the lights.
I drive 50 miles a day most days on A/B roads and see it all the time, rushing and aggressive drivers are now the norm.
Either them or cars inexplicably doing 20-25mph on a two lane national speed dual carriageway?

Driving to the limit and to the conditions of the road seem to have been abandoned now by your modern motorist. I am thinking about changing my hours at work to avoid the rush hour nutters to be honest.

I tend to keep the foot on the brake pedal when pulling up until the next car has stopped behind me, then I just rely on the handbrake. My brake lights warn that I have stopped, but no need to blind the person behind once they have stopped too.

Not had much experience with autos, but do see the merits of "2 footed driving". Honest John had a good on-line article on this, but I think he's behind a paywall now.

I have also changed my working hours, normally getting into work just before 5am. Not so bothered about bad traffic on the way home as I no longer have the working day ahead of me. Still overtake the odd car on the 70 limit dual carriageway (perfectly safe at 90 at that time of day) poddling along at 40. Unbelievable! I can only assume that they have been out drinking all night and are trying to get home without crashing.

Anyway. Daytime running lights. Compulsion is a really bad idea - that's me with my "motorcyclists head" on as I don't want to be hidden by the lights of every other vehicle on the road.

Maaarrghk wrote: Daytime running lights. Compulsion is a really bad idea - that's me with my "motorcyclists head" on as I don't want to be hidden by the lights of every other vehicle on the road.

At last! Someone else who cares about us bikers - totally agree, DRLs whether compulsory or not are a VERY BAD THING for motorcyclists. Most bikers (those with a shred of common sense anyway) do use their dipped lights as DRLs, which makes them really clear to see amongst a backdrop of un-lit cars during daylight. This would be lost if all the cars were similarly lit up, and the super-bright DRLs that we're moaning about would contribute to actually hiding the presence of a motorcycle to many drivers. And they call it progress

And so long as it's only dipped beam that is used, I've yet to see a bike that dazzles during the day.

In the interests of saving our lives, I would ask that anybody that has a car with DRLs gets them disabled, as I have done on my Volvo.

[/rant]

That argument was used before it was introduced, now it's been in for several years I'd like to see the evidence that it's actually happening, I don't think it is. I have a full bike licence too, and was an all year round commuter for several years (in all weathers), I was still involved in three accidents which were not deemed my fault even though I drove with lights on and an HV vest! So i gave up and went back to the cage! Quite frankly I don't believe a car's DRLs are going to blind them to a bike's, a light is a light... I have seen enough personal evidence that the sort of people who cause crashes like this don't see the lights anyhow, or if they do they just ignore them!

Again going slightly off topic there are still a large percentage of bikers who ride without lights and in dark clothing, it would be a start to get them to be more sensible... And don't get me started on the idiots who ride in T shirts and shorts with no gloves and a helmet that's not even done up...

Must admit to always having been a sidelight rather than dipped beam motorcyclist, and yes, guilty of a BLJ, jeans and stout boots type outfitting (with HV in latter years though).

I think regarding my attitude to lights it goes back to the late eighties or thereabout when they started talking about compulsory daylight headlamp use for bikes. There was if I remember right some argument from the lobby groups that a dipped or main beam altered speed perception of the motorcycle from the cage drivers perspective, though it doesn't seem to be something that is bandied about now, so may well have been incorrect.

I don't believe there is any need for cars to have permenent lighting in good weather, in fact all this modern day lighting seems more dangerous than the stuff of just a few years ago. On dark wet country roads I now find myself rubbing the verge as I pass a lot of oncoming traffic as I just can't judge the vehicle past the illuminations on the front, that is assuming I can even see the verge, and I have near perfect eyesight...........

These DRL are just more european madness trying to get in, any driver should know when it is appropriate to use lights. I think the real problem with cars and bikes is that many car drivers do not see the motorbike as a danger to them, human nature then makes them chance something they wouldn't if the vehicle bearing down on them was bloody big lorry.

tractorman wrote:The other thing that annoys me is the people who sit in a queue with their foot on the brakes - especially at night, when the high level brake light shines straight into your face! I suppose it's the modern method (the foot brake should stop the car moving so far if it's rammed up the rear), but I was taught to put the handbrake on (by the driving instructor) - but it was also one of Father's "good manners" lessons!

Actually, even as far back as the 70s, using the footbrake & not the handbrake at junctions or traffic lights was part of Roadcraft's instructions. Of course, nowadays it's more to do with laziness than advanced driver training & preparedness for emergencies!

As I understood it, the primary purpose of DRLs isn't to warn other motorists of any kind, but to attract the attention of pedestrians who are too self-absorbed to see 2-ton lumps of metal hurtling towards them!