@@MrSupercar55 Not at all! The 406 owner's club is international. There are plenty of countries around the globe where that model alone is still a common sight on the road, and that's for a reason.
Hi Ashely! I know it's probably too late but I think I have managed to get the numberplate for this Audi, it's seems to be T9 DLA, which comes back to a 2017 White Audi S5 TFSI Quattro which looks to be the same car. Hopefully Paul can see this and make it useful!
What amazes me is that if the RU-vid community can do some basic investigation work with software and attain or piece together information when they have nothing to gain beyond some gratitude, why can't the police when they can bring about a prosecution for dangerous driving/driving without due care and attention?. Would give credibility and prestige to the police and stop the MIB having to pick up the bill when the person responsible should have their insurance increased due to their poor driving.
@@razgriz380 Let me fix that for you. "...stop innocent, law-abiding motorists from picking up the bill..." MIB is funded by insurance underwriters who, in turn, are funded by insurance premiums.
Cloned plates? Forget the police I'm sure the insurance companies must have tried to track down the Audiot, there's got to be reason why they ended-up going through MIB.
I remember twenty years ago, you'd find middle lane hoggers from time to time, but where they were always out in their numbers was inside the M25 boundary. Especially after 9 in the evenng, cruising down an empty M1.
Every day , morning and evening to and from work lane hoggers.. getting annoyed with them . One time a curtain sider went from middle lane to outside lane , . I flashed him, he went back to the middle to let me pass , I passed then he went back to the outside, was watching in RVM ,he did this with all the cars . Must have been a European driver forgot he was in England
Any idea what speed the Audi was doing originally, and was he intending to move into the nearside lane. The Peugeot appears to have no o/s rear brake light, so I also wonder what the condition of its tyres was.
@Ed Straker so in your eyes the problem car is the cam car 😂? How many times have you hogged the middle lane doing 10mph under the limit then bitch at people who overtake ?
Seems to me the Peugeot driver overreacted, just backing off rather than slamming on the brakes would have been OK -- there was more of a gap than he must have thought. Though "just backing off" 10 seconds earlier would also have been a much more sensible option.
This ties into not undertaking, had he held back behind the audi instead of moving up next to it and undertaking then he could have just braked when the Audi moved. He was too close to the rear end of the Audi and probably felt he was about to get hit.
He would of been better backing off the Peugeot 205 and 206 were well known for lift off and heavy braking oversteer. Great fun when you plan it not so much when you don't.
@2:50, it isn't undertaking, the Peugeot was proceeding in his lane. I remember the Police saying they were going to crack down on lane hoggers - no, I've not noticed it either. Along with mobile phone users and other bad driving, it never gets enforced, but every now and then, a new law comes along, for them to not enforce.
Pretty sure the Audi had seen the car undertaking, and the swerving across was a deliberate ‘you’re not allowed to do that’ warning move, that had greater consequences than the they Perhaps expected... call me a cynic
I was thinking the exact same thing actually and wondering how to describe it. You did a great job of putting it into words. Its as well to remember that some drivers have exactly that mentality.
@@mcihs2 Because the Peugeot driver sped up and wasn't where the Audi driver expected it to be which is why you should never rely on mirrors alone when changing lanes
@@mcihs2 You are the first person I've noticed to acknowledge the blind spot, which is quite large on the near side. It did not look like the Peugeot was making his way past very quickly. If it had been, it would have been in & out of the blind spot more quickly.
Ashley loves to blame undertaking on every collision if there's a car on the left.. He once said it's illegal. A few years later he said it's not illegal but it is classed as careless driving. There was no undertaking here.
Obviously it's not impossible for someone to suddenly change into the fast lane. However, it doesn't take a lot of understanding of human behaviour to grok that someone nervous, spooked by a faster car behind them, is much more likely to move to the slow lane than to the fast lane. Just because someone tends to stay in the middle lane doesn't mean they're complete lunatics randomly bouncing in every direction. Putting yourself where inattentive drivers are less likely to expect you increases the likelihood of them colliding into you. Undertaking is fine in my book, where legal. But if you do it, you should understand the risks and be extra vigilant for aberrant behaviour from involved drivers, lest you end up with the Pug driver's fate.
@@arantala There is no slow or fast lane : all lanes have the same maximum permitted speed , and it is the perpetration of that myth that encourages poor lane discipline .
That small car was hiding in the Audi driver's blind spot ; mirror checks would probably not have revealed the small car , and signals are only required where of benefit - we do not make them just because someone 'might' be hiding in a blind spot . Driving in peoples' blind spots is a prime cause of many collisions , and those who do it are at fault for what happens .
I'm very happy to be corrected but had the Peugeot given the Audi a safe gap this would have never have happened, when driving in lane 1 you should always be giving the car in lane 2 space in the event that they suddenly change lanes, if the Peugeot wanted to get ahead of the Audi they should have slowed down, joined lane 2 and finally completed an overtake in lane 3. I'm very confused why the insurance companies didn't see the Peugeot as the one at fault here - I'd love to know why.
As a driving instructor (long time ago) one major rule of the road I would teach and explain the reasons was "Avoid overtaking from the right" (In Canada) so that would translate to "Avoid overtaking from the left" for the UK. That being said however, and in my opinion, the one major factor that directly caused this foul up was the obvious inability of the Peugeot driver to calmly control his vehicle. ABS or not there was no need to touch the brakes or in the least apply very little pressure and slowly merge onto the 15 foot wide paved shoulder and then slowly return to his original lane of travel. This video clearly shows the Peugeot braking hard, over steering, momentarily release the brakes (split second), overcorrecting and braking hard as he crosses 60 feet of motorway into the path of the Volvo which has an excellent ABS system. (At this point I'm speculating) From the (0:32 sec) the driver of the Volvo has yet to recognize the events unfolding in front of him and he is likely executing his intentions of overtaking the 'Audi', concentrating, (0:35 sec) signaling a right lane merge, eyes on the rear view mirror for traffic, checking his right hand blind spot all the while rapidly approaching the two other vehicles, (0:39 sec) realizing and recognizing the up coming fiasco. Time and space have run there course and (0:40 sec) the Volvo has no time to brake and avoid the Peugeot, even with an excellent ABS system. Another big rule of the road: Situational awareness ! The Audi showed no situational awareness ! The Peugeot showed no sign of situational awareness ! The Volvo momentarily lost some situational awareness ! In my harsh criticism I would place the onus of fault on the Peugeot driver's inability to control a motor vehicle. The Volvo driver fell victim and the Audi driver, well, got away ! Shit happens. Great video and always interesting !
With respect perhaps you should have been there... The Audi was obviously what us Brits call "lane hogging" ie hogging the middle lane as not to have to move for almost any situation as I am sure you have the same in your country. Both cars seemed to be travelling at similar speeds I did not detect the Peugeot accelerating (in the video) it looked like the Audi decided (for whatever reason) to move into the "inside" lane without doing the necessary checks.I am "pasting" in a comment from "above" to save typing again to explain further.......... Sorry NO undertaking JUST an Audi driver being an Audi driver.... People who overtake OR "undertake" should increase their speed as to get them past the target vehicle safely.. BOTH cars appeared in the video as travelling at similar speeds.. a simple "cut up" job for whatever reason.
@@MrSparks20002 I return the same respect and I will address your comments by stating (Please correct me if I'm wrong in regards to UK rules of the road) that in a three lane situation, the outside lane (Far right in the UK) is for faster moving traffic or overtaking traffic found in the transit lane (Second or middle lane) the inside lane is used for merging traffic or for traffic exiting the motorway. Here, (Canada) you are never considered (theoretically) "hogging" the merging lane (Far left) and the same applies to the transit lane (Middle lane) but driving in the passing lane (Far right) for no reason other than overtaking slower transit traffic is considered a "lane hog". Now that being said, in this scenario the Peugeot is visibly overtaking the Audi from the far left lane (first key factor) (0:31 sec) full 5 seconds (to 0:36 sec) ! (0:37 sec) the Audi (Signaling at this moment would not be a contributing factor) begins to merge to his left, obviously unaware of the Peugeot's presence which in turn tells me the Audi wasn't aware of the Peugeot at any given time. It's at this very second the Peugeot's reaction was his downfall. The Audi's action (With all it's faults) had no direct bearing to the collision. As I said, the onus of fault falls on the Peugeot driver's inability to control a motor vehicle. As for the Volvo, well, that's a whole different conversation ! As for "People who overtake OR "undertake" should increase their speed as to get them past the target vehicle safely." that kind of thinking, my friend, is a recipe for disaster ! Now be safe out there. Again I would like to extend my appreciation for all the hard work required to brings us these great videos.
@@MrSparks20002 No bad to speak of. People who show interest in these kind of videos are my kind of people. You obviously appreciate Mr. Neal's efforts and acknowledge his videos as top notch information to those who want to better understand the complexities involved when operating one and half tons of metal on todays roads. It's a serious topic and lives matter ! Thanks again for your comments.
@@palco22 in the UK it is Lane 1, Lane 2 and Lane 3. Lane 1 is the transit lane. Lanes 2 and 3 (or more if they exist) are overtaking lanes. You should only use Lane 2 to ovettake a vehicle in Lane 1 ane you should only use Lane 3 to overtake vehicles in Lane 2. It is down to merging traffic to merge safely although it is often in ones own best interest to give merging vehicles space because many people don't seem to understand how to match speed and fall into a gap.
If it can reassure you about the next time you get behind the wheel, I've been driving for about 8 years (about 55,000 miles) and never seen it outside of youtube. That said, no matter how long you've been driving, you're only as good as your last 10 metres, so I try not to get complacent. May your building of experience be a relatively stress free, instructive, and useful one.
As with another reply, I’ve only seen it on RU-vid videos. And that’s with 35yrs of driving, mostly work related & 16yrs professionally (Grp 2 Licences) I’m guessing spanning 1 1/4 million miles
@@paulcollyer801 i drive class 2, 40 hours a week. But interestingly the only time ive seen it has been when ive been in the car (about 5k miles a year) in the car .
A "little" over the speed limit. That would mean that both he Audi and the 206 were doing a fair amount less than the speed limit, since the camera car was closing quite fast. Colour me very suspicious about the "little", I think it unlikely they were both slow-boating it. In fact, it's feasible the Audi driver was aware of the car barrelling up the middle lane behind them at a rate of knots, felt the obligation to get out of the way and was distracted enough by this that they lost track of the 206.
They looked to be going 85-90 mph based on road line speed using the standard 9 metre period for road lines. It's a fairly common speed when the conditions allow, but still adds over 50% to your braking distance compared to 70.
100% agree, seems like he was closing faster than I close on traffic limited to 60 on motorways. Shame the MIB paid out, thus increasing our insurance. Should have refused, as they'd be able to investigate fully the speed. You speed you have some responsibility for the crash. Need to be somewhere, set off 10 minutes earlier, or be 10 minutes late.
Thank God that the Motorway was quite empty at that time and not packed full of vehicles. Driver of cam car was very lucky man that day that his collision was a head on hit, and not a sideswipe from the hit car.
Another great video Ashley! Thanks for the great content. It's frightning the amount of drivers out there that are involved in/witness an accident and keep on driving. Where are people going that is so important they can't delay getting there by a few minutes to exchange details with the other road users. Stay safe out there everyone.
Virtually every day I’ll follow some idiot onto the empty motorway and they’ll go straight into middle lane and sit there at 70mph . I just wonder who the hell taught them to drive like that
Police said they were going to crack down on this but it's all pony. Use the over head signage to tell people not to dawdle in the overtaking lanes or get points and a fine.
No one, until recently you couldn't go on a motorway in the UK before passing your driving test so it's very possible no-one taught them how to drive on a motorway.
Have to laugh at some of the commenters on here saying what the Peugeot should have done.. This is all great and simple in theory. Practical is a completely different matter.
Fair comment, but that's not to say we shouldn't all think about and practice (if only in our heads) our "escape manoeuvres" in case we find ourselves in a situation like this. It's important to understand the performance limitations of the cars we drive. As a rule of thumb, most road cars will quite happily switch lanes smartly, especially in dry weather, provided you keep off the brakes. So if you're in the nearside lane and somebody sideswipes you from the right, you can very quickly jump over onto the hard shoulder. Most modern road cars have pretty good braking performance, too, as long as you're not trying to brake and turn at the same time when travelling at high speed. I'm not saying I'd have successfully avoided that collision, because there's a difference between knowing what to do and actually doing it instinctively in a split-second crisis, but when I see clips of motorway accidents, it seems to me many of them are made much worse than they need to be by drivers panicking and asking their car to perform a manoeuvre that's completely outside of it's performance envelope. If somebody moves across on you on a motorway, it's better to err on the side of under-reacting rather than over-react. That incident would have been far less serious if the Peugeot had allowed the white car to hit him.
@@philwoodward5069 100%. I undertake middle lane hoggers sometimes and I know what not to do if they start to cut me up. Hindsight is irrelevant; if you don't know how to control your car don't perform risky manoeuvres.
@@cynicalpenguin No. In some circumstances you thing you know. If during you're undertaking or overtaking for that matter the car to your side makes a sudden swerve into your path for some unknown reason how would you be able to avoid a collision??? You don't have control of the another vehicle. There's plenty of videos on RU-vid of cars making a sudden left turn from lane two without indicating and plowing into vehicles to their left. Mick Hunter is spot on.
I'll be honest, the Peugeot didn't need to brake so hard, and swerve so much. There was ample room to just slow slightly. Not saying the Audi was right, but still, could have been avoided by just slowing slightly.
But for someone who has never been in that situation before (I'm guessing otherwise they would have backed of way before it happened) can you blame them for panicking
@@NicolasCageM8 I didn't say I did I have been in a similar situation and been ok but I could see how someone with a little less experience could come undone
According to the law, in an overtaking manoeuvre it's the responsibility of the overtaker to ensure that the manoeuvre is done safely. I also suggest that the overtaker in the middle lane may have slowed down without realising it. It had probably been travelling in the middle lane for an unescesarily long time. This would give the impression that the vehicle in the first lane was speeding up to undertake when it's just as probable that the middle lane hogger was in fact slowing down. The first lane driver was taken by surprise and in fact over reacted, suggesting that he too was daydreaming and not paying proper attention but it certainly seems like the overtaker had failed to overtake correctly.
A vehicle undertaking does not cause an issue. It's the one who changes into the left lane without due care and attention is the one causing the issue. It's the same if a car in lane 1 moves into lane 2 without due care and attention and collides with one beside in lane 2, it's not the overtaking car that's causing the issue.
Pretty sure the 52 plate 206 does have ABS. Could be a fault. Break light was out as well. I had one of these and when one thing went on it, everything went on it.
Given that observation I'd also wonder about the state of the tyres - I'd be unsurprised given the general condition they were near minimum or below legal tread. EDIT: Holy **** - just checked the MOT history on the Peugeot - this was an accident waiting to happen. The owner(s) were obviously untroubled about having working tyres, suspension or brakes.
@@NitroNuggetTV True but check the MOT history LOL - pretty good bet with all the brake balance concerns, etc. this vehicle was likely in a state which would struggle with any degree of weight transfer!
@@Rroff2 any small dar would have behaved that way if driven like that (that's how you forcefully induce oversteer in cars that are stable by themselves) unless ESP saved them, it's a clear case of not enough skill for this situation. Braking, sudden wheel movement, lift off the brake, starts spinning so apply brake again. Could have been saved, at most should have ended in a slight collision, the Audi didn't move so quickly as to require such a sudden swerve, the driver panicked. Not being able to find the driver tho, imo totally disgraceful of the police, aspecially since the car has a custom license plate...
I'm so glad for my Mother *always* telling me to stay out of people's blind spots. If you have to go through it e.g. overtaking or even being overtaken, be prepared for them to either move without signalling or have a blowout and moving without wanting to. This has always served me very well.
A couple of things that also should be mentioned Neal: The Audi's lane change was aggressive, as well as being unsignalled. It almost seemed that the Audi's swerve was willful aggression.. Added to that, the Peugot driver's swerve under braking was absolutely the worst thing to do in an avoidance situation at speed, as it leads to loss of control (as seen). I was taught to ONLY brake, using only very moderate corrective wheel movements until back to a lower speed. The reason being that, if impact is unavoidable, it's better to hit them as squarely as possible, to allow the impact areas on each vehicle to do their job and (hopefully) keep both vehicles in the lane. If you swerve, you only add increased risk to the situation, as road furniture, bridge buttresses, trees, slopes, barriers and other vehicles in other lanes (or worse-still, the opposing carriageway) are far greater risks to life and limb, as they are either stationary, reinforced concrete and steel objects, or vehicles moving at speed that are likely to hit you side-on, where there is no crumple zone. Better (I think) to let the impact happen while under full positional control, don't increase risk to your life for the sake of a few dents and scratches!
"Motorway Dangerous Lane Changing" should have been the title to this video. It wasn't the undertaking (If that is what the Peugeot was doing) was the cause, it was the Audi driving without due care and attention.
The Audi was probably the main culprit but being in the blind spot of a middle lane hogger, undertaking, and then slamming the brakes like that was also really stupid.
@@nintendokings The Peugeot was slowly catching up on the Audi. So it couldn't have been in the blind spot for very long. I use a pair of cheap blind spot mirrors and never have that problem.
Audi would likely have been on the hook for Careless Driving had they been traced. That starts at 3 points and £100 fine, plus a licence endorsement would have had insurance implications.
It does show the importance of looking before changing lanes. Also, I remember having seen stickers in some cars stating something along the lines of "items in the mirror may be closer than they appear". Which is still useful to remember.
In my motorway driving experience I've passed (while in the left lane) cars in the middle lane going slower than the speed limit for no apparent reason on quite a few occasions. I am always on high alert when doing so, in case they move back in without looking. However never had a problem. Twice I have had dangerous moments where I have been overtaking and cars have pulled out without looking, however
I had to drive to South Wales on business a few years back, following the M4 all the way through until London. The first thing I encountered after crossing the Severn Bridge was a car with Welsh plates (begins with C) in the middle lane at 60mph. Being passed on both sides and horns going off. Based on what I saw of the driver's reaction it seemed likely to me that he knew what he was doing and just didn't care.
A couple of points I noticed... Firstly there were 2 things regarding the cammer car (Volvo) 1. I have had to do an emergency stop from motorway speeds before, I don't believe the camera initially used Maximum braking. Maximum braking looks to be applied after the impact with the Peugeot. 2. The cammer was lane hogging in lane 2, if the cammer was using the left lane then they would have been in a better position on the left and wouldn't have had to go right into lane 3 to attempt to miss the Peugeot. Lastly I understand your comment about undertaking someone who is lane hogging... I stand by what I say, if you are making five separate manoeuvres however safely, generally the risk is higher and the chance for a mistake is greater than doing one undertaking manoeuver. I say that with the following conditions, it is safer for me to undertake: 1. The lane hogger is going less than the speed limit 2. There is a hard shoulder as a backup 3. I deem it safe to do so 4. I am at the speed limit or less If any of these do not line up I will do the 5 separate maneuvers and go from lanes 1- 2 - 3 - 2 - 1. To everyone who drives in any other lane than lane 1 when you are not overtaking... Lane hogging is looked at by the police as Careless Driving. The standard sanction for this is 3 points and a £100 fine. However it could be more depending on circumstances.
So if theres a hogger in lane 3 should we all move over to lane 4 into a bottle neck at 70mph or should we do the sensible thing stay in our lanes and pass on both sides???? Serious question Ashley, are you in favour of road congestion??
The camera car didn't appear to start braking until the Peugeot started to cross the carriageway, yet we can hear from his voice that he knew something was already starting to go wrong.
I agree that using the hard shoulder as an extra lane stops that accident almost certainly. To be honest I think that accident might not have even happened if the Peugeot had kept the wheel straight and just braked. The gap between the cars looks small granted but I think there is a gap after watching the video back. If the Peugeot could bleed off enough speed to be slower than the Audi then the Peugeot will never be able to collide with the Audi in the first place, therefore the accident would have been avoided. They lost control because they panicked, swerved away from the danger, then sealed their fate when they swerved again while the car was unbalanced. I don't really hold it against the Peugeot for not thinking clearly in such a scary moment though (actions leading up to the incident notwithstanding), since many drivers on the road don't know how to control their car approaching, and above, the limit of tyre grip at the best of times never mind in an emergency.
I once had a Discovery with trailer pull straight off a hard shoulder in front of me. I used the hard shoulder to 'undertake'. No way would I have gone into lane 2 or 3. The way the Pug swerved suggested the Pug driver had an issue with the Audi. Ease off and you slow quite quickly, no need to slam on.
If they weren't paying 100% attention they couldn't know for certain a move into the shoulder wouldnt involve you meeting the back of a car in a far worse accident. Depends how much they were looking.
Perfect analysis of a very nasty incident indeed. Horrible how the Peugeot rides up onto the bonnet of the Volvo. Certainly shows the value of a dashcam! I wonder how well maintained the 206 was - I don't want to denigrate drivers of older cars, I owned older cars for many years myself - but I see the brake light not working. Were there other issues - worn or underinflated tyres, brake balance etc. that contributed to the loss of control? Although I'm sure the main cause was the panicky late reaction and combined steering and heavy braking. I've said this here before but I think it's worth repeating - when the unexpected happens at first your brain doesn't believe it and that delayed reaction makes the situation worse. So try to anticipate what the other drivers *might* do and proactively manage risk so you can't get into these situations. He said from the comfort of home! Re. the point about overtaking correctly rather than undertaking. Very true. But also overtaking itself isn't compulsory. How much have an issue would it have been for the 206 to have hung back behind the dozy Audi? Might have added a few minutes to their journey, but they wouldn't have ended up in hospital. The most recent editions of 'Roadcraft' have removed any references to 'cadence braking', presumably because so many new cars (and all emergency services vehicles) now have ABS. Personally I think that's a bit of a shame.
Please help me, I really struggle with a few things here. 1 undertaking is a profession, I assume you mean passing on the left. 2 doesn't the highway code terminology say to be in left lane unless you need to change lane to pass, Peugeot didn't need to change lane to pass. I would put this accident 100% as the Audi being at fault.
Ashley, That could also happen when overtaking, should we not do that either? Also do you have any evidence to back up your claim that drivers are less likely to check their passenger side mirror or it that just one of those myths that's past down from older drivers?
After actually watching the whole video and read a few comments, this is what I think happened: Audi overtakes Peugeot very very slowly. Suddenly a cam car appear in the middle range closing in at very high speed. I measured a random part of the M1, and the distance between lamp post was a little more than 40 meters, which makes sense. They pass buy at a rate of about one per second which is a speed of 144 km/h. The speed limit is (at the most) 70 mph which is is about 112 km/h. So yes, that "slightly over" is about 30 km/h or 20 mph above the limit. This is consistent with how habitual speeders would describe their speed. The closing speed is approximately what I would suspect from that speed difference. If someone want to figure out where this was taken, and make better measurement. please help me. What the Audi did is something that happens way too often: Passing with a very slow speed difference, and then when they move in ahead of the vehicle they just passed, the slow down. Or the Peugeot (in an old car with no ABS or cruise control) may have increased their speed when passsed. So in the end: 1 - there would have been no incident without the camera car barreling down the middle lane like a battering ram. 2 - even if the Audi had driven the way they did, and the Peugeot had lost control, the driver of the cam car would have had time to react.
Regarding pumping the brakes, this is known as cadence braking - but it's not as simple as that. Many years ago I went through a skid training course at Brands Hatch. This was way before ABS was even an option on cars. There were three of us in the car with an instructor. The instructor explained the principle of cadence braking and then we had a go. None of us had ever tried this before, but _one_ of us (not me) was consistently able to pull up in half the distance of the others on a _very_ slippery surface. The guy just had a natural ability for this, even if he wasn't that great at controlling oversteer and understeer. No matter how much I practiced I never got as good as him, but nevertheless I have had two incidents over the the last forty years in which the technique has helped me avoid a collision.
A number of drivers don’t use their mirrors often enough. I’m not an advocate of checking mirrors periodically as that tends to make drivers not really being aware of what is happening. But mirrors should always be checked as you will agree I’m sure Ashley, before a change of speed or direction, I use to say to my pupils, “Before you move your Hands or your feet, check your mirrors.” Also regarding Motorway Driving a check of your mirrors so you are always aware of what vehicles are behind, which lane they are in and speed they are travelling, helps with your planning.
Checking mirrors on the highway constantly is a very good advice. I often had cars catching up in a matter of few seconds and got surprised when they suddenly were at my tail. At least for no speed limit Autobahns this is very important.
Why would you state that checking mirrors periodically makes drivers not aware what's going on? It's exactly the opposite dude, just think about it. Imagine an accident happens in front of you, you didn't check the mirrors because you didn't expect anything to happen, you either can stay in your lane and potentially hit something, or swerve to the other lane without checking, potentially causing a bigger disaster (happens way too often...) Now imagine you looked in your mirrors let's say every 5 seconds, you have a general idea of what's going on around you, just a second ago you saw that there is no one behind or next to you, so you have to epyion to change lanes, extending your safe space greatly.
Always regularly check your mirrors, and try to keep track of whats around you. The times I’ve been on the motorway and seen an emergency vehicle a mile back, and 60 seconds later some idiot STILL cant see them right behind them.
@@piciu256 check mirrors every few seconds becomes a habit and you don’t always take note of what you see. Checking mirrors consciously you are more likely to be aware of what is happening.
Checking your mirrors regularly enables you to keep up with the changing traffic pattern behind you. You need to be able to plan for both ahead of you and for what’s going on behind you. On multi lane roads and motorways I like to know I have a bolt hole or an escape route when I am overtaking. Now that’s hard when the road is really busy and naturally even speeds of 70 mph drivers tailgate with a sheet of paper between them but I’ll try not to go ‘three in a line’.
I actually thought that our camer moved to lane 3 to allow the pug206 to move into lane 2. It's sad to see they couldn't trace the driver despite having camera evidence of the number plate.
Nice idea. I took my angel driving in the snow while she was learning, and we made good use of empty carparks for skid control practice. Great skill to learn and great fun. Much more recently, I’ve had a go on a skid pan car (on hydraulic dolly wheels), again, great fun. While not compulsory, I Do recommend skid pan days for new drivers.
There absolutely should be advanced car control lessons required for every driver on the road in my opinion. A driver should be able to practice controlling their car in a safe environment so that when an emergency happens they will have a better idea of what to do if they lose control. It should come as no surprise that Finland has this and they produce some of the best drivers in the world. It's a bit pointless to me making drivers pay with, at best, higher insurance for the experience gained in a crash when they could pay for an hour or two on a skid pan to hopefully avoid a crash and the subsequent insurance claim.
There definitely should, but it would be more expensive and would make it so much less peopple pass if it's included in the test, and if it isn't, it won't be done anyway. So, I don't see this happening unfortunately.
Wait I'm confused Ashley, and actually want your thoughts. On another video I'm sure you've stated its more dangerous for a car to move across 2 lanes to overtake and then pull back in 2 lanes. This is something I've always done and I'm sure it was your video saying its safer to continue in lane, so I modified my driving a few weeks ago. But here the advise is go to the outside lane? Maybe it wasn't you but I'm sure it was as your the only channel I watch on 'safe driving'. Thanks
No Ashley never said that. He said doing that is classed as careless driving or even reckless driving. He also said it's legal, which brings us back to it isn't but it is.
I've never know this expectation that there won't be anything passing in left lane obviously it's less likely but you should be checking when moving over right?
What's the alternative for the Peugeot - come out to lane 3 and back to lane 1. Sounds like more risk than creeping past in lane 1 if the Audi is not keeping pace
It's not that simple. There was, as Ashley said, a junction just ahead with traffic joining, so a middle lane position wasn't entirely unreasonable at that point.
@@clickrick So no reason to move back to the left lane when approaching the junction then. The audi driver knew exactly what they were doing, I'm sure of it. They seen the puegeot undertaking and moved over purposely.
At the risk of sounding down on police, because the police don't give a toss - as they don't give a toss about anything that happens on the roads any more.. If it takes work like banging on the person's door it aint getting solved.
@@streaky81 Could be sadly, where i live The police are never around when you need them or deal with such incidents like this. But dare not wear a mask in Tesco or say something rude online, then wham their there.
@@streaky81 I was thinking along the same lines, not that they don’t care but they certainly don’t care enough to look at camera/ANPR footage to find the car, a lot of work for something which hasn’t resulted in any serious injury
@Sideshow 44 I got arrested for travelling to work, to a laboratory, in a business vehicle last week. I don't get furlough from the government. The traffic police officer "didn't believe me". Spent an hour on the roadside filling in various forms. I'm not a covid-denier, anti-vaxxer etc. I donated my companies' stock of FFP3 respirators to the hard-working NHS staff at the start of the pandemic, over £10k worth.
@@einfach_kurt2393 Haha, no. Don't tell me what I can and can't do buddy. I wear a mask, that is good enough. I will go out and live my life, as I have been doing all year. The mere fact that you think you think any of this is in OUR hands shows just how much you have been brainwashed.
Watching back on the trajectory of the Pug, it first moved to the left and braked (the nearside brake light did not come on!). Had it continued onto the hard shoulder at that point the accident would not have occurred. However, it seems that the driver then lost control as the car veered violently to the right. It was then heading for the central reservationr. Ironically, if the cammer had not acted thoughtfully and moved out to give more space, they would have passed unscathed in lane 2 as the Peugeot hit the crash barrier. I think this illustrates that when we drive we should seek to manage and minimise risk but that we will never eliminate it altogether.
Hi Ashley, I watch your clips with interest, as a hgv driver of nearly 50 years, and a period of self employment as a driving instructor, one comment on observation when overtaking, I find too many drivers use the near side door mirror, which gives the impression of a safe distance to return to the near side lane, in fact I used to teach my pupils to wait until they could see the headlights, in the inside mirror, of the vehicle they had just passed before returning to the near side lane thus giving braking distance and a safe gap, I find observation, and lane discipline, and driving too fast for conditions and attitude a contributory factor in too many unnecessary road traffic accidents, keep up the good work, Les Thomas
I'm not convinced the Peugeot was undertaking; at least you can't be certain from this short clip. It looks like the Audi was slowing as they moved left, and from my experience, inattentive drivers often have poor ability to hold a steady speed... it's entirely plausible the Peugeot was at a steady speed in L1, the Audi passed in L2 then slowed down and pulled in whilst alongside. I've seen that happen many a time; the solution is of course to lift off to create space when you realise they're going to do that, but I can imagine when faced with such a special driver as the white Audi that "lift off to create space" becomes "brake hard and move left to hopefully not have a collision". I would also note that the Peugeot was the only car of the three that was in the correct lane right up to the point of the incident... Whilst it would be unreasonable to blame the cammer for the initial incident, he did have the reaction time of a potato, which seems to be a common attribute for those who refuse to drive in L1. Braking half a second earlier would have kept him out of that collision. Perhaps BRAKE might want to start an "MLMing kills" campaign now we've got clear proof that MLMing causes accidents? 🤔
I think it's unfair to say that the camera car had poor reactions. He clearly saw the accident occuring early enough to take action, as evidenced by his yell of "oh sh**". What he probably didn't expect to happen was for the Purgeot to loose control and career across all of the lanes. He brakes as soon as it becomes apparent that the Purgeot isn't going to stop in lane 2. As someone who has nearly been in a pile-up on a motorway, I know just how dangerous performing an emergency stop on a motorway can be. I had to strike a balance between hitting the car in front and not braking so hard that the car behind hit me. You really don't want to have to do an emergency stop unless you have to. And yes we can see that it's clear behind him, but he won't have time to check his mirrors or necessarily remember that it was clear from the last time he checked them given the situation in front of him.
Glad you said that the camera car admitted to speeding - when I watched the clip for the first time I thought 'that's going a bit quick'. Suspect that running at 70 would have given them a chance to avoid getting tangled up in that. The Audi, in the wrong for all sorts of reasons, but not indicating to move left is not one I would have thought of. You should expect a car in an outside lane to move left (when it is safe to do so) so what benefit is a signal?
How much difference would a functioning rear offside brake light have made to the cammer's reaction time noticing something was amiss is the interesting one that we'll never know the answer to..
I have a feeling the cammer wasn't paying full attention or had tunnel vision. It doesn't look like they braked until the Pugeuot started coming towards them. A functioning brake light would have probably made quite the difference
Very little I expect. It was obvious they got too close and that the Peugeot braked. The high level light is clear enough. The cam car tried to move out of the way into lane 3 but unfortunately didn’t expect the Peugeot to get into such a mess and swerve across all 3 lanes. Most people would probably do the same thing and try to just stay clear of the accident. You don’t want to slam on and possibly cause a second accident even though you might of entirely missed the first one anyway. He had no idea the Peugeot would end up where it did. If the Peugeot had handled it better it would of been a minor non-event entirely contained to the left side of the road. It’s just unlucky a fairly minor incident in lane 1 ended up causing an accident in lane 3.
I love educational clips like this for analysis, and I like how you're quite open minded and not too harshly critical while still offering constructive feedback on what dangers to look out for on the road as a defensive driver.
Looking at the video I think the cammer crashing into the Peugeot was inevitable. I don't think speed made that much difference. Although if they were travelling in major excess of the limit i.e. 85+, then the collision will have had a lot more force, potentially resulting in the Peugeot being pushed over the barrier into oncoming vehicles. Also the Audi driver definitely should have stopped. If just to make sure everyone is OK. They clearly saw what happened, to me it's along the same lines as hit and run
No hit though... so Audi can claim ignorance. It boils my piss, I've always said that if there's a clear choice between not hitting a bellend but damaging my car in the process, or just piling right into the twunt... I'll take the pile up if only for the sake of making sure they can't just tootle off and claim it's not their fault some knob piled into a lamp post next to them....
@@kal9001 I think fundamentally it comes down to the fact that the Audi was hogging the middle lane and then lane changed without checking mirrors/blindspot. To me the Audi was the cause of the crash so even though they never made contact with any other vehicle, they're still involved. So in the same way that if you drive off from a collision with another vehicle it's considered hit and run, this should be treat as leaving the scene of an accident without reporting to the police and should therefore carry the relevant penalty. Unfortunately the nature of policing today, you can guarantee some copper was given half an hour to look at any available CCTV/traffic cams and then told to move on as they don't have the resources and have other more important 'operational requirements'.
@@jaywright9924 I do agree it does look like lane hogging bad driving by the Audi and the other car should have not undertaken as the out side lane looks clear but the Audi driver will wave his I am a good driver halo it was not my fault as he was undertaking so it was the other drivers fault etc etc
0:37 - just an observation in delays, the eye level light comes on one full frame before the rear light does, (and even then only one ever illuminates) no bearing on the collision of course, just an observation I picked up.
Another great analysis and the fact that the Audiot got away really irks me! However, I am guilty of doing what the wee car did, sail past in the inside lane if someone is hogging the middle lane. My thinking is if they are doing that then I'm doing nothing wrong, they should have moved over. I think I will change my mindset from now on having watched this and heard your analysis. Thank you.
@chris jones It's simply an advisory because in certain circumstances it is dangerous, but not all circumstances hence why it is not illegal. If you were travelling in lane 1 of a 4 lane motorway at 70mph and another vehicle was in lane 4 travelling at 65mph what would you do? I would continue on my way as that is the safest option. I would be undertaking but not performing a dangerous manoeuvre. If you are adamant that you will never undertake then I guess you would either move to lane 4 and wait for the vehicle to move over (unlikely these days) or slow your speed as to not undertake and thus wait in lane 1 at a reduced speed. Both scenarios are more dangerous than simply carrying on. If you sit in lane 4 behind the other vehicle, other cars will soon catch you up and get frustrated, prompting an undertake which would be classed as dangerous driving as they'd be switching lanes to do so. If you sit in lane 1 other vehicles will catch you up because you've had to reduce your speed so as not to undertake and now you have vehicles also catching up the other vehicle in lane 4, they get frustrated and undertake as other vehicles are overtaking you for going so slow. In each scenario you're going to get caught up in it all. The safest option by FAR is continue your journey in lane 1 and if I was ever stopped by police for doing so I'd argue my case in court every day! Furthermore, a simple rule is usually this. If you have to change lanes to undertake then never do so. That's classed as dangerous driving. If you don't have to change lanes to undertake then you may be able to if it's safe to do so.
I am shocked to see an Audi driver moving to the left lane at all! :) This is a good example of how collisions are not purely singular events, but the result of a chain where any link or "if" can be broken leading to a different, or even non-event. To take one, the speed of the camera car, if it had been traveling either slower or faster, trying to occupy the same bit of road space as the Peugout would have been different, or non-existent. More than that, a different speed and the Audi may have changed lane at a different time, different place, with better observations, or even not at all. I also wonder, was it actually an undertaking incident? Not enough prior time is shown to make that call in my mind. All too often I can be sat at a constant speed, uphill or down, no matter how steep, and see people driving at constant throttle position, not speed thus people can get themselves in a mindset they have passed me, when they actually started dropping back. The other aspect is I can gain on someone as they head uphill, then they zoom off out into the distance as the road levels. Maybe you have a longer video that demonstrates prior circumstances to make that call. Another thing that springs to mind is how the way driving behaviour is taught has changed and can influence such outcomes. Some of us will remember "Mirror-Signal-Manoeuvre" being drummed into us, but even with a second mirror check after signal, poor situational awareness on the part of the Audi driver would have missed the car on the nearside as it was not really in the mirror. Then, there is the current method being trained, no signal to move left a lane as it should be an expected and necessary manoeuvre. Not convinced, a signal from the Audi could have been more warning for the pug driver that there was that intention, even if only the half-second of a single orange flash, the pug could have been aware before the audi started moving across. Added to the only signal when necessary/useful method's potential failings, it is easy to judge that no signal to move right by the camera car is a judgement call where it could easily be deemed not necessary. It is a discussion I often have on check-drives to keep my certification up to date, unnecessary signalling is deemed a result of poor observation being the standard, a way of encouraging good observation, discouraging "I'm signalling so I am clear to do it". My side of it being I am human, may miss something, can't see through hedges that well, and other such factors should be accounted for too. Making both signalling and good observation work together is sometimes the way. Reducing the simplest factor, the signalling to pure instinct, to do it regardless, allows the brain to concentrate on "can/should I do this", rather than "should I signal before I do this".
@@CycolacFan Yes. But that car would have been 100% visible in the mirror. The mirror the driver should have been checking every 5 to 10 seconds anyway. They would have known it was there and gaining on them before they even noticed the cam-car catching them from behind if they'd actually been looking in the mirrors properly.
@@tin2001 I can’t argue with that, good drivers get a sixth sense about certain cars, the way they’re likely to act from their condition, lane positioning etc. Someone gaining speed on your left is likely going to make some sort of manoeuvre.
Agree about the ABS, gladly all cars since 2014 have ESP which would have helped in this case. After checking the MOT advisory list from 9 months previous to this accident it appears the Peugeot had problems which could have contributed to it's very unstable looking dynamics under heavy braking. The drivers steering and brake input also didn't help matters, I used to own a 2003 model 206 and the rear end was so light it was very easy to steer the back end with brake and throttle, great for track but not for road! The cam car seems to react vocally before actually braking, but it's very easy to criticise when not actually in the situation, and the angle the 206 comes across the road at could not have been predicted. Regarding that point, the cam car only has one playthrough of the situation, we can study it several times, it's easy to decide what could have been done sooner or differently when you already know the outcome! These videos are a great learning tool and I appreciate the analysis, thanks.
All driver aids do is cause risk compensation, the number f crashes doesn't change, but because of medical technology and heavier vehicle structures more survive/don't get seriously injured in the metal boxes. unfortunately this means vulnerable road users take the brunt of drivers inability to drive safely even when they have all this tech they still manage to fuck up just as much as before. I'm no safer now as a driver in any conditions in a modern vehicle than I was in my Austin Allegro or MKII Astra 9the latter I commuted into/through London for 10 years, drove through snow laden motorways and the Lake District all on 13" tyres, no power steering/ABS and only front discs). Same thing happens everywhere, such as cycling with helmets/s all sports that i have studied re head injuries are worse off since they adorned headgear, also in the workplace hard hats/hi-vis all have negative effects on safety, people feel they are more protected and have all the kit to 'save' them, and they actually take greater and greater risks and the 'ppe' simply isn't suffice to stp the incident from occurring or suffering injury. it's all about not having the incident in the first place and sadly all those bits of kit make jack all difference.
Pretty much everything covered. To answer Ashley's question re: the cammers speed.... Borderline in my opinion. Yes, he admits to being slightly over the speed limit but I cannot say 💯% if the extra few mph would have affected this significantly. There was relatively little time/space in which to react. I'm surprised that the Audi couldn't be traced. Your point about passing on the left is duly noted.
It probably would as the camera wouldn't have been near the accident if they were going more slowly , at best they would have just seen it in the distance or passed it after the event.
@@Jonc25 also @Michael and Adam.... All fair and decent comments. We can all say "if only this" or "but that".... so to speak. Not being in that position in the first place would be ideal. If this gives people reasons for, perhaps, slowing down a bit then I think many "incidents" would be avoided. The speed limit, all said and done, is a limit, not a target. We can all agree on that point. Good thread guys and thank you for the replies 👊👍👍
I've asked on so many videos, please please could you answer this for me? I see overtaking lane hoggers constantly and they aren't anywhere near the speed limit at say 55, what do you do? Do you sit behind them at 55, sit directly beside them at 55 meaning the car to my left also has to do the same and you have a blocked motorway or do you undertake them?
You stay in lane 1 and undertake. Much safer than making multi lane changes. Some people on here say this is an example why you shouldn't undertake. For a start the Peugeot wasn't undertaking. Secondly the cammer was overtaking yet was involved in the collision.
I would just say that the amount of dash cam accidents where you can see that something in the road ahead is happening but vehicles simply fail to react to is astounding. If drivers could just understand that a vehicle that is not under control can go in any direction and that they should immediately slow down whether they believe they will be affected or not. If the camera car would have slowed on seeing this event unfolding then he would have been a non issue for him. Great analysis again Ashley.
I firmly believe they were driving too much above the speed limit for that. The only reason for the police to not use the footage to make them partially responsible (or at least give them a speeding ticket) is that we want people to provide dashcam footage as evidence.
I did think that the offside wheel must have locked harder than the nearside to cause that veering. Having experienced French braking systems the left caliper may well have been seized up and gave no input to braking at all.
Interesting videos, the speed always dulls blind spots and attributes to mistakes. It is good to hear both car occupants are okay. Out of interest, when there is intention to change lane or overtake at speed, do you turn your head to see left or right blind spot, or are mirrors sufficient? And if mirrors are sufficient, then what is the correct adjustment of mirrors. I dont use additional mirrors, just the centre and side mirror, as I think blind spots mirror change spatial awareness. Am I right or wrong? Edit: I think my mirrors are panoramic as they have vertical line, learnt something new though.
It's a common misconception that ABS stops wheels from sliding when turning. It allows the wheels to continue rolling, yes, but wheels are not designed to roll sideways, so if a car's momentum is too great for the tyres' grip when the turn is tight, the car will slide straight on. That, of course, will be modified by inconsistent grip, uneven road surface, driver's reactions, etc, and can result in total loss of control.
You are correct Lots of drivers are unaware that their cars have ABS or what it is ,or if their cars are fwd or rwd. There is a video on RU-vid of a woman putting snow chains on the rear of a fwd car!
I have been trained to stay (hog) in the lane on a multi lane carriage way unless you see a vehicle approaching from behind in which case then move over to the left & hold that position unless you need to overtake (on the right) , the reasoning be hind this is most accidents happen while changing lanes not while staying in a lane.
I was being a bit of a prat the other day and locked my wheels going down a hill I thought I was going to go into the bend but was able to stear out of it thanks to ABS.
The key to the accident was the random over reaction of the Peugeot driver, a non event turned into an accident. Audi guy made a mistake which caused the initial situation but wasn’t responsible for the Peugeot’s poor driving skills. Cant see how its possible to tell if the Peugeot was undertaking or Audi stopped accelerating. audi didn’t check his mirrors when he changed lanes.
@@charng mate I've got a Citroen and I can guarantee you that wouldn't have happened A) I have the common sense to not undertake B) even if I did I would have just moved to the shoulder without all the heavy braking C) if I did heavy brake I have ABS and ESP, modern French cars are actually pretty brilliant for the most part these days.
I've heard it said several times over the years that the vast majority of road accidents could have been avoided if at least one of the drivers involved would have reacted 1 second sooner. In this scenario, coupled with the fact that "if only" the driver was not even slightly over 70mph may have turned this accident into a near miss. But we will never know for sure..and yes I realize typing on a keyboard in the comfort of home is a lot easier than actually being in that situation out on the road.
That reminds me, several years ago on my way home from work, for some reason I decided to just cruise at 70 the whole way that night. An old astra in lane 3 lost control, crossed all three lanes and the hard shoulder, hit the barrier and bounced back into lane 1. I stopped a couple of feet from the passenger door.
I may be wrong, but I think that increased undertaking started to occur when variable speed limits were introduced on the M25, along with gantry signs exhorting drivers to "Keep in lane," thereby legitimising undertaking to the left when the lanes to the right were moving slower. I doubt if there is any evidence or stats to prove this either way - it's just a hunch. Within the last year I have been undertaken on a dual carriageway (slow moving and well spaced military convoy in lane one, and a stream of other traffic with variable speed of about 50 - 60 in lane 2) and the undertaking vehicle made contact with my nearside as he attempted to pull right before he had passed me. My car sustained a minor chip on wing mirror and the collection of quite a lot of white paint on the nearside door, easily removed with a sponge and water. I made the judgement that it was not safe to stop until the next service station, given the weight of traffic, so I have no idea what damage the van sustained, apart from loss of paint.
Ironically, in this same video we witness another white Audi in a very near miss. I'm surprised no one as yet has commented. It's in the rear cam footage from around 4:40 onwards. The white Audi in lane one that brakes very heavily on witnessing the collision and the white van behind having to use the hard shoulder to avoid running into the back of the Audi. Lesson from this: Don't slam on your brakes just because you witnessed a nasty accident especially when there is no need to. If you want to stop and be an official witness, just pull over normally and gently, preferably PAST the accident scene rather than before it.
I don't really see how the Peugeot did anything wrong. Sure he was undertaking, but undertaking is only dangerous if the other driver isn't doing the correct mirror checks. And if that driver isnt doing the correct mirror checks when moving to the left lane, there's no reason to believe they'd do the checks moving to the right lane. Meaning overtaking would have been just as dangerous. And what could you do in a hypothetical situation where both middle and right lanes are being used by lane hoggers that aren't going the speed limit? Do you have to slow down and wait hopefull that they'd speed up? What if there's no other traffic, in other words there's no reason for them to be driving slowly? I use alot of the motorway in my job and people driving slowly in overtaking lanes is a daily occurrence.
Peugeot's driver should have just reduced his speed a bit instead of slamming his brakes like that. While driving you have to be aware that some people might be under the influence or they don't pay enough attention and do your best to avoid any potential incident. In this particular case, I would have reduced my speed a bit while making sure there is no id!ot driving too close behind. It is really important for people to keep a safe distance from the car in front of them and pay attention to every car they try to pass by, and always expect the unexpected.
I often wonder if allowing undertaking on the motorway would actually help this sort of thing by making drivers expect potential overtakers on either side. It seems to work in other countries. To be clear, I'm not saying this should be the case just that it's worth some consideration.
It does help and is legal. Every vehicle wanting to pass a hogger sitting in lane 3 would have to move out to lane 4. Anybody who thinks that is safer shouldn't drive.
I’d be inclined to disagree. The front right clearly works fairly well as it’s locked when he skids into lane 3. To me it looks like they’ve put a quarter turn of left lock on whilst simultaneously mashing the brakes causing a massive forward weight transfer.
@@mcgherkinstudios An imbalance can cause the vehicle ro pull aggressively left or right. An imbalance is commonly caused by one side caliper working perfectly fine and the other partly seizes or air in the system, this can delay the faulty side from working correctly under hard braking for enough time to then cause the car to pull aggressively left or right. Take another look at the video, all he had to do was brake, the Audi was already in front. And also the Peugeot had a brake light out which in my opinion shows lack of maintenance, I would put money on the brakes been defective.
Do you teach pupils to not drive beside lorries on multi lane situations? By this I mean keeping out of their blind spot by either being in front, behind or in the process of passing rather than holding pace for periods of time. This is something I try and do to simply avoid being in their way if they need to change lane in an emergency or to make room for joining traffic.
Cammer was closing fast on the Audi which may well have freaked the Audi driver out, especially if they were inexperienced - I know people who avoid motorways for example.
The Peugeot (SD52 NKU) has an awful MOT history the car wasn't looked after very well. (It could be a different past owner of course.) Multiple failures and advisories for brakes, suspension and tyres (someone even took it to the MOT centre with cords showing on the tyre)
I would honk before passing a middle lane hog on the left. That way they have no excuse not to know you're there. The whole thing was the Audi driver's fault: middle lane hogging, then pulling left without either looking or signalling.
The Audi driver was probably surprised LIKE everyone else...Peugeot never came into contact with Audi , so therefore a collision, as far as the Audi is concerned, never involved them.
You mention about travelling above the speed limit, and ultimately yes that would have been a massive factor in them being involved depending on how long they were travelling for doing above the speed limit. Could have been the difference between being involved in an accident and being held up by it. Whilst I wouldn’t advise others to drive above the speed limit on motorways, it can be expected to be going on as it is highly prevalent and the vast majority of people do not get penalised for it unless they are doing silly speeds. Thanks for your analysis Ashley, it’s always good to see a breakdown of these clips by a professional driver rather than seeing people bickering in the comments section. I also do really like the sound of your voice!
Buses undertake, truckers undertake but not a mention of it. Yet if it's a car that undertakes we get a big lecture about it being a careless or even dangerous criminal offence. Looking foward to seeing Ashley driving a truck with his instructor when he comes across a hogger doing under 55mph.
The difference is that a vehicle over 7.5T, a bus, and a rowing vehicle in this case is unable to go around the outside of the Audi as it’s a three lane motorway and these types of vehicles aren’t allowed in the outside lane. If it were a 4 or more lane motorway then the vehicles mentioned would be able to go around the outside.
@@Whurbere Wasn't referring to this video. No difference on the type of vehicle, undertaking is quite legal and in most cases safer than making multi lane changes. Ashley seems to pick and criticise cars undertaking only and tries to call it careless driving.
@@saundersdachicken6197 for the most part car drivers do undertake in a careless and irresponsible manner. They do so accelerating around someone because they are impatient. Many times I’ve had cars come up the inside of me not giving me the opportunity to move over to the left. The amount of times I’ve moved over to overtake on the right and the car then decides to speed up because they don’t want a lorry to overtake them and another car comes up my inside blocking me from moving back to the left.
@@Whurbere Accelerating around someone consists of changing lanes and weaving around traffic. You also overtake while doing so. I am referring to just staying in your lane and undertake. Nothing careless or illegal in doing so, unlike what some people try to make out.
@@saundersdachicken6197 hilarious I agree with you for the most part, the problem is that most people don’t seem to use their mirrors properly let alone look over their shoulder. I would say that the main reason it’s frowned upon is that there are more blind spots on the near side compared to the offside. I’m placing no judgement upon anyone that does it, unless they’re doing it because traffic is a little slow and they’re weaving between lanes.
One thing I wanted to highlight that wasn't talked about is the danger of driving in someone's blind spot. The Peugeot looked to be driving in an area where the white Audi wouldn't have been able to see him in his mirrors or outside his window. Now there's no guarantee that the Peugeot would've spotted him in his mirrors, but it's good to be aware that you're less visible in that area. When I'm driving in someone's blind spot, I'm always mentally prepared for him not having spotted me, and in general when driving in someone's blind spot I usually try to speed up or slow down a bit, to either make myself more visible to them or to get out of the way if they do decide to swerve into my lane. I'm not saying I'm a perfect driver and I have undertaken people hogging the central lane. I know I shouldn't do it, and this clip perfectly demonstrates the dangers. It's good to be aware that, if you're doing something illegal, that there are dangers involved. Having said that, I think it's equally important to explore WHY it's dangerous, because this blind spot doesn't just occur when undertaking someone. Knowing the dangers allows you to spot those dangers in other situations too.
If the Audi had panels instead of glass he would have seen the Peugeot if he bothered to look. With a pair of cheap stick on convex mirrors and side view mirrors adjusted properly you won't have blind spots.
1) I can’t believe that you attribute some blame to the 205 driver. They weren’t ‘undertaking’; just driving on the left (rule #1) 2) The cammer appeared to have been also driving in lane 2 (unnecessarily) 3) Just how hard did the police try to trace the Audi (whose driver caused the incident, and who failed to stop)? Now picture enhancement? No ANPR or VODS analysis?
If they weren’t undertaking then the Audi would have been overtaking and know they were there, so the Audi wouldn’t have moved to the left. The 205 must have been undertaking.
@@oliverpolden You can still be on the left and not undertaking, because slower traffic is in the right. if this wasn't a 3 lane road but just 2 would you slow down because the person in the right hand lane is doing 20 below the limit and refuses to move?? no you wouldn't so stop talking out of your arse.
@@JetfireQuasar talking out of my arse? Such pleasant language. I was talking about this specific case. Of course there are circumstances where you can pass on the left and not be “undertaking”. But then there are also different definitions of “undertaking”.
@@oliverpolden there isn't different definitions of undertaking... you sound like a leftist with different definitions of racism *facepalm* Undertaking - the act of actively passing a vehicle on the outside with the intention of overtaking
The camera car is in lane 2 to overtake the pug which clearly was going past on the left of the audi(ie undertaking) or they wouldnt have been so close. He's not so much putting blame on the 206 driver as advising people of why undertaking isnt a good idea, even though you're not breaking rules doing it, having the moral highground isnt going to repair your car or bring you back to life if you crash is it? Also its a 206 not a 205
When taking lessons for an HGV1 test many years ago, we were firmly instructed not to indicate a when returning to the 'Driving' Lane after overtaking. It was considered unprofessional, returning should be an automatic action every time and not having to indicate reduced the drivers distraction. The emphasis was on checking your mirrors. If I remember correctly, it was not specifically required according to the highway code, the instruction was merely to return to the diving lane with no mention of indicating. Some argued that its a lane change therefore you should indicate. I understand that applied to all vehicles at the time and it still made sense to Me. I didn't indicate my returns and passed the test 1st time.
Ash, thankfully a commenter found the VRN/REG of: T9 DLA, why have the BMi not done the same ? I'm very confused or did they find the car not ascertain driver? I'm perplexed Why 9 D
I’ve said many times that it’s not illegal to “make progress in your lane” but passing in the nearside is not advisable. And herein lies the proof. Another nicely balanced vid.
@@FFVoyager, it’s a matter of definition. Should you pull in to lane one to pass the car then pull back out, you’re overtaking. However, were you In lane 1, and remain so after passing, you are making progress in your lane. Not advised but legal.
@@paulcollyer801 you are not even slightly correct. Rule 163 Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
@@FFVoyager, so when you have a lane hogger, in lane 2 of 2 going 40mph, on a Nat Speed limit dual carriage way, a truck cannot pass?? Therein lies the tale, definition and interpretation is the mother of case law. The rules/laws governing mobile phone use while driving are in disarray atm, thanks to R v Baretto. Before that case, yup, using a hand held mobile comms device while driving was illegal, (except 2way radios and calls to emergency services in an emergency). Now, interactive communication needs to be proved to prove an offence, so driving and holding your phone out the window filming stuff is not interactive communications. Therefore prosecutions for the offence have dropped significantly. However, were I the officer dealing, I might run my roadside interview in a way to get the offender for, not in proper control, driving distracted, and possibly driving without due consideration, potentially getting them more points & fines than simple mobile phone use.
@@FFVoyager, also, (at least in the old printed highway codes) there will be reference to the actual legislation involved, if any, as a foot not. Not all rules in the Highway Code are legislated
Reactions to an emerging situation vary greatly from person to person. In this instance, it can be seen the Peugeot's reaction was a startled one, proberly not expecting the Audi to move across when it did, and over hard braking inducing a rightside intermittent front wheel lock, together with a swerve of the steering to end up where it did, ending in a position where a collision was inevitable. In many cases postioning yourself in the proper part of the road, can be your saving grace if things should turn ugly!
