-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Unprovoked road rage...
- Thread starter SpanishJ0n
- Start date
I've been lucky to only have one incident like this in five years of Tesla ownership, and to be fair, I was passing someone slowly and the person that took it out on me might've missed his junction as a result (or, even worse, might have had to slow down). It was in Denmark and I couldn't be bothered to find out who to send the footage to, and watching it back, I could have been more considerate.
I did have one BMW driver 'back me up' on a dual carriageway by slowing right down in front of me, but I figured out he was doing it because he wanted to race. I somewhat childishly obliged when he floored it, stuck with him comfortably, and then he gave me a thumbs-up when he moved over
I did have one BMW driver 'back me up' on a dual carriageway by slowing right down in front of me, but I figured out he was doing it because he wanted to race. I somewhat childishly obliged when he floored it, stuck with him comfortably, and then he gave me a thumbs-up when he moved over
Impossible to prove the speed, unless your car was taken to have the speedometer calibrated along with the FPS of your submitted video. Speed alone will constitute enough evidence for dangerous driving, The no insurance will obviously be able to prove, assuming that the registered keeper completed the NIP correctly.
Additionally, any offences disclosed will mean that the person was reported and not 'charged', unless the suspected driver was arrested and interviewed and then charged and bailed to attend court.
Last matter of fact will be, if they were reported and summonsed to court for the offences to be heard in front of a magistrate, does not mean that they were found guilty.
You appear to have made many assumptions.
The burden of proof remains high for the offence of dangerous driving, much often these offences are dropped to driving without due care and attention as they are much easier to prove and gain conviction.
Regulo
Member
I have uploaded 3 separate incidents of DANGEROUS driving caught on my dashcam. All have resulted in police prosecutions. I could probably submit 10 incidents a day, given the appalling standard of driving today, but that would only overload the police system.
Pink Duck
Active Member
I uploaded some Tesla built-in dashcam to the local force, but was rejected for the >140 mph excess of the illegal driver captured and tailgating it did in lane 2 of dual carriageway because I couldn't confirm that I was travelling at exactly 70 mph to be a legal reporter. Obviously, they could infer that both were higher, but weirdly they'd then have to prosecute me for a few mph excess to no fine/points, and they dropped the whole thing as I suspected they would. So off to Rate driver! - Comments, Photos, Videos from Drive Video Recorders. - rate-driver.co.uk I went
Agreed, but remember, a prosecution is not a conviction and the burden of proof for dangerous driving is high and conviction rates are considerably lower than the lesser offences. See below extract.
(1)For the purposes of sections 1 [F2, 1A] and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
[F3But this subsection does not apply where subsection (1B) applies.]
[F4(1A)Subsection (1B) applies where a designated person—
(a)is driving for police purposes (subject to subsections (1E) and (1F)), and
(b)has undertaken prescribed training.
(1B)For the purposes of sections 1, 1A and 2 above, the designated person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a)the way the person drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful constable who has undertaken the same prescribed training, and
(b)it would be obvious to such a competent and careful constable that driving in that way would be dangerous.
(1C)In subsections (1A) and (1B) “designated person” means—
(a)a constable,
(b)a member of staff appointed by the chief officer of police of a police force in England and Wales,
(c)a member of staff appointed by a local policing body and employed to assist a police force in England and Wales,
(d)a member of staff appointed by the Scottish Police Authority under section 26(1) of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (asp 8),
(e)an employee of the British Transport Police Authority appointed under section 27 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003,
(f)a person employed or engaged by—
(i)a chief officer of police,
(ii)the British Transport Police Authority,
(iii)the Civil Nuclear Police Authority,
(iv)the chief constable for the Ministry of Defence Police, or
(v)the Scottish Police Authority,
to train a person within any of paragraphs (a) to (e) to drive for police purposes,
(g)a person employed or engaged by a person within paragraph (f)(i) to (v) to train another person to carry out training of the kind mentioned in that paragraph,
(h)a National Crime Agency officer, or
(i)a person engaged by the National Crime Agency—
(i)to train a National Crime Agency officer to drive for law enforcement purposes, or
(ii)to train another person to carry out training of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (i).
(1D)In subsection (1C)(a) “constable” does not include a port constable within the meaning of section 7 of the Marine Navigation Act 2013 or a person appointed to act as a constable under provision made by virtue of section 16 of the Harbours Act 1964.
(1E)In the case of a National Crime Agency officer, the reference in subsection (1A)(a) to driving for police purposes is to be read as a reference to driving for law enforcement purposes.
(1F)In the case of a person within paragraph (i) of subsection (1C), the reference in subsection (1A)(a) to driving for police purposes is to be read as a reference to driving for the purpose of the training mentioned in that paragraph.]
(2)A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 [F2, 1A] and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.
(3)In subsections (1) [F5, (1B)] and (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver [F6or constable (as the case may be)] in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.
(4)In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the state of a vehicle, regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it and to the manner in which it is attached or carried.]
If road raging against EVs really is above normal (I'm not sure it is), I have a theory about why this might be. Regenerative braking.
In ICE vehicles, we commonly maintain a close following distance by alternately hitting and releasing the accelerator. You can drive an EV this way, but with regen braking you will not only decelerate faster, you will illuminate your brake lights.
I've been driving my M3 for a few months now, and I think I am not only pretty smooth with the accelerator modulation (i.e., not releasing all the way), I am also more keenly aware of when I'm likely to be illuminating my brake lights. When I started, my technique was certainly rougher. I can imagine drivers behind me could have mistaken my releasing the accelerator as brake-checking.
In ICE vehicles, we commonly maintain a close following distance by alternately hitting and releasing the accelerator. You can drive an EV this way, but with regen braking you will not only decelerate faster, you will illuminate your brake lights.
I've been driving my M3 for a few months now, and I think I am not only pretty smooth with the accelerator modulation (i.e., not releasing all the way), I am also more keenly aware of when I'm likely to be illuminating my brake lights. When I started, my technique was certainly rougher. I can imagine drivers behind me could have mistaken my releasing the accelerator as brake-checking.
scdoubleu
Member
This. Driving home after picking up SWMBO's M3LR last year, I got a loud horn blast from a following truck in heavy traffic on the M6. Took me a few more miles to figure out that he must've thought I'd brake-checked him.
looks at username
has suspicion of why user appears to be an expert on the matter
My earlier comment failed to factor the ability to notch up some conviction stats whilst eating donuts. That beats overtime watching colleagues get a protester out of a tree. I will upload too going forward.
Regulo
Member
After the police reviewing officer has decided there has been an offence committed, all I was told was that the offence met the standard for a Notice of Intended Prosecution to be issued. Never heard any more, so presume the offenders, faced with the video evidence did not contend the cases. You are asked to confirm that you are willing to attend court to give evidence should the need arise, when submitting these videos.
PV4EV
Member
I respectfully disagree.
We know that motorways around the M25 have lamp posts every 50.0m, and dashed white lines at 9.0m intervals, so 10 = 90.0m.
Observers car is doing 10 white lines every 82/83 frames of a 30.0fps camera (Mobius by the looks of it).
Speed = distance / time, 90m / ( 2.76/3600 ) = 117.4km/h or 72.9mph at the point the Skyline flys past, give or take.
Skyline takes approx 31 frames for 10 white lines (+/-1 frame), counted from the observers moving car.
Its therefore crossing 90m in 1.03seconds
90m (1.03/3600) = 313kmh = 194 mph +/- 3%, so somewhere between 187 mph and 201 mph !!!
No matter which way you look at it, the Skyline is doing triple the UK speed limit .. in the wet …
Believe me, unless the video equipment itself is seized and then forensically examined/calibrated and then the road visited, closed and fully surveyed. the video will not stand in court and entered into evidence as proof of speed. This type of procedure is only used in fatal collisions or serious life changing collisions.
Clem_Fandango
Can you hear me Steven?
On this subject has anyone else experianced other (ICE) drivers trying to goad them into racing? I seem to get it quite frequently around Milton Keynes but only in my X.
ACarneiro
Active Member
I'm guessing you're looking for anyone else other than me, seeing as I'd already waffled on about my experiences, but I'll carry on waffling regardless
I get it every now and again, and I usually indulge them - after all, I'm driving a £108k car, so I may as well get the most out of it! I take some pleasure in only racing to the speed limit though. There's something quite funny about leaving them miles behind, getting the speed limit, and then seeing them eventually shooting past you once you know you've already won. I've had the pleasure of one too many speed awareness courses to want to be going above the limit!
Not just Teslas of course. I've been behind other EVs and Hybrids with regen where the brake lights are constantly going on and off even when there's no reason to slow down for anything. Some drivers just can't maintain a constant throttle regardless of what vehicle the're driving.
I wouldn't be surprised if this played a part here. Anyway, regardless of the cause or mindset of the Audi driver, the best thing to do in situations like that is to drop back a bit, maintain a safe braking distance and leave them to it.
Without seeing the video, it's difficult to comment any more than that.
Similar threads
