Road Rage: What do you do? What should you do?

In situations such as these, the phrase, "and I think I saw a gun" has been
known to work wonders...

 

Mebbe, but you'd think the police would still show a tiny bit of
interest when someone's trying to kill you with their car. It seems
it's only speed that kills though, so if he'd rammed me into a bridge
support at 69mph I presume I would've survived without a scratch.

 

I just carry on driving as I would normally and ignore them.
Obviously avoiding anything dangerous that they do. And if you need
to stop keep the doors locked. I'm not the smallest bloke around but
I really can't be arsed with fighting.

In your case I'd have casually driven to the nearest Police station.

 

I observed an incident of road rage and dangerous driving on November
15th last year, and reported it immediately. No action taken. So I made
a complaint, prompted by friends in the local[1} Roads Policing Unit.
The investigation was supposed to be completed within 28 days, but was
finally concluded almost three months later.

But there was a result. Although the delay meant the driver couldn't be
prosecuted for the events of November 15th (due to the 14 day rule),
when the officer investigating my complaint checked out the driver and
car, he discovered the driver was uninsured, seized the car and sent it
off to be crushed.

Unfortunately, the driver concerned is a known scumbag, allegedly, and
it is odds on that by now he is back out on the road in yet another
uninsured vehicle.

These events did prompt me to point out to the local force that "a
little less Kodak and a little more Kojak" is far more likely to keep
such drivers in check.

[1] Northamptonshire. Well known for its preoccupation with
camera-driven "road safety policy".

 

Not the sort of thing I'd brag about in a public forum like this.

 

You could try what an old work colleague of mine did - drive near to a
police station, stop, reverse into the guy, lock all your doors, then phone
the police and tell them some psycho's just rammed you. That one actually
worked, as it turned out the guy had a previous conviction for another
motoring offence.

 

My plan of action was to carry on to work, where there's loads of
solicitors and Jack Straw's office. If anything was going to happen
I'd stop outside his personal CCTV camera and let it happen there.

The problem with driving to the nearest Police station is that I don't
know where it is. I think a chat with someone might be useful, if
nothing else so that I know for sure what their view on it is.

 

Aim for a town centre, there's usually signs. If not signs, then lots
of witnesses.

 

I had a situation a year or so ago, chap raced me across a roundabout,
he was in the wrong lane, but we had identical cars (Rover 416, Honda
Concert 1.6), so we arrived at the exit at the same time - I wasn't
racing, but you need to shift as it was a busy roundabout. I slowed down
a little as there was a moped on the inside. He pulled in front of me a
bit sharp, leaving me about a meter behind, despit trying to back off,
the **** started jamming on his brakes at me.

He did it one time more so I gave him an appropriate hand signal, to
which he stopped completely in the middle of the road. Luckily I wasn't
driving agressively, and simply pulled up behind, but left a good gap.

He got out, and walked up to my car, I locked the doors and shut the
window. As he got to the door, I stared forward and just drove off
(having left the gap).

That was the last I saw of him. 10 years ago I probably would have got
out too. Now I just want to forget these things and get on with the rest
of my life.

 

Paul Varnsverry wrote

That is nice, I like that.

You seem to have a knack for a well turned phrase, keep it up.

 

He may have not seen your gesture properly and took it as you giving him
the finger.

If you are being chased, avoid driving home, or to work.

If you need to call the cops, use the phone, regardless.

If you have a camera grab some pix (not while you are moving) and give em
to the fuzz.

Buy a monster truck and flatten the twat..... ;-)

If you want a chat, you have my number and you know where to find me.
--

Cheers!
Fr Jack
96 Tiger.
FRJACKUKRM AT GMAIL DOT COM
skype: fr.jack (without the dot)

 

Christofire wrote:

Have you called the cops yet? There's a good chance there's video
footage from the motorway jaunt.

Well, for me, if you genuinely didn't do anything to make him that way,
I'd have stopped, to see what the issue is. However, in my experience,
when you indicate to pull over, and start to slow down, they either
scream off, or pull n front of you to try and stop you driving away.

The former is desireable but if they do the latter, then keep rolling up
the drivers side, until you block their door from opening. Then roll
down the passenger window and converse from a safe distance.

Having said that, if it went a bit pear shaped, I'd have no problem
decking the twat - I suspect you probably would, in which case, don't
stop, just lose them, and stay where the witnesses are plenty.

Don't sweat it though - fretting will only empower matey boy.

--
Dnc

B1200 - gone ~|~ VS800 - borked
TS150 - squatting ~|~ V2300 - flat cap and rug

MIB#26 two#54(soiled) UKRMMA#26 BOTAFOT#153 X-FOT#003

 

It's not bothering me particularly. There's a lot of political
rumbling about anti-social behaviour, but I've found there is very
little guidance on what to do in this situation. It happened a couple
of weeks ago and since then I've discussed it with friends. I thought
I'd throw it open to the wide range of opinions URKM hosts, and I've
got pretty much what I expected.

As I said in another post, the thing I want to do is to prevent matey
taking someone else (or myself) out when he bins it. I'm not bothered
about twatting him - I don't see what it would acheive. I'm aware that
someone might see my piloting as less than safe, but I don't chase
people and "drive mad" like this guy was.

My gut feeling is that matey isn't used to being prevented from doing
what he wants to do (hence the initial rage at my move), then being
told he's acting like a child (the mature bit). I don't know the
bloke, so I was hesitant to make any generalisations. After seeing him
act the same way this morning I'm more inclined to think he's a ****.
He's 2 for 2 so far.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Christofire

(Snip)

Read this, from Saturday's Torygraph (I would have published the URL,
but you'd have to register to read it) - Then be afraid, be very afraid:


You don't need to drive a sports car to find yourself in trouble with
the law, says Austin Williams

Drive a bright yellow sports car or a snazzy, high-performance motorbike
and you'll undoubtedly get stares, but you shouldn't be pestered by the
authorities, should you? Well, you (and a number of other categories of
motorist) might be if the police use their latest powers to the utmost.
In fact, based on the accusation of a single individual, you could find
yourself as a defendant in court proving your innocence before a charge
of anti-social driving.


Up yours to civil liberties? The new law covers anti-social driving in a
sloppy way

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, unlike the Road Safety Bill
(see Motoring, April 30), didn't fail the pre-election wash-up process
and last month was given a rubber stamp, with a few House of Lords
amendments and without the much-publicised offence of incitement to
racial hatred.

Apart from setting up the FBI-style Serious Organised Crime Agency, the
Act also gives the authorities powers to stop motorists and forcibly
take their fingerprints using new portable technology being tested in
Northamptonshire. Like that illiberal old 1990s saw, "If you've done
nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear", here the counter-argument is
that if you are against it, you are giving succour to terrorists.
Indeed, as retinal scans are now commonplace at airports, who can object
to a measly fingerprint?

But the question of who decides what activity is criminal was never
addressed, and now we seem to have lost sight of that argument. Besides,
civil liberties concerns are regularly brushed aside these days,
especially in the transport sector, where motorists will swallow
anything.

The Department for Transport boasts that Operation Laser demonstrated
the value of automatic number-plate recognition. This technology, which
has been funded from fixed-penalty revenue, "will enable officers in
equipped vehicles to identify any vehicles of interest". So what,
exactly, is a "vehicle of interest"?

Well, the Home Office, in its latest Roads Policing Strategy, talks of
vehicles that are driven in an anti-social manner. Before you breathe a
sigh of relief that this couldn't possibly mean you, it is worth noting
that it ranges from undisciplined lane behaviour and verbal abuse to
"generally threatening driving and riding". This new category of driving
will attract police interest and extends the classification of errant
behaviour beyond the standard list of dangerous, careless or erratic
driving.

Have you ever sworn at a fellow knight of the road? Was this a
stressed-out symptom of driving life, or latent, violent road rage? It
won't necessarily be up to you to decide, given that criminal sanction
arises from a perception of events, rather than the reality of the
situation.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has just established a Road
Policing Intelligence Forum, which notes that "bad driving, even where
not leading to a collision, is threatening and intimidating to other
drivers". It is sufficient that this threat is merely perceived by the
self-proclaimed victim. The targeted individual will have to prove his
or her innocence.

But given that ACPO states that "vulnerable and disadvantaged people
particularly need proactive road policing", victims will have moral
authority and superior believability. You'd hardly think, given the
hype, that being a victim of crime is now less likely than at any time
since the British Crime Survey began in 1981.

The Home Office document sees the overall objective as delivering "the
target of 1.25 million offences brought to justice by 2007-08". But
given that "bringing someone to justice" now includes cautions, penalty
notices, TIC (supplementary offences taken into consideration), formal
warnings and reprimands, the target culture of the police could see many
erstwhile law-abiding citizens reported in the statistics. The new
National Policing Plan states that when these once law-abiding motorists
have been identified as perpetrators, "we must ensure that criminals are
denied the use of our roads".

We can only imagine what this means. While we might nod when some chav
is barred from driving, his licence revoked and his car crushed, we
should be aware that the same state powers are waiting to be used on
less obvious targets. Rights, as they used to say in the old days, are
universal, which means that an assault on one person, however much we
might not like that individual, is an assault on us all.

Recognising this, the authorities are clamouring to respect diversity
and appear even-handed (the new policing plan has removed the reference
to the Evangelical Alliance as one of the key stakeholders mentioned in
the previous one). But more importantly, the police have adopted a more
community-centred approach to criminality, which can only exacerbate the
problem.

"Target setting," says the Home Office, "should ideally be a bottom-up
process so that communities have local ownership of targets." This
implies that locals can determine who should be targeted. If you've
recently upset your neighbour, look out for police stopping you to
inspect your tyre treads. If your leylandii are upsetting the local
busybody, prepare for an early-morning breath test.

If you think all this is a bit of an over-reaction, you should be aware
that, apart from animal-rights protesters, the only other cause worthy
of direct mention in the 2005 policing plan is set out in clause 3.51,
which states "Forces should prepare for the implementation of the
Hunting Act". Sounds ominous? Not a bit of it. As they say, if you've
done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear...

* Austin Williams is chairman of the Transport Research Group.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - Manufacturer of the "Champion-105" range of rearsets
and Ducati Race Engineer.

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
ZZR1100, Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (On its hols) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"

 

IME ..... No. They won't give a shit.

Last year in Luton I witnessed a **** doing much the same but more so.
It wasn't me he was trying to attack but he nearly took me out as
'collateral damage'.

So I followed, got his number, reported the whole lot - reg number car type,
colour good description of driver, using the mobile of the people he was
trying to hit [1] - who to escape drove into a busy filling station - to the
police control room who replied "thank you for that sir. If you wish to
make an incident report you'll need to call into either Luton or Bedford
police station".

I-could-not-fucking-believe-it.

He put at *least* 4 lives at direct and deliberate risk, nearly ran five
vehicles off the road and was deliberately trying to collide with another.

Plus the people who he'd being trying to ram had just been gibbering away in
terror about their experience.

We left it that if they could be arsed to go out and collar the **** I would
give a statement ... they only needed to contact me to get it once they had
him and I gave them all the details they needed to contact me too.

I heard nothing more.

Its a very sick joke the way policings gone. I know a few old bill and with
one exception (she's just joined) to a man they can't wait to get the ****
out.

[1] What, waste *my* batteries?.

--
--
Nidge
ZX6R J2 Stunning in zit yellow. KX 125 MX 'I'm snot green -fly ME'. A few
bits of CB500S in Norwegian Parrot blue. BOTAFOT#63 BOMB#5

'Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand'.
Homer (Simpson).

 

Nidge wrote:

Perhaps he'd been temporarily blinded?


--
Dnc

B1200 - gone ~|~ VS800 - borked
TS150 - squatting ~|~ V2300 - flat cap and rug

MIB#26 two#54(soiled) UKRMMA#26 BOTAFOT#153 X-FOT#003

 

Why on earth not? He drove into the back of me. Entirely his fault. End of
story.

 

If you tell plod that you feel the incident was racially motivated they will
have to do something [1].

[1] works for my neighbours [2], at least once a week.
[2] utterly dispicable cunts

--
Dan L (Oldbloke)
My bike 1996 Kawasaki ZR1100 Zephyr
M'boy's bike 2003 Honda NSR125R (Going)
Spare Bike 1990 Suzuki TS50X (Patio Ornament)
BOTAFOT #140 (KotL 2005), X-FOT#000, DIAABTCOD #26, BOMB#18 (slow)

 

That's where you drive into him, hard to chase you if his legs are
broken.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Obvious, they're slopes