Confrontation avoidance

[Stradageek]

The day began badly, pottering home from church on two folders I moved into 'primary' hearing a car accelerating to try and overtake with my wife, a speed bump, a pinch point and an oncoming car just meters ahead. The car ended up broadside to me and I got a mouthful from the passenger whilst his female partner sensibly backed off and let us get ahead, turn right and get safely home.

Took the recumbent out in the afternoon and on a deserted country lane heard a 'boom-box-mobile' behind who waited for the road to widen but then passed me scarily close and fast. I caught him up at the next junction and thought long and hard before pulling up to his open window to be confronted by shaven head, tattoos, piercings and a body builders physique. Then I had a moment of inspiration and it went like this (after he had turned down the music):

Me: 'You scared me mate, you were a bit close'
Driver: 'Sorry mate' friendly smile, turns up the stereo and drives sedately away.

I think the key was admitting the fear and eliciting sympathy and thereafter understanding. I'm gonna try that one again

[Mike Sales]

Years ago, after many antagonistic confrontations, I decided that your approach was more likely to be useful. I began to tell the driver that I was scared by his or her driving. I found this did not get the exchange of views off to a bad start. I'm not sure it always improves their driving, but it does not always lead to entrenching their position.

[Revolution]

So I'm coming home from work this evening. The roads are wet and its raining. I reach the brow of a slight hill and start to pick up speed. I'm in a line of traffic having just left a temporary traffic light. I am travelling at about 18 - 20mph at a safe distance (3-4 metres) behind the car infront who, like me, is in a line of traffic also travelling at 18-20mph. I hear the car behind accelerating and then look down at my right and see the wing of a Saab drawing level with me and then he blares his horn. I continue at the same speed and the same line, he drops back and blares the horn again. I then move to the centre of the lane. When the car infront speeds up increases the distance between me and him I move to the left which allows the Saab to overtake, blaring his horn as he does so. 30-40 seconds later I catch up with him at a red traffic light. I tap on his passenger window (he was on the right hand filter lane) The window comes down and before I can speak he shouts "you were driving in the middle of the road!"
I don't think any rebuke or polite utterance from me would have changed his misguided justification for driving like a *******
I'm afraid to say that in this instance, if I had told the ******* that he had scared me, he would have told me to "get of the f******* road then" or some such suggestion.
As it was I told him he was a ****** and felt better for it.

[FarOeuf]

I caught him up at the next junction and thought long and hard before pulling up to his open window to be confronted by shaven head, tattoos, piercings and a body builders physique. Then I had a moment of inspiration and it went like this (after he had turned down the music):

Me: 'You scared me mate, you were a bit close'
Driver: 'Sorry mate' friendly smile, turns up the stereo and drives sedately away.

I think the key was admitting the fear and eliciting sympathy and thereafter understanding. I'm gonna try that one again

or the key is your pre-judgement was all wrong ?

[Psamathe]

I had an "incident" (bit close!) and fortunately the van has the company web site address clearly printed on the back so I made a mental note ready to contact them once home.

But then I caught the van up a bit later (he was pulled-in by the side of the road), so I tapped on the window, had to wait whilst he finished his phone call (ops, given away the punchline early), and said how he cut a bit close. He apologised, commented on how I had all the right hi-vis stuff, etc. but, the then said he "didn't see me because I was on the phone".

I was pleasant enough, he was pleasant enough, I explained how some drivers get angry about how far out cyclists ride and explained why and then I let him pull off before me. And I am now completely convinced that he will be using his phone again whilst driving before long.

Ian

[Stradageek]

So, in true divergent thread fashion what can be done about mobile phone usage??

I am now even more convinced that a very significant proportion of minor and major road accidents result from mobile phone usage but are never proven. For example, my friends daughter drove into a ditch whilst on the phone and was told by the pickup driver 'don't tell the insurance company!'

Is there a conspiracy here.

Mobile phone companies don't want to discourage phone usage and I know they make it difficult for the police to get the necessary data; they at least charge the police for phone records I believe - am I right?.

So I'm hypothesising that there are there other ways in which the phone companies are at least dragging their feet. Phone companies can tell if a phone is on the move, they can tell if the owner is using it, the cars registration links to everything about the car e.g. is the phone user the only insured driver, surely they could come up with a way of proving usage beyond reasonable doubt.

Or in true journalistic fashion they could at least spread a rumor that this is possible and have most people believe it

Where there's a will..... or is there?

[ArMoRothair]

Where there's a will..... or is there?

They could also reliably show from their data whether a phone user, and thus the car he or she was in, was speeding. But there is no will.

In this week's survey 80% of the population voted in favour of 20 mph being the national speed limit for built up areas. If that is the case why don't 80% of the population observe the current limit? Because there is no will.

[Vantage]

Phone companies can tell if a phone is on the move, they can tell if the owner is using it, the cars registration links to everything about the car e.g. is the phone user the only insured driver, surely they could come up with a way of proving usage beyond reasonable doubt.

Not quite that simple. I and I'm sure other partners of drivers, often answer my girlfriends phone when it goes off when she's driving.

[thirdcrank]

... Mobile phone companies don't want to discourage phone usage and I know they make it difficult for the police to get the necessary data; they at least charge the police for phone records I believe - am I right?. ...

This is all after my time, but I gained some insight sitting on the jury of an alleged drug dealer (convicted actually, by the time I'd announced our verdicts) who was allegedly arrested in possession of four mobile phones. There was a data protection policy issue which meant that a senior officer had to authorise the request for the phone records, based on the serious nature of the alleged offences (dealing in Class A drugs.) The next stage was to get authorisation for the expenditure involved in having the records analysed for evidence of the alleged offences. Due to some cock up which had me squirming, the second authorisation was given but not acted on.

It left me realising that for using-a-phone-while-driving offences, the most straightforward enforcement would be by police officers seeing offences, stopping offenders and issuing tickets, even if the occasional comic claims to have been using something else. The analysis of phone records has a part to play in the investigation of serious collisions but it's too cumbersome for routine cases. Remember that even with evidence that the phone was being used the offender has to be identified, which is immeasurably easier if done at the time, rather than by later investigation.