This article just reads that the authors have solely set out to draw the conclusion they’d already decided upon.
A study of more than 400,000 UK road accidents found that when “risky or aggressive manoeuvres” played a part in collisions, there was a significant statistical difference in driver culpability across different brands.
While I completely understand why the drivers are considered culpable for making risky or aggressive maneuvers. What I would be interested in is the circumstances that led them to making those maneuvers.
My own experience is that I only overtake (which I presume is considered risky?) when I’m behind a vehicle driving well below the speed that the road and weather conditions permit.
So while I am responsible for an incident that may occur due to my choice to overtake I do think consideration should be paid to what caused that manoeuvre.
Well it’s 400,000 accidents, so there’s probably every kind of circumstance you can imagine in there.
The point is that owning a BMW shouldn’t affect the chance of you finding yourself in dangerous circumstances, other than ones you create by your own actions. (Unless everyone in the UK is secretly hoping to ram BMW drivers off the road).
Then there’s the subjective language of “risky” and “aggressive”. Is it risky and aggressive to overtake a slow vehicle? Quite possibly? But I regularly drive in an area frequented by older tourists. Often they’ll be driving at 30 on a wide, open, road where the national speed limit applies. So is it aggressive that I overtake them at double their speed?
Did you actually read the article? It specifically calls out “overtaking on double white lines” which is ILLEGAL for a very good reason. It’s not calling ordinary overtaking dangerous.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the road rules in UK, Europe where the US has double yellow lines to mark a centre line that is illegal to cross, those lines are white here.
They indicate that it is unsafe to overtake (lack of visibility due to bends etc)
Anyone who overtakes on a double centreline is an utter twat and well deserves to be called dangerous
This article just reads that the authors have solely set out to draw the conclusion they’d already decided upon.
While I completely understand why the drivers are considered culpable for making risky or aggressive maneuvers. What I would be interested in is the circumstances that led them to making those maneuvers.
My own experience is that I only overtake (which I presume is considered risky?) when I’m behind a vehicle driving well below the speed that the road and weather conditions permit.
So while I am responsible for an incident that may occur due to my choice to overtake I do think consideration should be paid to what caused that manoeuvre.
My guess is that this data is taken from insurance/police report assessments.
Well it’s 400,000 accidents, so there’s probably every kind of circumstance you can imagine in there.
The point is that owning a BMW shouldn’t affect the chance of you finding yourself in dangerous circumstances, other than ones you create by your own actions. (Unless everyone in the UK is secretly hoping to ram BMW drivers off the road).
Then there’s the subjective language of “risky” and “aggressive”. Is it risky and aggressive to overtake a slow vehicle? Quite possibly? But I regularly drive in an area frequented by older tourists. Often they’ll be driving at 30 on a wide, open, road where the national speed limit applies. So is it aggressive that I overtake them at double their speed?
Did you actually read the article? It specifically calls out “overtaking on double white lines” which is ILLEGAL for a very good reason. It’s not calling ordinary overtaking dangerous.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the road rules in UK, Europe where the US has double yellow lines to mark a centre line that is illegal to cross, those lines are white here.
They indicate that it is unsafe to overtake (lack of visibility due to bends etc)
Anyone who overtakes on a double centreline is an utter twat and well deserves to be called dangerous