Somewhere I heard that there's such an offense as "inconsiderate driving" or something like that. So, I looked it up at
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.html#35:
Careless/inconsiderate driving
This offence is committed when the defendant's driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver (see note 15). In determining what is to be expected of a competent and careful driver the prosecutor must take into account not only the circumstances of which the driver could be expected to be aware, but also any circumstances shown to have been within the driver's knowledge (see note 16).
The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence, inadvertence or inexperience.
The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the driver's licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are 'special reasons' not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed.
Occasionally a collision occurs but there is no evidence of any mechanical defect, illness of the driver or other explanation to account for why the collision happened. In these cases, a charge of careless driving may be appropriate, but you should exercise caution.
If you can prove how an incident occurred [e.g. a collision] the case can be put on the basis that there is a very strong inference that the defendant was driving below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver. In the absence of any explanation by the defendant as to the cause of the collision, a court may infer that the offence was committed, but where the defendant does provide an explanation for the collision, however unlikely, you will have to consider whether to proceed.
The civil law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [the thing speaks for itself] has no direct application to the criminal law. (But see Wilkinson at 5.50 "In the absence of any explanation by the defendant, if the only conclusion which is possible to draw is that the defendant was negligent or had departed from what a reasonably prudent and confident driver would have done in the circumstances, a court should convict.")
In some cases, particularly where there has been a collision, the evidence will show that more than one driver was at fault. It will be necessary to establish that there is evidence from an independent source against any driver who is to be charged, but the possibility of charging more than one driver remains if both have failed to comply with the statutory standard.
There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that courts will regard as careless or inconsiderate and the following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as careless driving:
overtaking on the inside;
driving inappropriately close to another vehicle;
inadvertently driving through a red light;
emerging from a side road into the path of another vehicle;
tuning a car radio;
using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment when the driver was avoidably distracted by that use;
selecting and lighting a cigarette or similar when the driver was avoidably distracted by that use.
These examples are merely indicative of what can amount to careless driving. It is necessary to put the facts in context and consider whether the particular facts of the case warrant a charge of careless or dangerous driving.
You should also consider whether a driver has failed to observe a provision of the Highway Code. This does not itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings, but a failure, particularly a serious one, may constitute evidence of careless or even dangerous driving (see note 17).
In cases where there is an overlap between careless driving and some other offences such as driving with excess alcohol, a regulatory offence, an offence of strict liability, or a 'Construction and Use' offence, the merits of the individual case may often be adequately met by charging the specific statutory or regulatory offence.
In such cases prosecutors should decide whether a separate charge of driving without due care and attention adds anything to the case, and whether any additional penalty is likely to result on conviction, before deciding to charge this offence as well.
Also, and more appropriate to your scenario:
Driving without reasonable consideration - Section 3 RTA 1988
The law
The definition of this offence is set out in the Road Safety Act 2006 (see note 20). A driver can be guilty of driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving (see note 21).The penalties are the same as for driving without due care and attention.
Generally, prosecutors prefer 'Careless Driving"' to "Driving without due consideration" as the former is easier to prove - there is no need to show that an actual road user is inconvenienced, etc. But 'due consideration' is more appropriate where the real harm done is aimed at, or suffered by a particular person.
Note the essential difference between the two offences under Section 3 RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced.
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness. There must, however, also be some inconvenience to other road users, for example, forcing other drivers to move over and/or brake as a consequence. The following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as inconsiderate driving:
flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Note that you must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the Magistrates/Youth Court (see note 22).