- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3627 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 5103
THERE'S TRAFFIC AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE JUNCTION BUT INSTEAD OF LETTING YOU PULL OUT I'M GOING TO CREEP MY CAR FORWARD A FEW METRES AND BLOCK YOU IN BECAUSE I'M AN INCONSIDERATE CUNT WHO WOULD RATHER INCONVENIENCE OTHERS JUST SO I CAN SPEED UP MY OWN JOURNEY BY A FEW SECONDS.
|>>|| No. 5104
I never learned how to drive, OP. Can you simplify what you're talking about (perhaps with a diagram) so I can be angry with you?
|>>|| No. 5105
Oh fuck me I hate these cunts, they really are utter BASTARDS
|>>|| No. 5106
Very crude but - imagine you're the yellow car, it doesn't really matter if you're turning left or right.
For one reason or another the cars to the left of you have stopped. The car in front of you can't clear the junction, but instead of waiting on the right-hand side and letting you pull out they've decided to block the junction just so they can be a few metres closer to their destination.
|>>|| No. 5108
Especially when it's a bus. I fucking hate bus drivers, they're all cunts.
|>>|| No. 5112
However, in heavy traffic, sometimes it's the only fucking way to get out.
|>>|| No. 5113
Looks like we've spotted one of the shit heads, chaps. What a cunt.
|>>|| No. 5115
Had this today. Waiting at a set of lights to turn right onto a dual carriageway. The lights turn green, but I can't go anywhere because the carriageway is backed up from the next set of lights along and a trio of bus drivers thought it was funny to foul the junction. So I wait for the next cycle. Traffic is moving, and the carriageway is clear - that is right up until the lights change in my favour again. So I think "fuck this, I'm going to abuse s.36 for all it's worth" and advance past the white line (the light is green). Then, about a minute later, even facing a red light, I move off while nothing is coming from either direction (thanks to lights further along), much to the shock of the person behind me.
No problem, of course, since the law is explicit that when the light is red, no part of the vehicle shall cross the line, and indeed no part of my vehicle crossed the line, being as it had done so entirely while the light was green.
|>>|| No. 5125
I'm not >>5112 but there are certain places where you have to creep out like a bit of a cunt or you're never getting out. Fortunately, almost every time I've done this someone will have the sense to let me in before I actually end up holding someone up in the lane I've crept into.
|>>|| No. 5126
This. On my patch, there are major roads where you have to resort to cunt creep because bigger cunts than yourself have parked right on the corner, meaning you can't see what's coming, the cunts. At least, usually, they're cunts. Except when they've parked a van or a 'tractor, in which case they're not cunts, they're cunting fuckmaggots that need to be removed from the gene pool entirely. A £70 fine would be fine too, if the traffic wardens weren't too busy giving out tickets to people who are ten seconds over in the car park.
|>>|| No. 5396
COMING OFF A SLIPROAD AND ON TO THE MOTORWAY? I'M IN THE LEFT HAND LANE AND THE LANE NEXT TO ME IS CLEAR, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO PULL INTO IT BECAUSE I AM A DRIBBLING CUNT.
|>>|| No. 5415
If you had bought a tank from the Net, you could have just driven over that.
|>>|| No. 5416
That's almost funny. Maybe it was really, really dark when he parked?
|>>|| No. 5417
It's an old hatchback painted gold, with blacked out windows, and ridiculously low suspension. There is no way that the driver isn't a complete twat.
|>>|| No. 5433
LOL WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I USE THE INDICATOR I DON'T THINK PEEPEL NEED TO KNOW WHERE I'M GOING!
|>>|| No. 5434
There's a main crossroad I cross often. Getting over should be simple. Wait for the lights to go red on the road that goes horizontal and walk over immediately so the cars on the vertical road don't hit me. It makes it so much easier if the car on each side of the vertical road indicates so I know how quickly I need to cross. But the fuckers don't even indicate and they get annoyed when they almost hit me.
Would help if they didn't get rid of the pedestrian traffic lights because the only other way is to walk down one way for another 10 minutes to get to a safer crossing. Christ my neighbour died this year due to this crossing because someone forgot to indicate, she got hit by a van and got flung into the bushes. She's an old lady too and she couldn't have walked to the safer crossing because it might have taken her half an hour when she just needed to go to the post office to buy stamps.
|>>|| No. 5438
Some people are cunts for this. It's so easy to get lulled into that mentality that nothing can go wrong, no matter how selfishly you boot your car to where ever it is you're going, or how inconsiderately you drive.
|>>|| No. 6853
Adding to the posts about indicating, it irritates me when I'm in the middle lane, the right-hand lane is clear and there's a car in the left-hand lane wanting to overtake the car in front of them, but they don't bother indicating and instead will swoop into the middle lane the moment I drive past them. If they indicate I will bother going into the right-hand lane so they don't have to wait for me, their loss though.
|>>|| No. 6854
HEY EVERYONE LOOK AT ME EVEN THOUGH THIS LEFT HAND LANE IS DESIGNATED LEFT TURN ONLY IM IGNORING ALL THE SIGNS AND GOING STRAIGHT ON
I've been nearly broadsided by cunts doing this at one junction more times than I can count on fingers alone. After several complaints to the council, they gave up and redesignated the lane.
|>>|| No. 6855
Fucking hate this. I cross so many roads like this and if there's one fucker not indicating while everyone else is then he is clearly in the wrong. I look forward to the day when this happens and I get angry enough to stand in the middle of the road to stop the car advancing then either get run over or tell the driver he's a life endangering cunt because people aren't telepathic and he's not fucking indicating when he should be.
Seriously, situations like that are the ONLY TIME I get honked at by drivers. Like I'm in the wrong for them doing something which is clearly fucktarded.
|>>|| No. 6856
On a related note, it's called
INDICATES WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO DO. Starting to indicate when you're already half way in the next lane isn't fucking helping.
|>>|| No. 6857
This gets me ALL the time. People seem to forget that indicators are for other people, not just something you sorta have to do if you feel like it.
|>>|| No. 6860
People who don't indicate drive me fucking crazy. In fairness though that anger is tiny compared to the all-consuming rage that takes hold when someone overtakes me on a blind corner. I'm a pacifist by nature but whenever I see people driving like that I start to have violent fantasies about pulling them from their car and beating the living shit out of them. Playing with other peoples' lives like that is just not on.
|>>|| No. 6863
In Northampton, they are largely used for trying to send obscenities to other drivers using Morse code.
|>>|| No. 6865
This would seem to indicate that people in Northampton have developed the ability to communicate through means other than punching since I last was there, so this is an improvement.
|>>|| No. 6872
I've nearly run over 2 lasses in the last week. Is there something about wearing headphones that means you just walk straight into the road without bothering to look if it's safe?
|>>|| No. 6881
I thought the left was for slow drivers, and middle and right is overtaking?
Don't drive yet.
|>>|| No. 6883
>Don't drive yet.
Really? I couldn't tell, honestly.
|>>|| No. 6887
The hot weather must be spawning these pricks. I was crossing over that road again yesterday. They had to put their indicators on because the opposite road had roadworks being done. But they didn't put them on. As I was crossing he nearly hit me and shouted "watch where you're going" so I replied with their ever enchanting "well put your fucking indicators on then, you cunt".
He didn't even turn them on during the turn. Seriously how hard is it to just put them on? They're on the left of the steering wheel and they have this nice little feature of turning off when you finish the turn.
Got my blood boiling that did.
|>>|| No. 6888
> Seriously how hard is it to just put them on?
Drivers around here generally operate on the principle that to turn your indicators on is to admit defeat, an admission of homosexuality and all around only something uppity hippies do.
People who don't indicate didn't forget, they consciously refuse to do it because to them a "good" driver shouldn't need to indicate, just like they no longer need shoulder checks, just like cross-hatch marks are for sissies and just like bus lanes are really their private lanes.
|>>|| No. 6890
I support the notion that every now and then every driver should be forced to ride a bicycle for a week, where not indicating often means that someone will try to drive through you.
|>>|| No. 6891
I'm of the opinion every person on a bike who ignores a red light should be jumped and beaten with clubs. I don't even drive and it pisses me off.
|>>|| No. 6892
Actually I think that every person on a bike who ignores a red light should be struck by a very large and fast moving metal object.
The only lives cyclists are putting at risk by doing things like this are their own, whereas in most cases drivers who don't indicate are risking everyones life.
|>>|| No. 6895
As well as not indicating at all, there's the completely erratic approach as well. For example, starting to indicate left several miles before the turning, stopping to slow down at each one but speeding up again before anybody can overtake.
There's also the indicating right and stopping to let oncoming traffic past, but stopping in the middle of the lane when there'd be loads of room for the traffic jam behind you to get past if you'd moved to the right.
|>>|| No. 6897
As long as every speeding motorist get's hung, drawn and quartered I'm with you.
|>>|| No. 6900
I'm pretty sure they get run over or punched on occasion, m8. The penalties for cycling badly are already pretty severe. There should be more tuition in place to educate cyclists on how to use the road, maybe with a cycle-to-work-esque discount on bikes for those who take part?
Anyway can we not have another "cyclists are twats" debate again, we had two concurrent threads about it last time and it really isn't interesting.
There aren't many situations in which "get's" could ever be used correctly. I don't think apostrophe abuse should be a capital crime any more than poor cycling should, though.
Why can't we all just get along?
|>>|| No. 6902
I HEARD A RUMOUR THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A STRIKE OR SOMETHING AT THE PETROL STATION.
I BETTER FILL UP MY CAR AND 15 JERRY CANS THUS CAUSING MORE TRAFFIC DUE TO OTHER PEOPLE WITH MY LOGIC DOING THE SAME AND I'M HOLDING UP PEOPLE WHO NEED PETROL. I DON'T CARE IF IT'S ILLEGAL TO GET THIS MUCH PETROL.
Took me an hour to get home in what's normally a 15 minute journey because of these cunts.
|>>|| No. 7626
I have small children, I see inconsiderate and sometimes dangerous driving and parking, like stopping your car in the middle of the road just because there's no spaces within 30m of the nursery, on an almost daily basis.
I don't get it; is there something about becoming a parent that rots some people's brains or are they dim beforehand? It isn't vital to have your car as close to the nursery as possible.
|>>|| No. 7636
if they park too far away the weird guy watching will get their kids.
|>>|| No. 7709
I KNOW I DRIVE AT 40MPH, BUT I'M GOING TO KEEP AS FAR TO THE RIGHT AS I CAN TO OBSTRUCT YOUR VIEW AND SAFETY FOR OVERTAKING, YOU SMALL-PENISSED SYNDROME MAN. DON'T YOU KNOW I OWN THIS ROAD? NO CAR SHALL BE IN FRONT OF ME!
EVEN IF YOU TRY TO OVERTAKE, I CAN ACCELARATE THEN! AND IF YOU'RE BREAKING THE LIMIT, I'LL STILL OVERTAKE YOU AND THEN SLOW DOWN!
BUT BEWARE 30 OR 20MPH AREAS, I'M STICKING TO MY 40MPH, AND I DON'T CARE WHO KNOWS IT!
|>>|| No. 7710
I'M GOING TO DRIVE AT A CONSTANT 35MPH ABSOLUTELY FUCKING EVERYWHERE
|>>|| No. 7711
This. I flick V-signs at people who do this while I'm overtaking them.
|>>|| No. 7745
I was doing about 85mph in the right-hand lane on the M18 earlier today, it was just 2 lanes at this point, when a clapped out Suzuki started tailgating me. Once the left-hand lane was clear I pulled into it, still going at ~85mph, the Suzuki stayed in the right-hand lane but instead of overtaking me, started decelerating and I pulled away from it. What the fuck?
|>>|| No. 8365
IT'S SLIGHTLY DARK OUTSIDE? I'D BETTER PUT MY LIGHTS ON, EVEN THOUGH I CAN SEE PERFECTLY FINE, JUST BECAUSE I WANT TO LET OTHER DRIVES KNOW WHERE I AM BY DAZZLING THEM AND LIMITING WHAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY SEE ON THE ROADS.
|>>|| No. 8367
IT'S DUSK AND EVERYTHING IS THE SAME MURKY GRAY COLOUR IN THE DIRTY HALF-LIGHT. TRAFFIC AND OBSTACLES ARE DIFFICULT TO MAKE OUT BUT I WILL DRIVE AROUND WITH JUST MY SIDE LIGHTS ON BECAUSE IT ISN'T YET PITCH-FUCKING-BLACK XD XD XD
|>>|| No. 8368
No, no, not dusk. Not even close to dusk. Just ever so slightly darker than mid-day and the lights are on.
|>>|| No. 8370
just saying, that's the flip side of the coin, both sets of people are undeniably arseholes.
|>>|| No. 8373
Jesus christ lads.
I would consult the highway code about this, but fucking hell do you know what, I can't even be arsed.
If it's dusk it's sensible to use side lights I'm fairly sure. Sure there are wierdoes driving around all day with them on but whatever, it's not exactly harming you so if they wanna make themselves a bit more visible fine.
Honestly do people forget that roads are places with huge steel machines barelling down them at potentially lethal speeds, or what?
|>>|| No. 8379
>just like bus lanes are really their private lanes.
It's perfectly fine to use a bus lane outside of its operation hours. When other drivers don't realise this, and flood the other lane, all the better for me!
|>>|| No. 9022
What is it about rain that causes people to have a massive brainfart and forget how to drive properly? It's taken me over twice as long to get to work this morning because a little drizzle has left the roads heaving.
|>>|| No. 9318
This one seems to have happened a few times to me recently and it's boiling my piss.
I'm turning into a sidestreet and a pedestrian carries on walking without even bothering to see if it's clear and I nearly end up taking them out.
|>>|| No. 9321
I do this all the time, secretly hoping that one day, one of them will hit me.
|>>|| No. 9323
I do this a lot. Don't expect me to take the right lane when it is miles long because of traffic.
|>>|| No. 9324
Technically the pedestrian has the right of way so if you hit them you are proper fucked.
|>>|| No. 9325
Once I was crossing after checking to make sure it was clear when some twat pulled out in front of me forcing me to stop in my tracks. I felt like running after him and banging on his window while shouting about right of way. I would have caught him too as it was a dead end.
|>>|| No. 9326
Pull that shit in London and expect a bill for £120 in the post, you cunt.
|>>|| No. 10516
I got such a glare yesterday because I had to pretty much force another car into the right-hand lane of a dual carriageway.
I was coming off the slip road and they were plodding along in their clapped-out Ford Focus, they made no effort to make any room for me by speeding up or slowing down and the right-hand lane was completely clear so my only options were to go heavy on the brakes and pull in behind them or try and muscle in. I know I was a bit aggressive, but the worst thing about shit drivers is that they never realise that they're in the wrong.
|>>|| No. 10517
This seems to be disappointingly true - if the shambling fuckwit has started crossing, you're obliged to miss him. If he hasn't started crossing, he's on the pavement, and you're obliged to miss him. It's particularly fun on a bike, you come to expect people just blithely marching out in front of you. All adds to the fun. Sometimes you can pull to a stop next to them, and politely wait for them to shamble across in that charmingly oblivious manner.
As a pedestrian, I'll always look. Why the fuck wouldn't you?
At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rule 170). (Rule 170 says the same, from driver's POV)
|>>|| No. 10518
Huh? As the joiner, you adjust your speed to slot in. Otherwise, you'll end up in either your situation, or the comedy dance lockstep, as both brake / accelerate.
I think you deserved a glare.
|>>|| No. 10522
Even though the pedestrian always has right of way they should still check first, if the car has already crossed the line when the pedestrian starts crossing, or is close enough to it that the car would have to stop suddenly, then you really shouldn't cross. It's just common sense.
|>>|| No. 10525
It's about good manners. If I'm on a motorway and I see someone coming off the slip road I'll move into the next lane (assuming it is clear) so they can merge safely because I'm not an inconsiderate twat.
|>>|| No. 10527
As will I, but I'm not going to get aggrieved, or just join regardless if they don't...
|>>|| No. 10528
Might is right, eh?
It is common sense from the pedestrian point of view, but it's a point of ignorance from a lot of drivers.
|>>|| No. 10529
If I'm walking along the pavement and a cyclist is coming at me despite the fact that they're not allowed on the pavement, I will move instead of getting a chunk of bike up my bottom or through my balls, despite the loss of moral integrity I will endure.
If I am on a bike and a car is trying to pass but the shitty driver is giving me less and less space every second, even though he should pass reasonably, I will drop back rather than standing my ground and going under the wheels even though I was fully entitled to be there.
If I am in a car and have right of way at a junction, but an artic decides he's going first, I won't go anyway even though I should have done because I don't really fancy being in a 0.55 ton collision while only making up .05 of said tonnage. Obviously, this means that I am a slave to antiquated derogatory anti-war phrases such as "might is right."
Finally, if I was driving an artic and I came across a track crossing which hadn't shut properly even though there was a train approaching, I wouldn't go across anyway even though I wouldn't be legally obliged to stop because the barrier was up and the lights off, because there would be a train in my brain seconds later. Common sense is right, eh?
|>>|| No. 10530
When I'm in those situations I generally do the same, but make the effort to pretend I'm not going to because fuck 'em.
|>>|| No. 10531
Don't have a teary, lad. All I meant was that just because the pedestrian is going to come off worse in a collision, doesn't mean that drivers should remain ignorant of the law.
|>>|| No. 10535
Was crossing over a road like this once, checked all the way over might right shoulder to see a car with no indicators on, so I walk out. In the middle of the lane, I hear some slag screaming at me out the window of her shitty hatchback because apparently indicators are for civilised people and fuck you for not reading my mind on where she was going. Not the first time it has happened either.
|>>|| No. 10536
Yeah. Lots of people don't indicate for pedestrians. If there are no cars they consider it to be en empty road and don't bother.
|>>|| No. 10538
Isn't it illegal to turn without indicating? My driving instructor made a big show of telling me that I ALWAYS need to indicate, even in right/left turn only lanes.
|>>|| No. 10541
"Must/must not" means that rule is legally enforceable.
"Should/should not" means that it is not illegal.
|>>|| No. 10542
So the highway code is a collection of rules set in place to make sure people don't die on the roads, but some of them aren't really rules?
You couldn't make it up!
|>>|| No. 10544
Seems like you haven't read it. The wording couldn't be any simpler. The Must/must not rules are legally enforceable and disobeying them will give you points/fines/prison sentences. The entries in the highway code give a reference to the law itself.
Should/should not and do/do not will not get you stopped by the police, but they can still be used in court as part of a case, i.e. to determine liability.
|>>|| No. 10545
I understand the wording. The point I'm making is that the must and should sections are all there in the interest of saving lives. For example, you must not exceed the speed limit and you should indicate regardless of lane are both there to stop people killing other people.
It seems absurd that some of them are rules and some are not.
I don't even know any more. I thought I was having a light hearted conversation with a smattering of fun, but then >>10544 appeared.
|>>|| No. 10546
>It seems absurd that some of them are rules and some are not.
Having two separate books would be absurd.
|>>|| No. 10549
When I used to get the bus my stop was just after a mini roundabout. I've nearly been run over so many times by people who don't bother indicating that they're turning left. The funny thing is, I've nearly hit a few cars there who have assumed that my lack of indicating means I'm going left instead of straight on. I could understand it if it wasn't a roundabout with 4 exits at 90 degree angles. Last time it happened was a BMW pulling in front of me, he stopped and must have spent a good 10 seconds waving his middle fingers at me.
|>>|| No. 10550
There is also a very good thread in >>/mph/2270 about subjects covered here.
I'm a pedestrian and am usually surprised and saddened by the conduct of people in cars.
|>>|| No. 10551
Isn't that just a rehash of the bike v. car cunt-offs that were done to death on /b/ and /pol/?
|>>|| No. 10552
Yes and no, there are some more detailed posts on there including mine, which is absolutely flawless and insightful in all manner of ways.
|>>|| No. 10591
>Drivers who needlessly hog the middle lane on motorways face fines of £100 as well as three penalty points under new government measures designed to crack down on careless motoring.
About bloody time. Some of my mates are terrible for hogging the middle lane (they have mocked me for 'swerving around like a racing driver' because I actually switch lanes), which I reckon is because they're worried that if they go in the left-hand lane they'll get boxed in behind a lorry or granny in her Nissan Micra. It's ridiculous when you see the left-hand lane free and the other two lanes clogged up, it effectively turns the motorway into a dual carriageway.
|>>|| No. 10593
People who are in such a rush they can never go into the slow lane oh my god. Then the fast lane ends up being the slowest one because there's so much traffic in it, while the left hand lane is empty apart from a lorry every half a mile.
Call me a cunt but many a time I've undertaken a hundred cars in a row rather than dick about. It happens on dual carriageways too.
|>>|| No. 10635
I think I may have road rages issues. I wouldn't go out and twat someone but today someone blocked me at a junction because evidently they didn't notice it saying 'KEEP CLEAR' in huge letters ont road and I started swearing and gesticulating like a mad man. My girlfriend leant over and beeped the horn because she found my reaction hysterical.
Is it that
I'm a cunt some people lose their manners when driving because they're not able to make eye contact with the people around them and become inside their own little bubble?
|>>|| No. 10636
No. Very wrong.
>I've undertaken a hundred cars in a row rather than dick about
Yes, obviously all those cars moving at 50-60mph are totally holding you up.
>Call me a cunt
You said it.
|>>|| No. 10637
If they are going 50mph on a motorway and the left hand lane is clear, you should undertake them. There is nothing cuntish about it. Now fuck off and hog the middle lane some more you prick.
|>>|| No. 10638
I make a point of overtaking them and going into the left lane in front of them.
|>>|| No. 10639
>If they are going 50mph on a motorway and the left hand lane is clear, you should undertake them.
3/10 SEE ME AFTER COURT
|>>|| No. 10646
I hope you are aware that it is not illegal to undertake as long as you are not driving dangerously. As long as you aren't weaving all over the place and cutting a swathe through traffic, it's fine. Taking 100 slow-moving cars on the inside lane at the speed limit is perfectly acceptable, and you will not go to court.
|>>|| No. 10652
Unless an officer doesn't like the look of you, may be you failed to act all "aye aye sir mr police officer sir".
|>>|| No. 10653
>I hope you are aware that it is not illegal to undertake as long as you are not driving dangerously
The act of moving from the outside to the inside in order to pass a car in front of you is considered in and of itself to be without due care and attention. Move back to the outside and you're almost certainly on for careless.
Note that merely being in the inside lane and moving faster than the outside (in queues, etc.) is not undertaking.
|>>|| No. 10654
A lass on facebook recently whinged about being undertaken on the motorway and how it pisses her off.
I refrained from commenting, however would you lot agree that if you get undertaken on the motorway, especially if it's a regular occurrence, then it's probably your own fucking fault and you should likely give the highway code a quick browse?
|>>|| No. 10656
Erm, no. No, we wouldn't. As someone who practices good lane discipline and still gets inside-overtaken quite regularly, I'd say that anyone who feels the need to do so should have a good long word with themselves about why.
|>>|| No. 10657
I don't quite understand. Are they going on the hard shoulder or something? Why can't you be where they're driving?
|>>|| No. 10658
Because that would involve me pointlessly moving over to the left into the wake of the HGV I'm about to pass.
|>>|| No. 10659
That speck in the distance? Oh no.
If this is happening often, you might start to wonder. Evidently the people undertaking think that there's room to undertake, then overtake the HGV. I'm assuming they achieve this without difficulty / calamity?
Is changing lane something you actively try to avoid? Is it because it's scary, or you just can't see the point when you'll only have to change lane again in a minute's time? (Just interested - I see it a lot, whereas I'm happy bounding around all over the place.)
|>>|| No. 10660
>That speck in the distance?
Sure, if by "in the distance" you mean 100 yards in front of you.
>I'm assuming they achieve this without difficulty / calamity?
You assume incorrectly. The end result is either failing to pass me before reaching the HGV or a cut-up. Hint: if the person behind you has to brake, you're doing it wrong.
>Is changing lane something you actively try to avoid?
Only when it's going to put me or someone else in danger. Such as, say, putting yourself out of sight of the driver of a HGV you're in the process of overtaking.
|>>|| No. 10661
Fair enough. I guess I'm biased by either driving almost entirely off-peak, or by being an HGV and shambling along with the 56mph crowd (despite not having a limiter).
For what it's worth, HGVs don't really care if you vanish in their mirrors. They're not going to do anything based on your position. If they're going for their once-an-hour overtake (to get past a micra doing 45 on a motorway, ffs), they'll have a good look (and, having had a look, bung the indicator on regardless).
|>>|| No. 10662
Additional: We only don't care on motorways. We care passionately in towns. Especially you sneaky suicidal bikes nipping up the inside. Watch those like hawks.
|>>|| No. 10667
I appreciate the token pendantry, but find the backpedalling in your subsequent posts to the point where you rather seem to agree wholly with my initial point gratifying.
I'm sure there are plenty of useless arsehole drivers who will tear up the inside and then realise there is a truck square in front of them, but I would have to say I think these instances are much rarer than some twat practicing what my instructor used to call the "Sunday stroll in the park" method of driving, oblivious to all around them. My post might have sounded a bit "hurr women drivers" too, but that was not my attention; I can however imagine quite feasibly this particular young lady cruising down the middle lane at 50-60 listening to Kanye West so loudly that the stuffed animals on her parcel shelf rattle violently.
|>>|| No. 10675
I was confronted by a cyclist the other day, so I thought I'd run it by you lads to see if I was in the wrong here.
Around 20m or so after going around a corner the road splits in two; the main lane for going straight ahead and a lane about 30m long for turning right. I was going right and the cyclist was ahead of me, so I started overtaking and going into the lane as soon as I could. When I was about a third of the way past her she simultaneously started signalling to turn right and moving lanes (without so much as a backward glance) and then looked very shocked when she noticed my car next to her. Next thing I know I'm waiting at the lights and she's tapping on my window and screaming at me for nearly knocking her over; as far as I'm concerned, If she'd signalled before she reached the junction and actually paid attention to the roads around her then she wouldn't be surprised to find a car overtaking her.
|>>|| No. 10676
It's her fault. Road users are supposed to signal before turning. I hope you wound down your window and had a go back at her.
|>>|| No. 10677
From what you describe, you're in the right, and she's just displaying the adrenaline-fuelled rantyness of a near miss.
Of course, no doubt she's on another imageboard (oh gawd, imagine mumsnet as an imageboard) describing some completely other interpretation where you rammed your car into a gap she knew was there (or something).
|>>|| No. 10678
You're in the wrong. Completely.
Rule 167: DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction
Incidentally, signalling is not mandatory for cyclists.
|>>|| No. 10679
Hang on - if there are two lanes, that's not overtaking, that's getting into the right lane.
Avoiding doing so because there's a cyclist in the other lane is inappropriate. Cyclists should _look_ before changing lane, even if they don't indicate. (A look over the shoulder pretty much counts as indication in my book).
|>>|| No. 10682
"DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict "
This sounds very much like conflict to me. >>10675 had no business overtaking.
|>>|| No. 10683
I don't think you can say that for sure.
For a cyclist to pull into the side of your car without looking, while you're in a genuine lane, that's not conflict, that's a cyclist being a muppet.
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169 163 is all about leaving your lane and entering an oncoming lane to overtake, not simply going faster than a lane to the left.
There is no way that, given the evidence available, you can be confident about who was wrong. Maybe nobody was (apart from the ranting, that's rarely good).
|>>|| No. 10686
Probably my poor choice of wording there. I couldn't have got in the lane without overtaking her, from the position she was in she looked like she was going straight ahead. The alternative would have been to actually stop in the middle of the road to make sure that a cyclist on the left of the road doesn't make a sudden (and late) switch into the next lane.
|>>|| No. 10688
>I couldn't have got in the lane without overtaking her
Then you should've waited. No excuses. You are in the wrong. Rule 167.
|>>|| No. 10689
No. You're just taking the piss with your wilful misinterpretation of 'overtaking' here.
Two lanes, cyclist in the left hand one. You're implying that the right hand lane cannot be used, in case the cyclist chooses to enter it.
167 includes this:
stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left
Note the use of 'left'. And that's for a single lane in your direction, not this two-lane example.
Going faster than someone in the lane to your left is not what that section of the code is about. Of course our chap will have pulled into the right hand lane and then gone faster than a cyclist (thus 'overtaking'). Nothing wrong with that. The cyclist should check that there's somewhere to go before changing lane, same as any road user.
|>>|| No. 10690
It's not clear whether the driver started overtaking before or after they reached the filter lane.
|>>|| No. 10691
I thought it was clearly after. If before, then it's the overtaker's duty to stay out of the way.
However, while bikes are free to wobble, swerve and generally take up a lane if they like, having one enter the lane you're in, where you're in it, seems to be the cyclist's fault in pretty much any scenario I can think of.
|>>|| No. 10692
After. If it'd had been a car positioned where she was in the left lane and I'd been going faster than them then they'd have been overtaken, too.
|>>|| No. 10693
Obeying a GET IN LANE or other lane assignments strictly speaking is not over/undertaking. The first rule that applies is 179, which says you should indicate early and move in plenty of time. This is an "all users" rule, so applies to both driver and cyclist. The cyclist failed to indicate and get into position "well before turning right". There's also 103 (signalling) and 133 (not causing other vehicles to change course or speed), 67 (cyclists to look around) and 74 (cyclists turning right).
In summary, fuck that cyclist. It was totally her fault.
|>>|| No. 10694
Thinking about it, it's got all the signs of a wobbly (new? inept? just fucking irredeemably clueless?) cyclist.
The sane thing to do is to head to the right while it's still single lane and you're the boss of that lane, rather than attempt a half-arsed 2-lane shuffle with a side order of indignant rage.
If you're that timorous, then stay left and walk it across the lights like the pedestrian you sort of think you are.
|>>|| No. 11050
People who pull out in front of you from a side road and then don't bother accelerating, so you have to drop down from 30 to 20 or you'll hit them.
|>>|| No. 11549
Just had some dozy bint nearly took me out at a roundabout by trying to go straight ahead from the right lane, even though I was clearly in the left lane doing the same. Naturally, she thought it was my fault.
|>>|| No. 11577
I always make sure to tailgate the fuck out of these people and appear as if I haven't realised I'll need to slow down until the last minute. They need to be taught what they did wrong and why it's wrong.
Can't stand this. People used to try to overtake on more or less every roundabout between my house and my old job - it drove me barking, to the point where i'd try to spot the kind of cunts that looked likely to try it and then make sure I exited the roundabout wide to block them off if they even thought about it.
Worst of all is people that move into a right turn only lane at a red light, zoom past all the traffic waiting to go straight on, and then try to out-accelerate the car at the front of the straight-on que and cut in front. FOr the exact same reason I also hate people that don't move quickly off the line at junctions and lights, their slow reactions are what allows cunts to pull their cuntery.
|>>|| No. 11578
95% of the time these people are easy to spot due to the fact that they're driving a taxi or white van.
|>>|| No. 11579
Is there actually anything about accelerating after turning in the Highway Code?
|>>|| No. 11582
144 says you must have reasonable consideration for other road users, though whether accelerating to not hold people up falls under this would be debatable. On the other hand, 147 suggests that if this doesn't happen, you should slow down to let them get clear of you.
|>>|| No. 11620
Driving in Wales. At least North and Central Wales.
The natives seem to have real problems with roundabouts, indicating and give way markings.
|>>|| No. 11717
Probably left there for a completely good reason. Cars parked on corners can be a real menace.
|>>|| No. 11718
Yes, because clearly if the council want to stop people parking on corners, the way to do that is to steal a single barrier section from Transco when they're replacing the gas main.
|>>|| No. 11753
Near where I work, there is a snooty cunt that actually bought some traffic cones to cone off a completely legit, free-for-all on-street parking space outside their house. I've seen a few canny drivers suss it out and stack the cones up on their doorstep and take the parking space. People try to do it with wheelie bins and other shit as well. In fact, I'm sure there's a rich family not far down the road that bought two Vespas for the express purpose of taking up on street parking during the day. I always see the two scooters moved and a car parked in the ridiculous space they were occupying come the evening.
|>>|| No. 11756
My girlfriend's grandma used to do this when she had family visiting so she could save them a space. She lived directly opposite a police station; they were fully aware of what she did and were alright with it.
|>>|| No. 11762
It's not "get dragged into the nick as soon as you're spotted doing it" illegal, but illegal nonetheless.
|>>|| No. 11859
Women and flashing.
I know this will come across as a bit sexist but if I ever flash/signal to let someone out then it's more likely that a woman will pause/hesitate or not even notice at all. Also, some women have a habit of not flashing/gesturing that they're letting you out and instead they simply stop and expect you to read their minds.
Then again, the other day I did see a woman flash to let out a car indicating to turn right at a T-junction with fairly poor visibility (she was in the lane the car wished to go in, so on the opposite to the other road), despite the fact there was continuous heavy traffic in the other lane. The car starts pulling out and is inches away from being immediately taken out by an oncoming car.
|>>|| No. 11861
Flashing as a means of communicating that you're giving way is actually completely incorrect. The highway code specifically states you should flash your lights only to warn others of your presence if they may not be aware of it.
I'm not really sure why we as a nation have decided to ignore this rule, but we have. Even coppers will flash me out. Perhaps it will be like the word 'literally' in that one day they'll change the highway code to reflect what 99% of people actually use the signal for.
|>>|| No. 11862
Fuck the code m8 the only reason flashing isn't condoned in the HC is that it can tentatively confuse who is to blame if something goes wrong. It makes total sense and everyone understands it, so it's not 'totally incorrect' at all.
|>>|| No. 11865
>>11862 said it wasn't totally incorrect, but the highway code states it to be totally incorrect. I'm not sure I could make it any clearer.
|>>|| No. 12519
Was I in the wrong here? This happened on the way home from work and I'm still not entirely sure one way or another.
I was waiting at a pedestrian crossing and it was flashing amber, so I waitdd for the pedestrians on the road to finish and for it to be clear before starting to set off. After I'd started moving a fat chav with a pram walked out in front of me and then started shouting and swearing at me because it was flashing the green man. Now to me, the flashing lights mean to wait for people to finish crossing, not to shove your pram in front of oncoming traffic like a battering ram and to start crossing. It wasn't even like it was borderline and I'd floored it the moment it started flashing; it was green light/red man before she had even passed my car because I had been waiting a bit for the pedestrians already on the road when it started flashing to cross.
|>>|| No. 12520
Just let the fat bastard cross. It doesn't matter whether she was right or wrong.
|>>|| No. 12521
Swings and roundabouts. The Highway Code is very clear that a flashing green man means "do not start to cross", so anyone who starts to cross is doing it wrong. On the other hand, pedestrians have unconditional right of way and most traffic regulations simply don't apply to them. There are only three MUST NOTs in the pedestrian section of the Code, and these are not walking on motorways, not walking across level crossings if there's a specific red man signal, and not loitering on crossings (which would constitute obstruction of the highway).
|>>|| No. 12522
'Unconditional right of way' doesn't mean >>12519 would be blamed if he hit her, because (if he hadn't seen her) he would have been obeying the rules of the road to the letter.
Fat pram chav is a cunt putting her baby at risk.
|>>|| No. 12523
If he hadn't seen her than he's not obeying the rules of the road. I'm pretty sure looking where you're driving is one of the rules of the road.
|>>|| No. 12526
>'Unconditional right of way' doesn't mean >>12519 would be blamed if he hit her
It kind of does. You're supposed to drive at a speed such that you can stop short of any obstruction.
|>>|| No. 12535
That would mean driving at ~5mph anywhere there are pedestrians just in case one suddenly walks right in front of your car.
|>>|| No. 12539
So if you're doing 30 and someone steps out a metre or so in front of your car you're saying you could stop in time?
|>>|| No. 12541
>So if you're doing 30 and someone steps out a metre or so in front of your car
Usain Bolt should be thankful they got injured, because at that rate they'd have utterly destroyed his 100m record.
|>>|| No. 12546
So, how is that adult learning course going, lad? You have been attending, haven't you?
|>>|| No. 12547
If someone "steps out a metre of so in front of you car" when you're doing 30, then somehow they're walking at 50.
|>>|| No. 12550
Sounds like Doomguy has got back into action. IIRC he strolled around at a healthy 50mph. Be thankful he didn't decide you have HUGE GUTS if you hit him.
|>>|| No. 12551
>IIRC he strolled around at a healthy 50mph.
He could move even faster with SR-50.
|>>|| No. 12552
30mph is a little shy of 13.5m/s. If you set off from "a metre or so in front of" a car at 30mph, by the time your foot hits the ground, the car will have passed you by. To be able to land "a metre or so in front of" a car, you will almost certainly be visible to the driver in time for them to stop.
|>>|| No. 12553
Does that mean it's almost impossible to walk out in front of a car and get hit?
|>>|| No. 12625
What is a stopping distance?
if someone jumped out in front of my car from 5-10 metres and I was driving at 30mph, they are almost certainly going to be hit, unless I were to endanger yet more bystanders by swerving to avoid him/her.
|>>|| No. 12626
>What is a stopping distance?
A bullshit number calculated using a formula that has no scientific basis whatsoever. (Pic related - it's from the 1946 edition of the Highway Code.)
|>>|| No. 12628
Thinking distance = v
Braking distance = v2/20
Fag packet physics at its finest. Right orders, wrong constants. If you need 75 feet to stop a modern car from 30mph in the dry, then it'll almost certainly fail the MOT.
|>>|| No. 12629
>distance = v
>distance = v^2/20
Think your dimensions are a bit fucked lad...
Nonetheless you're correct that thinking distance is linearly proportional to v since x = vt and t is now a function of the driver's abilities. Braking distance is also proportional to v^2 due to the work being done against the kinetic energy being equal to Fx and 1/2mv^2 => x = mv^2/2F where F is the average braking force. Given a car of mass 2000kg and brake pads giving a stopping force 50N your factor of 20 seems reasonable.
|>>|| No. 12630
No, lad. You're supposed to read the posts you're replying to before you reply to them.
|>>|| No. 12631
Any modern car will have brakes capable of locking all four wheels with ease, so braking force is invariably limited by tyre adhesion. Even in the dry, the range is massive because of variations in contact area, tyre construction and the condition of the tyre and road surface. Factor in the large variations in mass and you're into the realms of guesswork when trying to give an average set of stopping distances. Not unreasonably, the figures given in the Highway Code err on the side of caution, serving mainly to illustrate that stopping distances can be far higher than intuition would suggest and that braking distances increase exponentially with speed. Most drivers aren't attentive enough to drive more conservatively in the wet, let alone if their vehicle is heavily laden or if they're on a stretch of highly polished old asphalt. There are an awful lot of cars on the road with bald or severely underinflated tyres.
|>>|| No. 12632
This would be all well and good if humans were robots with instantaneous reaction times. What you seem to be forgetting is that is you're travelling at 13 metres a second, you'll have theoretically already hit someone 30 feet away before you even have chance to apply the brakes; even if you respond in, lets say half a second, it's going to be close.
|>>|| No. 12633
Quadratically, I wish people would stop using this word without knowing what the definition of an exponential even is. Otherwise that's a fair post.
Yes. Sure it was pedantic but you can't just say a distance equals a velocity without a scaling factor (i.e the thinking time).
|>>|| No. 12640
>Yes. Sure it was pedantic but you can't just say a distance equals a velocity without a scaling factor (i.e the thinking time).
Christ, you really are a dullard, aren't you?
|>>|| No. 12642
It's almost as if nobody's bothering to read previous posts before adding their own.
>Not unreasonably, the figures given in the Highway Code err on the side of caution
They don't "err on the side of caution". They were extracted rectally by someone at the Ministry of Transport in the 1940s, and have since the 1950s been billed as "shortest stopping distances", right up to my copy from early last decade. Not average, likely, or longer end of variation, but shortest.
Think about this: The Code suggests at 70mph you need a minimum of 96m to stop, but is happy for you to leave around 63m to the vehicle in front at that speed.
|>>|| No. 12643
Except it's not very likely that the car in front is going to stop dead from 70mph so you will have more than 63m to stop in.
|>>|| No. 12644
THAT BUS IN FRONT OF ME IS CHOCKA BUT INSTEAD OF LETTING THE QUEUE OF WAITING PASSENGERS GET ON MY EMPTY BUS I'M GOING TO DRIVE STRAIGHT PAST THE STOP INSTEAD.
Every fucking morning.
|>>|| No. 12649
If I had a luxury car then I'd probably do this to reduce the risk of a knuckle-dragger opening their car door into it and chipping the paintwork or driving into it while they attempt to park.
I'd had my present car for a grand total of ~two days before some cunt scraped their car against one of its doors in a car park and scarpered.
|>>|| No. 12650
I thoroughly respect the French approach - in the nicer parts of Paris, you'll see Lamborghinis and Ferraris with dents and scuffs, because they just don't give a shit. As far as they're concerned, parking damage is just like patina on antique furniture.
|>>|| No. 12651
>If I had a luxury car then I'd probably do this to reduce the risk of a knuckle-dragger opening their car door into it and chipping the paintwork or driving into it while they attempt to park.
What a cunt you'd be.
|>>|| No. 12652
His car wouldn't have any dents on the doors, but it would be keyed to fuck.
|>>|| No. 12654
Don't be a pillock who thinks you have to protect your car against getting its doors dinked. Nobody wants their doors dinked.
|>>|| No. 12655
I have to protect my car, because not everyone is as courteous as me. I already have dents on my car thanks to cunts who have no consideration for other people's properties. I will be damned if I fall for that shit again.
|>>|| No. 12656
Fuck off, m8. You're not special in this regard. Nobody wants their cars' doors dented.
|>>|| No. 13067
People who don't understand how the temperature controls work, specifically:
a) They're a bit chilly so they put it on full heat, but then they get too hot and they're constantly changing it instead of keeping it at a constant temperature.
b) Putting the fans on full power when they get in the car because they think it makes the air coming out heat up faster.
They probably don't understand thermostats, either.
|>>|| No. 13068
Empirical evidence would suggest that if you have a control such as the one pictured (as opposed to a precise control indicated in degrees), all you're really changing is how much heat is put out, and there's no such thing as "keeping it at a constant temperature" unless you have full climate control.
|>>|| No. 13069
The fact that a control isn't calibrated doesn't mean that it isn't thermostatically controlled.
On any modern heating system, the knobs on the radiators are thermostatic - you're choosing a target temperature, not a level of heat output. The knob is marked in quite vague gradations because simple thermostats aren't very accurate, but they'll maintain a temperature with good precision.
What >>13067 describes turns out to be a really big problem in some cases. Many new housing developments have been fitted with ground source heat pump systems, which offer very high efficiency if used correctly. The pump sucks latent heat out of the ground, working like a refrigerator in reverse, providing several times more heat energy than the electrical energy input. Unfortunately, many people don't understand or don't believe the instructions - rather than setting a target temperature and letting the system maintain it, they use the thermostat as a binary switch, turning it all the way up when they feel too cold and all the way down when they feel too hot.
Used in this way, the heat pump simply can't cope, so the system reverts to working as electric central heating, with a reduction in efficiency of several hundred percent. These residents are adamant that the supposedly super-efficient system is rubbish, when in fact they're just using it wrongly. IIRC a housing association in Scotland had to completely refit hundreds of houses, because the residents were simply too stubborn or stupid to use the system as directed, even after repeated visits to explain.
|>>|| No. 13070
Well yes, technically there is a thermostat, but it's not where you think it is. It's controlling the temperature of the water in the heating system, not the cabin temperature, and that thermostat is what the dial or linear pot is controlling. The relation between the water temp and cabin temp is not linear and the dial does not map directly to cabin temp. Cars with climate control have more sophisticated systems with sensors inside the cabin and do allow you to pick a target temperature.
|>>|| No. 13071
I think you're confused there, lad. It might not be obvious from the rest of the thread, with all the drawings and pictures of roads, cars and parking, and all the complaints about other people's driving and parking, and general rants about being on the road, but I'm assuming >>13067 was talking about the blowers in cars, not residential heating systems, which generally are reasonably well-calibrated, and do have proper thermostatic control.
|>>|| No. 13074
When you're waiting to turn through oncoming traffic, the last car in the line will stop and flash you to turn instead of just driving on. Theres nothing behind him, why not just go? It annoys me far more tha it should.
|>>|| No. 13075
It's even better when they flash you and there's oncoming traffic in the other lane, especially if your line of vision in that lane isn't brilliant.
|>>|| No. 13087
>IIRC a housing association in Scotland had to completely refit hundreds of houses, because the residents were simply too stubborn or stupid to use the system as directed, even after repeated visits to explain.
Ugh. Technical support in a nutshell. NOPE IT'S DEFINITELY BROKEN, DON'T PATRONISE ME, I KNOW MY RIGHTS
|>>|| No. 13089
I have been nearly taken out here a fair few times by drivers who decide just to carry on in a straight line and not pay any attention to the road markings or whether any car is actually in the lane next to them.
|>>|| No. 13097
I do it because it makes me feel good. It's like giving money to a begging smackhead. You shouldn't do it, but you will because it makes you feel better about yourself.
|>>|| No. 13199
Anti-101 moment last night. Walking back to the station, I spotted a cyclist stopping at a red light, evidently because he'd noticed the police motorcycle next to him. Then I overheard the copper call out to him:
>Good to see you stopped at this red light, but I think you passed that one back there.
>No, I don't think I did.
>I'm fairly sure you did. You passed me while I was waiting.
Oh dear. That sounded expensive.
|>>|| No. 13201
Lovely. As a cyclist myself I often "correct" other cyclists on the road, i.e. I shout at them. They always seem surprised, like I should be on their side.
Mind you, I get just as angry at drivers and pedestrians. I nearly ran over a group of students who tried to cross in front of me the other day (at a crossing that was green for me). I wanted to knock one over, I truly did. It's a good job I don't drive often.
|>>|| No. 13202
I lost count of the number of times Chinese students just walked out in front of my car. Going to university made me slightly racist against them; they didn't understand queuing, they'd turn up to lecturers ridiculously late (like with 20 minutes to go in a 2 hour lecture) and then talk to each other in their moonspeak throughout the lecture, they skinny waif lasses would be ridiculous and try sitting three to a chair in tutorials, they'd congregate in ridiculous places, like blocking corridors and pedestrian crossings, and God help you if you had to do group work with them. I don't think they improved in any of these respects during the entire 3 year course. Oh, and they smell of sneeze.
|>>|| No. 13203
The crossing etiquette is because in Chinese cities (and by the fact they are rich enough to study over here it implies they live in them) the ONLY way to cross the road is to walk straight out.
I'm not excusing them -- they should quickly pick up that's not how we do it; I'm just explaining why they do it.
|>>|| No. 13204
I suppose I'd be more forgiving of a cultural misunderstanding, but this group were white and english. One started to cross, the rest followed. They all saw me, they were looking right at me as they did that stop-start crossing bollocks. I rode right through the middle of them.
|>>|| No. 13205
I picked up the whole no-jaywalking and always waiting for a green man thing in das ehemalige deutsche Reich after about 2 minutes of being there. I think being a certain class of person might really affect your receptiveness to the world around you, especially with these kind of things going on of being used to having your own way and not really being questioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Emperor_Syndrome . It's just a massive shame that a lot of the Chinese students I came across seemed to be astronomically wealthy and probably not in any way representative of Chinese people (if even there is a single "Chinese").
|>>|| No. 13206
As a Brit, I found crossing the road in Berlin to be a terrifying experience, because they don't seem to have filter lights. Even if there was a green man for you, sometimes cars would still come around the corner.
|>>|| No. 13207
Was alright in the rest of the Honecker-Grotewohl-zone, maybe because they're all old now or something.
|>>|| No. 13208
I don't know if it's that. We had a couple of Chinese lads in a group project and when we challenged them for not doing what they were meant to they said because back in China they were used to being instructed quite strictly about what to do instead of being allowed to use their initiative. Then again they may have been skivers and fantastic bullshitters; it sounds plausible at face value about the Chinese.
Last time I was in Paris it wasn't uncommon to see mopeds going over a metre onto the pavement around corners.
|>>|| No. 13211
Chinese people. If you do a lingering sneeze in an enclosed space then you should be able to get a whiff of our yellow brethren.
|>>|| No. 13212
Sneezes have always smelt like pollen to me. I'd like it if it wasn't that it came out of someone's face.
|>>|| No. 13419
I was in the queue to get off at J24 of the M62 earlier when someone in a Mercedes actually stopped their car in the left-hand lane at the chevrons marking the latest point you could join from the motorway until someone would let them in. It caused a lorry behind them into evasive manoeuvres, nearly taking out a van in the middle lane.
Who the fuck stops on a motorway? Apart from when in congestion, obviously.
|>>|| No. 13420
Next time that happens, make a note of the VRM and report it. The motorways all have CCTV so it's likely a camera caught it so the police would have all the evidence they need.
Admittedly on my way to work this morning I passed a queue to get off another motorway and moved onto the sliproad after the 100yd marker.
Last week, I was stuck in a jam on a two-lane dual carriageway. It turned out the problem was that the queue at the exit slip a mile in front was backed up so far that people trying to get off were using lane 2 (of 2) and struggling to merge into the line.
Earlier today, someone probably did some damage to their car by hitting something that fell off a truck and landed at the top of an incline. I spotted the debris that someone was inevitably going to hit, but when I tried reporting it to the council (this being a non-trunk road) from a lay-by a search for the council name plus "highway emergency" didn't turn anything up. After 2 minutes on hold I thought "fuck it, I'm going to be late home" and drove off.
|>>|| No. 13423
I love the fact that the commenters are arguing over whose fault it is. His own, obviously. If he couldn't stop he was either going far too fast or wasn't paying attention.
|>>|| No. 13424
It's his fault and he looks like a cunt to boot. I hope the fuzz find a load of heroin and Uzis hidden in the car also.
|>>|| No. 13425
It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. The Mazda didn't look properly before pulling out, but he was clearly going to fast.
|>>|| No. 13426
>he looks like a cunt to boot
The owner of the BMW said he was really apologetic. I've met a few owners of supercars at various points in my life and they've always been excessively pleasant people, not what you would expect at all. It's the Porsche and Audi owners who tend to be cunts.
|>>|| No. 13428
>The owner of the BMW said he was really apologetic.
I don't think he really had much choice in the matter, given the BMW was parked at the time. Plus, given the car was reasonably well-known, he'd have been reamed by the police if he hadn't at least left his details.
|>>|| No. 13429
Oh so what, any cunt that drives around town for cheap thrills with a back-to-front baseball cap deserves a cricket bat to the nads.
|>>|| No. 13430
Further my parents and neighbours own an Audi and they're all very nice and reasonable people.
|>>|| No. 13431
>The Mazda didn't look properly before pulling out
Welcome to Lahndahn m80.
|>>|| No. 13457
I think he might be on tour. Approaching J33 M4 this morning a Merc blasted over from lane 2 across the gore onto the slip road, cutting up another vehicle in lane 1 in the process.
|>>|| No. 13621
tbh, there's only so much you can "look". Nobody is expecting a dickhead in a supercar to be going that fast down the road. You could easily look both ways, see a clear road, start pulling out and still miss him at the speed he was going. 100% Aventador guy's fault, no doubt.
|>>|| No. 13627
I thought I was going to see a road rage fight today. Someone tried to block two lanes on a roundabout (one after the motorway slip road) before getting out of his car and hammering on the window of another car. He looked like Chris Moyles. The other car shot off when the traffic light went green.
|>>|| No. 13910
Hopefully this won't sound racist, but why do many Asians have their seats reclined ridiculously far back? I drive through Dewsbury most days and I see scores of Asians reclined so far back they're almost horizontal and can barely see above the steering wheel.
|>>|| No. 15071
Anyone wearing headphones while driving.
Anyone driving a quad bike on the road.
|>>|| No. 15080
>Anyone wearing headphones while driving
If you see this, grab photos if it's safe to do so (headshot and number plate) and tell the police. If not dangerous then it's certainly lacking due care and attention.
|>>|| No. 15081
I'm surprised councils feel a need to invest in CCTVmobiles knowing that whiter than white guardian angels like you are working hard in the interests of justice.
|>>|| No. 15082
>If not dangerous then it's certainly lacking due care and attention.
It's not an offence, so I'm not sure why you're set on going to the police exactly.
|>>|| No. 15083
come on ladm8, there's being a filthy grass and then there's being a filthy grass BUT for a good reason (not wanting the headphone wearing idiots to get distracted by their One Direction/Katy Perry album and hit someone)
|>>|| No. 15084
What's more likely? The person is fined, learns their lesson and a future accident is avoided. Or: the person is fined, they may or may not change their behaviour (not would be my guess), but no future accident is avoided and all you've achieved is the advancement of the government's revenue collection scheme. Which by the way if the person is poor may involve genuine hardship or if not just the mildest of inconveniences. Cars won't be safe for as long as humans drive them and your self-righteous surveillance campaign isn't going to effect one single iota of positive change in this world.
In before "they should have thought of that beforehand". Your lawn needs a cleaning.
|>>|| No. 15086
>It's not an offence
U wot? Driving without due care and attention isn't an offence? Did they legalise pot while I wasn't looking or summat?
>Or: the person is fined, they may or may not change their behaviour (not would be my guess), but no future accident is avoided
In which case they will quite deservedly find themselves in the shit over the accident they failed to avoid.
|>>|| No. 15087
On what evidence are you basing your suggestion that an accident caused by driving without due care and attention is inevitable or likely? In stating the bleeding obvious you seem to have missed my intended point which was that most likely there isn't going to be such an accident either way.
|>>|| No. 15088
>On what evidence are you basing your suggestion that an accident caused by driving without due care and attention is inevitable or likely?
On the basis that I've been involed in one, suffered a couple of near-misses (mostly because of someone else's driving) and witnessed a good number of them over the years.
|>>|| No. 15089
Wearing headphones whilst driving is hardly more dangerous than listening to music at a loud volume from the speakers. Though I know people who cycle with headphones on, that is just beyond stupid considering how much more important it is to use your ears whilst cycling through town.
|>>|| No. 15090
>On the basis that I've been involved in one
Well I haven't, and I've asked the other lad already and he says he hasn't, so I'm sorry but you're going to have to adjust your view to account for the facts.
|>>|| No. 15091
>Wearing headphones whilst driving is hardly more dangerous than listening to music at a loud volume from the speakers.
Quite, just like vaginal rape is hardly worse than anal rape.
|>>|| No. 15092
If there's been an accident, then without exception at least one driver was not driving carefully. Unfortunately, they're not always the one the one who comes out worst.
|>>|| No. 15093
And yet somehow it always seems to be lager pricks with their iPhones on their knees doing 40 in a 30mph zone in a tarted up Citroen who are listening to music at that volume while they drive. With the windows down.
|>>|| No. 15095
>U wot? Driving without due care and attention isn't an offence? Did they legalise pot while I wasn't looking or summat?
Wearing headphones is not in and of itself driving without due care and attention, lad. It could be certainly be an aggravating factor, but unless you fuck up and your use of headphones can be pointed to as a contributor to said fuck up, you are most certainly not getting prosecuted. A photo/video of someone driving competently with headphones in is worth less than nothing to the police. A photo/video of someone driving dangerously whilst using headphones would be evidence of careless driving, but the same is true without the headphones being involved at all.
|>>|| No. 15096
Spot on. There's a lot of public support for changing the law to specifically outlaw driving with headphones and I don't deny they reduce to some extent the level of attention you're able to dedicate to the road. That said, I personally would still rally against turning your fellow motorist into the police for such a minor infraction. The fact that he's encouraging people to make baseless reports is doubly pathetic. A person could just as easily be a bit dippy and oblivious and you'll never be able to legislate for them. I wonder if he's also compiling a dossier on stone-deaf drivers known to the DVLA that he can forward to his police friends.
|>>|| No. 15097
>Wearing headphones is not in and of itself driving without due care and attention, lad.
It's a free country, so I won't deny your right to be wrong.
|>>|| No. 15098
>with their iPhones on their knees
Do men use their phones when driving? I mean, apart from talking. Every time I've seen someone texting/Facebooking on their phone while driving (usually in stop-start traffic) it's been a lass. That said, I've seen men reading a newspaper and brushing their teeth while driving. This morning I clocked a woman doing her lipstick in the mirror while doing 80 on the M1.
|>>|| No. 15099
I don't drive but how important is it to use your ears whilst driving? I've always assumed that the extra mirrors were there to account for being stuck inside your own little atmosphere.
Some people find music more distracting than others. Personally I can work with music on so I see no reason I couldn't drive with it.
|>>|| No. 15100
Whenever I drive I make sure that I am blasting a 90s megamix with my windows down so I'd say that using your ears to listen to my sick jams are of the utmost importance.
|>>|| No. 15102
If I am wrong, it should be fairly easy for you to prove it by giving a single example of someone being prosecuted on a charge of careless driving exclusively for wearing headphones. Not quite as easy as that pithy little gem of a one-liner though!
|>>|| No. 15103
>I don't drive but how important is it to use your ears whilst driving?
You see that bit in the middle of the steering wheel? On most cars you can press it and it'll make a noise.
You'll probably want to be listening out for noises if you're on a country road with poor visibility (hedges, etc.), or if you're near a level crossing (especially an open one or one that you have to work yourself). There are plenty of things you might hear before you see, especially if there are things blocking your vision or there's generally a lot going on.
|>>|| No. 15104
As far as I'm aware, nobody has yet been prosecuted for inserting a vibrator into a dog and throwing it off a cliff. I guess that must mean it's not illegal.
|>>|| No. 15105
You'd be hard pressed to find a pair of headphones which totally dull your awareness of noises going on around you. Even noise cancelling headphones only work on constant sources of noise: you won't hear your engine, but you'll certainly hear a car horn. That is, of course, assuming you're listening at a reasonable volume, but that's not really any different to car radios.
|>>|| No. 15112
We've been through this before. Failed prosecutions make precedent. Absence of prosecution does not.
|>>|| No. 15115
Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 prohibits anyone in England from painting their living room walls teal, because that's my personal interpretation. The fact that nobody has been prosecuted is, of course, irrelevant, because I don't understand law.
|>>|| No. 15119
Oi, my living room walls are painted teal.
And I immediately regretted it after doing it, I've wanted to change it ever since.
|>>|| No. 15120
I guess the barristers in the Spanner trial must have missed an obvious trick of arguing that because nobody had been prosecuted for the acts shown on the tape that they obviously couldn't be illegal.
|>>|| No. 15125
If you blink when you drive you're driving without due care and attention, and you'll have your day in court.
Just because nobody's been prosecuted for it doesn't mean it's not illegal you IDIOT. I, an esteemed britfa.gs poster who studied A Level law, have decided that it is, and that's good enough for me.
|>>|| No. 15131
If doing anything potentially distracting while driving was inherently illegal there would be no need for a specific law against mobile phone usage while driving. There is one. Wonder why.
Things like eating, smoking, changing a CD, or wearing headphones can result in harsher penalties if you are driving carelessly, as you're avoidably distracted. If you're driving perfectly competently, however you are not committing an offence. If you use a mobile phone, no matter how well you're driving, you are breaking the law. I hope this distinction is now clear to you.
|>>|| No. 15132
>Just because nobody's been prosecuted for it doesn't mean it's not illegal
Spot on. Shame the other one can't get his head around this simple concept. Prosecutions do not define the law, as anyone who's ever been acquitted will tell you.
|>>|| No. 15133
>If you're driving perfectly competently
Which of course you are not doing if you are eating, smoking, changing a CD or wearing headphones.
|>>|| No. 15136
I can get my head around it, thank you very much. What you and the other lad cannot seem to get your heads around is the fact that this doesn't mean that you can then put your own personal spin on the law and declare laws to mean whatever you want, despite the evidence to the contrary.
|>>|| No. 15137
This. If they're in a particularly foul mood they'll write you up, and if those Police Camera Action type documentaries are to be believed at least some of those charges are made to stick. Section 3 RTA is one of those "anything goes" offences. In many respects it's the traffic equivalent of Section 5 POA.
|>>|| No. 15138
>What you and the other lad cannot seem to get your heads around is the fact that this doesn't mean that you can then put your own personal spin on the law and declare laws to mean whatever you want, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Well thank goodness nobody's doing that, then.
|>>|| No. 15139
Police tell cyclists off for not wearing helmets, mate, it doesn't make it illegal.
If they believe you do not have full control of your vehicle as a result of your actions, however, you could be charged with careless driving. In court, a reason would be given as to why they believed that you weren't in full control (something like driving too close to the car in front would qualify).
They won't say "X was driving carelessly, I believe as a result of his listening to music through headphones. I could tell that he wasn't in full control of his vehicle because I could see he was listening to music through headphones", for reasons which I hope are obvious.
|>>|| No. 15140
>Section 3 RTA is one of those "anything goes" offences
There is indeed nuance to it, which is why saying that wearing headphones is inherently illegal is incorrect.
|>>|| No. 15141
About 40 posts on the legality of wearing headphones while driving and it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. Never change, lads
|>>|| No. 15142
They would have to convince a bench of magistrates that your driving "falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver". I'd have thought it would be difficult to introduce enough doubt as to whether having music blaring out of headphones is something that "would be expected of a competent and careful driver".
|>>|| No. 15143
The key point being that they look at your driving. If you act in relation to your surroundings in a way which a competent driver would be expected to, your driving is fine, and you're not being careless. Until you run over some poor sod and get done for causing death by careless driving while avoidably distracted, of course.
|>>|| No. 15144
>The key point being that they look at your driving.
Correct. For those who may not be following, that's the thing that happens when you're behind the wheel of a car with the engine running.
|>>|| No. 15145
And, again, if it were true that potential distractions alone were enough to make your driving illegal, there would be no cause for making using a mobile while driving an offence.
|>>|| No. 15146
Erm, there would, and there was, as you'd know had you been old enough to drive at the time.
|>>|| No. 15147
There was, at least until last year, a very good reason for using a phone being a separate offence. Fixed penalties were not available for careless driving, and the government of the day wasn't minded to introduce them given the wide scope of the offence. The separate offence was created with a fixed penalty option. Last year the law changed to allow fixed penalties for careless driving, though I suspect the separate offence will stay for clarity. It's also an absolute offence, where people have been done for using their phone while parked up in a layby but with the engine still running.
|>>|| No. 15149
Cause for making using a mobile while driving an offence, as rather more eloquently explained by >>15147 (in a manner far better than you deserved).
|>>|| No. 15151
>>15147 doesn't contradict what I said at all. The point remains that there is no reason to specifically prohibit using a mobile phone while driving and not prohibit other activities (such as wearing headphones) unless you only want to criminalise phone usage. Using a phone is, like speeding, well suited for fixed penalties because it's a fairly straightforward case of you are definitely doing it or you're definitely not. Things like eating and wearing headphones would likewise be well suited for fixed penalties because they are similarly unambiguous. The fact that such penalties don't exist should maybe make you think for a second.
Fixed penalties were not (and should not be) given out for careless driving because there's nuance to the concept, which is exactly what I've been saying throughout this whole fucking discussion.
|>>|| No. 15152
No, >>15147 explained it like a normal human being capable of constructive discussion. You withheld a few sentences worth of insight to be a prick and to make yourself feel superior. When people behave in this way they embarrass themselves and bring down the site. Based on >>15146 you were old enough to drive in 2003. You ought to have grown way beyond this. I'm probably getting carried away in saying this, but educating the teenlads is no bad thing and is something of a responsibility if not an obligation when the moment calls for it. That's how I see it anyway. FWIW I knew >>15145 was wide of the mark.
|>>|| No. 15153
>The point remains
No it doesn't. >>15147 does in fact contradict you. You said "there would be no cause to make using a mobile while driving an offence", and that post very clearly explains that there was cause to make it a separate offence.
|>>|| No. 15154
Sorry if I wasn't clear in the original post, but as I clarified in the post you're responding to, I mean that there would be no cause to make using a mobile while driving an offence but not the other potential distractions being discussed.
|>>|| No. 15547
People who won't use long-reach petrol hoses. The queue to get petrol today would have gone down twice as fast if people weren't afraid to pull the hose to the opposite side of the car. They were clearly labelled as long reach hoses.
|>>|| No. 15550
But then I've got to walk, and if I wanted to walk I wouldn't have brought the car!
|>>|| No. 15887
Was on the M1 earlier when a white van pulled right in front of me and then suddenly hit their brakes sharply. Turns out I've got better reactions than I thought I had.
Fukken crash for cash Pakis
|>>|| No. 15891
I don't mind, since it lets me nip in front of the dullards and refuel before their bovine gapes of astonishment.
|>>|| No. 16320
Paki families in car parks. I know you've got 16 kids so it probably doesn't matter to you so much if some of them die, but you could at least pretend to supervise them instead of letting three-year-olds play in the middle of the road or walk out in front of oncoming cars.
|>>|| No. 16322
I don't blame them.
People have had decades of being told not to do that, long reach hoses are fairly new and people take a while to get used to things.
Personally I've only started driving in the past year, I know that long reach hoses exist but I'm still too terrified to use them. There's that fear in the back of my head that it wont reach and I'll have to put the pump back then drive away looking like a complete numpty.
|>>|| No. 16323
To be fair, you're only going to know they're there if they're advertised as such. Since there are still plenty of places that don't have long-reach hoses, it's not safe to assume that any given place has them absent any indication. For instance, I discovered, totally by accident, that the card lane at my local Asda has them - someone pulled up alongside and did a wrong-side fill. My local Tesco has long hoses, but has signs by every pump saying USE BOTH SIDES. My local Sainsbury's doesn't have such signs, but also doesn't have hoses long enough to fill wrong-side.
|>>|| No. 16342
However, it is hiding the truth within a lie; if you do go to a brown part of town you will find that Asian parents with a large number of children tend to have a complete disregard for their welfare and safety, like talking on their phone and walking 10 feet in front of them and subsequently not showing any concern in the slightest if one of their spawn is nearly run over because they've decided that a six-year-old can be in charge of the road safety of a four-year-old and a three-year-old.
|>>|| No. 16351
Anyone who thinks it's acceptable to spray their windscreen washer when there's another car behind them that'll end up with half of the spray on their windscreen should be strung up to the nearest lamppost.
|>>|| No. 16352
It was lurking in the deepest and dustiest recess of my .gs folder.
I have loads of old .gs content that nobody posts anymore, I sometime wonder if I'm the only one who still has it which would be sad indeed.
|>>|| No. 16353
Have you got that fat lass pissing on either the .gs logo or a picture of Si?
|>>|| No. 16357
Not on the motorway due to the speed involved, nor at traffic lights due to the lack of speed involved.
|>>|| No. 16358
At the traffic lights is the perfect place to deploy screenwash, you daft nonce. Especially if it looks like some twat is about to try and wash your screen for you.
|>>|| No. 16359
On the motorway you should be even further back.
I do get that you don't have a choice sometimes, such as when people join the motorway from a slip-road and the choose that exact moment to wash their windscreens.
If you get sprayed at traffic lights, that's something else entirely. That's not the drivers fault, that's a badly designed car.
My yaris has such a feeble dribble that it barely reaches the top of the windscreen if I'm stationary. On the other hand I'm always seeing nonces in BMWs whose windscreen washers spray more over their roof than on their windscreen, like they're trying to piss over the top of the toilet cubicle. Typical BMW drivers really.
|>>|| No. 16360
>If you get sprayed at traffic lights, that's something else entirely. That's not the drivers fault, that's a badly designed car.
None of the above - it's poor maintenance. Washer jets are adjustable, and their alignment should be checked during a service. It's a simple enough job, you just stick a pin down the hole and tweak it until it's pointed in the right direction. Ineffective washer jets are grounds for failure on an MOT.
|>>|| No. 16361
That's actually something I've never realised before. I've always assumed that they were fixed at the time of manufacture and that besides a faulty pump/hose the only other thing you could do was clean them out.
|>>|| No. 17134
The more I watch this the more I'm convinced she wanted to get hit by a car.
|>>|| No. 17137
Yeah, she's clearly clocked the car and dashed across the road to run into it. Who just suddenly runs across a pedestrian crossing? It's not as if there's a light that's going to change if you don't get there in time. It also looks like the driver might have pulled over just off the bottom of the screen.
|>>|| No. 17145
The driver is at fault: once a pedestrian has set foot on a crossing they have absolute right of way. It's not the pedestrian that wanted to get hit, it's the driver who was a pillock and not paying proper attention at that crossing in particular.
That said: that's Abbey Road and fuck that crossing with a 10ft barge pole. I commute past it daily and the number of tourists going for a photo op is bonkers (depending on time of day and weather, thankfully waning some in winter). The pillar you see roughly in the centre of the preview picture is a small island and a favourite spot for people taking the pictures of the plonkers wanting to have their Beatles moment. I could go off on one about the shitty graffiti they inflict on the Abbey Studios wall, but let's not go there.
It's a tourist attraction in an otherwise residential area ill prepared to deal with them, so that will cause some friction, but honestly it's simple education of tourists by the companies that ferry them there that could fix the problem: teach them how a pedestrian crossing works in the UK. If you stand at the edge of a crossing, the RTA doesn't give you right of way but many people will still stop for you. Plenty of the tourists stand there expectantly waiting for their camera guy to give them the signal without crossing, so as a road user it's smegging hard to decide whether to stop or not. People step onto the crossing, then run away again. People just queue and sort of tip-toe onto the crossing. Just fucking step on the crossing, strike that silly pose and have your picture taken. No, you will not find a moment where there's no cars during fucking rush hour traffic, don't even try. Just be decisive, step across, do your thing, take your picture, by all means do take a few attempts, just be obvious about what you're doing. People expect the Ministry of Silly Walks there, just don't be coy about it because while you're having fun on your days off us poor schleps are just getting to or from work.
|>>|| No. 17146
The car didn't hit her within the crossing. She started running towards the car, and came outside the crossing to get hit.
I hope she was left with health problems till she dies.
|>>|| No. 17147
Screenshot - 121114 - 04:12:59.png
I disagree. Her view of the silver volkswagon was obscured by the black SUV in the nearside lane. In addition, it's quite a natural response to change course to run away from the oncoming vehicle, even though turning towards it would have likely resulted in more of a glancing blow.
|>>|| No. 17148
I mean obviously yes she should have waited to see it was clear but I don't think it was necessarily a case of seeing a car and deliberately trying to get hit by it.
|>>|| No. 17150
>once a pedestrian has set foot on a crossing they have absolute right of way
While that may be true a bit of nous and discretion is needed. The VW driver won't have seen her until she ran out from behind the 4x4, so there's not a lot they could have done to avoid her kamikaze run.
I don't step out on a zebra crossing until I'm certain cars are going to stop. If I was halfway through and a car didn't look like it would stop I'd wait in the middle of the road and see, I certainly wouldn't run out into their lane diagonally to try and outpace them because I don't have a death wish. I'm sure she spotted the VW prior to running out (if I'm crossing the road I'll generally look to see what's coming before the instance I'm next to it) and wanted to get hit. Either that or she's a moron.
|>>|| No. 17151
>Her view of the silver volkswagon was obscured by the black SUV in the nearside lane.
No it wasn't. Watch the video again. Around 0:09 you can see the moment she spots it. Again, there's literally no reason to run straight across a zebra crossing, because traffic stops for you. Here's the moment at which she starts to run.
|>>|| No. 17153
In that picture, the black vehicle has hidden her from the one that's about to hit her. In this one, she is still running but has very clearly changed course. If she was changing course to avoid the vehicle, she has picked the worst possible option.
|>>|| No. 17154
I haven't watched the video, but the pedestrian should have right of way. With that in mind, I think communication with people is important regardless of whether you have right of way. Like the other poster I'll usually wait for cars to stop and give a gesture or wave if I notice they have.
Unfortunately I think drivers are more often the ones to break that social contract. Something about cars puts people in their own personal bubble, and they'll often ignore other drivers, let alone any pedestrians. I know a typical commute involves a lot of people, but the thing about Britain's roads is that unless you're on a motorway, someone probably has to live very close to where you're driving. Odds are you live in a similar area. Some sort of recognition of this, like eye contact with the people around you, makes a world of difference (especially at crossings, junctions and roundabouts),
I'm quite defensive about this as I come from a small town where I've seen people deliberately speed up to pedestrians to rush and intimidate them. You know what I'm talking about, making a point to swerve around them or even moving as close as possible to the curb as they're stepping up to it. This happens even in residential places, or places where there is invariably going to be foot traffic, like hospitals. It amazes me that people are willing to tempt an accident in that way, and despite the video, drivers do this far more frequently and from a position of greater safety than anyone else.
|>>|| No. 17155
>I haven't watched the video
Well that was a waste of a few hundred words then, wasn't it?
|>>|| No. 17156
I inferred what the video was about and why it was posted from what people were saying. I wasn't really making any comment on that specific event, just wanted to share my views about road etiquette and safety.
|>>|| No. 17218
Rubbernecking. There was an accident between J29 and J28 of the M62 this afternoon. I had to go at ~5mph while approaching it, but the moment I was past it and everyone had stopped rubbernecking I was able to do 50.
|>>|| No. 17221
Happy memories of a wonderful year in stare-out. I doubt we'll see another starer like Spatsky any time soon; The young players today have plenty of flair, but none have the natural and effortless solidity of the great man. So sad that his career was curtailed by the tragic events of the 2002 world championship.
|>>|| No. 17258
Why do some boy racers take the reg plate from their front bumper and have it under the windscreen (or is it windshield?) instead?
|>>|| No. 17259
There's probably some stupid ill-advised reason, the might think that taking it off the back and having it inside improves the aerodynamics, or they think having it behind glass hides it from speedcameras.
|>>|| No. 17260
I think it is due to the plate falling off because it wasn't properly attached when they added a front spoiler. Lots of wankers sticking them on with double sided tape instead of screwing them in.
|>>|| No. 17635
Does anyone else find it hard to unwind after a spot of road rage? A van nearly ploughed into me at a roundabout ~20 minutes ago because they seemingly don't understand the concept of giving way to the right and I still feel a bit tense now.
|>>|| No. 17639
Yes. If you think about it, it makes total sense though. If someone tried to take your money, break your bones or even kill you, you'd be shaken up about it for a while. Especially if they then tried to blame you for it as well. Near misses and road rage incidents definitely produce the fight-or-flight response in me. I've screamed in the faces of big guys who could probably beat the shit out of me, as well as teenlad noob drivers and old ladies alike. It's not something i'm at all proud of, and it only happens rarely but when you feel like you narrowly avoided being killed all rationale goes out the window.
It's scary enough just smashing the wing mirror in a car but getting knocked off a motorcycle is truly surreal. I remember hearing a noise and doing a flip in the air, and then the next thing I remember is being on my feet in the middle of the road pumped up to absolute max adrenaline level and bellowing at the guy that hit me, with literally all the strength I could put into my vocal chords. I didn't even feel any pain until about an hour later and I didn't stop shaking for probably another hour after that. Adrenaline is serious stuff, anyone who's ever had a full-blown panic attack knows this.
|>>|| No. 19020
When you think you've found a parking space, but it turns out to be a cunting Aygo which isn't visible until you're right at the space.
|>>|| No. 19581
Yesterday I saw someone driving with the sun shield deeley down to shade their eyes while wearing a baseball cap backwards.
|>>|| No. 19590
>>17635>>17639 It genuinely scares me. Some scratter in a beat up shitbox screeched to a halt and shouted something at me and my missus as we were crossing a zebra crossing in town and I totally lost it, started screaming incoherent rage swears at him. I was physically shaking and completely amped up for a good 20 minutes afterwards, I think if he'd gotten out of the car I would have gone full on 28 days later. I have never felt like that before, and now I live in fear that something will just set me off and I'll kill someone for nothing. I think I'm pretty normal and I don't think I'm an angry person, so this has really unnerved me.
I will concede that once when I was almost in a road rage situation I did have a brief vision of running the guy down as he got out of his car whilst shouting NEVER GET OUT OF THE CAR as an i76 homage, but I didn't get the shakes or anything then
|>>|| No. 19591
I'M TURNING RIGHT. IF I CREEP FAR ENOUGH OVER THERE'S ROOM FOR THE TRAFFIC BEHIND ME TO KEEP FLOWING, BUT I'M GOING TO STOP RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LANE AND BLOCK IT.
|>>|| No. 19592
This never happens to me. Mostly because I don't think I can die, and the fact that I cause more problems on the road than any other party that I might come in contact with.
|>>|| No. 19678
I'll be honest, I have always thought, and still think that this line means I can drive as fast as I want.
|>>|| No. 19683
Please don't ever drive lad.
It means "national restrictions apply". i.e. 30 in built up areas, 60 on single carriageways, 70 on dual carriageways.
|>>|| No. 19684
Middle lane hogs. Undertaking isn't itself an offence and sometimes safer than expletive-filled multiple lane changes while trying to educate motorway etiquette with hand gestures.
Had a particularly annoying round trip on the M4 today, sorry.
|>>|| No. 19685
I think that being undertaken by a driver who isn't speeding should be a finable offense, I can't think of many situations where it isn't due to the undertaken driver being a dopey cunt and hogging the middle lane.
|>>|| No. 19686
An irritatingly large number of people believe that a three lane motorway consists of the "slow, medium and fast lanes". My granddad, who took his test before the M1 was built, is adamant that the inside lane is only for lorries and horseboxes.
Personally, I think that a lot of driving irritations could be solved within a generation if the driving test was just a bit more stringent. Some people who are disqualified from driving for a serious motoring offence are required to take an extended driving test, which assesses their driving over a longer and more challenging route than the standard test. I think that all new drivers should have to take this test after 12 months of driving, as should drivers applying for renewal of their license at age 70. At no cost to the treasury, you could have a massive improvement in driving standards. If only the government weren't so terrified of pissing off motorists.
|>>|| No. 19687
>Personally, I think that a lot of driving irritations could be solved within a generation if the driving test was just a bit more stringent. Some people who are disqualified from driving for a serious motoring offence are required to take an extended driving test, which assesses their driving over a longer and more challenging route than the standard test. I think that all new drivers should have to take this test after 12 months of driving, as should drivers applying for renewal of their license at age 70. At no cost to the treasury, you could have a massive improvement in driving standards. If only the government weren't so terrified of pissing off motorists.
Why don't you move to North Korea?
|>>|| No. 19689
I like to make a point of overtaking them and going from the right-hand lane to the left-hand lane as close as possible to them afterwards. Usually they get the message.
My favourite thing on the motorway at the minute is people who will drive right up my arse when I'm doing 85 but when I switch into the next lane to let them past they drop down to about 75 and I pull away from them.
|>>|| No. 19690
They don't get the message when you do it and they don't get the message when 10 other drivers did the same to them that day alone.
Last week the hard shoulder was open on the M42 but the traffic was free flowing, an ambulance was sat in the middle lane at 10mph under the limit and was promptly undertaken by two cars simultaneously. Old blokes are one thing, but someone trained to the standards of an emergency vehicle driver should know better.
|>>|| No. 19691
>Undertaking isn't itself an offence
If the police see you do it, they'll almost certainly pull you over for careless driving.
|>>|| No. 19692
I've had that happen to me. For whatever reason, it turned out that hanging about in the right-hand lane (of two) indicating left wasn't a big enough hint for the twat slowly creeping past my rear quarter.
People get this silly idea that "this is my lane, how dare you move into it" when the reality is that in parallel lanes priority goes to whichever vehicle is in front (defined by headlight position). If you see someone indicating to move into the lane you're in and they're in front of you, you're supposed to ease off and let them in because they have right of way.
|>>|| No. 19693
>People get this silly idea that "this is my lane, how dare you move into it"
On the other hand, there's more than enough twats who think indicating means they can simply start barging into a lane regardless of whether there's space/it's safe to do so.
|>>|| No. 19697
It certainly doesn't mean "barge in like a cunt."
They're called indicators because they indicate your intentions of what you want to do. They're not carte blanche to drive like a selfish knobhead with no courtesy to other drivers and they certainly don't give you the right to switch lanes the instant you've put your indicators on while expecting everyone else to accommodate you or get taken out.
|>>|| No. 19700
>they certainly don't give you the right to switch lanes the instant you've put your indicators on while expecting everyone else to accommodate you or get taken out.
U wot m8? You sound like one of those cunts who just pulls out on a roundabout because the driver approaching isn't indicating. It's their right of way, of course you accommodate them, you mong.
|>>|| No. 19701
So if I'm doing 75 and there's someone in the lane to my right pushing nearly 100 it's perfectly fine for me to pull in front of them, as long as I've got my indicators on, because they should slam on their brakes to accommodate me rather than me doing the sensible thing and waiting until they've passed?
|>>|| No. 19702
It's fine if you can satisfy yourself that you've taken the precautions in Rule 133.
|>>|| No. 19703
>If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over.
In other words, it's almost impossible and confirms what we've been saying all along, i.e. people who indicate and move at the same time, regardless of whether it's clear, safe or will force others to brake, or try and barge in are complete and utter bellends.
|>>|| No. 19704
>people who indicate and move at the same time
Don't forget that special type of driver who doesn't indicate until he's already halfway over the lines.
|>>|| No. 19706
Seeing as you can't force your way into another lane without impeding other drivers, going against rule 133, I'd say it does.
When I was learning my instructor told me that I should never manoeuvre if it's going to impede other drivers, unless they've gestured to let me in, and it's advice I still follow many years later. By all means use your indicators as an excuse to use your car like a battering ram and that other cars should slam on their brakes to accommodate you, rather than waiting until it's clear/safe/they've gestured to let you in, because of "muh right of way", but don't be surprised when the majority of drivers think you're an inconsiderate arsehole.
|>>|| No. 19707
Have you considered the possibility that if you think people are constantly "barging in" on you that maybe you're the one with the poor positioning?
|>>|| No. 19708
I've never said that it happens frequently, nor that I'm the one being barged in front of. Having said that, I commute on a couple of motorways and I see overly aggressive driving several times on a daily basis.
If you think this type of inconsiderate and selfish driving is acceptable I'm going to take a wild guess and say you drive a German car. Failing that, a Vectra with tinted windows.
|>>|| No. 19710
>I've never said that it happens frequently, nor that I'm the one being barged in front of.
That's funny, because I've never suggested that blatantly cutting people up is acceptable either. I guess that makes us even.
|>>|| No. 19711
Really? You don't think that if people keep punching you in bars that maybe you should consider being less of an arsehole?
|>>|| No. 19714
>I've never suggested that blatantly cutting people up is acceptable either.
You actually know what barging into a lane is, right?
|>>|| No. 19732
>The Briton convicted ... accused police of treating him like a common criminal.
What a twat.
|>>|| No. 19733
He does have a point, to be fair. If he's the only person convicted of the offence, he's a very uncommon criminal indeed.
|>>|| No. 19734
Our Gaz who was nicked for shoplifting from Lidl was the only one convicted for shoplifting on that day so he's also an uncommon criminal because every circumstance is unique. Did he expect to be let off with a party strewn with "FIRST CONVICTION" banners and cake or something?
|>>|| No. 19735
No, he's not uncommon. It's just that everyone else had the sense to take the fixed penalty instead of going to court.
|>>|| No. 19748
A speed camera went off on me. I don't remember how fast I was going. Hopefully it is just a fine. Please lord, no prosecution.
Fuck the empty roads at midnight. So tempting to just go a tiny bit faster and faster and faster.
|>>|| No. 19749
I won't say you deserve prosecution but you do need a wakeup call.
>Nationwide, 49% of fatal crashes happen at night, with a fatality rate per mile of travel about three times as high as daytime hours.
|>>|| No. 19751
If it was really late at night it might have been a test. Alternatively, the camera could be fucked. I had a camera go off on me at around Merton o'clock one morning, despite knowing that I was doing no more than about 20 because my brakes were starting to go. I had seen the same camera go off while walking towards it with nobody else on the road. I'd also managed to reliably get it to go off by driving at it at speed in the opposite direction (which it clearly couldn't see). I bet that scared the shit out of a few people. Needless to say I never actually received a NIP after passing that particular camera. Unfortunately the camera at that site is now in proper working order after the original one there got a necklacing a couple of years ago.
|>>|| No. 19752
>but you do need a wakeup call
I would have thought that if he's in the driving seat already it's a bit late for that.
|>>|| No. 19753
Speed responsibly. Once you know where the cameras are you can get away with it.
A few months back I thought a traffic control flashed at me for going through an amber light, but nothing came of it so I'm golden.
|>>|| No. 19754
That's what? £80 and 3 points?
Lads, would 3 points ever cost you in any way from getting employed? Say as a minicab, bus, or taxi driver.
|>>|| No. 19755
It's a bit too late for that now. I never had a camera go off on me. When it happened, I had a sinking feeling like I failed an exam. Overreaction, I know, but still, now I am sullied.
First time offenders should get a warning or something.
Stop with the false hope lads. I'm dreading the stupid letter, with the HD pictures that will come within the next few days.
I rarely speed. It was just late, and there wasn't anybody else on the road, so I lost concentration and just drifted a bit.
|>>|| No. 19756
It will rule you out absolutely for any job with the advertised requirement of "clean driving licence", not least because if they're the sort to specifically advertise it they're not the sort to negotiate over it. It'll make almost no difference to your personal insurance, but it may have an effect on a company policy, for which the company may have taken a discount by limiting who can drive the vehicles. One of the more common limitations is "under six points only", though I wouldn't be surprised if "clean licences only" was available for a further discount.
|>>|| No. 19758
For first time offenders there is usually the choice of taking a "speed awareness" course, which waives the fine and penalty points. (But you do have to pay around £80 to take the course).
|>>|| No. 19759
Yup. Unless you were absolutely taking the piss, you'll probably end up being lectured on road safety in a dismal conference room by a bloke in polyester trousers.
|>>|| No. 19761
I'm told that the NDORS courses are actually reasonably decent, and that the ones organised by the police are typically better than the ones organised by private companies.
|>>|| No. 19771
Can you send someone else? Say you went for a holiday and sent your brother? Do they ask for ID?
|>>|| No. 19773
My source tells me that your documents are checked thoroughly at the start of the course, and you may be removed if anything doesn't add up.
|>>|| No. 19778
I know a couple of IFAs who went on speeding courses and ended up getting a fair few clients out of it because the courses tend to be full of well off businessmen, full of their own self importance, speeding around in BMWs.
|>>|| No. 19806
These police powers are fucking stupid anyway. Next thing you know, they'll be dishing out fines for not keeping your eyes on the road because you were looking at the speedo, and then it'll just be coppers handing out tickets whenever they fucking feel like it.
|>>|| No. 19808
>“It is just ridiculous - all I was doing was committing an offence carrying a fine of up to £1000
Fixed that for him.
|>>|| No. 19809
I don't see why this is an offence! You only have to slow down a smidge to get behind, or speed up to get in front. How do you hog an entire lane?
|>>|| No. 19810
You seem to have answered your own point there. It's an offence because it's really bad form and pissingly simple to avoid.
|>>|| No. 19811
I was looking up penalty points just now, and driving while disqualified has a minimum of six, but causing death in apparently any circumstances has a minimum of three.
|>>|| No. 19812
Flagrantly disobeying the law and holding it in contempt after the justice system has intervened in your life is not looked upon too favourably by the law. What a shocker. You can kill someone while driving and it be barely if at all your fault. Also note you're looking at minimums. I bet you can lose your license instantly if you were taking the piss and someone died as a result. It makes more sense than you're giving it credit for.
|>>|| No. 19813
You can kill someone and have it be barely your fault, sure. You can also kill someone and have it definitely be your fault because you were driving totally recklessly and dangerously. The minimum points you can have your licence endorsed with will still be three, which as I said is half that of being caught behind the wheel popping to the shops after being banned.
|>>|| No. 19849
Why does the DM desperately want me to stop eating bananas? Usually it's just because something inside the bag might want to eat me instead, but now there's a chance I'll be fined for eat one? Does Paul Dacre hate the smell or something?
Also, for some reason I don't think that she would have been fined had it been a chocolate bar or something. I don't know why, but I still think I'm correct.
|>>|| No. 19851
>Does Paul Dacre hate the smell or something?
This made me laugh such that a colleague gave me a quizzical look. Can you believe that the joke didn't translate when I explained it?
|>>|| No. 19857
Disgusting bananas coming over here and taking our drivers, or something like that.
|>>|| No. 19858
>Eating while driving is not a specific offence. However, anyone distracted behind the wheel or failing to operate their vehicle correctly because they are eating could be committing an offence of driving without due care and attention, or not being in proper control of a vehicle.
As I thought. So she can contest the fine and given traffic was at a standstill will probably win.
Non-story this methinks.
|>>|| No. 19859
I predict the following in a couple of months
>JUSTICE for driver fined for eating a banana in a traffic jam.
|>>|| No. 19869
But make sure the use of caps has no rhyme or reason about it. Just random words with no special relevance.
|>>|| No. 19907
INDICATING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PARALLEL PARK? I'M GOING TO COMPLETELY IGNORE IT AND STOP IMMEDIATELY BEHIND YOU SO THERE'S NO ROOM FOR YOU TO REVERSE.
|>>|| No. 19909
Fuck's sake. That and WAITING TO PARALLEL PARK ON A NARROW STREET? I'M JUST GOING TO OVERTAKE YOU ANYWAY.
|>>|| No. 19911
Also, while we're at it, HEY LET'S JUST PULL UP IN THIS CONVENIENTLY LOCATED BUS STOP WITH A 5-MINUTE SERVICE AND WAIT FOR A WHILE, NOBODY'S GOING TO NOTICE.
And I CAN SEE YOU'RE STANDING OUTSIDE THE CAR WITH YOUR FLASHERS ON IN THE MIDDLE LANE BUT I'M STILL GOING TO STOP BEHIND YOU AND HONK MY HORN LIKE A CUNT.
|>>|| No. 19912
YELLING ABOUT THINGS!
Also the man who just decided to drive right on by after the woman in front of him had stopped to let me cross the road.
|>>|| No. 19914
I thought it was about bad drivers? That guy was driving badly, aggressively even.
|>>|| No. 19916
THERE ARE TWO LANES ON APPROACH TO THE JUNCTION BUT I'M GOING TO STRADDLE BOTH OF THEM SO NOBODY CAN GET PAST ME
|>>|| No. 20067
I realise I'm going to come across as an absolute bellend but, thanks to someone throwing themselves off a bridge on to the M62, it took me an extra 3 hours to get home today, 20 minutes of which was spent in front of someone with either their full beam on or those ridiculous bright headlights.
|>>|| No. 20186
I had a lorry driver blasting his horn at me for having the audacity to stop at a green light to give way to an ambulance. If we were travelling at speed or if he was extremely close to me I may have understood it but, nah, he's an absolute cunt.
|>>|| No. 20187
Fuck off. Lorries are difficult to drive, and your break checking ever couple of miles doesn't help.
|>>|| No. 20188
>If we were travelling at speed
We weren't even doing 10mph. The alternative would have been driving into the ambulance or forcing it to brake sharply. If you don't notice a luminous yellow vehicle with flashing lights and a siren booming out then you have no place on the road.
|>>|| No. 20189
10mph is hard for a lorry. Your start-stopping nonsense doesn't change that.
|>>|| No. 20190
He didn't blast his horn because he had to suddenly stop, as this wasn't the case because he had more than enough time and space to. He blasted his horn because he was more concerned about getting past the lights before they turned red than about an ambulance getting to its destination as quickly and safely as possible in an emergency because he's a self absorbed cunt.
|>>|| No. 20191
Ambulance drivers are self absorbed cunts. They turn their sirens and lights on for shits and giggles to beat the traffic, not for emergencies.
|>>|| No. 20192
They also turn on their sirens and lights for emergencies, so unless you have x-ray vision you should consider it so.
|>>|| No. 20193
Also what kind of a retard do you have to be to think that paramedics are "self-absorbed cunts"? If they were self-absorbed cunts they wouldn't be fucking paramedics, would they? What do you do, divvy?
|>>|| No. 20194
Oh give me a break. Are you those lot who worship firemen, paramedics and soldiers? Yeah, fuck off mate.
It doesn't matter if it is an emergency or not since they muddied the waters with their fake sirens already.
|>>|| No. 20195
>It doesn't matter if it is an emergency or not
I image it does to the person they're rushing towards or to hospital.
|>>|| No. 20196
Stop drinking, being this much of a belligerent cunt must be harming your loved ones.
|>>|| No. 20197
Fuck them. Maybe there should be a law to ban sillymedics from using the sirens for non emergencies.
|>>|| No. 20205
Been a while since I've seen an honest-to-god troll. First it was about lorries not having stopping distance and now it's about ambulances not actually being on emergencies. Michty me.
|>>|| No. 20207
Yeah, everyone knows it's the police who dick about on blue lights for no reason. Both I and a mate have seen pandas pull up outside a chippy on blues and leave with chips.
|>>|| No. 20216
I've seen a fire engine go past with its blues and twos on only for them to head back a few minutes later with them all eating Chinky.
This post marks the first and last times I'll ever use blues and twos.
|>>|| No. 20979
Those cunts didn't send me anything, although now I am sure I was going maybe 10 to 15 miles over the speed limit. Their shitty cameras failed. I hate them so much now that I speed a lot right after I go past one at a slow speed.
|>>|| No. 21255
I really don't understand car insurance. Last year my premium was around £315, although I used Top CashBack and got £30. This year they've reduced it to ~£290 but the best quote I've seen shopping around, bearing in mind I've also moved to a nicer area and my car is now on a driveway instead of the street,, is £370 and the most competitive quote for my current insurer on these sites is ~£450.
|>>|| No. 21258
Are you sure you've updated your details properly on those sites? Are you sure you've updated your details properly with your current insurer?
I'm surprised you managed to get a quote out of your current insurer, as every time I did it my insurer showed up on comparison sites as "quote unavailable".
|>>|| No. 21262
Yes to both, I even got a small refund when I moved. Then again, I was with Aviva for five years and, until last year, their quotes were always considerably better than elsewhere. I can't think why every other insurer is at least £60 more expensive than the cheapest one last year, though.
|>>|| No. 21397
I'm sure this has been moaned about plenty of times before, but fuck people who think their car headlights have only two settings "Off" and "High-beam".
Seriously, fuck those people who ever they are, and since I see so many people with their high-beams on in broad fucking daylight, I can only assume that they have some sort of serious mental defect and aren't just being a godawful cunt on purpose.
|>>|| No. 21398
There was thick thog the other week and the amount of cars driving around without any lights on was ridiculous. The visibility was barely 100 yards.
|>>|| No. 21399
I think it's because cars nowadays seem to be designed for either retards, or children. Automatic lights, those daft lights on the dash that tell you when you switch gear, reversing sensors, and satnavs that tell you everything up to which lane to be in so you don't even have to bother looking at signs...
Automobiles are powerful machines that we should treat with respect, but we're starting to treat them as appliances. People would be a lot safer without all this guff because they would have to think about what they are doing when they are operating a vehicle instead of just stepping in the brum brum magic box that takes them to work.
I blame the Americans, with their giant luxury 4x4 go-karts. No wonder so many people die on the roads over there.
|>>|| No. 21400
>I think it's because cars nowadays seem to be designed for either retards, or children. Automatic lights, those daft lights on the dash that tell you when you switch gear, reversing sensors, and satnavs that tell you everything up to which lane to be in so you don't even have to bother looking at signs...
>Automobiles are powerful machines that we should treat with respect, but we're starting to treat them as appliances. People would be a lot safer without all this guff because they would have to think about what they are doing when they are operating a vehicle instead of just stepping in the brum brum magic box that takes them to work.
Maybe partly... The level of automation we have now has only became commonplace in the last half decade, and right now deaths on the roads are at pretty much and all time low. And twats blinding people with headlights isn't a new problem either, it's been going on forever. I think automation is making the roads safer for the most part, but it is at the cost of making people worse drivers as you said.
At the moment most new drivers are going to be getting 5-10 year old cars as their first car. They'll have some experience of driving a car purely with their own skill. In another decade or two, few 20 year olds will have ever sat behind a wheel of a car that required your full attention to every aspect.
>I blame the Americans, with their giant luxury 4x4 go-karts. No wonder so many people die on the roads over there.
I think the problem with America is mainly due to every road being incredibly wide and straight. American drivers don't get a chance to develop real manoeuvring skills and the monotony of the roads is very bad for maintaining alertness.
|>>|| No. 21605
I was coming home on the M1 the other day at rush hour when an ambulance came past. A white van man took the opportunity to zoom behind it and whizz past all of the cars that had moved out of the way.
|>>|| No. 21607
There's nothing more liberating than driving a vehicle you don't own. It's why trade vehicle drivers are invariably utter cunts. The effect is worse when you put them in hi vis.
There's a bit in game of thrones when Ian Glen says 'There's a beast in every man, and it stirs whenever you put a sword in his hand'. I have a similar feeling about guys in trade vehicles and hi vis.
|>>|| No. 21608
I once did something similar. I don't know why I did it. I don't know why I take the risks I take most of the time.
|>>|| No. 21609
Because you secretly want to be Hugh Grant in About a Boy so you can invite children around to your place without being suspected of noncery.
|>>|| No. 21721
I'M TURNING RIGHT AT THE T-JUNCTION AHEAD. IF I POSITIONED MY CAR NEXT TO THE LINE THERE'D BE ENOUGH ROOM FOR A CAR TURNING LEFT TO SQUEEZE THROUGH, BUT I HAVE NO INTENTION OF FOING THAT.
|>>|| No. 21722
I like to look at both sides before turning in a junction. 9/10 a car on the left of my car would obstruct my view. So I inconvenience them for my own benefit.
|>>|| No. 21724
I've been accidentally guilty of this a couple of times and I always feel like a right cunt. The thought process goes "why is this prick on my arse? I'm doing...oh shit 65, better floor it to compensate".
Additionally nothing gives me road rage more than drivers tailgating or flashing their lights at me to speed up, when I'm doing the speed limit on the nose. The fantasy is to slam the brakes on and get out and point at the speed signs while screaming.
|>>|| No. 21726
I fantasise about holding up a speed sign when I'm waiting to cross the road and see a speeding car oncoming.
I once made a wanker gesture at a speeding car. They turned around and came back. The rest of that encounter is something I'd rather forget.
|>>|| No. 21734
I'm one of those annoying cunts who will pull over on a dual carriageway to let a speeding driver pass, but I change lane as sloowwwly as I can get away with.
Although the worst is times when I've been going at just about 80 (speedometer reading) and I still get people tailgating me.
|>>|| No. 21735
I used to work at a business that required regular HGV deliveries with the only access being via a front entrance on a main road with a parking bay outside that was a free for all which was meant to be 30mins only parking but this was a semi-residential area so had cars always there for hours, we ended up being approved by the council to use cones to block off a space large enough for a HGV when it was on the way.
Police probably wouldn't care but also wouldn't care if said neighbours moved the cones and parked there leaving the cones on her doorstep.
|>>|| No. 21816
I was just crossing the road to get to my own house. A school has been built nearby, so there's recently been a lot of traffic calming measures, including extensions on the pavement forcing people to slow down and turn. This is the point where I crossed.
I just got a drawn out, shrill beep at because I forced someone to slow down ever so slightly by walking at a normal pace across the road. It's meant to be 20mph anyway.
Sometime must happen to people when they drive too much. Anecdotally I've known friends become incredibly precious and inclined to bend rules (only in their own favour) once they get used to the convenience. I'd be lying if I said I'm not bothered by this.
|>>|| No. 21825
>on a driveway
There you go lad. That's why.
Richer people from "nicer areas" are more likely to have cars, and therefore car insurance. The more people that have insurance, the more people there are to claim on it and when they do it will be for a more expensive car than a poor person in a shitty area where hardly anyone can afford a car anyway. You're a higher risk for the insurer now.
Also, never tell them it's parked on the drive. Improvements in anti-theft mechanisms have meant that cars are more likely to be nicked by someone who has spotted your car on the drive and then breaks into your house while you're out to take the keys and drive away. Very few cars are broken into on the street and hotwired any more. If it's on the street, it could belong to anyone. If it's on the driveway of an empty house, 90% chance the key is in the house, probably somewhere obvious like on a table in the hallway.
When dealing with insurers, ALWAYS weasel, bend the truth, lie, cheat, bluff and bullshit. They are cunts and they deserve nothing less.
|>>|| No. 21844
Surely if you tell them you park it on the street and your car gets broken into whilst it's on the drive they would quite easily realise you lied to them and invalidate your cover?
|>>|| No. 21845
Surely if insurance companies think it makes more sense to park it on the street, then it doe in fact make more sense to park it on the street in the first place?
|>>|| No. 21847
I reckon a car on a drive will be more likely to get robbed, but a car on the street will almost inevitably be dinged or scratched or lose a wing mirror.
Of course, if my motor is pinched, I pay my couple of hundred quid excess and get a new(ish) like for like replacement. If a pikey smashes a headlight and legs it, then that's fifty quid out of my pocket and the insurance company won't even hear about it. Ideologically, the former is preferable, though not as economical.
|>>|| No. 21849
NAAAAAHHHHHH, dont be daft. Firstly how likely is it that someone is ACTUALLY going to break into your house to nick your car? If it's a normal car, it's unlikely. If it's a brand new German saloon or a supercar then it's not impossible but still rare. Second, if it does happen, just swear blind that it was on the road outside your house and the bastards must've watched you pull up and go into your house one day.
All you are doing is flinging the same poop that the insurers do when they use every little thing to bleed more cash out of you. Lie, cheat, weasel, and don't get caught. They are cunts. They deserve it.
|>>|| No. 21865
The difference is that, unlike you, they're entitled by law to do it. It's blatantly unfair in the modern age, but the industry refuses to catch up with the times because it's not in their interest to do so. It would be handy if you could put on your form that anything you haven't declared but is available to them is to be treated as having been declared, but you can't. They are legally entitled to accept your application even if the DVLA tells them your "clean" licence has six points on it, or that your model doesn't come with the immobiliser and alarm you said it did, take your money, and then refuse to pay out for non-disclosure. The duty of due diligence that might apply everywhere else simply does not apply to the insurance industry.
Also bear in mind that if you've got CCTV, the police can demand it when they're investigating, as a result of you reporting the vehicle as stolen, which you had to do to be able to claim off the insurance in the first place. The insurers' efforts when it comes to claims are proportional to the value involved. There are generally two lines involved. Anything under around £500 is typically paid out almost without question, because often it's not worth their time to figure things out. Anything over around £1000 will be scrutinised, to the point of sending out someone to see if the details you've given stack up. If you say it's been stolen, and you say it was usually parked on the street, but you have a driveway and your street has double yellows, they'll get suspicious. Bear in mind that if they suspect fraud, they'll register it with various industry bodies, which will affect your future premiums on pretty much anything as well as your credit rating.
|>>|| No. 22192
THE MOTORWAY IS ABSOLUTELY SODDEN? I'M GOING TO OVERTAKE AND THEN PULL RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, DESPITE THE ROAD AHEAD BEING CLEAR, SO ALL YOU CAN SEE IS THE SPRAY OFF MY CAR.
|>>|| No. 22193
I fucking hate that.
I'll also add; people driving at 80mph when there's standing water on the road.
|>>|| No. 22194
>There's traffic and all three lanes are crawling
>Even though all lanes move roughly at the same pace (even if some get further ahead than others before balancing out) I'm gonna indicate incessantly an change lanes everytime I think one is getting somewhere
>I'll keep doing this and flying into dangerously small gaps so I can crawl forward about 5 cars and save 3 seconds off my journey but use about a tenner in fuel!
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 22197
Well, that's clearly not caps posting. I think you may be mistaking this place for funchan; greentexting stories isn't the done thing around these parts.
|>>|| No. 22204
I'll help you both more than you'll ever help me - stop spending your Friday nights worrying about minor posting paradigms on an online image board.
You pedants never realise the true irony in that your obsessive responses to these posts do more to rubbish the content of a thread than some (relevant) greentexting ever could.
|>>|| No. 22205
Also, speaking of standards, it should be 'there're' or 'there are' because there is more than one standard, making it plural and making what you wrote incorrect.
|>>|| No. 22207
>Get upset about some greentext
>Moan about standards but fail on basic grammar
>Pretend the other person is angry and frustrated.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 22208
Last time I checked "Anonymous" does not mean "definitely the same person" but please continue with your whinge there cuz.
|>>|| No. 22489
Someone tried cutting past me while I was on the middle of a three point turn, including mounting the kerb, before angrily beeping their horn at me when they realised they didn't have enough room to sneak past.
|>>|| No. 22490
Today someone tried undertaking me on a roundabout, just as I needed to turn off. He was driving a BMW, obviously.
|>>|| No. 22491
My girlfriend had a flat tyre yesterday so she went to Kwik Fit. It turns out they've put the damaged tyre in the boot and thrown the emergency one which was in there away. She said her engine warning light came on straight after leaving, so I wouldn't be surprised if they've fucked something else up too.
|>>|| No. 22493
>It turns out they've put the damaged tyre in the boot and thrown the emergency one which was in there away.
No they didn't.
They definitely haven't thrown the spare tyre away. They've kept it and they'll sell it.
Regarding the engine warning light, get her to check if it is definitely the "engine" light, or a light that looks like one of the ones here <--
A lot of modern cars have tyre pressure sensors that need to be reset after a tyre is changed.
|>>|| No. 22596
I am a terrible human being. I've just beeped my horn at someone who decided to cut into my lane on a roundabout, only for it to turn out to be a tiny elderly woman. I feel awful.
|>>|| No. 22597
Don't feel bad. Anyone over the age of 70 should have to take regular mandatory re-tests, or be banned from driving. The number of completely unsafe elderly drivers on our roads who won't give up out of pride or ignorance is ridiculous.
Of course, no government is going to risk alienating their elderly voters by doing anything this sensible.
|>>|| No. 23235
But how can they vote against you if you don't let them drive anymore? Maybe this could work out.
|>>|| No. 23236
The gammy bastards would crawl through a mile of broken glass to vote. Once every 1,825 days, we're legally obliged to listen to the opinions of the elderly. The bigoted old cunts wouldn't miss that for all the tea in China and all the custard creams in the nice tin.
|>>|| No. 23237
I start work in a month in a job 35 miles away and I haven't driven since I passed my test five years ago. I have no idea what to look for in a car or how much I should expect to pay for one.
|>>|| No. 23248
Well, most of that's entirely up to you. If you want something that will reliably get you from A to B and nothing else, you can go down to £1k and get a 10-year-old Ford Focus. If you want something faster or flashier, or have a specific request then that changes.
|>>|| No. 23264
I had this exact same thing literally about a year ago lad.
It probably doens't help but I just bought the first shit heap that wouldn't blow up on the motorway and drove it into the ground whilst I got settled and saved a bit.
You'll be fine with the driving too. It took me about two weeks before I felt like I'd never stopped.
|>>|| No. 23299
My car was apparently 33.5°C when I got in it. Even better was when I put my glasses on and they nearly melted into my face.
|>>|| No. 23412
How exactly are people meant to be able to read a sign like the one pictured, whilst travelling at >60mph?
|>>|| No. 23414
What annoys me is when the motorway says slow down to 30/40 because of 'people on the road' because, every time it's happened, I've never seen them.
|>>|| No. 23415
Even if you have perfect 20/20 vision, you've got the better part of about 2 seconds to read about 6 lines of text.
|>>|| No. 23425
40 limit lanes coming down from 70 on 'smart' motorways, with no staggered drop. By the time you can be expected to read the sign, it's too close to do a smooth slowdown. What are we supposed to do, slam the fucking brakes on? Luckily it seems the speed cameras don't nick you.
|>>|| No. 24385
MOTORWAY'S SOAKING WET BECAUSE IT'S ABSOLUTELY PISSING IT DOWN? I'M GOING TO OVERTAKE AND THEN PULL RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU SO ALL YOU CAN SEE IS THE SPRAY OFF MY CAR.
|>>|| No. 24386
STUCK IN A QUEUE BECAUSE IT'S ABSOLUTELY PISSING IT DOWN? I'M GONNA RAM RIGHT UP YOUR ARSE EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T GO ANYWHERE AND WHEN A TINY GAP OPENS UP IN FRONT OF YOU, I'M GONNA GET IN A PANIC IF YOU DON'T IMMEDIATELY ACCELERATE RIGHT UP TO THE CAR IN FRONT AND SLAM THE BRAKES ON.
|>>|| No. 24514
On the way to work there's a T-junction, which I need to turn left at. There's more than enough room for two cars at the end but almost every morning I'm stuck behind some knobhead turning right who has decided to wait right in the middle of the lane so there isn't the room to pull up next to them.
|>>|| No. 24515
I have a similar road on my way to work, but it's a whole 200m stretch where there's usually a long queue of traffic waiting to go right, and not many people going left.
Oh and of course, those dickheads who use the left hand lane to queue jump and undertake on the roundabout.
|>>|| No. 24559
Got fucking beeped at this morning for NOT blocking a junction. I let two cars turn in front of me, because the lights further on were still red so whats the fucking point of rolling forward yet. But I still get fucking beeped as if I'd fallen asleep at the wheel. So I roll four metres forward and we sit there for another three minutes waiting for the light and I hope the cunt understood that my flailing rage arms meant "There you go, are you happy now you cunt? Now you get to wait in traffic a whole cars length further up"
|>>|| No. 24562
This happens to me all the time. I've concluded that people are just thick as pig shit.
They'll happy blocks junction of cars coming from the other way but then wonder why there's a big queue and why traffic is moving so slow on their end.
It drives me mental, it's the fact they think you're the idiot for not driving like a dickhead. You fucked up by giving in.
I've learnt that in driving whenever somebody is driving like a dickhead behind you, they'll soon give up when they realise it's only causing you to do the opposite of what they want.
It's the same when people drive up my arse on the motorway when there's traffic, I just break slowly and carefully way before the queue meaning that they have to as well. Eventually they get the message and stop driving up my arse because they don't want to have to start breaking suddenly.
|>>|| No. 24568
You're at a roundabout. A car approaching from the right doesn't bother indicating, so you sit and wait as s/he turns off. Steam from ears mists up the two front windows. Honking is pointless, coz they are driving away from you.
|>>|| No. 24569
It's okay. Just make sure you do that to somebody else. I always do that.
|>>|| No. 24570
Since my commute time changed from 0600 to 0745 I've noticed a lot of shit eating cunts doing this, I don't know if its the morning blues or what but it fucks me off and has lead to me more than once cutting them up.
|>>|| No. 24572
I was cycling and approaching a junction with give way markings. I could hear motor vehicles approaching from behind but stayed in the middle of the lane as I knew they'd be changing speed or direction anyway once we reached the junction. I stopped and started looking left and right when this fucking white van pulls up on my right side, looks for traffic, and then turns right and drives off without a care in the world. Like he couldn't possible give me as a cyclist the same patience at the junction a motorist would. The Highway Code specifically states not to overtake at a junction.
Pic related, came from southwest.
|>>|| No. 24573
Sometimes when I drive, cyclists don't register in my brain. To be honest, I don't really like them.
|>>|| No. 24574
I'm a cyclist and I don't like other cyclists.
I think there should be a information campaign on etiquette of cyclists because the amount of times I've seen the cyclist being a twat rather than the driver, is too many. These are not limited to:
- Just catching the last nano-second of the amber light and still crossing the road.
- Driving through a red-light pedestrian crossing, and causing drivers to slam on their brakes because the cyclist judged their speed/distance incorrectly. Seen this happen on a monthly/fortnightly basis, incredible.
- Despite their being a dedicated cycle path, they still insist on cycling in traffic, busy, two lane roundabouts included. Do you have a deathwish, idiots? If it's a truck vs. a squishy, lycra-clad bellend, who do you think will win?
- No lights. No indicators of any kind.
- Strobe lights aimed directly into my eyes. Fucking fuck fuck, why are you such a tool you can't realise that a flashing light is going to dazzle and confuse on-comers? Cunts.
- When on a cycling lane, traffic flows exactly like on the road, twat.
- Don't fucking cycle abreast of your mate(s), you are a massive cunt if you do.
This is just a small list, but I've been commuting on bike for 10 years, and some of them have been in Scandinavian countries where the bicycle culture is ingrained into society - and no one acts like a suicide donut. It's going to take some effort to get everyone; pedestrians, cars, cyclists on the same page.
|>>|| No. 24575
My dad has been a lycra-wearing cyclist since the 70s, and says pretty much the same things.
|>>|| No. 24583
>Despite their being a dedicated cycle path, they still insist on cycling in traffic, busy, two lane roundabouts included. Do you have a deathwish, idiots? If it's a truck vs. a squishy, lycra-clad bellend, who do you think will win?
In fairness, cycle paths and lanes are often unusable due to debris. Motor traffic sweeps all the crap off the road surface and right onto the cycle path. I regularly cycle on a busy dual carriageway, because the cycle path is so full of broken glass as to be impassible.
|>>|| No. 24584
Interesting how my post about a motorist being a cunt to a cyclist instantly became about cyclists being cunts in the eyes of motorists.
Yeah so you've see a few cyclists not pay attention to red lights, what the fuck does that have to do with me exactly?
|>>|| No. 24784
Quick road etiquette question. If you're driving on country roads in the dark where you'll need your full beam on should you turn it off and go back to your normal headlights when there's a car approaching from the opposite direction? I always do it but this evening I've had quite a few cars dazzle me by leaving theirs on.
|>>|| No. 24787
Don't bother. I never turn off the full beam unless the cunt dazzling me turns it off. I would rather die in a car crash than catch cancer from raging.
|>>|| No. 24790
That's part of the highway code and I'm even relatively sure I had a question along those lines on my theory test.
The answer is yes, by the way, and you should also turn them off when you are following a car.
That said I'm noticing there's a trend towards headlights in general getting brighter. Half the time it may seem like their full beam is on but in reality it's just the obnoxious super-bright LED cunt-lights on some twat's Chelsea tractor. That shit fucks me off to no end when I'm going down the motorway at night with one of these knob-stains shining their bullshit up my arse and reflecting off the mirrors directly into my eyes.
|>>|| No. 24791
Yeah I used to get annoyed by super-bright LED cunt-lights, so I just started driving faster.