[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
stuffwehate

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 5103)
Message
File  []
close
082036_72e615fe.jpg
510351035103
>> No. 5103 Anonymous
22nd September 2011
Thursday 9:56 pm
5103 spacer
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.
Expand all images.
>> No. 5104 Anonymous
22nd September 2011
Thursday 10:21 pm
5104 spacer
>>5103

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 Anonymous
22nd September 2011
Thursday 10:24 pm
5105 spacer
>>5103
Oh fuck me I hate these cunts, they really are utter BASTARDS
>> No. 5106 Anonymous
22nd September 2011
Thursday 10:47 pm
5106 spacer

tjun.jpg
510651065106
>>5104
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. 5107 Anonymous
22nd September 2011
Thursday 10:56 pm
5107 spacer

131672804517.jpg
510751075107
>>5106
This makes me madder.
>> No. 5108 Anonymous
22nd September 2011
Thursday 11:11 pm
5108 spacer
>>5107
Especially when it's a bus. I fucking hate bus drivers, they're all cunts.
>> No. 5112 Anonymous
23rd September 2011
Friday 7:46 pm
5112 spacer
>>5107
However, in heavy traffic, sometimes it's the only fucking way to get out.
>> No. 5113 Anonymous
23rd September 2011
Friday 8:13 pm
5113 spacer
>>5112

Looks like we've spotted one of the shit heads, chaps. What a cunt.
>> No. 5115 Anonymous
24th September 2011
Saturday 1:18 am
5115 spacer
>>5103
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH

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 Anonymous
24th September 2011
Saturday 10:10 pm
5125 spacer
>>5113
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 Anonymous
25th September 2011
Sunday 4:07 am
5126 spacer
>>5125
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 Anonymous
17th November 2011
Thursday 9:04 pm
5396 spacer
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. 5401 Anonymous
18th November 2011
Friday 2:14 pm
5401 spacer

Photo0001.jpg
540154015401
For fuck's sake ...
>> No. 5415 Anonymous
18th November 2011
Friday 8:50 pm
5415 spacer
>>5401

If you had bought a tank from the Net, you could have just driven over that.
>> No. 5416 Anonymous
18th November 2011
Friday 9:00 pm
5416 spacer
>>5401

That's almost funny. Maybe it was really, really dark when he parked?
>> No. 5417 Anonymous
18th November 2011
Friday 9:47 pm
5417 spacer
>>5416
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 Anonymous
22nd November 2011
Tuesday 2:11 am
5433 spacer
LOL WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I USE THE INDICATOR I DON'T THINK PEEPEL NEED TO KNOW WHERE I'M GOING!
>> No. 5434 Anonymous
22nd November 2011
Tuesday 2:33 am
5434 spacer
>>5433
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 Anonymous
22nd November 2011
Tuesday 2:11 pm
5438 spacer
>>5434

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 Anonymous
18th March 2012
Sunday 9:43 pm
6853 spacer
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 Anonymous
18th March 2012
Sunday 11:31 pm
6854 spacer

leftturn.png
685468546854
>>6853
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 Anonymous
18th March 2012
Sunday 11:46 pm
6855 spacer
>>5433

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 Anonymous
19th March 2012
Monday 11:27 am
6856 spacer
>>6853
On a related note, it's called

indicating


because it

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 Anonymous
19th March 2012
Monday 10:30 pm
6857 spacer
>>6856

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 Anonymous
20th March 2012
Tuesday 9:41 am
6860 spacer
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 Anonymous
21st March 2012
Wednesday 12:59 pm
6863 spacer
>Indicators

In Northampton, they are largely used for trying to send obscenities to other drivers using Morse code.
>> No. 6865 Anonymous
21st March 2012
Wednesday 2:00 pm
6865 spacer
>>6863

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 Anonymous
21st March 2012
Wednesday 9:53 pm
6872 spacer
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. 6873 Anonymous
21st March 2012
Wednesday 10:58 pm
6873 spacer
>>6872

Don't worry, you'll be taking them out of the gene pool.
>> No. 6881 Anonymous
27th March 2012
Tuesday 5:57 pm
6881 spacer
>>6854
I thought the left was for slow drivers, and middle and right is overtaking?

Don't drive yet.
>> No. 6882 Anonymous
27th March 2012
Tuesday 6:01 pm
6882 spacer
>>6881
I'm trying to see how your post is relevant to >>6854 but I just can't see it.
>> No. 6883 Anonymous
27th March 2012
Tuesday 7:07 pm
6883 spacer
>Don't drive yet.
Really? I couldn't tell, honestly.
>> No. 6885 Anonymous
28th March 2012
Wednesday 11:22 am
6885 spacer

m8.png
688568856885
>>6881

Practice is theory's younger, irrational, tearaway brother.
>> No. 6887 Anonymous
29th March 2012
Thursday 2:53 pm
6887 spacer
>>5434
Me again.

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 Anonymous
29th March 2012
Thursday 3:58 pm
6888 spacer
>>6887
> 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 Anonymous
29th March 2012
Thursday 4:30 pm
6890 spacer
>>6888

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 Anonymous
30th March 2012
Friday 12:02 pm
6891 spacer
>>6890

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 Anonymous
30th March 2012
Friday 12:16 pm
6892 spacer
>>6891
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 Anonymous
30th March 2012
Friday 12:33 pm
6895 spacer
>>5103

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 Anonymous
30th March 2012
Friday 2:17 pm
6897 spacer
>>6891
As long as every speeding motorist get's hung, drawn and quartered I'm with you.
>> No. 6898 Anonymous
30th March 2012
Friday 2:24 pm
6898 spacer
>>6897
> get's
Hung, drawn and quartered would be too kind for you.
>> No. 6900 Anonymous
30th March 2012
Friday 2:29 pm
6900 spacer
>>6891

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.

>>6898

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 Anonymous
30th March 2012
Friday 4:27 pm
6902 spacer
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 Anonymous
13th May 2012
Sunday 7:16 pm
7626 spacer
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 Anonymous
14th May 2012
Monday 12:44 pm
7636 spacer
>>7626
if they park too far away the weird guy watching will get their kids.
>> No. 7709 Anonymous
19th May 2012
Saturday 2:17 am
7709 spacer

car.jpg
770977097709
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 Anonymous
19th May 2012
Saturday 3:44 am
7710 spacer
I'M GOING TO DRIVE AT A CONSTANT 35MPH ABSOLUTELY FUCKING EVERYWHERE
>> No. 7711 Anonymous
19th May 2012
Saturday 7:35 am
7711 spacer
>>7710

This. I flick V-signs at people who do this while I'm overtaking them.
>> No. 7745 Anonymous
20th May 2012
Sunday 9:47 pm
7745 spacer
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 Anonymous
23rd July 2012
Monday 10:12 pm
8365 spacer
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 Anonymous
23rd July 2012
Monday 10:19 pm
8367 spacer
>>8365
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 Anonymous
23rd July 2012
Monday 10:24 pm
8368 spacer
>>8367
No, no, not dusk. Not even close to dusk. Just ever so slightly darker than mid-day and the lights are on.
>> No. 8370 Anonymous
23rd July 2012
Monday 10:34 pm
8370 spacer
>>8368
just saying, that's the flip side of the coin, both sets of people are undeniably arseholes.
>> No. 8373 Anonymous
24th July 2012
Tuesday 12:25 am
8373 spacer
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 Anonymous
24th July 2012
Tuesday 12:57 pm
8379 spacer
>>6888
>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 Anonymous
17th October 2012
Wednesday 9:06 am
9022 spacer
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 Anonymous
13th December 2012
Thursday 7:32 pm
9318 spacer

tj.png
931893189318
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. 9319 Anonymous
13th December 2012
Thursday 7:33 pm
9319 spacer
>>9318
What about if I clearly see you but carry on regardless?
>> No. 9321 Anonymous
13th December 2012
Thursday 7:43 pm
9321 spacer
>>9318
I do this all the time, secretly hoping that one day, one of them will hit me.
>> No. 9323 Anonymous
13th December 2012
Thursday 10:11 pm
9323 spacer
>>6854
I do this a lot. Don't expect me to take the right lane when it is miles long because of traffic.
>> No. 9324 Anonymous
13th December 2012
Thursday 10:41 pm
9324 spacer
>>9318
Technically the pedestrian has the right of way so if you hit them you are proper fucked.
>> No. 9325 Anonymous
14th December 2012
Friday 1:35 am
9325 spacer
>>9324
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 Anonymous
14th December 2012
Friday 8:57 am
9326 spacer
>>9323
Pull that shit in London and expect a bill for £120 in the post, you cunt.
>> No. 10516 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 8:35 am
10516 spacer
>>5396
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 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 9:00 am
10517 spacer
>>9324
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?

HWC:
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 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 9:01 am
10518 spacer
>>10516
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. 10520 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 9:56 am
10520 spacer

hc_rule_170_give_way_to_pedestrians_who_have_start.jpg
105201052010520
>>9318
This happens to me as a pedestrian a lot. It amazes me how few drivers seem to be aware that pedestrians can have right of way. Fuck you 9318, you don't own the roads.
>> No. 10522 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 10:17 am
10522 spacer
>>10520
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. 10524 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 10:50 am
10524 spacer
>>10522
She's wants to live the "haters gonna hate" lifestyle.
>> No. 10525 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 10:51 am
10525 spacer
>>10518
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. 10526 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 11:12 am
10526 spacer
>>10520

"But I had right of way" would be a really shitty epitaph.
>> No. 10527 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 11:16 am
10527 spacer
>>10525
As will I, but I'm not going to get aggrieved, or just join regardless if they don't...
>> No. 10528 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 11:26 am
10528 spacer
>>10526
Might is right, eh?
>>10522
It is common sense from the pedestrian point of view, but it's a point of ignorance from a lot of drivers.
>> No. 10529 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 11:34 am
10529 spacer
>>10528

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 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 11:41 am
10530 spacer
>>10529

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 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 11:55 am
10531 spacer
>>10529
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. 10532 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 11:59 am
10532 spacer
>>10531

One's ocular organs remain anhydrous m8.
>> No. 10533 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 12:52 pm
10533 spacer
>>10532
I'm sorry to hear that. What screenreader are you using out of interest?
>> No. 10534 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 12:57 pm
10534 spacer
>>10533

Blast, you got me there. Ah well, I know for next time.
>> No. 10535 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 2:18 pm
10535 spacer
>>9318
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 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 2:31 pm
10536 spacer
>>10535

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. 10537 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 2:43 pm
10537 spacer
>>10536

These people are called "cunts".
>> No. 10538 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 2:46 pm
10538 spacer
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. 10539 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 3:02 pm
10539 spacer
>>10538
Not illegal - against the highways code.
>> No. 10540 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 3:04 pm
10540 spacer
>>10539

Is there a difference?
>> No. 10541 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 3:14 pm
10541 spacer
>>10539>>10540

"Must/must not" means that rule is legally enforceable.
"Should/should not" means that it is not illegal.
>> No. 10542 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 3:17 pm
10542 spacer
>>10541

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. 10543 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 3:22 pm
10543 spacer
>>10542
You being sarcy? I can't tell.
>> No. 10544 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 3:28 pm
10544 spacer
>>10542

What?
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 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 3:32 pm
10545 spacer
>>10544

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.

>>10543

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 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 3:54 pm
10546 spacer
>>10545
>It seems absurd that some of them are rules and some are not.

Having two separate books would be absurd.
>> No. 10547 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 4:24 pm
10547 spacer
>>10546

So would having a collection of rules of which only some are rules.
>> No. 10548 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 4:26 pm
10548 spacer
>>10547

I keep a protractor in mine.
>> No. 10549 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 5:06 pm
10549 spacer
>>10535
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 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 5:36 pm
10550 spacer
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 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 6:17 pm
10551 spacer
>>10550
Isn't that just a rehash of the bike v. car cunt-offs that were done to death on /b/ and /pol/?
>> No. 10552 Anonymous
3rd June 2013
Monday 6:25 pm
10552 spacer
>>10551

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 Anonymous
5th June 2013
Wednesday 8:27 am
10591 spacer
>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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/05/middle-lane-hoggers-face-tougher-fines

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 Anonymous
5th June 2013
Wednesday 9:08 am
10593 spacer
>>10591

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 Anonymous
8th June 2013
Saturday 8:16 pm
10635 spacer
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 Anonymous
8th June 2013
Saturday 8:44 pm
10636 spacer
>>10593
>slow lane
>fast lane
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 Anonymous
8th June 2013
Saturday 9:02 pm
10637 spacer
>>10636

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 Anonymous
8th June 2013
Saturday 9:07 pm
10638 spacer
>>10637
I make a point of overtaking them and going into the left lane in front of them.
>> No. 10639 Anonymous
8th June 2013
Saturday 9:19 pm
10639 spacer
>>10637
>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 Anonymous
9th June 2013
Sunday 12:51 pm
10646 spacer
>>10639

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 Anonymous
9th June 2013
Sunday 3:07 pm
10652 spacer
>>10646
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 Anonymous
9th June 2013
Sunday 3:26 pm
10653 spacer
>>10646
>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 Anonymous
9th June 2013
Sunday 5:17 pm
10654 spacer
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 Anonymous
9th June 2013
Sunday 8:23 pm
10656 spacer
>>10654
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 Anonymous
9th June 2013
Sunday 9:23 pm
10657 spacer
>>10656
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 Anonymous
9th June 2013
Sunday 9:35 pm
10658 spacer
>>10657
Because that would involve me pointlessly moving over to the left into the wake of the HGV I'm about to pass.
>> No. 10659 Anonymous
9th June 2013
Sunday 9:45 pm
10659 spacer
>>10658
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 Anonymous
9th June 2013
Sunday 9:55 pm
10660 spacer
>>10659
>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 Anonymous
9th June 2013
Sunday 10:02 pm
10661 spacer
>>10660
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 Anonymous
9th June 2013
Sunday 10:04 pm
10662 spacer
>>10661
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 Anonymous
11th June 2013
Tuesday 2:49 am
10667 spacer
>>10656

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. 10668 Anonymous
11th June 2013
Tuesday 3:15 am
10668 spacer
>>10667
What are you on about? I don't see any backpedalling here.
>> No. 10675 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 8:34 am
10675 spacer
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 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 8:58 am
10676 spacer
>>10675
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 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 9:42 am
10677 spacer
>>10675
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 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 9:54 am
10678 spacer
>>10675
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 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 10:03 am
10679 spacer
>>10678
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. 10680 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 10:06 am
10680 spacer
>>10679
>>so I started overtaking and going into the lane as soon as I could
>> No. 10681 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 10:19 am
10681 spacer
>>10680
Indeed, but not sufficient to say, either way.
>> No. 10682 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 10:22 am
10682 spacer
>>10681
"DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict "

This sounds very much like conflict to me. >>10675 had no business overtaking.
>> No. 10683 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 10:44 am
10683 spacer
>>10682
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 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 2:14 pm
10686 spacer
>>10676
Naturally.u

>>10680
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 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 2:28 pm
10688 spacer
>>10686
>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 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 2:41 pm
10689 spacer
>>10688
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 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 2:46 pm
10690 spacer
>>10689
It's not clear whether the driver started overtaking before or after they reached the filter lane.
>> No. 10691 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 2:53 pm
10691 spacer
>>10690
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 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 3:27 pm
10692 spacer
>>10690
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 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 7:25 pm
10693 spacer
>>10682
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 Anonymous
12th June 2013
Wednesday 8:18 pm
10694 spacer
>>10693
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 Anonymous
6th July 2013
Saturday 11:16 am
11050 spacer
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 Anonymous
13th August 2013
Tuesday 6:11 pm
11549 spacer
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 Anonymous
16th August 2013
Friday 12:23 pm
11577 spacer
>>11050
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.

>>11549
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 Anonymous
16th August 2013
Friday 12:34 pm
11578 spacer
>>11577
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 Anonymous
16th August 2013
Friday 12:59 pm
11579 spacer
>>11577
Is there actually anything about accelerating after turning in the Highway Code?
>> No. 11582 Anonymous
16th August 2013
Friday 1:13 pm
11582 spacer
>>11579
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 Anonymous
21st August 2013
Wednesday 11:25 pm
11620 spacer
Driving in Wales. At least North and Central Wales.

The natives seem to have real problems with roundabouts, indicating and give way markings.
>> No. 11716 Anonymous
1st September 2013
Sunday 12:06 pm
11716 spacer

parkingspace.jpg
117161171611716
>>5103
I'll just leave this here. Which, coincidentally, is also what the cunt who did this was thinking.
>> No. 11717 Anonymous
1st September 2013
Sunday 12:09 pm
11717 spacer
>>11716

Probably left there for a completely good reason. Cars parked on corners can be a real menace.
>> No. 11718 Anonymous
1st September 2013
Sunday 12:16 pm
11718 spacer
>>11717
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. 11722 Anonymous
1st September 2013
Sunday 4:57 pm
11722 spacer
>>11718

Big society innit.
>> No. 11723 Anonymous
1st September 2013
Sunday 5:02 pm
11723 spacer
>>11718

Ends trump means lad.
>> No. 11753 Anonymous
2nd September 2013
Monday 1:06 am
11753 spacer
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. 11755 Anonymous
2nd September 2013
Monday 4:07 am
11755 spacer
>>11753
Fairly sure that's illegal
>> No. 11756 Anonymous
2nd September 2013
Monday 9:37 am
11756 spacer
>>11753
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 Anonymous
2nd September 2013
Monday 10:26 am
11762 spacer
>>11756
It's not "get dragged into the nick as soon as you're spotted doing it" illegal, but illegal nonetheless.
>> No. 11859 Anonymous
12th September 2013
Thursday 7:30 am
11859 spacer
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 Anonymous
12th September 2013
Thursday 10:15 am
11861 spacer
>>11859

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 Anonymous
12th September 2013
Thursday 10:56 am
11862 spacer
>>11861
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. 11863 Anonymous
12th September 2013
Thursday 11:08 am
11863 spacer
>>11862

But it's not just 'not condoned' it's stated to be incorrect.
>> No. 11864 Anonymous
12th September 2013
Thursday 11:33 am
11864 spacer
>>11863
And?
>> No. 11865 Anonymous
12th September 2013
Thursday 11:36 am
11865 spacer
>>11864

>>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 Anonymous
21st November 2013
Thursday 5:48 pm
12519 spacer
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 Anonymous
21st November 2013
Thursday 5:51 pm
12520 spacer
>>12519
Just let the fat bastard cross. It doesn't matter whether she was right or wrong.
>> No. 12521 Anonymous
21st November 2013
Thursday 6:47 pm
12521 spacer
>>12519
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 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 11:40 am
12522 spacer
>>12521
'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 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 3:34 pm
12523 spacer
>>12522
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 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 6:09 pm
12526 spacer
>>12522
>'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 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 7:29 pm
12535 spacer
>>12526
That would mean driving at ~5mph anywhere there are pedestrians just in case one suddenly walks right in front of your car.
>> No. 12536 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 7:44 pm
12536 spacer
>>12535
Only if your brakes are shit.
>> No. 12539 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 9:32 pm
12539 spacer
>>12536
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 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 9:40 pm
12541 spacer
>>12539
>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. 12545 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 10:25 pm
12545 spacer
>>12541
u wot m8?
>> No. 12546 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 10:27 pm
12546 spacer
>>12545

So, how is that adult learning course going, lad? You have been attending, haven't you?
>> No. 12547 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 10:35 pm
12547 spacer
>>12545
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. 12548 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 10:37 pm
12548 spacer
>>12546>>12547
Doesn't it mean they've stepped off the pavement in front off your car?
>> No. 12549 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 10:38 pm
12549 spacer
>>12548
>in front off

I'm not really helping myself, am I?
>> No. 12550 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 10:38 pm
12550 spacer
>>12547

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 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 10:49 pm
12551 spacer
>>12550

>IIRC he strolled around at a healthy 50mph.

He could move even faster with SR-50.
>> No. 12552 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 10:59 pm
12552 spacer
>>12548
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 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 11:10 pm
12553 spacer
>>12552
Does that mean it's almost impossible to walk out in front of a car and get hit?
>> No. 12554 Anonymous
22nd November 2013
Friday 11:13 pm
12554 spacer
>>12553
No, it merely means it's almost certainly avoidable.
>> No. 12557 Anonymous
23rd November 2013
Saturday 12:33 am
12557 spacer
>>12554

What if I run really fast at the last minute?
>> No. 12625 Anonymous
26th November 2013
Tuesday 5:47 pm
12625 spacer
>>12554

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 Anonymous
26th November 2013
Tuesday 9:03 pm
12626 spacer

page35.jpg
126261262612626
>>12625
>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. 12627 Anonymous
26th November 2013
Tuesday 9:05 pm
12627 spacer
>>12626

Really?
>> No. 12628 Anonymous
26th November 2013
Tuesday 9:50 pm
12628 spacer
>>12627
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 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 12:16 am
12629 spacer
>>126287
>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 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 12:35 am
12630 spacer
>>12629
No, lad. You're supposed to read the posts you're replying to before you reply to them.
>> No. 12631 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 4:12 am
12631 spacer
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 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 10:41 am
12632 spacer
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 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 10:48 am
12633 spacer
>>12631
>exponentially

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.

>>12630
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 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 7:25 pm
12640 spacer
>>12633
>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 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 8:06 pm
12642 spacer
>>12631
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 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 9:55 pm
12643 spacer
>>12642
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 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 11:20 pm
12644 spacer
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. 12648 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 10:10 pm
12648 spacer

DSC_0344.jpg
126481264812648
Parking spaces are so small these days.

Bonus points for the penis extension private mark.
>> No. 12649 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 10:32 pm
12649 spacer
>>12648
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 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 10:35 pm
12650 spacer
>>12649

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 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 10:39 pm
12651 spacer
>>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.
What a cunt you'd be.
>> No. 12652 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 10:47 pm
12652 spacer
>>12651

His car wouldn't have any dents on the doors, but it would be keyed to fuck.
>> No. 12653 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 10:53 pm
12653 spacer
>>12649
I would do the same tbh.
>> No. 12654 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 11:00 pm
12654 spacer
>>12649
>>12653
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 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 11:03 pm
12655 spacer
>>12654
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 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 11:10 pm
12656 spacer
>>12655
Fuck off, m8. You're not special in this regard. Nobody wants their cars' doors dented.
>> No. 13067 Anonymous
2nd February 2014
Sunday 12:33 pm
13067 spacer
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 Anonymous
2nd February 2014
Sunday 1:06 pm
13068 spacer

car-temperature-control-14301555.jpg
130681306813068
>>13067
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 Anonymous
2nd February 2014
Sunday 2:27 pm
13069 spacer
>>13068

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 Anonymous
2nd February 2014
Sunday 3:10 pm
13070 spacer
>>13069
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 Anonymous
2nd February 2014
Sunday 4:13 pm
13071 spacer
>>13069
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 Anonymous
5th February 2014
Wednesday 12:11 am
13074 spacer
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 Anonymous
5th February 2014
Wednesday 6:16 am
13075 spacer
>>13074
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 Anonymous
10th February 2014
Monday 8:23 pm
13087 spacer
>>13069

>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 Anonymous
10th February 2014
Monday 8:35 pm
13089 spacer

FUCKOFF.png
130891308913089
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. 13096 Anonymous
11th February 2014
Tuesday 12:36 am
13096 spacer
>>13067
I do all those things.
>> No. 13097 Anonymous
11th February 2014
Tuesday 12:42 am
13097 spacer
>>13074
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 Anonymous
26th February 2014
Wednesday 10:09 pm
13199 spacer
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 Anonymous
27th February 2014
Thursday 6:25 am
13201 spacer
>>13199

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 Anonymous
27th February 2014
Thursday 7:34 am
13202 spacer
>>13201
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 Anonymous
27th February 2014
Thursday 10:39 am
13203 spacer
>>13202
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 Anonymous
27th February 2014
Thursday 1:38 pm
13204 spacer
>>13202

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 Anonymous
27th February 2014
Thursday 2:16 pm
13205 spacer
>>13203
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 Anonymous
27th February 2014
Thursday 2:35 pm
13206 spacer
>>13205
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 Anonymous
27th February 2014
Thursday 2:40 pm
13207 spacer
>>13206
Was alright in the rest of the Honecker-Grotewohl-zone, maybe because they're all old now or something.
>> No. 13208 Anonymous
27th February 2014
Thursday 5:59 pm
13208 spacer
>>13205
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.

>>13206
Last time I was in Paris it wasn't uncommon to see mopeds going over a metre onto the pavement around corners.
>> No. 13209 Anonymous
27th February 2014
Thursday 6:03 pm
13209 spacer
>>13202
>they smell of sneeze
What does sneeze smell like?
>> No. 13210 Anonymous
27th February 2014
Thursday 6:07 pm
13210 spacer
>>13209
A day old rain.
>> No. 13211 Anonymous
27th February 2014
Thursday 6:07 pm
13211 spacer
>>13209
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 Anonymous
27th February 2014
Thursday 6:09 pm
13212 spacer
>>13210
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 Anonymous
31st March 2014
Monday 9:21 pm
13419 spacer
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 Anonymous
31st March 2014
Monday 10:23 pm
13420 spacer
>>13419
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. 13422 Anonymous
1st April 2014
Tuesday 8:38 pm
13422 spacer
https://www.youtube.com/v/kfS8iz2NaLE

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10734723/Lamborghini-Aventador-worth-300000-towed-away-after-three-car-crash.html

Welp.
>> No. 13423 Anonymous
1st April 2014
Tuesday 9:18 pm
13423 spacer
>>13422
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 Anonymous
1st April 2014
Tuesday 9:39 pm
13424 spacer
>>13423
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 Anonymous
1st April 2014
Tuesday 9:40 pm
13425 spacer
>>13424
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 Anonymous
1st April 2014
Tuesday 9:49 pm
13426 spacer
>>13424
>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 Anonymous
1st April 2014
Tuesday 9:56 pm
13428 spacer
>>13426
>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 Anonymous
1st April 2014
Tuesday 9:57 pm
13429 spacer
>>13426
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 Anonymous
1st April 2014
Tuesday 9:58 pm
13430 spacer
>>13426
Further my parents and neighbours own an Audi and they're all very nice and reasonable people.
>> No. 13431 Anonymous
1st April 2014
Tuesday 10:00 pm
13431 spacer
>>13425
>The Mazda didn't look properly before pulling out
Welcome to Lahndahn m80.
>> No. 13457 Anonymous
2nd April 2014
Wednesday 10:25 pm
13457 spacer
>>13419
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 Anonymous
8th April 2014
Tuesday 8:18 pm
13621 spacer
>>13431
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 Anonymous
8th April 2014
Tuesday 8:41 pm
13627 spacer
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 Anonymous
15th April 2014
Tuesday 3:24 pm
13910 spacer
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. 13923 Anonymous
15th April 2014
Tuesday 5:21 pm
13923 spacer
>>13910
I do it too. It is to appear cooru. SWAG SWAG SWAG YOLO.
>> No. 13925 Anonymous
15th April 2014
Tuesday 5:23 pm
13925 spacer
>>13910
RACIST RACIST.
>> No. 15071 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 8:11 am
15071 spacer
Anyone wearing headphones while driving.

Anyone driving a quad bike on the road.
>> No. 15080 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 4:42 pm
15080 spacer
>>15071
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 5:22 pm
15081 spacer
>>15080
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 6:04 pm
15082 spacer
>>15080
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 6:04 pm
15083 spacer
>>15081
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 6:20 pm
15084 spacer
>>15083
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. 15085 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 6:22 pm
15085 spacer
>>15084
>Your lawn needs a cleaning.
I pay people to do that ennit
>> No. 15086 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 6:40 pm
15086 spacer
>>15082
>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?

>>15084
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 6:46 pm
15087 spacer
>>15086
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 7:04 pm
15088 spacer
>>15087
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 7:14 pm
15089 spacer
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 7:18 pm
15090 spacer
>>15088
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 7:20 pm
15091 spacer
>>15089
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 7:23 pm
15092 spacer
>>15090
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 7:25 pm
15093 spacer
>>15089
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.

Honestly.
>> No. 15095 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 7:56 pm
15095 spacer
>>15086
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 8:12 pm
15096 spacer
>>15095
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 8:14 pm
15097 spacer
>>15095
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 8:37 pm
15098 spacer
>>15093
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 8:41 pm
15099 spacer
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 8:44 pm
15100 spacer
>>15099

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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 8:56 pm
15102 spacer
>>15097
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 8:56 pm
15103 spacer
>>15099
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 9:00 pm
15104 spacer
>>15102
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 9:03 pm
15105 spacer
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. 15106 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 9:07 pm
15106 spacer
>>15104
I take it you can't, then?
>> No. 15107 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 9:10 pm
15107 spacer
>>15106
OK then, I'll provide the dog, you provide the cliff ...
>> No. 15109 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 9:12 pm
15109 spacer
>>15104

Nice dodge, lad.
>> No. 15111 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 9:17 pm
15111 spacer
>Marlon King has been jailed for 18 months for dangerous driving after a road-rage crash which left a motorist with a broken arm
>The court heard King had been eating an ice cream at the wheel when he caused a three-car pile up on the A46 in Nottinghamshire last April.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/championship/10834874/Marlon-King-jailed-for-18-months-after-road-rage-clash.html

Don't McFlurry and drive, lads.
>> No. 15112 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 9:17 pm
15112 spacer
>>15109
We've been through this before. Failed prosecutions make precedent. Absence of prosecution does not.
>> No. 15115 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 9:32 pm
15115 spacer
>>15112
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. 15117 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 9:42 pm
15117 spacer

kryten.jpg
151171511715117
>>15115
>Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
"The prosecution may apply to a judge for a trial without a jury"?
>> No. 15118 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 9:44 pm
15118 spacer
>>15117
I think you're missing the point.
>> No. 15119 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 9:44 pm
15119 spacer
>>15115
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 9:58 pm
15120 spacer
>>15118
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 10:23 pm
15125 spacer
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 10:33 pm
15131 spacer
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 10:39 pm
15132 spacer
>>15125
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 10:41 pm
15133 spacer
>>15131
>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. 15134 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 10:42 pm
15134 spacer
>>15131
If you're seen eating and driving by the police they will tell you off.
>> No. 15136 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 10:44 pm
15136 spacer
>>15132
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 10:51 pm
15137 spacer
>>15134
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 10:53 pm
15138 spacer
>>15136
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 11:00 pm
15139 spacer
>>15134
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 11:03 pm
15140 spacer
>>15137
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 11:19 pm
15141 spacer
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 11:19 pm
15142 spacer
>>15139
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 11:39 pm
15143 spacer
>>15142
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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 11:40 pm
15144 spacer
>>15143
>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 Anonymous
15th May 2014
Thursday 11:41 pm
15145 spacer
>>15142
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 Anonymous
16th May 2014
Friday 12:08 am
15146 spacer
>>15145
Erm, there would, and there was, as you'd know had you been old enough to drive at the time.
>> No. 15147 Anonymous
16th May 2014
Friday 12:50 am
15147 spacer
>>15145
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. 15148 Anonymous
16th May 2014
Friday 12:58 am
15148 spacer
>>15146
I'm sorry? "There would and there was" what?
>> No. 15149 Anonymous
16th May 2014
Friday 1:06 am
15149 spacer
>>15148
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 Anonymous
16th May 2014
Friday 1:37 am
15151 spacer
>>15149
>>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 Anonymous
16th May 2014
Friday 1:39 am
15152 spacer
>>15149
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 Anonymous
16th May 2014
Friday 2:06 am
15153 spacer
>>15151
>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 Anonymous
16th May 2014
Friday 2:11 am
15154 spacer
>>15153
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 Anonymous
18th June 2014
Wednesday 1:32 pm
15547 spacer
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 Anonymous
18th June 2014
Wednesday 5:27 pm
15550 spacer
>>15547
But then I've got to walk, and if I wanted to walk I wouldn't have brought the car!
>> No. 15887 Anonymous
15th July 2014
Tuesday 6:07 pm
15887 spacer
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 Anonymous
15th July 2014
Tuesday 8:11 pm
15891 spacer
>>15547
I don't mind, since it lets me nip in front of the dullards and refuel before their bovine gapes of astonishment.
>> No. 16320 Anonymous
21st August 2014
Thursday 7:39 pm
16320 spacer
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 Anonymous
21st August 2014
Thursday 8:04 pm
16322 spacer
>>15547

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.

https://www.youtube.com/v/Zg3o0iifNFQ
>> No. 16323 Anonymous
21st August 2014
Thursday 8:09 pm
16323 spacer
>>16322
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. 16341 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 2:18 am
16341 spacer

image.jpg
163411634116341
>>16320

N1 M8
>> No. 16342 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 7:10 am
16342 spacer
>>16341
See >>16319.

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. 16346 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 2:35 pm
16346 spacer
>>16341

Did you Photoshop that yourself?
>> No. 16351 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 6:38 pm
16351 spacer
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 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 6:46 pm
16352 spacer
>>16341

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 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 6:49 pm
16353 spacer
>>16352
Have you got that fat lass pissing on either the .gs logo or a picture of Si?
>> No. 16354 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 6:50 pm
16354 spacer
>>16352
/iq/ dump thread please.
>> No. 16356 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 7:29 pm
16356 spacer
>>16351
If you get sprayed it means you're driving too close you prat.
>> No. 16357 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 7:37 pm
16357 spacer
>>16356
Not on the motorway due to the speed involved, nor at traffic lights due to the lack of speed involved.
>> No. 16358 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 7:42 pm
16358 spacer
>>16357
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 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 8:28 pm
16359 spacer
>>16357
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 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 8:47 pm
16360 spacer
>>16359

>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 Anonymous
22nd August 2014
Friday 8:56 pm
16361 spacer
>>16360
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.
Cheers.
>> No. 17134 Anonymous
11th November 2014
Tuesday 9:26 pm
17134 spacer
The more I watch this the more I'm convinced she wanted to get hit by a car.

http://www.liveleak.com/e/66c_1415416406
>> No. 17135 Anonymous
11th November 2014
Tuesday 10:08 pm
17135 spacer
>>17134
looks fairly deliberate. Although, the driver legs it? Surprising.
>> No. 17137 Anonymous
11th November 2014
Tuesday 10:47 pm
17137 spacer
>>17135
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 Anonymous
12th November 2014
Wednesday 1:14 am
17145 spacer
>>17134
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 Anonymous
12th November 2014
Wednesday 3:31 am
17146 spacer
>>17145
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 Anonymous
12th November 2014
Wednesday 4:18 am
17147 spacer

Screenshot - 121114 - 04:12:59.png
171471714717147
>>17137
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 Anonymous
12th November 2014
Wednesday 4:20 am
17148 spacer
>>17147
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 Anonymous
12th November 2014
Wednesday 7:36 am
17150 spacer
>>17145
>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 Anonymous
12th November 2014
Wednesday 9:22 am
17151 spacer

running.jpg
171511715117151
>>17147
>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. 17152 Anonymous
12th November 2014
Wednesday 9:23 am
17152 spacer

stillrunning.jpg
171521715217152
>>17151
Again at 12 seconds, she's running straight across.
>> No. 17153 Anonymous
12th November 2014
Wednesday 9:28 am
17153 spacer

almost.jpg
171531715317153
>>17152
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 Anonymous
12th November 2014
Wednesday 10:10 am
17154 spacer
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 Anonymous
12th November 2014
Wednesday 12:36 pm
17155 spacer
>>17154
>I haven't watched the video
Well that was a waste of a few hundred words then, wasn't it?
>> No. 17156 Anonymous
12th November 2014
Wednesday 12:48 pm
17156 spacer
>>17155

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 Anonymous
18th November 2014
Tuesday 6:15 pm
17218 spacer
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. 17219 Anonymous
18th November 2014
Tuesday 8:41 pm
17219 spacer
>>17218

Everyone loves a good stare, come on now lad.
>> No. 17220 Anonymous
18th November 2014
Tuesday 11:00 pm
17220 spacer
>>17219
https://www.youtube.com/v/DkI85Kt10e4
>> No. 17221 Anonymous
19th November 2014
Wednesday 4:29 am
17221 spacer
>>17220

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 Anonymous
23rd November 2014
Sunday 4:14 pm
17258 spacer
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 Anonymous
23rd November 2014
Sunday 4:23 pm
17259 spacer
>>17258

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 Anonymous
23rd November 2014
Sunday 5:31 pm
17260 spacer
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 Anonymous
6th January 2015
Tuesday 6:17 pm
17635 spacer
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 Anonymous
6th January 2015
Tuesday 8:02 pm
17639 spacer
>>17635
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 Anonymous
18th April 2015
Saturday 9:29 am
19020 spacer
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 Anonymous
12th June 2015
Friday 5:35 am
19581 spacer
Yesterday I saw someone driving with the sun shield deeley down to shade their eyes while wearing a baseball cap backwards.
>> No. 19590 Anonymous
12th June 2015
Friday 7:15 pm
19590 spacer

2098546-groove_pointing.png
195901959019590
>>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 Anonymous
12th June 2015
Friday 7:22 pm
19591 spacer
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 Anonymous
12th June 2015
Friday 10:02 pm
19592 spacer
>>17639
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. 19672 Anonymous
20th June 2015
Saturday 8:43 pm
19672 spacer

57818_signs.jpg
196721967219672
People who don't know what this sign means.
>> No. 19674 Anonymous
20th June 2015
Saturday 8:51 pm
19674 spacer
>>19672

Black lines ahead?

Oh! White semi-circles ahead?
>> No. 19676 Anonymous
20th June 2015
Saturday 9:02 pm
19676 spacer
>>19672
What do you think it means?
>> No. 19677 Anonymous
20th June 2015
Saturday 9:06 pm
19677 spacer
>>19674
It means stop. Don't do something.

I think.
>> No. 19678 Anonymous
20th June 2015
Saturday 9:12 pm
19678 spacer
>>19672
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 Anonymous
20th June 2015
Saturday 10:23 pm
19683 spacer
>>19677
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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 2:12 am
19684 spacer

elderly-driver_2164765k.jpg
196841968419684
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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 2:54 am
19685 spacer
>>19684
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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 3:30 am
19686 spacer
>>19684

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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 3:43 am
19687 spacer
>>19686
>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. 19688 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 4:21 am
19688 spacer
>>19687

>Why don't you move to North Korea?

They haven't got a Nando's.
>> No. 19689 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 8:07 am
19689 spacer
>>19684
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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 9:42 am
19690 spacer
>>19689
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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 11:06 am
19691 spacer
>>19684
>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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 11:14 am
19692 spacer
>>19685
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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 12:25 pm
19693 spacer
>>19692
>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. 19694 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 1:31 pm
19694 spacer
>>19693
You know what "right of way" means, right?
>> No. 19697 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 2:50 pm
19697 spacer
>>19694
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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 5:24 pm
19700 spacer
>>19697
>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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 5:44 pm
19701 spacer
>>19700
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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 6:39 pm
19702 spacer
>>19701
It's fine if you can satisfy yourself that you've taken the precautions in Rule 133.
>> No. 19703 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 6:45 pm
19703 spacer
>>19702
>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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 7:09 pm
19704 spacer
>>19703
>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. 19705 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 7:54 pm
19705 spacer
>>19703
But it doesn't confirm any of that at all, does it?
>> No. 19706 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 8:11 pm
19706 spacer
>>19705
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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 8:21 pm
19707 spacer
>>19706
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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 8:35 pm
19708 spacer
>>19707
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. 19709 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 11:39 pm
19709 spacer
>>19707
That would be a really stupid fucking thing to think.
>> No. 19710 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 11:47 pm
19710 spacer
>>19708
>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 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 11:48 pm
19711 spacer
>>19709
Really? You don't think that if people keep punching you in bars that maybe you should consider being less of an arsehole?
>> No. 19712 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 11:57 pm
19712 spacer
>>19711
You got those scratches down the side of your corsa sorted yet mate?
>> No. 19713 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 11:59 pm
19713 spacer
>>19712
u wot m7?
>> No. 19714 Anonymous
22nd June 2015
Monday 6:52 am
19714 spacer
>>19710
>I've never suggested that blatantly cutting people up is acceptable either.

You actually know what barging into a lane is, right?
>> No. 19716 Anonymous
22nd June 2015
Monday 9:07 am
19716 spacer
>>19714
I'd barge into your mum's lane, IYKWIM.
>> No. 19731 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 7:36 am
19731 spacer

29DE84F900000578-0-image-a-1_1434995931790.jpg
197311973119731
The first driver convicted of middle lane hogging has gone to the papers to have a massive teary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3134956/Pictured-Painter-decorator-fined-1000-person-UK-convicted-middle-lane-hogger.html
>> No. 19732 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 9:13 am
19732 spacer
>>19731
>The Briton convicted ... accused police of treating him like a common criminal.
What a twat.
>> No. 19733 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 10:09 am
19733 spacer
>>19732
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 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 10:36 am
19734 spacer
>>19733
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 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 10:53 am
19735 spacer
>>19733
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. 19736 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 11:09 am
19736 spacer
Alright, Jesus, it was just a joke
>> No. 19737 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 11:40 am
19737 spacer

serveimage.png
197371973719737
>>19736
Obviously I'm too autistic to see that that. And don't call me Jesus.
>> No. 19748 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 8:40 pm
19748 spacer
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 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 8:45 pm
19749 spacer
>>19748
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 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 8:55 pm
19751 spacer
>>19748
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 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 8:56 pm
19752 spacer
>>19749
>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 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 9:04 pm
19753 spacer
>>19748
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 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 9:11 pm
19754 spacer
>>19748
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 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 9:14 pm
19755 spacer
>>19749
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.

>>19751
Stop with the false hope lads. I'm dreading the stupid letter, with the HD pictures that will come within the next few days.

>>19753
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 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 9:38 pm
19756 spacer
>>19754
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 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 10:49 pm
19758 spacer
>>19755
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 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 10:55 pm
19759 spacer
>>19758

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 Anonymous
23rd June 2015
Tuesday 11:27 pm
19761 spacer
>>19758
>>19759
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 Anonymous
24th June 2015
Wednesday 12:41 am
19771 spacer
>>19761
Can you send someone else? Say you went for a holiday and sent your brother? Do they ask for ID?
>> No. 19773 Anonymous
24th June 2015
Wednesday 1:00 am
19773 spacer
>>19771
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 Anonymous
24th June 2015
Wednesday 5:43 am
19778 spacer
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. 19805 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 3:25 am
19805 spacer
>>19731
Oh fuck this.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/m62-lane-hogger-fine-paid-9521316#rlabs=3%20section

>“It is just ridiculous - all I was doing was driving in the middle lane.

Thanks to the cunt who put up a grand so this arsehole can learn absolutely nothing.
>> No. 19806 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 8:31 am
19806 spacer
>>19805

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. 19807 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 9:49 am
19807 spacer
>>19806
Oh, middlelanelad.
>> No. 19808 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 10:48 am
19808 spacer
>>19805
>“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 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 11:46 am
19809 spacer
>>19807

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 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 11:57 am
19810 spacer
>>19809
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 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 12:40 pm
19811 spacer
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.

What?
>> No. 19812 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 1:13 pm
19812 spacer
>>19811
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 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 2:08 pm
19813 spacer
>>19812
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. 19814 Anonymous
26th June 2015
Friday 2:57 pm
19814 spacer
>>19813
>minimum
You do know what this word means, right?
>> No. 19844 Anonymous
28th June 2015
Sunday 8:33 pm
19844 spacer

2A0D021500000578-3142114-image-m-44_1435489386219.jpg
198441984419844
Bananas.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3142114/more-motorists-pulling-a-grumpy-pose-next-to-their-car
>> No. 19849 Anonymous
29th June 2015
Monday 11:03 am
19849 spacer
>>19844

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 Anonymous
29th June 2015
Monday 11:15 am
19851 spacer
>>19849
>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. 19856 Anonymous
29th June 2015
Monday 2:42 pm
19856 spacer
>>19849
What's that article about? I'm not opening the link.
>> No. 19857 Anonymous
29th June 2015
Monday 2:48 pm
19857 spacer
>>19856
Disgusting bananas coming over here and taking our drivers, or something like that.
>> No. 19858 Anonymous
29th June 2015
Monday 3:01 pm
19858 spacer
>>19844
>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 Anonymous
29th June 2015
Monday 3:20 pm
19859 spacer
>>19858
I predict the following in a couple of months
>JUSTICE for driver fined for eating a banana in a traffic jam.
>> No. 19860 Anonymous
29th June 2015
Monday 3:33 pm
19860 spacer
>>19859
> DAILY MAIL in shock click bait articles from non-story.
>> No. 19867 Anonymous
29th June 2015
Monday 5:53 pm
19867 spacer
>>19860
Not good enough. Either add more outrage or more caps.
>> No. 19869 Anonymous
29th June 2015
Monday 5:55 pm
19869 spacer
>>19860>>19867

But make sure the use of caps has no rhyme or reason about it. Just random words with no special relevance.
>> No. 19907 Anonymous
30th June 2015
Tuesday 5:52 pm
19907 spacer
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 Anonymous
30th June 2015
Tuesday 6:02 pm
19909 spacer
>>19907
Fuck's sake. That and WAITING TO PARALLEL PARK ON A NARROW STREET? I'M JUST GOING TO OVERTAKE YOU ANYWAY.
>> No. 19911 Anonymous
30th June 2015
Tuesday 6:11 pm
19911 spacer
>>19909
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 Anonymous
30th June 2015
Tuesday 6:25 pm
19912 spacer
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. 19913 Anonymous
30th June 2015
Tuesday 6:43 pm
19913 spacer
>>19912
People who pay no attention to the thread they're posing in.
>> No. 19914 Anonymous
30th June 2015
Tuesday 6:50 pm
19914 spacer
>>19913

I thought it was about bad drivers? That guy was driving badly, aggressively even.
>> No. 19916 Anonymous
30th June 2015
Tuesday 7:18 pm
19916 spacer
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 Anonymous
6th July 2015
Monday 8:41 pm
20067 spacer
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 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 6:05 pm
20186 spacer
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 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 6:16 pm
20187 spacer
>>20186
Fuck off. Lorries are difficult to drive, and your break checking ever couple of miles doesn't help.
>> No. 20188 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 6:37 pm
20188 spacer
>>20187
>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 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 6:42 pm
20189 spacer
>>20188
10mph is hard for a lorry. Your start-stopping nonsense doesn't change that.
>> No. 20190 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 6:47 pm
20190 spacer
>>20189
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 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:32 pm
20191 spacer
>>20190
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 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:33 pm
20192 spacer
>>20191

They also turn on their sirens and lights for emergencies, so unless you have x-ray vision you should consider it so.
>> No. 20193 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:34 pm
20193 spacer
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 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:38 pm
20194 spacer
>>20192
>>20193
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 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:50 pm
20195 spacer
>>20194

>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 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:53 pm
20196 spacer
>>20194

Stop drinking, being this much of a belligerent cunt must be harming your loved ones.
>> No. 20197 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:57 pm
20197 spacer
>>20195
Fuck them. Maybe there should be a law to ban sillymedics from using the sirens for non emergencies.

>>20196
N1 m8.
>> No. 20198 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 5:57 am
20198 spacer
>>20197

>Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/99/made
>> No. 20205 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 12:59 pm
20205 spacer
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 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 1:44 pm
20207 spacer
>>20205
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. 20209 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 1:47 pm
20209 spacer
>>20207

I did my work experience with the rozzers. This.
>> No. 20216 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 6:07 pm
20216 spacer
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. 20217 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 6:11 pm
20217 spacer
>>20216

What about "chinky"?
>> No. 20218 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 6:28 pm
20218 spacer

maxresdefault.jpg
202182021820218
>>20217
Chinky was a really cool guy, it was a big shame about that thing with the cannibal firemen.
>> No. 20221 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 6:51 pm
20221 spacer
>>20217
I don't think calling it a Chingaling will catch on.
>> No. 20222 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 7:53 pm
20222 spacer

alan-shorts1.jpg
202222022220222
>>20217

Curly black and kinky.
>> No. 20244 Anonymous
19th July 2015
Sunday 3:10 am
20244 spacer

9490934d8dfba3223f0091feac0d0490.jpg
202442024420244

>> No. 20979 Anonymous
5th September 2015
Saturday 6:31 pm
20979 spacer
>>19748
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 Anonymous
1st October 2015
Thursday 6:32 pm
21255 spacer
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. 21257 Anonymous
1st October 2015
Thursday 6:35 pm
21257 spacer
>>20222

What the world needs is a great big mixing pot!
>> No. 21258 Anonymous
1st October 2015
Thursday 6:40 pm
21258 spacer
>>21255
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 Anonymous
1st October 2015
Thursday 7:33 pm
21262 spacer
>>21258
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 Anonymous
22nd October 2015
Thursday 7:40 pm
21397 spacer
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 Anonymous
22nd October 2015
Thursday 7:44 pm
21398 spacer
>>21397
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 Anonymous
22nd October 2015
Thursday 8:44 pm
21399 spacer
>>21397
>>21398

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 Anonymous
22nd October 2015
Thursday 10:18 pm
21400 spacer
>>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.

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 Anonymous
22nd November 2015
Sunday 5:23 pm
21605 spacer
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. 21606 Anonymous
22nd November 2015
Sunday 6:06 pm
21606 spacer
>>21605
How enterprising of him.
>> No. 21607 Anonymous
22nd November 2015
Sunday 6:25 pm
21607 spacer
>>21605
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 Anonymous
22nd November 2015
Sunday 6:59 pm
21608 spacer
>>21605
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 Anonymous
22nd November 2015
Sunday 7:02 pm
21609 spacer
>>21608
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 Anonymous
14th December 2015
Monday 4:17 pm
21721 spacer
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 Anonymous
14th December 2015
Monday 5:55 pm
21722 spacer
>>21721
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 Anonymous
14th December 2015
Monday 8:57 pm
21724 spacer
>>19684

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 Anonymous
14th December 2015
Monday 10:37 pm
21726 spacer
>>21724
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 Anonymous
15th December 2015
Tuesday 3:14 pm
21734 spacer
>>21724

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 Anonymous
15th December 2015
Tuesday 4:31 pm
21735 spacer
>>11756>>11755>>11753

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 Anonymous
3rd January 2016
Sunday 5:29 pm
21816 spacer
>>21726

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. 21817 Anonymous
3rd January 2016
Sunday 5:37 pm
21817 spacer
>>21816

Something* must happen, rather.
>> No. 21825 Anonymous
4th January 2016
Monday 2:10 pm
21825 spacer
>>21255
>nicer area
>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 Anonymous
4th January 2016
Monday 11:39 pm
21844 spacer
>>21825
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 Anonymous
5th January 2016
Tuesday 12:05 am
21845 spacer
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 Anonymous
5th January 2016
Tuesday 4:42 am
21847 spacer
>>21845

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 Anonymous
5th January 2016
Tuesday 8:24 am
21849 spacer
>>21844

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 Anonymous
5th January 2016
Tuesday 5:17 pm
21865 spacer
>>21849
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 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 5:46 pm
22192 spacer
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 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 6:00 pm
22193 spacer
>>22192

I fucking hate that.

I'll also add; people driving at 80mph when there's standing water on the road.
>> No. 22194 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 6:25 pm
22194 spacer
>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. 22195 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 7:14 pm
22195 spacer
>>22194
Lad. This is a thread for posting in caps, not for greentexting.
>> No. 22196 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 7:19 pm
22196 spacer
>>22195

So?
>> No. 22197 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 7:43 pm
22197 spacer
>>22196
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. 22198 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 7:54 pm
22198 spacer
>>22197

Why do you care?
>> No. 22199 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 8:44 pm
22199 spacer
>>22198
You get banned for doing that round here.
>> No. 22200 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 8:47 pm
22200 spacer
>>22199

What's your point?
>> No. 22201 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 8:48 pm
22201 spacer
>>22200
We're just trying to help you.
>> No. 22202 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 8:50 pm
22202 spacer
>>22198
There's standards to be maintained.
>> No. 22204 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 9:05 pm
22204 spacer
>>22201
>>22202

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.

>Calm down
>> No. 22205 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 9:26 pm
22205 spacer
>>22202

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. 22206 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 10:50 pm
22206 spacer
>>22205


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNk1B8H4wmQ
>> No. 22207 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 10:57 pm
22207 spacer
>>22206
>Get upset about some greentext
>Moan about standards but fail on basic grammar
>Pretend the other person is angry and frustrated.

A classic.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 22208 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 11:28 pm
22208 spacer
>>22207
Last time I checked "Anonymous" does not mean "definitely the same person" but please continue with your whinge there cuz.
>> No. 22209 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 7:51 am
22209 spacer
>>22205
Using local vernacular is fine, shitting up the board is not.
>> No. 22489 Anonymous
21st April 2016
Thursday 7:30 pm
22489 spacer
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 Anonymous
21st April 2016
Thursday 7:38 pm
22490 spacer
>>22489
Today someone tried undertaking me on a roundabout, just as I needed to turn off. He was driving a BMW, obviously.
>> No. 22491 Anonymous
22nd April 2016
Friday 4:50 pm
22491 spacer
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 Anonymous
22nd April 2016
Friday 5:04 pm
22493 spacer

maxresdefaul3t.jpg
224932249322493
>>22491
>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 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 5:27 pm
22596 spacer
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 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 6:48 pm
22597 spacer
>>22596
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 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 12:12 am
23235 spacer
>>22597

But how can they vote against you if you don't let them drive anymore? Maybe this could work out.
>> No. 23236 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 12:25 am
23236 spacer

logans_run.jpg
232362323623236
>>23235

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 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 12:40 am
23237 spacer
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. 23241 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 9:44 am
23241 spacer
>>23237

/mph/, lad.
>> No. 23248 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 4:25 pm
23248 spacer
>>23237
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 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 8:24 pm
23264 spacer
>>23237

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 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 5:24 pm
23299 spacer
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 Anonymous
22nd July 2016
Friday 9:39 pm
23412 spacer

tiny.jpg
234122341223412
How exactly are people meant to be able to read a sign like the one pictured, whilst travelling at >60mph?
>> No. 23414 Anonymous
22nd July 2016
Friday 9:47 pm
23414 spacer
>>23412
Glasses?

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 Anonymous
22nd July 2016
Friday 10:01 pm
23415 spacer
>>23414
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 Anonymous
23rd July 2016
Saturday 1:27 am
23425 spacer
>>23414
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 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 7:29 pm
24385 spacer
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 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 7:34 pm
24386 spacer
>>24385

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 Anonymous
1st December 2016
Thursday 9:35 pm
24514 spacer
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 Anonymous
1st December 2016
Thursday 10:00 pm
24515 spacer
>>24514
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 Anonymous
7th December 2016
Wednesday 1:58 am
24559 spacer
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"

PRICKKKK
>> No. 24561 Anonymous
7th December 2016
Wednesday 7:48 am
24561 spacer
>>24559
Why did you acquiesce? Let them beep.
>> No. 24562 Anonymous
7th December 2016
Wednesday 9:38 am
24562 spacer
>>24559

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 Anonymous
8th December 2016
Thursday 4:58 pm
24568 spacer
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 Anonymous
8th December 2016
Thursday 5:00 pm
24569 spacer
>>24568
It's okay. Just make sure you do that to somebody else. I always do that.
>> No. 24570 Anonymous
8th December 2016
Thursday 7:34 pm
24570 spacer
>>24568

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. 24571 Anonymous
8th December 2016
Thursday 11:15 pm
24571 spacer

rep.jpg
245712457124571
>>24568

What's a roundabout? This part of the test?
>> No. 24572 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 1:26 am
24572 spacer

junction.png
245722457224572
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 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 2:57 am
24573 spacer
>>24572
Sometimes when I drive, cyclists don't register in my brain. To be honest, I don't really like them.
>> No. 24574 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 8:41 am
24574 spacer
>>24573
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 Anonymous
10th December 2016
Saturday 8:58 am
24575 spacer
>>24574
My dad has been a lycra-wearing cyclist since the 70s, and says pretty much the same things.
>> No. 24582 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 10:01 pm
24582 spacer

e4913d6153cef5fc5606cbe27cf38d2302c38d73ad99cd84a8.jpg
245822458224582
>>24569 It's always a good idea to indicate early at a roundabout if you're exiting at the first exit. Drivers to your left will enter confidently and quickly and force drivers to your right to wait making it easier for you to keep moving.
>> No. 24583 Anonymous
11th December 2016
Sunday 11:32 pm
24583 spacer
>>24574

>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 Anonymous
12th December 2016
Monday 1:07 am
24584 spacer
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. 24601 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 3:36 pm
24601 spacer
>>24584
Sadly, you are a cyclist.
>> No. 24602 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 10:36 pm
24602 spacer
>>24601
Ah, prejudice.
>> No. 24603 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 10:55 pm
24603 spacer
>>24602

Rightly aimed prejudice too.
>> No. 24604 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 11:03 pm
24604 spacer
>>24602
No, just Bayesian inference.
>> No. 24784 Anonymous
13th January 2017
Friday 8:18 pm
24784 spacer
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. 24786 Anonymous
13th January 2017
Friday 8:54 pm
24786 spacer
>>24784
Yes, you should.
>> No. 24787 Anonymous
13th January 2017
Friday 9:14 pm
24787 spacer
>>24784
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. 24788 Anonymous
13th January 2017
Friday 11:40 pm
24788 spacer
>>24784
Absolutely!
>> No. 24790 Anonymous
14th January 2017
Saturday 12:14 am
24790 spacer
>>24784

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 Anonymous
14th January 2017
Saturday 2:26 am
24791 spacer
>>24790
Yeah I used to get annoyed by super-bright LED cunt-lights, so I just started driving faster.
>> No. 24792 Anonymous
14th January 2017
Saturday 4:48 am
24792 spacer
>>24790

>You MUST NOT use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders

http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders---lighting-requirements-113-to-116.html
>> No. 24841 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 8:38 pm
24841 spacer