Thread: Motoring Git of the Year Award 2015 Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029913
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Lots of local contenders for this. Do I nominate the Mini who shot through two red lights in succession - what did he think they were, early Christmas decorations? Should it be the driver that insisted on doing 18 mph on a deserted 40 mph road? Or the SUV that kindly parked on no less than 4 bays simultaneously in the supermarket car park last Saturday morning? Or the twat that overtook me in another supermarket car park, shooting across a zebra crossing just as a family were about to step onto it? Are your groceries really that urgent?
Perhaps the driving instructor who was smoking a cigarette, with one hand on the wheel, arm out of the window, mounting the pavement as he turned a corner on his way to pick up a pupil for a lesson? The git who decided to overtake in the face of oncoming traffic on a high-speed road then chickened out at the last moment before he crashed into me? Or the car driver texting at the wheel? It doesn't matter if you're going at 20 mph - don't do this!!
FFS you can't afford to get complacent if driving a vehicle, ever. People like you should be made to sit your tests again. The entire national debt could probably be paid off in a matter of weeks with the money raised.
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on
:
Good rant!
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The Sunday drivers who do a stately 15mph on the potholed lanes around here that pass for roads, and who drive in the middle of the road, the better to admire the view. And I particularly appreciate the way they never indicate, and where there is a junction with space for two cars abreast they put themselves in the middle of it before consulting a map, because its a nice day to drive out in the country, isn't it?
Of course its Sunday, so no one can possibly have to be anywhere at a specific time.
And would someone please explain to townees that in the countryside we dip our lights when facing oncoming traffic after dark, and when there is another car in front: I prefer not to be half-blinded, thanks very much.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Well, today's fuckwittery on the A1(M) just south of Scotch Corner involved me pulling out to overtake an empty low-loader doing about 55mph. I was doing 70mph, I checked my mirrors, signalled, checked my mirrors again and executed my manoeuvre.
Cockwomble in the the bright red 4WD doing 90mph decides that his right to drive through the back of me and onward to wherever was so damn important trumps doing the national speed limit or acknowledging that he's sharing the road with several hundred other vehicles, all going somewhere equally important.
I pull in once past the low loader, and aforementioned cockwomble (who by now is gesturing wildly at me) finally remembers to take his foot off the accelerator, but unfortunately only so that he can pull level with me and treat me to yet more indecipherable sign-language. His car is so massive compared to mine (I'm in a Skoda Fabia) that I can't see all of him, only the very bottom of his passenger side window.
I ignore him, because, frankly, fuck him. Life's too short to get involved with the Ronnie Pickerings of this world. While I briefly fantasise that such people die of an embolism at the wheel, I'd rather they were humiliated in a court of law.
He eventually sails off into the distance, attempting to scatter other drivers before his great red throbbing cock-substitute, and I carry on singing along to Show of Hands. Result.
[ 17. October 2015, 20:36: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
The people who regularly annoy me are those who only drive at 40. they drive at 40 in a 60 limit, and they carry on driving at 40 in a 30 limit.
I have to assume that they are not taking any notice of anything else, if they are incapable of seeing the speed signs.
Most odd experience was the Lexus driver who was doing 35-40 in a 60 limit road. I passed him (still not exceeding 60). I continued at the limit, inly to find that he was gaining on me, and passed me (safely, I should say), but doing over the limit. I have still to understand what his thought process was.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
My arsehole is rather mild compared to some of these. I'm driving along, at roughly the 45 mph speed limit, and notice, far in the distance, the nose of some big old American car (of the type driven by big old Americans - probably a Buick or something) poking out of a side street. There's no other traffic around, so he's quite easy to notice.
And he sits there, and waits. And waits. And waits until I'm almost on top of him, and then gently eases his way out into the road in front of me, and wallows around at walking pace whilst he works out how to turn his indicators off or deal with the shock of having located the gas pedal or something, thus forcing me to brake from 45 mph to just about nothing.
Satisfied, he makes his merry way off to wherever he's going.
Really? You had to pull out right in front of me? You've been fannying about doing nothing at the junction for a minute already - you couldn't wait another ten seconds for me to pass?
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Most odd experience was the Lexus driver who was doing 35-40 in a 60 limit road. I passed him (still not exceeding 60). I continued at the limit, inly to find that he was gaining on me, and passed me (safely, I should say), but doing over the limit. I have still to understand what his thought process was.
He thought the limit was 30. When you passed him, he guessed it wasn't.
[ 17. October 2015, 22:03: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Leorning Cniht-- see also, the asshole who lingers in the left lane of a passing area until the merge point, upon which he floors the accelerator and jams himself into a one lane space.
And the douche who slows down at a light and leaves a three car space between himself and the right turn lane you need to use that is right directly in front of him.
[ 17. October 2015, 22:24: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
My prayer, for douchebag drivers, idiot cyclists, and noisy motorcyclists: "May you die in a horrible crash in such a manner that your organs can be transplanted into nicer people than you."
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Chill chill chill.
The anus-penis-douche who killed 3 kids and seriously injured the flag person in a construction zone was convicted this week. Lifetime driving ban. 10 years of prison. Vehicle confiscated and sold. It is not enough. 3 families will live with this forever. Safety first please please please. Get there without risk, without anger. Chill baby. Don't be a statistic.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The people who regularly annoy me are those who only drive at 40. they drive at 40 in a 60 limit, and they carry on driving at 40 in a 30 limit.
I have to assume that they are not taking any notice of anything else, if they are incapable of seeing the speed signs.
Oh yes - thanks for the reminder, I had one of those last weekend. We passed numerous signs saying "50" but the driver was still doing 40 and then slowed down when there were bends until we reached a 30 mph village when he resumed doing 40. (Why??) Then we all got stuck behind a tractor. Luckily I was able to turn off down a side road at this point and enjoy seeing the convoy proceeding onwards at a stately pace. They should be arriving at their destination any time now.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Most odd experience was the Lexus driver who was doing 35-40 in a 60 limit road. I passed him (still not exceeding 60). I continued at the limit, inly to find that he was gaining on me, and passed me (safely, I should say), but doing over the limit. I have still to understand what his thought process was.
He thought the limit was 30. When you passed him, he guessed it wasn't.
Maybe - and that would be reasonable (although my car is not one you would normally consider as defining the speed limit). But why did he then have to exceed the limit to pass me?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Chill chill chill.....Safety first please please please. Get there without risk, without anger. Chill baby. Don't be a statistic.
'better to be five minutes late in this world than five minutes early in the next '
--told to me by a late, loved neighbour. A carpenter and undertaker by trade , probably not so oddly enough.
[ 18. October 2015, 09:06: Message edited by: rolyn ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I am currently training for the advanced driving test. One of the things I learn is about when it is safe to drive faster, and when it is safe to drive slower.
Always within the speed limit, of course. But "failing to make adequate progress" is a fail. As is "being a total dickhead".
I would recommend it to UK drivers. It is not for the certification as much as to help you drive better and safer. I may well drive like a douche at times, although less so, and (crucially) I am less liable to do so where others are at risk.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
The backwards-baseball-capped twat who overtook me at ~50 mph in a 30 zone last week, realised he was passing a speed camera, slowed down to 20 in a squeal of rubber and carved me up forcing me to brake hard, then gives me the bird when I flash my lights because it's obviously all my fault...
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
The backwards-baseball-capped twat who overtook me at ~50 mph in a 30 zone last week, realised he was passing a speed camera, slowed down to 20 in a squeal of rubber and carved me up forcing me to brake hard, then gives me the bird when I flash my lights because it's obviously all my fault...
The baseball cap worn backwards is a clue but I bet this guy was hunched forwards over the wheel. It's a more reliable tell for aggressive, dangerous driving than age or driver or the kind of car.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
The baseball cap was the only detail I saw (other than the raised digit, obviously.) He could have been 60 years old...but I doubt it.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
<sweeping statement alert>
Young males in small matchbox like cars, usually black, with an exhaust-pipe the diameter of a large cola bottle are a liability to themselves. And at times fatal to those traveling in the opposite direction when they decide to overtake on a blind bend.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Chill chill chill.....Safety first please please please. Get there without risk, without anger. Chill baby. Don't be a statistic.
'better to be five minutes late in this world than five minutes early in the next '
--told to me by a late, loved neighbour. A carpenter and undertaker by trade , probably not so oddly enough.
I'll third this point of view. When it comes to people tooling around in deadly machines, I'll take the people who drive 40 at all times, or wait at the intersection till you're almost there, or dwaddle through the changing light so you get caught on red ( all things that infuriate Hubs) over the reckless, aggressive speeder any day.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
The ones who drive at 40 regardless are particularly irritating when you know that the only stretch of road where it is possible to overtake them safely is just beyond the village, and you won't be able to use it because you have been observing the 30 mph limit.
The overtaking after being overtaken thing I have met a lot, on motorways, and I have always assumed it was a man/woman thing. Especially when, after overtaking, the (can't think of suitable epithet) slows down to the previous sub-limit speed, but in the middle lane, and so close that I can't get by again.
Posted by Urfshyne (# 17834) on
:
My problem seems to be the driver who gets to a roundabout ahead of me, has priority over me, but just sits there. If I pull out and he does the same simultaneously, then I would legally be to blame if we collide.
I must admit I usually take the initiative - something the other driver seems to be lacking...
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
...or wait at the intersection till you're almost there, or dwaddle through the changing light so you get caught on red ...
I was trying to figure out how to add those folk to my list without sounding insane.
Last week I posted a meme about people who lay on the gas to overtake you and then slow down to 10 mph below the speed limit once they are in front of you. The Neez ( collective term for the nieces) piled on to agree.
How about the person on a two lane road who tries to merge into the one- car space between you and the person in front of you when there is nobody behind you and nobody in front of the front car? And who will pace you for five attempting to get in that space?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
<sweeping statement alert>
Young males in small matchbox like cars, usually black, with an exhaust-pipe the diameter of a large cola bottle are a liability to themselves. And at times fatal to those traveling in the opposite direction when they decide to overtake on a blind bend.
Oh yes. Those for whom cars are penis size inadequacy-social skills compensation devices. A friend on a bicycle had one of these passing speeders do this such that he rear ended the car a few years back. The authorities found the driver responsible because the reason for applying the binders wasn't within reasonable expectation.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Last week I posted a meme about people who lay on the gas to overtake you and then slow down to 10 mph below the speed limit once they are in front of you.
Extra points for these if they let guys pass, but if a woman tries to pass then whenever there is a window, they carefully speed up just enough that she can't.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
When it comes to people tooling around in deadly machines, I'll take the people who drive 40 at all times, <snip>... over the reckless, aggressive speeder any day.
Oh yes! The diligent 40to45-er whose road speed doesn't alter from motorway to A-road to speed zones. They are a real hoot.
Not sure I'd choose one of them over the Black Death on your side of the road, on a bend, when your whole 'kin life flashes before you in a nanosecond.
Posted by Beenster (# 242) on
:
My car, Duncan, is old and plodding. O - 60mph in half an hour sort of thing but he gets there. I try to be considerate to other drivers and not always easy - do I pull out on to the fast road after work when I know a driver will have to slow - and I have a tail of people behind me who would make the gap? I never know.
I have discovered the joy of giving plonkers the finger and I have to say, it feels really good. Really really good. I love the drivers who cut me up only to get caught behind the tractor that I was dwaddling behind. That happens a lot. I tend to give the tractor a lot of space behind. They get the finger, the drivers that cut me up. Also - there are quite a few roads round here which are part dual carriage way and part single. So what do these drivers do - 40mph on the single - not a hope in hell of overtaking and then get to the dual carriage way and their foot goes down. Duncan and I haven't got a hope in hell of getting past. But then we get back to the single carriage way and yes they drop the speed. They get the finger as well.
I was undertaken recently. That was not pleasant. Pootling on the motorway, just struggling at 60mph so sticking in the slow lane. And as I come to a junction, there are cars wanting to join the motorway. I do the pull into the middle lane thing to allow them to join the motorway. And I wonder where white car has gone as I'm keen to pull back onto slow lane. Sure enough, white car is undertaking me. I hadn't realised quite how scary that was so they got the finger.
I'm sure all those who get the finger from me are quaking in their boots.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Maybe - and that would be reasonable (although my car is not one you would normally consider as defining the speed limit). But why did he then have to exceed the limit to pass me?
'cause he's the kind of guy that always drives ten over the limit? He thought he was doing 40 in a 30, but when you passed him, he woke up, and thought "60 limit - I could do 70".
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
with an exhaust-pipe the diameter of a large cola bottle
Known in this household as the "penis extension ring"
AG
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Last week I posted a meme about people who lay on the gas to overtake you and then slow down to 10 mph below the speed limit once they are in front of you.
Extra points for these if they let guys pass, but if a woman tries to pass then whenever there is a window, they carefully speed up just enough that she can't.
Another "too crazy" moment I deleted: I swear to God, when I am at a 4 way stop, I sense men of a certain age are looking over at me and opting to ignore the right of way rules when they see a woman at the wheel.
As in, "Your turn, your turn, yo-- oh, you? Fuck you."
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
The worst one, really sticks in my mind, was utterly deliberate. At night. A colleague and I had been to see "Waiting for Godot" at Canterbury, and I was driving us back to Dover down the A2. Largely straightish, thanks to the Romans, but then in the throes of being turned into a dual carriageway. Part the way along, this dualling ended, with a T junction with a small side road and a right turn before turning left into the 2-lane bit. I wasn't sure exactly where this bit was, and the road wasn't lit. I was driving my Mum's A40 with automatic gear changes which I wasn't wholly familiar with, but I did know that there was a process for doing a forced change by sticking the accelerator down hard.
Anyway, we are pootling along the dual bit when we came up behind a smaller car going quite slowly, so I pulled out to overtake. The car, with one male in it, sped up. I sped up as well. so did he. Not being in the testosterone game mindset, I slowed down to pull in again and put up with his speed. To my surprise, he slowed as well, so I couldn't get back into the inner lane. I tried to overtake again. He sped up. I tried to slow again, so did he. I don't remember how many cycles we went through. I was very aware of the approaching turning, and afraid of hitting it at some speed. We didn't think stopping was an option. Being stationary with someone of his attitude was scarey. Having a car come up behind was worse.
My colleague was able to inform me that he had a manual gear change. I slowed down until she reported that he was in 2nd, and I used the kick down technique to accelerate away from him, and get well ahead. He didn't chase us, thank goodness. And we had enough room before the junction.
I had a colleague recently suffer a similar thing while her hisband was driving them towards London on the A2, with other traffic. They got on the phone to the police ... can't remember the end of the story, but mobile phones are a great help, which we could have done with.
[ 18. October 2015, 20:34: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
I was undertaken recently. That was not pleasant. Pootling on the motorway, just struggling at 60mph so sticking in the slow lane. And as I come to a junction, there are cars wanting to join the motorway. I do the pull into the middle lane thing to allow them to join the motorway. And I wonder where white car has gone as I'm keen to pull back onto slow lane. Sure enough, white car is undertaking me. I hadn't realised quite how scary that was so they got the finger.
Well, that's better than the alternative mentality in such circumstances, which seems to be: Oh dear, undertaking is against the highway code - I'll just sit in the other guy's left-hand blind spot and incidentally prevent him from moving back over, that's a much safer option.
Posted by Beenster (# 242) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
I was undertaken recently. That was not pleasant. Pootling on the motorway, just struggling at 60mph so sticking in the slow lane. And as I come to a junction, there are cars wanting to join the motorway. I do the pull into the middle lane thing to allow them to join the motorway. And I wonder where white car has gone as I'm keen to pull back onto slow lane. Sure enough, white car is undertaking me. I hadn't realised quite how scary that was so they got the finger.
Well, that's better than the alternative mentality in such circumstances, which seems to be: Oh dear, undertaking is against the highway code - I'll just sit in the other guy's left-hand blind spot and incidentally prevent him from moving back over, that's a much safer option.
The power of the finger is so important! It's so tempting to do just what you said and be an ass back "I'm in the right and I let him out and he's not being sensible and disrespecting the elderly Duncan". It's easy to see how roadrage really catches, I notice myself a few times getting all antsy when being cut up or someone being dangerous.
But giving someone the finger, for me, it makes me feel powerful and everything is alright again.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Chill chill chill.
The anus-penis-douche who killed 3 kids and seriously injured the flag person in a construction zone was convicted this week. Lifetime driving ban. 10 years of prison. Vehicle confiscated and sold. It is not enough. 3 families will live with this forever. Safety first please please please. Get there without risk, without anger. Chill baby. Don't be a statistic.
Newspapers here often quote surviving families as saying that they have the loss of a murdered family member for life, and the prisoner received only a 30 year sentence. Judges have started saying in their reasons that there is no sentence which can take away the loss and grief of the survivors and that the sentence being imposed is not a price for the loss of a life.
Given that, what overall sentence would you have given, and why? Bear in mind the offence for which the motorist was being sentenced and the maximum fixed for that offence; also the need for the total sentence to reflect the loss of 3 lives but still not be crushing. Not an easy task.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
I was undertaken recently. That was not pleasant. Pootling on the motorway, just struggling at 60mph so sticking in the slow lane. And as I come to a junction, there are cars wanting to join the motorway. I do the pull into the middle lane thing to allow them to join the motorway. And I wonder where white car has gone as I'm keen to pull back onto slow lane. Sure enough, white car is undertaking me. I hadn't realised quite how scary that was so they got the finger.
How far past the junction had you travelled before being undertaken?
It is possible to safely undertake on some stretches of motorway. When there are 4 lane and the plonker middle-laner is doing 65 in the 3rd lane you can have a whole lane of safety between you and the plonker. I particularly dislike the selfishness of middlelane drivers.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
I was undertaken recently. That was not pleasant. Pootling on the motorway, just struggling at 60mph so sticking in the slow lane. And as I come to a junction, there are cars wanting to join the motorway. I do the pull into the middle lane thing to allow them to join the motorway. And I wonder where white car has gone as I'm keen to pull back onto slow lane. Sure enough, white car is undertaking me. I hadn't realised quite how scary that was so they got the finger.
Well, that's better than the alternative mentality in such circumstances, which seems to be: Oh dear, undertaking is against the highway code - I'll just sit in the other guy's left-hand blind spot and incidentally prevent him from moving back over, that's a much safer option.
Confession: I have occasionally undertaken on the motorway. Always the same scenario. I'm doing 70mph in the left hand lane, with the lane clear for a considerable distance in front of me. To my right there is a line of traffic doing slightly more than 70, with right hand lane traffic light but going faster. Up ahead a lane blocker in the middle doing 65 or something. I draw up behind him at a safe distance, but can't get into the middle lane because of the queue built up behind him of people wanting to pull right to go past. After a short wait to let him do the right thing I punch the accelerator, nip past him on the inside before returning to 70. If safe to do so, I will pull into the middle lane in front of him and then pointedly set my blinkers and move left into the still clear lane (I've yet to notice anyone take that subtle hint though - nor have I noticed any decline in this driving style following the appearance a few years ago of posters on the walls of service stations about not hogging the middle lane and pulling left when the inside lane is clear).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Confession: I have occasionally undertaken on the motorway. Always the same scenario. I'm doing 70mph in the left hand lane, with the lane clear for a considerable distance in front of me. To my right there is a line of traffic doing slightly more than 70, with right hand lane traffic light but going faster. Up ahead a lane blocker in the middle doing 65 or something. I draw up behind him at a safe distance, but can't get into the middle lane because of the queue built up behind him of people wanting to pull right to go past. After a short wait to let him do the right thing I punch the accelerator, nip past him on the inside before returning to 70. If safe to do so, I will pull into the middle lane in front of him and then pointedly set my blinkers and move left into the still clear lane (I've yet to notice anyone take that subtle hint though - nor have I noticed any decline in this driving style following the appearance a few years ago of posters on the walls of service stations about not hogging the middle lane and pulling left when the inside lane is clear).
Undertaking is particularly dangerous because you are in an extended blind spot that the driver in the middle lane is not expecting (well, at least not in the UK where undertaking on the motorway is illegal). Should the driver drift from the middle to the slow lane and in the process cause an accident with you, then you will be liable.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Undertaking is particularly dangerous because you are in an extended blind spot that the driver in the middle lane is not expecting (well, at least not in the UK where undertaking on the motorway is illegal). Should the driver drift from the middle to the slow lane and in the process cause an accident with you, then you will be liable.
Although undertaking is dangerous, and the Highway Code says you should only do it in slow moving traffic, it isn't actually illegal (it was removed from the statute books with the 1972 Road Traffic Act). If done in a particularly dangerous or reckless manner then you could be done for driving with undue care and attention.
On the other hand, not returning to the left hand lane where it is reasonable to do so after overtaking carries a £100 on-the-spot fine and three penalty points, in some circumstances more.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On the other hand, not returning to the left hand lane where it is reasonable to do so after overtaking carries a £100 on-the-spot fine and three penalty points, in some circumstances more.
And I wish this was enforced more.
Equally, middlelane numpties don't use the outside lane either. It amuses me when a middlelane numpty drives up to me at about 80, when I have recourse to the middlelane doing about 70 to overtake an insider, lifts off considerably even though the outside is clear, then zooms off again when I pull back in. Sometimes I don't pull back in ASAP just to encourage the middlelaner to try other lanes just for once.
[ 19. October 2015, 08:32: Message edited by: Mr Clingford ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Confession: I have occasionally undertaken on the motorway.
I don't generally have a problem with undertakers - it's the people who sit in my left-hand blind spot without undertaking when I'm already doing 70 who annoy me.
Depends on the circumstances of course, but if it's possible to undertake me, that may well be a sign I'm in the wrong lane and should move left, but I can't do that if someone is welded to the spot I ought to be occupying!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
An undertaking story but not from a motorway.
We were on the A14, a dual carriageway from the M1/M6 junction to the M11 near Huntingdon and we were approaching a couple of HGV's in convoy. We were about to overtake the first when this silver Audi* cut up the inside of us, through the "gap" between us and the nearer HGV then on noticing that the further HGV was pulling out to avoid a third HGV (which we hadn't seen) slammed on the brakes to move in front of the first HGV that had just been overtaken. That HGV had to brake so hard the driver did well to maintain any kind of control. Had he failed and jacknifed, I would not be here now.
We already had a thing about Silber Deutscher AutobahnenKreuzers and this about confirmed it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
OK, yes, "undertaking" as a specific thing was taken out of the law - mostly because it became unworkable in heavy traffic.
However, it is still in the Highway Code, and the Highway Code can still be used as the basis of prosecution, as per para 7, section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Of course in practice many people break the Highway Code all the time without consequence. And of course it is correct that middle-lane hogging is a particularly stupid way to drive, and deservedly has recently been highlighted for police attention.
But that doesn't stop undertaking being particularly dangerous. One might not get stopped by police for "undertaking" but one might for driving without due care and concern.
It is tempting to undertake stupid people who illegally hog the middle lane, but the safe way to deal with them is either to slow down, allowing that they may at any moment drift to the left lane, or if it is safe and there is space to overtake them in the normal way.
You don't get a pass to do something dangerous because someone else is doing something dangerous.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Undertaking is particularly dangerous because you are in an extended blind spot that the driver in the middle lane is not expecting (well, at least not in the UK where undertaking on the motorway is illegal).
This is a little bit circular, though. Undertaking is illegal because it's dangerous because it's unexpected because it's illegal.
(Though I drive on motorways with sufficient frequency that AFAIC undertaking, middle lane hogging, kamikaze lane changes, people weaving all over the road because the lane markings are confusing, and boy racers driving at 100mph, are all expected behaviours...)
I thought the issue with undertaking was more that it's harder to move into a lane of faster traffic than a lane of slower traffic. If I can't move to the right, then that might slow me down a bit, but if I can't move to the left, I could miss my exit.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
This is a little bit circular, though. Undertaking is illegal because it's dangerous because it's unexpected because it's illegal.
OK, what I meant was that it is a common practice to drift back into the left lane in a motorway without considering the possibility of someone coming up the inside in the massive blind spot. The way that the law has been enforced encourages drivers to downplay the possibility of being undertaken - unlike in other jurisdictions where undertaking is a much more common manoeuvre.
quote:
(Though I drive on motorways with sufficient frequency that AFAIC undertaking, middle lane hogging, kamikaze lane changes, people weaving all over the road because the lane markings are confusing, and boy racers driving at 100mph, are all expected behaviours...)
This is true. Even the most careful driver observing perfect lane discipline will be endangered by the bad driving of these kinds of people and will have to make allowances for the stupidity of others driving at speed.
quote:
I thought the issue with undertaking was more that it's harder to move into a lane of faster traffic than a lane of slower traffic. If I can't move to the right, then that might slow me down a bit, but if I can't move to the left, I could miss my exit.
Not sure I'm following here
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Merging can be a problem. I incited some real road rage over this one time. I was doing the speed limit (75 which is not comfortable for me) in the outside, slow lane on a four lane (dual carriage) highway.
I approached a place in the highway where an entry road contained a car intent on merging. I could see he was going to arrive at the same time I was, so I sped up. It made more sense to me to speed up than slow down as he was coming from a presumably slower road than my highway. He may have expected me to move to an inside lane, but I need more time than we had to determine a lane change.
He entered the outside lane behind me, immediately went to the inside, faster lane and pulled up beside me. He was screaming with rage and doing one much better than Beenster's finger took both hands off the steering wheel and waved them beside his head while mouthing something about my big hair. At 75MPH! I thought we were all going to die that day.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[ it is a common practice to drift back into the left lane in a motorway without considering the possibility of someone coming up the inside in the massive blind spot.
Am I the only person who checks the left lane regularly while preparing to move into that lane? If I'm passing someone, usually I'll wait until I can see them in my mirrors before moving over. If I've been in an outer lane for a while (eg: I've just passed a line of cars in the middle lane behind a hogger) I'll have a quick look over my shoulder.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[ it is a common practice to drift back into the left lane in a motorway without considering the possibility of someone coming up the inside in the massive blind spot.
Am I the only person who checks the left lane regularly while preparing to move into that lane? If I'm passing someone, usually I'll wait until I can see them in my mirrors before moving over. If I've been in an outer lane for a while (eg: I've just passed a line of cars in the middle lane behind a hogger) I'll have a quick look over my shoulder.
Nope. While I don't drive I do know that when Mrs Sioni is in the middle lane and she looks towards me in the passenger seat, she is checking the inside lane for traffic. I like to think that other road users are therefore safe with the possible exception of cyclists riding the wrong way down the wrong side of the street.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
I confess to regularly exceeding the speed limit when driving locally. However, if I am on a long-distance trip via the Interstate highway system, I set the cruise control to the maximum allowed speed and never exceed it.
I don't know what gets to me more: (1) the zippidy-do-dahs who go sailing past me at whatever speed they can manage, weaving in and out of lanes as their fancy takes them; or (2) the 18-wheeler trucker who, finding himself behind one of his colleagues doing about 5 mph below the limit, pulls out to overtake him -- which, of course, he can't, as his 18-wheeler is no more powerful than the 18-wheeler he's behind -- and allows traffic to pile up behind him for the 10 or so minutes it takes him to (a) realize that he can't overtake after all and pull back into the lane behind his friend; or (b) finally get up enough steam to overtake.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Am I the only person who checks the left lane regularly while preparing to move into that lane? If I'm passing someone, usually I'll wait until I can see them in my mirrors before moving over. If I've been in an outer lane for a while (eg: I've just passed a line of cars in the middle lane behind a hogger) I'll have a quick look over my shoulder.
I also look hard into blind spots, but most do not. The problem with undertaking is that you are assuming the driver in the middle lane is as diligently looking into his large inside blind spot as you.
That said, the most scary close shave I ever had was when overtaking as normal and very clearly colliding with someone coming in at speed from the far right lane. I'm not sure how the insurance companies and police would have sorted that out - neither of us could reasonably have looked and judged what someone was doing several lanes over.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: The problem with undertaking is that you are assuming the driver in the middle lane is as diligently looking into his large inside blind spot as you.
That's what my car has a horn for ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Depends on the circumstances of course, but if it's possible to undertake me, that may well be a sign I'm in the wrong lane and should move left
You shouldn't need a "sign" to know if you're in the wrong lane. All it takes is one very very simple question - are you overtaking another vehicle? If the answer is no, then move over to the fucking left!
I really fucking hate lane hogs. They cause congestion and delay on roads that would be moving perfectly freely if they were in the correct lane.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
My real annoyances are:
1. Driving in the middle lane of a motorway or dual-carriageway near an exit slip. Someone rushes up the outside of me, then cuts across everyone to exit at the very last minute.
2. Driving in a narrow city street with cars parked both sides. Stopping to let a car come through the other way. Before you do so, the chap behind me hooting, flashing his lights and going past - only to go 10 yards before he realises why I had stopped. He tries to back up, of course by now there are other cars behind me so I can't back up ...
3. Living here in the country: driving along a narrow lane, meeting another car and being forced to back up 50 yards round a corner when the other car could have pulled into a field entrance before we met (and refuses to back up the 2 yards to get to it after they've stopped).
4. In Norfolk: sugar-beet lorries (all of them).
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The way that the law has been enforced encourages drivers to downplay the possibility of being undertaken - unlike in other jurisdictions where undertaking is a much more common manoeuvre.
Ok, that makes sense.
quote:
Not sure I'm following here
What I meant (and I might have made this up) is that I thought the law was set up this way so that, if there has to be a slower lane, it's the lane that people enter and exit by.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
BT, no. 3. Me, too. Until recently, they were always male. Now there are female drivers of SUVs as well. But I've only once met a man who reversed.
[ 19. October 2015, 15:18: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
.. and there are people who drive the wrong way down motorways and slip roads. Few things more terrifying on a motorway than suddenly being confronted with a car coming head on at you.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
BT, no. 3. Me, too. Until recently, they were always male. Now there are female drivers of SUVs as well. But I've only once met a man who reversed.
Did I say SUVs? No. But I certainly thought it!
Farmers driving battered old Mk.1 Land-Rovers give way. (It might be their tractor you meet next time!)
[ 19. October 2015, 16:45: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And would someone please explain to townees that in the countryside we dip our lights when facing oncoming traffic after dark, and when there is another car in front: I prefer not to be half-blinded, thanks very much.
Ah, people who seem confused by the idea that in the country, at night, it gets dark.
It's not all bad news for them, though. Every now and again there is a village, with a few streetlamps, and having a bit of light makes it easier to drive faster. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
BT, no. 3. Me, too. Until recently, they were always male. Now there are female drivers of SUVs as well. But I've only once met a man who reversed.
Stacks of them. Between SUVs and "people carriers" half the children at the typical primary school, even in a down-at-heel place like Zooport, are ferried back and forth.
Most schools were not built with the car in mind, and one school I was associated with, as parent and governor, was rebuilt this century with deliberately poor vehicular access. Somewhere in our Civic Centre there must be some a planning officer who deserves a "Best Motoring Git in a Supporting Role" award.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Farmers driving battered old Mk.1 Land-Rovers give way. (It might be their tractor you meet next time!)
They are pretty good and if they aren't there's usually good reason (sick cow etc). It's best to give way to farmers though. You never know when you might need a tow.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I'm going back about 6 or 7 years here, but that's because this is my award for Motoring Git of the Century.
So there I was, on my way to a funeral. Not in my own car - in the hearse, with a funeral limo full of mourners just behind us, doing the standard 15-20mph.
And my award goes to the bus driver who overtook the limo and the hearse, on a suburban road, and cut in front of the hearse with literally inches to spare.
Hearses should not have to brake hard to avoid crashing into dickheads.
[ 19. October 2015, 18:41: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
BT, no. 3. Me, too. Until recently, they were always male. Now there are female drivers of SUVs as well. But I've only once met a man who reversed.
Did I say SUVs? No. But I certainly thought it!
Farmers driving battered old Mk.1 Land-Rovers give way. (It might be their tractor you meet next time!)
Guess what the man who gave way was driving, and his occupation...
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And would someone please explain to townees that in the countryside we dip our lights when facing oncoming traffic after dark, and when there is another car in front: I prefer not to be half-blinded, thanks very much.
Ah, people who seem confused by the idea that in the country, at night, it gets dark.
One must not of course forget their close relatives, who buy those 'super-bright' headlights because they makes them easier to see at night.
Well, yes, they do, if you assume there's nothing else on the road that people might want to see.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
It might be an idea if the car manufacturers had three settings for the headlights, dipped, normal, and full beam. My dipped lights are fine in town, but only illuminate a shortish range where there are no street lights, not really enough for the normal speed on the road, and definitely not helpful when there are approaching vehicles, even if they don't have flaming LEDs. This may explain why some people do forget to dip. Especially when behind.
Another worst bit of driving was when I was driving south on a dual carriageway with two lanes each side. I came up behind what was effectively a road train, a string of film location lorries driving nose to tail with no gaps, slower than the speed limit. It was not them who were the problem, though. Eventually here was an opportunity to get past, the outer lane clear all the way past them, no-one approaching from behind, so I took off, at the speed limit. When I was about halfway along, A car appeared behind me, headlights flashing, and hooting. It should have been perfectly obvious that I had nowhere to get out of the way. It took great determination not to be driven over the limit. When I got past and was able to move in, without cutting in too sharply, the car stormed past and took off furiously up the road, possibly with gestures, revealing the sign in the back. "Children on board".
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Presumably in the driving seat?
On headlights: I appreciate the problem. Have you ever tried adjusting the dip? - there's usually a little knob for doing that somewhere on the dashboard unless your car is ancient. The idea is that the dip you need is different according the load you are carrying. Of course you can't keep changing it while driving.
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
Has no one mentioned double overtakers? Those times when you're the first car in a queue of traffic pootling along behind a tractor or bus or just your typical one-slow-speed-fits-all bandit; you're poised to overtake as soon as you can; finally your chance comes up thanks to a slightly wider road or a break in the oncoming traffic - and some pillock from two or three cars behind decides to roar up and take the chance instead. And by the time they've got past, the brief opportunity to overtake has passed.
Hanging's too good for them.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Even more annoying when not only do they block you from overtaking, but they find themselves faced with oncoming traffic and force their way in front of you behind the [insert choice of slow vehicle]. At least if they get passed they're on the road a long way ahead out of your way. If they're now stuck in front of you you have to watch them keep poking themselves into the right lane to see if it's clear, and ducking back in quickly, because they won't open up more than an inch between themselves and the vehicle they're behind thus depriving themselves of the ability to actually see passed it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Having said that, there is something deeply satisfying when someone does that and the slow vehicle pulls over 30 seconds later and you meet up with said eedjut stopped at the next set of traffic lights.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Thinking of getting stopped at traffic lights.
A couple of years back I was doing some work in Portugal, and since we were in Landrovers stuffed full of geologists and their sampling kit (and later on rocks they'd collected) we were never going to manage speeds suitable to the main roads so we avoided them (and the associated tolls) in favour of smaller roads. There seemed to be an extravagent number of traffic lights, often pedestrian crossings in the middle of nowhere. Commenting on this I was told that when local authorities put up speed cameras issuing automated tickets no one paid them, and as speeding wasn't a criminal offence the courts didn't enforce the speeding tickets. However, jumping a red light is a criminal offence that the courts could pursue. So, they stopped issuing speeding tickets from the cameras, instead if they record someone speeding they set the next set of traffic lights to red - and, where there wasn't a suitable set of lights they put some in. Add some cameras to record anyone jumping the lights, and hey presto a very effective speed control system.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I do like that sort of thinking!
And I have adjusted the beam by the lever which is supposed to accommodate different loads. I have also asked the garage about it, but it is, apparently, standard for Skodas.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
When I was about halfway along, A car appeared behind me, headlights flashing, and hooting. It should have been perfectly obvious that I had nowhere to get out of the way. It took great determination not to be driven over the limit.
I believe if you're being tailgated, the best option is actually to slow down gradually - not just to piss them off, but also because:
- It increases the space in front of you into which they can overtake, if they want (though not in your case obviously);
- Provided they keep the same physical distance, the stopping distance becomes safer (e.g. if you're keeping a one-second gap at 70 and I slow to 45, in theory that becomes a two-second gap - Ok the maths isn't that simple and I don't think I'd decelerate that much but you see the point.)
- If the guy behind wants to drive in a way that will greatly increase the chance of a collision, it's better to collide at a lower speed.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
finally your chance comes up thanks to a slightly wider road or a break in the oncoming traffic - and some pillock from two or three cars behind decides to roar up and take the chance instead. And by the time they've got past, the brief opportunity to overtake has passed.
Except the "pillock" doesn't know if you're stuck behind Mr. Slow, or you're Mr. Slow's best buddy and doing it on purpose. All he knows is that you've passed the point where he considers it safe to overtake, and have made no move to overtake - so maybe it's not unreasonable for him to assume that you weren't going to.
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
Driving his tractor down a snowy country lane one day, my brother had a driver on his arse who was hooting, flashing, and generally expressing the view that said tractor should get out of his way. Finally he lost patience, overtook, and only then found out why my brother was driving a tractor.
It had the snowplough on the front.
Luckily there was a tractor conveniently placed to pull him out of the ditch. Once its driver had stopped laughing.
AG
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
BT, no. 3. Me, too. Until recently, they were always male. Now there are female drivers of SUVs as well. But I've only once met a man who reversed.
Stacks of them. Between SUVs and "people carriers" half the children at the typical primary school, even in a down-at-heel place like Zooport, are ferried back and forth.
Most schools were not built with the car in mind, and one school I was associated with, as parent and governor, was rebuilt this century with deliberately poor vehicular access. Somewhere in our Civic Centre there must be some a planning officer who deserves a "Best Motoring Git in a Supporting Role" award.
Now, now, Sioni, you know that everyone at the Civic Centre has the best interests of all the people of Newport at heart... And 'down-at-heel', indeed! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
My favourite was over 20 years ago on the A606 outside Nottingham. Single carriageway approaching traffic lights with 'islands' separating traffic at the lights, 40mph limit. Car behind decides to overtake just before we reach the lights but runs out of room and clips the island when pulling back into the lane. We stop for the lights and, once they changed, found the idiot on the side of the road minus the tyre he'd just burst ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Lucky he had space to stop, otherwise he could have done others damage when the tyre went.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Ah, snow. I was driving between Woodchurch and Ashford, a road mostly north/south, bar a dogleg in the middle. Most of the road was clear, but the dogleg had a deep drift across most of it, with one track of two tyre tracks through it on my side. The person in front of me drove through, I waited while a driver came through from the other direction, then set off myself, only to find that another driver came round the corner, immediately started through towards me, and kept coming. I, next to the verge, where, this being on Wealden Clay, there was a ditch, had to drive off the road. I got out to look at what my wheels were resting on, to receive some criticism from the man in the other vehicle, implying that I didn't know what I was doing. I pointed out that I might now need to get the sacking and the shovel out of my boot, but he was dismissive. Grr.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most schools were not built with the car in mind, and one school I was associated with, as parent and governor, was rebuilt this century with deliberately poor vehicular access. Somewhere in our Civic Centre there must be some a planning officer who deserves a "Best Motoring Git in a Supporting Role" award.
That one isn't the planning officer's fault. I was a governor at the local recently rebuilt secondary school during the planning stages. The lack of parking spaces and drop off points for parents is dictated by Government policy. We did query it with the architects and were told that the recommended parking spaces did not allow for parents collecting and dropping off, particularly as the intention was to discourage car use. The only drop off allowance was for buses. Because of course no space to take the car is such a deterrent, makes the roads around so safe and discourages parents from dropping off in the bus spaces. Of course a policy of removing safe drop off spaces will encourage the children to walk and cycle in the absence of any other provision.
This particular site is on the outskirts of town and many parents will be dropping their children off on their way to work because it is not far off possible routes to various local work places. (And if parents do this it will incidentally make the back road I used to cycle to the next town busier, diverting people that way.) Siting the school at right at the edge of town situates it several miles walk from the opposite ends of town. There are safe walking routes from the original site, but that assumes all pupils will be coming from that direction. There has been no effort to create safe cycle routes. (That used to be a voluntary effort, and meant working with Bike It officers from Sustrans, not sure how that works now.)
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
I came across the same thing with a supermarket application. The number of parking spaces in the car park was restricted in the apparent assumption that this would make people use public transport. This was in a small town with pre-existing parking problems and minimal bus services, of the 'the bus to and from [villages to the south and west] runs on Wednesday' type.
There was an accompanying requirement that the supermarket company put on extra bus services, but these were also minimal, and the requirement only lasted for (from memory) 18 or 24 months. It was very clear that they would not continue after that.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most schools were not built with the car in mind, and one school I was associated with, as parent and governor, was rebuilt this century with deliberately poor vehicular access. Somewhere in our Civic Centre there must be some a planning officer who deserves a "Best Motoring Git in a Supporting Role" award.
That one isn't the planning officer's fault. I was a governor at the local recently rebuilt secondary school during the planning stages. The lack of parking spaces and drop off points for parents is dictated by Government policy. We did query it with the architects and were told that the recommended parking spaces did not allow for parents collecting and dropping off, particularly as the intention was to discourage car use. The only drop off allowance was for buses. Because of course no space to take the car is such a deterrent, makes the roads around so safe and discourages parents from dropping off in the bus spaces. Of course a policy of removing safe drop off spaces will encourage the children to walk and cycle in the absence of any other provision.
This particular site is on the outskirts of town and many parents will be dropping their children off on their way to work because it is not far off possible routes to various local work places. (And if parents do this it will incidentally make the back road I used to cycle to the next town busier, diverting people that way.) Siting the school at right at the edge of town situates it several miles walk from the opposite ends of town. There are safe walking routes from the original site, but that assumes all pupils will be coming from that direction. There has been no effort to create safe cycle routes. (That used to be a voluntary effort, and meant working with Bike It officers from Sustrans, not sure how that works now.)
You don't know the circumstances of this particular school. There might be a government policy but I'm not letting the planners off scot-free as other possibilities existed
The original site was right in the midst of the catchment and while many children were driven to school there were enough routes in and out to permit them to be dropped off at the gate and give cars a quick route out. The new school is only accessible by a traffic light controlled single lane road that is on the edge of the houses and is on the way to nowhere. Children have further to travel, all the walking routes are along narrow streets and typically involve more road crossings than before. Also the school is on the road to nowhere, people taking their children to school have to make an "out and back" trip.
The only way to deter people from using a car is to charge them directly. Incentives don't work and the only disincentive that works is a direct charge. London's Congestion Charge ought to be a clue.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most schools were not built with the car in mind, and one school I was associated with, as parent and governor, was rebuilt this century with deliberately poor vehicular access. Somewhere in our Civic Centre there must be some a planning officer who deserves a "Best Motoring Git in a Supporting Role" award.
That one isn't the planning officer's fault. I was a governor at the local o rebuilt secondary school during the planning stages. The lack of parking spaces and drop off points for parents is dictated by Government policy. We did query it with the architects and were told that the recommended parking spaces did not allow for parents collecting and dropping off, particularly as the intention was to discourage car use. The only drop off allowance was for buses. Because of course no space to take the car is such a deterrent, makes the roads around so safe and discourages parents from dropping off in the bus spaces. Of course a policy of removing safe drop off spaces will encourage the children to walk and cycle in the absence of any other provision.
You don't know the circumstances of this particular school. There might be a government policy but I'm not letting the planners off scot-free as other possibilities existed
Of course, it was also a different Government - Wales <> England in planning, education, transport...
(Sorry Curiosity, Sioni, slight professional hobby horse...)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
I came across the same thing with a supermarket application. The number of parking spaces in the car park was restricted in the apparent assumption that this would make people use public transport.
Because people will drive to the supermarket, not be able to find space to park, drive back home again and take the bus?
Who thinks these things through? Most people who shop in supermarkets want to go once a week or so. Supermarkets have large trollies to accommodate people doing "the weekly shop". Most people cannot carry the contents of a supermarket trolley.
When I was young and single, I went shopping with an 80 litre backpack, and that was just fine - I filled it, more or less, and could cycle home wearing it.
Most people aren't single, and many of those who are don't want to carry a massive backpack of shopping.
Back when I lived in a fairly poor part of London, it was normal for people to walk or take the bus to the supermarket, do their shopping, and get a minicab home with the week's shopping. This is worse, in terms of congestion and carbon, than them driving private cars (obviously they do this because they don't own cars; it doesn't make sense to encourage people who do own cars to do this.)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
In addition, even if the supermarket has a convenient bus stop and one of those buses runs conveniently close to home (ie: it's feasible to haul a medium sized shop of maybe 6 bags to and from the bus) the bus will take so long to make the journey that any frozen or chilled foods you bought are likely to have got too warm (assuming the heating in the bus is working).
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most schools were not built with the car in mind, and one school I was associated with, as parent and governor, was rebuilt this century with deliberately poor vehicular access. Somewhere in our Civic Centre there must be some a planning officer who deserves a "Best Motoring Git in a Supporting Role" award.
That one isn't the planning officer's fault. I was a governor at the local recently rebuilt secondary school during the planning stages. The lack of parking spaces and drop off points for parents is dictated by Government policy. We did query it with the architects and were told that the recommended parking spaces did not allow for parents collecting and dropping off, particularly as the intention was to discourage car use. The only drop off allowance was for buses. Because of course no space to take the car is such a deterrent, makes the roads around so safe and discourages parents from dropping off in the bus spaces. Of course a policy of removing safe drop off spaces will encourage the children to walk and cycle in the absence of any other provision.
This particular site is on the outskirts of town and many parents will be dropping their children off on their way to work because it is not far off possible routes to various local work places. (And if parents do this it will incidentally make the back road I used to cycle to the next town busier, diverting people that way.) Siting the school at right at the edge of town situates it several miles walk from the opposite ends of town. There are safe walking routes from the original site, but that assumes all pupils will be coming from that direction. There has been no effort to create safe cycle routes. (That used to be a voluntary effort, and meant working with Bike It officers from Sustrans, not sure how that works now.)
You don't know the circumstances of this particular school. There might be a government policy but I'm not letting the planners off scot-free as other possibilities existed
The original site was right in the midst of the catchment and while many children were driven to school there were enough routes in and out to permit them to be dropped off at the gate and give cars a quick route out. The new school is only accessible by a traffic light controlled single lane road that is on the edge of the houses and is on the way to nowhere. Children have further to travel, all the walking routes are along narrow streets and typically involve more road crossings than before. Also the school is on the road to nowhere, people taking their children to school have to make an "out and back" trip.
The only way to deter people from using a car is to charge them directly. Incentives don't work and the only disincentive that works is a direct charge. London's Congestion Charge ought to be a clue.
This is all bonkers, and all disturbingly familiar. Both the schools my seven-year old child has been associated with so far have done everything possible to make parking a car anywhere near really inconvenient, on the mistaken assumption that absolutely everyone will then say, 'Well then, Janie', let's walk today, shall we?' It's a nice idea, ain't it. But Janie's mum, and Max's dad, and Chloe's nana are all on a time schedule, and are dropping their child off at school on the way to work, they don't have the luxury of another quarter hour of sauntering back to the house before [you guessed it] jumping in the car - and even Toby's mum and Anna's mum, who work from home, will use the car, because they too have stuff to do and are also dropping a smaller child off at a preschool that it would be entirely farcical to try and walk to.
This I have concluded after only two years involvement with schools (and it came as quite a shock after four years of involvement with daycares) - they have not moved on mentally from the 1950s, when there was a family wage with a dad working a set 40 hours a week earning it, and thus an entire suburb full of mums who can be called upon to bake and make and fundraise and sew costumes and paint sets and god knows what else, who only drive to school in the mornings out of laziness, and who are thereby setting a bad example to their children, who can be easily incentivised to guilt them into walking by offering special privileges to those children who walk.
Sorry to do this to a thread about bad driving...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The problem isn't the expectation of a parent at home to do the driving. It's that many schools are not even near to where people live.
When I were a lad, my primary school (age 7-11) was a short walk away - no more than 1km. Mum had a part time job, so I used to walk that with my younger brother, often on our own (I remember also walking with some of the other children in the street at the same school). By the time I started secondary school I cycled the 2.5km. In both cases, the school was the nearest to home (well, I think another secondary school may have been a little bit closer, but marginally and would have required a cycle route crossing at least two major roads).
Nowadays it doesn't seem unusual for children to go to a school further away, often passing other schools to get there, with children living next to each other going to different schools.
What has happened is that
a) parents no longer consider it safe to let children walk short distances on their own - and, in some cases it isn't safe, mainly because of other parents trying to get their car into non-existant parking spaces outside the school in a hurry to drop of children and get to work.
b) neighbours no longer go to the same schools, so it isn't even convenient for parents to take turns walking the kids who live next door to school, or even pile lots of them into a single vehicle.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Alan: haven't you forgotten another big reason: parental choice? It is no longer virtually automatic that children will simply go to their nearest school. Hence parents from A drive their children to a school at B because they think it's better ... and vice-versa?
(Of course, such choice always existed within the private sector).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I never actually stated a reason why things have changed and kids no longer go to the local school, just made the observation.
But, you're right - parental choice based on a perception of educational quality (a perception that is rarely reflected in any quantifiable evidence) is one big reason. Another is that many modern housing estates are built without any school provision, and so the nearest schools are all associated with older housing estates which may be a considerable distance (including crossing the major roads that often encircle housing estates).
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
/tangent/:
My wife grew up in Clydebank and went to secondary school in the 1960s. In her street there was a row of tenements, then a gap without houses (due to wartime bombing I think), then more houses further down.
The kids who lived in one group of houses all got free bus passes to take them to school. The kids in the other houses didn't get the passes: because the "distance to school" which mandated the issuing of bus passes went through the gap. Yet there was only one bus stop which all the kids used anyway!
(The families who had to pay complained to the Council, but I don't know if it did any good).
/tangent ends/
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
From experience, a rough calculation a primary school does when a a new housing estate is built is that they will be asked to place one child for every 10 houses. On that calculation local authorities do not have to consider new schools until after the impact on roads, water, sewers, hospitals, shops and a whole lot more infrastructure is considered.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Developers may sometimes have "Section 106" agreements in place to build schools, etc.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
This guy must be in the running. His charge sheet is quite impressive and omits only Driving While Disqualified from the complete set. I'm sure he'll get that and probably a short but salutory sojourn in one of Her Majesty's Hotels.
Uninsured drivers are a particular problem in South Wales: at any time about one third of cars on the road are being driven by people who are not insured to do so.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
This, shared by a friend on Facebook recently is quite an impressive candidate too.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
This, shared by a friend on Facebook recently is quite an impressive candidate too.
Not to mention for gittish apostrophe abuse.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Are your groceries really that urgent?
Mmm. What about if they include Pringles and wine?
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
On State Highway One, speed limit 100kms, with a large tractor in front, doing his best to keep right over but it's not always possible. We don't mind, but a little yellow car roars past, right over the double yellow lines, and dashes ahead. Less than two kms further on we (and the tractor) turn in to the Poultry Farm (where if we're lucky we get double yolkers) and there's the yellow car and a scrawny little old bugger buying trays of eggs. We reproach him gently and get a tirade in return – we'd been doing 70 on a 100k road and holding. him.up!!!
Crossing a double yellow line, when he only had 2 kms to go??
The Grandad insisted on going to the police station in the next town and telling them all about it; of course we had his number and description.
I hope they threw the book at him.
GG
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I was on an observed drive on Sunday, and was the third car behind a group of cyclists.
The road was not one that had many options for overtaking - a few, with care, but most of the road was not suitable.
At one point, where there was a half chance of a pass, the car in front of me passed the car at the front of the line. Behind the cyclists. Gaining pretty well no advantage.
Not only was the pass pointless, it was dangerous - there was no space to pull in. And following the bikes was frustrating, but there were loads of them, and it was just part of driving around there at that time.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
The Coromandel Peninsula, NZ, has beautiful scenery, and we cherish the tourists who are important to our economy.
But our roads are mostly winding (sometimes with a mirror for safety on blind bends), hilly, narrow in places with one-way bridges.
It's not just that visitors want to admire the scenery as they drive, but some find the roads so different from home they are really, really scary, so they drive slowly and carefully.
The worst offender was when I was in a tail of half a dozen vehicles following a campervan up the Thames Coast, where the Thames-Coromandel road winds along just above the edge of the sea and then over a couple of steep hills, narrowing in places to a one-way stretch. So the driver drove at 50k (that's 30 mph) all the way, never pulled over to let others pass (and there are numerous opportunities) and then rudely barged across a one way bridge when the approaching driver had the clearly- posted right-of-way.
At least he hadn't branched off onto the Tapu-Coroglen road, which is all of the above plus being un-sealed.
I must admit that in a capital city with winding, hilly suburban street with cars parked along them, even native kiwi drivers from cities with broad straight streets can be very, very nervous.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, you're right - parental choice based on a perception of educational quality (a perception that is rarely reflected in any quantifiable evidence) is one big reason.
Can't it just be preference? I live next to a sushi restaurant, you live by a curry house, but I prefer the food next to your house and you prefer the food next to mine?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Of course, you may just prefer the particular shade of institutional green they paint the walls.
But, the point is if you choose (for whatever reason) to send your children to a school that is further than reasonable walking distance, where none of the other local children go, etc then you need to accept there are consequences. One of them being that schools built to serve their local communities are not going to be as equipped to cater for the needs of people who decide to drive miles to get there - and that includes provision of drop-off spaces for car-borne children right at the school gate. It means you can't coordinate with the other parents on the street to share the task of ensuring the kids get safely to school, cos their kids go elsewhere. It means the bus service for the school may not run outside your door, because the company operating the bus doesn't think it's worthwhile going that far out of their way for one child (or, if they do, they put that as their first stop so you need to get children out the door at stupid o'clock).
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Motoring Git of The Month Award is hereby bestowed on the twat in a large white van who tried to come round the corner of what, thanks to parked cars, is effectively a single-file road, while I was waiting to turn right. He then had to wait halfway in and halfway out for me to move out to let him through, which I couldn't do because he'd just effectively blocked all visibility onto a busy main road. If I moved forward to see past the van there was every possibility I'd get crashed into in the process. I then got a queue of irate drivers behind me wanting to know why I wasn't moving on.
It's the first time in my life I've ever wound down the window and said what I thought. It was a waste of time, the van driver didn't hear me, and wasn't going to reverse back round the corner into the main road, and I had to risk pulling out instead.
Your trophy awaits. Claim it and sod off.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Well, that beats what I came here to relate. Started off up the single track lane to the local church to see a small white van start off towards me, having just come past the farm gates and the church car park gates, with a similar small van behind him. They came on, and on and on. I had to reverse about 100 yards to the gate to the cricket field while the leading van came almost to touch my bumper. He smiled sweetly as he passed me, while the following driver, I am told, gestured me (I am told by my passenger) to go forward through a gap that I would have needed Harry Potter's night bus technology to get through.
Women can't reverse, they say.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
You could have stopped, got out, and gone for a walk... that might have concentrated their minds a little.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
It's international. Les hommes dans camionettes blancs are no better.
(Franglais for "men in white vans")
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I did mutter about stopping if he got any closer, but he then slowed a bit. But I've got them on video, probably with their numbers.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. When my car packs it in I'll get a white van of my own.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. When my car packs it in I'll get a white van of my own.
Don't forget the baseball cap worn back-to-front. It's practically a part of the uniform.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
One for the elderly buggers who don't notice that the rule has been changed.
Remember we drive on the left.
Of two cars turning into a side road, the one turning left had to give way to the one on the right.
Then they changed it, several years ago, and 99% of us got used to it.
Signalling a right turn, I gave way to an approaching car turning left. He wouldn't budge. I waved him across, hooted and flashed my lights as three or more cars piled behind me. No effect.
I just had to go or we'd have been there all day.
I wish I'd stopped when we got round, and had a word with him.
GG
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. When my car packs it in I'll get a white van of my own.
Don't forget the baseball cap worn back-to-front. It's practically a part of the uniform.
Yes, I suppose I'll have to take up smoking as well.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
BBC story: M1 lorry shunts: Police failed to attend call for three hours
My sympathy for this guy evaporated when I read, "Footage shows Mr Stockdale [the car driver] stayed in the middle lane for some time".
He deserves a fine himself, the selfish git.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
My sympathy for this guy evaporated when I read, "Footage shows Mr Stockdale [the car driver] stayed in the middle lane for some time".
Mine too. Once I saw the footage I actually started cheering for the lorry
If only it was legal to use such methods to force selfish bastards to drive in the correct lane...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The lorry driver was in the wrong to scrape the car, and to pass in the right hand lane. But, two wrongs don't make a right. The driver stayed in the middle lane, going slower than a HGV, and instead of pulling into the left lane he sets his dash-cam to look backwards.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
And what I could see was him flashing the lorry - front and rear. Given that he has a dashcam company, I expect he has two, one front and one rear - I can't imagine how one would be able to change it round while driving and phoning. (Or run two off the socket safely, with leads all over the place - but I expect he has an answer for that.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. When my car packs it in I'll get a white van of my own.
Don't forget the baseball cap worn back-to-front. It's practically a part of the uniform.
Yes, I suppose I'll have to take up smoking as well.
And learn how to text while driving.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And what I could see was him flashing the lorry - front and rear. Given that he has a dashcam company, I expect he has two, one front and one rear - I can't imagine how one would be able to change it round while driving and phoning. (Or run two off the socket safely, with leads all over the place - but I expect he has an answer for that.)
The BBC said that he had three.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
And the phone plugged in for hands-free operation.
I was Duelled (see Spielberg film) around the South Circular one night by a Carlsberg delivery HGV - no contact though - and I would have had no opportunity to phone the police (before mobiles, though, but if I had had one), or to turn off and get to an operational police station. I was having to pay too much attention to driving.
I notice that the call to the police began while the HGV was pulling in towards him, and he should have been pulling over himself. Or slowing down, since the HGV was no longer behind him.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
I'm wondering how it happened that he was overtaken and side-swiped by the same truck on two separate occasions 14 minutes apart.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Because he proceeded to accelerate to pass the truck, and then sit in the middle lane going slower than the truck. He deliberately chose to put himself in a position to be swiped by the truck, after the first time at least.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Alan: quote:
Having said that, there is something deeply satisfying when someone does that and the slow vehicle pulls over 30 seconds later and you meet up with said eedjut stopped at the next set of traffic lights.
Hah! We were tailgated by a pillock once in a 20mph zone. Admittedly we were going slower than the limit; this was because we were following a cyclist, there was traffic coming in the other direction and *the road was too narrow to overtake the cyclist safely until it was clear*. As soon as there was a gap, the pillock zoomed past (hooting the horn and flashing the lights) and out of sight. Then we had to wait again until the road was clear before *we* could overtake.
At the next set of traffic lights we met up with The Pillock again, but we didn't start laughing until the cyclist zoomed past us to the front of the queue...
We chortled all the way to our destination.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Inconvenience is one thing. Endangering others is another. Twice yesterday people backed their cars out of driveways in front of me, I on a bicycle, with two lights front and back, on the bike and on my helmet. I cannot be missed. One rolled the window and apologised. Great, cyclists always lose in these situations. I regret not kicking and dinting the one car. "Gee sorry you hit me, I couldn't stop, too bad about your damage, let's call the police and get you a ticket and penalty points"
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Another nomination for "Best Motoring Git Enabler". This goes to the designers of the new bus station in Newport which has narrower bays than its predecessor (although buses have, if anything, got wider) and has traffic lights on the sole exit, an effect of which is when buses are waiting to at the lights they block the bays to incoming and outgoing buses.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Cycling git of the year
I was wandering along the footpath from the shops when this idiot came barrelling towards me at some speed. I moved further left so he had at least 2 metres space. He yelled out "get out of my fucking way". Neither the space he was given, or the fact that he was acting illegally worried him at all.
I am always tempted to respond "Doesn't your Mummy let you ride on the road?" but he seemed so aggressive that I decided discretion was the better part of valour. It left me feeling shaken.
I too am a cyclist, and I admit that I have ridden this same footpath, courteously when the road was narrowed down by earthquake repairs, but there is now an adequate cycle lane available.
Huia
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Many of you know that I work as a Drivng Instructor so I could tell all sorts of stories about what I see in the road. My favourite recent one was at the traffic lights, an impatient twat in a BMW was behind us revving his engine. The nanosecond the lights changed he started hooting frantically. My pupil moved off smoothly and Mr BMW stalled ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Jeez, Spike, DISH! DISH!
(Great story. )
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Many of you know that I work as a Drivng Instructor so I could tell all sorts of stories about what I see in the road. My favourite recent one was at the traffic lights, an impatient twat in a BMW was behind us revving his engine. The nanosecond the lights changed he started hooting frantically. My pupil moved off smoothly and Mr BMW stalled
Do you by any chance have the experience that having a car adorned with an "L" means that some drivers just have to get past you, no matter what and no matter how fast you are going?
We drive a rather uninspiring Opel Agila. We can be breaking the speed limit on a narrow, windy road for all we care, but if there is the likes of a BMW in the vicinity it just cannot be seen to be driving behind us without staging a stunt-grade pass.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
My little Red MINI drove BMW and Mercedes owners to become extremely territorial and aggressive. My "new" daily driver is an MR2 Roadster. Early indications is that this effect is still present, though greatly reduced.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
A recent meme on Facebook encouraged all those who thought their jobs were pointless to remember that someone at BMW is employed to fit the indicators.
When I was a driving instructor and had an impatient driver behind I was often tempted to put pressure on the learner and see if I could get them to lose their clutch control and slide backwards towards the offending twat. But I always chickened out.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
A recent meme on Facebook encouraged all those who thought their jobs were pointless to remember that someone at BMW is employed to fit the indicators.
They fit them, but are they subsequently checked?
quote:
When I was a driving instructor and had an impatient driver behind I was often tempted to put pressure on the learner and see if I could get them to lose their clutch control and slide backwards towards the offending twat. But I always chickened out.
When he lived in west London my brother wired a push-button into the brake light circuit. Very useful in dealing with tailgaters.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
A recent meme on Facebook encouraged all those who thought their jobs were pointless to remember that someone at BMW is employed to fit the indicators.
When I was a driving instructor and had an impatient driver behind I was often tempted to put pressure on the learner and see if I could get them to lose their clutch control and slide backwards towards the offending twat. But I always chickened out.
The old joke - "Do you know the difference between a porcupine and a BMW? With the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside..."
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I had to have a new (reconditioned) engine fitted in my second car, a Hillman Imp. I put a "Running In, Please Pass" notice in the back. And then I took it out, because I didn't want the responsibility for the accidents that were going to happen to the idiots who did, and there wasn't room for "when the road is clear".
Yesterday's prize goes to the idiots who wrote "HELP" in the mist on their back window when they were only waiting for the AA or similar, thus causing a number of people to call the police. (I know they were joking because the police were very nice about letting callers know the outcome.)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Today's nomination nearly failed to be nominated because we couldn't see him! Yes, at 7:35, a black Peugeot 307 with no lights at all and in a tearing hurry. I should add that at 7:35 in South Wales it isn't even remotely light on December 17th. If it hadn't been for street lights and other motorists he wouldn't have ben able to see a thing.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
That reminds me of the time many years ago when I was a passenger in a car on the Jersey Turnpike at night. The driver suddenly swore and hit the brakes. There was a car in front of us that not only had no tail lights, but didn't even have reflectors.
Moo
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
A recent meme on Facebook encouraged all those who thought their jobs were pointless to remember that someone at BMW is employed to fit the indicators.
When I was a driving instructor and had an impatient driver behind I was often tempted to put pressure on the learner and see if I could get them to lose their clutch control and slide backwards towards the offending twat. But I always chickened out.
The old joke - "Do you know the difference between a porcupine and a BMW? With the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside..."
In the summer of 1987 I was volunteering on a holiday scheme in South London and was delighted to discover that to my - ethnically diverse- group of 12 year olds, BMWs were universally known as Black Man's Willies. As I took them through the City of London, in that year of the yuppy, they would invariably shout out 'There goes a Black Man's Willy!' whenever they saw the blue and white badge. I was proud of them.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Last night walking back from the dentists I stopped at a pedestrian crossing, pressed the button and waited. I wasn't really concentrating much, so when the crossing started to beep I took a step towards the curb, looking right to see there was no traffic when a car from the left crossed right in front of me. I did a double take, look at the crossing where the green man was clearly showing, at the light above my head which was clearly red, then at the car that was braking hard to pull into the bus stop. He had definitely jumped the light, was probably exceeding the speed limit and thought he was a bus.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
My North American friends - and they include our daughters - wonder why I like to reverse into parking spots whenever possible. I've given up trying to explain, but I do tell them how much I've enjoyed watching people backing out from opposite spots at the same time and rear-ending each other. Saw it happen again just the other day at the supermarket. The insurance claims would make interesting reading.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
I often look for a pull-through parking space. The rear windows on cars seem to have gotten smaller or at least have poor visibility. I hope I get one of the rear-view cameras on my next car (and hope everyone else parking near me has one too!).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
My North American friends - and they include our daughters - wonder why I like to reverse into parking spots whenever possible.
This would be mandatory if I had my way, for reasons related to the experiences related above regarding people reversing out of driveways.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I always reverse into my driveway so that when I go out I can see what's coming.
Moo
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
My North American friends - and they include our daughters - wonder why I like to reverse into parking spots whenever possible. I've given up trying to explain, but I do tell them how much I've enjoyed watching people backing out from opposite spots at the same time and rear-ending each other. Saw it happen again just the other day at the supermarket. The insurance claims would make interesting reading.
I sometimes wonder if there is a male/female preference here, in supermarket car parks and other shopping venues.
It is after all a lot easier to put the shopping in the boot (US: trunk) if the rear is outwards.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
My North American friends - and they include our daughters - wonder why I like to reverse into parking spots whenever possible. I've given up trying to explain, but I do tell them how much I've enjoyed watching people backing out from opposite spots at the same time and rear-ending each other. Saw it happen again just the other day at the supermarket. The insurance claims would make interesting reading.
This reminds me of a scene in the film "Fried Green Tomatoes". Kathy Bates' character, middle aged and driving a fairly large car, is waiting for a particular parking spot at a big store. It clears; and just when she starts to turn in, a little car zooms in and takes it. As she gets upset, 2 teenage girls get out. (They'd be the mean girls' clique in a high school film.) KB's character is normally very polite and a little repressed, and is trying to figure out what to do. The girls laugh at her and say, "Face it, lady, we're younger and prettier!"
When the girls come out, KB's car rolls in and repeatedly rear-ends their car. Out her window, she says with delight, "Face it, girls, I'm older and I have more insurance!" She drives off, and the girls freak out. Later, KB's husband (IIRC) says it was understandable to have brake problems once, but repeatedly?
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
A recent meme on Facebook encouraged all those who thought their jobs were pointless to remember that someone at BMW is employed to fit the indicators.
When I was a driving instructor and had an impatient driver behind I was often tempted to put pressure on the learner and see if I could get them to lose their clutch control and slide backwards towards the offending twat. But I always chickened out.
The old joke - "Do you know the difference between a porcupine and a BMW? With the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside..."
In the summer of 1987 I was volunteering on a holiday scheme in South London and was delighted to discover that to my - ethnically diverse- group of 12 year olds, BMWs were universally known as Black Man's Willies. As I took them through the City of London, in that year of the yuppy, they would invariably shout out 'There goes a Black Man's Willy!' whenever they saw the blue and white badge. I was proud of them.
I thought everyone knew that they stood for Baptist Ministers Wheels.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
There was a series of books about a country vet in Yorkshire called All Creatures Great and Small. In it an experienced vet advised a noob to always reverse in to parking spaces so that if you killed the animal you could make a clean get away.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I sometimes wonder if there is a male/female preference here, in supermarket car parks and other shopping venues.
It is after all a lot easier to put the shopping in the boot (US: trunk) if the rear is outwards.
True, but (for me anyway) it's not worth the hassle of spending 10 minutes attempting to reverse out at 1 mph in such a way that you don't collide with any parked cars, pedestrians, or those shopping trolleys and that beat-up old van that have materialized next to your parking space since you arrived at the store.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
My North American friends - and they include our daughters - wonder why I like to reverse into parking spots whenever possible.
This would be mandatory if I had my way, for reasons related to the experiences related above regarding people reversing out of driveways.
Maybe someone from the left hand side of the pond could confirm this, but I understood it was mandatory in the States to park "trunk facing out". I have no idea why, as this seems so counter rational, but I assume these is a reason for it.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
Nope - you can park either way here in the U.S.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
There may be state or local ordinances, but nothing national.
Moo
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
Some states here don't issue license plates for the front of the car (i.e. only the back) and some parking facilities need to be able to see license plates, so they require front-in parking.
[ 19. December 2015, 16:32: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There may be state or local ordinances, but nothing national.
Moo
Yeah, sometimes you will see a sign requesting no back-in parking, but the fact that it needs a sign says without the sign anything goes. And come to think of it, I don't think I have ever seen one of those signs with the " local ordinance" reference that comes with city placed parking signs, so that would mean the signs I have seen really were requests, from the business owner or whoever owned the lot.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
By the way, have we gone over idiots who lollygag in the passing lane until the place where the passing lane disappears and merges with the slow lane? And THEN they floor it?
Wish there would be a way to make a manslaughter charge stick if a heart attack should occur.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Yesterday, there was an idiot behind me. Bear in mind, my journey home was a complete nightmare, all of the roads completely jammed, so everyone was in total chaos.
The first time I saw him in my mirror, he was on the wrong side of the road - no idea how he had got there, but he shot into the space behind me. Then he proceeded to wait as I moved on, and then accelerate fast to cover the 2 car lengths between us. At one point, he spun his wheels to start and to stop (a moment later).
Grade 1 tosser.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
Are cyclists allowed in this thread? Like the one I had to avoid in heavy traffic, riding no-hands and texting.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
No, there's enough material around for Cycling Git of the Year Award 2015 to be a flourishing thread in itself.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
Are cyclists allowed in this thread? Like the one I had to avoid in heavy traffic, riding no-hands and texting.
Got you beat there. We have one in Newport who rides like that on the wrong side of a one-way street. He does this as a matter of course but at least he's young and only 200 yards from the hospital so if anything happens he'll be convenient placed for patching up or organ donation.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Got you beat there. We have one in Newport who rides like that on the wrong side of a one-way street.
Everyone knows that rules are optional for cycling. Kind of like how the rules about parking don't apply to you if you put your hazard lights on and just pop in somewhere for a minute.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(rubs hands in anticipation of Ariston finding this turn of conversation. ) ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Please. I may be a hardcore bike advocate (NO NEW ROADS UNTIL CARS LEARN TO OBEY STOP SIGNS!), but riding home with my boss is terrifying. Dude's like Fezziwig from Christmas Carol when he's off the bike, but get him riding in traffic and he turns into a swearing, angry, red-light-running unholy terror. The whole staff is either terrified to ride with the dude or doesn't get why we all hate riding with him—well, until they ride along. I've had to apologize to drivers he's sworn at, sprint like mad to catch up after he cuts off cars who have the right of way in intersections, wonder what the news report's going to be when "owner of prominent local bike shop (ticketed/hit/etc)"...
I figure he's so friendly normally because he doesn't have any anger left after he gets off the bike.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Last night, so clear you could see the International Space Station sliding overhead (not while driving, obvs), all the *********** twits with fog lamps on under their badly adjusted headlights.
Visual purple takes 45 minutes to recover from bleaching after light exposure. 45 minutes!
My friend is sitting there beside me where I have pulled into the passing space to allow the oncoming ******** to pass me in the rural lane, whimpering "I can't see properly..." wondering if I have had a stroke or something. And then there is another one....!
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on
:
The women weaving all over the road in front of me with two small children in her car. When she stopped for gas I followed her into the gas station, thinking she might be ill. She was so drunk she could hardly stand up when she got out of her car. I informed her I was calling the highway patrol. At which point she called me many nasty names. I felt so bad for her children. I was asked to wait around while police called her husband to come get the children. When he arrived, he was mad not at his drunk wife but at police for arresting her. That was 3 years ago and I still think of those children.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Hooray! The school run is over for a fortnight!
That takes at least fifteen minutes off my four mile bus journey every morning. I won't describe all the mummies as motoring gits but the excess vehicles clogs up the roads like chip fat does to arteries.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Got you beat there. We have one in Newport who rides like that on the wrong side of a one-way street.
Everyone knows that rules are optional for cycling. Kind of like how the rules about parking don't apply to you if you put your hazard lights on and just pop in somewhere for a minute.
Well, some are. Speed limits in the UK for example do not apply (with one or two exceptions down in That London).
Nor does the drink drive limit. It's illegal to ride whilst intoxicated, but that's a subjective call rather than the strict rule of the breathalyser.
An of course some one way streets have contraflow cycle lanes (often mistaken for parking bays by fuckwits in motorised tins)
[ 21. December 2015, 08:57: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I did once get some sarky comments from a couple of police officers when out on my bike. Doing a right turn just past a traffic control width restriction that included a central gap for buses. Because of oncoming traffic I needed to wait in the middle of the road, so went through the bus gate to stop where I wasn't likely to be hit by cars passing on my left. Seemed sensible to me, but apparently the police thought I looked insufficiently like a bus.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
What most traffic cops know about cycling can be written on the back of a postage stamp in thick marker pen, IME.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What most traffic cops know about cycling can be written on the back of a postage stamp in thick marker pen, IME.
I was surprised they saw you, Alan.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Last night, so clear you could see the International Space Station sliding overhead (not while driving, obvs), all the *********** twits with fog lamps on under their badly adjusted headlights.
I certainly agree about the badly-adjusted headlights, it's a particular bane of mine. However I don't agree about the use of foglights: they shouldn't ever point into oncoming drivers' line of sight and they are very useful for seeing the edge of a country lane, often very indistinct due to mud and dirt.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An of course some one way streets have contraflow cycle lanes
But most don't, but a lot of cyclists don't seem to understand that. For that matter a lot don't seem to understand that most two way roads don't have contra flow cycle lanes either or that pavements are intended for pedestrians.
Then, of course, red traffic lights don't apply to cyclists which is why they have a right to shout and swear at pedestrians who dare to walk out in front of them in a pedestrian crossing.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Last night, so clear you could see the International Space Station sliding overhead (not while driving, obvs), all the *********** twits with fog lamps on under their badly adjusted headlights.
I certainly agree about the badly-adjusted headlights, it's a particular bane of mine. However I don't agree about the use of foglights: they shouldn't ever point into oncoming drivers' line of sight and they are very useful for seeing the edge of a country lane, often very indistinct due to mud and dirt.
I'm seeing them used in other places - but they do dazzle, especially when in close proximity as in lanes, and stop me seeing the edge, and more importantly, the unfilled muddy potholes. Apart from that, here is the bit in the Highway Code about their use.
quote:
Rule 236
You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226) as they dazzle other road users and can obscure your brake lights. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves.
Rule 226
You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves (see Rule 236).
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Then, of course, red traffic lights don't apply to cyclists which is why they have a right to shout and swear at pedestrians who dare to walk out in front of them in a pedestrian crossing.
Nor do they apply to motorists making (questionable) right or (illegal) left turns across bike traffic or pedestrians, as I was once informed by an SUV driver. Why, I fucking knew better than to walk across the goddamn street as she was turning!
I mean, I did have the walk signal, she had a red light, but who cares? She had steel on her side. Steel is real.
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
I'd like to nominate for Motoring Git of the Year the fuckwit who backed his truck into us this morning on the way to work. He was turning in to the entrance which leads one way to the car-park, the other to a drop-off lane (where we were aiming for). For some reason he stopped, and so did we (we had no choice), but then he suddenly started reversing and had hit us before D. had the chance to reverse out of his way or even lean on the horn.
We'd been behind him for a few dozen yards along the road before he turned, so even though our car isn't very big, if he didn't see us, then he bloody well should have done.
The damage to our car was slight (but probably expensive), but what really pissed me off was that he broke the front number-plate, which is an old "cherished" Orkney number* that had been in my family for about 40 years and my dad gave me the plate as a keepsake when he gave up driving. I know we can probably get a replacement plate made, but that sort of isn't the point. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
* In Newfoundland, cars only have to have a rear number-plate; you can put what you like on the front.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Then, of course, red traffic lights don't apply to cyclists which is why they have a right to shout and swear at pedestrians who dare to walk out in front of them in a pedestrian crossing.
Nor do they apply to motorists making (questionable) right or (illegal) left turns across bike traffic or pedestrians, as I was once informed by an SUV driver. Why, I fucking knew better than to walk across the goddamn street as she was turning!
I mean, I did have the walk signal, she had a red light, but who cares? She had steel on her side. Steel is real.
At least one can hear a car coming. Bikes are silent and in the dingy overcast we have in Newport they are invisible too.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An of course some one way streets have contraflow cycle lanes
But most don't, but a lot of cyclists don't seem to understand that. For that matter a lot don't seem to understand that most two way roads don't have contra flow cycle lanes either or that pavements are intended for pedestrians.
Then, of course, red traffic lights don't apply to cyclists which is why they have a right to shout and swear at pedestrians who dare to walk out in front of them in a pedestrian crossing.
I wonder how the proportion of drivers who break 30mph speed limits would compare with the proportion of cyclists who cycle on pavements and go through red lights?
N= quite low, obviously, but of the people I actually know, the former is around 90% and the latter about 50%
I'm not entirely convinced anyone has a group right to fingerpointing.
The problem here is, and always has been, Fundamental Attribution Error - because most people are not cyclists, they can attribute bad cyclist behaviour to the perpetrators being cyclists. Because on the other hand most people are drivers, they attribute bad driving behaviour to the perpetrators being arseholes. In both cases, that way, they can say "but not me!"
My personal motoring gits of the year awards will always be shared between the twats who overtake me with about a foot clearance, in the mistaken belief that nearly killing a cyclist is less of a fault than waiting for ten seconds, and the ones who think that when they are turning into a side road they have priority over pedestrians crossing the end of the side road and should expect said pedestrians to wait for them.
[ 22. December 2015, 08:44: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I think one of the problems with contraflow cycle lanes in one-way streets is that pedestrians often don't realise they are there, and step out into the road after looking the wrong way.
Even green stripes on the road don't necessarily give sufficient visual warning.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Darwinism is a bitch.
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
At least one can hear a car coming. Bikes are silent and in the dingy overcast we have in Newport they are invisible too.
We have an electric car. Pheasants, cyclists and pedestrians using personal stereos, beware!
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Now I'm imagining a pheasant with earbuds. It's much more amusing than it should be.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
At least one can hear a car coming. Bikes are silent and in the dingy overcast we have in Newport they are invisible too.
We have an electric car. Pheasants, cyclists and pedestrians using personal stereos, beware!
Ahem - it's your heavy lump of metal. The primary onus is on you, since you're the one introducing the potentially dangerous object into the environment.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Kind of like how the rules about parking don't apply to you if you put your hazard lights on and just pop in somewhere for a minute.
I used to live in Plzeň in the Czech Republic. There was one street with two lanes in each direction and tramlines.
The tramlines ran down the inside lane (i.e. the lane nearest the kerb) - obviously, so that passengers didn't have to cross a line of traffic to get on or off the tram.
This meant that no motorist could park on the inside lane, because trams can't steer round them. So people solved this difficulty by abandoning their cars in the middle of the road, with hazard lights flashing, while they nipped to the shops.
[ 22. December 2015, 14:01: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Now I'm imagining a pheasant with earbuds. It's much more amusing than it should be.
I just hope the pheasants aren't texting.
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
At least one can hear a car coming. Bikes are silent and in the dingy overcast we have in Newport they are invisible too.
We have an electric car. Pheasants, cyclists and pedestrians using personal stereos, beware!
Ahem - it's your heavy lump of metal. The primary onus is on you, since you're the one introducing the potentially dangerous object into the environment.
It wasn't a serious comment. (Though my wife did hit a pheasant which opted to scuttle across the road right in front of her, to the detriment of both bird and vehicle. As far as I know it wasn't wearing earbuds.)
The car actually makes an additional whining noise at low speeds (below 25mph) to warn pedestrians of its approach as it is quite quiet. At higher speeds, the noise of the tyres is warning enough, and also of course there are rarely pedestrians likely to be in the way when driving at higher speeds anyway.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
Plague take the brainless swine on an electric bike hurtling along the pavement inches from the shop door I was leaving this morning.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
The two women, in separate streets in South London, who pulled out from parking places as if joining the flow past them - without checking that there was a space or anyone had stopped to let them in, only to turn at right angles and then reverse to carry out three point turns through the traffic. The first one appeared to have done something similar before, as the side of the car facing the traffic was bashed in. It was the absence of the damage which made it clear that the second car was a different driver.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
The car actually makes an additional whining noise at low speeds (below 25mph) to warn pedestrians of its approach as it is quite quiet.
My electric car frequently makes loud squealing noises. Plus leaves handy marks to inform others of my passing. I love instant torque.
At least, for the tiny stint between the daycare and my office when I'm not driving in Dad Mode™.
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
I picked up quite a collection last night cycling into the Cattle Crossing,adorned with bright lights and a decent Christmas tree's worth of reflective jackets and bands. First someone pulled out of a side road alongside me, then a bit later on, someone slowed down for a pedestrian crossing, decided no-one was looking, and accelerated over with the lights at red, then on my way home another car tried the alongside pull-out as well.
I bet they get right up their arse about cyclists jumping red lights, too... I didn't jump it, before anyone says anything.
AG
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
I picked up quite a collection last night cycling into the Cattle Crossing,adorned with bright lights and a decent Christmas tree's worth of reflective jackets and bands. First someone pulled out of a side road alongside me, then a bit later on, someone slowed down for a pedestrian crossing, decided no-one was looking, and accelerated over with the lights at red, then on my way home another car tried the alongside pull-out as well.
I bet they get right up their arse about cyclists jumping red lights, too... I didn't jump it, before anyone says anything.
AG
I see your collection and raise you the utter cunch (collective noun for a bunch of cunts) who were driving down Handsworth Hill yesterday in Sheffield. It's pissing down, it's dark, the road is like the surface of the fucking moon, and it's an 8% downhill. As you can imagine, keeping a sensible stopping distance is a really good idea, since the already poor wet traction is made worse by the fact you're bouncing off the road surface half the time. But no, these utter tits insist on squeezing past me (doesn't matter where I sit in the lane, and I'm somewhat constrained by picking a line that isn't going to throw me off into a fucking crater), they're on my shoulder, squeezing by, only to then slap their fucking anchors on because of the line of slow moving traffic I am trying to keep a sensible distance from. Only time in five years commuting I've actually been scared enough to take a different route.
Fucking cunts, the lot of them. When I'm in charge, no-one will be allowed to apply for a driving licence until they've commuted 4000 miles on a bike. Only exceptions will be people who qualify for a blue badge.
I'm serious on that last one. Really.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I think this chap qualifies for an award.
I have a TT. I know how it performs. If you are doing 95 in a 30 limit, there is NO WAY ON EARTH that you can control it, despite the fact that is unbelievable stability and handling. I think he should have been charged with murder, because this level of callous disregard for others is as dangerous as, say, setting fire to a building or driving down a street shooting randomly.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Banned from driving for 15 years? Or 9 years, if he is released at half the 12 year sentence. Or 3 if he serves the full term.
He should be banned for life. Or only permitted to drive one of those scooters for persons of limited mobility.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think this chap qualifies for an award.
I have a TT. I know how it performs. If you are doing 95 in a 30 limit, there is NO WAY ON EARTH that you can control it, despite the fact that is unbelievable stability and handling. I think he should have been charged with murder, because this level of callous disregard for others is as dangerous as, say, setting fire to a building or driving down a street shooting randomly.
If it's any consolation I doubt he will get an easy life in prison. It might not be child molesting but on the "inside tariff" I reckon it will be fairly high.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
He should be banned for life. Or only permitted to drive one of those scooters for persons of limited mobility.
In many jurisdictions, including the one in which I live, only the motor vehicle administration, and not the courts, can revoke a license. In neither the deaths of Tom Palermo nor Tim Holden were licenses revoked.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Banned from driving for 15 years? Or 9 years, if he is released at half the 12 year sentence. Or 3 if he serves the full term.
He should be banned for life. Or only permitted to drive one of those scooters for persons of limited mobility.
I think that driving bans now start on release.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Which would clearly make sense. This fuckwit would be lethal on a Segway, let alone a mobility scooter.
I.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I did consider a Segway, but I thought a mobility scooter would be more stable.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Heavier, though - and more liable to do damage.....
I.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
He should be banned for life. Or only permitted to drive one of those scooters for persons of limited mobility.
Hm. That doesn't stop certain pensioners from speeding through shopping centres, zooming down supermarket aisles and doing top speed on pavements, while pedestrians, children and small dogs scatter. The elderly chap I saw a couple of weeks ago on the actual road was certainly doing his best to reach 30 mph.
(Never underestimate the elderly.)
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
A couple of years ago a man was speeding around a local grocery store on his electric scooter and crashed into a highly-stacked display of bottled beer. You can guess the result.
Instead of reporting the mess to anyone he sped out of that aisle as quickly as possible!
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
There's a YouTube video somewhere of a mobility scooter modified with a motorcycle engine ...
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I did consider a Segway, but I thought a mobility scooter would be more stable.
For me, the problem with a Segway is that I'd be leaning forward the whole time. Recipe for motion sickness and/or an accident.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
On TV shows, I've occasionally seen Little Persons using sort of a modified Segway that allows them to ride up higher, and not have as much difficulty getting around. ("Boston Legal" fans might remember when lawyer Bethany tried one of those out.)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I'm not sure if 'git' is quite the word for what I saw yesterday ...
A driver had pulled over on the hard shoulder of the M56. Someone had obviously told him that you should try to get all the passengers out of the car, but not which door they should go out through.
So there was a girl of about ten or eleven trying to life a baby out of the back seat, through the driver's-side door.
I.e. the door that was about a foot away from 70mph traffic.
Now I am no longer surprised that the death toll on the motorways comes largely on the hard shoulder ...
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
...aaaaaaaaand the first Motoring Git of the Year nomination for 2016 goes to the bell end who pulled out of a layby on the A40 without looking as the London coach bore down on them at 70mph. I'm not quite sure how the driver missed them and still stayed on the road, it was the wildest swerve I've ever known a bus do, but he did, or I might not be typing this...
AG
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I nominate the couple who pulled into a country lane this morning ahead of me - without indicating, naturally. The stickers on their rear window bore an address of a large town some 20 miles away.
Despite their vehicle being a four-wheel drive, they then proceeded to inch their way along the middle of the lane (which is wide enough for 2 lanes for all of its length) at a stately 15mph, coming to a complete halt where there were large puddles, and generally behaving as if their vehicle would melt if it got water on it.
If you're that concerned about standing water (none of it more than c 3 inches deep) that encroaches more than halfway across your lane, why are you driving down country lanes in one of the wettest winters on record.
In the meantime, it may be a Sunday morning but some of us are on our way to work and taking nearly15 minutes to drive barely a mile-and-a-half is OTT.
Good job I was planning a rehearsal before the service this morning - the singing may not have happened but at least I was there (just) for the start of the service ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
......at a stately 15mph, coming to a complete halt where there were large puddles, and generally behaving as if their vehicle would melt if it got water on it.
Like it.
As for the car pulling out in front of a bus full of say.... 50 souls. One wonders if it wouldn't be justifiable homicide to plough straight into it as opposed to the bus driver swerving and putting passengers at risk?
Probably not, just a thought.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Ah, the old Trolley Problem, although that deals with ethics rather than law.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Not motoring - but I hope he doesn't ever take up a car. Cycling through Catford in a hoody. I thought he was signalling right at first, but he was zigzagging through the traffic queue waving both arms around higgledy piggledy, side to side, over his head, as if he were dancing.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
This guy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-35291159 wins for today. Along with the fucking idiot CPS who charged this as a motoring offence instead of murder. How can driving deliberately at someone and killing them be merely causing death by dangerous driving? Can I get 4 years (out in 2 with good behaviour) for stabbing someone but only being charged with causing death by dangerous knife wielding?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I think I could see the reasoning in that article. It fits with the stuff in the Express about not examining the behaviour of our troops in the field.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This guy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-35291159 wins for today. Along with the fucking idiot CPS who charged this as a motoring offence instead of murder. How can driving deliberately at someone and killing them be merely causing death by dangerous driving? Can I get 4 years (out in 2 with good behaviour) for stabbing someone but only being charged with causing death by dangerous knife wielding?
IANAL. But considering the bare facts of the case, the CPS has a very good case for an appeal. The maximum tariff for Death by Dangerous Driving is 14 years. The alternative charges (given the difficulty of making a murder charge stick on a doubtful intent to kill) of manslaughter or s.18 wounding could both potentially carry a life sentence.
I can imagine the CPS lawyers looking askance at the judge as he handed down the sentence.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I have said for many years that if you want to kill someone and get away with it, use a car. I have also said that killing someone while driving dangerously should be at a level with murder.
This case, as it appears, was a clear case of deliberately causing the death of someone. If he had used a gun or a knife, he would have been on trial for murder, but instead, he used a car. I don't see any real difference.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How can driving deliberately at someone and killing them be merely causing death by dangerous driving?
I suspect the key reasoning behind it is the fact that he had already been tried and found guilty of causing serious injury by dangerous driving in relation to the incident, and was awaiting sentencing when the cyclist died. The courts couldn't try him for murder at the main trial because the cyclist wasn't dead, and they couldn't do it afterwards because of double jeopardy. All they could do was change the "serious injury" part to "death".
Even so, the sentence handed down does seem unusually lenient.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Very odd - there was recently a similar case here which is being prosecuted as murder. I cannot see any difference between the two cases unless killing a police officer is somehow seen as worse (killing one of our own, perhaps).
[Cp'd with Marvin - that does make a bit more sense.]
[ 13. January 2016, 16:04: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How can driving deliberately at someone and killing them be merely causing death by dangerous driving?
I suspect the key reasoning behind it is the fact that he had already been tried and found guilty of causing serious injury by dangerous driving in relation to the incident, and was awaiting sentencing when the cyclist died. The courts couldn't try him for murder at the main trial because the cyclist wasn't dead, and they couldn't do it afterwards because of double jeopardy. All they could do was change the "serious injury" part to "death".
Even so, the sentence handed down does seem unusually lenient.
The original charge was wrong. He should never have been charged with a motoring offence but rather under offences against the person - the fact he used a car as his weapon is barely relevant.
This happens far too often; deliberately aggressive dangerous driving charged as a motoring offence instead of what it actually is - assault, ABH, GBH, murder. He should have been charged with GBH in the first place which would have in the normal course of events be upgraded to murder on the death of the victim.
The message sent out needs to be that driving deliberately close to people to scare them is no different to smashing a bottle on the bar and threatening someone with it.
[ 14. January 2016, 09:56: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
One thing arguing against that is the fact that the courts can only ban someone from driving if convicted for a motoring offence. If he'd been charged with GBH he'd have been completely free to jump straight back behind the wheel the moment he was released. This way, on release he faced a two-year ban followed by a mandatory retest before he could drive again.
The fact that the cyclist died after the trial does mean the comparison between upgraded charges is a lot greater. But what was the CPS to do - put off charging the driver until they knew if he was going to pull through or not? Some people stay in comas for years, and prosecutions are best done as quickly as possible - witness memories fade, interest wanes, and it's generally seen as a bad thing to keep the accused in custody or on bail (not to mention banned from driving) for so long without trial.
You can argue that these laws or their sentencing guidelines should be different, and you'd have a fair case. I for one think the sentencing guideline for serious injury/death by dangerous driving should be closer to that for GBH/murder (or at least manslaughter). But it seems to me that under the laws that actually exist and with the knowledge they actually had at the time the CPS prosecuted this case as best it could.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
One thing arguing against that is the fact that the courts can only ban someone from driving if convicted for a motoring offence.
Firstly, that can be changed.
Secondly, I'd quite happily see a charge sheet for GBH and dangerous driving.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
One thing arguing against that is the fact that the courts can only ban someone from driving if convicted for a motoring offence.
Firstly, that can be changed.
Of course it can, but not retrospectively. Which makes all the difference when we're talking about whether the actual charge in a specific case was correct rather than what the hypothetical charge for a similar case should be.
quote:
Secondly, I'd quite happily see a charge sheet for GBH and dangerous driving.
Or even GBH by dangerous driving, to go with all the "by beating", "by stabbing", etc. versions there already are.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Not taken by the latter option. This is primarily an offence of violence, not a motoring offence - and I think that's my major beef with this. The fact it was a motor vehicle that was the weapon of choice means that other motoring offences might have also been committed, but it wasn't poor driving that killed the victim; it was a deliberate act intended to cause him serious harm.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Well, GBH is GBH regardless of the method used - the "by" parts just define what the method was, with slightly different sentencing guidelines for each to reflect the level of severity and premeditation. The advantage of adding a "by dangerous driving" option would be that the sentencing for that option could include a driving ban as well as the custodial time.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I have a vague recollection that these offences like "Causing death by dangerous driving" have their origin in the 1920's when it was nearly impossible to get a jury to convict a wayward motorist for manslaughter. The story I have heard was that the qualifications for jury service hadn't been updated along with those for voting. The effect was that juries tended to feel sympathetic for the motorist, who was likely to be not unlike themselves, so alternative offences, with lesser sentences, were introduced.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This happens far too often; deliberately aggressive dangerous driving charged as a motoring offence instead of what it actually is - assault, ABH, GBH, murder.
It's easier to get a conviction for a driving offense, though. You can convict someone for dangerous driving if the driving was dangerous, regardless of intent. To convict him of assault for driving aggressively at someone, you'd need to prove that his aggression was intentional, rather than just crap driving.
I agree with you in principle, but suspect that prosecutors just go for the easy win.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I agree with you in principle, but suspect that prosecutors just go for the easy win.
A charge with a tariff of 14 years is not an 'easy win'.
Much, if not all, of the blame lies with the sentencing judge, who gave the guilty party 4 years for an act that was deliberate, even if spur-of-the-moment. If he'd handed down 10+ years, then we'd probably feel that justice had at least had a look in.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
To convict him of assault for driving aggressively at someone, you'd need to prove that his aggression was intentional
Actually, I can confirm from personal experience that an assault doesn't have to be intentional. "Reckless" is good enough for a conviction.
Whether that remains true for the more serious versions of the crime (ABH/GBH/manslaughter/murder) I don't know.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
IIRC ABH and GBH can be founded on a recklessness as to harm, and manslaughter can be founded on an unlawful and dangerous act which is objectively likely to cause harm. Murder, however, requires intention to kill or to cause GBH.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Sometimes the motoring gits get arrested, and end up behind baas.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Since this is Arizona, rear ending another car isn't enough -- pull out your gun and shoot the person you just ran into.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sometimes the motoring gits get arrested, and end up behind baas.
I found the puns excruciating!
But rather impressed that the car stopped for the sheep.
[ 22. January 2016, 20:06: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
An honorary mention for the utter tit this evening who decided that the time to move back into the left-hand lane of the dual carriageway was just as they reached an on-slip, with a string of cars trying to get on. Having someone suddenly cross lanes apparently hell-bent on T-boning you is not fun.
AG
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sometimes the motoring gits get arrested, and end up behind baas.
I found the puns excruciating!
But rather impressed that the car stopped for the sheep.
Yes, glad they didn't die(-in-the-wool). In fact, the ovines clearly put the wool over the offenders' eyes in this case.
Frankly, I quite liked the puns, me, apparently unlike ewe.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I didn't say I didn't like them! Things can be excruciatingly funny, IMO.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
In Canada it is your God given right as a pedestrian to walk across a road and expect the traffic to stop for you, regardless of the laws of physics and the predictable blindness and distractedness of most drivers. The man in the next bed in the hospital the other day had decided to cross at a 'Stop' sign, expecting the oncoming driver to stop. She didn't, and it took the orthopaedic surgeon four hours to put his leg back together. I know it was his right to cross the road and he won't be found at fault, but couldn't he have hesitated a few moments, just to make sure?
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
How about the guy in North Carolina who shot and killed one of three people who tried to help him after he spun out on an icy road?
News story
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on
:
The walking turd that did this:
BBC news
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The walking turd that did this:
BBC news
And as a follow up our fucking useless police and CPS (Criminal Protection Service) who won't even prosecute when someone's been filmed trying to murder someone else.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm reasonably certain they could have interrogated the named drivers' mobile phones for a geolocation. Instead, we have a potential murderer let back out on the streets with a shrug.
Good work, police!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
And as a follow up our fucking useless police and CPS (Criminal Protection Service) who won't even prosecute when someone's been filmed trying to murder someone else.
No, a car has been filmed ramming a cyclist in an apparently deliberate manner, and then driving off. As far as I can see from the video, at no point does it show the person who was driving said car, or what they were actually doing when the incident occurred. Which is the whole fucking reason why they can't prosecute.
Every now and then "innocent until proven guilty" is a principle that really sucks, but I for one am quite glad that we have it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
On the other hand, the person liable for penalty charge notices is the registered owner of the vehicle (or, the person who signed the documentation for a hire car). If they can not prove that someone else was driving the car then they will receive the fine and points for whatever the offense was. The owner is assumed guilty until they prove their innocence.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If they can not prove that someone else was driving the car then they will receive the fine and points for whatever the offense was.
Only for summary offences, which is what happened - the hirer of the car has been fined and given 6 penalty points for failure to give details of who was driving at the time.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
But considering a man was severely injured in a potentially lethal assault, and the police whittled it down to two suspects, you'd think they'd go the extra mile and question them, check their alibis and you know, do some detective work, rather than throwing up their hands: "Neither of them will admit to being the driver! Our investigative powers have been rendered useless by such cunning and novel tactics!"
Ten minutes and their mobile phone records would be all I need.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Not everyone carries a mobile phone. That's my "cunning and novel tactic."
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
It only needs one of them. That's mine.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But considering a man was severely injured in a potentially lethal assault, and the police whittled it down to two suspects, you'd think they'd go the extra mile and question them, check their alibis and you know, do some detective work
What makes you think they didn't spend the fifteen months between the incident and now doing exactly that? If evidence doesn't exist (or has been destroyed) then no amount of detective work is going to find it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But considering a man was severely injured in a potentially lethal assault, and the police whittled it down to two suspects, you'd think they'd go the extra mile and question them, check their alibis and you know, do some detective work, rather than throwing up their hands: "Neither of them will admit to being the driver! Our investigative powers have been rendered useless by such cunning and novel tactics!"
Ten minutes and their mobile phone records would be all I need.
Near our way a cyclist was killed on a main road. The police had his helmet, with stickers still on it showing his number in a recent Audax. They still couldn't identify him. It was another local cyclist who took the Audax number, contacted the organiser and got the name. The police hadn't got the nous to do that.
I have little confidence in their detective abilities, especially where dead and injured cyclists are concerned.
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on
:
The driver was either the hirer of the car or someone known to him/her (as the car was not reported stolen.) If the hirer is contending that he was not the driver, but will not say who the actual driver was, then surely he could be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The driver was either the hirer of the car or someone known to him/her (as the car was not reported stolen.) If the hirer is contending that he was not the driver, but will not say who the actual driver was, then surely he could be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice?
According to the article, they traced the car to a man and a woman. It's entirely within the bounds of possibility that they were a husband and wife, and UK law states that nobody can be forced to testify against their spouse. I imagine, though of course I may be wrong, that that is why charges for perverting the course of justice were not pressed.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What makes you think they didn't spend the fifteen months between the incident and now doing exactly that? If evidence doesn't exist (or has been destroyed) then no amount of detective work is going to find it.
What makes me think that?
Because I am intimately acquainted with police procedure, and just how little they're prepared to do to get rid of a case. That there has been a result - someone has been prosecuted for the minor infraction of refusing to identify the driver - is the result. That it is the wrong result for public safety is by-the-by.
If it had been the chief constable on his bike, pound to a penny there'd be someone serving 5 years right now.
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on
:
Anyway, now we know: if you want to kill someone, hire a car, preferably from someone who doesn't actually own it. Make sure that your partner and a couple of mates are on the documents. Mow down your victim, drive off and when Inspector Plod comes calling, say "you can't prove it was me what done it, you got nuffink on me copper, nuffink."
[ 03. February 2016, 16:38: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Anyway, now we know: if you want to kill someone, hire a car, preferably from someone who doesn't actually own it. Make sure that your partner and a couple of mates are on the documents. Mow down your victim, drive off and when Inspector Plod comes calling, say "you can't prove it was me what done it, you got nuffink on me copper, nuffink."
Notes this for future reference.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Anyway, now we know: if you want to kill someone, hire a car, preferably from someone who doesn't actually own it. Make sure that your partner and a couple of mates are on the documents. Mow down your victim, drive off and when Inspector Plod comes calling, say "you can't prove it was me what done it, you got nuffink on me copper, nuffink."
And leave your mobile phone at home.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
My favourite one recently...
I am a lifelong cyclist. I can't drive (I am a bit car phobic to be honest) so I commute too and from work by bike.
I ride every morning down a busy road with a cycle lane and I thought I knew the bits where I have to keep as hard left as possible because drivers drift into it all the time.
Nope.
There's a bit of the road where to turn left you have to turn from the straight ahead lane, across the cycle lane and into a very short merge lane. It's right on a junction so I am used to watching ahead of me for cars turning out of the traffic queue once they get there and going briefly across my path.
This absolute fuckwit was about 7 cars back from where he would be able to do this, decided he was sick of waiting for the lights to turn and pulled out without indicating and drove DOWN THE FUCKING CYCLE LANE. If this wasn't bad enough he did this when I was basically half a car length behind him going at a pretty good clip. Lucky for me my brakes and reflexes are good or I'd have slammed into the back of him.
I had no where to go but the pavement so did so, regained my balance and then had a rather satisfying fifteen seconds of telling him what a stupid fucking twat he was as he looked gormlessly and cluelessly out the window at me.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I had an experience walking home this evening. There is a road that had been frequently used as a rat run, so they've put in restrictions, at points along the road it narrows to one lane with right of way alternating down the road. And, at each of these restrictions there is a pedestrian crossing. So, I get to one of these to cross the road with traffic from the right having right of way. There are 5-6 cars to my left, and a few cars coming from the right. The front car to my right stops and the driver waves me across the road (there still are some decent drivers out there). I started across the road, only to realise the first car on my left is moving towards me - ignoring the fact that he is now third in line for right of way after me and the cars on my right. It was a good thing it wasn't the morning when that section of road had been icy or I might not have found hurrying off the road as easy.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
But Macrina, you know a cycle lane isn't just for cyclists. It's really there for fuckwit motorists in a hurry.
Huia
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Fucking hell, if you want to find out how bestial the human race is, have yourself an asthma attack on a one lane coastal road in the middle of a crashing El Nino torrent, at nightfall. Because easing off the accelerator the tiniest bit is grounds for psychotic, vengeful tailgating, no matter what the weather is.
(To give you an idea, the rain was coming so hard and fast my fastest wiper setting did nothing to effect visibility. It was freaking terrifying.)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
An oldie, but a goodie yesterday.
Heading into Glasgow for a meeting in the afternoon, to find myself behind a driver who thought it was only necessary to clear the snow from the windscreen and a wee patch on the back window. That way he can't see the muckle great lumps of snow flying off his roof to spatter the car behind.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Any chance of changing "2015" in the thread title to "2016"?
Cheers (either way).
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Just to be hellish -- NO! SUCK IT! SUCK MY INNACURATE THREAD DATE!
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Well, I suppose I could. But I could just as easily lock the thread and make you open a new one.
In fact, it'd be easier still if you stopped your kvetching, opened a new thread and let this one die a natural death, thereby obviating the need for me to do anything at all.
DT
HH
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
Lets give a big round of applause to all the motoring gits (four and two wheels) who think it's a smart idea to dazzle on-coming traffic with their super-bright headlights.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Few people seem to realise that most headlights can (and should be) adjusted according to load.
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on
:
An honourable mention to the man who parked horizontally across two car spaces for disabled parking. He then called my sister's friend a scumbag for taking a photo.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
This happened years ago, but I just remembered it. My husband and I were out for a drive on a winding narrow country road. There was a car in front of us that was going at least ten miles an hour below the speed limit; it also had its left-turn signal on continuously. We followed it for several miles before we came to a stretch of road where it was safe to pass. My husband pulled the car into the other lane to pass, just as the car in front made a left turn. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Moo
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I found myself having to brake quite suddenly coming out of Glasgow just gone 9pm last night in the rain. On one of the main routes out of town (well, it's the route I usually follow), but still a 30 limit with cars parked outside houses alone the left hand lane. I was following the road around a bend and suddenly found myself behind a cyclist in dark clothing without lights.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0