OFFICIAL GG YOUTUBE Thread, MUST HAVE DESCRIPTIVE TITLES
Discussion
Baron Greenback said:
Crazy: 1000HP Minivan & 1000HP 911 - /TUNED DRIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D8oLaCgfL8
That is two monster of tuned cars! The porsche is bat stir crazy car and for once great sounding turbo! Variable turbo boast depending on the gearing I do love the idea of, make it more driveable if 1000hp on a minivan/ old 911 is ever driveable!
I thought it was going to be a Minivan - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D8oLaCgfL8
That is two monster of tuned cars! The porsche is bat stir crazy car and for once great sounding turbo! Variable turbo boast depending on the gearing I do love the idea of, make it more driveable if 1000hp on a minivan/ old 911 is ever driveable!
irocfan said:
That was brutal.
danllama said:
irocfan said:
That was brutal.hman said:
danllama said:
KARMA.If he'd have slowed more to let the pedestrians go (rather than just cycling at them so they had to leg it out of his way) then he would have been going slower through the lights, and had more time and space to deal with the car which turned across his path.
If he was in a car then would he have braked for the pedestrians - yes.
John D. said:
hman said:
danllama said:
KARMA.If he'd have slowed more to let the pedestrians go (rather than just cycling at them so they had to leg it out of his way) then he would have been going slower through the lights, and had more time and space to deal with the car which turned across his path.
If he was in a car then would he have braked for the pedestrians - yes.
tuffer said:
John D. said:
hman said:
danllama said:
KARMA.If he'd have slowed more to let the pedestrians go (rather than just cycling at them so they had to leg it out of his way) then he would have been going slower through the lights, and had more time and space to deal with the car which turned across his path.
If he was in a car then would he have braked for the pedestrians - yes.
s and a person who can't drive... 1st s: the pedestrian for not being observant vis-a-vis the cyclist. 2nd : the cyclist for (appearing to) not even attempting to slow. The person who can't drive needs to have his licence garnished with pointsEdited by irocfan on Wednesday 28th October 18:43
John D. said:
Already in the road? 
He hasn't just appeared from round a corner has he?
No, but he also did not appear to make any attempt to slow down. The driver ,although in the wrong, may have seen the pedestrians crossing and assumed (wrongly) that it was safe to turn. If the cyclist had slowed for the pedestrians then he would have been going slow enough to avoid hitting the car. He hasn't just appeared from round a corner has he?tuffer said:
John D. said:
Already in the road? He hasn't just appeared from round a corner has he?
No, but he also did not appear to make any attempt to slow down. The driver ,although in the wrong, may have seen the pedestrians crossing and assumed (wrongly) that it was safe to turn. If the cyclist had slowed for the pedestrians then he would have been going slow enough to avoid hitting the car. He hasn't just appeared from round a corner has he?It's important for everyone to remember that just because someone is in the right, it doesn't mean they can't also be in hospital. Drive* to survive, not just to the rules.
*Or cycle and walk too, obviously; I just didn't want to spoil the rhyme.
Also, if he'd been up to date on the highway code, he'd know that a green light means proceed if it's safe to do so; arguably it wasn't safe.
John D. said:
Already in the road? He hasn't just appeared from round a corner has he?
No, but he also did not appear to make any attempt to slow down. The driver ,although in the wrong, may have seen the pedestrians crossing and assumed (wrongly) that it was safe to turn. If the cyclist had slowed for the pedestrians then he would have been going slow enough to avoid hitting the car. He hasn't just appeared from round a corner has he?tuffer said:
No, but he also did not appear to make any attempt to slow down. The driver ,although in the wrong, may have seen the pedestrians crossing and assumed (wrongly) that it was safe to turn. If the cyclist had slowed for the pedestrians then he would have been going slow enough to avoid hitting the car.
FMR! If that's genuinely the level of judgement you bring to the road when you drive, and not just your bias speaking, you should hand in your licence.The cyclist was the only one with right of way. He was the only one injured. And you're victim blaming. So very PH.
EskimoArapaho said:
tuffer said:
No, but he also did not appear to make any attempt to slow down. The driver ,although in the wrong, may have seen the pedestrians crossing and assumed (wrongly) that it was safe to turn. If the cyclist had slowed for the pedestrians then he would have been going slow enough to avoid hitting the car.
FMR! If that's genuinely the level of judgement you bring to the road when you drive, and not just your bias speaking, you should hand in your licence.The cyclist was the only one with right of way. He was the only one injured. And you're victim blaming. So very PH.
EskimoArapaho said:
tuffer said:
No, but he also did not appear to make any attempt to slow down. The driver ,although in the wrong, may have seen the pedestrians crossing and assumed (wrongly) that it was safe to turn. If the cyclist had slowed for the pedestrians then he would have been going slow enough to avoid hitting the car.
FMR! If that's genuinely the level of judgement you bring to the road when you drive, and not just your bias speaking, you should hand in your licence.The cyclist was the only one with right of way. He was the only one injured. And you're victim blaming. So very PH.
tuffer said:
Even though I stated that the driver was in the wrong and that the driver had made a wrong assumption. I did not say the cyclist was wrong, I said he could have avoided the collision, as a road user that should be everyone's primary aim. If you were driving a car down the road and a pedestrian ran across in front of you, would you continue to drive at them without braking?
If the video didn't clearly show the cyclist cycling around the pedestrians who had walked directly into his path, you might have a point. But it does.You've also said: "The pedestrians were already in the road and therefore had the right of way". That's wrong - the road was divided by what's known as a pedestrian refuge island. They didn't stop walking at this island and then see if the way was clear from the cyclist's direction. This was classic SMIDSY on their part.
The pedestrians f
ked up, but the cyclist successfully avoided that accident. The driver of the car fked up in a way that didn't allow the cyclist to avoid an accident. And you're finding a way to blame the victim while he's down. Pretty scummy.Even given the distorted perspective of the camera lens, he is at least a Starbucks and a half away when they are in the road, no harm in just easing up a little, self preservation.
Instead, he continued at pace, by concentrating on the pedestrians and narrowly avoiding them he failed to spot the foolish driver who was already turning across his path.
Instead, he continued at pace, by concentrating on the pedestrians and narrowly avoiding them he failed to spot the foolish driver who was already turning across his path.
EskimoArapaho said:
tuffer said:
Even though I stated that the driver was in the wrong and that the driver had made a wrong assumption. I did not say the cyclist was wrong, I said he could have avoided the collision, as a road user that should be everyone's primary aim. If you were driving a car down the road and a pedestrian ran across in front of you, would you continue to drive at them without braking?
If the video didn't clearly show the cyclist cycling around the pedestrians who had walked directly into his path, you might have a point. But it does.You've also said: "The pedestrians were already in the road and therefore had the right of way". That's wrong - the road was divided by what's known as a pedestrian refuge island. They didn't stop walking at this island and then see if the way was clear from the cyclist's direction. This was classic SMIDSY on their part.
The pedestrians f
ked up, but the cyclist successfully avoided that accident. The driver of the car fked up in a way that didn't allow the cyclist to avoid an accident. And you're finding a way to blame the victim while he's down. Pretty scummy.ktard. Just because it's a cyclist doing the same doesn't mean he's not a fktard too. In fact you could argue that the car driver thought that the cyclist would slow down for the pedestrians (as most sane people would) and therefore thought he'd be able to nip across before the idiot got there... in the event mis-judgement by the driver has led to an unfortunate accidentirocfan said:
EskimoArapaho said:
tuffer said:
Even though I stated that the driver was in the wrong and that the driver had made a wrong assumption. I did not say the cyclist was wrong, I said he could have avoided the collision, as a road user that should be everyone's primary aim. If you were driving a car down the road and a pedestrian ran across in front of you, would you continue to drive at them without braking?
If the video didn't clearly show the cyclist cycling around the pedestrians who had walked directly into his path, you might have a point. But it does.You've also said: "The pedestrians were already in the road and therefore had the right of way". That's wrong - the road was divided by what's known as a pedestrian refuge island. They didn't stop walking at this island and then see if the way was clear from the cyclist's direction. This was classic SMIDSY on their part.
The pedestrians f
ked up, but the cyclist successfully avoided that accident. The driver of the car fked up in a way that didn't allow the cyclist to avoid an accident. And you're finding a way to blame the victim while he's down. Pretty scummy.ktard. Just because it's a cyclist doing the same doesn't mean he's not a fktard too. In fact you could argue that the car driver thought that the cyclist would slow down for the pedestrians (as most sane people would) and therefore thought he'd be able to nip across before the idiot got there... in the event mis-judgement by the driver has led to an unfortunate accidentJohn D. said:
irocfan said:
EskimoArapaho said:
tuffer said:
Even though I stated that the driver was in the wrong and that the driver had made a wrong assumption. I did not say the cyclist was wrong, I said he could have avoided the collision, as a road user that should be everyone's primary aim. If you were driving a car down the road and a pedestrian ran across in front of you, would you continue to drive at them without braking?
If the video didn't clearly show the cyclist cycling around the pedestrians who had walked directly into his path, you might have a point. But it does.You've also said: "The pedestrians were already in the road and therefore had the right of way". That's wrong - the road was divided by what's known as a pedestrian refuge island. They didn't stop walking at this island and then see if the way was clear from the cyclist's direction. This was classic SMIDSY on their part.
The pedestrians f
ked up, but the cyclist successfully avoided that accident. The driver of the car fked up in a way that didn't allow the cyclist to avoid an accident. And you're finding a way to blame the victim while he's down. Pretty scummy.ktard. Just because it's a cyclist doing the same doesn't mean he's not a fktard too. In fact you could argue that the car driver thought that the cyclist would slow down for the pedestrians (as most sane people would) and therefore thought he'd be able to nip across before the idiot got there... in the event mis-judgement by the driver has led to an unfortunate accidentktards for not noticing the cyclist 
irocfan said:
Nope. Nope nope nope. Got less than halfway through and had to stop.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff