Seeing an idiot get their just desserts
Discussion
NRS said:
Centurion07 said:
It's not the same as brake testing IMO.
What if the kerb had in fact been some little old dear/kid/animal that had stepped into the road? Bellend got taught a lesson and hopefully won't do it again. No sympathy from me. Drive like a
, pay the price.
You're a moron. Yes, he was stupid but you were worse. What happened if he got seriously injured for example? Or what happened if hitting it at that speed he was spun and if there was someone coming behind/ towards him that were then involved in the accident too? Yes, I have been in many situations there's someone annoying behind you (being in a relatively low car in a place where most people have 4x4 and around 6 months of winter it's not too strange for me) but it's no excuse.What if the kerb had in fact been some little old dear/kid/animal that had stepped into the road? Bellend got taught a lesson and hopefully won't do it again. No sympathy from me. Drive like a
, pay the price.That aside, I couldn't care less if he got injured. Like I said, drive like a
, pay the price. I'm sure he won't forget it in a hurry and therefore is unlikely to tailgate in the future, is he?AFAIC it's Darwinism at work.
Centurion07 said:
NRS said:
Centurion07 said:
It's not the same as brake testing IMO.
What if the kerb had in fact been some little old dear/kid/animal that had stepped into the road? Bellend got taught a lesson and hopefully won't do it again. No sympathy from me. Drive like a, pay the price.
You're a moron. Yes, he was stupid but you were worse. What happened if he got seriously injured for example? Or what happened if hitting it at that speed he was spun and if there was someone coming behind/ towards him that were then involved in the accident too? Yes, I have been in many situations there's someone annoying behind you (being in a relatively low car in a place where most people have 4x4 and around 6 months of winter it's not too strange for me) but it's no excuse.What if the kerb had in fact been some little old dear/kid/animal that had stepped into the road? Bellend got taught a lesson and hopefully won't do it again. No sympathy from me. Drive like a
, pay the price.That aside, I couldn't care less if he got injured. Like I said, drive like a
, pay the price. I'm sure he won't forget it in a hurry and therefore is unlikely to tailgate in the future, is he?AFAIC it's Darwinism at work.
He got what he deserved.
ManOpener said:
If knobber in question hadn't yet reached the Gatso when he began the overtake it could be facing the same way as them whilst knobber headed towards it, and therefore have caught him.
lol.. I forget how picky some people are... Edited by ManOpener on Tuesday 12th August 16:58
the overtaker was heading towards the Gatso ( as he was on the other side of the road ) and triggered it during the overtake.
Hence 'blinding white flash' and that's not 'blinding' meaning 'good'..
Baz Tench said:
Centurion07 said:
NRS said:
Centurion07 said:
It's not the same as brake testing IMO.
What if the kerb had in fact been some little old dear/kid/animal that had stepped into the road? Bellend got taught a lesson and hopefully won't do it again. No sympathy from me. Drive like a, pay the price.
You're a moron. Yes, he was stupid but you were worse. What happened if he got seriously injured for example? Or what happened if hitting it at that speed he was spun and if there was someone coming behind/ towards him that were then involved in the accident too? Yes, I have been in many situations there's someone annoying behind you (being in a relatively low car in a place where most people have 4x4 and around 6 months of winter it's not too strange for me) but it's no excuse.What if the kerb had in fact been some little old dear/kid/animal that had stepped into the road? Bellend got taught a lesson and hopefully won't do it again. No sympathy from me. Drive like a
, pay the price.That aside, I couldn't care less if he got injured. Like I said, drive like a
, pay the price. I'm sure he won't forget it in a hurry and therefore is unlikely to tailgate in the future, is he?AFAIC it's Darwinism at work.
He got what he deserved.
However for all of you who think it's ok - I just hope you've never done anything wrong on the road. For example you're close to the person who speeds up when someone is overtaking them to stop it since "they're going faster than the speed limit, so they're in the wrong and get whatever they deserve" type mentality.
NRS said:
However for all of you who think it's ok - I just hope you've never done anything wrong on the road. For example you're close to the person who speeds up when someone is overtaking them to stop it since "they're going faster than the speed limit, so they're in the wrong and get whatever they deserve" type mentality.
Yes, I always do that. 
Anyway, apparently, the guy in the 4x4 had his beams on (of sorts), purposely tailgating and blinding the guy in front. Sounds like intimidation to me.
It also sounds as if he was so involved in this that he totally failed to read any road signs, and set himself up for his own downfall.
Edited by Baz Tench on Tuesday 12th August 22:30
Baz Tench said:
NRS said:
However for all of you who think it's ok - I just hope you've never done anything wrong on the road. For example you're close to the person who speeds up when someone is overtaking them to stop it since "they're going faster than the speed limit, so they're in the wrong and get whatever they deserve" type mentality.
Yes, I always do that. Anyway, apparently, the guy in the 4x4 had his beams on (of sorts), purposely tailgating and blinding the guy in front. Sounds like intimidation to me.
It also sounds like he was so involved in this that he totally failed to read any road signs, and set himself up for his own downfall.
t, but still not justification. And explain the difference between the two situations? Most overtaking puts you over the speed limit which is then illegal and potentially dangerous. So why shouldn't someone teach you a lesson because you deserve it? Please note I would never do this and I do overtaking, just if you take matters into your own hands and set them up for an accident even if they are in the wrong then I don't see the difference.Baz Tench said:
It also sounds as if he was so involved in this that he totally failed to read any road signs, and set himself up for his own downfall.
Absolutely. regardless of anything the car in front did, if he'd been in his lane he wouldn't have hit the island. Simple?Edited by Baz Tench on Tuesday 12th August 22:30
There is a pretty remarkable lack of thinking going on here.
Nobody is disputing that the driver who hit the island was acting like a complete nobhead. The simple point is that - irrespective of what a nobhead he was, the other driver created a risk of serious harm to the nobhead and, more importantly, other road users just to make a point.
It is pretty much indistinguishable from the overtaking example given above - creating danger for others in order to punish another driver for doing something that you don't like.
Nobody is disputing that the driver who hit the island was acting like a complete nobhead. The simple point is that - irrespective of what a nobhead he was, the other driver created a risk of serious harm to the nobhead and, more importantly, other road users just to make a point.
It is pretty much indistinguishable from the overtaking example given above - creating danger for others in order to punish another driver for doing something that you don't like.
ORD said:
There is a pretty remarkable lack of thinking going on here.
Nobody is disputing that the driver who hit the island was acting like a complete nobhead. The simple point is that - irrespective of what a nobhead he was, the other driver created a risk of serious harm to the nobhead and, more importantly, other road users just to make a point.
Personally I don't think he did. Was the manoeuvre the other driver committed in and of itself dangerous or illegal? Extremely arguable at the very best. Is the person in front responsible for the actions of/lack of awareness of the driver in the vehicle behind? No. The only actually risky behaviour was that directly attributable to the knobhead in my view.Nobody is disputing that the driver who hit the island was acting like a complete nobhead. The simple point is that - irrespective of what a nobhead he was, the other driver created a risk of serious harm to the nobhead and, more importantly, other road users just to make a point.
To me it seems a little bit like blaming following the car in front for pulling out on a roundabout without looking and getting hit by a car coming the other way. The intent doesn't matter IMO because the actual action by the driver in front wasn't in itself dangerous.
Which isn't to say I'd do it, or condone anyone else doing it, but the only person to blame for the 4x4 hitting the traffic island is the cock behind the wheel.
ManOpener said:
Was the manoeuvre the other driver committed in and of itself dangerous or illegal?
Certainly dangerous IMHO.Well aware of the limited visibility available to the tosser behind he deliberately obscured an obstruction with his car.
When being tailgated the safest and most defensive thing to do is to give yourself a bigger safety zone in front of you, not a smaller one.
It baffles me how anyone can think it is anything other than the tailgating 4x4's fault. 'But for' him being a knob he wouldn't have hit the traffic island. If our learned poster had swerved to avoid a child and the 4x4 clattered into it sending limbs flying everywhere would that also have not been the 4x4 driver's fault?
That is what you defenders of knobbishness are saying, nothing more, nothing less. A bit silly really.
That is what you defenders of knobbishness are saying, nothing more, nothing less. A bit silly really.
DeltaTango said:
It baffles me how anyone can think it is anything other than the tailgating 4x4's fault. 'But for' him being a knob he wouldn't have hit the traffic island. If our learned poster had swerved to avoid a child and the 4x4 clattered into it sending limbs flying everywhere would that also have not been the 4x4 driver's fault?
Too right. Plus don't forget the chap in the 4x4 would been elevated and therefore should have been able to see the traffic island even past the car in front. He was clearly a terrible driver, with no road awareness, who was an accident waiting to happen. Hopefully he will be more careful in future.DeltaTango said:
'But for' him being a knob he wouldn't have hit the traffic island.
The tailgatee was a contributing factor too though.But for the Peugeot van deliberately obscuring the traffic island the tailgater wouldn't have hit it.
And you are simply wrong to think that people are defending the tailgater.
No one is.
Would you have driven like the Peugeot in your test?
Would you have driven like the Peugeot in view of a police car?
Would you have driven like the Peugeot with your kids in the car?
Would you have driven like the Peugeot if you had seen the tailgater had kids in the car?
Would you have driven like the Peugeot if you were on an observed IAM drive?
I honestly hope not.
DeltaTango said:
It baffles me how anyone can think it is anything other than the tailgating 4x4's fault. 'But for' him being a knob he wouldn't have hit the traffic island. If our learned poster had swerved to avoid a child and the 4x4 clattered into it sending limbs flying everywhere would that also have not been the 4x4 driver's fault?
That is what you defenders of knobbishness are saying, nothing more, nothing less. A bit silly really.
You're missing the point. That is what you defenders of knobbishness are saying, nothing more, nothing less. A bit silly really.
One is an accident based on poor driving and someone else's reactions to an unknown situation, the other is an accident based on poor driving and someone else's deliberate intentions to a known situation.
Edited by TIGA84 on Wednesday 13th August 13:55
So just to be clear.
The correct way to punish tailgating is:
a. Not my job. I am just trying to get home safely.
or
b. The job of other random road users who should physically endanger both the tailgater and anyone in his vehicle (plus other road users) causing an unknown amount of damage to the tailgater's vehicle increasing his future insurance costs, while ideally ruining a bit of road furniture to be fixed at the tax payer's expense.
Preferably if choosing b you should have to perform a risky manoeuvre which might well result in you losing control and/or dislodging valuable items from the overloaded roofrack.
I must have missed that part of the Highway Code.
The correct way to punish tailgating is:
a. Not my job. I am just trying to get home safely.
or
b. The job of other random road users who should physically endanger both the tailgater and anyone in his vehicle (plus other road users) causing an unknown amount of damage to the tailgater's vehicle increasing his future insurance costs, while ideally ruining a bit of road furniture to be fixed at the tax payer's expense.
Preferably if choosing b you should have to perform a risky manoeuvre which might well result in you losing control and/or dislodging valuable items from the overloaded roofrack.
I must have missed that part of the Highway Code.
walm said:
So just to be clear.
The correct way to punish tailgating is:
a. Not my job. I am just trying to get home safely.
or
b. The job of other random road users who should physically endanger both the tailgater and anyone in his vehicle (plus other road users) causing an unknown amount of damage to the tailgater's vehicle increasing his future insurance costs, while ideally ruining a bit of road furniture to be fixed at the tax payer's expense.
Preferably if choosing b you should have to perform a risky manoeuvre which might well result in you losing control and/or dislodging valuable items from the overloaded roofrack.
I must have missed that part of the Highway Code.
On what basis are you making the judgment the roofrack was overloaded?The correct way to punish tailgating is:
a. Not my job. I am just trying to get home safely.
or
b. The job of other random road users who should physically endanger both the tailgater and anyone in his vehicle (plus other road users) causing an unknown amount of damage to the tailgater's vehicle increasing his future insurance costs, while ideally ruining a bit of road furniture to be fixed at the tax payer's expense.
Preferably if choosing b you should have to perform a risky manoeuvre which might well result in you losing control and/or dislodging valuable items from the overloaded roofrack.
I must have missed that part of the Highway Code.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff