Seeing an idiot get their just desserts
Discussion
Regarding the traffic island incident, it was wrong but I can't say I blame the OP.
He may have set the tw@ behind for a fall but all he was doing was increasing the odds of aforementioned idiot's bad driving causing him to come a cropper. It was a case of giving the fool enough rope to hang himself rather than acting aggessively as in a brake check.
Talking of brake checks, interesting footage of a brake check which ended in a collision currently on the dashcam thread.
He may have set the tw@ behind for a fall but all he was doing was increasing the odds of aforementioned idiot's bad driving causing him to come a cropper. It was a case of giving the fool enough rope to hang himself rather than acting aggessively as in a brake check.
Talking of brake checks, interesting footage of a brake check which ended in a collision currently on the dashcam thread.
Lucas Ayde said:
Regarding the traffic island incident, it was wrong but I can't say I blame the OP.
He may have set the tw@ behind for a fall but all he was doing was increasing the odds of aforementioned idiot's bad driving causing him to come a cropper. It was a case of giving the fool enough rope to hang himself rather than acting aggessively as in a brake check.
Talking of brake checks, interesting footage of a brake check which ended in a collision currently on the dashcam thread.
Which would you rather crash into, a car slowing (albeit reasonably suddenly) in the direction your travelling in from a few feet away, or a stationary, immovable concrete block at 60mph?He may have set the tw@ behind for a fall but all he was doing was increasing the odds of aforementioned idiot's bad driving causing him to come a cropper. It was a case of giving the fool enough rope to hang himself rather than acting aggessively as in a brake check.
Talking of brake checks, interesting footage of a brake check which ended in a collision currently on the dashcam thread.
I'd say the latter is slightly more aggressive?
TIGA84 said:
Which would you rather crash into, a car slowing (albeit reasonably suddenly) in the direction your travelling in from a few feet away, or a stationary, immovable concrete block at 60mph?
I'd say the latter is slightly more aggressive?
Surely something stationary and immovable is passive, the very opposite of aggressive?I'd say the latter is slightly more aggressive?
V8 FOU said:
NarrinRad said:
You keyboard judge & jury warriors certainly know how to ruin 4 pages of a decent thread. Try putting one of your stories up instead of judging others or go home and kick the dog as per usual ....
+1It will all be Ok once the schools go back......
Actually nothing to do with being a keyboard warrior - I would tell a friend exactly the same thing. Both people were idiots. Everyone makes mistakes when driving, and if we all took revenge it would be a lot less safer. I don't see the point leading someone to crash into an object at 60mph going into a village just to make a point. A lot of PHers (including myself) will travel over the speed limit on country roads - just hope no one decides to put you in a dangerous situation because they judge your driving to be below standard and dangerous. Anyway, we won't agree on this so for those of you who think it's ok then don't complain about others reacting to your poor driving, and for us that disagree we can go round judging others and go back to school tomorrow.
[quote=walm]
But for the Peugeot van deliberately obscuring the traffic island the tailgater wouldn't have hit it.
"so I drift to the right in my lane, and the idiot matches me without paying much attention to what's going on ahead of me - where there is a kerbed traffic island."
As above the OP stated that he moved to the right side of the lane and the tailgater simply followed him - basically indicating that the 4x4's driving awareness stretches to only the end of his bonnet, so even if the van did obscure the island - the dick in the 4X4 chose to follow the van to the right of the lane when he didn't need to...
But for the Peugeot van deliberately obscuring the traffic island the tailgater wouldn't have hit it.
"so I drift to the right in my lane, and the idiot matches me without paying much attention to what's going on ahead of me - where there is a kerbed traffic island."
As above the OP stated that he moved to the right side of the lane and the tailgater simply followed him - basically indicating that the 4x4's driving awareness stretches to only the end of his bonnet, so even if the van did obscure the island - the dick in the 4X4 chose to follow the van to the right of the lane when he didn't need to...
12lee said:
Surely something stationary and immovable is passive, the very opposite of aggressive?
Good f
king grief.Yes it is. However, the act is aggressive, not the subject. Like smashing someones face into a concrete block would probably considered to be aggressive, although the block would indeed, as you so pedantically put it, remain passive.
Thanks though.
Edited by TIGA84 on Thursday 14th August 08:51
NRS said:
A lot of PHers (including myself) will travel over the speed limit on country roads - just hope no one decides to put you in a dangerous situation because they judge your driving to be below standard and dangerous.
The 4x4 driver put himself in a dangerous situation. Just desserts.What if Mr.Peugeot driver had been swerving to avoid a child? Well in future Mr.4x4 will leave a bit of distance and learn to look further than the car in front.
boxedin said:
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'..
832ark said:
boxedin said:
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'..
Not this again. I thought someone had already explained the physics of this situation? 
scarble said:
NRS said:
A lot of PHers (including myself) will travel over the speed limit on country roads - just hope no one decides to put you in a dangerous situation because they judge your driving to be below standard and dangerous.
The 4x4 driver put himself in a dangerous situation. Just desserts.What if Mr.Peugeot driver had been swerving to avoid a child? Well in future Mr.4x4 will leave a bit of distance and learn to look further than the car in front.
ST270]alm said:
...basically indicating that the 4x4's driving awareness stretches to only the end of his bonnet, so even if the van did obscure the island - the dick in the 4X4 chose to follow the van to the right of the lane when he didn't need to...
Because his vision was obstructed by the car in front. How is he supposed to see when the car in front is in the way of the view? Also he might have been very much aware of the car moving sideways, and since he couldn't see thought the car in front thought it was reacting to a dangerous situation, so followed him to avoid a potential danger.And in regards to the child - well, what happened to the innocent child(ren) who was in the car that crashed at 60mph into a 1 foot high kerb? Not saying there were any in it, but it's quite likely there was, and they had nothing to do with the poor driving by either person. So do consider that before pulling the "think of the poor children" card,
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff