One single thing that makes you think "knob" Vol 3

[WD39]

InitialDave said:

WD39 said:

Pushing in is pushing in whatever ths circumstances.
As for erections, APIS has no policy on this.

Erections should involve the one kind of pushing in we can all agree on.

I shall raise this at the next AGM.

[WD39]

Janesy B said:

I was hoping the truck would roll back.

The driver looks SO laid back about being one centimetre from the HGV bumper. Not a care in the world.

Edited by WD39 on Tuesday 26th July 20:05

[WD39]

WD39 said:

Hol said:

L

WD39 said:

e21Mark said:

A white Vauxhall Zafira full of kids, elderly rear passengers and knuckle dragging driver on the A390 yesterday evening. Drives past a queue of around 30 assorted vehicles by using the 'turn left only' lane, (there was a clue in all those big white arrows painted on the road. Oh and the sign posts!) before cutting across the front of my car to barge his was into the other lane. A simple raise of the hand would most likely have diffused the situation but glaring in your rear view mirror, opening your door, as if you were about to jump out and take on the world but not quite having the balls to do so, just confirmed your knob status.

As an aside, WTF is it with men in people carriers?

Despite fellow PHers mocking and dismissing APIS and going on about 'Merge Points' etc, there are still regular posts highlighting pushing in, as above.

It is particularly prevelant as described, with the 'Right Turn Only' arrows clearly marked. There are other traffic situations where this selfish and inconsiderate action is forced upon other, more patient drivers.

APIS, the Ghostbusters of the highway.

WD Nobody really minds if APIS members do get a hard on when someone pushes in -as in the exact situation above,
We also would not mind if you dragged them out their car and stoned them with your GoPro cases until they started crying,



BECAUSE ITS CLEARLY NOT A MERGER POINT of two through lanes (into one) - !! It was a filter lane to a completely different signposted destination- which is totally different.



Please stop confusing the two, when suggesting that people who are merging in accordance with the Highway Code are somehow being the inconsiderate party. Because in that situation its 100% your members at fault.

Edited by Hol on Tuesday 26th July 15:04

The Highway Code is not crystal clear on merging. In fact it is distinctly hazy. ( 134 )
Pushing in is in the eye of the beholder.
As for erections, APIS has no policy on this.

Edited by WD39 on Tuesday 26th July 19:58

[vournikas]

alpha channel said:

Why are people willing to cause an accident of their own making just to get a car length or two ahead and save all of two minutes?

I can't fathom this, myself.

I have to negotiate a very simple RB on my way home from work; on approach, one has three choices - left, straight on, and right. There are no "odd" angles to any exit, left turn is at 9 'o clock, straight on at 12, right turn at 3 o' clock. It's a single carriageway approach to the island, but at the entry point it widens to a dual entry so (one would think) a normal driver would choose the left entry to either turn left or go straight on, and the right entry to - well - turn right. It should be noted that if you turn left, one immediately joins a dual carriageway.

Now quite often, I want to go straight on at this RB and in the absence of any lane markings to the contrary I use the left entry lane, and do not indicate left. I, therefore (in my mind) am not turning left onto the DC.

But I've now lost count of the number of times a driver has used the right entry lane to the RB to then turn left whilst I'm going straight on This means they have to take evasive action, and I get the horn sounded at me. For doing the correct thing.

What a bunch of caaaaahnts

[Blown2CV]

playalistic said:

Blown2CV said:

you'll fail your driving test if you hold other traffic up at below the speed limit, hesitate at junctions, make someone else break unnecessarily or act in a way so as to not make normal and effective progress. You CANNOT go as slow as you like. The road isn't a fking personal bowling green, it's a road and there are thousands of people who need to get around. There are signs in scotland telling people to cede to faster traffic because obstructing and creating frustration causes accidents. It IS NOT in the old fart's gift to do 15mph. This IS NOT his right. Why the fk do many of you not understand? This is not a "i'm more important" argument, it's the rules of the road. PHers should know better.

This x 1,000,000. Well said.

i just spotted i said break instead of brake!!

[SilverSixer]

silverfoxcc said:

Plod tells me what they are doing IS NOT ILLEGAL

They're right. Unless the turn arrow is accompanied with a written "TURN RIGHT" or "TURN LEFT", the arrow is only advisory. There are some places where the advisory arrow can be safely ignored, like here (you probably know it): https://goo.gl/maps/DQYWWZCYxj82 - I go straight ahead in the right hand lane regularly, as do many others, and it causes no issue, because after the junction the traffic in the left lane can equally go left or straight ahead at the next junction, so nobody needs to move across to the right. Of course, I use my discretion and caution and don't treat it like a personal right to use the RH lane, and occasionally circumstances dictate different behaviour. However, I realise that at most places this isn't the case, hence the advisory arrows, and they should usually be complied with. The example junction you posted is one I know well and I treat it differently.

You said at the top of your post that the law needs to be changed to make the arrows compulsory - there's no need for this as there's already the convention I mention above regarding wording which makes the turn lane a "MUST" in the Highway Code.

[silverfoxcc]

Silversixer

You must know the twin bridges roundabout at Bracknell? I have lost count of the times some cretin in the 'middle' lane on Mill lane decides that following the lane markings and asvisory arrows dont apply to them and turns right up the A329 form that lane. also the nobs who get i the left turn lane and the go straight ahead. it is also a comon occurance coming southe 'under the bridge' to have someone in the let anhd 'Mill Lane' lane just cut across to go up the A329, sometimes i get them in the extreme RH lane wanitn to go down Mill Lane. You do get to sense them though!

[WD39]

SilverSixer said:

silverfoxcc said:

Plod tells me what they are doing IS NOT ILLEGAL

They're right. Unless the turn arrow is accompanied with a written "TURN RIGHT" or "TURN LEFT", the arrow is only advisory. There are some places where the advisory arrow can be safely ignored, like here (you probably know it): https://goo.gl/maps/DQYWWZCYxj82 - I go straight ahead in the right hand lane regularly, as do many others, and it causes no issue, because after the junction the traffic in the left lane can equally go left or straight ahead at the next junction, so nobody needs to move across to the right. Of course, I use my discretion and caution and don't treat it like a personal right to use the RH lane, and occasionally circumstances dictate different behaviour. However, I realise that at most places this isn't the case, hence the advisory arrows, and they should usually be complied with. The example junction you posted is one I know well and I treat it differently.

You said at the top of your post that the law needs to be changed to make the arrows compulsory - there's no need for this as there's already the convention I mention above regarding wording which makes the turn lane a "MUST" in the Highway Code.

It may not be illegal, but surely courtesy, consideration, patience, and good driving practice are all part of the equation.

[SilverSixer]

WD39 said:

SilverSixer said:

silverfoxcc said:

Plod tells me what they are doing IS NOT ILLEGAL

They're right. Unless the turn arrow is accompanied with a written "TURN RIGHT" or "TURN LEFT", the arrow is only advisory. There are some places where the advisory arrow can be safely ignored, like here (you probably know it): https://goo.gl/maps/DQYWWZCYxj82 - I go straight ahead in the right hand lane regularly, as do many others, and it causes no issue, because after the junction the traffic in the left lane can equally go left or straight ahead at the next junction, so nobody needs to move across to the right. Of course, I use my discretion and caution and don't treat it like a personal right to use the RH lane, and occasionally circumstances dictate different behaviour. However, I realise that at most places this isn't the case, hence the advisory arrows, and they should usually be complied with. The example junction you posted is one I know well and I treat it differently.

You said at the top of your post that the law needs to be changed to make the arrows compulsory - there's no need for this as there's already the convention I mention above regarding wording which makes the turn lane a "MUST" in the Highway Code.

It may not be illegal, but surely courtesy, consideration, patience, and good driving practice are all part of the equation.

I never said it wasn't. In fact, it's good driving practice to use your experience in order to best use a junction with advisory arrows. That's what advisory means, it isn't always the best thing at all times to follow that advice. This is good driving practice. Occasionally, the arrows aren't the Holy Bible. If you knew the junction I put up, you'd see what I'm saying. I think on that one the arrow in the right hand lane is superfluous, after many years of using the thing daily. The arrow should be a "Straight on and Right" arrow. Use of that right hand lane never involves any pushing in, as the dual carriageway continues for more than a mile after the arrows. Everyone just keeps on truckin'.

[SilverSixer]

silverfoxcc said:

Silversixer

You must know the twin bridges roundabout at Bracknell? I have lost count of the times some cretin in the 'middle' lane on Mill lane decides that following the lane markings and asvisory arrows dont apply to them and turns right up the A329 form that lane. also the nobs who get i the left turn lane and the go straight ahead. it is also a comon occurance coming southe 'under the bridge' to have someone in the let anhd 'Mill Lane' lane just cut across to go up the A329, sometimes i get them in the extreme RH lane wanitn to go down Mill Lane. You do get to sense them though!

Yeah, I know that one. It's a bit of a ballache for sure. Knobbus Maximus is often driving round it.

My junction on the IDR is very much an exception to the rule, I realise that - but it does show that an advisory isn't always a rule which must be obeyed or you vill be shot, Tommy.

My knob of the day today is the motorcyclist with his twin headlamp full beam on, riding down the wrong side of the road in to fast flowing on-coming traffic, presumably because he thought he was filtering past the stationary traffic on his side. Yes mate, that's fine, you cross the white lines and we'll all pull over on to the soft verge at 40-50mph to let you past, and make sure you have your full beam on so we can see you. You bellend.

[ShaunTheSheep]

SilverSixer said:

Yes mate, that's fine, you cross the white lines and we'll all pull over on to the soft verge at 40-50mph to let you past, and make sure you have your full beam on so we can see you. You bellend.

Behave, if it's 50mph traffic then the lanes can't be narrower than say 3.5m? or Joe avg would be squarely out of his comfort zone at 50.

Your car is what 2m? His bike is 0.8m? He's probably hugging the line so only 0.6m on your side.

Probably a doors width between you without you going into the verge.

[SilverSixer]

ShaunTheSheep said:

SilverSixer said:

Yes mate, that's fine, you cross the white lines and we'll all pull over on to the soft verge at 40-50mph to let you past, and make sure you have your full beam on so we can see you. You bellend.

Behave, if it's 50mph traffic then the lanes can't be narrower than say 3.5m? or Joe avg would be squarely out of his comfort zone at 50.

Your car is what 2m? His bike is 0.8m? He's probably hugging the line so only 0.6m on your side.

Probably a doors width between you without you going into the verge.

It's OK to be on the wrong side of a white line, riding head on in to nose-to-tail oncoming traffic which is doing 40/50mph? Sure about that? Plus full beam?

Jesus.

For reference, I was here. https://goo.gl/maps/zVmAezyAYLN2 Speed limit is 50.

Not every vehicle is a car. Look at the FedEx truck. You want to be on a bike on the wrong side of the road facing that doing 40 mph, then you want to hand your licence in.

Still, anything for an argument, eh?

[WD39]

SilverSixer said:

WD39 said:

SilverSixer said:

silverfoxcc said:

Plod tells me what they are doing IS NOT ILLEGAL

They're right. Unless the turn arrow is accompanied with a written "TURN RIGHT" or "TURN LEFT", the arrow is only advisory. There are some places where the advisory arrow can be safely ignored, like here (you probably know it): https://goo.gl/maps/DQYWWZCYxj82 - I go straight ahead in the right hand lane regularly, as do many others, and it causes no issue, because after the junction the traffic in the left lane can equally go left or straight ahead at the next junction, so nobody needs to move across to the right. Of course, I use my discretion and caution and don't treat it like a personal right to use the RH lane, and occasionally circumstances dictate different behaviour. However, I realise that at most places this isn't the case, hence the advisory arrows, and they should usually be complied with. The example junction you posted is one I know well and I treat it differently.

You said at the top of your post that the law needs to be changed to make the arrows compulsory - there's no need for this as there's already the convention I mention above regarding wording which makes the turn lane a "MUST" in the Highway Code.

It may not be illegal, but surely courtesy, consideration, patience, and good driving practice are all part of the equation.

I never said it wasn't. In fact, it's good driving practice to use your experience in order to best use a junction with advisory arrows. That's what advisory means, it isn't always the best thing at all times to follow that advice. This is good driving practice. Occasionally, the arrows aren't the Holy Bible. If you knew the junction I put up, you'd see what I'm saying. I think on that one the arrow in the right hand lane is superfluous, after many years of using the thing daily. The arrow should be a "Straight on and Right" arrow. Use of that right hand lane never involves any pushing in, as the dual carriageway continues for more than a mile after the arrows. Everyone just keeps on truckin'.

Sorry Silver, was not critiquing your post, just making a general point. Should have made that clear.

[ManOpener]

The dozen or so people waiting at the traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing on Bath Road earlier.

Two of them were discussing why the lights were taking so long to change: "what's it taking so long for? We must have been waiting here about three minutes now".

You wouldn't have waited so fking long if you'd actually pressed the button you pillock.

[Countdown]

People parking their car on the pavement.

[Liquid Knight]

Janesy B said:

If you can't do 30 in a 30 get the bus.

I had an interesting chat yesterday. Cycling through a thirty zone, pacing myself with the car in front and I stopped at a red light to be addressed by an "alleged" driver who tried to overtake for the last mile but couldn't because I was speeding.

So this "alleged" driver was also speeding and looking to overtake even though I was a safe distance from the car in front?

The use of the word "alleged" as I would not describe those actions as one of a competent driver.

[DaveGoddard]

People who do not know the difference between the words "break" and "brake".

[ShaunTheSheep]

SilverSixer said:

ShaunTheSheep said:

SilverSixer said:

Yes mate, that's fine, you cross the white lines and we'll all pull over on to the soft verge at 40-50mph to let you past, and make sure you have your full beam on so we can see you. You bellend.

Behave, if it's 50mph traffic then the lanes can't be narrower than say 3.5m? or Joe avg would be squarely out of his comfort zone at 50.

Your car is what 2m? His bike is 0.8m? He's probably hugging the line so only 0.6m on your side.

Probably a doors width between you without you going into the verge.

It's OK to be on the wrong side of a white line, riding head on in to nose-to-tail oncoming traffic which is doing 40/50mph? Sure about that? Plus full beam?

Jesus.

For reference, I was here. https://goo.gl/maps/zVmAezyAYLN2 Speed limit is 50.

Not every vehicle is a car. Look at the FedEx truck. You want to be on a bike on the wrong side of the road facing that doing 40 mph, then you want to hand your licence in.

Still, anything for an argument, eh?

You could filter an artic lorry between the cars on street view.

I think you need a frank reappraisal of exactly how you were inconvenienced by a skinny motorbike.

I could drive a fire engine between the cars on street view. Granted I would need everyone to nudge over but not onto the verge.

I'm not a fan of full beam but everything else is fine. It's a bit knobbish to get upset about something that isn't inconveniencing you.

[SuperchargedVR6]

On The Crescent, Colchester Business park this afternoon - To the middle-aged Honda dealer bloke.

After dropping something into the post box, why did you feel it necessary to jump into your Type R demo car and give it death in every gear in a very busy 20mph zone? You are an absolute bell end. Did doing that give you a hard-on? Do you think the many pedestrians in the area were actually impressed by a balding middle aged bloke driving like a tw@t?

[SilverSixer]

ShaunTheSheep said:

SilverSixer said:

ShaunTheSheep said:

SilverSixer said:

Yes mate, that's fine, you cross the white lines and we'll all pull over on to the soft verge at 40-50mph to let you past, and make sure you have your full beam on so we can see you. You bellend.

Behave, if it's 50mph traffic then the lanes can't be narrower than say 3.5m? or Joe avg would be squarely out of his comfort zone at 50.

Your car is what 2m? His bike is 0.8m? He's probably hugging the line so only 0.6m on your side.

Probably a doors width between you without you going into the verge.

It's OK to be on the wrong side of a white line, riding head on in to nose-to-tail oncoming traffic which is doing 40/50mph? Sure about that? Plus full beam?

Jesus.

For reference, I was here. https://goo.gl/maps/zVmAezyAYLN2 Speed limit is 50.

Not every vehicle is a car. Look at the FedEx truck. You want to be on a bike on the wrong side of the road facing that doing 40 mph, then you want to hand your licence in.

Still, anything for an argument, eh?

You could filter an artic lorry between the cars on street view.

I think you need a frank reappraisal of exactly how you were inconvenienced by a skinny motorbike.

I could drive a fire engine between the cars on street view. Granted I would need everyone to nudge over but not onto the verge.

I'm not a fan of full beam but everything else is fine. It's a bit knobbish to get upset about something that isn't inconveniencing you.

So it's fine to cross the white line and ride on the wrong side through oncoming traffic. Motorcycles no longer have to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic to overtake. You learn something new every day. I shall continue to "nudge over" as you put it so that you and your chums can use the wrong side of the road whenever you like, whether I'm on it doing 40 mph already or not. How chastening.



Why is it knobbish of me, but it's not knobbish to be on the wrong side of the road yourself?

This is quite an eye opening discussion, I'd realised some bikers were arrogant road hogs but demanding the wrong side of the road when there's oncoming traffic on it already really raises the art to new levels of suicidal/murderous selfishness. No wonder so many of you end up as strawberry jam. And I speak as someone whose father was knocked off his motorbike and turned in to strawberry jam by an inattentive car driver. Although my dad was on his side of the road and complying with all other aspects of the Highway Code at the time.

You reckon I'm being a knob for being annoyed at an inconvenience, well how about the biker in question takes a bit of the inconvenience himself, stays on his side of the road and waits that 30 seconds to get to the roundabout? Not forgetting that the inconvenience to me could quite easily have been turned in to a fatality if I or any of the other drivers on my side made a slight error of judgement or weren't being as attentive as they could be.

To be honest this isn't the first time it's happened to me recently, it's becoming quite the norm. Evidently they all think like you and reckon it's fine to take the other side whenever they fancy, regardless of any oncoming traffic.

Rule 167 of the Highway Code advises drivers and riders not to overtake when it might
cause conflict with other road users, for example:
1 approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
2 where the road narrows
3 when approaching a school crossing patrol
4 between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
5 where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
6 when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
7 at a level crossing
8 when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should havebeen cancelled.

Number 6 is your one here.

Edited by SilverSixer on Wednesday 27th July 16:18