The "Sh*t Driving Caught On Dashcam" Thread

[greygoose]

saaby93 said:

Standard LHD truck clipping car collision - happens a lot
What about this one that followed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n7m_7e8vxE
Would you hope the truck would ease off a bit to allow the filter?
56mph speed limit?

You would hope so but perhaps the truck didn't see him. I am always surprised people keep edging across when there is a huge truck there, surely part of their mind is shouting that the vehicle next to them is very big and it might not be a good idea to get too close?!

[saaby93]

greygoose said:

saaby93 said:

Standard LHD truck clipping car collision - happens a lot
What about this one that followed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n7m_7e8vxE
Would you hope the truck would ease off a bit to allow the filter?
56mph speed limit?

You would hope so but perhaps the truck didn't see him. I am always surprised people keep edging across when there is a huge truck there, surely part of their mind is shouting that the vehicle next to them is very big and it might not be a good idea to get too close?!

It's probably in their blind spot. Just far enough back to not be seen directly by the driver and at enough of an angle to be too far out for the mirrors. Those situations rely on the behind driver to give way slightly.
The reporter implying that because the truck was driving at 56mph all would be ok with the world

[VolvoT5]

rambo19 said:

Saw this on another forum;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuVoYGfNbX0

fking hell. Love the way the accident isn't even over before she is (correctly) calling the lorry driver a .

Edited by VolvoT5 on Monday 29th June 09:21

[gavsdavs]

Mave said:

gavsdavs said:

Mave said:

Do you not think it's a good idea to watch what's going on around you, even when stationary? Helps avoid being surprised by what's going on and what's in your blind spots when it's time to move off...because shortly after being stationary, you will be MOVING.

Of course, but not doing for a few seconds when you know you are stationary hardly warrants the charge of DWDCA. You become an obstacle, not a danger.

Not if your lack of observation means you move off without spotting a danger, especially if you've been caught off guard by the lights changing. Most people will move off in a hurry if the car in front pulls away when they weren't paying attention - they won't take extra time to see what has changed in the time they were stopped - just the most cursory glance if anything.

That's a different sin. Pulling off without looking is of course dumb. Remaining stationary is not.

Edited by gavsdavs on Monday 29th June 09:50

[ORD]

VolvoT5 said:

fking hell. Love the way the accident isn't even over before she is (correctly) calling the lorry driver a .

Edited by VolvoT5 on Monday 29th June 09:21

If she thinks about it quietly for a bit, she might work out that dawdling in a lorry's blind spot isn't terribly sensible. I often think people have lost all sense of the danger of being close to something huge that might want to be where you are and not see you.

[Studio117]

Zoobeef said:

Is that the Lemans cars?

'Look its Nico Hulkenburg, get him'

[gavsdavs]

heebeegeetee said:

Mave is right, and describes a common scenario where a driver stopped at lights is not paying attention and when he suddenly realises the loight is green sets off quickly without checking it is clear to do so.

Gavsdavs is wrong, it is less safe to take your mind off the action of driving. Navigating is part of driving, whether you've looked down at a map or up to read directional road signs - you are driving and your mind is on that matter. It's not if you are doing a puzzle or fire breathing or whatever.

Large vehicles in London are involved with too many accidents for their number, which proves that it is vital that the drivers pay attention to what is going on around them at all times, stationary or not. And of course, being aware of where they are going is just one aspect of driving.

If you're stationary, you can't cause an accident. You should have perform your usual "Is there a cyclist/puppy/baby seal climbing under my vehicle" checks BEFORE moving.

The distinction of 'navigating' being an allowable distraction is quite laughable. Whilst you're moving, any distraction is a bad thing.

[heebeegeetee]

gavsdavs said:

1. If you're stationary, you can't cause an accident. You should have perform your usual "Is there a cyclist/puppy/baby seal climbing under my vehicle" checks BEFORE moving.

2. The distinction of 'navigating' being an allowable distraction is quite laughable. Whilst you're moving, any distraction is a bad thing.

1. What you do when stationary can easily lead you into an accident when you move. There's a very strong chance that the drivers of large vehicles who have flattened cyclists or others did so precisely because they didn't pay enough attention when stationary, or that the situation they found themselves when moving off actually evolved whilst they were stationary.

The distraction from what? Driving? It's part of driving, you can't turn the wheel before you know where you're going, can you? Mind you, I wasn't aware that we were talking of map reading while moving, I'm sure you're original question mentioned checking a map while stationary.

[gavsdavs]

heebeegeetee said:

1. What you do when stationary can easily lead you into an accident when you move. There's a very strong chance that the drivers of large vehicles who have flattened cyclists or others did so precisely because they didn't pay enough attention when stationary, or that the situation they found themselves when moving off actually evolved whilst they were stationary.

The distraction from what? Driving? It's part of driving, you can't turn the wheel before you know where you're going, can you? Mind you, I wasn't aware that we were talking of map reading while moving, I'm sure you're original question mentioned checking a map while stationary.

So the sin is "failing to take in the environment around you before moving", NOT "failing to take in the environment whilst stationary".

The point i'm trying to make to you witch hunters is that being stationary poses no risk to other people. Appropriate checks must be performed before allowing the vehicle to move.

Let he who is without sin......

[WinstonWolf]

gavsdavs said:

heebeegeetee said:

1. What you do when stationary can easily lead you into an accident when you move. There's a very strong chance that the drivers of large vehicles who have flattened cyclists or others did so precisely because they didn't pay enough attention when stationary, or that the situation they found themselves when moving off actually evolved whilst they were stationary.

The distraction from what? Driving? It's part of driving, you can't turn the wheel before you know where you're going, can you? Mind you, I wasn't aware that we were talking of map reading while moving, I'm sure you're original question mentioned checking a map while stationary.

So the sin is "failing to take in the environment around you before moving", NOT "failing to take in the environment whilst stationary".

The point i'm trying to make to you witch hunters is that being stationary poses no risk to other people. Appropriate checks must be performed before allowing the vehicle to move.

Let he who is without sin......

I'm always observant when stationary, someone else might be having an accident and heading your way...

[gavsdavs]

WinstonWolf said:

I'm always observant when stationary, someone else might be having an accident and heading your way...

At Bank junction ? That would be a 1mph accident then. If that.

Have any of you lot ever been to the junction in question or is this all armchair commentary from the perfect ?

[Mave]

gavsdavs said:

So the sin is "failing to take in the environment around you before moving", NOT "failing to take in the environment whilst stationary".

The point i'm trying to make to you witch hunters is that being stationary poses no risk to other people. Appropriate checks must be performed before allowing the vehicle to move.

Let he who is without sin......

No, the sin is DWDCA. The appropriate word being attention- paying sufficient attention, even when stationary, to know what's going on and help make appropriate decisions when moving.

[WinstonWolf]

gavsdavs said:

WinstonWolf said:

I'm always observant when stationary, someone else might be having an accident and heading your way...

At Bank junction ? That would be a 1mph accident then. If that.

Have any of you lot ever been to the junction in question or is this all armchair commentary from the perfect ?

Other junctions are available. Do you have to be unobservant to qualify as perfect then?

[gavsdavs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

According to the roadcaptains we have here, you can look at a map all you like when you're stationary. Anything else is DWDCA.

People seem to be struggling with the difference between stationary and moving, and the transition between the two.

[heebeegeetee]

gavsdavs said:

1. So the sin is "failing to take in the environment around you before moving", NOT "failing to take in the environment whilst stationary".

2. The point i'm trying to make to you witch hunters is that being stationary poses no risk to other people. Appropriate checks must be performed before allowing the vehicle to move.

Let he who is without sin......

1. No, the sin is driving without due care and attention. When you're in traffic you're driving, stationary at the time or not. It's simple to understand.

2. It is really quite amazing that attempting to do something about large vehicles flattening people makes you a witch hunter. That really does feed straight into the hands of organisations such as Brake, because they can rightly say that there is something wrong with motorists when they consider to be victims of a witch hunt when you ask them to stop killing people, and again, it makes me despair at my fellow motorist.

Again, just for the record, I am not a cyclist, and I have spent many years at the wheels of large vehicles for my sins, and I know what a bloody PITA blind spots can be. Hence, I understand the importance of paying attention when driving.

One can only despair at equating the asking of drivers of large vehicles to not do soduko when driving to that of a witch hunt

[heebeegeetee]

gavsdavs said:

According to the roadcaptains we have here, you can look at a map all you like when you're stationary. Anything else is DWDCA.

People seem to be struggling with the difference between stationary and moving, and the transition between the two.

Not at all, indeed I think you're the only one here struggling with the difference, in that you alone (possibly) seem to think that you've stopped driving when the lights are red.

Firstly, nobody said you can look at a map all you like; secondly, you seem to think that asking drivers of large vehicle in London to pay attention when doing so is asking a lot. I don't think you'll get much support on this.

Very sadly, I think you just have no idea how people like you play *straight* into the hands of Brake. Without realising it, you might as well be their biggest supporter, given how much strength you give their cause.

[HerrNipps]

It is amusing to me that the examples most prominent are British in origin. Angry little-man syndrome affecting the island nation, who knows? Territorial and combative in nature, relax people!

[gavsdavs]

heebeegeetee said:

1. No, the sin is driving without due care and attention. When you're in traffic you're driving, stationary at the time or not. It's simple to understand.

2. It is really quite amazing that attempting to do something about large vehicles flattening people makes you a witch hunter. That really does feed straight into the hands of organisations such as Brake, because they can rightly say that there is something wrong with motorists when they consider to be victims of a witch hunt when you ask them to stop killing people, and again, it makes me despair at my fellow motorist.

Again, just for the record, I am not a cyclist, and I have spent many years at the wheels of large vehicles for my sins, and I know what a bloody PITA blind spots can be. Hence, I understand the importance of paying attention when driving.

One can only despair at equating the asking of drivers of large vehicles to not do soduko when driving to that of a witch hunt

The witch hunter comments comes from the enthusiasm with which you're willing to damn the bus driver for looking at sudoku and the keenness to say "that's unacceptable, take his license and string him up", yet you're willing to say for a similar level of distraction "I was looking at a map, that's okay".

What you seem unable to understand is the risk you pose to someone when stationary is zero. So long as you stay put, you're an obstacle. When you decide you want to move, then you'd check accordingly.

"It's simple to understand".

[gavsdavs]

heebeegeetee said:

Not at all, indeed I think you're the only one here struggling with the difference, in that you alone (possibly) seem to think that you've stopped driving when the lights are red.

No, that you pose no risk to someone else when stationary. Get it right.

heebeegeetee said:

Firstly, nobody said you can look at a map all you like; secondly, you seem to think that asking drivers of large vehicle in London to pay attention when doing so is asking a lot. I don't think you'll get much support on this.

Once again, no, I have not suggested that we want hgv drivers not looking when moving. I'm saying you might want to consider some flexibility of your militant stance when they're stood still.

heebeegeetee said:

Very sadly, I think you just have no idea how people like you play *straight* into the hands of Brake. Without realising it, you might as well be their biggest supporter, given how much strength you give their cause.

Very sadly, I just learned not to get into an argument with an idiot.

[heebeegeetee]

gavsdavs said:

1. The witch hunter comments comes from the enthusiasm with which you're willing to damn the bus driver for looking at sudoku and the keenness to say "that's unacceptable, take his license and string him up", yet you're willing to say for a similar level of distraction "I was looking at a map, that's okay".

2. What you seem unable to understand is the risk you pose to someone when stationary is zero. So long as you stay put, you're an obstacle. When you decide you want to move, then you'd check accordingly.

3. "It's simple to understand".

1. Er, I don't think I have said that. I think I've actually said that I don't think it's asking a lot to ask a driver of a large vehicle to not do soduko while he's driving. If it was my bus I'd sack him, but I don't see a need to ban him 'cos I don't think he'll do it again. Has anybody actually asked for that?

2. Whoa!! You are so wrong with that that it is frightening, it truly is. A reason for st driving explained in one very short sentence.

3. Be honest, (and I may well be wrong in asking), but have you ever spent much time at the wheel of a large vehicle, and are you a young driver?