The "Sh*t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread Vol II

[vikingaero]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

colonel c said:

Why do so many drivers think that approaching or negotiating a roundabout at speed gives them priority over other drivers already entering the roundabout.

I appears to be the common belief amongst the majority of drivers that approaching from the right (at any speed/distance) gives them priority.
Other RA favourites seem to be; constant signalling a left (exit) past one or more exits, and the alternative; constantly signalling right, until suddenly making a surprise exit.

I used to post a lot on mini2.com when it first started in 2001. At first it was full of enthusiasts and was great. Then the kids arrived. Cars bought by mummy and daddy. The MINI was a decent mainstream car that could handle and could carry speed into roundabouts. Then the kids used to complain that people joining roundabouts didn't expect them to join at 60mph+ and would pull out on them. The arguments ensued and I left rather than join in the kiddiewars. I'm on PH now where everyone is a tt - no exceptions!

[PF62]

Mike_Mac said:

JamesRF said:

Laurel Green said:

In no way castigating the chap but, should really have held back until they could see it to be clear to overtake.

Confused by this comment, the car had right of way in his lane?

Agreed. The lane was the Cam Car's, the dashed line the other way only allows oncoming cars to use that lane if clear. It wasn't.

Could you point to anything that backs up your view.

[anonymous-user]

PF62 said:

Mike_Mac said:

JamesRF said:

Laurel Green said:

In no way castigating the chap but, should really have held back until they could see it to be clear to overtake.

Confused by this comment, the car had right of way in his lane?

Agreed. The lane was the Cam Car's, the dashed line the other way only allows oncoming cars to use that lane if clear. It wasn't.

Could you point to anything that backs up your view.

I know this road (and section) very well drive it almost daily. It's a stone throw away from Berwick-Upon-Tweed. I can categorically say the cam-car (even with their annoying voices and chit-chat) were 100% in the right and that Ford was 100% in the wrong.

You're lucky to overtake on the Ford's side of the road even when it isn't that busy. It seems they must have just pushed through - too scary to think people out there drive like that.

[Centurion07]

Kierkegaard said:

PF62 said:

Mike_Mac said:

JamesRF said:

Laurel Green said:

In no way castigating the chap but, should really have held back until they could see it to be clear to overtake.

Confused by this comment, the car had right of way in his lane?

Agreed. The lane was the Cam Car's, the dashed line the other way only allows oncoming cars to use that lane if clear. It wasn't.

Could you point to anything that backs up your view.

I know this road (and section) very well drive it almost daily. It's a stone throw away from Berwick-Upon-Tweed. I can categorically say the cam-car (even with their annoying voices and chit-chat) were 100% in the right and that Ford was 100% in the wrong.

Except...the camera car, like the oncoming tt in the Galaxy, couldn't see the road ahead to be clear. "His" lane, or not.

Being right is no substitute for being alive.

[anonymous-user]

Centurion07 said:

Kierkegaard said:

PF62 said:

Mike_Mac said:

JamesRF said:

Laurel Green said:

In no way castigating the chap but, should really have held back until they could see it to be clear to overtake.

Confused by this comment, the car had right of way in his lane?

Agreed. The lane was the Cam Car's, the dashed line the other way only allows oncoming cars to use that lane if clear. It wasn't.

Could you point to anything that backs up your view.

I know this road (and section) very well drive it almost daily. It's a stone throw away from Berwick-Upon-Tweed. I can categorically say the cam-car (even with their annoying voices and chit-chat) were 100% in the right and that Ford was 100% in the wrong.

Except...the camera car, like the oncoming tt in the Galaxy, couldn't see the road ahead to be clear. "His" lane, or not.

Being right is no substitute for being alive.

Can we all stop calling it a Galaxy? It's an S-Max - this is PH after all..

I agree, but if it were a two lane carriageway (take away the lane with the lorry) then they wouldn't have seen that the road was clear either. Do you see what I'm saying?

[Centurion07]

Yes. It doesn't change the fact that the camera car couldn't see any further than the transit in front of him though, regardless of who's lane it is or isn't.

S-Max 100% at fault.

Avoidable collision by camera car? With a little bit of common sense, yes.

[edo]

oops

http://news.sky.com/story/at-least-one-person-inju...

[Mike_Mac]

PF62 said:

Mike_Mac said:

JamesRF said:

Laurel Green said:

In no way castigating the chap but, should really have held back until they could see it to be clear to overtake.

Confused by this comment, the car had right of way in his lane?

Agreed. The lane was the Cam Car's, the dashed line the other way only allows oncoming cars to use that lane if clear. It wasn't.

Could you point to anything that backs up your view.

Yes, quite easily - the lane markings and I'll point squarely at the Highway Code.

The cam car has a broken white line to their left, which is a centre line (See Rule 127) that marks the boundaries of the two lanes on the Cam Car's side of the road. To the Cam Car's right is a Hazard Warning Line (solid and broken white line, see Rule 128 - HC) which is a divider between the Cam Cars side and the opposing side of the road. The broken part means that 'you may cross the lines to overtake if it is safe'.

Cam Car was in a lane on their side of the road which, in this case, opposing traffic can use to overtake, but only if safe to do so. Although they couldn't see what was coming that shouldn't have mattered, because the S-Max shouldn't have moved to overtake as it was obviously not clear to do so.

However, I do agree that rigidly following the HC isn't sensible and the Cam Car would have been safer waiting until they could see, but IMO any crash would have been squarely on the S-Max, as they were the one moving into the opposing stream of traffic.

(I also thing these 'shared occupancy' overtaking lanes are bloody stupid for exactly the type of incident shown here. The Centre line should be solid, not dashed IMO.)

[Mike_Mac]

Centurion07 said:

Yes. It doesn't change the fact that the camera car couldn't see any further than the transit in front of him though, regardless of who's lane it is or isn't.

S-Max 100% at fault.

Avoidable collision by camera car? With a little bit of common sense, yes.

Basically this! You have to drive allowing for a tt contingency margin if at all possible. The Cam Car had no safety margin or visibility. Being 100% in the right doesn't make you tt-proof, unfortunately. I know a few roads with similar layouts and generally don't use them to overtake unless there's NO oncoming traffic, as someone is always liable to pull a stunt like the S-Max.

[MarkRSi]

I guess those sort of brown trouser are common? I'd have probably been doing the same as the cam car but I don't regularly use roads like the that (thank goodness)

[Alucidnation]

Not st driving but todays lucky Russian driver....

• Liveleak link*

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=136_1472205362

[poing]

Alucidnation said:

Not st driving but todays lucky Russian driver....

• Liveleak link*

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=136_1472205362

New pants time!

[Goaty Bill 2]

Alucidnation said:

Not st driving but todays lucky Russian driver....

• Liveleak link*

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=136_1472205362

evildog77 said:

Vlad the Impala.

Top marks for that comment

[PF62]

Mike_Mac said:

PF62 said:

Mike_Mac said:

JamesRF said:

Laurel Green said:

In no way castigating the chap but, should really have held back until they could see it to be clear to overtake.

Confused by this comment, the car had right of way in his lane?

Agreed. The lane was the Cam Car's, the dashed line the other way only allows oncoming cars to use that lane if clear. It wasn't.

Could you point to anything that backs up your view.

Yes, quite easily - the lane markings and I'll point squarely at the Highway Code.

The cam car has a broken white line to their left, which is a centre line (See Rule 127) that marks the boundaries of the two lanes on the Cam Car's side of the road. To the Cam Car's right is a Hazard Warning Line (solid and broken white line, see Rule 128 - HC) which is a divider between the Cam Cars side and the opposing side of the road. The broken part means that 'you may cross the lines to overtake if it is safe'.

Cam Car was in a lane on their side of the road which, in this case, opposing traffic can use to overtake, but only if safe to do so. Although they couldn't see what was coming that shouldn't have mattered, because the S-Max shouldn't have moved to overtake as it was obviously not clear to do so.

However, I do agree that rigidly following the HC isn't sensible and the Cam Car would have been safer waiting until they could see, but IMO any crash would have been squarely on the S-Max, as they were the one moving into the opposing stream of traffic.

(I also thing these 'shared occupancy' overtaking lanes are bloody stupid for exactly the type of incident shown here. The Centre line should be solid, not dashed IMO.)

I am not sure I agree, although there is a perception generally amongst drivers it is the 'rule'.

If the line to the left of the cam car is a rule 127 centre line, then the Highway Code says "Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear and wish to overtake or turn off", which is pretty much the same as it says for the solid / dotted line to their right covered by rule 128 "you may cross the lines to overtake if it is safe".

Neither rule gives 'priority' for either the cam car or the vehicle coming in the other direction to be in the centre lane; they are both overtaking.

So as you say, the cam car isn't being sensible and should have waited until they could see it was safe to overtake - exactly what rule 127 says.

[Mike_Mac]

PF62 said:

Mike_Mac said:

PF62 said:

Mike_Mac said:

JamesRF said:

Laurel Green said:

In no way castigating the chap but, should really have held back until they could see it to be clear to overtake.

Confused by this comment, the car had right of way in his lane?

Agreed. The lane was the Cam Car's, the dashed line the other way only allows oncoming cars to use that lane if clear. It wasn't.

Could you point to anything that backs up your view.

Yes, quite easily - the lane markings and I'll point squarely at the Highway Code.

The cam car has a broken white line to their left, which is a centre line (See Rule 127) that marks the boundaries of the two lanes on the Cam Car's side of the road. To the Cam Car's right is a Hazard Warning Line (solid and broken white line, see Rule 128 - HC) which is a divider between the Cam Cars side and the opposing side of the road. The broken part means that 'you may cross the lines to overtake if it is safe'.

Cam Car was in a lane on their side of the road which, in this case, opposing traffic can use to overtake, but only if safe to do so. Although they couldn't see what was coming that shouldn't have mattered, because the S-Max shouldn't have moved to overtake as it was obviously not clear to do so.

However, I do agree that rigidly following the HC isn't sensible and the Cam Car would have been safer waiting until they could see, but IMO any crash would have been squarely on the S-Max, as they were the one moving into the opposing stream of traffic.

(I also thing these 'shared occupancy' overtaking lanes are bloody stupid for exactly the type of incident shown here. The Centre line should be solid, not dashed IMO.)

I am not sure I agree, although there is a perception generally amongst drivers it is the 'rule'.

If the line to the left of the cam car is a rule 127 centre line, then the Highway Code says "Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear and wish to overtake or turn off", which is pretty much the same as it says for the solid / dotted line to their right covered by rule 128 "you may cross the lines to overtake if it is safe".

Neither rule gives 'priority' for either the cam car or the vehicle coming in the other direction to be in the centre lane; they are both overtaking.

So as you say, the cam car isn't being sensible and should have waited until they could see it was safe to overtake - exactly what rule 127 says.

Actually, having watched it again I am wrong - it's not a centre line (you are right about them) it's a lane divider (Rule 131 - These are short, broken white lines which are used on wide carriageways to divide them into lanes. You should keep between them.)

Basically, the Cam car is in one of the 2 lanes he is allowed to be in, which at the point of the incident also allows other traffic to use it to overtake if the way is clear.

My bad, but actually (IMO) reinforces the point I was trying to make. I'm not a usual HC pedant, so mea culpa!

(doesn't mean I would have been driving along it knowing other traffic could overtake into it, but I think we're all agreed on that.)

[Illforever]

How have the speed kills lobby not got rid of that type of road tho?

[PF62]

Mike_Mac said:

PF62 said:

Mike_Mac said:

PF62 said:

Mike_Mac said:

JamesRF said:

Laurel Green said:

In no way castigating the chap but, should really have held back until they could see it to be clear to overtake.

Confused by this comment, the car had right of way in his lane?

Agreed. The lane was the Cam Car's, the dashed line the other way only allows oncoming cars to use that lane if clear. It wasn't.

Could you point to anything that backs up your view.

Yes, quite easily - the lane markings and I'll point squarely at the Highway Code.

The cam car has a broken white line to their left, which is a centre line (See Rule 127) that marks the boundaries of the two lanes on the Cam Car's side of the road. To the Cam Car's right is a Hazard Warning Line (solid and broken white line, see Rule 128 - HC) which is a divider between the Cam Cars side and the opposing side of the road. The broken part means that 'you may cross the lines to overtake if it is safe'.

Cam Car was in a lane on their side of the road which, in this case, opposing traffic can use to overtake, but only if safe to do so. Although they couldn't see what was coming that shouldn't have mattered, because the S-Max shouldn't have moved to overtake as it was obviously not clear to do so.

However, I do agree that rigidly following the HC isn't sensible and the Cam Car would have been safer waiting until they could see, but IMO any crash would have been squarely on the S-Max, as they were the one moving into the opposing stream of traffic.

(I also thing these 'shared occupancy' overtaking lanes are bloody stupid for exactly the type of incident shown here. The Centre line should be solid, not dashed IMO.)

I am not sure I agree, although there is a perception generally amongst drivers it is the 'rule'.

If the line to the left of the cam car is a rule 127 centre line, then the Highway Code says "Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear and wish to overtake or turn off", which is pretty much the same as it says for the solid / dotted line to their right covered by rule 128 "you may cross the lines to overtake if it is safe".

Neither rule gives 'priority' for either the cam car or the vehicle coming in the other direction to be in the centre lane; they are both overtaking.

So as you say, the cam car isn't being sensible and should have waited until they could see it was safe to overtake - exactly what rule 127 says.

Actually, having watched it again I am wrong - it's not a centre line (you are right about them) it's a lane divider (Rule 131 - These are short, broken white lines which are used on wide carriageways to divide them into lanes. You should keep between them.)

Basically, the Cam car is in one of the 2 lanes he is allowed to be in, which at the point of the incident also allows other traffic to use it to overtake if the way is clear.

My bad, but actually (IMO) reinforces the point I was trying to make. I'm not a usual HC pedant, so mea culpa!

(doesn't mean I would have been driving along it knowing other traffic could overtake into it, but I think we're all agreed on that.)

That was what I initially thought (that they were lane dividers) but if you take the example in the Highway Code (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-markings) they are too long to be lane dividers.

The lane dividers (rule 131) white lines are significantly shorter than centre lane (rule 127) lines.

vs


However looking earlier in the video where it is clearly a dual carriage way and two lanes and the lines are lane dividers they are the same length, but if you go right back to the beginning of the video the centre line markings are the same length. Comparing them to Google Streetview images of motorways, lane dividers are much shorter as shown in the Highway Code. Was this intentional, or could the guy putting the lines down not be bothered to reset the machine?

So I still think they are centre line markings and neither car had priority to the centre lane.

However I used to drive down a similar piece of road on my commute a few years ago, and everybody had the same view as the cam car had on priority. But like in this video, you just had to hope the people coming the other way agreed.

[poing]

Illforever said:

How have the speed kills lobby not got rid of that type of road tho?

No, they are far too busy going round in circles arguing on PH about pointless rubbish. Mostly in this thread it seems.

[M4cruiser]

Not my film, but would you drive under a bridge that looks like this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ZpDvHOPPM

[Toaster Pilot]

M4cruiser said:

Not my film, but would you drive under a bridge that looks like this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ZpDvHOPPM

Not that fking slowly whilst filming I wouldn't!

Why the fk do people need to film everything these days?