D.ckheads in "lesser" vehicles
Discussion
I wonder if this is location dependent I wonder? The South East for example has more than its fair share of flash cars so people seem be much more used to seeing them on the roads - hence not as much attention. There is a definite difference when we head to the Midlands (where I'm from) where I used to get people try it on when I had my 944 Turbo (they didn't know it was chipped and mighty quick bless 'em!). In the 360 down here we've had nothing negative at all. The biggest pain is on the motorway as cars you see coming past often slow for a little while to sit almost alongside for a look, which is absolutely fair enough, except they always sit in the blind spot nosing through the engine cover!
Edited by Kyodo on Monday 20th July 09:54
mike01606 said:
mph1977 said:
exactly
accelerating while being overtaken to prevent someone from passing is , i suspect careless if not dangerous driving should it come to court ...
never mind those who play chicken at merge points whether in flowing traffic or due to road works etc
The OP 'backed right off' when he saw the car approaching.accelerating while being overtaken to prevent someone from passing is , i suspect careless if not dangerous driving should it come to court ...
never mind those who play chicken at merge points whether in flowing traffic or due to road works etc
The only difference in overtaking something over which you don't have a decisive accelerative advantage is that the driver has the option of trying to kill you. Most people wouldn't, even if they could, though some would. It's an oafish thing to do, puts the perpetrator at risk of a life-altering criminal conviction and one would hope that someone who has the interest in cars and has enough brains to have accrued the means to buy a supercar would be less likely than average to do it.
otolith said:
Which is the right thing to do - whether you are driving a McLaren or a 2CV.
The only difference in overtaking something over which you don't have a decisive accelerative advantage is that the driver has the option of trying to kill you. Most people wouldn't, even if they could, though some would. It's an oafish thing to do, puts the perpetrator at risk of a life-altering criminal conviction and one would hope that someone who has the interest in cars and has enough brains to have accrued the means to buy a supercar would be less likely than average to do it.
Don't be so sure. Many super cars are purchased through the proceeds of crime (clear by the odd article eg tbops / surin / Mike boparan....how many have not been caught yet?)The only difference in overtaking something over which you don't have a decisive accelerative advantage is that the driver has the option of trying to kill you. Most people wouldn't, even if they could, though some would. It's an oafish thing to do, puts the perpetrator at risk of a life-altering criminal conviction and one would hope that someone who has the interest in cars and has enough brains to have accrued the means to buy a supercar would be less likely than average to do it.
Mike22233 said:
otolith said:
Which is the right thing to do - whether you are driving a McLaren or a 2CV.
The only difference in overtaking something over which you don't have a decisive accelerative advantage is that the driver has the option of trying to kill you. Most people wouldn't, even if they could, though some would. It's an oafish thing to do, puts the perpetrator at risk of a life-altering criminal conviction and one would hope that someone who has the interest in cars and has enough brains to have accrued the means to buy a supercar would be less likely than average to do it.
Don't be so sure. Many super cars are purchased through the proceeds of crime (clear by the odd article eg tbops / surin / Mike boparan....how many have not been caught yet?)The only difference in overtaking something over which you don't have a decisive accelerative advantage is that the driver has the option of trying to kill you. Most people wouldn't, even if they could, though some would. It's an oafish thing to do, puts the perpetrator at risk of a life-altering criminal conviction and one would hope that someone who has the interest in cars and has enough brains to have accrued the means to buy a supercar would be less likely than average to do it.
timbals said:
I have an Aston Martin V8VS which isn't really a supercar but I find BMW drivers terrible especially since changing from an Audi. No one gave the Audi any respect, but BMW drivers now go out of their way to undercut me, not let me filter when 2 lanes go into 1, or just turn into my lane at a round about causing me to brake hard. Everyone else stays out of my way apart from people giving me the thumbs up or waiting to drive through a tunnel with me. I strangely get a lot of love from Mercedes drivers.
Not sure how BMW drivers haven't been mentioned yet. Is it just a London thing?
Most likely.Not sure how BMW drivers haven't been mentioned yet. Is it just a London thing?
Slightly on topic but the driving in the east end of London and the A2, which is my commute into work is dreadful. Not wanting to be too generalistic but I wonder if the lack of insurance or MOT or road tax might be leading to this "don't care" attitude.
I work in a bank and there are a few people here who commute in Ferrari's / Porsche / Astons etc ( not me sadly, MX5 ! ) and if I was them I would not bother. Too much risk.
I work in a bank and there are a few people here who commute in Ferrari's / Porsche / Astons etc ( not me sadly, MX5 ! ) and if I was them I would not bother. Too much risk.
There are a lot of people who now follow cars dangerously close to take a picture. Even as a passenger, it scares me when you've got a car right up your rear bumper desperately trying to take a video / photo for some reason. And the more you try to build up a gap between the vehicles, the more likely they are to try and undercut you and come close to your front bumper.
Getting on to the A40 from around Pinner / Northolt (heading back to London) is my least favourite road. There are lots of young or drivers trying to cut you up or overtake on the inside lane. I actually saw a very articulate 130kg lady eating an equally sizeable bag of chips (she got so close to swear at everyone that I could smell the vinegar on them) try to undercut traffic by using the bus lane last Wednesday - only to smack right into the back of the bus.
Getting on to the A40 from around Pinner / Northolt (heading back to London) is my least favourite road. There are lots of young or drivers trying to cut you up or overtake on the inside lane. I actually saw a very articulate 130kg lady eating an equally sizeable bag of chips (she got so close to swear at everyone that I could smell the vinegar on them) try to undercut traffic by using the bus lane last Wednesday - only to smack right into the back of the bus.
Jurgen Schmidt said:
Classic British reaction, OP gets told off for choice of words, when infact the serious issue here is the pr$ck with a driving licence who could have had a head on collision with an oncoming car, possibly a young family of 4
Grow up chaps.
Why throw the "young family of four" bit in?Grow up chaps.
Are accidents somehow worse when it's a young family involved?
Am I ok to drive like a tit as long as I only crash into a single bloke with no passengers?
zarjaz1991 said:
Why throw the "young family of four" bit in? A) because it is a possibility
Are accidents somehow worse when it's a young family involved? A) Yes, definately
Am I ok to drive like a tit as long as I only crash into a single bloke with no passengers? A) No
Not sure what you are hoping to achieve Are accidents somehow worse when it's a young family involved? A) Yes, definately
Am I ok to drive like a tit as long as I only crash into a single bloke with no passengers? A) No
Edited by Jurgen Schmidt on Tuesday 21st July 10:44
gregf40 said:
Of course they are.
No they're not. An accident is an accident.The implication in the post I quoted was that the fact that there could be a young family involved is even greater reason to avoid having an accident. I despise that attitude. That implies that someone driving alone matters less and it's perhaps less "terrible" to hit them. Utter rot.
There's been a serious accident...but it's ok, no children were involved. b
ks!zarjaz1991 said:
gregf40 said:
Of course they are.
No they're not. An accident is an accident.The implication in the post I quoted was that the fact that there could be a young family involved is even greater reason to avoid having an accident. I despise that attitude. That implies that someone driving alone matters less and it's perhaps less "terrible" to hit them. Utter rot.
There's been a serious accident...but it's ok, no children were involved. b
ks!zarjaz1991 said:
No they're not. An accident is an accident.
The implication in the post I quoted was that the fact that there could be a young family involved is even greater reason to avoid having an accident. I despise that attitude. That implies that someone driving alone matters less and it's perhaps less "terrible" to hit them. Utter rot.
There's been a serious accident...but it's ok, no children were involved. bks!
Ok look at it this way then whats worse, one fatality or 5 fatalities? The implication in the post I quoted was that the fact that there could be a young family involved is even greater reason to avoid having an accident. I despise that attitude. That implies that someone driving alone matters less and it's perhaps less "terrible" to hit them. Utter rot.
There's been a serious accident...but it's ok, no children were involved. b
ks!The latter, its obvious.
Does that mean that the one fatalities life matters less? Not at all, but you just seem to be taking the wrong end of the stick.
No point as Greg is implying, that you're clutching at straws....
mattf93 said:
Ok look at it this way then whats worse, one fatality or 5 fatalities?
The latter, its obvious.
Then the argument ought to be "a car full of people" rather "a young family", which is clearly designed to pressure the reader into not disagreeing based on the emotional impact of there being children involved.The latter, its obvious.
I despise any suggestion that road safety becomes more valid just because a child is involved. All human life should be of value.
mattf93 said:
Ok look at it this way then whats worse, one fatality or 5 fatalities?
The latter, its obvious.
I agree but it is simplifiying things a little. I think you also must consider the amount of tax the individuals have paid over their lifetime, their jobs, and square area of their houses, plus any charity work they have done.The latter, its obvious.
zarjaz1991 said:
Then the argument ought to be "a car full of people" rather "a young family", which is clearly designed to pressure the reader into not disagreeing based on the emotional impact of there being children involved.
I despise any suggestion that road safety becomes more valid just because a child is involved. All human life should be of value.
You don't have kids do you?I despise any suggestion that road safety becomes more valid just because a child is involved. All human life should be of value.
gregf40 said:
You don't have kids do you?
If the '1991' bit is anything is anything to go by Id say not, seems a bit of a troll to me. If theres a car with 1 driver 4 kids, or 1 driver 4 oaps, I would say the former is the worse crash. But either way 5 fatalities.
Think some peoples thinking is a bit odd to me, Im only 21 but understand that kids mean the world to their parents!
mattf93 said:
If the '1991' bit is anything is anything to go by Id say not, seems a bit of a troll to me.
If theres a car with 1 driver 4 kids, or 1 driver 4 oaps, I would say the former is the worse crash. But either way 5 fatalities.
Think some peoples thinking is a bit odd to me, Im only 21 but understand that kids mean the world to their parents!
I'm sure kids do mean the world to their parents.If theres a car with 1 driver 4 kids, or 1 driver 4 oaps, I would say the former is the worse crash. But either way 5 fatalities.
Think some peoples thinking is a bit odd to me, Im only 21 but understand that kids mean the world to their parents!
Many people's wives, husbands, partners mean a great deal to them also. Not sure why you'd think a crash involving such people is less important than one where there happens to be a child in the car.
Do carry on calling people you disagree with a troll as well. Hardly original
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff