Hit by an unmarked police car
Discussion
Can we please stop feeding the troll?! 
Sheepshanks, are you actually 12 and without any common sense? You remind me of children arguing in the playground 'I know you are, but what am I?' mentality! STOP BEING A t
t AND JOG ON! 
If you pull out/change lanes and cause another driver to alter their course/speed, you would've failed your driving test, it's in the highway code and it's also common fking sense (to most of us)! If you're too thick to understand that basic fact, you shouldn't have a driving licence!
I pray I never meet someone as stupidly unobservant as you on the road - sadly, they are out there...
Sheepshanks, are you actually 12 and without any common sense? You remind me of children arguing in the playground 'I know you are, but what am I?' mentality! STOP BEING A t
t AND JOG ON! If you pull out/change lanes and cause another driver to alter their course/speed, you would've failed your driving test, it's in the highway code and it's also common f
king sense (to most of us)! If you're too thick to understand that basic fact, you shouldn't have a driving licence!I pray I never meet someone as stupidly unobservant as you on the road - sadly, they are out there...
Jim1556 said:
If you pull out/change lanes and cause another driver to alter their course/speed, you would've failed your driving test, it's in the highway code and it's also common fking sense (to most of us)! If you're too thick to understand that basic fact, you shouldn't have a driving licence!
Even if the other driver is some distance back but approaching at 120? He's going to have to slow down (or can do what happened in the OP and smash into you). king sense (to most of us)! If you're too thick to understand that basic fact, you shouldn't have a driving licence!Sheepshanks said:
Even if the other driver is some distance back but approaching at 120? He's going to have to slow down (or can do what happened in the OP and smash into you).
Many of us have tried being nice.Many of us have given you a hint.
Bottom line?
Why don't you just give up and f
k off to wherever it is you came from?!PoleDriver said:
Sheepshanks said:
Even if the other driver is some distance back but approaching at 120? He's going to have to slow down (or can do what happened in the OP and smash into you).
Many of us have tried being nice.Many of us have given you a hint.
Bottom line?
Why don't you just give up and f
k off to wherever it is you came from?!I happen to think his view has some merit.
Just because he hasn't rolled over and agreed with you doesn't mean you have the right to tell him to f
k off.Devil2575 said:
Just because he hasn't rolled over and agreed with you doesn't mean you have the right to tell him to fk off.
There's a world of difference between not rolling over and agreeing - that's (healthy) debate - and deliberate obtuseness. k off.See the questions I was asked a few posts back.
What's the difference.... explained
How did it get there.... explained with example
But how did it get there
Please, explain to me how this is disagreement rather than (intentional) stupidity.
It's like debating with a two year old.
Hackney said:
What's the difference.... explained
How did it get there.... explained with example
But how did it get there
Please, explain to me how this is disagreement rather than (intentional) stupidity.
Because it looks like the person missing the point is you:How did it get there.... explained with example
But how did it get there
Please, explain to me how this is disagreement rather than (intentional) stupidity.
ANY car, that's on ANY road that's in front of you has got there by, one way or another, by "pulling out in front of you". It may have done so two microseconds ago, (cue twisted metal and insurance claims) or two hours ago. In both cases, IT IS FORCING YOU TO CHANGE COURSE OR SPEED.
We all know there's a world of difference between the two, but there is a grey area in the middle. There's no hard and fast rule to determine what's OK and what's not.
This is why Highway code pt 133 is badly worded, and the argument that "If you made me change course or speed in any way, you're in the wrong" is sadly, b*ll*cks. If it was true you'd just sit on the motorway at your chosen speed and nothing would ever be in front of you.
twistedsanity said:
A Sargent appeared and all my friend recieved was a slip of paper saying she was in an accident with an insurance companies details handwritten on it. No mention that it was a police vehicle, or police officers driving it, no details of the drivers at all or the vehicle , no reg number or names.
Does the slip of paper have a police accident reference number on it?twistedsanity said:
I would have expected a full on enquiry of some sort as it was an accident involving police officers in a police vehicle where a member of the public was seriously injured?
It's a police accident so your expectation is correct.silentbrown said:
Because it looks like the person missing the point is you:
ANY car, that's on ANY road that's in front of you has got there by, one way or another, by "pulling out in front of you". It may have done so two microseconds ago, (cue twisted metal and insurance claims) or two hours ago. In both cases, IT IS FORCING YOU TO CHANGE COURSE OR SPEED.
We all know there's a world of difference between the two, but there is a grey area in the middle. There's no hard and fast rule to determine what's OK and what's not.
This is why Highway code pt 133 is badly worded, and the argument that "If you made me change course or speed in any way, you're in the wrong" is sadly, b*ll*cks. If it was true you'd just sit on the motorway at your chosen speed and nothing would ever be in front of you.
silentbrown meet sheepshanks, sheepshanks, silent brown.ANY car, that's on ANY road that's in front of you has got there by, one way or another, by "pulling out in front of you". It may have done so two microseconds ago, (cue twisted metal and insurance claims) or two hours ago. In both cases, IT IS FORCING YOU TO CHANGE COURSE OR SPEED.
We all know there's a world of difference between the two, but there is a grey area in the middle. There's no hard and fast rule to determine what's OK and what's not.
This is why Highway code pt 133 is badly worded, and the argument that "If you made me change course or speed in any way, you're in the wrong" is sadly, b*ll*cks. If it was true you'd just sit on the motorway at your chosen speed and nothing would ever be in front of you.
twistedsanity said:
A Sargent appeared and all my friend recieved was a slip of paper saying she was in an accident with an insurance companies details handwritten on it. No mention that it was a police vehicle, or police officers driving it, no details of the drivers at all or the vehicle , no reg number or names. I would have expected a full on enquiry of some sort as it was an accident involving police officers in a police vehicle where a member of the public was seriously injured?
If it happened it was a police accident so the police would have done a report on it. It'll have a reference number.twistedsanity said:
Apparently the car was a police vehicle with a black box fitted but no video or lights and she was invited after a few days to attend an interview under caution which she didn't attend after taking advice , she is the kind of person who wouldn't stand up very well to this sort of interview and was still in shock, in addition to this her husband was told that under no circumstances would he have been allowed to sit in with her. To me this all appears very fishy and improper.....
Should the OP's friend been given a copy of the police accident report before being invited to attend an interview under caution?silentbrown said:
Because it looks like the person missing the point is you:
ANY car, that's on ANY road that's in front of you has got there by, one way or another, by "pulling out in front of you". It may have done so two microseconds ago, (cue twisted metal and insurance claims) or two hours ago. In both cases, IT IS FORCING YOU TO CHANGE COURSE OR SPEED.
We all know there's a world of difference between the two, but there is a grey area in the middle. There's no hard and fast rule to determine what's OK and what's not.
This is why Highway code pt 133 is badly worded, and the argument that "If you made me change course or speed in any way, you're in the wrong" is sadly, b*ll*cks. If it was true you'd just sit on the motorway at your chosen speed and nothing would ever be in front of you.
Indeed. I've certainly been in a situation on a busy road where you have a choice; Cause the person in the outside lane to slow down when you pull out or don't change lanes and continue at the speed of the vehicle in front. Now I would never pull out in a way that caused the other driver to have to stand on the brakes or even brake moderately but sometimes you can be faced with a choice of continuing at 50 mph or making someone else have to back off. This is just a reality on busy roads, such as the M25 and you can't get away from it. Up north where I live you could actually just indicate and after at most two or three cars someone would back off themselves and flash you out, but in London they don't. In fact I personaly found that putting an indicator on was a reliable way of getting the person behind you but in the lane to your right to put their foot down in order to ensure you didn't change lanes. It's one of the reasons why I don't like driving down there. IMHO it's the land of the ludicrously competetive tANY car, that's on ANY road that's in front of you has got there by, one way or another, by "pulling out in front of you". It may have done so two microseconds ago, (cue twisted metal and insurance claims) or two hours ago. In both cases, IT IS FORCING YOU TO CHANGE COURSE OR SPEED.
We all know there's a world of difference between the two, but there is a grey area in the middle. There's no hard and fast rule to determine what's OK and what's not.
This is why Highway code pt 133 is badly worded, and the argument that "If you made me change course or speed in any way, you're in the wrong" is sadly, b*ll*cks. If it was true you'd just sit on the motorway at your chosen speed and nothing would ever be in front of you.
ts 
I understand why the highway code is written the way it is, ultimately the driver in the other lane you are moving into has priority, but on busy roads there needs to be more of an attitude of give and take and consideration.
It's the same with slip roads, yes it's the person joining who has to find a space, but on certain sliproads near me the visibility to line yourself up with a spcae well in advance is not good and the sliproad then ends quite abruptly. So technically drivers could make it incredibly difficult for people joining, but that would result in more cars that run out of sliproad and end up stationary waiting to pull out. This will ultimately make the situation more dangerous and make it more likely that you have to stand on your brakes to avoid a car. So as a consequence drivers tend to move over and make space. This is a good thing IMHO even though technically they shouldn't have too.
Mr2Mike said:
If you believe that 110+ mph is not a regular occurrence on DCWs and motorways, then you need to wake yourself up. I agree we all need to take care, and this includes making proper observations before making a manoeuvre.
Good luck trying to convince either a court or the public that following an accident where someone pulls out on you, even if they didn't look, that you are in anyway innocent.Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 18th May 22:35
That's all.
Expect other drivers to be idiots.
oyster said:
Good luck trying to convince either a court or the public that following an accident where someone pulls out on you, even if they didn't look, that you are in anyway innocent.
That's all.
Expect other drivers to be idiots.
By your statement above then, I would've been at fault for this?That's all.
Expect other drivers to be idiots.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvDfl95ProU
Jim1556 said:
Very restrained!! I'd have still been swearing by the roundabout 
Safe to say, their fault!!Jim1556 said:
oyster said:
Good luck trying to convince either a court or the public that following an accident where someone pulls out on you, even if they didn't look, that you are in anyway innocent.
That's all.
Expect other drivers to be idiots.
By your statement above then, I would've been at fault for this?That's all.
Expect other drivers to be idiots.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvDfl95ProU
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff