The "Sh*t Driving Caught On Dashcam" Thread

[NoNeed]

drab said:

The lights are most clear when the bike is on the ground and the camera man goes to inspect it

Yes I see it better there but what a crap light, that wouldn't increase viviblity much if at all.

[drab]

Having watched it again it doesn't look like a particularly decent light, might just be the video though! Personally I think the cyclist is at least partly at fault purely due to being under the influence, he should have at least slowed down or changed course - in no fit state to be on the road!

[Martyboy84]

Yasss!

Don't think I've seen this one on here.

I present you with... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M655okGUuKk


Dash cammer is a f*cking moron.....

[Harji]

Stickyfinger said:

Harji said:

He was cycling with a light, and I agree, you shouldn't cycle under the influence, but what I'm saying is that the driver just simply did not check oncoming traffic and that is a basic part of driving.

ETA to add, I understand the influences of alcohol, but the point I'm trying to say is that even the driver turned into an oncoming car instead of a cyclist and that driver happened to be under the influence, the driver turning right would STILL be at fault. Just as the driver was who killed the rider doing over 90mph .

Edited by Harji on Monday 31st August 00:04

There is a reason the law states that at night you should have adequate lights on anything legal for use on the road, no matter if it is a dark car or pink bus. Bikes has a duty to be seen as much as cars.
The bike lights were poor to the extent the witness's there were under the impression there were none.

??....3 foot wide dark object, travelling maybe 20/25mph, artificial lighting with high contrast ?? small light maybe 4 led's low power....I ask when soft objects will learn to protect themselves more as much as I wish drivers would take that extra look.

You can no way say how poor or not the bike lights were from that video , most bike lights flash , they are not designed to 'light' up the road but allow the cyclist to be seen(hence the blinking, catching your attention).

Also don't forget how filming at night is not going to give you the accurate light conditions everyone know's that.

[Harji]

Blakewater said:

Harji said:

Makes no difference, the sooner people understand that drivers must be sure that the road is clear of oncoming traffic before turning right, it can never be anyone else's fault coming in a straight line. There was a motorcyclist killed recently (you tube video of crash shown by family of biker to highlight dangers) travelling over 90 mph, car turns right without checking oncoming traffic causing the rider to hit the car side on like the video for the cyclist.

The driver got done for not checking oncoming traffic, same as the video shown here, no difference, not 50-50, driver at fault 100%.

That's of little use to the motorcyclist though. He was doing a silly speed on approach to the junction and overtaking as well. The driver turning was most likely watching the car he overtook, thinking he/she could get across in front of it and never expected someone to be hammering through the junction doing something like 75% more than the speed limit. Had the motorcyclist simply passed a speed trap at that speed he would have found himself in a courtroom. Had he survived the accident he could well have faced some sort of legal prosecution. Instead he's dead, but at least we can say he was in the right over the car driver. The video was released as much as a message to motorcyclists to slow down and take care as to motorists to be more observant at junctions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZCadhDW_i0

You've completely misunderstood my post, it's about turning right no matter what the person travelling straight is doing, it's about your observations (or lack of them ) about what is coming at you while you are waiting to turn right.

I'm not saying it's justice for the rider I'm merely pointing out that if you are turning right it is your responsibility to not turn into oncoming traffic.

[Stickyfinger]

Harji said:

You've completely misunderstood my post, it's about turning right no matter what the person travelling straight is doing, it's about your observations (or lack of them ) about what is coming at you while you are waiting to turn right.

I'm not saying it's justice for the rider I'm merely pointing out that if you are turning right it is your responsibility to not turn into oncoming traffic.

Your own responsibility to look left/right at junctions is balanced by the reasonable expectation that the other road user is driving with suitable lighting, at suitable speeds etc etc.

So ???? a farm tractor with a trailer loaded with hay pulls out from a field 30 meters on the blind side of a corner, a bike/car (traveling +40%) over the speed limit rounds the corner smashing into the trailer, the time taken by the tractor to complete his pull out is larger than it takes the speeding bike/car to come round the corer..they Hit the trailer...the time taken by a bike/car at "legal speeds" is safe.

Who's fault ?

Edited by Stickyfinger on Monday 31st August 08:14

[strudel]

Blue Oval84 said:

No, I honestly can't be bothered because it's quite visible in the video, it doesn't need a freeze frame. I've already said it's not particularly bright, but it is there.

Only on Pistonheads would people try to prove that a cyclist going straight on, with a light, on a streetlit road, being hit by a car turning across his path, was in the wrong...

The light on the bike is quite frankly, pathetic. A black car, even though it seems dark, is still a large area of reflective paint, which will will reflect street lighting and form a silhouette of sorts. A cyclist wearing non reflective clothing with a much small area of reflection from the frame has pretty much only his light to rely on. Which in my experience of these fork mounted ones - are crap, and that video does nothing to sway my view.

In fact it seems via a cursory search that not all lights sold in this country even meet the standard. And given that not everyone spots it (it's at the bottom right of the front fork for those who can't see it), suggests it isn't bright enough. So throwing out the theory that maybe the bike lighting isn't upto regulation, who is in the wrong then?

Having been a regular commuter cycler, you would have never got me on the road in that get up.

[anonymous-user]

Martyboy84 said:

Yasss!

Don't think I've seen this one on here.

I present you with... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M655okGUuKk


Dash cammer is a f*cking moron.....

So is the knob in the Zafira, there's never any justification to brake test someone. But yeah, the whole thing is completely pathetic and the driver of the dashcam car needs to STFU and get on with their lives.

[eltax91]

Martyboy84 said:

Yasss!

Don't think I've seen this one on here.

I present you with... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M655okGUuKk


Dash cammer is a f*cking moron.....

Jesus Christ! I love the warning at the start about how there's a women and child in the car. Then the women throws out expletives every other word. fk, , prick, they are all in there.

[saaby93]

Stickyfinger said:

Your own responsibility to look left/right at junctions is balanced by the reasonable expectation that the other road user is driving with suitable lighting, at suitable speeds etc etc.

So ???? a farm tractor with a trailer loaded with hay pulls out from a field 30 meters on the blind side of a corner, a bike/car (traveling +40%) over the speed limit rounds the corner smashing into the trailer, the time taken by the tractor to complete his pull out is larger than it takes the speeding bike/car to come round the corer..they Hit the trailer...the time taken by a bike/car at "legal speeds" is safe.

Who's fault ?

Why are you even asking?
Everyone should drive at a speed they can stop safely
What they cant do is stop if someone pulls out, or walks across on them within their stopping thinking distance.
The rules of the road are written from both parties
YOu have a duty to drive as safely as you can but if you do make a mistake, tehres also a duty on another party to avoid.
Its too often when both are adamant theyre in the right you get a collision
whereas both or ast least the second may be guilty of driving without due care, i.e. failure to avoid

The taxi didnt see the bike until too late, he did see him that's why he stopped
Did the bike try to stop? Did it have time to stop?
You've also got mitigating circumstances
If someone dressed head to toe in black on a black dark night steps out in front of you, youre hardly going to get the blame.
The test is 'a reasonable man'.

At that junction at that time would a reasonable man have seen the cyclist?
Did the taxi driver act accordingly
Was the cyclist aware how visble he was likely to be and also act accordingly?
You'll generally find both have a part to play

[*Al*]

eltax91 said:

Martyboy84 said:

Yasss!

Don't think I've seen this one on here.

I present you with... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M655okGUuKk


Dash cammer is a f*cking moron.....

Jesus Christ! I love the warning at the start about how there's a women and child in the car. Then the women throws out expletives every other word. fk, , prick, they are all in there.

Dash cam driver is a bloody idiot, the overtake gave loads of space but the dashcam idiot takes exception and begins to tailgate in places. That dashcam driver must be permanently stressed on UK roads!

[ORD]

Not sure what the problem was re that overtake. Cammer complains that it was 'at speed', but how else are you supposed to overtake?

[Vipers]

Lovely "Ladies" no doubt though

[T0MMY]

ORD said:

Not sure what the problem was re that overtake. Cammer complains that it was 'at speed', but how else are you supposed to overtake?

Some people just become incensed when they get overtaken.

What I find ironic about that though is that these are often people driving needlessly slowly on NSL roads...if you don't want to be overtaken, drive faster.

[HTP99]

T0MMY said:

ORD said:

Not sure what the problem was re that overtake. Cammer complains that it was 'at speed', but how else are you supposed to overtake?

Some people just become incensed when they get overtaken.

What I find ironic about that though is that these are often people driving needlessly slowly on NSL roads...if you don't want to be overtaken, drive faster.

What I find ironic regarding that dashcam footage, is the poster puts it up too show their disgust at some perceived idiotic and dangerous driving, particularly as there are kids in her car and then gets so angry that she then decided to drive dangerously and aggressively herself and posts it online for the whole world to see; my God there are some thick people out there!!

[Cliftonite]

ORD said:

Not sure what the problem was re that overtake. Cammer complains that it was 'at speed', but how else are you supposed to overtake?

I received a letter from Lincolnshire police after someone reported me for inter alia "overtaking at speed"

[Martin4x4]

Martyboy84 said:

Yasss!

Don't think I've seen this one on here.

I present you with... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M655okGUuKk

Dash cammer is a f*cking moron.....

Before over taken, a good two second+ gap by dashcam car.
After over taken, they begin tailgaiting the Vauxhaul.

It looks like the Vauxhall is constantly on the brakes because they are also tailgaiting the car in front, rather than brake checking. Still st driving all round.

Edited by Martin4x4 on Monday 31st August 11:05

[HTP99]

Cliftonite said:

ORD said:

Not sure what the problem was re that overtake. Cammer complains that it was 'at speed', but how else are you supposed to overtake?

I received a letter from Lincolnshire police after someone reported me for inter alia "overtaking at speed"

What is the point and does it actually serve want purpose; someone could be acting maliciously against you, different people have different perception of speed; a louder cars sounds faster, an old person hasn't really a clue but you often hear them making comments about how fast someone is driving; when they aren't.

Seems a pointless and costly excercise sending out a letter on the say so of a random member of the public.

[ORD]

HTP99 said:

What is the point and does it actually serve want purpose; someone could be acting maliciously against you, different people have different perception of speed; a louder cars sounds faster, an old person hasn't really a clue but you often hear them making comments about how fast someone is driving; when they aren't.

Seems a pointless and costly excercise sending out a letter on the say so of a random member of the public.

Completely pointless. Any dhead will ignore it, and a sensible person probably wasn't driving badly anyway and so will also ignore it.

[Martin4x4]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXBgbRU9te8

Mod edit- no snuff films please.

Edited by Gaz. on Monday 31st August 16:22