AUDI SQ5 Dash cam footage Dangerous overtake Somerset
Discussion
La Liga said:
Thousands more would be alive if we had the same standards and were as advanced with the road safety strategy as we are now in the 1980s.
A lot has changed since the 80s. On aggregate the roads are safer, but not all individual changes will have improved things, and some may very well have made matters worse. As has been pointed out in the recent A40 thread, there has been a distinct reluctance to scientifically test the safety-related effects of speed cameras, for example, despite many opportunities. And does removing roadspace through hatching (and sometimes physical obstructions) really improve matters? Do we really know that blocking drivers' views with hedges etc makes things better rather than worse? Etc.There seems to be a bias towards "improvements" which make driving more frustrating, which is unsurprising since many in positions of power on councils etc are not exactly friendly towards the motorist. Has there been any serious effort to study the effect of driver frustration on KSIs (which I would imagine is not good)? There are many, many junctions where it would seem that efficiency could easily be improved without anyone losing out or being endangered, yet the will does not seem to be there, even though this would decrease frustration and therefore, presumably, KSIs. Providing more overtaking opportunities where safe would again presumably reduce frustration and KSIs, yet overtaking opportunities are instead continually reduced. There are many more examples where it would appear that it is simply (and simplistically) assumed that restricting motoring and "speed" more and more will always magically make things safer.
I think that the wish to bring down KSIs has become "muddled up" with an ideological crusade against private motoring, and that as a most unfortunate result, KSIs have not fallen as quickly as they otherwise would have. There should be a more honest and transparent effort to individually evaluate the many changes we've had since the 80s, and crucially, there should be complete willingness to abolish those which prove to be dangerous or unnecessary, however financially convenient they may be, and however much perverse satisfaction they may give the "4 wheels bad" crowd.
And cars are a lot safer now, which is a big factor. The overall road safety strategy has been effective and we're in a better place now.
My point was rose-tinting a time where people wouldn't report terrible driving like the Audi wasn't a better time, and that, overall, we have done well. I wasn't examining every precise change or 'improvement'. There is evidence that claims speed cameras are effective. There is probably evidence out there that claims they are not. We can filter whichever we want to be true.
My point was rose-tinting a time where people wouldn't report terrible driving like the Audi wasn't a better time, and that, overall, we have done well. I wasn't examining every precise change or 'improvement'. There is evidence that claims speed cameras are effective. There is probably evidence out there that claims they are not. We can filter whichever we want to be true.
GPSHead said:
...does removing roadspace through hatching (and sometimes physical obstructions) really improve matters?
Absolutely not! There is an example where they killed off ALL the dual carriageway making it now a single lane via hatching and solid white lines. This was once a rare and welcome stretch where it was possible to safely nip past lorries on the A470 through Dolgellau (the bypass) but is now single track with no passing opportunity for about 4 miles. After the lane blocking changes there were then three accidents in six weeks and two separate fatalities: http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/d...The road past the now killer junction used to be dualed but is now single, pushing traffic that is going southbound left, towards the junction: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/A494,+Dolgella...
"Mr Haddock's widow Sharon has previously claimed her husband would still be alive if the road layout had not been changed". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wale...
"It was always a bad road but since they changed the layout there have been countless bumps and near misses." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wale...
They have had temporary traffic lights (really temporary - loaded down with sandbags) since, where before the crippling of the dual carrigeway (whatever the conjecture and spin on this will be) there was no need.
Sign the petition! : https://www.assembly.wales/en/gethome/e-petitions/...
Even a b Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/A470-SOS-Dolgellau-139018...
Centurion07 said:
I'll admit it's not obvious (it is a people carrier after all) but at the four second mark (of the shorter vid) just as he passes the painted merge arrow, you can see a noticeable rise from the camera car, combined with the scenery getting faster and the gap to the car in front decreasing a lot quicker than before. As I said, it's subtle, but to my eyes, and a few others it would seem, it's definitely there.
The video does look odd the way its been compressed.I remember hitting the steering wheel button and '100 shot of NOS" kicking in maybe it was that?
My 2c worth... albeit very late to this particular PH party.
You left the lights, seen a bullish looking white Audi in your rear view, hung around in the outside lane a little too long in a bid to keep him behind you... you finally merged in but realised the Audi was going to pass you, so sped up in a bid to close the gap on the car(fiesta van?) in front. The SQ5 was able to pass you relatively safely however you had closed the gap enough to make him take a risk and go for the second overtake - this was very dangerous on his part due to the island and oncoming traffic.
Both parties come out of that video looking a little pathetic.
If you had just carried on at your original speed, he would have passed and merged in with time to spare, no un-necessary risks would have been taken and you would have both carried on without a second thought about the situation.
I think these dashcams MAKE people drive differently to try and get some YouTube footage to whine about.
You left the lights, seen a bullish looking white Audi in your rear view, hung around in the outside lane a little too long in a bid to keep him behind you... you finally merged in but realised the Audi was going to pass you, so sped up in a bid to close the gap on the car(fiesta van?) in front. The SQ5 was able to pass you relatively safely however you had closed the gap enough to make him take a risk and go for the second overtake - this was very dangerous on his part due to the island and oncoming traffic.
Both parties come out of that video looking a little pathetic.
If you had just carried on at your original speed, he would have passed and merged in with time to spare, no un-necessary risks would have been taken and you would have both carried on without a second thought about the situation.
I think these dashcams MAKE people drive differently to try and get some YouTube footage to whine about.
ColdoRS said:
My 2c worth... albeit very late to this particular PH party.
You left the lights, seen a bullish looking white Audi in your rear view, hung around in the outside lane a little too long in a bid to keep him behind you... you finally merged in but realised the Audi was going to pass you, so sped up in a bid to close the gap on the car(fiesta van?) in front. The SQ5 was able to pass you relatively safely however you had closed the gap enough to make him take a risk and go for the second overtake - this was very dangerous on his part due to the island and oncoming traffic.
Both parties come out of that video looking a little pathetic.
If you had just carried on at your original speed, he would have passed and merged in with time to spare, no un-necessary risks would have been taken and you would have both carried on without a second thought about the situation.
I think these dashcams MAKE people drive differently to try and get some YouTube footage to whine about.
You nailed a perp! Or maybe you cant see the difference between a shockingly bad dangerous and reckless aggressive driver and a slightly poor (younger?) one that sadly got involved in trying to limit or restrain a willie waver 'out of my way' merchant? You left the lights, seen a bullish looking white Audi in your rear view, hung around in the outside lane a little too long in a bid to keep him behind you... you finally merged in but realised the Audi was going to pass you, so sped up in a bid to close the gap on the car(fiesta van?) in front. The SQ5 was able to pass you relatively safely however you had closed the gap enough to make him take a risk and go for the second overtake - this was very dangerous on his part due to the island and oncoming traffic.
Both parties come out of that video looking a little pathetic.
If you had just carried on at your original speed, he would have passed and merged in with time to spare, no un-necessary risks would have been taken and you would have both carried on without a second thought about the situation.
I think these dashcams MAKE people drive differently to try and get some YouTube footage to whine about.
It is disproportionate to SO attack the OP (especially for the 'career' and experienced knockers/nitpickers that are clearly and sadly more intelligent than him, theoretically, in typed comunication ).
Wood/trees + bullies in my opinion. One is getting 90% of the flack whilst being 10% culpable. Wind your picture perfect necks in.
Ken Figenus said:
ColdoRS said:
My 2c worth... albeit very late to this particular PH party.
You left the lights, seen a bullish looking white Audi in your rear view, hung around in the outside lane a little too long in a bid to keep him behind you... you finally merged in but realised the Audi was going to pass you, so sped up in a bid to close the gap on the car(fiesta van?) in front. The SQ5 was able to pass you relatively safely however you had closed the gap enough to make him take a risk and go for the second overtake - this was very dangerous on his part due to the island and oncoming traffic.
Both parties come out of that video looking a little pathetic.
If you had just carried on at your original speed, he would have passed and merged in with time to spare, no un-necessary risks would have been taken and you would have both carried on without a second thought about the situation.
I think these dashcams MAKE people drive differently to try and get some YouTube footage to whine about.
You nailed a perp! Or maybe you cant see the difference between a shockingly bad dangerous and reckless aggressive driver and a slightly poor (younger?) one that sadly got involved in trying to limit or restrain a willie waver 'out of my way' merchant? You left the lights, seen a bullish looking white Audi in your rear view, hung around in the outside lane a little too long in a bid to keep him behind you... you finally merged in but realised the Audi was going to pass you, so sped up in a bid to close the gap on the car(fiesta van?) in front. The SQ5 was able to pass you relatively safely however you had closed the gap enough to make him take a risk and go for the second overtake - this was very dangerous on his part due to the island and oncoming traffic.
Both parties come out of that video looking a little pathetic.
If you had just carried on at your original speed, he would have passed and merged in with time to spare, no un-necessary risks would have been taken and you would have both carried on without a second thought about the situation.
I think these dashcams MAKE people drive differently to try and get some YouTube footage to whine about.
It is disproportionate to SO attack the OP (especially for the 'career' and experienced knockers/nitpickers that are clearly and sadly more intelligent than him, theoretically, in typed comunication ).
Wood/trees + bullies in my opinion. One is getting 90% of the flack whilst being 10% culpable. Wind your picture perfect necks in.
The OP is 100% culpable for the hard time he's getting as he's brought it on himself. He posted the thread and he behaved the way that's clear in the video. He's also the one digging his heels in and trying to twist things throughout the thread.
As for bullying, I think most people have been very fair with him. If you look at the abuse given back by the OP and a couple of his supporters, it's hard to call it bullying when it's the opposite side who are doing the abusive comments. Luckily people haven't retaliated in the tone they have been dishing out.
I'm not going with 10% of blame either. The OP's main point was the Audi nearly ended up on the wrong side of the road and killing someone. If the OP had a faster car the Audi would have ended up on the wrong side.
The intention was there.
My opinion is very similar to above. I just wouldn't ever call the Audi's pass safe. That was always stupid. I guess if the OP wasn't so keen to stay ahead, there would never have been an issue at all though.
Edited by Driver101 on Friday 9th October 20:29
Driver101 said:
If the Audi driver was on here he would be getting a really hard time and rightly so. You can't say anything to the Audi driver as he isn't here for discussion.
The OP is 100% culpable for the hard time he's getting as he's brought it on himself. He posted the thread and he behaved the way that's clear in the video. He's also the one digging his heels in and trying to twist things throughout the thread.
As for bullying, I think most people have been very fair with him. If you look at the abuse given back by the OP and a couple of his supporters, it's hard to call it bullying when it's the opposite side who are doing the abusive comments. Luckily people haven't retaliated in the tone they have been dishing out.
I'm not going with 10% of blame either. The OP's main point was the Audi nearly ended up on the wrong side of the road and killing someone. If the OP had a faster car the Audi would have ended up on the wrong side.
The intention was there.
My opinion is very similar to above. I just wouldn't ever call the Audi's pass safe. That was always stupid. I guess if the OP wasn't so keen to stay ahead, there would never have been an issue at all though.
OK respect your take on it but still disagree (PS I am over 50 and have done some road qualification thingies so am not being argumentative for the sake of it - for fun The OP is 100% culpable for the hard time he's getting as he's brought it on himself. He posted the thread and he behaved the way that's clear in the video. He's also the one digging his heels in and trying to twist things throughout the thread.
As for bullying, I think most people have been very fair with him. If you look at the abuse given back by the OP and a couple of his supporters, it's hard to call it bullying when it's the opposite side who are doing the abusive comments. Luckily people haven't retaliated in the tone they have been dishing out.
I'm not going with 10% of blame either. The OP's main point was the Audi nearly ended up on the wrong side of the road and killing someone. If the OP had a faster car the Audi would have ended up on the wrong side.
The intention was there.
My opinion is very similar to above. I just wouldn't ever call the Audi's pass safe. That was always stupid. I guess if the OP wasn't so keen to stay ahead, there would never have been an issue at all though.
Edited by Driver101 on Friday 9th October 20:29
). Compared to the behaviour of 'king of the road' the OP is virtually blameless as he did nothing remotely reckless. A bit too fast on an open city limit road and a bit silly yes in getting involved in baulking a tw@t (not unusual from what I see daily, std) but its the UTTERLY reckless ones who should be taken to task and the silly made to learn/grow. I think half of that may have happened? So ease off, the righteous.Ken Figenus said:
OK respect your take on it but still disagree (PS I am over 50 and have done some road qualification thingies so am not being argumentative for the sake of it - for fun ). Compared to the behaviour of 'king of the road' the OP is virtually blameless as he did nothing remotely reckless. A bit too fast on an open city limit road and a bit silly yes in getting involved in baulking a tw@t (not unusual from what I see daily, std) but its the UTTERLY reckless ones who should be taken to task and the silly made to learn/grow. I think half of that may have happened? So ease off, the righteous.
What do you think was the reason he choose to go too fast and accelerate? ). Compared to the behaviour of 'king of the road' the OP is virtually blameless as he did nothing remotely reckless. A bit too fast on an open city limit road and a bit silly yes in getting involved in baulking a tw@t (not unusual from what I see daily, std) but its the UTTERLY reckless ones who should be taken to task and the silly made to learn/grow. I think half of that may have happened? So ease off, the righteous.I honestly for the life of me can't see how people can't read what has happened. The OP has been behaving like an idiot and keeps pretending the Audi appeared from nowhere. Don't forget he's already offered the fact the road was congested. That big two tonne bright white thing is fast, but it's hugely visible and not spaceship fast.
He was way too eager to leave the traffic lights? He says that because he was frustrated with the congestion, but the road ahead was clear. We can see by the video the road wasn't clear.
What's the point of speeding in 30mph zones when you've nowhere to go?
Once blasting off the lights, why stay right? Did someone else inside also randomly blast off the lights? More than likely not.
The acceleration is clear at the merge. If people can't see it, I can only assume they are watching on poor devices, low resolution, or lack judgement.
Is it just random that the car lifts as if it accelerates, everything else suddenly gets faster with the exception of the car ahead?
The one thing people want to hear to prove to themselves that the acceleration isn't as obvious as it looks is the sound. Yet there is no sound.
Surely sound is vital for a dashcam? Sound can tell you a lot about an accident.
Is that another coincidence that there is no sound?
Every last thing about the OP's behaviour suggests that something is making him react.
There has already been a professional questioned on this thread for offering his a opinion. This video was put in front of a few traffic officers and they all ruled 100% the same way.
It's as clear as day to most people what happened.
Edited by Driver101 on Friday 9th October 22:47
You castigate him for small reasons that the other driver beyond compounded; nutter Audi more than quadrupled egotistical driving and created absolute real danger and hazard. 'Accelerating quickly away from the lights' is not a criminal offence - unlike the other car's driving. Seriously a woods and trees moment? Then add that OP was in some 1.6 MPV or something and not balls out in some heavy tall 'sportscar' with an ego and monthly payments to validate?
Ken Figenus said:
You castigate him for small reasons that the other driver beyond compounded; nutter Audi more than quadrupled egotistical driving and created absolute real danger and hazard. 'Accelerating quickly away from the lights' is not a criminal offence - unlike the other car's driving. Seriously a woods and trees moment? Then add that OP was in some 1.6 MPV or something and not balls out in some heavy tall 'sportscar' with an ego and monthly payments to validate?
What has monthly payments got to do with anything? What are you suggesting now that is relevant to the circumstances? Are you jealous of people with expensive cars?
Can't bad drivers drive cheap cars? I'm really not following where you are heading with your point.
Not sure if it's he case with you, but there's a lot of people in here that hold an irrational hatred to people with certain car brands.
Accelerating quickly can be an offence. Search this site and you'll find people charged and convicted of it. As the OP also admitted, he was speeding, he has no idea of the speed, but it's quite clearly a speed that is an offence. Someone calculated 46.1mph.
The two of them took each other on. The Audi driver took it too far. They were reacting to each other though.
Driver101 said:
Ken Figenus said:
OK respect your take on it but still disagree (PS I am over 50 and have done some road qualification thingies so am not being argumentative for the sake of it - for fun ). Compared to the behaviour of 'king of the road' the OP is virtually blameless as he did nothing remotely reckless. A bit too fast on an open city limit road and a bit silly yes in getting involved in baulking a tw@t (not unusual from what I see daily, std) but its the UTTERLY reckless ones who should be taken to task and the silly made to learn/grow. I think half of that may have happened? So ease off, the righteous.
What do you think was the reason he choose to go too fast and accelerate? ). Compared to the behaviour of 'king of the road' the OP is virtually blameless as he did nothing remotely reckless. A bit too fast on an open city limit road and a bit silly yes in getting involved in baulking a tw@t (not unusual from what I see daily, std) but its the UTTERLY reckless ones who should be taken to task and the silly made to learn/grow. I think half of that may have happened? So ease off, the righteous.I honestly for the life of me can't see how people can't read what has happened. The OP has been behaving like an idiot and keeps pretending the Audi appeared from nowhere. Don't forget he's already offered the fact the road was congested. That big two tonne bright white thing is fast, but it's hugely visible and not spaceship fast.
He was way too eager to leave the traffic lights? He says that because he was frustrated with the congestion, but the road ahead was clear. We can see by the video the road wasn't clear.
What's the point of speeding in 30mph zones when you've nowhere to go?
Once blasting off the lights, why stay right? Did someone else inside also randomly blast off the lights? More than likely not.
The acceleration is clear at the merge. If people can't see it, I can only assume they are watching on poor devices, low resolution, or lack judgement.
Is it just random that the car lifts as if it accelerates, everything else suddenly gets faster with the exception of the car ahead?
The one thing people want to hear to prove to themselves that the acceleration isn't as obvious as it looks is the sound. Yet there is no sound.
Surely sound is vital for a dashcam? Sound can tell you a lot about an accident.
Is that another coincidence that there is no sound?
Every last thing about the OP's behaviour suggests that something is making him react.
There has already been a professional questioned on this thread for offering his a opinion. This video was put in front of a few traffic officers and they all ruled 100% the same way.
It's as clear as day to most people what happened.
Edited by Driver101 on Friday 9th October 22:47
There is no clear 'additional' acceleration after the merge (I add additional because there is not indication that OP stops accelerating until the white death mobile is in shot).
The road ahead was 'clear' - the fiesta van that turned left onto the road ahead before the lights changed was quite distant.
The OP didn't "stay right". He merged BEFORE the merge arrow. You don't know (a) if there was another car in lane 1 (though it can be assumed there was in addition to the OP stating there was) and (b) at what rate the car in lane 1 set off. The OP may have been unable to change into lane 1 until he did so BEFORE the merge arrow.
The car 'lifts'? Do we know whether the road is salt lake flat?
There is no appreciable change in the rate that the passing scenery passes the car.
You continue to infer things from that video that have no basis in fact. You are making judgments with a bias.
If you stick to the actual evidence in the video you'll come across as less of a loon.
ColdoRS said:
My 2c worth... albeit very late to this particular PH party.
I think these dashcams MAKE people drive differently to try and get some YouTube footage to whine about.
agreed. i watched a bloke move over a solid white line to get better footage (or possibly the number plate) of a car that had squeezed in a bit late where two lanes merge into one at the end of a bit of local dual carriageway. he had tried to close the gap to prevent the over take and had also moved slightly into the next lane ,turning what was a dodgy manoeuvre in the first place into a dangerous situation for them both and the driver in front. wtf the point of it all was i have no idea,pair of tI think these dashcams MAKE people drive differently to try and get some YouTube footage to whine about.
ts.johnfm said:
You continue to dress up your "observations" as fact.
There is no clear 'additional' acceleration after the merge (I add additional because there is not indication that OP stops accelerating until the white death mobile is in shot).
The road ahead was 'clear' - the fiesta van that turned left onto the road ahead before the lights changed was quite distant.
The OP didn't "stay right". He merged BEFORE the merge arrow. You don't know (a) if there was another car in lane 1 (though it can be assumed there was in addition to the OP stating there was) and (b) at what rate the car in lane 1 set off. The OP may have been unable to change into lane 1 until he did so BEFORE the merge arrow.
The car 'lifts'? Do we know whether the road is salt lake flat?
There is no appreciable change in the rate that the passing scenery passes the car.
You continue to infer things from that video that have no basis in fact. You are making judgments with a bias.
If you stick to the actual evidence in the video you'll come across as less of a loon.
You're the boy that keeps telling everyone else they are wrong. How do you know better? How is everyone else wrong and you are right? There is no clear 'additional' acceleration after the merge (I add additional because there is not indication that OP stops accelerating until the white death mobile is in shot).
The road ahead was 'clear' - the fiesta van that turned left onto the road ahead before the lights changed was quite distant.
The OP didn't "stay right". He merged BEFORE the merge arrow. You don't know (a) if there was another car in lane 1 (though it can be assumed there was in addition to the OP stating there was) and (b) at what rate the car in lane 1 set off. The OP may have been unable to change into lane 1 until he did so BEFORE the merge arrow.
The car 'lifts'? Do we know whether the road is salt lake flat?
There is no appreciable change in the rate that the passing scenery passes the car.
You continue to infer things from that video that have no basis in fact. You are making judgments with a bias.
If you stick to the actual evidence in the video you'll come across as less of a loon.
You keep telling people it's wrong to make assumptions, then you make assumptions.
What reason would I have for having any bias? None at all as far as I can see.
Why can so many people see the acceleration and you can't? Do you not start to question that maybe you are lacking judgement or maybe you're watching on 240p?
We will differ on the road was clear ahead. By watching the video it was clear the road wasn't clear ahead. After just a few seconds of the video the OP had to adjust his speed due to the Fiesta. He's already offered the fact there was congestion on the road.
Staying right. It's very unlikely a car on the inside also reacted to go on amber. It really isn't something you see that often. As he also admitted he accelerated sharply off the lights and was speeding. The chances of another car doing the same is very slim.
As everyone has pointed out, the front of the car lifts at the same time the acceleration increases.
A loon? Have a little look at your conduct in this thread. Kettle, pot black.
Sometimes I wonder if you're the OP with a second account. Your aggressive nature, abusing people and strong defence is odd. Everything you accuse me of, you're doing the exact opposite to a greater level.
Is there a reason you are so passionate about this?
If you don't have a bias why do you keep presenting your assumptions as fact.
You (and others) continue to fill in evidentiary gaps (of which there are many) with your opinion on what the OP was thinking, where other cars may or may not have been etc.
If you compare your claims with the actual, very limited evidence in the video you'd understand why I am telling you you're making things up.
We even had one bloke "calculating" the OPs speed as 46 mph at one point. Quite amazing really, given the evidence at hand.
The daft claims about the OP's driving just don't hold up to scrutiny - unless you've got a very low threshold of the meaning of "evidence".
You (and others) continue to fill in evidentiary gaps (of which there are many) with your opinion on what the OP was thinking, where other cars may or may not have been etc.
If you compare your claims with the actual, very limited evidence in the video you'd understand why I am telling you you're making things up.
We even had one bloke "calculating" the OPs speed as 46 mph at one point. Quite amazing really, given the evidence at hand.
The daft claims about the OP's driving just don't hold up to scrutiny - unless you've got a very low threshold of the meaning of "evidence".
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff