The "S**t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread (Vol 6)

[techguyone]

heebeegeetee said:

A fatal one here, with yet another shocking sentence.

https://youtu.be/EiOfrc5IWS4

Link to story https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/news/thames-val...

Keep up at the back.

This was discussed ad nauseum only a day or two ago.

[heebeegeetee]

techguyone said:

Keep up at the back.

This was discussed ad nauseum only a day or two ago.

Sorry. I'll check back.

Was there any blame for the DCW?

Eta: Yes there was, the lethal driving of the van driver is described as accidental, and clearly people are MUCH more exercised by a cyclist on a roundabout than a killer driver that will be back on the road before we know it.

I had stopped following this thread, it's barking.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 17th June 08:44

[mac96]

heebeegeetee said:

techguyone said:

Keep up at the back.

This was discussed ad nauseum only a day or two ago.

Sorry. I'll check back.

Was there any blame for the DCW?

Eta: Yes there was, the lethal driving of the van driver is described as accidental, and clearly people are MUCH more exercised by a cyclist on a roundabout than a killer driver that will be back on the road before we know it.

I had stopped following this thread, it's barking.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 17th June 08:44

I think minor incidents often get more debate because we can see them all the time, and learning how to avoid making them worse is useful. In that crash, it looks to be 100% the fault of the van driver, no action by DCW could have avoided the collision, so there is less to discuss and nothing to learn- at least I hope not, as presumably we all know that overtaking on a blind summit is a bad idea..

Also the semantic argument about whether it is an accident or not, which keeps cropping up, is just a distraction. Some of us obviously relate it to the consequence and others to the manner of driving, so there is no agreement, even where as here everyone can agree on the main point- terrible driving.

[malaccamax]

carinaman said:

Spotted from a newspaper link in the four men die in an M5 after launching off of a roundabout in Beds. thread.

A motorcyclist filtering on the A2 in Kent gets taken out by a lane changer:

https://youtu.be/4KiJYlwdTc4

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 16th June 21:09

I do a fair bit of filtering on my motorbike and like to think I'm hyperaware and would have seen that coming. Not just the indicating but the car's positioning and the holding back from the car in front showing it was thinking of moving over. Or I might not have done.

[_Hoppers]

motco said:

Caught on my dashcam yesterday:


Cruising along in a line of traffic, approaching a junction with a minor road when the driver in front decides to be magnanimous and slam on his brakes at 45mph to let a car in from the right who was happy to take his turn as he should. The Honda ahead could have had a domino effect multiple shunt up his rear end.

It's also possible that the driver of the Civic saw the white car emerge from the junction and anticiapted that it might continue without stopping onto the carriageway? Given that both driver's views of each other would have been obscured by the two vehicles waiting to turn right, I think I would have shown caution when approaching the junction?

Edit: X posted by others!

[saaby93]

malaccamax said:

carinaman said:

Spotted from a newspaper link in the four men die in an M5 after launching off of a roundabout in Beds. thread.

A motorcyclist filtering on the A2 in Kent gets taken out by a lane changer:

https://youtu.be/4KiJYlwdTc4

I do a fair bit of filtering on my motorbike and like to think I'm hyperaware and would have seen that coming. Not just the indicating but the car's positioning and the holding back from the car in front showing it was thinking of moving over. Or I might not have done.

Yep filtering can be a dangerous sport if not done defensively, many drivers arent used to it and wont be looking for it. It's too late to say didnt you see me

[motco]

Blakewater said:

motco said:

carlove said:

motco said:

Caught on my dashcam yesterday:


Cruising along in a line of traffic, approaching a junction with a minor road when the driver in front decides to be magnanimous and slam on his brakes at 45mph to let a car in from the right who was happy to take his turn as he should. The Honda ahead could have had a domino effect multiple shunt up his rear end.

I’ve been on the other side of this, waiting to pull onto A64 which was very busy but moving fast, car approaching slams on the brakes to let me out, car behind nearly running into the back of them. I was happy waiting for a safe gap.

Exactly! The people who do sporadically just stop like this (and I'm sorry to seem sexist but it's more often women in my experience) think they are behaving considerately - never mind the poor sod embedded in their rear bumper!

Playing Devil's advocate, the Honda driver may have been concerned the Toyota driver wouldn't see him round the other right turning cars and would just pull out right in front of him. We've seen dashcam videos where that happens and criticised the person with priority for not anticipating the other driver not waiting.

Fair comment, but it was pretty obvious that the white car was slowing rather than proceeding at steady speed. The problem with dash cams is the ultra-wide angle lenses make speed assessment and distance judging difficult. The Honda driver, if that were indeed the case, should have eased off a little and covered the brake until such time it was obvious to all that the white car was stopping. In the event the Honda driver carried out a hard brake (not all-out emergency) manoeuvre without thought for following vehicles. If he/she had been aware of the possible concertina of metal behind they would have stopped braking the instant it was no longer needed to prevent a possible collision, and allowed the cars behind some leeway by accelerating away briskly.

I lost my second ever car in 1967 because Miss Judith Dale in her Minivan did exactly what you describe at a cross roads on Western Avenue Perivale outside the Hoover factory. The difference was, though, that there was no island refuge but only a gap in the dual carriageway centre, and the recommended practice at the time for right turning vehicles from opposite directions to pass offside to offside, not n/s to n/s as is now the way, but at that junction only nearside to nearside was the local habit. That meant that not only was I blissfully unaware of her presence hidden by a box van as she was, but she too was unsighted too. This was a traffic signal controlled crossroads then, but as a car had made the crossing safely ahead of her with main road traffic still running, she took the punt on following through. Before she knew what had happened her Minivan was backwards on top of a Keep Left sign at the entrance of the side road she wanted to enter, and my poor old 1956 Standard Ten was on its side sliding down the A40 towards South Wales! Her insurers paid up with no quibble as she was in court for careless driving.

[heebeegeetee]

mac96 said:

I think minor incidents often get more debate because we can see them all the time, and learning how to avoid making them worse is useful. In that crash, it looks to be 100% the fault of the van driver, no action by DCW could have avoided the collision, so there is less to discuss and nothing to learn- at least I hope not, as presumably we all know that overtaking on a blind summit is a bad idea..

Also the semantic argument about whether it is an accident or not, which keeps cropping up, is just a distraction. Some of us obviously relate it to the consequence and others to the manner of driving, so there is no agreement, even where as here everyone can agree on the main point- terrible driving.

Fair enough, but I am struck by how we won't talk at length about bad driving but we absolutely will talk at great length, sometimes over 100s of pages, about bad cycling.

[heebeegeetee]

jimbo761 said:

There is no doubt that van driver was at fault, I think is one of the rare ones where there is a unanimous thread view.

The issue with cycling clips is our own resident cycling UK militant forum nutcases constantly swearing blind that whatever the case the cyclist is not at fault and the motorist is the devil just for being vaguely in the vicinity, that faceplant one is a perfect example.

As I frequently experience, you get called a UK militant forum nutcase each time you don't support st driving, and definitely if you don't support the view that st driving is done accidentally.

The faceplant driver was done by the police and had nothing whatsoever to do with UK militant forum nutcases.

The case, as usual, brought up all the bks about vigilantes and road tax and number plates and police should be doing real criminals and all the total, utter bks.

[robemcdonald]

heebeegeetee said:

jimbo761 said:

There is no doubt that van driver was at fault, I think is one of the rare ones where there is a unanimous thread view.

The issue with cycling clips is our own resident cycling UK militant forum nutcases constantly swearing blind that whatever the case the cyclist is not at fault and the motorist is the devil just for being vaguely in the vicinity, that faceplant one is a perfect example.

As I frequently experience, you get called a UK militant forum nutcase each time you don't support st driving, and definitely if you don't support the view that st driving is done accidentally.

The faceplant driver was done by the police and had nothing whatsoever to do with UK militant forum nutcases.

The case, as usual, brought up all the bks about vigilantes and road tax and number plates and police should be doing real criminals and all the total, utter bks.

What clip is this referencing?

[heebeegeetee]

robemcdonald said:

What clip is this referencing?

I've assumed the Land rover one from a while ago.

[Demhcs]

heebeegeetee said:

robemcdonald said:

What clip is this referencing?

I've assumed the Land rover one from a while ago.

The van driver one is very clear cut. Nothing to discuss really.

The cycling ones rarely are - whilst some hardcore cyclists on here will always take an extreme position there is usually a wide range of views on many of these clips and quite some spirited discourse. The faceplant thread went on for hundreds of pages as I recall.

[donkmeister]

malaccamax said:

carinaman said:

Spotted from a newspaper link in the four men die in an M5 after launching off of a roundabout in Beds. thread.

A motorcyclist filtering on the A2 in Kent gets taken out by a lane changer:

https://youtu.be/4KiJYlwdTc4

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 16th June 21:09

I do a fair bit of filtering on my motorbike and like to think I'm hyperaware and would have seen that coming. Not just the indicating but the car's positioning and the holding back from the car in front showing it was thinking of moving over. Or I might not have done.

Likewise... When I hear "bike taken out whilst filtering" I assume it's either an oblivious driver not looking or an absolute ahole driver being an ahole because the version of the HC in their head makes it illegal to filter.

In this case, I'm putting the blame 100% on the rider. Car road position, the gap opening up, the indicator, it was clear what the car was going to do. Hard to know how fast the bike was going but from the outcome it's pretty safe to say it was too fast.

Part of the territory of filtering is that you must pay attention, and you must keep your speed low enough to stop if you get someone who changes lanes without it being obvious before. It's so easy to get complacent about speed, especially if you have a courier riding up your arse revving his tits off because for him it's more important to shave 1 minute off every journey than to never crash.

The only near miss I had that wasn't 100% my fault was when someone flung their driver's door open in stationary traffic to lean out and inspect their rear tyre. I screeched to a stop with my front tyre inches from his face, we apologised to each other and both went home to change our pants.

[saaby93]

Demhcs said:

The van driver one is very clear cut. Nothing to discuss really.

We could give it a go
The driver plead guilty to death by dangerous ( who wouldnt)
If he hadnt - would death by careless have normally followed through since there were no other circumstances such as excess speed or crossing double white lines. The change in type of dashed centre lines gave an indication of hazard but blind crests catch people out from time to time when the oncoming car suddenly appears as the video shows.
Either way no good for other driver

[donkmeister]

heebeegeetee said:

As I frequently experience, you get called a UK militant forum nutcase each time you don't support st driving, and definitely if you don't support the view that st driving is done accidentally.

It's really quite special isn't it? We're on a car forum, where you can post at length about a love of cars that robs you of all your free time and money, saying "to hell with £2/litre petrol, it won't stop me driving a turbocharged V12!", posting videos of your escapades on the track, showing all the work you have been doing in Readers Cars and yet... You call out some grumpy old for a close pass of a bike and you might as well have been witnessed quumfing Jeremy Vine's saddle outside the BBC studios.

[heebeegeetee]

donkmeister said:

It's really quite special isn't it? We're on a car forum, where you can post at length about a love of cars that robs you of all your free time and money, saying "to hell with £2/litre petrol, it won't stop me driving a turbocharged V12!", posting videos of your escapades on the track, showing all the work you have been doing in Readers Cars and yet... You call out some grumpy old for a close pass of a bike and you might as well have been witnessed quumfing Jeremy Vine's saddle outside the BBC studios.

[mac96]

heebeegeetee said:

mac96 said:

I think minor incidents often get more debate because we can see them all the time, and learning how to avoid making them worse is useful. In that crash, it looks to be 100% the fault of the van driver, no action by DCW could have avoided the collision, so there is less to discuss and nothing to learn- at least I hope not, as presumably we all know that overtaking on a blind summit is a bad idea..

Also the semantic argument about whether it is an accident or not, which keeps cropping up, is just a distraction. Some of us obviously relate it to the consequence and others to the manner of driving, so there is no agreement, even where as here everyone can agree on the main point- terrible driving.

Fair enough, but I am struck by how we won't talk at length about bad driving but we absolutely will talk at great length, sometimes over 100s of pages, about bad cycling.

As soon as anyone mentions a bicycle in a thread I stop reading, you just know where it will go.

[InitialDave]

mac96 said:

As soon as anyone mentions a bicycle in a thread I stop reading, you just know where it will go.

Through a red light?

(Sorry)

[tdm34]

InitialDave said:

mac96 said:

As soon as anyone mentions a bicycle in a thread I stop reading, you just know where it will go.

Through a red light?

(Sorry)

[J__Wood]

ukbabz said:

100%

He's clearly speaking out of backside, the 4ft is probably closer to true if you go from his left arm rather than the left wing mirror. Sadly there are too many dheads like that guy who seem to enjoy squeezing past folk on bikes when the other carriage is clear.

I think his initial problem is that he thinks 1.5m of space equates to 4 feet in pensioner measurements when it is actual 4' 11".

I also think he is confused thinking that it means the cyclist should have 1.5m of the road 'space' (as in if they are 0.5m from left edge of carriageway "I just need to give them 1.5m of 'road space' (or in his world 1.22m/4ft) of road from carriageway's left edge". "Therefore I just need to give them a 0.72m actual space/gap between their centre line and my door mirror". He just doesn't understand it's 1.5m/4' 11" of space between the cyclists right elbow and his N/S door mirror

He also forgets/doesn't know rule 163 states "leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds". He his just out of a long 40 into a NSL, hard to tell if he is going faster than 30 so I may be doing him a disservice...

I'd suggests his wife paints a big black line 3/4 of the way across his car's bonnet from the N/S and then remind him that 3/4 line = 1.5m and that is the width of the gap he needs to give cyclists.