The "Sh*t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread Vol 3

[jamei303]

It might even help some people's driving. Kind of like having a police officer and insurance loss adjuster in the back seats, should the footage ever be used following an incident.

[anonymous-user]

AllyBassman said:

Well butter me up and call me Barbara, you are a sad man!

I will indeed keep uploading them, got to give you something to do at night!

I am indeed a good driver. :-)

Oh and i forgot to mention, why would i ease off? I need all the juicy footage for my Youtube compilation that'll get 1millions views and loads of money from ad revenue.

I'm afraid I agree with pretty much everyone else.

The standard of your driving is poor, not to mention quite aggressive as if you were trying to make a point to other motorists.

You are either being deliberately aggressive to make your videos slightly more interesting, or you have poor observation and are actually an angry impatient driver. None of those are good qualities for a driver.

You strike me as the sort of person who wouldn't just ease off the gas when they saw someone pulling out in front of them, but rather would maintain your speed just so you could drive right up their backside to make a point.

As for making money from your videos, I can only assume you are trying to be funny. You have 7 subscribers and a handful of views on most of your videos. I would wager that'll haven't made even £1.

I would stop posting videos if I were you.

[KAgantua]

Lord Marylebone said:

AllyBassman said:

Well butter me up and call me Barbara, you are a sad man!

I will indeed keep uploading them, got to give you something to do at night!

I am indeed a good driver. :-)

Oh and i forgot to mention, why would i ease off? I need all the juicy footage for my Youtube compilation that'll get 1millions views and loads of money from ad revenue.

I'm afraid I agree with pretty much everyone else.

The standard of your driving is poor, not to mention quite aggressive as if you were trying to make a point to other motorists.

You are either being deliberately aggressive to make your videos slightly more interesting, or you have poor observation and are actually an angry impatient driver. None of those are good qualities for a driver.

You strike me as the sort of person who wouldn't just ease off the gas when they saw someone pulling out in front of them, but rather would maintain your speed just so you could drive right up their backside to make a point.

As for making money from your videos, I can only assume you are trying to be funny. You have 7 subscribers and a handful of views on most of your videos. I would wager that'll haven't made even £1.

I would stop posting videos if I were you.

[problemchild1976]

StuTheGrouch said:

AllyBassman said:

I am indeed a good driver. :-)

You're fking not!

like this guy...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1uX6VliMpw


haha

JJ

Edited by problemchild1976 on Saturday 16th September 23:51

[heebeegeetee]

Levin said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO6PUTThpEw

]

Isn't it time that the installation of a dash cam automatically disables the horn of a car?

I reckon if this were the case then the driving of the dcw would improve, possibly to the point that the dc is no longer needed, and he may even not be a wker anymore.

[herewego]

heebeegeetee said:

Levin said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO6PUTThpEw

]

Isn't it time that the installation of a dash cam automatically disables the horn of a car?

I reckon if this were the case then the driving of the dcw would improve, possibly to the point that the dc is no longer needed, and he may even not be a wker anymore.

They should come with a swear box too, auto transfer of £1 from driver's bank account to local charity for each expletive. And the music, omg, I often wonder whether the music is the cause of the aggression.

[Starfighter]

The music is a totally different issue.

We all have our music secrets and the car allows us a place to feed them in private. The dash cam makes these a little less private.

[anonymous-user]

threespires said:

Not sure what the issue is here. Cyclists do this sort of thing all the time and their fan club on here will defend them no matter what they get up to. It's just one of the hazards of the roads in the UK.... despite proper vehicle owners legally having to have training and licences etc. we have to share the roads with completely clueless s who legally can cycle around with no training or sense of self preservation or anything else for that matter. From a totally logical perspective that is an idiotic situation, but it won't be changing as cycling is seen as some sort of divine right to the unwashed masses like procreating. In my mind both should require an IQ check before being allowed to happen!

[Cfnteabag]

threespires said:

At least with those of earphones on he won't hear if you call him any nasty names

[Lance Catamaran]

Cfnteabag said:

threespires said:

At least with those of earphones on he won't hear if you call him any nasty names

But....but Amsterdam! Overweight drivers! There's no such thing as road tax, it's actually Road Fund Licence!

[giantdefy]

Lance Catamaran said:

But....but Amsterdam! Overweight drivers! There's no such thing as road tax, it's actually Road Fund Licence!

It's actually Vehicle Excise Duty actually

[Cold]

giantdefy said:

Lance Catamaran said:

But....but Amsterdam! Overweight drivers! There's no such thing as road tax, it's actually Road Fund Licence!

It's actually Vehicle Excise Duty actually

If only it were as glamorous as Amsterdam too. It's North End in the centre of Portsmouth.

[heebeegeetee]

cb1965 said:

Not sure what the issue is here. Cyclists do this sort of thing all the time and their fan club on here will defend them no matter what they get up to. It's just one of the hazards of the roads in the UK.... despite proper vehicle owners legally having to have training and licences etc. we have to share the roads with completely clueless s who legally can cycle around with no training or sense of self preservation or anything else for that matter. From a totally logical perspective that is an idiotic situation, but it won't be changing as cycling is seen as some sort of divine right to the unwashed masses like procreating. In my mind both should require an IQ check before being allowed to happen!

Right, well on IQ... two of the most recent anti-cycling threads both had spelling mistakes in the titles alone.

I don't know who you mean by 'proper' vehicle owners, you troll with this quite often, but every single person under the sun is a proper road user** - yet despite the inherent risks in using cars and vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes or 7.5 tonnes (dependent on when test was took), and vehicles that can travel up to 200mph depending on chosen vehicle, these road users are required to take no more "legal" training than someone using a push-bike.

That truly is an idiotic situation and from a totally logical perspective it explains how it's these users who do the most harm, killing and maiming tens of thousands of people every year.

In that tone may I point out this is page 309 (as I have my page set) of the *third volume* of st driving but only the st driving that's caught on dash cam - which is about what, a thousandth of what goes on out there? Also currently on PH we have threads on 8 killed on the M1, four killed and three seriously injured on the M5, and last week two peds were killed and two seriously injured on a country lane but no-one's arsed about that.

But we must clamp down on those cyclists, eh?

Cyclists with headphones - it means they hear the same as the 2-tonne drivers. https://rideons.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/an-ear-on...

• Sorry, I'm incorrect - of course not all road users are proper road users, as witnessed by the drunk hgv driver with no licence who contributed to 8 deaths recently. Peds and cyclists are the only road users by right, so imo that makes them the only genuine or proper road users - after that, all other road users and most vehicles have to be licenced and can only use roads by permission. They should know their place.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Sunday 17th September 17:42

[heebeegeetee]

giantdefy said:

Lance Catamaran said:

But....but Amsterdam! Overweight drivers! There's no such thing as road tax, it's actually Road Fund Licence!

It's actually Vehicle Excise Duty actually

Don't forget this type of bks either -

cb1965 said:

despite proper vehicle owners legally having to have training

A typical cycling thread on PH will have drivers spouting more fantasy than the children's section of the local library, trust me.

[liner33]

heebeegeetee said:

Cyclists with headphones - it means they hear the same as the 2-tonne drivers. https://rideons.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/an-ear-on...

Driving or cycling with headphones is neither here nor there, you dont need to be able to hear to drive.

[heebeegeetee]

liner33 said:

Driving or cycling with headphones is neither here nor there, you dont need to be able to hear to drive.

Well I keep repeatedly reading here on PH that you can't hear anything with ear buds in, but I've driven thousands of miles with earbuds and it's cobblers.

In fact I've just bought a good set of bluetooth headphones with noise cancelling, and whilst the sound quality is great the noise cancelling isn't.

[GrumpyTwig]

heebeegeetee said:

liner33 said:

Driving or cycling with headphones is neither here nor there, you dont need to be able to hear to drive.

Well I keep repeatedly reading here on PH that you can't hear anything with ear buds in, but I've driven thousands of miles with earbuds and it's cobblers.

In fact I've just bought a good set of bluetooth headphones with noise cancelling, and whilst the sound quality is great the noise cancelling isn't.

Depends on the earbuds, can't hear someone sat next to me with mine in.

[popeyewhite]

heebeegeetee said:

Right, well on IQ... two of the most recent anti-cycling threads both had spelling mistakes in the titles alone.

Then

heebeegeetee said:

1. ..(dependent on when test was took),

2. ...after that, all other road users and most vehicles have to be licenced and can only use roads by permission.

The amusement quota is similar from both the pro and anti lobby.

[heebeegeetee]

popeyewhite said:

heebeegeetee said:

Right, well on IQ... two of the most recent anti-cycling threads both had spelling mistakes in the titles alone.

Then

heebeegeetee said:

1. ..(dependent on when test was took),

2. ...after that, all other road users and most vehicles have to be licenced and can only use roads by permission.

The amusement quota is similar from both the pro and anti lobby.

Er, I'm British, and I'm in Britain. I think you're talking American.

I agree 'took' isn't the most elegant grammar, but it's still allowable.

[mac96]

popeyewhite said:

heebeegeetee said:

Right, well on IQ... two of the most recent anti-cycling threads both had spelling mistakes in the titles alone.

Then

heebeegeetee said:

1. ..(dependent on when test was took),

2. ...after that, all other road users and most vehicles have to be licenced and can only use roads by permission.

The amusement quota is similar from both the pro and anti lobby.

Back on the subject though, as opposed to HBGB rising like a trout to the fly, from the still picture it looks as if cammer is a motor bike turning right into the road on which bike was established; there could equally well have been a pedestrian crossing the road at the same point, so if there was actually a near miss then cammer is not that clever either.

Of course as it is a still picture we don't know how close it actually was.