"IAM Observer" Dashcam disaster
Discussion
150234 said:
The "always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear" is an excuse for teaching learners to drive like snails.
I would feel bad for impaling myself on the chap on the right as he is a hardworking man trying to earn a living where as the guy on the left is an asshole shaking their head because you didn't give them 200 yards of space but don't get me started on the wannabe Chris Frommes doing the 9-5 Tour De France.
Everytime I see a cyslist I am always reminded of the time one scrapped his handlebar on my door in traffic, good day that was.
Here, this is you. Dunning-Kruger indeed!I would feel bad for impaling myself on the chap on the right as he is a hardworking man trying to earn a living where as the guy on the left is an asshole shaking their head because you didn't give them 200 yards of space but don't get me started on the wannabe Chris Frommes doing the 9-5 Tour De France.
Everytime I see a cyslist I am always reminded of the time one scrapped his handlebar on my door in traffic, good day that was.
Always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear is the most fundamental rule of driving. You're not even disagreeing that you might impale yourself into a slow moving tractor.
So, do the world a favour, stop driving, shred your license right now. You don't seem willing to learn - which is what advanced driving is all about. Learning. If you can't be parted with your license, I suggest you drive at full speed down a lovely little road I know. Then enjoy not being able to stop in the distance you can see
150234 said:
Solocle said:
Sorry, I'm not going to wish him luck, at all.
I hope that when (because it is when, not if), he goes hooning around a corner at mach 3, because he's too good for "always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear", he impales himself on the chap to the right and removes himself from the genepool, rather than murdering the chap on the left.
The "always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear" is an excuse for teaching learners to drive like snails. I hope that when (because it is when, not if), he goes hooning around a corner at mach 3, because he's too good for "always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear", he impales himself on the chap to the right and removes himself from the genepool, rather than murdering the chap on the left.
I would feel bad for impaling myself on the chap on the right as he is a hardworking man trying to earn a living where as the guy on the left is an asshole shaking their head because you didn't give them 200 yards of space but don't get me started on the wannabe Chris Frommes doing the 9-5 Tour De France.
Everytime I see a cyslist I am always reminded of the time one scrapped his handlebar on my door in traffic, good day that was.
t driving s like you. 
150234 said:
Mave said:
Really? The reason whiplash claims are so common as a scam is that it's so common as a real injury....
Yes, but it won't kill you and you should notice if a car is going to hit you before it hits you so you can yank the handbrake up and plant your foot on the brake and anchor yourself to the ground like I did. 
150234 said:
You're not paying for it though right? So yes it's not your problem as the money is what matters.
To quote NWA "Life ain't nothin' but bi**hes and money"
It's common knowledge in the eyes of the pigs and insurance companies that you should be a 'safe' distance away from the car in front so the fact that you have even been rear ended in the first place should make it obvious that the car behind was to close, should it not? It's VERY hard to get out of being to blame if you rear end someone as the odds are always in favour of the person in front for obvious reasons.
You will pay for it, the insurance companies ask whether you've been in a collision blameless or not.To quote NWA "Life ain't nothin' but bi**hes and money"
It's common knowledge in the eyes of the pigs and insurance companies that you should be a 'safe' distance away from the car in front so the fact that you have even been rear ended in the first place should make it obvious that the car behind was to close, should it not? It's VERY hard to get out of being to blame if you rear end someone as the odds are always in favour of the person in front for obvious reasons.
Look 150234, one day you will be killed in a collision, but it won't be our fault, so you'll be happy. Are you getting it yet? Probably not.
You're making yourself look like an idiot on here, whether you're trolling or not.
150234 said:
They are if you get in front as that equals mission successful. Are you one of these people that needs a half mile straight to even consider an overtake to be safe?
As for not driving very long, correct. I have been doing it since Febuary 2020 and loving every moment of it. 45k miles later and it's literally like sitting in an arm chair to me as I don't worry about this and that I just drive. You say this, but how do you know I will have an accident? You don't know the roads I drive on.
I'm going to be charitable here and suggest that if you passed in 2020, you're 19 years old. At that age, the bit of brain marked 'this is fAs for not driving very long, correct. I have been doing it since Febuary 2020 and loving every moment of it. 45k miles later and it's literally like sitting in an arm chair to me as I don't worry about this and that I just drive. You say this, but how do you know I will have an accident? You don't know the roads I drive on.
king stupid' hasn't fully developed and what seems like minimal risk suddenly sharpens into 'I could fking die here'. It may surprise you that out of the 1000 accidents I investigated over a ten year period at least 40% of them involved someone under the age of 25 who didn't have a good sense of risk. You've got two year's experience on the roads; that's fk all in the grand scheme of things. But while you're waiting to grow up can you give me a list of the roads you do drive on so that I can rip the necessary pages out of the atlas. YOu might also ask yourself how well you get on when it's a road you've never driven before.But moving swiftly on from the abuse... I've looked at the video you've posted and I'll say just two things:
1. Dashcam videos give a falsely slow sense of speed - I've got in-car stuff at speeds grossly in excess of the speed limit and it looks like the car was going at 30mph. If you look at the video, the guy was 4 sets of lines away from the car in front at 55 mph, except it looks like half a mile. And don't forget that GPS speed <> Indicated speed. It was probably showing 60 mph but 56 mph in reality.
2. The bloke in the one you posted was under test. I bet you drove like Miss Daisy when you were under test conditions. Assuming that you're currently driving in accordance with a licence. Some of the speeds are slower than I might do, some are quicker. He put himself into places I wouldn't put a car for preference. But you can easily dissect the cat.
I'm saying that not every practitioner of advanced driving doesn't drive like that. Furthermore, it's a volunteer organisation and who you get as a tutor is a random trip into the unknown. You might get unlucky and have someone for who pull-push steering is the be all and end all ro you might get someone who has spent thousands of pounds on post-test education and can deliver something to be proud of. It's also worth remembering that 'Roadcraft' was invented so that people with no interest in driving could get from A to B consistently (more or less) safely. It's been bastardised over time into whatever the
BTW calling Police officers pigs isn't the smartest thing if you ever do get stopped. They much prefer 'the filth' or for you to mention that you're on first name terms with the Chief Con. The absolute favourite is, of course, to roll your window down and when the constable leans down say 'while you're down there'.
StressedDave said:
150234 said:
The "always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear" is an excuse for teaching learners to drive like snails.
Considering that it's taught to Police Officers as part of Roadcraft and they're not renowned for hanging about, I'd say you're wrong.It goes further than that.
There are also the caveats of "& reasonably expect to remain so" & "on your side of the road", which can result in you having to be able stop in less than the distance you can currently see to be clear (sometimes less than half that distance).
Of course what that doesn't mention is adherence to speed limits at all, because it is a safe stopping rule initially written for people who don't have to adhere to speed limits. They can travel as fast as it is safe to do so at the material time without reference to speed limits.
That results in them sometimes going far far faster than the speed limit & at other times under the speed limit, but ideally never outside of the golden stopping rule.
The key is doing the right one at the right time/place.
But then (150234) if you had a good understanding of the golden stopping rule, you'd know that.
vonhosen said:
150234
It goes further than that.
There are also the caveats of "& reasonably expect to remain so" & "on your side of the road", which can result in you having to be able stop in less than the distance you can currently see to be clear (sometimes less than half that distance).
Well, yes, but let's not over complicate it for someone who hasn't yet grasped the fundamental idea It goes further than that.
There are also the caveats of "& reasonably expect to remain so" & "on your side of the road", which can result in you having to be able stop in less than the distance you can currently see to be clear (sometimes less than half that distance).
Although frankly this discussion belongs on the remedial learners' forum rather than the advanced driving forum
StressedDave said:
I'm going to be charitable here and suggest that if you passed in 2020, you're 19 years old. At that age, the bit of brain marked 'this is fking stupid' hasn't fully developed and what seems like minimal risk suddenly sharpens into 'I could fking die here'. It may surprise you that out of the 1000 accidents I investigated over a ten year period at least 40% of them involved someone under the age of 25 who didn't have a good sense of risk. You've got two year's experience on the roads; that's fk all in the grand scheme of things.
Exactly this ^^^king stupid' hasn't fully developed and what seems like minimal risk suddenly sharpens into 'I could fking die here'. It may surprise you that out of the 1000 accidents I investigated over a ten year period at least 40% of them involved someone under the age of 25 who didn't have a good sense of risk. You've got two year's experience on the roads; that's fk all in the grand scheme of things.What we are witnessing here is a quintessential example of the arrogance of youth combined with a sense of immortality and a huge dose of misplaced over-confidence. What could possibly go wrong?
Depending on one’s age the answer is going to be either, nothing at all, or catastrophic failure.
johnao said:
Exactly this ^^^
What we are witnessing here is a quintessential example of the arrogance of youth combined with a sense of immortality and a huge dose of misplaced over-confidence. What could possibly go wrong?
Depending on one’s age the answer is going to be either, nothing at all, or catastrophic failure.
Eh, don't put it all on youth. I'm only 23. I just try to avoid being a massive cocksocket.What we are witnessing here is a quintessential example of the arrogance of youth combined with a sense of immortality and a huge dose of misplaced over-confidence. What could possibly go wrong?
Depending on one’s age the answer is going to be either, nothing at all, or catastrophic failure.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff