Poor / Dangerous driving - evidence on dash cam

[heebeegeetee]

johnS2000 said:

Your 'stating of the obvious' is getting a bit tedious ,as is your total defence of a small group of road user's who should know better .

I understand perfectly that all road user's contribute to congestion not just car's but your beloved truck's as well .

You do not have a problem cos your a competent driver !

Please explain this ?

The motorway stop's but this cause's you no problem!

How ?

Do you drive a hover vehicle and float above it ?

Or do you not see a traffic jam as a problem ?

Recording and reporting bad driving will actually achieve nothing ! I agree .

Nothing will ever change if nobody do's anything !
We will still be reading the same old thread's , by mostly different people in 20 yr's time because most people cannot be bothered .

Bad driving is every where waiting to be recorded.

If every body anticipated and was considerate then ,yes , there would be fewer problem's . Unfortunately the vast majority are not .They are not interested in driving only in getting from a to b with the least amount of effort.Driving is a necessary evil to them ,to be carried out with no regard to other's .

If I was to buy another motorbike what would I do with my VFR800??

Edited by johnS2000 on Wednesday 18th December 08:41

What do you mean 'Your beloved trucks'? Are you saying those trucks aren't carrying your stuff in the same way that they're carrying the stuff for the rest of us?

If you think the couple of hundred thousand trucks are the cause of congestion as opposed to the near 30 million of everything-else, please explain why the m'ways are so rarely congested at night, given that the same amount of trucks are still on the road.

When I was a truck driver I used to see car drivers behave in a way that I never would, and those car drivers would get tangled up with trucks and impeded, or place themselves in danger that I never would and never do.

Therefore, because I drive in the way that I do, I don't get tangled with trucks (or cyclists, or white vans) and yet can still make good progress. There's nothing special about me so if I can do it then so can everyone else.

By all means try to change the world with your dash cam if you want, but as we already have the safest roads in the world I'm not sure what you'll achieve.

[johnS2000]

Humper said:

? I dunno? Ride it & stop bhing about traffic jams? Keep it in a big shed along with loads of others? ( its what I do) Trucks create congestion. They have bad drivers. Same with vans. Same with cars. Same with motorbikes.( apart from the congestion )
Honestly, you live in the most heavily populated bit of Britain and complain there's too many people on the road? I see bad driving from all sorts of vehicles every day, I could get a dash cam and record it all. But I have a life.
So I just get on with my day and let others get on with theirs.
I have only had one complaint against me that was actioned in any way( kinda driving related, but probably the assault bit was why.. ) Most places are the same so why bother?

Where have you read about me "bhing" about traffic jam's? or complaining about "too many people on the road"?
I clearly stated that all traffic was responsible for traffic !! As you have just done !!
I asked how was it that some people have "no problem" with traffic ??

I do not care how good people think they are ,how do they avoid traffic when it grind's to a stop in front of them ??


Your beloved truck's cos your defending them and blaming every body else whereas I am blaming all !

I'll ask another question . A supermarket lorry (limited to 50 mph)has just started the slight incline toward's j6 M25 clockwise! Another lorry (limited 56 mph)is catching him up .At the correct following distance ( thickness of a fag paper for some lorry driver's) on go's the indicator , move to lane 2 ,get beside the first lorry ,slight incline cause's 2nd lorry to lose speed ,supermarket lorry fail's to slow (in highway code)elephant race is on,all car's behind now trying to squeeze into 3rd lane ,all HGV's behind slowing down ,2/3 mile's back traffic stop's .
So my question is YOU as a competent driver that has no problem's with truck's ,are 2/3 mile's back in the stopped traffic !! How is this no problem to you .You are 'tangled up with it'
Or do you actually mean it's not a problem cos you do not actually care.
I would also like to point out that all this traffic stopped due to there being too much of it but was caused by a lorry and that all the other lorries are caught up it as well.
Watch the youtube vid posted earlier and tell me driving like that should be allowed?
It was filmed on a dashcam !!

You may drive around in a sanitised bubble ,perhap's your now bib in a marked car as I have often heard them say they see more dodgy driving when not in a marked car !
There again all police car's have camera's !Are the clueless ? Most truck's have them too !Clueless as well ?

I would think that if most company vehicle's are installing camera's that the time is not that far off when dashcam's will be standard equipment .

I also stated mine was a bit of a toy but I do wish I could change the world with it .
We may have the safest road's in the world but I wonder if that's any consolation to the family's of any body that's been killed on them or if that's an excuse not to make them better!

[Chrisgr31]

johnS2000 said:

I'll ask another question . A supermarket lorry (limited to 50 mph)has just started the slight incline toward's j6 M25 clockwise! Another lorry (limited 56 mph)is catching him up .At the correct following distance ( thickness of a fag paper for some lorry driver's) on go's the indicator , move to lane 2 ,get beside the first lorry ,slight incline cause's 2nd lorry to lose speed ,supermarket lorry fail's to slow (in highway code)elephant race is on,all car's behind now trying to squeeze into 3rd lane ,all HGV's behind slowing down ,2/3 mile's back traffic stop's .
So my question is YOU as a competent driver that has no problem's with truck's ,are 2/3 mile's back in the stopped traffic !! How is this no problem to you .You are 'tangled up with it'
Or do you actually mean it's not a problem cos you do not actually care.
I would also like to point out that all this traffic stopped due to there being too much of it but was caused by a lorry and that all the other lorries are caught up it as well.

I am not sure why in your scenario the traffic at the back comes to a stop anyway. After all at 70mph the stopping disctance of a car is almost twice as much as it is at 50mph therefore twice as much traffic can occupy the same space and therefore the traffic should bunch up and the average speed should slow down but only to just under 50 and it shouldn't stop.

The reality of what happens though is that the trucks in lane 1 are doing 50 as they get to the bottom of the hill, however the first truck is heavily loaded and cannot aintain momentum. The truck behind is not loaded and could maintain momentum but those in the next lane won't let it out. It therefore swerves out in a gap but is now only doing 30. It accelerates past truck 1 but of course the traffic in lane 2 has now had to slow to 30. Had the drivers in lane 2 slowed marginally the truck could have come out whilst it was still doing 50 and passed truck 1 easily and there would have been no delays to other road users including the driver of truck 2.

[spike50]

can i just add a thought to this and other threads on my beloved trucks ,
there are the same amount of trucks on the road now as 30 yrs ago , did we have this traffic problem 30 yrs ago ?




i`ll leave it there

[elanfan]

s p a c e m a n said:

I work for one of the larger groups in the country and if you sent it to us it would be binned and you would be fobbed off, same as if you phoned up. The only way that anyone would be interested is if you were a high volume client and we were doing it on your property, even then we just get told to calm down when we're on their sites. Most firms that I have been around are the same.

Something will come of it if they are supermarket chains because they have big HR departments for all staff looking for ways to justify their existence, if its a haulage firm then they won't be interested in the slightest.

Then you must work for one of the more backward thinking groups in the country.

Any Fleet manager worth his salt is looking to contain costs. The correlation between near misses (possibly bad drivers)and actual accidents is well known and is a major cost to any fleet in terms of the premiums they pay which are often based on actual accident costs depending on the size of the fleet.

There are hidden costs too which aren't necessarily seen - driver downtime if he is injured and cannot work, time the vehicle is being repaired, missed deliveries, hire costs for replacement vehicle and what about the reputation of the company if perhaps they are involved in say a multiple fatality. There are doubtless others I cannot think of at this moment.

Insurers are increasingly sending in Fleet Surveyors to see Fleet Managers and introducing various tools to help them manage and control drivers, monitor accidents and near misses etc which gives the FM a better picture of which drivers are safer or a better risk. It can mean disciplinary (or worse) action in the worst cases. It might mean retraining. It might involve introduction of a penalty scheme or better a bonus for no accidentsn etc

Would a FM want a driver on his staff who may cause a half £million accident - I'd suggest not.

A better managed fleet of drivers will often mean better accident statistics and therefore have a major impact on the premium charged to that business which can be a huge cost. It can mean a cost level that means the company cannot afford to tender for business at a competitive rate.

Any FM these days who does not consider how his drivers actually drive is not doing his job effectively.

[Pkh72]

spike50 said:

can i just add a thought to this and other threads on my beloved trucks ,
there are the same amount of trucks on the road now as 30 yrs ago , did we have this traffic problem 30 yrs ago ?




i`ll leave it there

Is that actually true?

[Panda76]

johnS2000 said:

I'll ask another question . A supermarket lorry (limited to 50 mph)has just started the slight incline toward's j6 M25 clockwise! Another lorry (limited 56 mph)is catching him up .At the correct following distance ( thickness of a fag paper for some lorry driver's) on go's the indicator , move to lane 2 ,get beside the first lorry ,slight incline cause's 2nd lorry to lose speed ,supermarket lorry fail's to slow (in highway code)elephant race is on

I'll stop you there.
How many lanes do you want slowing down the to the lowest speed ?

I.e if the truck isn't capable of getting past the truck it is following up the hill it shouldn't pull out anyway. Any driver knows how heavy they are, they should also be able to work out if they have enough chuff to get past on a hill. They should also have already worked out if they can pass with ease or not.. If not then stay in.

Do you really expect the driver in lane 1 who is capable of going up the hill at say 50mph to slow down to sub 40 mph or less to aid some idiot numbskull who is almost fully freighted to get by ?
Even if the speed is marginal asking the driver in lane 1 to lift now and aid the dummy is ridiculous,losing all that momentum up hill and cogging down again would cause more chaos than you describe.

I say not a chance, the knock on effect would be worse than the dumb bd in lane 2 miscalculating everything and being left out to dry.

Don't quote the highway code,it also mentions what overtaking vehicles should have before they do pull out.

[heebeegeetee]

Panda76 said:

I.e if the truck isn't capable of getting past the truck it is following up the hill it shouldn't pull out anyway. Any driver knows how heavy they are, they should also be able to work out if they have enough chuff to get past on a hill. They should also have already worked out if they can pass with ease or not.. If not then stay in.

This is complete nonsense.

Firstly, like elephant racing, this scenario is much exaggerated - it really doesn't happen much any more and like elephant racing it's something I encounter far more on PH than I ever did when driving hundreds of miles daily.

Second, a driver can not possibly know what the other truck weighs, so the whole calculation is immaterial. Very often he won't know what he weighs either - take containers, where the weigh bridges are closed at night despite there being no reduction in traffic leaving the ports, and how that container ship that sunk a while back (forget the name now) was reckoned to be a 1000 tonnes over weight when it's hull broke.

[johnS2000]

Pkh72 said:

spike50 said:

can i just add a thought to this and other threads on my beloved trucks ,
there are the same amount of trucks on the road now as 30 yrs ago , did we have this traffic problem 30 yrs ago ?




i`ll leave it there

Is that actually true?

No it is not !!

The poster is either misinformed or introducing fabrication's into the equation .

The post in general was irrelevant.

[heebeegeetee]

johnS2000 said:

No it is not !!

The poster is either misinformed or introducing fabrication's into the equation .

The post in general was irrelevant.

the number of trucks on the road hasn't largely changed since about 1951. Indeed the numbers of all types of wheeled vehicles have remained largely either static or reduced, with one notable exception, the motor car, which has exploded in numbers.

This enormous growth in numbers of cars has of course caused heavy congestion over the decades, with road building barely able to keep pace. Bizarrely, many of the occupants of those motor cars blame other types of vehicles for the congestion.

[johnS2000]

Panda76 said:

johnS2000 said:

I'll ask another question . A supermarket lorry (limited to 50 mph)has just started the slight incline toward's j6 M25 clockwise! Another lorry (limited 56 mph)is catching him up .At the correct following distance ( thickness of a fag paper for some lorry driver's) on go's the indicator , move to lane 2 ,get beside the first lorry ,slight incline cause's 2nd lorry to lose speed ,supermarket lorry fail's to slow (in highway code)elephant race is on

I'll stop you there.
How many lanes do you want slowing down the to the lowest speed ?

I.e if the truck isn't capable of getting past the truck it is following up the hill it shouldn't pull out anyway. Any driver knows how heavy they are, they should also be able to work out if they have enough chuff to get past on a hill. They should also have already worked out if they can pass with ease or not.. If not then stay in.

Do you really expect the driver in lane 1 who is capable of going up the hill at say 50mph to slow down to sub 40 mph or less to aid some idiot numbskull who is almost fully freighted to get by ?
Even if the speed is marginal asking the driver in lane 1 to lift now and aid the dummy is ridiculous,losing all that momentum up hill and cogging down again would cause more chaos than you describe.

I say not a chance, the knock on effect would be worse than the dumb bd in lane 2 miscalculating everything and being left out to dry.

Don't quote the highway code,it also mentions what overtaking vehicles should have before they do pull out.

You can stop me there if you like .

The scenario depicted is a common occurrence many time's a day ,referred to and remarked on ,on many occasion's within this and other site's , and is called 'elephant racing'!!

I have witnessed this happening on many ,many occasion's .

I apologise in advance if I am wrong but my reference to the highway code was in the belief that it advise's a vehicle being overtaking to reduce speed to allow the overtaking vehicle to do so quicker .

[johnS2000]

heebeegeetee said:

This is complete nonsense.

Firstly, like elephant racing, this scenario is much exaggerated - it really doesn't happen much any more and like elephant racing it's something I encounter far more on PH than I ever did when driving hundreds of miles daily.

Where do you live ?? The Orkney's ?

You encounter elephant racing far more on PH than on the road !!

Where do all these people get it from ? Do you think they make it up ?

You still have'nt explained how you negotiate our highway's and byway's ,unaffected by the bad, inconsiderate driving of a growing number of couldn't care less individual's despite driving "hundred's of mile's daily".

I am getting the impression ,from your constant referring to your superior competence as a driver that you do ,in fact ,doubt your own ability's and are seeking constant reassurance by exaggerating your own abilities .

Or that you are convinced that your bad driving is, in fact , the correct way to do it .

I am sorry, but I have a vision of a myopic old person ,in a (2 wheel drive) SUV hogging the middle lane (3rd lane if more than 3 lane's )rigidly sticking at an indicated 70 mph , totally oblivious to all around ,convinced that your abilities are far superior to all other's and that every one else is beneath your notice .

[heebeegeetee]

johnS2000 said:

You can stop me there if you like .

The scenario depicted is a common occurrence many time's a day ,referred to and remarked on ,on many occasion's within this and other site's , and is called 'elephant racing'!!

I have witnessed this happening on many ,many occasion's .

I apologise in advance if I am wrong but my reference to the highway code was in the belief that it advise's a vehicle being overtaking to reduce speed to allow the overtaking vehicle to do so quicker .

I don't think you'll find any such think in the HC relating to m'ways.

If the overtakee slows, then it slows everything else behind it, most of which will move into L2, just to have the overtakee speed up again once it's been 'overtaken'.

In all my 30 years I have never known L1 slow down to allow L2 to pass, and likewise L2 slow down to allow L3 to pass. If you can point out where in the HC it says this should happen I'd be happy to see it.

With regard to elephant racing I'm not sure we're talking the same thing. One isolated lorr overtaking another one is elephant racing to me; 3 or more full lanes of traffic (common at peak times or almost all times on the M25) is just a full m'way, the same as they've always been.

[hman]

If you want to see elephant racing you should drive the M11 or A14 at peak times.

The queues caused by this idiocy are monumental.

On the other hand the A34 section where trucks at restricted to lane 1 of 2 at peak times shows that non-hgv traffic isn't impeded and the traffic flows very well.


The idiocy of elephant racing has clearly become more of a problem as more vehicles get on the road i.e. the problem was always there- it has become more obvious as trafiic has increased.

Its time to stop the elephant racing (and if that means increasing the max speed of an HGV then thats fine with me)

[Panda76]

heebeegeetee said:

Panda76 said:

I.e if the truck isn't capable of getting past the truck it is following up the hill it shouldn't pull out anyway. Any driver knows how heavy they are, they should also be able to work out if they have enough chuff to get past on a hill. They should also have already worked out if they can pass with ease or not.. If not then stay in.

This is complete nonsense.

Firstly, like elephant racing, this scenario is much exaggerated - it really doesn't happen much any more and like elephant racing it's something I encounter far more on PH than I ever did when driving hundreds of miles daily.

Second, a driver can not possibly know what the other truck weighs, so the whole calculation is immaterial. Very often he won't know what he weighs either - take containers, where the weigh bridges are closed at night despite there being no reduction in traffic leaving the ports, and how that container ship that sunk a while back (forget the name now) was reckoned to be a 1000 tonnes over weight when it's hull broke.

Of course it bloody isn't. You can make a bloody guess if you can get past someone on a hill or not. Look at the tyres, is the lift axle up, is he/she slowing on the build up to the hill. All the info is there, you just have to read it.

[heebeegeetee]

Panda76 said:

Of course it bloody isn't. You can make a bloody guess if you can get past someone on a hill or not. Look at the tyres, is the lift axle up, is he/she slowing on the build up to the hill. All the info is there, you just have to read it.

Can I ask what your experience of this is?

[heebeegeetee]

johnS2000 said:

Where do you live ?? The Orkney's ?

You encounter elephant racing far more on PH than on the road !!

Where do all these people get it from ? Do you think they make it up ?

You still have'nt explained how you negotiate our highway's and byway's ,unaffected by the bad, inconsiderate driving of a growing number of couldn't care less individual's despite driving "hundred's of mile's daily".

I am getting the impression ,from your constant referring to your superior competence as a driver that you do ,in fact ,doubt your own ability's and are seeking constant reassurance by exaggerating your own abilities .

Or that you are convinced that your bad driving is, in fact , the correct way to do it .

I am sorry, but I have a vision of a myopic old person ,in a (2 wheel drive) SUV hogging the middle lane (3rd lane if more than 3 lane's )rigidly sticking at an indicated 70 mph , totally oblivious to all around ,convinced that your abilities are far superior to all other's and that every one else is beneath your notice .

If I am as bad as you say then I'd be having the same problems as you and the other millions out there, but I don't.

In my experience the vast majority of UK drivers can not cope with any challenge at all, be it a lorry, a bicycle, a caravan, a bit of weather or whatever. I make an effort not to be in that (majority) group. Doesn't every enthusiast?

[johnS2000]

heebeegeetee said:

If I am as bad as you say then I'd be having the same problems as you and the other millions out there, but I don't.

So you say ! In the light of no evidence to back it up I don't believe it

[johnS2000]

heebeegeetee said:

In my experience the vast majority of UK drivers can not cope with any challenge at all, be it a lorry, a bicycle, a caravan, a bit of weather or whatever. I make an effort not to be in that (majority) group. Doesn't every enthusiast?

At least we agree on one thing .

[Pkh72]

johnS2000 said:

heebeegeetee said:

If I am as bad as you say then I'd be having the same problems as you and the other millions out there, but I don't.

So you say ! In the light of no evidence to back it up I don't believe it

What you need to bear in mind is that he taught God how to drive, he really is that good.