The "Sh*t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread Vol 3
Discussion
Engineer792 said:
It's nothing like pushing into a queue at the shop.
Do you also liken overtakers to queue jumpers?
Get over yourself
As the cars in front of me left the right hand lane to join the left, I'd normally start looking to merge there. You have to judge how near / far from the merge point you are of course. Do you also liken overtakers to queue jumpers?
Get over yourself
Edited by Engineer792 on Monday 17th April 16:27
One thing I really do not do is try to force my way in front of a car that has just let someone else in.
Hungrymc said:
Engineer792 said:
It's nothing like pushing into a queue at the shop.
Do you also liken overtakers to queue jumpers?
Get over yourself
As the cars in front of me left the right hand lane to join the left, I'd normally start looking to merge there. You have to judge how near / far from the merge point you are of course. Do you also liken overtakers to queue jumpers?
Get over yourself
Edited by Engineer792 on Monday 17th April 16:27
One thing I really do not do is try to force my way in front of a car that has just let someone else in..
jonnM said:
Two idiots meet.Self entitled Audi driver who thinks the world revolves around her and pushes a bad move despite it being blindingly obvious the cam car driver wasn't going to yield (LOLed at the "you made me hit the cones" - nobody made you do anything sweetheart, if you hit the cones, that was down to your own actions, nobody elses).
Self important road warrior who thinks that because he let another car merge early - that now absolves him of any responsibility to allow further merge in turns (note at the point the Audi becomes visible - it is almost parallel with the "merge in turn" sign).
Neither driver needed to turn that situation into an incident - but both have so little respect for other road users, they pressed on with their own petty actions.
tonyb1968 said:
Yes lots of topics on the morgan v peugeot!
As a Peugeot driver, it was 100% the Morgans fault
No but seriously, people are saying why the pug didnt go hard on the brakes, for gods sake, its an OLD 206, probably doesn't have ABS, its shocks may have 100k+ on them and its going to have the same type of tyres it had from the factory, or would it have the cheapest alternative available? its braking distance is going to be a factor of all the above and the drivers skill/ability.
The words "if in doubt, don't pull out" didn't apply to the Morgan driver and he paid for it.
Then given all this .The Pug driver should drive a lot more carefully . As a Peugeot driver, it was 100% the Morgans fault
No but seriously, people are saying why the pug didnt go hard on the brakes, for gods sake, its an OLD 206, probably doesn't have ABS, its shocks may have 100k+ on them and its going to have the same type of tyres it had from the factory, or would it have the cheapest alternative available? its braking distance is going to be a factor of all the above and the drivers skill/ability.
The words "if in doubt, don't pull out" didn't apply to the Morgan driver and he paid for it.
brianashley said:
tonyb1968 said:
Yes lots of topics on the morgan v peugeot!
As a Peugeot driver, it was 100% the Morgans fault
No but seriously, people are saying why the pug didnt go hard on the brakes, for gods sake, its an OLD 206, probably doesn't have ABS, its shocks may have 100k+ on them and its going to have the same type of tyres it had from the factory, or would it have the cheapest alternative available? its braking distance is going to be a factor of all the above and the drivers skill/ability.
The words "if in doubt, don't pull out" didn't apply to the Morgan driver and he paid for it.
Then given all this .The Pug driver should drive a lot more carefully . As a Peugeot driver, it was 100% the Morgans fault
No but seriously, people are saying why the pug didnt go hard on the brakes, for gods sake, its an OLD 206, probably doesn't have ABS, its shocks may have 100k+ on them and its going to have the same type of tyres it had from the factory, or would it have the cheapest alternative available? its braking distance is going to be a factor of all the above and the drivers skill/ability.
The words "if in doubt, don't pull out" didn't apply to the Morgan driver and he paid for it.
BIANCO said:
If you are in a shop and queuing up and someone pushes in front of you, do you do what you are saying now just think oh well its not worth it and let them do it?. If so you are a coward and that's why we now live in a society full of selfish tits who don't give a crap about anyone but themselves.
People think because they are in a metal box they they can barge and push in where ever they like. I suspect you are defending her because you do exactly the same and push in at the last minute. Well if you, she or anyone else ever comes up at the side of me after I have already let someone merge in front of me you wouldn't be getting in guaranteed. Just as if someone in shop did it they would be told to get to the back of the queue in no polite terms.
Not this crap shop queue analogy again. It is nothing like a shope queue, and never has been, except for those that have problems with logical thought. People think because they are in a metal box they they can barge and push in where ever they like. I suspect you are defending her because you do exactly the same and push in at the last minute. Well if you, she or anyone else ever comes up at the side of me after I have already let someone merge in front of me you wouldn't be getting in guaranteed. Just as if someone in shop did it they would be told to get to the back of the queue in no polite terms.
Is this "merge in turn thing" mentioned in the road traffic act or whatever its called now and is it something that you legally have to do in the same way that stopping at a red light is?
All I can see is a van traveling in the left lane with a car in front and when the car in front moves off then so does he. He doesn't have any need to change lanes or cross over any markings or anything like that. On the other hand I see an Audi traveling down the right lane which is coming to an abrupt end, I see her having to indicate which suggests she needs to perform a positive action and I see her cross over a lane marking.
Surely the onus is on the person doing the lane change to look out for other vehicles before they make the change. Its pretty much the same as joining a motorway from the slip road, ultimately its the joining vehicle that needs to do something about it. Sure the bloke could have been extra nice/a wet lettuce depending on how you view him but I don't see why he has to let her in if he doesn't want to, despite how much of a t
t he appears to be.
Yes I know there is a "merge in turn" sign there but its a yellow one in pretty much the same format as a sign telling you a festival is ahead, doesn't mean you have to go raving when you originally set out to Tescos. I would have thought if it was a legal requirement to merge in turn then there would be a sign in a red circle for it.
All I can see is a van traveling in the left lane with a car in front and when the car in front moves off then so does he. He doesn't have any need to change lanes or cross over any markings or anything like that. On the other hand I see an Audi traveling down the right lane which is coming to an abrupt end, I see her having to indicate which suggests she needs to perform a positive action and I see her cross over a lane marking.
Surely the onus is on the person doing the lane change to look out for other vehicles before they make the change. Its pretty much the same as joining a motorway from the slip road, ultimately its the joining vehicle that needs to do something about it. Sure the bloke could have been extra nice/a wet lettuce depending on how you view him but I don't see why he has to let her in if he doesn't want to, despite how much of a t
t he appears to be.Yes I know there is a "merge in turn" sign there but its a yellow one in pretty much the same format as a sign telling you a festival is ahead, doesn't mean you have to go raving when you originally set out to Tescos. I would have thought if it was a legal requirement to merge in turn then there would be a sign in a red circle for it.
I believe if someone deliberately tries to block someone from merging, as the van driver did, and there is a collision, then the person doing the blocking will be the one who is found at fault in terms of insurance.
This was the case when someone tried to block a friends father at a merge point some years back.
This was the case when someone tried to block a friends father at a merge point some years back.
mickmcpaddy said:
Is this "merge in turn thing" mentioned in the road traffic act or whatever its called now and is it something that you legally have to do in the same way that stopping at a red light is?
All I can see is a van traveling in the left lane with a car in front and when the car in front moves off then so does he. He doesn't have any need to change lanes or cross over any markings or anything like that. On the other hand I see an Audi traveling down the right lane which is coming to an abrupt end, I see her having to indicate which suggests she needs to perform a positive action and I see her cross over a lane marking.
Surely the onus is on the person doing the lane change to look out for other vehicles before they make the change. Its pretty much the same as joining a motorway from the slip road, ultimately its the joining vehicle that needs to do something about it. Sure the bloke could have been extra nice/a wet lettuce depending on how you view him but I don't see why he has to let her in if he doesn't want to, despite how much of a tt he appears to be.
Yes I know there is a "merge in turn" sign there but its a yellow one in pretty much the same format as a sign telling you a festival is ahead, doesn't mean you have to go raving when you originally set out to Tescos. I would have thought if it was a legal requirement to merge in turn then there would be a sign in a red circle for it.
If it's silly arguments you want then you could always try the one that the Audi was actually overtaking the DCW and the HIghway Code says you're supposed to not only leave enough space but positively facilitate the overtake by dropping back.All I can see is a van traveling in the left lane with a car in front and when the car in front moves off then so does he. He doesn't have any need to change lanes or cross over any markings or anything like that. On the other hand I see an Audi traveling down the right lane which is coming to an abrupt end, I see her having to indicate which suggests she needs to perform a positive action and I see her cross over a lane marking.
Surely the onus is on the person doing the lane change to look out for other vehicles before they make the change. Its pretty much the same as joining a motorway from the slip road, ultimately its the joining vehicle that needs to do something about it. Sure the bloke could have been extra nice/a wet lettuce depending on how you view him but I don't see why he has to let her in if he doesn't want to, despite how much of a t
t he appears to be.Yes I know there is a "merge in turn" sign there but its a yellow one in pretty much the same format as a sign telling you a festival is ahead, doesn't mean you have to go raving when you originally set out to Tescos. I would have thought if it was a legal requirement to merge in turn then there would be a sign in a red circle for it.
Audi driver is clearly a twonk but up until she started hitting the cones was absolutely fine as she was using the available lane and was miles ahead of DCW waiting to merge into the gap that he promptly closed.
As mentioned already, merging in turn is in no way comparable to a shop queue. :rolleyes
M3Gar said:
I believe if someone deliberately tries to block someone from merging, as the van driver did, and there is a collision, then the person doing the blocking will be the one who is found at fault in terms of insurance.
This was the case when someone tried to block a friends father at a merge point some years back.
It depends who drove into who. In this case the Audi driver would have been prosecuted and the van driver issued a warning, as the merging vehicle the onus is on her to do so safely.This was the case when someone tried to block a friends father at a merge point some years back.
Centurion07 said:
If it's silly arguments you want then you could always try the one that the Audi was actually overtaking the DCW and the HIghway Code says you're supposed to not only leave enough space but positively facilitate the overtake by dropping back.
Rule 168Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass.
If your referring to this, your interpretation is different to mine
But they didn't merge in turn, how far away did the KA merge from the point of actual lane closure? Say 50ft? Does it state in the Highway Code to use every available inch of road until point of merge? Why couldn't both Audis have continued at the same pace as the rest of the traffic and then merge in turn? For me personally it's quite clear both Audi drivers tried there luck and pushed in, the van driver didn't want to roll over and be bullied into letting some selfish tnuc do as she pleased, if everyone just let everybody do as they pleased then what's the point in having rules or a Highway Code? She was quite clearly an ass by her demina (sp) and didn't like the fact she never got her own way.
Burnzyb said:
But they didn't merge in turn, how far away did the KA merge from the point of actual lane closure? Say 50ft? Does it state in the Highway Code to use every available inch of road until point of merge? Why couldn't both Audis have continued at the same pace as the rest of the traffic and then merge in turn? For me personally it's quite clear both Audi drivers tried there luck and pushed in, the van driver didn't want to roll over and be bullied into letting some selfish tnuc do as she pleased, if everyone just let everybody do as they pleased then what's the point in having rules or a Highway Code? She was quite clearly an ass by her demina (sp) and didn't like the fact she never got her own way.
Amen
Vipers said:
Centurion07 said:
If it's silly arguments you want then you could always try the one that the Audi was actually overtaking the DCW and the HIghway Code says you're supposed to not only leave enough space but positively facilitate the overtake by dropping back.
Rule 168Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass.
If your referring to this, your interpretation is different to mine
Burnzyb said:
But they didn't merge in turn, how far away did the KA merge from the point of actual lane closure? Say 50ft? Does it state in the Highway Code to use every available inch of road until point of merge? Why couldn't both Audis have continued at the same pace as the rest of the traffic and then merge in turn? For me personally it's quite clear both Audi drivers tried there luck and pushed in, the van driver didn't want to roll over and be bullied into letting some selfish tnuc do as she pleased, if everyone just let everybody do as they pleased then what's the point in having rules or a Highway Code? She was quite clearly an ass by her demina (sp) and didn't like the fact she never got her own way.
White Audi went in front of the Ka, grey Audi was looking to drop in behind the Ka and in front of DCW; doesn't get much more "in turn" than that.If EVERYBODY used both lanes up to the closure and merged AT THE CONES then this kind of thing couldn't happen, could it? Think about it. That's why it's illogical to merge anywhere other than right at the cones as everybody's judgement on WHERE the merge point should be is different.
Merging at the cones and ONLY at the cones makes this a complete non-issue but the bloody road captains out there cause this kind of thing to occur.
Stickyfinger said:
Mandat said:
Great. But what's your point?the Aldi tried to use force to change lanes to the point of destroying the cones intentionally which endangers the other road users, workforce and traffic flow..
However, your point in reply to to the incorrect shop queue analogy was a non sequiur, hence the
Centurion07 said:
Vipers said:
Centurion07 said:
If it's silly arguments you want then you could always try the one that the Audi was actually overtaking the DCW and the HIghway Code says you're supposed to not only leave enough space but positively facilitate the overtake by dropping back.
Rule 168Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass.
If your referring to this, your interpretation is different to mine
Rule 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down.
So should cars in L1 slow down for those zipping down L2 to merge in.
Not to argue the finer point, I don't think cars in L2 should expect cars to slow down to let them, but I also think those in L1 should leave a gap to allow cars to merge in.
One rule seems to contradict another.
As I said, in that situation, and it's a daily occurrence up here when exiting a two lane roundabout into one lane, if I am in L2, I will indicate and wait until someone lets me in or a gap comes up, I don't carry on hoping someone will chicken out, as others here do.
I think she was in the wrong, and he was being a bit of a t
t, but how many of us would take the same stance, more so in a company vehicle maybe.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff