LOL. Reckless Porsche Driver in Video has 911 for sale on PH

[popeyewhite]

vonhosen said:

Just because you can physically fit into gap it doesn't mean it's an appropriate gap for an overtake, it can fall foul of Sec 3 RTA (or worse depending on circumstances). Saying 'I got in the gap & there wasn't a collision so everything is fine' doesn't wash.

Sorry - just to clarify - are you saying the gap was too small to allow a legal overtake?

[vonhosen]

popeyewhite said:

vonhosen said:

Just because you can physically fit into gap it doesn't mean it's an appropriate gap for an overtake, it can fall foul of Sec 3 RTA (or worse depending on circumstances). Saying 'I got in the gap & there wasn't a collision so everything is fine' doesn't wash.

Sorry - just to clarify - are you saying the gap was too small to allow a legal overtake?

I'm saying the overtaking in the video was not appropriate, it was aggressive & inconsiderate. He forced his way into unsuitable gaps.

Poor all round.
Poorly planned, poorly executed.

[popeyewhite]

vonhosen said:

I'm saying the overtaking in the video was not appropriate, it was aggressive & inconsiderate. He forced his way into unsuitable gaps.

Oh stop wriggling. The first overtake had enough room and you know it. The second might conceivably have a question mark hanging over it but we'd need to see it from a different angle, not just go by the oncoming car that had enough room to flash its lights 5 times before getting close to the Porsche. And even then the Porsche had enough time to stick itself out for a look. Might have been dangerous driving, might also have been the typical over reaction of the standard outraged motorist.

[vonhosen]

popeyewhite said:

vonhosen said:

I'm saying the overtaking in the video was not appropriate, it was aggressive & inconsiderate. He forced his way into unsuitable gaps.

Oh stop wriggling. The first overtake had enough room and you know it. The second might conceivably have a question mark hanging over it but we'd need to see it from a different angle, not just go by the oncoming car that had enough room to flash its lights 5 times before getting close to the Porsche. And even then the Porsche had enough time to stick itself out for a look. Might have been dangerous driving, might also have been the typical over reaction of the standard outraged motorist.

I'd be quite happy to let a court look at it & decide for themselves.

[popeyewhite]

vonhosen said:

I'd be quite happy to let a court look at it & decide for themselves.

I'd be quite happy if you watched the same clip as everyone else for a change.

[vonhosen]

popeyewhite said:

vonhosen said:

I'd be quite happy to let a court look at it & decide for themselves.

I'd be quite happy if you watched the same clip as everyone else for a change.

I have.
There are a number in this thread who believe it inappropriate & the same who hold an opposing view.
That's why we have courts to make judgements on such things.
Hopefully if they get to look at it we'll see what their judgement is & how it fits in with the views held here

[popeyewhite]

vonhosen said:

I have.
There are a number in this thread who believe it inappropriate & the same who hold an opposing view.
That's why we have courts to make judgements on such things.

No, courts do not exist to settle internet arguments.

vonhosen said:

Hopefully if they get to look at it we'll see what their judgement is & how it fits in with the views held here

They won't, we won't, it'll be forgotten about soon and courts have far better things to do for God's sake.

[vonhosen]

popeyewhite said:

vonhosen said:

I have.
There are a number in this thread who believe it inappropriate & the same who hold an opposing view.
That's why we have courts to make judgements on such things.

No, courts do not exist to settle internet arguments.

They do make judgements into whether driving actions amount to an offence.

popeyewhite said:

vonhosen said:

Hopefully if they get to look at it we'll see what their judgement is & how it fits in with the views held here

They won't, we won't, it'll be forgotten about soon and courts have far better things to do for God's sake.

The camera car driver has apparently said he will be passing the video onto the Police for them to act on it.

[Spanglepants]

This is what our society is becoming? Snitching tosser.

vonhosen said:

popeyewhite said:

vonhosen said:

I have.
There are a number in this thread who believe it inappropriate & the same who hold an opposing view.
That's why we have courts to make judgements on such things.

No, courts do not exist to settle internet arguments.

They do make judgements into whether driving actions amount to an offence.

popeyewhite said:

vonhosen said:

Hopefully if they get to look at it we'll see what their judgement is & how it fits in with the views held here

They won't, we won't, it'll be forgotten about soon and courts have far better things to do for God's sake.

The camera car driver has apparently said he will be passing the video onto the Police for them to act on it.

[Rawwr]

Spanglepants said:

This is what our society is becoming? Snitching tosser.

I've never really understood what's so bad about snitching.

I saw someone veering all over the road whilst trying to drive up the A1. I phone the police. They asked me to follow him whilst it was safe to do so and report on his location. They eventually intercepted him. I had a call the day after to say that the driver was very, very drunk.

I know, I'm a tosser. I should've just let him go about his business.

[Countdown]

Spanglepants said:

Snitching tosser

Let's be honest - that's the real reason why some people hate dash cams. The chance of being caught by BiB whilst driving like a knob is minimal. The chance of being seen on dashcam whilst driving like a knob is a lot greater, resulting in possibly being up in Court.

[threespires]

Had the white Mercedes been a Police car then I doubt that this thread would exist.

[popeyewhite]

vonhosen said:

They do make judgements into whether driving actions amount to an offence.

Wrong.The Police will do that first.
Firstly a minor offence will warrant an 'educational' course. Decided by the Police.
Points may be given. Decided by the Police.
Only the most serious offences such as suspected dangerous driving go to court. The Police will make that choice, not the court.

vonhosen said:

The camera car driver has apparently said he will be passing the video onto the Police for them to act on it.

Oh honestly. No doubt you approve of the Police wasting their time on this, but thank God public cam footage is so rarely accepted as evidence. With the millions of self-important nobodies out there reporting perceived wrongs and personal slights that are everyday occurrences on our crowded roads the Police would need a bespoke cam footage department just to cope. Fortunately the Police generally take a more objective approach and spend their time painting their nails, going on dodgems etc etc

Some things would-be suppliers of cam footage to the Police should know:
1. Most forces stipulate footage has to be received by them within 72 hrs of it being taken.
2. You have to be able to write non subjective gibberish. That is: you have to provide a statement to the Police, also within 72 hours.
3. Your statement, with your name on , will also be supplied to the defendant.
3. You must be able to attend court. Yes, this is where it gets real - your ridiculous Little Britain act is about to be exposed in front of a judge.

So no, it's not going to court.

[antacid]

Bonefish Blues said:

So no longer "pretty clear", more speculation then.

Lol I love the internet. I said "pretty clear to me." ie. in my opinion.

Said to highlight that there are many opinions because it is not clear.

And thus there is no justice in dramatising the situation because evidently there are many ways to interpret what's shown.

I'm not saying I am right. I am not say you are right. I'm saying that it's evidently unclear therefore it is not really right to villianise.

vonhosen said:

That's why we have courts to make judgements on such things.
Hopefully if they get to look at it we'll see what their judgement is & how it fits in with the views held here

Depends. A crown court is subject to 'reasonable doubt'. From the quality of video, you simply can't come to the conclusion that there is 100% not enough room / not enough time etc..

Edited by antacid on Wednesday 25th October 11:34

[Sylvaforever]

wack said:

I overtook a van in my MX5 , I could hear a noise over the radio , constant but couldn't work out what it was, turned the radio off and it was the horn of the van, he must have had it on for 30 seconds , nothing coming the other way but a line of cars doing 45 in a 60 , I'm surprised he didn't snap the stalk off the high beam when I overtook 4 in a go on the next straight and disappeared into the distance.

There are a LOT of pillocks out there with dull boring lives, the dash cam has given them a weapon and youtube an outlet to use it

"Weaponised Pillock'

Like it!!

[Sylvaforever]

vonhosen said:

popeyewhite said:

vonhosen said:

I have.
There are a number in this thread who believe it inappropriate & the same who hold an opposing view.
That's why we have courts to make judgements on such things.

No, courts do not exist to settle internet arguments.

They do make judgements into whether driving actions amount to an offence.

popeyewhite said:

vonhosen said:

Hopefully if they get to look at it we'll see what their judgement is & how it fits in with the views held here

They won't, we won't, it'll be forgotten about soon and courts have far better things to do for God's sake.

The camera car driver has apparently said he will be passing the video onto the Police for them to act on it.

Wish dashcam had been around when those three police motorcyclists forced me into evasive action on the road out of st Andrews back in the day....btw Von it'll be in the archives...

[CS Garth]

I genuinely can't understand anyone defending this bloke.

The first overtake suggested he was a knob, the second would have resulted in a head on collision had the oncoming car not stamped on the brakes therefore confirming him as one. Captain Knob end of Knobsville 'shoulder checking' the oncoming car silver plates it.

Piss poor

[daemon]

Countdown said:

Spanglepants said:

Snitching tosser

Let's be honest - that's the real reason why some people hate dash cams. The chance of being caught by BiB whilst driving like a knob is minimal. The chance of being seen on dashcam whilst driving like a knob is a lot greater, resulting in possibly being up in Court.

Its a conundrum though isnt it. What happens when everyone has one and all minor incidents are reported to the police?

I sat behind some old bint in the A45 (at a reasonable distance i might add) round some twisties for a couple of miles then on the first decent straight i blitzed out past her and back in again. As i passed she was shaking her fist and then started flashing her lights. I wasnt breaking the speed limit and there was nothing coming but she clearly took offence at a bright red Merc overtaking her.

No doubt if the old bint had had a dashcam she'd have reported it along with a complaint reckless driving which would then have needed an investigation, statements, etc.

I cant think what her problem was - i'm sure i'm not the first person to ever pass her and i definitely wont be the last if she slopes along everywhere at 30MPH in a 60.

[Tankrizzo]

"checking if it was clear"

that knobhead clearly swerved towards the car flashing him on purpose.

[Bonefish Blues]

Tankrizzo said:

"checking if it was clear"

that knobhead clearly swerved towards the car flashing him on purpose.

Indeed. Obvious thing is very obvious indeed to almost everyone