The "Sh*t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread (Vol 4)

[WhiskyDisco]

jamei303 said:

Should have partially pulled into the drive on the left to let the oncoming cars past and make himself more visible to other oncoming vehicles so that they could have had the opportunity to give way. There's also a gap on the right oncoming vehicles could have used. Hesitant driving in not claiming the right of way available to him no doubt caused this accident.

50:50 in my mind. The woman in the Fiat looks like she's driving without care, but equally the CDW stopped on the road before the cars parked on the opposite side - effectively just stopping on a clear road for no other reason than to drop his kid off. Too busy gassing to pay attention too.

What driver worth his salt would just stop without checking behind him?

Muppet (in his own words)

[Vipers]

Nickyboy said:

jamei303 said:

He even brake-tested a van earlier in the year, and seems unable to use his horn:

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

He seems to be unable to watch the road ahead and drive defensively either.

So he is doing 63 on impact, then further down the road we see the NSL sign, so what was the speed limit on the bit when the van pulled out?

[saaby93]

Vipers said:

Nickyboy said:

jamei303 said:

He even brake-tested a van earlier in the year, and seems unable to use his horn:

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

He seems to be unable to watch the road ahead and drive defensively either.

So he is doing 63 on impact, then further down the road we see the NSL sign, so what was the speed limit on the bit when the van pulled out?

The van may have been blind in the latter stages at that angle.

In the video the DCW says he expected the van to stop in the middle

[Vipers]

saaby93 said:

Vipers said:

Nickyboy said:

jamei303 said:

He even brake-tested a van earlier in the year, and seems unable to use his horn:

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

He seems to be unable to watch the road ahead and drive defensively either.

So he is doing 63 on impact, then further down the road we see the NSL sign, so what was the speed limit on the bit when the van pulled out?

The van may have been blind in the latter stages at that angle.

In the video the DCW says he expected the van to stop in the middle

You may have missed my comment. You usuall see an NSL sign on a road when the speed changes, so if he is entering into a NSL zone, what was he doing doing 63 around impact, mind you he should have been able to stop in time in my humble opinion,

[WilliamWoollard]

Vipers said:

Nickyboy said:

jamei303 said:

He even brake-tested a van earlier in the year, and seems unable to use his horn:

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

He seems to be unable to watch the road ahead and drive defensively either.

So he is doing 63 on impact, then further down the road we see the NSL sign, so what was the speed limit on the bit when the van pulled out?

It's here and it's a 50. 100% avoidable accident. Again.

[WarrenB]

saaby93 said:

The van may have been blind in the latter stages at that angle.

In the video the DCW says he expected the van to stop in the middle

I noticed that comment too, even so you'd use common sense and at least back off a bit.

A lot of people seem to assume van drivers can see through the unglazed side panels on a van.

[Europa1]

WarrenB said:

saaby93 said:

The van may have been blind in the latter stages at that angle.

In the video the DCW says he expected the van to stop in the middle

I noticed that comment too, even so you'd use common sense and at least back off a bit.

A lot of people seem to assume van drivers can see through the unglazed side panels on a van.

Indeed. He was doing just over 50mph at the start of the video, and just over 60 just before the near miss. The van was in view for 4 or 5 seconds, but the DCW kept his foot in until he was right on top of it.

[saaby93]

Europa1 said:

WarrenB said:

saaby93 said:

The van may have been blind in the latter stages at that angle.

In the video the DCW says he expected the van to stop in the middle

I noticed that comment too, even so you'd use common sense and at least back off a bit.

A lot of people seem to assume van drivers can see through the unglazed side panels on a van.

Indeed. He was doing just over 50mph at the start of the video, and just over 60 just before the near miss. The van was in view for 4 or 5 seconds, but the DCW kept his foot in until he was right on top of it.

Was it a near miss? I thought it ended up denting the vans nearside door

[SimonTheSailor]

Dromedary66 said:

Frimley111R said:

trackdemon said:

jamei303 said:

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

Something none C-Max now.

A st attempt at an undertake.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8260299/toyota-rams-...

It says the Fiesta "was pulling out to overtake another car when the vehicle suddenly appeared behind him".

That's one way of putting it. It looks like he chucked the Fiesta into lane 2 either without checking his mirrors or in an attempt to block the Celica.

A lot of idiots on that. The DCW is idling along in lane 2 for no reason, making the undertake possible. Fiesta pulls out as the Celica is virtually on top of him: 'didn't see it' is synonymous with 'I didn't look' or 'I'm lying, I wanted to block them'. Celica driver clearly a tt

Yep, agree on the DCW blocking lane 2. I don't think the Fiesta guy did it deliberately but I suspect he didn't really look but also didn't expect something to be on top of him. Bear in mind that seconds before that the DCW was the nearest thing to him. If you're tanking down the motorway like that you have to expect the many people won't be expecting to see anyone going so quickly.

I counted about 5 seconds that the Celica would have been visible in the Fiesta's rear viewer mirrors had he looked before pulling out into L2.

I think we'll all agree though that 'Len' saved the day with his legendary ex-racing car driver status.

His lightning reactions saving carnage on the roads..........or just damn lucky when he sh*t himself when he saw what was about to happen.

[anonymous-user]

Europa1 said:

Indeed. He was doing just over 50mph at the start of the video, and just over 60 just before the near miss. The van was in view for 4 or 5 seconds, but the DCW kept his foot in until he was right on top of it.

The DCW had plenty of time to see what was about to happen and react to avoid a position of conflict. He didn't because he is a massive bellend.

[budgie smuggler]

janesmith1950 said:

The DCW had plenty of time to see what was about to happen and react to avoid a position of conflict. He didn't because he is a massive bellend.

It's very easy to say that when you're watching a video knowing something is about to happen, but if it's normal practice for cars to stop in the centre there then it's not actually a great deal of time to realise Mr Magoo in the van is still moving and react.

We see the bonnet dip about two seconds after it's clear the van isn't stopping, which is pretty much bang on the average reaction time.

[rambo19]

WhiskyDisco said:

jamei303 said:

Should have partially pulled into the drive on the left to let the oncoming cars past and make himself more visible to other oncoming vehicles so that they could have had the opportunity to give way. There's also a gap on the right oncoming vehicles could have used. Hesitant driving in not claiming the right of way available to him no doubt caused this accident.

50:50 in my mind. The woman in the Fiat looks like she's driving without care, but equally the CDW stopped on the road before the cars parked on the opposite side - effectively just stopping on a clear road for no other reason than to drop his kid off. Too busy gassing to pay attention too.

What driver worth his salt would just stop without checking behind him?

Muppet (in his own words)

Good god!
Fiat driver was driving like a muppet and 100% her fault.

[Russian Troll Bot]

rambo19 said:

WhiskyDisco said:

jamei303 said:

Should have partially pulled into the drive on the left to let the oncoming cars past and make himself more visible to other oncoming vehicles so that they could have had the opportunity to give way. There's also a gap on the right oncoming vehicles could have used. Hesitant driving in not claiming the right of way available to him no doubt caused this accident.

50:50 in my mind. The woman in the Fiat looks like she's driving without care, but equally the CDW stopped on the road before the cars parked on the opposite side - effectively just stopping on a clear road for no other reason than to drop his kid off. Too busy gassing to pay attention too.

What driver worth his salt would just stop without checking behind him?

Muppet (in his own words)

Good god!
Fiat driver was driving like a muppet and 100% her fault.

If a video was posted of a car getting hit by a meteor, you'd have a poster saying the driver should have been aware of atmospheric conditions before setting off.

[Bob-2146]

In both cases the posters who think the Cmax is 100% not at fault or the fiat is 100% at fault are missing the point. That is, you can drive defensively and minimise your chances of being involved in an accident.

But then again some people are just after the whiplash payment, right...?

[Bonefish Blues]

Bob-2146 said:

In both cases the posters who think the Cmax is 100% not at fault or the fiat is 100% at fault are missing the point. That is, you can drive defensively and minimise your chances of being involved in an accident.

But then again some people are just after the whiplash payment, right...?

I think that I might have hurt my neck shaking my head so vigorously at some of the general daftness over the last few pages.

[saaby93]

Bonefish Blues said:

Bob-2146 said:

In both cases the posters who think the Cmax is 100% not at fault or the fiat is 100% at fault are missing the point. That is, you can drive defensively and minimise your chances of being involved in an accident.

But then again some people are just after the whiplash payment, right...?

I think that I might have hurt my neck shaking my head so vigorously at some of the general daftness over the last few pages.

Both rear enders showed lack of anticipation

The Cmax saw the cars ahead were stopping so stopped to let the guy at the side out.
The DCW was way back but due to being in a trance rear ended the Cmax

The guy taking his lad to school had a DC (but wasnt a DCW), pulled to a halt to let oncoming traffic through.
The Fiat driver either couldnt see what was going on or too busy checking out the woman in the yellow skirt
and became a rear ender

[Vipers]

janesmith1950 said:

Europa1 said:

Indeed. He was doing just over 50mph at the start of the video, and just over 60 just before the near miss. The van was in view for 4 or 5 seconds, but the DCW kept his foot in until he was right on top of it.

The DCW had plenty of time to see what was about to happen and react to avoid a position of conflict. He didn't because he is a massive bellend.

Sums it up nicely.

[saaby93]

Vipers said:

janesmith1950 said:

Europa1 said:

Indeed. He was doing just over 50mph at the start of the video, and just over 60 just before the near miss. The van was in view for 4 or 5 seconds, but the DCW kept his foot in until he was right on top of it.

The DCW had plenty of time to see what was about to happen and react to avoid a position of conflict. He didn't because he is a massive bellend.

Sums it up nicely.

I still dont think it was a miss

[mac96]

jagnet said:

mac96 said:

Worrying about the idiot behind instead of concentrating on what’s happening in front.

Worrying about the idiot behind is an integral part of deciding how to deal with hazards ahead; it's not an either/or thing.

In an ideal world, yes. You presumably keep an eye on what's going on behind, and I try too as well, but in the real world you can't expect the car in front of you to know what you are doing all the time. If ever. You just have to at least hope they use mirrors before making a maneuver. At other times they will be concentrating on what's in front of them. Of course, they may not even be concentrating on that.

It's primarily up to the car behind to not drive into the car in front, and that is why insurers have always (and sometimes unfairly) used a rule of thumb that says you are at fault if you drive into the back of someone else, unless there is real evidence to the contrary. This question was originally about insurer's division of liability, not about advanced driving.

[anonymous-user]

Bob-2146 said:

In both cases the posters who think the Cmax is 100% not at fault or the fiat is 100% at fault are missing the point. That is, you can drive defensively and minimise your chances of being involved in an accident.

But then again some people are just after the whiplash payment, right...?

No, some people blame the DCW 100% because they understand about leaving enough time to stop and paying attention when they’re driving whereas people who blame people in front for doing something they didn’t expect are a liability and shouldn’t have a licence.