The "S**t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread (Vol 5)

[FWIW]

Psycho Warren said:

They aren't parked though. They are in a que. The cars in the que should have probably been more over

[FWIW]

Psycho Warren said:

I will happily block the hard shoulder in grid lock traffic to stop all the rich morons in german cars driving up the hard shoulder. No blue lights, no emergency services ID card, not getting through - wait like everyone else.

Ah. I see. You’re one of those s.

[Dashnine]

flashbang said:

blueg33 said:

untakenname said:

I'm not sure why there's such a discrepancy with sentences handed down, he said himself that he worked in IT and he had no real reason for going fast in the daytime so assumed the book was going to be thrown at him especially as the police car had to do 159mph for quite a distance to match then catchup with him but he got a lesser sentence (plus trivial fine) than someone going 105mph on the motorway at night.

The speed the police car has to travel at to catch up is mostly irrelevant. You can do 159mph to catch up with a car doing 30mph, or you can do 31mph and you will still catch it. Unless the officer is measuring distance, time and rate of acceleration and deceleration and then running GCSE physics formulas in his head, it has no bearing.

I don't quite believe that tbf. If the officer is doing 159mph then a MOP panics or the officer has a blow out etc then it makes all the difference.

What Blueg33 means is the speed the police ‘had to do’ to catch the speeder was irrelevant. They measured 159 and caught up with him, if they did 151 they’d have still caught him albeit further down the road, if they’d have been capable of 200 they’d have caught him more quickly.

So in reality, to minimise the risk to the MOP of both the speeder and the police travelling at high speed - they need a faster car!

[Centurion07]

Your answer to me asking what was your experience was this:

Psycho Warren said:

The opposite - not getting it cancelled and threatened with dangerous driving too. Apparently bleeding heavily and soaking a bath towel totally in a few miles journey was not good enough.

Yet that was AFTER you had said this:

Psycho Warren said:

On grid lock motorways, show me anyone who is not emergency services who has a legal or otherwise reasonable right to go driving down the hard shoulder to bypass a que. You wont find anyone, so why is it wrong to block them from their selfish and dangerous behaviour?

Psycho Warren said:

I will happily block the hard shoulder in grid lock traffic to stop all the rich morons in german cars driving up the hard shoulder. No blue lights, no emergency services ID card, not getting through - wait like everyone else.

Your username is either very apt or you're just a plain moron.

[anonymous-user]

eldar said:

Our favourite ford gathers more victims....

https://youtu.be/rd2c1YVHn6Y

Will virtually all of those vehicles have cyl. heads destroyed by water ingestion? Or are electrical cutouts more likely what we are seeing here?

If you MUST get to the other side of deep water like that are you better off turning engine off, getting out and pushing car through it?

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 4th March 22:29

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 4th March 22:30

[untakenname]

Dashnine said:

flashbang said:

blueg33 said:

untakenname said:

I'm not sure why there's such a discrepancy with sentences handed down, he said himself that he worked in IT and he had no real reason for going fast in the daytime so assumed the book was going to be thrown at him especially as the police car had to do 159mph for quite a distance to match then catchup with him but he got a lesser sentence (plus trivial fine) than someone going 105mph on the motorway at night.

The speed the police car has to travel at to catch up is mostly irrelevant. You can do 159mph to catch up with a car doing 30mph, or you can do 31mph and you will still catch it. Unless the officer is measuring distance, time and rate of acceleration and deceleration and then running GCSE physics formulas in his head, it has no bearing.

I don't quite believe that tbf. If the officer is doing 159mph then a MOP panics or the officer has a blow out etc then it makes all the difference.

What Blueg33 means is the speed the police ‘had to do’ to catch the speeder was irrelevant. They measured 159 and caught up with him, if they did 151 they’d have still caught him albeit further down the road, if they’d have been capable of 200 they’d have caught him more quickly.

So in reality, to minimise the risk to the MOP of both the speeder and the police travelling at high speed - they need a faster car!

Unless it's the editing for TV it looked like the police car was right behind the speeder when he took off at speed, tbh the standard of driving looked pretty good otherwise he would have had blue lights on when chasing imo.

There's a shortened clip of the incident here
https://www.facebook.com/channel5uk/videos/1720520...

[Blakewater]

Psycho Warren said:

SeeFive said:

I am sure that there is no possible newly arising medical emergency with a passenger that this self-appointed road captain could hinder by such an action. Nothing at all.

Except you arent allowed under the RTA to speed and drive dangerously for a medical emergency off your own back. You arent allowed to make that decision. That is what pulling over and using the SOS phone or a mobile to summon an ambulance is for. In real life a civilian has no need or benefit from doing a "hollywood" sprint and handbrake turning into the A+E entrance while screaming "medic" like in the films. In reality you will just crash making more casualties.

If you're blocking people using the hard shoulder to pass a queue, you're on the hard shoulder illegally as well. If the police see you doing that, you'll be issued with an NIP along with everyone else. The queue that forms behind you will block emergency services vehicles whereas people dodging past to the next exit are in the wrong but won't be causing a hold up.

[DBSV8]

shost said:

https://www.facebook.com/radiochelmsford/videos/38...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=101580...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14229387/shoppers-hu...

Proof that all the latest collision avoidance can be overridden!

And that Sun reporters are a bit rubbish - car looks to reverse in panic but clearly not trying to get away!

but it did the police are looking for the driver

[Dashnine]

untakenname said:

Dashnine said:

flashbang said:

blueg33 said:

untakenname said:

I'm not sure why there's such a discrepancy with sentences handed down, he said himself that he worked in IT and he had no real reason for going fast in the daytime so assumed the book was going to be thrown at him especially as the police car had to do 159mph for quite a distance to match then catchup with him but he got a lesser sentence (plus trivial fine) than someone going 105mph on the motorway at night.

The speed the police car has to travel at to catch up is mostly irrelevant. You can do 159mph to catch up with a car doing 30mph, or you can do 31mph and you will still catch it. Unless the officer is measuring distance, time and rate of acceleration and deceleration and then running GCSE physics formulas in his head, it has no bearing.

I don't quite believe that tbf. If the officer is doing 159mph then a MOP panics or the officer has a blow out etc then it makes all the difference.

What Blueg33 means is the speed the police ‘had to do’ to catch the speeder was irrelevant. They measured 159 and caught up with him, if they did 151 they’d have still caught him albeit further down the road, if they’d have been capable of 200 they’d have caught him more quickly.

So in reality, to minimise the risk to the MOP of both the speeder and the police travelling at high speed - they need a faster car!

Unless it's the editing for TV it looked like the police car was right behind the speeder when he took off at speed, tbh the standard of driving looked pretty good otherwise he would have had blue lights on when chasing imo.

There's a shortened clip of the incident here
https://www.facebook.com/channel5uk/videos/1720520...

I watched it last night, from memory the speeder went flying past and the police driver made a comment that he was flying (or similar) and took off after him, took a while to get near him.

Quite impressed that the 3 series clocked almost 160mph however, what would that be - a 330D?

Seems the 330D and 335D are limited to 155mph, is that error in the camera system (tyre wear since calibrated) or has the limiter been removed to show 159mph?

[tigger1]

Dashnine said:

I watched it last night, from memory the speeder went flying past and the police driver made a comment that he was flying (or similar) and took off after him, took a while to get near him.

Quite impressed that the 3 series clocked almost 160mph however, what would that be - a 330D?

Seems the 330D and 335D are limited to 155mph, is that error in the camera system (tyre wear since calibrated) or has the limiter been removed to show 159mph?

Lots of cars that are "limited" to 155mph are not physically limited, their top speed will be a little over 155. Mk7 golf gti will just hit 155, the R is "limited", but apparently will still go past that number by a decent way. I think the 330d will be the same.

[tigger1]

South Wimbledon - calmest reaction from a dashcam driver I've ever seen - other driver is, for want of a better word, an absolute 'case.

25 seconds in, save yourself a bit of time if the embedded link doesn't behave!:

[monthefish]

C.A.R. said:

Ron240 said:

drjdog said:

A Winner Is You said:

Presumably he pulled straight out on the Porsche, not that it excuses the subsequent brake check.

2 empty lanes to his right, a slip road joining, (and presumably! 20s of indicating from the lorry) and you say "presumably he pulled straight out on the Porsche"?

A lot of presuming being done here.

Yeah, no. This wouldn't suit my experience of HGVs driving antics either. I'd be willing to bet the HGV 'assumed' right of way, started moving without checking if it was clear (indicating doesn't suddenly give you right of way, contrary to common conception) and the Porsche may have had nowhere to go but slam the anchors on and wait for a gap to his right.

We give truck drivers a wide berth not because they need extra space, but rather their drivers will look at a situation and do pick the option which results in the most inconvenience to others without a second thought to safety. Don't want to ease of the accelerator for 2 seconds, that might actually require forethought and common sense!

- Dons flamesuit to protect me from the hoards of "pRoFfesSiOnaL DrIveRS" who deny this is a behaviour from their majority,

No-one does a brake check without there being some prior action.

My assertion is that BOTH drivers are tts.

[A Winner Is You]

monthefish said:

C.A.R. said:

Ron240 said:

drjdog said:

A Winner Is You said:

Presumably he pulled straight out on the Porsche, not that it excuses the subsequent brake check.

2 empty lanes to his right, a slip road joining, (and presumably! 20s of indicating from the lorry) and you say "presumably he pulled straight out on the Porsche"?

A lot of presuming being done here.

Yeah, no. This wouldn't suit my experience of HGVs driving antics either. I'd be willing to bet the HGV 'assumed' right of way, started moving without checking if it was clear (indicating doesn't suddenly give you right of way, contrary to common conception) and the Porsche may have had nowhere to go but slam the anchors on and wait for a gap to his right.

We give truck drivers a wide berth not because they need extra space, but rather their drivers will look at a situation and do pick the option which results in the most inconvenience to others without a second thought to safety. Don't want to ease of the accelerator for 2 seconds, that might actually require forethought and common sense!

- Dons flamesuit to protect me from the hoards of "pRoFfesSiOnaL DrIveRS" who deny this is a behaviour from their majority,

No-one does a brake check without there being some prior action.

My assertion is that BOTH drivers are tts.

In my experience once an HGV put their indicator on they're moving out, and it's your job to change lanes or slow down to accommodate them.

[monthefish]

Centurion07 said:

Your answer to me asking what was your experience was this:

Psycho Warren said:

The opposite - not getting it cancelled and threatened with dangerous driving too. Apparently bleeding heavily and soaking a bath towel totally in a few miles journey was not good enough.

Yet that was AFTER you had said this:

Psycho Warren said:

On grid lock motorways, show me anyone who is not emergency services who has a legal or otherwise reasonable right to go driving down the hard shoulder to bypass a que. You wont find anyone, so why is it wrong to block them from their selfish and dangerous behaviour?

Psycho Warren said:

I will happily block the hard shoulder in grid lock traffic to stop all the rich morons in german cars driving up the hard shoulder. No blue lights, no emergency services ID card, not getting through - wait like everyone else.

Your username is either very apt or you're just a plain moron.

Question for Psycho Warren - if your journey to the hospital with your heavily bleeding passenger had involved a gridlocked motorway, would you have applauded a twunt blocking the hard shoulder?

[Funk]

tigger1 said:

South Wimbledon - calmest reaction from a dashcam driver I've ever seen - other driver is, for want of a better word, an absolute 'case.

25 seconds in, save yourself a bit of time if the embedded link doesn't behave!:

The other driver is, as you say, utterly mental. Exactly the kind of reason you want to have a dashcam - sensible, sedate driving in a residential area and 100% proof that he wasn't at fault for the crash.

[techguyone]

tigger1 said:

South Wimbledon - calmest reaction from a dashcam driver I've ever seen - other driver is, for want of a better word, an absolute 'case.

25 seconds in, save yourself a bit of time if the embedded link doesn't behave!:

Wow

I'd love to know the outcome.

[Frimley111R]

I had exactly the same almost happen to me. I just noticed the car coming from the left and knew it wasn't going to stop. I slammed on and just missed it. In the side window the woman driver just looked at me, shocked and open mouthed as she's had a complete brain fade. Think she scared the crap out of herself.

[carlove]

tigger1 said:

South Wimbledon - calmest reaction from a dashcam driver I've ever seen - other driver is, for want of a better word, an absolute 'case.

25 seconds in, save yourself a bit of time if the embedded link doesn't behave!:

That was an impressive spin, seemed a bit odd for a low speed crash. I guess the driver hit the accelerator in a panic?

I’d like to see that mental girls face when she realises she’s at fault. Probably wouldn’t change her tune, she doesn’t appear the type to admit she’s wrong.

[anonymous-user]

its been posted before, it was a bmw i3.

[OllieJolly]

I have seen that before but only up to the impact with the Zafira.
I wouldn't say the cammer is entirely blameless, maybe 90%/10%, but that kind of collision does make me think I need to get a cam again myself.
Absolutely crazy reaction, and I wouldn't be surprised if all of the witnesses took the woman's side at first.