The "S**t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread (Vol 5)
Discussion
Driver101 said:
The clip at 7:20 driving over the multi line level crossing, I wonder what the DCW thought was wrong there and why it deserved to be sent in?The only thing I can think of is that they thought the Golf was driving too slowly over the rails...but it seemed a perfectly reasonable speed to me over that type of surface.
Driver101 said:
6:05 - what is the point of those?Ron240 said:
Driver101 said:
The clip at 7:20 driving over the multi line level crossing, I wonder what the DCW thought was wrong there and why it deserved to be sent in?The only thing I can think of is that they thought the Golf was driving too slowly over the rails...but it seemed a perfectly reasonable speed to me over that type of surface.
Ron240 said:
irstly....I told you not to bother replying. 
Secondly...All you have done is give your opinion of why the Tesla was stopped, which means precisely zero!
There is no evidence of speeding or wrong doing whatsoever.
Occams razor says the officer had reasonable grounds to go after the Tesla. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence!Secondly...All you have done is give your opinion of why the Tesla was stopped, which means precisely zero!
There is no evidence of speeding or wrong doing whatsoever.
Edited by Ron240 on Sunday 20th June 18:03
RipTrip1 said:
Ron240 said:
irstly....I told you not to bother replying.
Secondly...All you have done is give your opinion of why the Tesla was stopped, which means precisely zero!
There is no evidence of speeding or wrong doing whatsoever.
Occams razor says the officer had reasonable grounds to go after the Tesla. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence!Secondly...All you have done is give your opinion of why the Tesla was stopped, which means precisely zero!
There is no evidence of speeding or wrong doing whatsoever.
Ron240 said:
Driver101 said:
The clip at 7:20 driving over the multi line level crossing, I wonder what the DCW thought was wrong there and why it deserved to be sent in?The only thing I can think of is that they thought the Golf was driving too slowly over the rails...but it seemed a perfectly reasonable speed to me over that type of surface.
Narcisus said:
I drive carefully over level crossings but that speed was ridiculous and potentialy dangerous…. Almost like he was forcing the driver behind to stay exposed on the crossing as long as possible especially considering how he then accelerated away.
With barrier controlled crossings like this the warning lights will flash for 10 seconds before the barriers come down, and the DCW was only on the crossing for a total of 9 seconds so there was never any danger.Accelerating away should not be an issue unless breaking the speed limit.
If you think 4 - 5 mph is ridiculously slow then at what speed would you drive over a crossing like this?
Ron240 said:
Narcisus said:
I drive carefully over level crossings but that speed was ridiculous and potentialy dangerous…. Almost like he was forcing the driver behind to stay exposed on the crossing as long as possible especially considering how he then accelerated away.
With barrier controlled crossings like this the warning lights will flash for 10 seconds before the barriers come down, and the DCW was only on the crossing for a total of 9 seconds so there was never any danger.Accelerating away should not be an issue unless breaking the speed limit.
If you think 4 - 5 mph is ridiculously slow then at what speed would you drive over a crossing like this?
My last car (Golf) had collision detection and as I was negotiating the crossing it was so bumpy that the car had some kind of hissy fit and 'detected' the tarmac the other side of the crossing...and promptly anchored up hard to a halt, hazards on - the lot - right on the crossing. There was nothing in front of me. Another example of tech actually creating more of a problem than it solves; I tend to turn off (or set to the lowest intervention setting) 'features' like this now.
The lane departure warning on my current car is borderline dangerous as it constantly mis-reads marks in the road as 'lanes' and tries to yank the steering off to one side. The speed limit detection is also horrendous - it once picked up a 5mph limit on a parallel side road and decided that was the speed limit for the NSL A-road I was on. Thankfully it can only get angry that you're above the limit it thinks you should be at and can't intervene....yet - I understand thanks to EU regs that this will be mandated in future though! If that is the case, would my car have hit the brakes and slowed me to a crawl, preventing me from going any faster until I reached the next NSL sign?
saaby93 said:
The same people probably have jumpers with a jammed zip - a long piece one side and a short piece the other but at least theyve done it quickly 
Merging too soon may not be helpful but skipping to the front slows up every one behind
Hold station, make two queues happen and merge in turn like a working zip
Everyone makes the same progress
At what speed and distance from the merge point does legitimate overtaking become skipping to the front and lane hogging become holding station? Merging too soon may not be helpful but skipping to the front slows up every one behind
Hold station, make two queues happen and merge in turn like a working zip
Everyone makes the same progress
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 20th June 15:00
The only fixed point one can say is the correct place to merge is at the lane closure or the end of the lane. Any other point is arbitrary and less cautious people who carry on a bit further in the lane that eventually ends will be criticised by those who move in sooner and potentially blocked.
Your argument could justify miles of lane hogging and straddling lanes, causing frustration and congestion. It also prohibits the use of the occasional overtaking lanes on single carriageway roads, outside lanes at traffic light junctions and sections of dual carriageway on otherwise single carriageway roads for overtaking and getting past other traffic. By your argument, one should move out but hold station and not skip ahead to merge in front of the person previously being followed.
saaby93 said:
stupid things
Seriously, you are wrong. Stop congesting the roads and drive up to the merging point and then do merge.
Here in Switzerland it has become law to do exactly this since the beginning of this year. You have to give way to a car (a single one) at the merging point and the idea it is explicitly that people don't merge in early and cause further obstruction. Not following this rule is subject to a FPN of CHF 100.- (£80). This explicitly means fining people who hold up traffic by merging too early.
Filibuster said:
Seriously, you are wrong. Stop congesting the roads and drive up to the merging point and then do merge.
Both parties who do it wrong lead to congestionThose merging too early and those skipping to the front causing the congested lane not to move
'in turn' is the important part of ' merge in turn'
Anyone jumping their turn isnt helping
The truck drivers have it right who hold station trying to make both lanes move at the same pace rather than one faster than the other.
Merge in turn like a zip
If someone in front merges too earlier dont skip ahead, wait your turn and merge at the merge point.
The people alongside will appreciate it too.
Filibuster said:
saaby93 said:
Merge in turn like a zip
Correct.saaby93 said:
If someone in front merges too earlier dont skip ahead, wait your turn and merge at the merge point.
Wrong.Whats the betting the Tesla pull was to give a talk about skipping ahead, failing to merge in turn and slowing down everyone else in the queue?
saaby93 said:
Where does it say skip ahead in the HC?
Whats the betting the Tesla pull was to give a talk about skipping ahead, failing to merge in turn and slowing down everyone else in the queue?
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/multi-lane-carriageways.htmlWhats the betting the Tesla pull was to give a talk about skipping ahead, failing to merge in turn and slowing down everyone else in the queue?
See Rule 134 above.
'You should follow the signs and road markings and get into the lane as directed' You are not directed to merge a mile away from the road works. Merging at the merge point is not skipping ahead.
saaby93 said:
Both parties who do it wrong lead to congestion
Those merging too early and those skipping to the front causing the congested lane not to move
'in turn' is the important part of ' merge in turn'
Anyone jumping their turn isnt helping
The truck drivers have it right who hold station trying to make both lanes move at the same pace rather than one faster than the other.
Merge in turn like a zip
If someone in front merges too earlier dont skip ahead, wait your turn and merge at the merge point.
The people alongside will appreciate it too.
How can I skip ahead? The lane ahead is full of traffic.Those merging too early and those skipping to the front causing the congested lane not to move
'in turn' is the important part of ' merge in turn'
Anyone jumping their turn isnt helping
The truck drivers have it right who hold station trying to make both lanes move at the same pace rather than one faster than the other.
Merge in turn like a zip
If someone in front merges too earlier dont skip ahead, wait your turn and merge at the merge point.
The people alongside will appreciate it too.
We should have cameras which will automatically fine a driver who:
1. Doesn't follow the zip rule I.e. merges straight after the car in front merged.
2. A driver in the congested lane actively PREVENTS a merging car from merging by speeding up to close the gap, forcing the merging car to stop completely as he's run out of road.
That would solve the problem. I'm sure we have the technology to do that.
1. Doesn't follow the zip rule I.e. merges straight after the car in front merged.
2. A driver in the congested lane actively PREVENTS a merging car from merging by speeding up to close the gap, forcing the merging car to stop completely as he's run out of road.
That would solve the problem. I'm sure we have the technology to do that.
RipTrip1 said:
We should have cameras which will automatically fine a driver who:
1. Doesn't follow the zip rule I.e. merges straight after the car in front merged.
2. A driver in the congested lane actively PREVENTS a merging car from merging by speeding up to close the gap, forcing the merging car to stop completely as he's run out of road.
That would solve the problem. I'm sure we have the technology to do that.
While you are right, I don't think the technology nor the legal basis in the UK is there to enforce this.1. Doesn't follow the zip rule I.e. merges straight after the car in front merged.
2. A driver in the congested lane actively PREVENTS a merging car from merging by speeding up to close the gap, forcing the merging car to stop completely as he's run out of road.
That would solve the problem. I'm sure we have the technology to do that.
In Switzerland we have at least the legal basis since this year and a driver who fails to do either point 1 or 2 of your comment can get finned with a FNP of CHF100/£80.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff