Strange driving annoyances

[Lester H]

Speed Badger said:

People with brand new Chinese made MG's. Is that the best you could fking do?

No I don't have one. But didn't people say this about Korean stuff fifteen years ago? Look at Kia and Hyundai now! Much.of it comes down to price as ever and if an MG is 10% inferior but 20 cheaper it will sell!

[randomeddy]

theplayingmantis said:

Oh and another one all the idiots with fog lights on today.. yes there was fog but visibility was fine in East Anglia where i was for at least 150-200 metres, meaning lights, let alone fogs, not needed,

[theplayingmantis]

Speed Badger said:

People with brand new Chinese made MG's. Is that the best you could fking do?

Thats a bit snobby or am i due a parrot? yes tthey are a white good, but perhaps thats all they can afford.

[Speed Badger]

theplayingmantis said:

Speed Badger said:

People with brand new Chinese made MG's. Is that the best you could fking do?

Thats a bit snobby or am i due a parrot? yes tthey are a white good, but perhaps thats all they can afford.

No not being snobbish at all, what I mean is, if you can afford either outright, or monthly finance this particular car, then surely you could have afforded something better but slightly older.

[swisstoni]

theplayingmantis said:

Another one on friday, lane discipline on roundabouts when going 'straight across'. Medium size roundabout two lane entry and exit, left lane can go left or straight as per arrow on road. Right lane same albeit straight or right. Me on right hand lane car in left hand lane all going straight across. 2 times on different roundabouts with 2 different driver me having to brake on going around roundabout as the left hand lanes 'cut the corner' (not exactly straight lining) and encroach into my lane as assumedly they cant be arsed to steer properly and stay in their lane, meaning i have to break to stop what i perceive would have been contact. We all exit roundabout into the 2 lane exit in our respective left/right lanes.

Now what i was at fault doing was coming up on their drivers side as it were, but on a roundabout with clearly defined lanes, and entry and exit lanes i didn't think this was a fault, however i suppose it is as i should anticipate others not staying in their lanes? Is not ok to effectively 'overtake' (for want of better word when lane to your left is moving slower than the lane your in?)on a roundabout despite clearly defined lanes and arrows dictating where each lane should be going? The risk of someone ignoring lanes and fro example going right from the left lane suggests not but then everyone must move at the pace of the slowest going round it?

I always assume other cars are driven by idiots and so I don’t trust them to do anything right.
Of course, we have to trust other drivers to some extent otherwise we’d never get anywhere, but on old favourites like this example, my money is on them cutting the lane.

[ToothbrushMan]

agreed. treat other drivers as absolute idiots or situation creators and you should be able to avoid most trouble or near misses etc.


i am wondering when they started teaching some drivers of cars when turning left t steer out to the right first before turning left as if they are swinging out some great big artic HGV......maybe they think it looks a tad "rally or press on driverish"?

drivers who bat up behind you on dual carriageways then just as you think they are going to pass you realise theyre now hovering in the blind spot.

[covmutley]

theplayingmantis said:

Speed Badger said:

People with brand new Chinese made MG's. Is that the best you could fking do?

Thats a bit snobby or am i due a parrot? yes tthey are a white good, but perhaps thats all they can afford.

They are about 30k. Hardly 'all they could afford'.

Hateful looking things from an aggressive human rights abusing country. Terrible things.

[nonsequitur]

randomeddy said:

theplayingmantis said:

Oh and another one all the idiots with fog lights on today.. yes there was fog but visibility was fine in East Anglia where i was for at least 150-200 metres, meaning lights, let alone fogs, not needed,

No lights with fog and reduced visibility - at any distance - tragic.

[FiF]

nonsequitur said:

randomeddy said:

theplayingmantis said:

Oh and another one all the idiots with fog lights on today.. yes there was fog but visibility was fine in East Anglia where i was for at least 150-200 metres, meaning lights, let alone fogs, not needed,

No lights with fog and reduced visibility - at any distance - tragic.

There's something questionable about some of the above views. If vision is genuinely down to a true 100m, which is the point that fog lights are recommended and tbh helpful to being seen, then it's getting really quite foggy. Sufficiently so to be pegging speed back if on, say, a motorway. 150m visibility, whilst fog light use not recommended, nor according to regulations actually permitted, then vision is still noticeably reduced and lights imo are useful.

Suspect folks might not be that good at recognising just what 100m or 150m is in terms of reduced visibility when visibility is actually reduced to such levels. My guess, unless we really are discussing borderline bellendery which I don't believe is the case, is that if no lights at all was a sensible approach that vision was in reality much more than 150-200m, but I wasn't there so it's just an opinion.

[theplayingmantis]

200metres is approx. 2 football pitches i have just checked, so yes i have massively underestimated the visibility. lets be more accurate and say at very least 6-7 football pitches were the conditions, and mostly much more. Id happily stand by no light needed. if you cannot see hazards other vehicles that are not lit up in those conditions very well. you need to get tested.

[Sidecar Man]

FiF said:

nonsequitur said:

randomeddy said:

theplayingmantis said:

Oh and another one all the idiots with fog lights on today.. yes there was fog but visibility was fine in East Anglia where i was for at least 150-200 metres, meaning lights, let alone fogs, not needed,

No lights with fog and reduced visibility - at any distance - tragic.

There's something questionable about some of the above views. If vision is genuinely down to a true 100m, which is the point that fog lights are recommended and tbh helpful to being seen, then it's getting really quite foggy. Sufficiently so to be pegging speed back if on, say, a motorway. 150m visibility, whilst fog light use not recommended, nor according to regulations actually permitted, then vision is still noticeably reduced and lights imo are useful.

Suspect folks might not be that good at recognising just what 100m or 150m is in terms of reduced visibility when visibility is actually reduced to such levels. My guess, unless we really are discussing borderline bellendery which I don't believe is the case, is that if no lights at all was a sensible approach that vision was in reality much more than 150-200m, but I wasn't there so it's just an opinion.

Problem is with the new Driving lights. People get in the car Driving lights are on Dash is all lite up so must be alright. BUT no rear lights are on as the Auto headlights don't think it's dark enough to put them on!!!

[FiF]

theplayingmantis said:

200metres is approx. 2 football pitches i have just checked, so yes i have massively underestimated the visibility. lets be more accurate and say at very least 6-7 football pitches were the conditions, and mostly much more. Id happily stand by no light needed. if you cannot see hazards other vehicles that are not lit up in those conditions very well. you need to get tested.

So visibility was thick end of half a mile then. So fog lights definitely not needed, day or night, nor lights other than DRLs if not fitted. Thanks for coming back on that and clarifying.

[XF-Andy]

With regard to undertaking MLMs on the motorways; the way I see it is if I just maintain my speed and lane then I am not undertaking, I am just maintaining my speed and lane. If I was to go 2-1-2 then that is undertaking as it is 3 separate manoeuvres i.e. move left, pass the vehicle, move right. The same as that overtaking is 3 separate manoeuvres.
I would quite happily argue this if I was to receive a NIP.

[Drew106]

I have one... Not turning to sidelights when parked/stopped.

Not even sure if this is correct or incorrect, but if I pull in to the side of the road with the car still running (e.g. a passenger running into a shop), I always turn to sidelights to avoid dazzling oncoming traffic. It mildly annoys me when others don't.

[theplayingmantis]

FiF said:

theplayingmantis said:

200metres is approx. 2 football pitches i have just checked, so yes i have massively underestimated the visibility. lets be more accurate and say at very least 6-7 football pitches were the conditions, and mostly much more. Id happily stand by no light needed. if you cannot see hazards other vehicles that are not lit up in those conditions very well. you need to get tested.

So visibility was thick end of half a mile then. So fog lights definitely not needed, day or night, nor lights other than DRLs if not fitted. Thanks for coming back on that and clarifying.

There was still fog about as such, I'm not sure how to articulate it..in the far distance you could see fog, but not actually impacting visibility one jot, yet lights a fogs on many cars

[nonsequitur]

FiF said:

theplayingmantis said:

200metres is approx. 2 football pitches i have just checked, so yes i have massively underestimated the visibility. lets be more accurate and say at very least 6-7 football pitches were the conditions, and mostly much more. Id happily stand by no light needed. if you cannot see hazards other vehicles that are not lit up in those conditions very well. you need to get tested.

So visibility was thick end of half a mile then. So fog lights definitely not needed, day or night, nor lights other than DRLs if not fitted. Thanks for coming back on that and clarifying.

Let's face it, in the Autumn and Winter months, with often heavy overcast skies and a low sun, visibility is vital. Dipped headlights are an asset to those conditions. DRL's are useful but insufficient for some conditions. Especially those with no rear lights!

As someone once said to me, 'Gray sky, gray road, grey car. Get them lights on'.

[FiF]

nonsequitur said:

FiF said:

theplayingmantis said:

200metres is approx. 2 football pitches i have just checked, so yes i have massively underestimated the visibility. lets be more accurate and say at very least 6-7 football pitches were the conditions, and mostly much more. Id happily stand by no light needed. if you cannot see hazards other vehicles that are not lit up in those conditions very well. you need to get tested.

So visibility was thick end of half a mile then. So fog lights definitely not needed, day or night, nor lights other than DRLs if not fitted. Thanks for coming back on that and clarifying.

Let's face it, in the Autumn and Winter months, with often heavy overcast skies and a low sun, visibility is vital. Dipped headlights are an asset to those conditions. DRL's are useful but insufficient for some conditions. Especially those with no rear lights!

As someone once said to me, 'Gray sky, gray road, grey car. Get them lights on'.

As always devil in the detail, certainly on need for lights agree that as soon as you see grey vehicles beginning to merge with the road then it's time to light up.

Regarding rear lights, whilst I agree that manufacturers should include rear lights with DRLs if only to stop feckless idiots driving round in the dark with DRLs and nothing else, away from night time the argument for rear lights is less certain. In daylight mist and fog you can often see the shape and outline of the vehicle ahead before you pick out the rear lights, which can be the case down to quite foggy conditions, hence rear fogs at 100m, but 200m you will see the vehicle outline before the rear position lights. Caveat, assuming you're not going at an inappropriate speed plus paying attention.

[Chubbyross]

XF-Andy said:

With regard to undertaking MLMs on the motorways; the way I see it is if I just maintain my speed and lane then I am not undertaking, I am just maintaining my speed and lane. If I was to go 2-1-2 then that is undertaking as it is 3 separate manoeuvres i.e. move left, pass the vehicle, move right. The same as that overtaking is 3 separate manoeuvres.
I would quite happily argue this if I was to receive a NIP.

Precisely. I’ve researched a bit on this and it looks like you’re okay as long as you’re not weaving from lane to lane or you purposefully switch into lane 1 to undertake. When I do it I’m maintaining a steady speed in lane 1, always prepared to hit the hard shoulder if the MLM wakes up or doesn’t like being passed on the inside and moves into the correct lane.

[theplayingmantis]

FiF said:

nonsequitur said:

FiF said:

theplayingmantis said:

200metres is approx. 2 football pitches i have just checked, so yes i have massively underestimated the visibility. lets be more accurate and say at very least 6-7 football pitches were the conditions, and mostly much more. Id happily stand by no light needed. if you cannot see hazards other vehicles that are not lit up in those conditions very well. you need to get tested.

So visibility was thick end of half a mile then. So fog lights definitely not needed, day or night, nor lights other than DRLs if not fitted. Thanks for coming back on that and clarifying.

Let's face it, in the Autumn and Winter months, with often heavy overcast skies and a low sun, visibility is vital. Dipped headlights are an asset to those conditions. DRL's are useful but insufficient for some conditions. Especially those with no rear lights!

As someone once said to me, 'Gray sky, gray road, grey car. Get them lights on'.

As always devil in the detail, certainly on need for lights agree that as soon as you see grey vehicles beginning to merge with the road then it's time to light up.

Regarding rear lights, whilst I agree that manufacturers should include rear lights with DRLs if only to stop feckless idiots driving round in the dark with DRLs and nothing else, away from night time the argument for rear lights is less certain. In daylight mist and fog you can often see the shape and outline of the vehicle ahead before you pick out the rear lights, which can be the case down to quite foggy conditions, hence rear fogs at 100m, but 200m you will see the vehicle outline before the rear position lights. Caveat, assuming you're not going at an inappropriate speed plus paying attention.

If someone has trouble seeing a grey car in dull daylight conditions then i suggest they should have an eye test, yes at liminal hours of course visibility will be compromised and lights needed to aid, but is a concern folk driving around not able to see grey cars. Thankfully i would not choose such a boring colour so wont have them smashing into me!

[aterribleusername]

Speed Badger said:

theplayingmantis said:

Speed Badger said:

People with brand new Chinese made MG's. Is that the best you could fking do?

Thats a bit snobby or am i due a parrot? yes tthey are a white good, but perhaps thats all they can afford.

No not being snobbish at all, what I mean is, if you can afford either outright, or monthly finance this particular car, then surely you could have afforded something better but slightly older.

For a lot of people a newer number plate = better. They are also a good deal on Motability.