Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Rebuke bad drivers?

Passion, instruction, buying, care, maintenance and more, any form of vehicle discussion is welcome here
AF62
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3499
Joined: November 27th, 2016, 8:45 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421057

Postby AF62 » June 21st, 2021, 7:10 am

MrFoolish wrote:
AF62 wrote:
So just that one scenario then?


Well each scenario would take some explanation, so I can't be spending all night writing them out. They tend to be varations on a theme where someone aggressively pulls out in front of you, usually without the right of way.


Aggressively pulling out? I am not sure how someone "aggressively" pulls out, assertively perhaps but aggressively?

Anyway I thought the suggestion of flashing and beeping was to dangerous drivers not those who had just irked someone.

As for right of way, nobody has "right of way". To quote the Highway Code -

The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4434 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421063

Postby servodude » June 21st, 2021, 7:27 am

AF62 wrote:Aggressively pulling out? I am not sure how someone "aggressively" pulls out, assertively perhaps but aggressively?


It would be possible to pull out in a way that would increase the chance of a collision e.g. moving the car erratically, or doing it too quickly, or without indicating, or without ensuring sufficient space

If one were to do so deliberately then, according to a few different definitions I've seen, it could be considered "aggressive driving"
- some other definitions require the intent of harassing/intimidating other road users
- but in each case the driver needs to be making a conscious decision to drive like a twit

It sounds like the case here was just a mistake

- sd

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6557 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421065

Postby Lootman » June 21st, 2021, 7:37 am

AF62 wrote:The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others.

Hmm, that sounds paradoxical. What is the purpose of a "Give Way" sign if not to connote that traffic on the other road has right of way?

"The United Kingdom's Road Traffic Act calls for give way signs and road markings at junctions (crossroads) where the give-way rule is to apply."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_sign#United_Kingdom

AF62
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3499
Joined: November 27th, 2016, 8:45 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421066

Postby AF62 » June 21st, 2021, 7:42 am

Lootman wrote:
AF62 wrote:The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others.

Hmm, that sounds paradoxical. What is the purpose of a "Give Way" sign if not to connote that traffic on the other road has right of way?

"The United Kingdom's Road Traffic Act calls for give way signs and road markings at junctions (crossroads) where the give-way rule is to apply."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_sign#United_Kingdom


The other road user has priority but not a right of way.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6557 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421067

Postby Lootman » June 21st, 2021, 7:47 am

AF62 wrote:
Lootman wrote:
AF62 wrote:The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others.

Hmm, that sounds paradoxical. What is the purpose of a "Give Way" sign if not to connote that traffic on the other road has right of way?

"The United Kingdom's Road Traffic Act calls for give way signs and road markings at junctions (crossroads) where the give-way rule is to apply."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_sign#United_Kingdom

The other road user has priority but not a right of way.

Hmm, that sounds like a rather contrived distinction. Surely having priority IS having the right of way. Else what is the difference in meaning?

As stated it sounds Orwellian: "Nobody can be taller than you, but you can be shorter than others"

AF62
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3499
Joined: November 27th, 2016, 8:45 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421069

Postby AF62 » June 21st, 2021, 8:02 am

Lootman wrote:
AF62 wrote:
Lootman wrote:Hmm, that sounds paradoxical. What is the purpose of a "Give Way" sign if not to connote that traffic on the other road has right of way?

"The United Kingdom's Road Traffic Act calls for give way signs and road markings at junctions (crossroads) where the give-way rule is to apply."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_sign#United_Kingdom

The other road user has priority but not a right of way.

Hmm, that sounds like a rather contrived distinction. Surely having priority IS having the right of way. Else what is the difference in meaning?

As stated it sounds Orwellian: "Nobody can be taller than you, but you can be shorter than others"


No. If they had a right of way they could exert that right and plow on regardless crashing into the car infringing that right.

Having priority doesn't give you that right and unless you avoid the accident then you will be held 50% to blame (as happened with Grace v Tanner [2003] and an accident on a roundabout when someone was in the wrong but the person in the right didn't take steps to avoid the accident - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/354.html).

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6557 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421072

Postby Lootman » June 21st, 2021, 8:14 am

AF62 wrote:
Lootman wrote:
AF62 wrote:The other road user has priority but not a right of way.

Hmm, that sounds like a rather contrived distinction. Surely having priority IS having the right of way. Else what is the difference in meaning?

As stated it sounds Orwellian: "Nobody can be taller than you, but you can be shorter than others"

No. If they had a right of way they could exert that right and plow on regardless crashing into the car infringing that right.

Having priority doesn't give you that right and unless you avoid the accident then you will be held 50% to blame (as happened with Grace v Tanner [2003] and an accident on a roundabout when someone was in the wrong but the person in the right didn't take steps to avoid the accident - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/354.html).

But one always has an obligation to avoid an accident regardless of priority or right of way. So if a vehicle pulls out immediately in front of me then I cannot just plough into him with impunity. I still have to try and avoid that impact by braking or swerving.

It is just that if avoidance is not possible then it will be generally be deemed the fault of the other party and I would be held blameless in that case. How insurance companies or civil claims handle that is another matter and they may indeed split it 50/50. But the police might charge me if I could have avoided that collision and did not. They won't charge me if I could not have done and had right of way.

But of course the other thing is that the Highway Code is not law. It is not a legal document at all. Rather it is a set of guidelines deemed to promote safe driving. Which is why most people look at it for the theory part of their driving test and then never look at it again. The last time I read it was 50 years ago. It is designed to be over-protective, not literal, rather like the 4 pages of warnings that came with my new deep fat fryer. :D

AF62
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3499
Joined: November 27th, 2016, 8:45 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421084

Postby AF62 » June 21st, 2021, 9:04 am

Lootman wrote:But one always has an obligation to avoid an accident regardless of priority or right of way. So if a vehicle pulls out immediately in front of me then I cannot just plough into him with impunity. I still have to try and avoid that impact by braking or swerving.

It is just that if avoidance is not possible then it will be generally be deemed the fault of the other party and I would be held blameless in that case. How insurance companies or civil claims handle that is another matter and they may indeed split it 50/50. But the police might charge me if I could have avoided that collision and did not. They won't charge me if I could not have done and had right of way.


Exactly, you have priority not right of way.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6557 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421085

Postby Lootman » June 21st, 2021, 9:07 am

AF62 wrote:
Lootman wrote:But one always has an obligation to avoid an accident regardless of priority or right of way. So if a vehicle pulls out immediately in front of me then I cannot just plough into him with impunity. I still have to try and avoid that impact by braking or swerving.

It is just that if avoidance is not possible then it will be generally be deemed the fault of the other party and I would be held blameless in that case. How insurance companies or civil claims handle that is another matter and they may indeed split it 50/50. But the police might charge me if I could have avoided that collision and did not. They won't charge me if I could not have done and had right of way.

Exactly, you have priority not right of way.

That was not what I was saying at all, and is a difference without a distinction. But I think we should probably agree to disagree here.

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3791 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421117

Postby Mike4 » June 21st, 2021, 10:59 am

I think rights of way exist in a legal sense, i.e. the general public has a right of way along footpaths, but motorists confuse this with term with the driving convention of giving way to traffic according to road markings and signs.

But a thread about the standards of other people's driving? Who'd have thought there was much to discuss there?!

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5766
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4096 times
Been thanked: 2558 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421126

Postby 88V8 » June 21st, 2021, 11:25 am

When I had a car with air horns, I was in the revenge/rebuke camp. The feeble tooterr on two of my current cars don't seem worth the bother, but on one car I have a Freight Train horn from a Cadillac, and yes that can be 'useful'.

Mike4 wrote:I think an equivalent group for cars (in particular Range Rovers and Audi Q7s) and called "Parked like a twat", might fill up with photos pretty quickly...


There you go... all 389 pages of it https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1680748 some of them quite hilarious.

V8

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4434 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421131

Postby servodude » June 21st, 2021, 12:00 pm

88V8 wrote:When I had a car with air horns, I was in the revenge/rebuke camp. The feeble tooterr on two of my current cars don't seem worth the bother, but on one car I have a Freight Train horn from a Cadillac, and yes that can be 'useful'.

Mike4 wrote:I think an equivalent group for cars (in particular Range Rovers and Audi Q7s) and called "Parked like a twat", might fill up with photos pretty quickly...


There you go... all 389 pages of it https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1680748 some of them quite hilarious.

V8


I always liked this bit of passive aggression
https://www.boredpanda.com/parking-note-spot-dog-passive-aggressive

-sd

bungeejumper
Lemon Half
Posts: 8063
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
Has thanked: 2845 times
Been thanked: 3938 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421223

Postby bungeejumper » June 21st, 2021, 5:52 pm

Mike4 wrote:On the canal system there are boaters who seem to take delight in mooring in awkward places where they are causing a partial obstruction and/or difficulties for other boaters. There is a facebook group for posting photos of inconsiderately moored boats, called "Moored like a twat".

My one and only attempt at steering a 60 foot narrowboat through a tight series of canal bends was nearly a full-on naval incident. Twenty tonnes of steel advancing at barely 2 mph, but it would still have been enough to crush the fibreglass gin-palace that had moored right in the deep channel, and right in everyone's way. The wazzock.

Bear in mind, though, that I was a complete beginner who had only just learned how to bang this huge monster into reverse, and who had not yet learned that the rudder was useless unless you simultaneously gave it some decent revs. :| So I'd have had to plead guilty as charged to causing this naufrage - not to mention the probable drowning of a couple of miniature poodles and the destruction of a jaunty Captain Bird's Eye hat that the fat wazzock apparently regarded as stylish deckwear.

I missed him. By less than two feet. Two feet sounds a lot at 2 mph - but if that's all that stands between twenty tonnes of advancing mass with no brakes, and somebody else's three hundred grand, then it's too close for comfort. :?

BJ

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3791 times

Re: Rebuke bad drivers?

#421225

Postby Mike4 » June 21st, 2021, 6:01 pm

bungeejumper wrote:
Mike4 wrote:On the canal system there are boaters who seem to take delight in mooring in awkward places where they are causing a partial obstruction and/or difficulties for other boaters. There is a facebook group for posting photos of inconsiderately moored boats, called "Moored like a twat".

My one and only attempt at steering a 60 foot narrowboat through a tight series of canal bends was nearly a full-on naval incident. Twenty tonnes of steel advancing at barely 2 mph, but it would still have been enough to crush the fibreglass gin-palace that had moored right in the deep channel, and right in everyone's way. The wazzock.

Bear in mind, though, that I was a complete beginner who had only just learned how to bang this huge monster into reverse, and who had not yet learned that the rudder was useless unless you simultaneously gave it some decent revs. :| So I'd have had to plead guilty as charged to causing this naufrage - not to mention the probable drowning of a couple of miniature poodles and the destruction of a jaunty Captain Bird's Eye hat that the fat wazzock apparently regarded as stylish deckwear.

I missed him. By less than two feet. Two feet sounds a lot at 2 mph - but if that's all that stands between twenty tonnes of advancing mass with no brakes, and somebody else's three hundred grand, then it's too close for comfort. :?

BJ


I'm sure this incident would not have been caused by steerer (that's what the steerer of a narrow boat is called) incompetence. Narrow boats are easily caught by the wind. I expect there was an unexpected gust of wind.

Nobody can ever argue with that, when claimed.... :D


Return to “Cars, Driving, Motorbikes or any Transport”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests