FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Driving annoyance
Driving annoyance
Jump to: Newest in thread
  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts." I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What raises your blood pressure when driving. Mine is - Not using your lights. You are letting someone go but sit there. Flash your lights so people know you are letting them go! This leads onto indicators. It's a simple flick. "The thing that really annoys me is when people do exactly this. If you can drive then you should drive. Stopping and waiting for someone and then flashing your lights is bad behaviour IMHO because the other person can misread it very easily. Drive the road. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What raises your blood pressure when driving. Mine is - Not using your lights. You are letting someone go but sit there. Flash your lights so people know you are letting them go! This leads onto indicators. It's a simple flick. "Flashing your lights indicates that you are there It’s not a premise to allow someone else to move first? What really gets my goat is drivers who drive at 45/50 in a 60 zone but do not slow down for a 30 Grrr! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm getting a feeling it's just me on this one "At least you learned something tonight  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
People who drive significantly under the speed limit, I know it's a limit and not a target but doing 20 in a 50 or 30 in a 60 is not safe, if you're not confident enough to drive at or near the limit then you shouldn't be on the road. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing " Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What raises your blood pressure when driving. Mine is - Not using your lights. You are letting someone go but sit there. Flash your lights so people know you are letting them go! This leads onto indicators. It's a simple flick. "When learning to drive you are taught not to flash to let people out. It is their responsibility to check it is safe to pull out not yours. You can stop but shouldn't flash. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!!" But it is in the Highway Code still. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I learnt something new, next annoyance- parents in 4x4 at school pick up time " What if they need a 4x4 and have no other option to pick up their kids? Pretty sure I get judged. Until I get my wheelchair out
PS: I only have an estate but some disabled drivers find 4x4 type vehicles easier to get in/out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still." . The Highway Code is not law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!!" I failed my first driving test because I failed to indicate right when going almost all the way around a roundabout (taking 3rd exit). Major error - fail. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! I failed my first driving test because I failed to indicate right when going almost all the way around a roundabout (taking 3rd exit). Major error - fail." But not an offence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! I failed my first driving test because I failed to indicate right when going almost all the way around a roundabout (taking 3rd exit). Major error - fail. But not an offence" Interesting. If you can fail a driving test for it, it would seem quite important, no? Anyway, I always indicate on roundabouts in the prescribed manner. That lesson has never left me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! I failed my first driving test because I failed to indicate right when going almost all the way around a roundabout (taking 3rd exit). Major error - fail. But not an offence Interesting. If you can fail a driving test for it, it would seem quite important, no? Anyway, I always indicate on roundabouts in the prescribed manner. That lesson has never left me "As I said Bizarre but not an offence.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law" It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it." No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law:" That is what I said - I agreed with you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When I’m in the middle lane doing 35mph so I can do my makeup and someone beeps at me. Calm down, I’m going to smudge my lipstick "Total wipeout in lane3 watching you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Middle lane hoggers on the motorway. People driving 10mph+ below the speed limit Not indicating around roundabouts. " BTW its a max speed limit , not a minimum. 70 mph is in perfect conditions , not in fog or driving rain. And middle lane huggers tend to be trucks .ore than cars. They take 5 minutes to get past another doing 1 mile mph less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: That is what I said - I agreed with you "For “other offences” not indicating at a roundabout is not an offence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Middle lane hoggers on the motorway. People driving 10mph+ below the speed limit Not indicating around roundabouts. BTW its a max speed limit , not a minimum. 70 mph is in perfect conditions , not in fog or driving rain. And middle lane huggers tend to be trucks .ore than cars. They take 5 minutes to get past another doing 1 mile mph less." Agree with your first point. Disagree that it is mainly lorries. I think they actually tend to drive pretty well and will pull back in when they can. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: That is what I said - I agreed with you
For “other offences” not indicating at a roundabout is not an offence."Can you get your second driving test refunded, 18 years later?! I feel hard done to now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law:" Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who drive way too close to the car infront. Space invaders. " Oh being able to zap the car in front like in a game of space invaders would be cool. I’ve already started penning a letter to BMW on that one. Most remise of them not to offer that optional extra | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: That is what I said - I agreed with you
For “other offences” not indicating at a roundabout is not an offence.
Can you get your second driving test refunded, 18 years later?! I feel hard done to now ". There are lots of things that aren’t law or offences you can fail a driving test for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: That is what I said - I agreed with you
For “other offences” not indicating at a roundabout is not an offence.
Can you get your second driving test refunded, 18 years later?! I feel hard done to now .
There are lots of things that aren’t law or offences you can fail a driving test for." my cheque from 2004 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: That is what I said - I agreed with you
For “other offences” not indicating at a roundabout is not an offence.
Can you get your second driving test refunded, 18 years later?! I feel hard done to now .
There are lots of things that aren’t law or offences you can fail a driving test for."Yep and if they were law then nobody would even be able to learn to drive in the first place....Well they could on private property but no real road experience and how much more dangerous would that be | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What raises your blood pressure when driving. Mine is - Not using your lights. You are letting someone go but sit there. Flash your lights so people know you are letting them go! This leads onto indicators. It's a simple flick.
When learning to drive you are taught not to flash to let people out. It is their responsibility to check it is safe to pull out not yours. You can stop but shouldn't flash. "As a victim of a driver flashing another it was safe to pull out , I am not a fan of it. Riding down stopped line of traffic. A car coming from opposite direction flashed a car it was OK to pull out. It wasn't, I was was knocked off my bike. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who brake for uphill corners, which if you're driving sensible & using gears properly, you should never have to do. Tailgaters driving right up my arse. I have games I can play to annoy the merry f*ck outta them. Putting my rear fog light on deliberately being just one weapon in the arsenal." We’re saved! Putin’s mouthpiece is threatening a nuclear attack. He’s clearly not heard about this foglight trick. Russia will be shitting bricks when they read this in the morning! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who don’t say thank you when you let them out" Josef Fritzl Complained of similar so they say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. " The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"when a driving instructor slams on with his set of brakes to emergency stop because the student is about to turn ito oncoming traffic and i end up hitting him at 10mph yet it costs £1000 to fix his bumper "Surely if he was about to turn into oncoming traffic then you should have seen that and shouldn't have been so close to him? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. " For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who don’t say thank you when you let them out Josef Fritzl Complained of similar so they say. " You are evil ...and so am I for laughing at that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual." The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention." As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases." I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If they raised toad tax to a couple of grand a year and put fuel up to £3 a lite then roads would be a lot leas stressful "Then it'd just be rich people hogging the middle lane and driving like twats. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"when a driving instructor slams on with his set of brakes to emergency stop because the student is about to turn ito oncoming traffic and i end up hitting him at 10mph yet it costs £1000 to fix his bumper
Surely if he was about to turn into oncoming traffic then you should have seen that and shouldn't have been so close to him?"very true and i would of if i wasn't going over a canal bridge with basically no view until he had slammed on, but like you say i should of been going slower over the said bridge | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be." In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If they raised toad tax to a couple of grand a year and put fuel up to £3 a lite then roads would be a lot leas stressful
Then it'd just be rich people hogging the middle lane and driving like twats. "Lot less traffic on the road. Think of the environmental benefits! All those carbons saved from Gretta’s wrath | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms." Thats because I am a good driver and I obey the Highway Code | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who don’t say thank you when you let them out Josef Fritzl Complained of similar so they say. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cars that have been designed by idiots. Headlights that can be seen on the moon (not full beam). Indicators hidden in some stupid shape/ line of lights/ on the bumper/ so they are very difficult to see. " Lets ban all modernity and go back to using flags. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms. Thats because I am a good driver and I obey the Highway Code ". In your opinion. Is it your legal judgement that not indicating at a roundabout constitutes driving without due care and attention aswell..?? If so why isn’t it a per day offence..?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
And those who just can’t stick to a speed limit, flitting between 35 and 70mph. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms. Thats because I am a good driver and I obey the Highway Code .
In your opinion.
Is it your legal judgement that not indicating at a roundabout constitutes driving without due care and attention aswell..??
If so why isn’t it a per day offence..??". Per say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms." Civil or criminal? The standards and applicability are different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms. Thats because I am a good driver and I obey the Highway Code .
In your opinion.
Is it your legal judgement that not indicating at a roundabout constitutes driving without due care and attention aswell..??
If so why isn’t it a per day offence..??.
Per say"Or “per se” even | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cars that have been designed by idiots. Headlights that can be seen on the moon (not full beam). Indicators hidden in some stupid shape/ line of lights/ on the bumper/ so they are very difficult to see. Lets ban all modernity and go back to using flags. "Clearly someone who is shit at designing cars. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms. Thats because I am a good driver and I obey the Highway Code .
In your opinion.
Is it your legal judgement that not indicating at a roundabout constitutes driving without due care and attention aswell..??
If so why isn’t it a per day offence..??"I think you are confusing me with other people who have commented. I offered no opinion on indicators and roundabouts. I simply agreed with your observation that The Highway Code is NOT law and then I observed that its role is to provide a general definition of road behaviour so that the actual law that defines due care and attention can then be argued over by lawyers. I assume that you have spent a lot of time in court and are well versed in these matters. Are you a lawyer or just a frequent visitor due to poor driving ability? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If they raised toad tax to a couple of grand a year and put fuel up to £3 a lite then roads would be a lot leas stressful
Then it'd just be rich people hogging the middle lane and driving like twats.
Lot less traffic on the road. Think of the environmental benefits! All those carbons saved from Gretta’s wrath "The Audis etc would still hog the middle lane and/or overtake at 90mph and cut in just seconds before their motorway exit, even if there were no poor Renault drivers to curse them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms. Civil or criminal? The standards and applicability are different. " No offence under statute of any of the Road Traffic Acts fall under civil law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms. Thats because I am a good driver and I obey the Highway Code .
In your opinion.
Is it your legal judgement that not indicating at a roundabout constitutes driving without due care and attention aswell..??
If so why isn’t it a per day offence..??
I think you are confusing me with other people who have commented.
I offered no opinion on indicators and roundabouts.
I simply agreed with your observation that The Highway Code is NOT law and then I observed that its role is to provide a general definition of road behaviour so that the actual law that defines due care and attention can then be argued over by lawyers.
I assume that you have spent a lot of time in court and are well versed in these matters. Are you a lawyer or just a frequent visitor due to poor driving ability?"You are correct in your first assumption. And I have an unblemished driving record. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing " Only a few? If I had £1 for everyone I see doing that I would be a very wealthy man. I believe that part of the blame for it should be laid on the continentalisation of indicator stalks on cars over the last few decades. At one time it was only Fords and then Vauxhalls which had an American design heritage. Now it is all vehicles other than proper RHD cars actually manufactured in Japan for the world wide RHD market which have the various column controls logically mounted. This has led to huge numbers of people de-prioritising indicating while making turns and gear changes. Probably explains also why so many can't be bothered to dip at night. Tell a Frenchman or a German that their car should be configured illogically and see how sympathetic they would be to the idea! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms. Thats because I am a good driver and I obey the Highway Code .
In your opinion.
Is it your legal judgement that not indicating at a roundabout constitutes driving without due care and attention aswell..??
If so why isn’t it a per day offence..??
I think you are confusing me with other people who have commented.
I offered no opinion on indicators and roundabouts.
I simply agreed with your observation that The Highway Code is NOT law and then I observed that its role is to provide a general definition of road behaviour so that the actual law that defines due care and attention can then be argued over by lawyers.
I assume that you have spent a lot of time in court and are well versed in these matters. Are you a lawyer or just a frequent visitor due to poor driving ability?"And the first line of all these exchanges begins with not indicating at roundabouts…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms. Thats because I am a good driver and I obey the Highway Code .
In your opinion.
Is it your legal judgement that not indicating at a roundabout constitutes driving without due care and attention aswell..??
If so why isn’t it a per day offence..??
I think you are confusing me with other people who have commented.
I offered no opinion on indicators and roundabouts.
I simply agreed with your observation that The Highway Code is NOT law and then I observed that its role is to provide a general definition of road behaviour so that the actual law that defines due care and attention can then be argued over by lawyers.
I assume that you have spent a lot of time in court and are well versed in these matters. Are you a lawyer or just a frequent visitor due to poor driving ability?
You are correct in your first assumption.
And I have an unblemished driving record."I assume this unblemished record is achieved by not paying attention to the Highway Code as you obviously consider it superfluous and without merit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms. Thats because I am a good driver and I obey the Highway Code .
In your opinion.
Is it your legal judgement that not indicating at a roundabout constitutes driving without due care and attention aswell..??
If so why isn’t it a per day offence..??
I think you are confusing me with other people who have commented.
I offered no opinion on indicators and roundabouts.
I simply agreed with your observation that The Highway Code is NOT law and then I observed that its role is to provide a general definition of road behaviour so that the actual law that defines due care and attention can then be argued over by lawyers.
I assume that you have spent a lot of time in court and are well versed in these matters. Are you a lawyer or just a frequent visitor due to poor driving ability?
You are correct in your first assumption.
And I have an unblemished driving record.
I assume this unblemished record is achieved by not paying attention to the Highway Code as you obviously consider it superfluous and without merit?"Another opinion of yours. I have never mentioned it’s merits, only it’s legal status. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Only a few? If I had £1 for everyone I see doing that I would be a very wealthy man. I believe that part of the blame for it should be laid on the continentalisation of indicator stalks on cars over the last few decades. At one time it was only Fords and then Vauxhalls which had an American design heritage. Now it is all vehicles other than proper RHD cars actually manufactured in Japan for the world wide RHD market which have the various column controls logically mounted. This has led to huge numbers of people de-prioritising indicating while making turns and gear changes. Probably explains also why so many can't be bothered to dip at night. Tell a Frenchman or a German that their car should be configured illogically and see how sympathetic they would be to the idea!" So my indicators are on the left side of wheel. How does that compare with the above essay? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Bizarrely there is no law that requires you to indicate when entering or exiting a roundabout..!! But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law It is not but it is the default definition for good driving behaviour and my understanding is that it is what would be referred to if a police officer was to claim that you were driving dangerously/irresponsibly. Basically you need to adhere to it. No, it is not a legal document or law: It is advice. Driving behaviours may be used to support evidence of offences that do exist but it isn’t law: Correct. The road traffic act is law. That concerns speed limits, stop signs and give ways etc. But indicators on cars and the use are not part of the law. They can't be considers as a legal indication of intent. However they maybe be give as mitigation if I remember rightly. The highway code is guidance not law. The Highway Code might not be law but where it says you ‘should’ do something you won’t be pulled up for not doing it. Where it says you ‘must’ do something this in itself isn’t law but if it ends up in a court of law it can be backed up by the law and you can be fined. For you to end up in court you must commit an offence under the various road traffic acts. An offence that exists on statute not an advice manual. The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 3: "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence." As far as I am aware, The Highway Code basically defines what is meant by due care and attention. As far as you are aware…. If it was law the Highway Code would be written into the various RTA’s it isn’t. That is why lawyers make tens of thousands of pounds arguing such cases. I am not saying it is the law. I am saying it is the definition that the courts _generally_ look to in order to ascertain what due care and attention means. As with everything legal it can be challenged but _generally_ it defines what good road behaviour should be. In your opinion. You obviously have not spent long in many court rooms. Civil or criminal? The standards and applicability are different. No offence under statute of any of the Road Traffic Acts fall under civil law." No but conduct under the highway code can be used as evidence in a civil case can it not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who drive way too close to the car infront. Space invaders. " I love these drivers. I bait them to undertake me and keep them, then hit the brakes when I approach a slower car. They either stop, hit me, or hit the car in front. They tend not to want to stay too close behind me after that. Another trick I like, is to follow them at 3 to 4 cars distance. They can't brake check you, can't use their windscreen wash. I stay behind them for miles, the last idiot I did that to was for 40 miles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who stop as soon as temporary traffic lights go red , I’m already out overtaking them and catching up the last car that went through " Well done on admitting you jump red lights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who stop as soon as temporary traffic lights go red , I’m already out overtaking them and catching up the last car that went through Well done on admitting you jump red lights." Only when safe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who drive way too close to the car infront. Space invaders. I love these drivers. I bait them to undertake me and keep them, then hit the brakes when I approach a slower car. They either stop, hit me, or hit the car in front. They tend not to want to stay too close behind me after that. " Let me get this right: you are saying you actively try to get people to hit you? Seriously? If you genuinely think that is a good thing then you shouldn’t be on the road. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BMW, 4X4, Mercedes, Audi drivers. When you see their driving, it makes you question if they passed their test or got someone to so it for them." So which brand of car do you approve if their drivers and why? Rolls Royce, Skoda, Volvo? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who stop as soon as temporary traffic lights go red , I’m already out overtaking them and catching up the last car that went through Well done on admitting you jump red lights. Only when safe "Well done on doubling down. You are seriously suggesting that jumping a red is safe? There is a “lawyer” further up the thread who will do your deal on explaining that to the courts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who stop as soon as temporary traffic lights go red , I’m already out overtaking them and catching up the last car that went through Well done on admitting you jump red lights. Only when safe "And when is it safe, pray tell? Presumably it's equally safe to jump any red light then? What's the difference with temporary ones? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who stop as soon as temporary traffic lights go red , I’m already out overtaking them and catching up the last car that went through Well done on admitting you jump red lights. Only when safe
And when is it safe, pray tell? Presumably it's equally safe to jump any red light then? What's the difference with temporary ones?"When the cops are at the donut shop obvs! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who stop as soon as temporary traffic lights go red , I’m already out overtaking them and catching up the last car that went through Well done on admitting you jump red lights. Only when safe "Please tell me you say this stuff just to get a rise out of people?! IS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I do hate people that tailgate and flash you and intimate though, it's frightening, not annoying.
PW | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's not much I actually get annoyed at while driving. Yes slow drivers, lack of indicating can be a bit annoying but it's just normal isn't it? Happens all the time. I get more annoyed at passengers losing their temper over stuff than anything else. I had an ex that got mega angry at sitting in traffic. I had young kids and thought it was a bonus I got to sit for longer
I do hate people that tailgate and flash you and intimate though, it's frightening, not annoying.
PW "*intimidate! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
(or I have to have had a REALLY bad day, kids shouting in the back, dog throwing up on the seat, desperately trying to get somewhere in a hurry AND I am PMS - you don't want to meet me on the road then )
Mrs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who stop as soon as temporary traffic lights go red , I’m already out overtaking them and catching up the last car that went through Well done on admitting you jump red lights. Only when safe
And when is it safe, pray tell? Presumably it's equally safe to jump any red light then? What's the difference with temporary ones?"They are not real traffic lights , just pretend ones | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who stop as soon as temporary traffic lights go red , I’m already out overtaking them and catching up the last car that went through Well done on admitting you jump red lights. Only when safe
And when is it safe, pray tell? Presumably it's equally safe to jump any red light then? What's the difference with temporary ones?
They are not real traffic lights , just pretend ones "Right. What codswallop. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Only a few? If I had £1 for everyone I see doing that I would be a very wealthy man. I believe that part of the blame for it should be laid on the continentalisation of indicator stalks on cars over the last few decades. At one time it was only Fords and then Vauxhalls which had an American design heritage. Now it is all vehicles other than proper RHD cars actually manufactured in Japan for the world wide RHD market which have the various column controls logically mounted. This has led to huge numbers of people de-prioritising indicating while making turns and gear changes. Probably explains also why so many can't be bothered to dip at night. Tell a Frenchman or a German that their car should be configured illogically and see how sympathetic they would be to the idea! So my indicators are on the left side of wheel. How does that compare with the above essay? " I explained that in the essay. Ergonomically they should be on the right for this country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other people who are in my way. "More precisely, other people who don't get out of my way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes - someone mentioned already and have to agree-eletric scooters!! These people think they are untouchable and can do what they like. When they end up in ITU it may slowly sink in... "A woman was found guilty of d*unk driving on a scooter in Cheltenham this week: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-61243033.amp | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cars that have been designed by idiots. Headlights that can be seen on the moon (not full beam). Indicators hidden in some stupid shape/ line of lights/ on the bumper/ so they are very difficult to see. " Agreed. I don't know what happened to construction and use rules. If they still exist, how can they tolerate hiding a relatively feeble orange lamp inside the main lighting cluster so that the dominant headlamp luminaire completely swamps the pathetic indicator's visibility until the indicating vehicle has almost reached the traffic being indicated to? To me, it is clear that styling fashion overrules sensible design. The main consideration seems to be making accident repairs and what was once simple lamp servicing as expensive as possible... ... Oh, and intentionally styling a car to look aggressive, a sure way of raising hackles among less tolerant road users. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who indicate and don't turn for at least 4 or 5 turnings. Cyclists riding in the middle of the road. Cyclists with no lights riding at night " I once had a scare.. nearly hit a cyclist. He had a black bike, he was wearing all grey and it was pissing down. No lights, nothing reflective. It was very lucky I just saw him at the last second as I turned out of a junction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who stop as soon as temporary traffic lights go red , I’m already out overtaking them and catching up the last car that went through Well done on admitting you jump red lights. Only when safe
And when is it safe, pray tell? Presumably it's equally safe to jump any red light then? What's the difference with temporary ones?
They are not real traffic lights , just pretend ones "Pull that trick on me and I will swing out and take the payout when you crash into me. I was at a set of temporary traffic lights in London. They just went red and I was at the front of the queue. Some prick overtook me and the 2 cars behind me to run the red light. Utter cuntish behaviour. Nobody need to be in that much of a rush. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not indicating around roundabouts. I’ve seen a few indicate right and then come off the roundabout around here, that always gets me cursing Only a few? If I had £1 for everyone I see doing that I would be a very wealthy man. I believe that part of the blame for it should be laid on the continentalisation of indicator stalks on cars over the last few decades. At one time it was only Fords and then Vauxhalls which had an American design heritage. Now it is all vehicles other than proper RHD cars actually manufactured in Japan for the world wide RHD market which have the various column controls logically mounted. This has led to huge numbers of people de-prioritising indicating while making turns and gear changes. Probably explains also why so many can't be bothered to dip at night. Tell a Frenchman or a German that their car should be configured illogically and see how sympathetic they would be to the idea! So my indicators are on the left side of wheel. How does that compare with the above essay? I explained that in the essay. Ergonomically they should be on the right for this country." I am not sure I get that. My main drive is a car with all the primary controls on the left hand side - indicators, cruise control, screen wash/wipers etc. It is perfectly natural for me to use my left hand to drive that and I always indicate etc. I have another car that is the other way round. That is easy to get into the habit of using my right hand. It is just muscle memory isn’t it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The dickhead road captains who try to block merging lanes. They are simply too thick to understand using both lanes up to the merge point is how they are designed to work and not "cheating"." Wow. You're a hero ! And here was I and millions of others, thinking those that ignore the signs to join the single lane were just que jumping. Do you also use the hard shoulder when you feel the need ? I see plenty of those. Rules Don't apply to a special few. Are you special? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What raises your blood pressure when driving. Mine is - Not using your lights. You are letting someone go but sit there. Flash your lights so people know you are letting them go! This leads onto indicators. It's a simple flick. "I'd rather you not, it blinds me by flashers. Wave on, or use the highway code. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The dickhead road captains who try to block merging lanes. They are simply too thick to understand using both lanes up to the merge point is how they are designed to work and not "cheating". Wow. You're a hero ! And here was I and millions of others, thinking those that ignore the signs to join the single lane were just que jumping. Do you also use the hard shoulder when you feel the need ? I see plenty of those. Rules Don't apply to a special few. Are you special?" Nice of you to hold your hand up and admit you don't understand the concept of lane merging. Are you one of those road captains who know better that the roadwork planners? Two lanes 800 yards long leading up to the merge point? Not for Captain Dickhead! You want a single lane 1600 yards long with an empty lane beside it. Congratulations, you fuck up traffic flow and think you're being a hero. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who do 40 on a 30, and then stay at 40 in a 60." This!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The dickhead road captains who try to block merging lanes. They are simply too thick to understand using both lanes up to the merge point is how they are designed to work and not "cheating". Wow. You're a hero ! And here was I and millions of others, thinking those that ignore the signs to join the single lane were just que jumping. Do you also use the hard shoulder when you feel the need ? I see plenty of those. Rules Don't apply to a special few. Are you special? Nice of you to hold your hand up and admit you don't understand the concept of lane merging. Are you one of those road captains who know better that the roadwork planners? Two lanes 800 yards long leading up to the merge point? Not for Captain Dickhead! You want a single lane 1600 yards long with an empty lane beside it. Congratulations, you fuck up traffic flow and think you're being a hero." Fuck the queue jumpers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it is in the Highway Code still.. The Highway Code is not law" No, but it's the standard to achieve for safe drivers. "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’." Either follow the Code and drive properly, or don't. Gbat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What raises your blood pressure when driving. Mine is - Not using your lights. You are letting someone go but sit there. Flash your lights so people know you are letting them go! This leads onto indicators. It's a simple flick. "actually op , flashing your lights to let someone go is illegal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Drivers that don't recognise the right of the pedestrian at pedestrian crossings. Failure to use the road safely. Drink drivers. Gas-brake-gas-brake-gas-brake-gas driving - pick a speed in between and maintain it. Crap music blaring. Speed bumps taken at speed. Folks that think their 4x4 is safer for their children than getting out of the way of the 40' wagon coming their way. People who don't reverse into parking spaces - it is quicker to get in and out that way!" Not possible to reverse into many parking bays anymore, otherwise my boot would be against a wall or lamppost and I wouldn't be able to get my chair out. Irritates the fuck out of me, but I often have to park forwards nowadays. Not my choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What raises your blood pressure when driving. Mine is - Not using your lights. You are letting someone go but sit there. Flash your lights so people know you are letting them go! This leads onto indicators. It's a simple flick.
actually op , flashing your lights to let someone go is illegal."Exactly , far worse than going through a pretend traffic light, indecision like this causes lots of accidents. If you don’t know when to go ,or who’s turn it is to move, get the buss and book some refresher driving lessons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The dickhead road captains who try to block merging lanes. They are simply too thick to understand using both lanes up to the merge point is how they are designed to work and not "cheating". Wow. You're a hero ! And here was I and millions of others, thinking those that ignore the signs to join the single lane were just que jumping. Do you also use the hard shoulder when you feel the need ? I see plenty of those. Rules Don't apply to a special few. Are you special? Nice of you to hold your hand up and admit you don't understand the concept of lane merging. Are you one of those road captains who know better that the roadwork planners? Two lanes 800 yards long leading up to the merge point? Not for Captain Dickhead! You want a single lane 1600 yards long with an empty lane beside it. Congratulations, you fuck up traffic flow and think you're being a hero. Fuck the queue jumpers" I think people should use both lanes until it's finally blocked off. It reduces traffic jams. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The dickhead road captains who try to block merging lanes. They are simply too thick to understand using both lanes up to the merge point is how they are designed to work and not "cheating". Wow. You're a hero ! And here was I and millions of others, thinking those that ignore the signs to join the single lane were just que jumping. Do you also use the hard shoulder when you feel the need ? I see plenty of those. Rules Don't apply to a special few. Are you special? Nice of you to hold your hand up and admit you don't understand the concept of lane merging. Are you one of those road captains who know better that the roadwork planners? Two lanes 800 yards long leading up to the merge point? Not for Captain Dickhead! You want a single lane 1600 yards long with an empty lane beside it. Congratulations, you fuck up traffic flow and think you're being a hero." Spot on. Merge 'one for one' zipper style at the merge point rather than ensure half a stretch of perfectly good road can't be used. Why settle for a 500 metre traffic queue when you can make it at least 1500 metres long. "There was I and millions of others .... getting it wrong" Stop blocking the effing road that has been laid out that way for a reason. Gbat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The dickhead road captains who try to block merging lanes. They are simply too thick to understand using both lanes up to the merge point is how they are designed to work and not "cheating". Wow. You're a hero ! And here was I and millions of others, thinking those that ignore the signs to join the single lane were just que jumping. Do you also use the hard shoulder when you feel the need ? I see plenty of those. Rules Don't apply to a special few. Are you special? Nice of you to hold your hand up and admit you don't understand the concept of lane merging. Are you one of those road captains who know better that the roadwork planners? Two lanes 800 yards long leading up to the merge point? Not for Captain Dickhead! You want a single lane 1600 yards long with an empty lane beside it. Congratulations, you fuck up traffic flow and think you're being a hero. Fuck the queue jumpers I think people should use both lanes until it's finally blocked off. It reduces traffic jams." I agree. It’s a stupid English thing to leave loads of lanes free and cause congestion because a hundred miles a there’s sine litter or something, just use the road like someone with an actual brain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck the queue jumpers" Stop making queues where no queue should be!!!! Gbat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The dickhead road captains who try to block merging lanes. They are simply too thick to understand using both lanes up to the merge point is how they are designed to work and not "cheating". Wow. You're a hero ! And here was I and millions of others, thinking those that ignore the signs to join the single lane were just que jumping. Do you also use the hard shoulder when you feel the need ? I see plenty of those. Rules Don't apply to a special few. Are you special? Nice of you to hold your hand up and admit you don't understand the concept of lane merging. Are you one of those road captains who know better that the roadwork planners? Two lanes 800 yards long leading up to the merge point? Not for Captain Dickhead! You want a single lane 1600 yards long with an empty lane beside it. Congratulations, you fuck up traffic flow and think you're being a hero." The RAC recommend the above approach: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/zip-merging/ You should use all the lanes and then merge at the end. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RAC recommend the above approach: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/zip-merging/ You should use all the lanes and then merge at the end." If only more people practiced it.
Though to tack on my tuppence worth: people riding the arse of the car in front then constantly on the brakes. FFS just ease off the accelerator and create a gap | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The dickhead road captains who try to block merging lanes. They are simply too thick to understand using both lanes up to the merge point is how they are designed to work and not "cheating". Wow. You're a hero ! And here was I and millions of others, thinking those that ignore the signs to join the single lane were just que jumping. Do you also use the hard shoulder when you feel the need ? I see plenty of those. Rules Don't apply to a special few. Are you special? Nice of you to hold your hand up and admit you don't understand the concept of lane merging. Are you one of those road captains who know better that the roadwork planners? Two lanes 800 yards long leading up to the merge point? Not for Captain Dickhead! You want a single lane 1600 yards long with an empty lane beside it. Congratulations, you fuck up traffic flow and think you're being a hero." You didn't admit to using the hard shoulder did you? Come on. Be honest for a change. After all. Its sooooo temptingly empty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What raises your blood pressure when driving. Mine is - Not using your lights. You are letting someone go but sit there. Flash your lights so people know you are letting them go! This leads onto indicators. It's a simple flick. "So you're annoyed that people aren't breaking the Highway Code OP?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RAC recommend the above approach: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/zip-merging/ You should use all the lanes and then merge at the end. If only more people practiced it.
Though to tack on my tuppence worth: people riding the arse of the car in front then constantly on the brakes. FFS just ease off the accelerator and create a gap"Are you allowed to post these links? Just asking! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RAC recommend the above approach: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/zip-merging/ You should use all the lanes and then merge at the end. If only more people practiced it.
Though to tack on my tuppence worth: people riding the arse of the car in front then constantly on the brakes. FFS just ease off the accelerator and create a gap
Are you allowed to post these links?
Just asking!"If it aids a discussion on a forum and it is from a reputable source then I have never had an issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who do 40 on a 30, and then stay at 40 in a 60." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who do 40 on a 30, and then stay at 40 in a 60." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The RAC recommend the above approach: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/zip-merging/ You should use all the lanes and then merge at the end. If only more people practiced it.
Though to tack on my tuppence worth: people riding the arse of the car in front then constantly on the brakes. FFS just ease off the accelerator and create a gap
Are you allowed to post these links?
Just asking!
If it aids a discussion on a forum and it is from a reputable source then I have never had an issue."I posted a link that was very relevant to a discussion the others day. Received a 24hr ban. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People thinking daytime running lights are ok in fog for the love of God put on your lights " Which brings us to people that put on fog lights when there's the slightest hint of rain. They are called FOG lights for a fuckin reason. Bellends | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People thinking daytime running lights are ok in fog for the love of God put on your lights " People who think fog lights should be on all the time.... Middle lane drivers People who drive too close or get in-between me and the car in front (especially when I have cruise control on) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Middle lane hoggers on the motorway. People driving 10mph+ below the speed limit Not indicating around roundabouts. BTW its a max speed limit , not a minimum. 70 mph is in perfect conditions , not in fog or driving rain. And middle lane huggers tend to be trucks .ore than cars. They take 5 minutes to get past another doing 1 mile mph less." Guess you don't drive on the M3 or M25 often then... middle lane drivers generally middle aged women and older men doing no more than 60mph when the inside lane is entirely empty! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The dickhead road captains who try to block merging lanes. They are simply too thick to understand using both lanes up to the merge point is how they are designed to work and not "cheating". Wow. You're a hero ! And here was I and millions of others, thinking those that ignore the signs to join the single lane were just que jumping. Do you also use the hard shoulder when you feel the need ? I see plenty of those. Rules Don't apply to a special few. Are you special? Nice of you to hold your hand up and admit you don't understand the concept of lane merging. Are you one of those road captains who know better that the roadwork planners? Two lanes 800 yards long leading up to the merge point? Not for Captain Dickhead! You want a single lane 1600 yards long with an empty lane beside it. Congratulations, you fuck up traffic flow and think you're being a hero. The RAC recommend the above approach: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/zip-merging/ You should use all the lanes and then merge at the end." Merge in turn. It isn’t difficult. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
