Give him a medal
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Speeding - a few questions
Next: Smartcom 12s relay?
From: Adrian on 18 Aug 2006 08:28 davek (news(a)smutchin.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : >> Not really. Chances are he wasn't breaking the law. > Regardless of the OP's offences, is tailgating and flashing not > "inconsiderate driving"? I don't believe anybody's claimed it isn't.
From: Paul {Hamilton Rooney} on 18 Aug 2006 08:31 On 18 Aug 2006 12:27:25 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Paul {Hamilton Rooney} (craig(a)oil.com) gurgled happily, sounding much >like they were saying : > >> I have no time for snobs, prudes, centre-lane wankers, vegetarians, >> Greens, protestants, people with fuzzy beards, sandal-wearers, >> cyclists or ramblers. > >Oi. Some of my best friends have fuzzy beards. If they're bikers they're exempt. Otherwise - no excuse! -- Paul Rooney "Rooney is one of these vandals and has done his utmost to help trash dl and the other groups which he regularly crossposts to. He's created a false FAQ and charter" (Chris Lawrence in uk.rec.walking) "Also long time d.l. reader but never feel robust enough to post much, especially since Rooney wrecked the group." (Rachel Sullivan in uk.rec.walking) "Low life scum doesn't even begin to describe you. You are the most loathsome individual ever to cross the threshold of d.l." (JK in demon.local)
From: Christian McArdle on 18 Aug 2006 09:05 > Nor is the driver in front obliged to modify their driving just because > some twunt in a BMW thinks they own the road. Indeed, they should drive in the left lane, even if there isn't some twunt in a BMW who thinks they own the road. No modification of behaviour is required. Christian.
From: Paul {Hamilton Rooney} on 18 Aug 2006 09:27 On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:22:27 +0100, "Ivor Jones" <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote: >I don't believe any group charter advocates swearing as acceptable >behaviour, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. You are wrong. demon.local specifically requires ROBUST behaviour, namely swearing and abuse. See the FAQ. -- Paul Rooney "Rooney is one of these vandals and has done his utmost to help trash dl and the other groups which he regularly crossposts to. He's created a false FAQ and charter" (Chris Lawrence in uk.rec.walking) "Also long time d.l. reader but never feel robust enough to post much, especially since Rooney wrecked the group." (Rachel Sullivan in uk.rec.walking) "Low life scum doesn't even begin to describe you. You are the most loathsome individual ever to cross the threshold of d.l." (JK in demon.local)
From: manatbandq on 18 Aug 2006 09:29
Adrian wrote: > (manatbandq(a)hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying : > > >> >>unless overtaking. > > >> > ISTR that such a manoeuvre was being undertaken at the time. > > >> It was claimed, yet the bloke towing a trailer tent STILL managed to > >> pass on the left...? > > > Read what was actually written. > > > > DieSea was overtaking slow moving traffic. Some fuckwit tried to > > overtake on the inside and managed to do so only by forcing DieSea to > > move into the outside lane (presumably to avoid an accident). > > I have read what was actually written, and that isn't it. <sigh> > > What WAS actually written was :- > > Message-ID: <44e204d0$0$1382$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk> > # The situation was that a car towing a tatty old camping trailer was > # tailgating me in the middle lane of a motorway , flashing his lights > # for me to get out of the way > # > # I was solo and doing a BIT more than 70 > # > # He eventfully came up on the inside and pushed me out into the outside > # lane > > Then, in a later post :- > > Message-ID: <44e21f3d$0$1876$db0fefd9(a)news.zen.co.uk> > > # He was in the same lane to start off with > # > # Then he tied to over take me on the inside lane > # > # nuff said > > Finally, we get a brief mention of overtaking, thrown in with a red > herring about gaps between vehicles and an attempt to justify the > vigiliantism :- > > Message-ID: <44e21ea9$0$1861$db0fefd9(a)news.zen.co.uk> > > # No Iain I was overtaking , but I travel with sufficient space between > # me and the vehicle in front So, he was overtaking "I was overtaking" , someone came up the inside "he tried to overtake me on the inside lane", he had to pull into the outside lane "pushed me into the outside lane". Which is exactly what I said he said. > # > # There was no way he should have been travelling at 70 MPH with an un- > # braked trailer A statement of fact. just shows what a fuckwit he was. > > Alex immediately queried that (as did many others) :- > > Message-ID: <65d4e2thv1gmimlngedoof5hcpflm2f0rb(a)4ax.com> > > # So how was he able to pull alongside you in the inside lane - *after* > # tailgating you and flashing lights at you? What has tha fact of tailgating and flashin got to do with ability to pull over? If you aree overtaking a stream of slow moving traffic it's often safer to stay in the middle lane until it's *safe* to pull in than to weave in and out. We don't know how many vehicles DieSea was overtaking nor how close they were. > At which point DieSea decided to huff off and hasn't been seen in this > thread since. > > Nowhere has it been claimed that he had to chop across to avoid hitting > the vehicle DieSea was allegedly overtaking, as you clearly imply. No I didn't. It's implicit in DieSea posting "pushed me into the outside lane". DieSea had to avoid the vehicle he was being overtaken by on the inside, not the vehicle he (DieSea) was overtaking. > > The claim of a vehicle being overtaken is obviously an attempt to > justify his lane indiscipline. He's quite probably one of the large > number of drivers who thinks that having a closing speed of 5-10mph on a > vehicle that's several hundred yards away is perfect justification to > not change lanes. After all, he's doing the speed limit, so anybody > travelling any faster Must Be Breaking The Law. If that's the case then fair enough but we have no evidence of that. > > Nobody's suggesting that the pillock with the trailer tent was in the > right - merely that DieSea very heavily contributed to the situation. He > should have defused the situation by either dipping into the gap between > vehicles to his left And possibly leaving himself dangerously close to the vehicle in front? We don't know how close enough to that vehicle he was. We know he was close enough that the fuckwit couldn't move far enough ahead to pull out without causing DieSea to make an evasive manouvre. > or accelerating to complete the passing manouvre > more quickly and get out of a position of potential danger. Now your advocating he break the speed limit. > On seeing the other vehicle start to pass him on the left, he could have > easily decelerated to remove himself from being next to an obvious > pillock, especially if that (avert your eyes, Ivor) fuckwit was rapidly > approaching a vehicle in L1. > > By merely obliviously bimbling along, he created a situation whereby a > potential impact was far more likely. Who created the situation? He may have been able to do something to get out of the situation, but he certainly didn't create it. |