WAMT....what annoyed me today!

I just seem to get the people who start to overtake and run out of steam as they get alongside me, when I'm catching up with a vehicle in front of me and need to overtake, but now can't move out. It happens all too often.
Yep that's another, they come steaming up the outside, you are approaching a slow moving truck (etc)
So you back off slightly, knowing full well they will be long gone before you get the the slow mover,
rather than pull out on them (although that's another bad habit that some seem to have got into, pulling into a gap that isn't there)
They get along side you and for some inexplicable reason slow down :(
 
, but all she had to say was that they had no appointments for that afternoon and offered the chance to book for another day without going through all the palaver. :rolleyes:

Sounds reasonable to me.
 
Car drivers that slow down when overtaking trucks ... if you haven't got the confidence to maintain speed to overtake and not create a queue behind you, get the f*** off the road!
 
Never going to happen.
The DSA can't even keep up with the current demand for new driver practical tests.
Charge more for the tests, and hire more examiners. This should be fully self funded. problem solved.
 
As an alternative to having a retest every 4 years I think they should just ban all vehicles from overtaking unless they have more than 297Hp as standard and are below 3 tonne in weight.

Simple and effective.
There is no point in having an arbitrary law that would be impossible to police, and it would penalise people who choose fuel efficient cars (ie £0 tax)
 
Car drivers who where hats. The young in their baseball caps, the old in their trilbies - they are all s***e drivers !
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Aussies won the CWC, it is peeing down and that bloody quad bike is doing my head in.....3-1 today.
 
WAMT? Sweeping generalisations like the one below! I often wear a hat when driving, usually because I CBA to take it off for a few minutes between stops or because we've got the roof down in Mrs Nod's car (have to keep the solar panel covered to stop it going red and flaky!) And people's ignorance of the difference between "where", "wear", "we're" and other homophones... (BTW, I'm neither old nor young and while I'm not a perfect driver, I don't think I'm s***e!)

Oh, kids in pubs, particularly those who play up to their parents but behave relatively well while on their own.

Car drivers who where hats. The young in their baseball caps, the old in their trilbies - they are all s***e drivers !
 
Aussies won the CWC, it is peeing down and that bloody quad bike is doing my head in.....3-1 today.

One is bad enough.....you're having a BAD day :(
 
Oh, kids in pubs, particularly those who play up to their parents but behave relatively well while on their own.

I've no problem with the kids per se....more the parents.
 
There is no point in having an arbitrary law that would be impossible to police, and it would penalise people who choose fuel efficient cars (ie £0 tax)
It is not impossible to police. Instant driving license records are kept. Instant fine can be issued if it wasn't updated nor declared unused. Insurance can be invalidated automatically. Road tax can be removed automatically for the vehicle that is registered to the individual concerned. Markers can be enabled automatically for every anpr system.

It is very easy to automatically police.

Why would it penalise fuel efficient car owners? I don't understand that. Firstly the tax level is not set by fuel efficiency so that is nonsense. And secondly just because a vehicle has got the power that doesn't mean it can't be fuel efficient. I don't get the objection.
 
Last edited:
It is not impossible to police. Instant driving license records are kept. Instant fine can be issued if it wasn't updated nor declared unused. Insurance can be invalidated automatically. Road tax can be removed automatically for the vehicle that is registered to the individual concerned. Markers can be enabled automatically for every anpr system.

It is very easy to automatically police.

Why would it penalise fuel efficient car owners? I don't understand that. Firstly the tax level is not set by fuel efficiency so that is nonsense. And secondly just because a vehicle has got the power that doesn't mean it can't be fuel efficient. I don't get the objection.

The problem I see is that there are muppets who drive high BHP cars but still drive like retards.
Why should I, who drives a car less powerful, not be able to overtake a b*****d in a powerful car who choses to stay slow?
In addition, what about motorcycles.
For instance a Triumph RS Sprint with 120 BHP 0 - 60 in 3 seconds and on to 170MPH.......He's got to follow behind a car just because of the "less powerful engine"?
 
They're to protect them from scratches in day to day use and pocket carriage. ..not droppage :LOL:

Nope. They're supposed to sacrifice themselves to save the screen, just like UV 'protection' filters on a lens...;)

This one doesn't seem to have realised that.
 
The problem I see is that there are muppets who drive high BHP cars but still drive like retards.
Why should I, who drives a car less powerful, not be able to overtake a b*****d in a powerful car who choses to stay slow?
In addition, what about motorcycles.
For instance a Triumph RS Sprint with 120 BHP 0 - 60 in 3 seconds and on to 170MPH.......He's got to follow behind a car just because of the "less powerful engine"?
Ok fair points well made. So let's do it on a Bhp/weight ratio, AND a black box recording of average speed linked to cameras. That way we can penalise those bastards who are in a powerful car and go too slow. Naturally linked to a correction for oil temperature and other telemetry as you wouldn't want to be penalised for mechanical sympathy :)
 
Sounds like you are too close behind as you should safely at all times be able to come to a complete halt within the gap between you and the car in front.
Of course I'm far enough behind but I still need to brake to maintain that gap especially when I'm behind an unpredictable idiot who will brake mid bend for no reason other than a car dared to approach on the opposite side of the road. Braking on a bend is inadvisable, it unsettles the suspension and the possibility of losing control. Even just lifting off midbend in a fwd car can create lift off oversteer meaning the car can end up sideways.
 
Ok fair points well made. So let's do it on a Bhp/weight ratio, AND a black box recording of average speed linked to cameras. That way we can penalise those bastards who are in a powerful car and go too slow. Naturally linked to a correction for oil temperature and other telemetry as you wouldn't want to be penalised for mechanical sympathy :)

Using the same theory, can we penalise those who routinely break the speed limit in the penis extension cars? ;)
 
There is no point in having an arbitrary law that would be impossible to police, and it would penalise people who choose fuel efficient cars (ie £0 tax)
£0 tax doesn't necessarily mean fuel efficient.
1968_ford_mustang_fastback-pic-37533.jpeg

You won't need to pay any tax on this car neither.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Using the same theory, can we penalise those who routinely break the speed limit in the penis extension cars? ;)
Good point let's include deluded Mondeo 2.0 drivers and cars on new registrations (they both definitely are lane joggers) to that list as well. :)
 
Good point let's include deluded Mondeo 2.0 drivers and cars on new registrations (they both definitely are lane joggers) to that list as well. :)

OK....I'm starting a spreadsheet now :)
 
You sure about that?...Seems very odd, every car/wagon I have ever driven nas a cancel function around the steering wheel.



The problem is that the car behind you,generally too close and on CC,sees the brake light and taps his,this goes on down the lane and a concertina effect happens. The lane slows for no reason other than people dabbing their brakes to knock cc off.

I am very sure about that. Most / all manual VWs will be that way. There is only 1 two position switch on turn indicator lever: set / reduce speed and increase speed. So that leaves one way to cancel... However there is no need to cancel unless I actually intend to slow down soon such as before sharp bend (unlike the examples you mentioned) so there is no big trouble there.
 
I am very sure about that. Most / all manual VWs will be that way. There is only 1 two position switch on turn indicator lever: set / reduce speed and increase speed. So that leaves one way to cancel... However there is no need to cancel unless I actually intend to slow down soon such as before sharp bend (unlike the examples you mentioned) so there is no big trouble there.
Well I've got a VW golf and Audi A4 and neither work like that. Both have a factory fit system. Are you sure it is factory fit and not some aftermarket system?

And it isn't on a lever, it is on the steering wheel. How old is the vehicle you are talking about?
 
Well I've got a VW golf and Audi A4 and neither work like that. Both have a factory fit system. Are you sure it is factory fit and not some aftermarket system?

And it isn't on a lever, it is on the steering wheel. How old is the vehicle you are talking about?

factory fitted, 9 years. Dad's octavia (6 y) is 100% identical.
 
I am very sure about that. Most / all manual VWs will be that way. There is only 1 two position switch on turn indicator lever: set / reduce speed and increase speed. So that leaves one way to cancel... However there is no need to cancel unless I actually intend to slow down soon such as before sharp bend (unlike the examples you mentioned) so there is no big trouble there.
All the pictures and videos, I've found, of VW cruise control stalks looks similar to this.

That toggle on the top cancels or switches off the cruise control as well as switches it on. I'd have thought such a set up on all crusie control switches would have to have this ability purely for safety as a back up in the event that the operation of the brake or clutch pedal didn't switch the cruise control off.
 
WAMT? Sweeping generalisations like the one below! I often wear a hat when driving, usually because I CBA to take it off for a few minutes between stops or because we've got the roof down in Mrs Nod's car (have to keep the solar panel covered to stop it going red and flaky!) And people's ignorance of the difference between "where", "wear", "we're" and other homophones... (BTW, I'm neither old nor young and while I'm not a perfect driver, I don't think I'm s***e!)

Oh, kids in pubs, particularly those who play up to their parents but behave relatively well while on their own.

Not a sweeping statement but empirical evidence based on many years observation !

Wear and where - smartphone auto spell typo. Now that really is annoying !
 
......

Why would it penalise fuel efficient car owners? I don't understand that. Firstly the tax level is not set by fuel efficiency so that is nonsense........

Surely CO2 per km is proportional to fuel used per km? A car generating under 100mg CO2 per km will surely use less fuel per given distance than a car generating over 100mg CO2 per km?
 
Surely CO2 per km is proportional to fuel used per km? A car generating under 100mg CO2 per km will surely use less fuel per given distance than a car generating over 100mg CO2 per km?
You can have two cars A and B, both with the same engine. Both will do the same mpg. Car A has stop/start, lowering it's CO2 output and possibly it's tax liability whilst car B doesn't have stop/start, hence a higher CO2 output so has to pay more tax. The offset of engines becoming more efficient means an increase NOX levels, which manufacturers are constantly having to try to improve upon.
 
Surely CO2 per km is proportional to fuel used per km? A car generating under 100mg CO2 per km will surely use less fuel per given distance than a car generating over 100mg CO2 per km?
Not necessarily. All it does is generate less CO2 hence the tax you pay is linked to CO2 emissions. Take the Prius, very low CO2 emissions yet there are plenty of cars more economical with fuel.
 
Not necessarily. All it does is generate less CO2 hence the tax you pay is linked to CO2 emissions. Take the Prius, very low CO2 emissions yet there are plenty of cars more economical with fuel.

Don't want to go too off topic but I don't see the point of a Prius surely a small petrol or diesel car is at least as fuel efficient but costs half as much to buy
 
Don't want to go too off topic but I don't see the point of a Prius surely a small petrol or diesel car is at least as fuel efficient but costs half as much to buy
Which is my point if you only look at it from that perspective.

However having owned one, and maxed out on spec, I can comfortably say that you can't. Not when you compare like for like. The Prius interior space is like a Mondeo or Passat. Try and get one of those in automatic guise and with the same emission rating is impossible. Well it was at the time.
 
The cyclist this morning who decided that it was OK to be in the left hand lane, which was marked for traffic going straight on or turning left, but then turned right at the junction and shoot across in the front of the car.

This is not a go at cyclists - I'm a cyclist too, but some do cyclists in general no favours at all.

Dave
 
Having to had to file a CEOP report. There are some sick bastards about. Parents please do check your children's devices.
 
The cyclist this morning who decided that it was OK to be in the left hand lane, which was marked for traffic going straight on or turning left, but then turned right at the junction and shoot across in the front of the car.

This is not a go at cyclists - I'm a cyclist too, but some do cyclists in general no favours at all.

Dave
could have just been a case of not knowing the road layout rather than deliberate - i have sometimes been caught out like this when in an unfamiliar city - did he signal?
 
Common sense says you don't turn right from the left hand lane unless traffic signal/road markings say other wise. If you can't understand signs and road markings then you shouldn't be there in the first place.
 
WAMT....Broken tripod :crying:
 
Common sense says you don't turn right from the left hand lane unless traffic signal/road markings say other wise. If you can't understand signs and road markings then you shouldn't be there in the first place.
lets say you know you have a right turn and know the street name but street name signs are sometimes quite small - do you stay in the right hand lane for many blocks getting in the way of faster traffic or do you get into the right hand lane once you get to your street that you need to turn right into?
 
WAMT: The amount of people in my local shopping center who seemed unable to watch where they were walking
 
lets say you know you have a right turn and know the street name but street name signs are sometimes quite small - do you stay in the right hand lane for many blocks getting in the way of faster traffic or do you get into the right hand lane once you get to your street that you need to turn right into?

You don't turn right across the traffic from the left hand lane end of. If the road is clear then change lanes or keep going until safe to turn around and come back.
 
You don't turn right across the traffic from the left hand lane end of
Funny, I thought that had now been written in to the highway code, the amount of people I've seen do that, recently and mostly cars too!
:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top