Got called a w*nker today!

TitanTim said:
:rofl:

Actually I don't live far from Carol so I might pop in and give her a driving lesson on how to overtake :lol:

Tim.

Nothing you can teach me I don't already know Tim.

I could probably teach you a thing or two though :lol:
 
Carol M said:
Nothing you can teach me I don't already know Tim.

I could probably teach you a thing or two though :lol:
finbarr.jpg
 
I've seen some pretty close shaves by people overtaking close to a junction (and for the record I'm not saying you were Carol x) and some idiot pulling out, in my mind it is the responsibility of those joining the road to make sure it is clear before doing so, which means looking both ways. I wonder how the insurance companies see it
 
sars said:
I wonder how the insurance companies see it

Hence me fitting the camera as they will then see it how it was, rather than white van man stating that they waited and you pulled out for the overtake when they were already on the road ....
 
The insurance company would probably quote rule 167 of The Highway Code

ie. DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
•approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road.
 
Just been reading that piston heads link, thanks PVR, oh my there really is a lot of sanctimonious arseholes on there.

.....drive like everyone else is an idiot, take the risks that are independent of other road users and when overtaking do it as quickly as possible
 
I'm definitely going to get a camera fitted as you're right, of course.
I'm not a reckless overtaker. In fact I think I'm a bit chicken. I'll only go if I'm 100% sure it's safe and I can get round. I know you can never be 100% but as near as I can be.
I agree with Sars. If you are joining a road you should be responsible and check both ways.
 
Jasey said:
Carol M said:
I assume everyone else on the road is an idiot and that usually pays off!
Always assume everyone else is trying to KILL you :thumbsup:

Especially by a w***er in a Porsche :wink: just joking..

Im guessing it was more jealousy than anything else. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
 
Dav the wheel nut said:
The insurance company would probably quote rule 167 of The Highway Code

ie. DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
•approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road.

the difference is, for Carol, it is open to interpretation how near is near and so DO NOT is advisory

the van driver pulling out without looking left is a MUST NOT and is a legal requirement and prosecutable

Rule 172 "The approach to a junction may have a 'Give Way' sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road."

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1), 16(1) & 25
 
Yes Sars, the junction has a give way sign with two broken lines across the junction. The Highway Code says about that, 'you must give way to traffic on the main road'. Just silly imo to not check left before pulling out.
That's not saying I've never done it myself and if I did and someone was overtaking I would consider myself partly to blame.
 
At the end of the day the van driver might not have looked both ways but it was Carol who was overtaking and on the van drivers side of the road.
 
Lynchy said:
At the end of the day the van driver might not have looked both ways but it was Carol who was overtaking and on the van drivers side of the road.
At the end of the day All white van drivers are w*nkers and only a very small minority of z4 drivers are :D
 
Lynchy said:
At the end of the day the van driver might not have looked both ways but it was Carol who was overtaking and on the van drivers side of the road.

This.

Both as bad as eachother imo. There would've been an equal amount of wankerness going on.
 
Common sense would say that if there was a collision the majority of the blame would be placed on the overtaking driver, although this is purely my opinion :D
 
Back
Top Bottom