Despite increased incidence cash for crash is rare as are situations where dash cams prove fault in an accident which is otherwise being contested. I don’t like the concept and I suspect will lead to even less tolerance on our roads. I do overtake and regularly get idiots closing the gap, sadly the mind set of most people who seem to be advocates of dash cams is that assertive driving isn’t something they like and I can see them deluging the police with evidence of being cut up (even if engineered by them). Also likely to make the police even more lazy than they currently are etc, etc. Can’t we just live and let live a bit I don’t really mind the idea of dash cam evidence when an accident has occurred. It’s the unprompted submission of perceived ‘wrongdoing’ which worries me.
|
I'd just parked up in a motorway service area. I could see the LWB van wasn't going to make it round my car and had my hand on the horn - crunch.
What was that about he asked?
You hit me I replied.
Didn't touch you he said.
I guess you didn't notice the dashcam, problem sorted.
|
|
.... assertive driving .....
I wonder what that is, exactly. How does it work on a congested road when several drivers are asserting vigorously?
|
I also wonder what ‘assertive driving’ means. For a cyclist it is a positive trait, whereby they assert their right to use the road, rather than cycling so close to the kerb that they hit drains, and position themselves at junctions etc for safety. Not so sure about cars though.
|
I also wonder what ‘assertive driving’ means. For a cyclist it is a positive trait, whereby they assert their right to use the road, rather than cycling so close to the kerb that they hit drains,.
Don't let's get into the habits of cyclists here - they may have more 'right' to use the road than powered vehicles, but only foolish ones would risk a lot of wrath by occupying the centre line unnecessarily in the way motorbikes will, allegedly in the interests of safety.
|
|
I also wonder what ‘assertive driving’ means. For a cyclist it is a positive trait, whereby they assert their right to use the road, rather than cycling so close to the kerb that they hit drains, and position themselves at junctions etc for safety. Not so sure about cars though.
Much the same I think. It is part of defensive driving to me.
Don't be submissive or hesitant; but it isn't about being pushy. Be decisive, positive, know what you are doing. If a light goes to amber, and you have room to stop comfortably, do it - don't fanny about hoping to squeeze through and then slam the brakes on when red appears. On the other hand, if it turns amber when you are almost on top of it, be ready - that's what lights do - carry on; being over cautious and braking hard will catch out the driver behind who probably accelerated when he saw the lights changing. If you brake hard on amber, or these days even a red, you are likely to be rammed up the chuff, so don't put yourself in that position.
Similarly with roundabouts. Look twice, and go when it's clear. Setting off and then taking the second look will catch out a following driver if you have to change your mind.
Pick your lane and stay in it. Signal in good time, but not confusingly early. Cancel signals when they are a hindrance to others - e.g. if you have signalled to turn right at a roundabout, when you pass the exit before yours then indicate left.
Don't signal 'aspirationally' to move out or change lane except in heavy slow moving traffic when you need someone to make a space - otherwise, wait for a gap, then signal, three flashes and go. I detest people who put the indicator on and then look in the mirror.
Occupy the lane you are in, it's yours, and keep out of everybody else's. When turning, think about where you want to put the car and how - don't swing out or slow to a crawl unnecessarily. At busy, complicated junctions work out exacly where you are aiming and double check the signals while waiting so you don't react to the wrong green light or miss a filter.
Drive to the speed limits if it is safe to do so. If you want to dawdle, make it your business to assist those who want to knock on - even the ones who are speeding, you are better off with them in front of you, let them past on your terms so they don't subsequently overtake dangerously - let them win. Cooperate actively - on multi-lane roads, change lanes slightly early if it avoids a looming last second conflict either with a vehicle approaching from behind or one ahead.
Create and preserve space. Live by the 2 second rule regardless of the twit behind. If you have a tailgater, until you can get rid of them just increase the space in front of you. Don't dawdle alongside other vehicles, especially large ones. If you overtake, get it done.
Stay behind lorries, especially artics, if you are in the adjacent lane at roundabouts or junctions - you will inevitably fall into a blind spot at some point, so stay where they can't hurt you or get where they can see you. They will appreciate it and you will stay safe.
Manage your speed by looking well ahead and having that space- some people just can't do this, their brake lights flash every few seconds. I am disappointed if I use the brakes on a motorway. Be the one who's in control.
That's my answer, off the top of my head. Somebody tell me if I've missed the point.
|
Spot on and very well explained.
|
|
I also wonder what ‘assertive driving’ means. For a cyclist it is a positive trait, whereby they assert their right to use the road, rather than cycling so close to the kerb that they hit drains, and position themselves at junctions etc for safety. Not so sure about cars though.
Much the same I think. It is part of defensive driving to me.
What I really meant was what did the other poster mean by 'assertive driving' which is a rather ambiguous term and not one I've heard used by driving organisations. He could have meant defensive driving, or the sort of driving I sometimes experience from 'professional drivers' in their Deutsche Uber Barges, who bully anyone who is perceived to slow their progress, and sweep across traffic straight from lane 3 and onto a motorway exit road. Their driving is assertive, but unsafe.
|
|
|
|
|
Despite increased incidence cash for crash is rare as are situations where dash cams prove fault in an accident which is otherwise being contested. I don’t like the concept and I suspect will lead to even less tolerance on our roads. I do overtake and regularly get idiots closing the gap, sadly the mind set of most people who seem to be advocates of dash cams is that assertive driving isn’t something they like and I can see them deluging the police with evidence of being cut up (even if engineered by them). Also likely to make the police even more lazy than they currently are etc, etc. Can’t we just live and let live a bit I don’t really mind the idea of dash cam evidence when an accident has occurred. It’s the unprompted submission of perceived ‘wrongdoing’ which worries me.
Very well said. 100% agreed.
|
"... the car in front with the dash cam driving at 40mph in a 60mph zone holding up traffic therefore vehicles behind have to overtake sometimes then immediately afterwards have to hit the brakes making making them out to be the idiot when it was actually the slow driver who forced them to make the manoeuvre in the first place."
They are the idiot, because: (a) no-one is "forced" to overtake; (b) overtaking with a speed difference of 20 mph means you do not "have to hit the brakes" afterwards.
Despite your apparent irritation in another thread that someone mentioned German cars, you do so yourself ("targeting drivers of German saloon cars"), suggesting you have some paranoia about it.
As for this comment: "Nobody should have any right to post footage online of a vehicle with its registration number visible wether the vehicle was involved in any wrong doing or not", it really does suggest you have a problem.
|
"....wether the vehicle was involved in any wrong doing or not."
He does indeed have a problem. A wether is a castrated sheep, and if one of those runs out into the road a dashcam may not be much help....although you could argue that some of the damage has already been done. :)
|
Because of the wildly differing laws across Europe with respect to dash cams, I would expect to see a disable option available for built in dash cams. A date and time of disable would be useful as well in case a keen traffic cop suggested you had just disabled it.
As far as dashcam usage is concerned, I just ignore it and let it get on with its daily job. Occasionally I will hit the save button if I see something peculiar happening, you never know. Nothing is uploaded to anywhere, any relevant would be handed to the police only.
Edited by davecooper on 14/08/2018 at 14:21
|
Because of the wildly differing laws across Europe with respect to dash cams, I would expect to see a disable option available for built in dash cams. A date and time of disable would be useful as well in case a keen traffic cop suggested you had just disabled it. As far as dashcam usage is concerned, I just ignore it and let it get on with its daily job. Occasionally I will hit the save button if I see something peculiar happening, you never know. Nothing is uploaded to anywhere, any relevant would be handed to the police only.
In Austria you can't even own a dashcam - even if not fitted or activated - very very heavy fine!
|
|
|
"....wether the vehicle was involved in any wrong doing or not."
He does indeed have a problem. A wether is a castrated sheep, and if one of those runs out into the road a dashcam may not be much help....although you could argue that some of the damage has already been done. :)
Absolutely hilarious. You're wasted on here and should've been a comedian.
|
"You're wasted on here..."
Careful. Avant is a moderator here.
|
|
|
|
"... the car in front with the dash cam driving at 40mph in a 60mph zone holding up traffic therefore vehicles behind have to overtake sometimes then immediately afterwards have to hit the brakes making making them out to be the idiot when it was actually the slow driver who forced them to make the manoeuvre in the first place."
They are the idiot, because: (a) no-one is "forced" to overtake; (b) overtaking with a speed difference of 20 mph means you do not "have to hit the brakes" afterwards.
Despite your apparent irritation in another thread that someone mentioned German cars, you do so yourself ("targeting drivers of German saloon cars"), suggesting you have some paranoia about it.
As for this comment: "Nobody should have any right to post footage online of a vehicle with its registration number visible wether the vehicle was involved in any wrong doing or not", it really does suggest you have a problem.
What if another vehicle pulls out of a side road after you have overtaken someone? Just crash into them?
I've been watching this dash cam footage on social media and the people who upload it do mainly target drivers of German saloon cars (and yes I do own one.) The comments on these video uploads are all derogatory towards the brand of the car more than the actual driver.
Yes I do have a problem with videos posted on social media with a vehicle and its registration number visible because it is a great help to criminal car cloners.
|
- "What if another vehicle pulls out of a side road after you have overtaken someone? Just crash into them?"
Can't see why a car pulling out after you have overtaken someone is any different from a car pulling out in any other circumstances.
- "Yes I do have a problem with videos posted on social media with a vehicle and its registration number visible because it is a great help to criminal car cloners."
Maybe I'm missing something again, but I can't see why a car shown on dashcam footage on the internet helps car cloners any more than standing at the side of a busy road would, or walking round any busy car park.
I'm assuming these comments are merely aimed at deflecting attention from the other, more important ones, i.e. that no-one HAS to overtake and no-one needs to brake immediately afterwards.
Edited by FP on 15/08/2018 at 11:07
|
<< I'm assuming these comments are merely aimed at deflecting attention from the other, more important ones, i.e. that no-one HAS to overtake and no-one needs to brake immediately afterwards. >>
Agreed with the first part. However there are some who, having overtaken, most definitely have to brake immediately to get into the limited space available before hitting oncoming traffic ?
|
"...here are some who, having overtaken, most definitely have to brake immediately to get into the limited space available before hitting oncoming traffic"
Sounds like poor driving, then - there wasn't enough space to overtake in the first place.
|
Sounds like poor driving, then
Seems to be a lot of it about now the school holidays are here, traffic may be a lot easier, but boy are there some idiots around, overtaking on bends in cars that were not made for acceleration to pass a car quickly
even cyclists are being overtaken too closely by drivers, I wonder if some have forgotten how to drive safely or just ignore the highway code.
even red light jumping has increased since the schools have been off.
you could make a film with a dashcam of the dangerous driving around
|
|
|
"... the car in front with the dash cam driving at 40mph in a 60mph zone holding up traffic therefore vehicles behind have to overtake sometimes then immediately afterwards have to hit the brakes making making them out to be the idiot when it was actually the slow driver who forced them to make the manoeuvre in the first place."
Theyarethe idiot, because: (a) no-one is "forced" to overtake; (b) overtaking with a speed difference of 20 mph means you do not "have to hit the brakes" afterwards.
The slow driver should really drive at the speed limit if safe to do so, however "forced them to make the manoeuvre in the first place" is a worrying phrase. The other drivers was not forced, they chose to make a potentially dangerous manouevre. There are too many drivers who blame others for their own mistakes. A dangerous overtake of a mimser is inexcusable no matter how annoying the mimser.
What if another vehicle pulls out of a side road after you have overtaken someone? Just crash into them?
You need to be more aware of the road ahead and potential hazards. When you intend to overtake, if there is a side road, ahead make a judgement as to what might happen, and how you would respond. If it's unsafe, don't overtake. A few weeks ago I decided to overtake even though there was a junction ahead, as I knew I could cancel the overtake. As I started the overtake, the driver in front indicated left, and a driver waiting at the junction pulled out, so I did cancel the manouevre in complete safety. There was plenty of distance between me and the junction, and I had accounted for the possibility of the driver at the junction pulling out. When the driver who pulled out drove past me, she flashed her lights and gave what I assume to be a 'well done' gesture. Had there been cars behind me, then I would not have started the overtake, as they could have tailgated me during the overtake, or closed the gap to the car in front i.e. removed the ability to cancel.
I've been watching this dash cam footage on social media and the people who upload it do mainly target drivers of German saloon cars (and yes I do own one.) The comments on these video uploads are all derogatory towards the brand of the car more than the actual driver.
I haven't noticed any such bias.
Yes I do have a problem with videos posted on social media with a vehicle and its registration number visible because it is a great help to criminal car cloners.
So pedestrians should be blindfolded lest they see your precious number plates?
|
|
|
|
|
Despite increased incidence cash for crash is rare as are situations where dash cams prove fault in an accident which is otherwise being contested. I don’t like the concept and I suspect will lead to even less tolerance on our roads. I do overtake and regularly get idiots closing the gap, sadly the mind set of most people who seem to be advocates of dash cams is that assertive driving isn’t something they like and I can see them deluging the police with evidence of being cut up (even if engineered by them). Also likely to make the police even more lazy than they currently are etc, etc. Can’t we just live and let live a bit I don’t really mind the idea of dash cam evidence when an accident has occurred. It’s the unprompted submission of perceived ‘wrongdoing’ which worries me.
Crash for cash is not so rare. In my 20 years driving, I'm pretty certain I was almost the victim of two crash for cash scams. In the first one I was waiting behind a car at traffic lights, the lights went green, he pulled out, then in the middle of the junction slammed on his brakes for no apparent reason. In the second case he pulled out from a side road, in front of me, then slammed on his brakes. When I stopped and tried to film the occupants faces, they both looked in the opposite direction for no obvious reason other than to avoid being seen by me. I keep my distance which was why I avoided a crash in both cases, many drivers would have ploughed into the back of the car in front. I've also witnessed a van do a high speed overtake of a car, then emergency brake due to an absence of brains, and the car ploughed into the back of the van, which then drove off.
Where is your evidence that "is rare as are situations where dash cams prove fault in an accident which is otherwise being contested".
As for the police being 'lazy', they are underfunded.
"It’s the unprompted submission of perceived ‘wrongdoing’ which worries me."
No idea what that means!
|
'"It’s the unprompted submission of perceived ‘wrongdoing’ which worries me."
No idea what that means!'
I think it means that this poster is worried by the possibility that someone will submit (to the police, or publicly on YouTube) footage of from a dashcam which might show his driving in an unfavourable light - even perhaps to the point of demonstrating him doing something unwise, dangerous or illegal. He doesn't want to be shown to be doing such things just because someone else thinks it's wrong.
Many people would say the footage would speak for itself.
|
'"It’s the unprompted submission of perceived ‘wrongdoing’ which worries me."
No idea what that means!'
I think it means that this poster is worried by the possibility that someone will submit (to the police, or publicly on YouTube) footage of from a dashcam which might show his driving in an unfavourable light - even perhaps to the point of demonstrating him doing something unwise, dangerous or illegal. He doesn't want to be shown to be doing such things just because someone else thinks it's wrong.
Many people would say the footage would speak for itself.
Ah, yes that does make sense. "It's the sending in of videos of my driving which others perceive as dangerous which worries me".
|
|
|
|
|