том
Posted a lot
"If in doubt, flat out!"
Posts: 2,707
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 10:21:30 GMT
|
nothing winds me up more than ppl undertaking!!!! slow stuff in the slow lane, slow car in the middle lane, slow car overtakin the middle lane slow car, slowly, so you're waitin in a que in the fast lane for him to pass, and its always a middleaged bloke in a sports car or 4x4 trys to gat passed on the inside... GRRRRRR
|
|
1988 V8 Rangey Bobtail :: 1968 Volvo Amazon 133 Ratrod :: 1977 Land Rover 88 :: 1985 Opel Monza GSE :: 1983 MKII Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 10:26:33 GMT
|
nothing winds me up more than ppl undertaking!!!! slow stuff in the slow lane, slow car in the middle lane, slow car overtakin the middle lane slow car, slowly, so you're waitin in a que in the fast lane for him to pass, and its always a middleaged bloke in a sports car or 4x4 trys to gat passed on the inside... GRRRRRR You see, all that comes down to the slow car in the middle lane again. I think there should be a minimum speed limit on motorways of about 60 - 65mph (excluding lorries) - anyone who can't drive a car safely at these speeds shouldn't be on motorways / dual carriageways full stop.
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 11, 2005 10:26:56 GMT by iRocco
I like long walks, especially when they're taken by people I don't like.
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 10:31:07 GMT
|
I'd just like to see police enforce a higher standard of driving full stop. pull people over for hogging the middle lane, swerving whether it's from phone, handsfree or eating a kebab. don't see a problem with trucks overtaking when one is blatantly quicker and it only takes a few minutes but some of the drivers just don't plan ahead and pull out to overtake when there's a big hill approaching - duh!
definately enforce a minimum speed of 60mph for all vehicles. If lorries can't do this (and lets face it, how many actually have a working 56mph restrictor in these days?) then stick them on the A-roads. Motorways should be a way of getting quickly from one place to another, not somewhere that everyone needs to use just because it's there.
|
|
Never trust a man Who names himself Trevor. Or one day you might find He's not a real drug dealer.
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 10:32:49 GMT
|
HoTWire - so how do you explain some people's inability to drive whilst talking on the phone then? it's not the one-handed thing, as a lot of repmobiles are automatics, plus i know very few people who put both hands on the wheel whilst driving. Same can be said of the idiots who turn to look at their passengers whilst the talk to them,.. I see them every day,.. I propose we solve this problem by cutting their heads off,.. thus they won't be able to turn to talk to their passengers and therefore drive dangerously. Of course the worst thing on the road is cars with "Baby on board" stickers,.. most people that have them don't seem to realise that they are a warning to other drivers that the car they are on may be driving erratically, due to having a baby on board... FACT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 10:38:13 GMT
|
Of course the worst thing on the road is cars with "Baby on board" stickers,.. most people that have them don't seem to realise that they are a warning to other drivers that the car they are on may be driving erratically, due to having a baby on board... FACT! And the ones that say "Hot Chick on Board" - and it's being driven by some 20 stone minger........
|
|
I like long walks, especially when they're taken by people I don't like.
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 10:45:23 GMT
|
Same can be said of the idiots who turn to look at their passengers whilst the talk to them,.. I see them every day,.. I propose we solve this problem by cutting their heads off,.. thus they won't be able to turn to talk to their passengers and therefore drive dangerously. From what i've seen of a lot of motorway drivers you wouldn't notice the difference in driving standards!
|
|
Never trust a man Who names himself Trevor. Or one day you might find He's not a real drug dealer.
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 10:46:17 GMT
|
Of course the worst thing on the road is cars with "Baby on board" stickers,.. most people that have them don't seem to realise that they are a warning to other drivers that the car they are on may be driving erratically, due to having a baby on board... FACT! So what about the people with "Baby on Board" signs, when there's no baby on board? I always assumed that these signs were for the benefit of emergancy services etc. In the event of an accident / fire, they'd know there's a tiny person inside and prioritse their removal / treatment accordingly. Having them dangling the whole time whether you've got your kids with you or not makes them entirely pointless. (nobody has ever actually agreed with me on this, and thinks I was incredibly anal for adding / removing said sign from the car when my son was tiny...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 10:47:22 GMT
|
mrsigma, take note of this poll!!! ;D i agree with what jarvis said about the a1 at chester-le-street, aarrgghh, read the furking signs. i must agree with all of the choices, but i voted for middle lane hogs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 10:55:17 GMT
|
So what about the people with "Baby on Board" signs, when there's no baby on board? I always assumed that these signs were for the benefit of emergancy services etc. In the event of an accident / fire, they'd know there's a tiny person inside and prioritse their removal / treatment accordingly. Having them dangling the whole time whether you've got your kids with you or not makes them entirely pointless. (nobody has ever actually agreed with me on this, and thinks I was incredibly anal for adding / removing said sign from the car when my son was tiny...) Nope the Emergancy services will always look in a wreck for a child, not everyone has a baby on board sticker, all accidents get treated the same. Consider this; if you are rear ended by a large vehicle and your rear window glass is smashed out and mangled into the front bumper of aforementioned large vehicle they won't be taking time to look for a baby on board sticker or one of those "tiny person on board" dangly things in the wreckage. They were originally made to warn other drivers that a car may be driving erratically (and to keep their distance accordingly) because the person driving in the car in front wouldn't be concentrating on the road, they would be worrying if little johnny had just vommed up his lunch or whatever else parents find to worry about. So yes they are a warning to keep your distance, but not because a babies life is a precious and wonderful thing that everyone should be worried about, but because parents, in general, are completely ignorant to those around them the moment their baby is in the car. Or they go shopping. Or to the cinema. Or the beach... or the park...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 11:07:18 GMT
|
because parents, in general, are completely ignorant to those around them the moment their baby is in the car. Or they go shopping. Or to the cinema. Or the beach... or the park... Good to see not everyone is getting tarred with your brush there.
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 11, 2005 11:07:58 GMT by nickb
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 11:09:10 GMT
|
Good to see not everyone is getting tarred with your brush there. Thus the in general
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 11:09:24 GMT
|
I reckon 99 out of every 100 'baby on board' stickers are put on as a 'trophy' by fugging simpering idiots who just want to tell the world they've had a fugging sprog. They CHAP MY A$$!
|
|
1972 Fiat 130 1985 Talbot Alpine 1974 Lancia Beta Saloon 1975 + 1986 Mazda 929 Koop + Wagon 1982 Fiat Argenta 2.0 iniezione elettronica 1977 Toyota Carina TA14 BEST CAR EVER!!!!!!!! 1979 Datsun B310 Sunny 4-dr 1984 Audi 200 Quattro Turbo 1983 Honda Accord 1.6 DX GONE1989 Alfa 75 2.0 TS Mr T says: TREAT YO MOTHER RIGHT!
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 11:10:21 GMT
|
This is true about it not being to help emergency services, as someone trained to treat car accidents (among other things, as a member of the St Andrews Ambulance Corps, Inverlcyde Section) I can tell you that upon encountering such a scene, stanard practice is to ensure that every one of the vehicles involved does not have its ignition on, and that there are no other factors that may result in a fire or explosion, only then is it safe to assess your casualties. This is regardless of whether there is a baby on board sticker, and on doing so we can easily assess who is in each of the cars as of course we would have to reach in to remove the keys from the ignition, so a baby on board sticker does not affect us knowing who is in the car, we would have to check anyway. Also, this may sounds incredibly cold-hearted and callous, but we do not go out of our way to specifically treat babies and small children first at any kind of incident involving multiple casuatites. All casualties are assessed according to the severity of their injuries, whether they have any medical problems we can determine, and, yes, whether they are of a vunerable group such as infants or the elderly. The result is that if we encounter a crash where a baby is in the back of the car with some cuts and bruises and is screaming in terror, and the mother is at the wheel, the only other casualty on the scene, and is slipping out of counsciousness with a severe headwound, then our treatment must begin with the mother, unless there are enough trained personnel present that we can treat all casualties on the scene at the same time. While it may go against the human instinct to save the little un's first, and we try as hard as we can to save all casualties, we cannot prioritise babies first purely because they're babies, although if their age puts them at a high risk due to their injuries then we would prioritise them, but that can only be assessed when we can determine the casualties' conditions, so a baby on board sign does not change our priorities. Although it does annoy me when some eejit puts one up and doesn't take it down when he is clearly driving alone.
|
|
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 11:11:50 GMT
|
I reckon 99 out of every 100 'baby on board' stickers are put on as a 'trophy' by fugging simpering idiots who just want to tell the world they've had a fugging sprog. They CHAP MY A$$! The UTTERLY FUGGING POINTLESS Citroen Xsara Picasso they're driving tends to give it away as well. (If anyone can justify why that vehicle exists, I'd be glad to hear from them)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 11:13:39 GMT
|
To make us glad we have retro cars instead of those awful bloody heaps! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 11:14:12 GMT
|
Children curse word me off royally too.
If it's not old enough to SHUT THE curse word UP then leave it in the care of someone else.
*n
|
|
Top grammar tips! Bought = purchased. Brought = relocated Lose = misplace/opposite of win. Loose = your mum
|
|
HytestA
Part of things
Cant beat a good bit of rubbing :D
Posts: 539
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 11:26:44 GMT
|
Just gotta clear up a few things here and say my bit. I voted for the Middle Lane hoggers as they do get right on my nerves, I consider myself a fairly safe driver (I wont say I'm a great driver etc as I think that is not for me to decide thats for someone else to tell me) and I will travel in the correct lane when ever I can. Having to pass to the outside lane just to get past some muppet that doesnt know motorway rules just gets on me tits. Mobile Phones... they get right on my nerves, I got one yes but its on silent 99% of the time, I wont answer it if I'm driving... I pull over (30 seconds aint too tough is it !) If I see people driving on the phone I so want to phone the old bill and report them like people will report drink drivers. The minimus speed limit thing that has cropped up, I can understand what you are saying but some of us don't have large engines and I find 60 a struggle, I'd rather poodle along at a comfortable 50, but then again I will be in the correct lane and you can overtake me in the middle lane (if its not blocked by some muppet). Finally one thing that is not on that list is people who pull in right in front of me when I'm keeping a safe gap between the car in front and myself. That really gets me shouting out of the windscreen. I have that gap there for a reason, its called common sense, approx 3 seconds gap so I have a bit of think time incase the worst happens, its not a gap for YOU to squeeze your car into. I don't think I have ever entered a post this long before, must be one of those subjects I just want to be a moany old git about...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 11:36:56 GMT
|
For me its got to be the BMW drivers , especially the ones with the front fog lamps switched on during the day.......... ;D
|
|
|
|
mercmad
Posted a lot
Flush Hard,it's a long way to McDonalds.
Posts: 1,740
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 12:05:52 GMT
|
|
|
Many years ago I changed my driving style to cope with rising fuel prices; I have now reached the stage where I am contemplating keeping my eyes shut in order to lower wind resistance.
|
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005 12:09:25 GMT
|
When I was out in NZ earlier this year, I didn't have any problems on the roads. Incidently - that program is on Men and Motors I think on Wednesdays
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 11, 2005 12:10:02 GMT by iRocco
I like long walks, especially when they're taken by people I don't like.
|
|
|