• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

List your pet hates of motorists

Why would you expect me to pay you for something that you see no issue in?

Had the thread been entitled: I drive up to the cones then force my way in. Your response would be the same.

I see your driving style and hypocritical answers to threads almost meet but don't match up.

Anyway. Good to know I will brake to allow your superior foresight of obstructions an advantage over my pathetic use of warning signs.
 
brucemillar said:
Why would you expect me to pay you for something that you see no issue in?
Click to expand...

Because you would be causing damage to my car, thus would have to pay.

Driving in both lanes until near the merging point is sensible, I never said ramming others cars.

brucemillar said:
Anyway. Good to know I will brake to allow your superior foresight of obstructions an advantage over my pathetic use of warning signs.
Click to expand...

Good to know. Should allow some space to pull into.
 
Mercator said:
It is legitimate to filter in at any stage leading up to the obstruction. It always makes me laugh to see the desperate efforts to get in lane of some 'early' filterers. If everyone tried to filter early at the same place you would get an even worse jam. Hats off to the confident driver who filters in at the last possible moment. Shame on the *****oles who try to not let him in.
Click to expand...

The key word here is FILTER that means to get in the correct lane when there is space to do so with minimum interference to other drivers. Charging to the front then forcing your way into the correct lane may put you ahead of others, but it delays others who were more thoughtful.

Like joining a motorway, you look for a suitable gap and adjust your speed to filter onto the motorway with minimum interference.
 
brucemillar said:
Filter my ****. Diesel man is going to chop me up and I am going to ram his ass into the hedge.
Click to expand...

I knew your outward appearance of being considerate was just a con...
 
Word of advice Ladies,

From an insurance point of view, the person rear ending the car usually pays and is liable. The reason being in the event of the car infront breaking, there liability is still on the car from behind as it was too close.

I believe in zip merging, and that means a one by one in, using all the available space. Barging is not it, making due progress is what it is.
 
*** said:
Word of advice Ladies,

From an insurance point of view, the person rear ending the car usually pays and is liable. The reason being in the event of the car infront breaking, there liability is still on the car from behind as it was too close.

I believe in zip merging, and that means a one by one in, using all the available space. Barging is not it, making due progress is what it is.
Click to expand...

I agree with all the above, and always zip in in reasonable time, not too early, not too late.

As far as insurance claims, I think they would be interested in why a driver brakes from 70mph to less than 40mph for no reason on a motorway.

Obviously I wasn't as close as he thought, as with only reasonable braking I didn't tangle.

Maybe he was the type that joined the merging queue a mile back and got angry about others passing in an empty lane... :dk:
 
Dieselman said:
I agree with all the above, and always zip in in reasonable time, not too early, not too late.

As far as insurance claims, I think they would be interested in why a driver brakes from 70mph to less than 40mph for no reason on a motorway.
Click to expand...

You'd think but the world of insurance works in bizarre ways and I am afraid that is one of them.

Very rarely would the correct outcome happen but rather the easy insurance assessors one, and it goes like this, "the question would be asked, if they braked, and you didn't avoid it, it was because you were too close. If you had been further back, you wouldn't have rear ended the other party".

How could you prove you were not to close, the onus would be on you to prove it, as you hit them, and your word vs theirs, it would only go one way, against the driver who was at the rear who was too close to the car in front.
 
Advance warning of two lanes filtering into one do not work...it does not matter why, nor who is right or wrong. The best way is to separate the two lanes a long way out, with cones...and then at the desired point filter them together.

That way, no one is pushing in, and no one is feeling pushed in upon...simples.(you'd think?).
 
*** said:
You'd think but the world of insurance works in bizarre ways and I am afraid that is one of them.

Very rarely would the correct outcome happen but rather the easy insurance assessors one, and it goes like this, "the question would be asked, if they braked, and you didn't avoid it, it was because you were too close. If you had been further back, you wouldn't have rear ended the other party".

How could you prove you were not to close, the onus would be on you to prove it, as you hit them, and your word vs theirs, it would only go one way, against the driver who was at the rear who was too close to the car in front.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies are very much on the look out for rear enders deliberately caused by the car or other vehicle in front. This is quite a big area of fraud.
 
*** said:
You'd think but the world of insurance works in bizarre ways and I am afraid that is one of them.

Very rarely would the correct outcome happen but rather the easy insurance assessors one, and it goes like this, "the question would be asked, if they braked, and you didn't avoid it, it was because you were too close. If you had been further back, you wouldn't have rear ended the other party".

How could you prove you were not to close, the onus would be on you to prove it, as you hit them, and your word vs theirs, it would only go one way, against the driver who was at the rear who was too close to the car in front.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Good job I was indeed far enough away then...

About a month ago I was travelling home and came across a solitary Audi A4 in the centre lane.
As a car was gradually passing me in the outside lane I gave the Audi a short flash to alert the driver of my presence and approach, so they could move over.
Instead of moving over they stamped hard on the brakes so I had to before being able to pull past.
They then continued in the centre lane as far as I could see them.

What possesses these people?
 
renault12ts said:
Advance warning of two lanes filtering into one do not work...it does not matter why, nor who is right or wrong. The best way is to separate the two lanes a long way out, with cones...and then at the desired point filter them together using traffic lights.

That way, no one is pushing in, and no one is feeling pushed in upon...simples.(you'd think?).
Click to expand...

Added a bit to make an even better post for you.:eek:
 
I'll stand corrected as its not something I know a massive amount, but its going to be a tough one as two people often give two very different versions of events, or in a recent case I was the victim of, do not give one at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

ALFAitalia
Hope this wasn't you!
Replies
1
Views
899
Gollom
Gollom
D
[SOLD] 2003 E55 AMG W211 for sale - 127k miles
Replies
0
Views
984
davidmudley
D
BTB 500
Minor insurance rant!
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
BTB 500
BTB 500
6
[SOLD] 2009 Mercedes Benz CLS 320 CDI
Replies
4
Views
2K
6cyl
6
skemball
[SOLD] W211 (S211) 280CDi 2005 (55)
Replies
0
Views
695
skemball
skemball
Back
Top Bottom