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

What an ****.

lewyboy said:
You're out of control feller.

The voice of the forums self proclaimed expert on everything speaks again. Loo hay speaks... Everybody gasps in wonder at his amazing knowledge.

So Louise. Maybe you can tell us what happened with the truck driver involved in this incident? Come on you know all about it don't you?

Struggling with that one? Let's here from you about the "other car and its occupants"

No. Not sure?

So why was it that one driver received a different sentence to the other?

No. Stuck in that as well. But yet you can tell us what happened and what should happen.

****.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK
 
The voice of the forums self proclaimed expert on everything speaks again. Loo hay speaks... Everybody gasps in wonder at his amazing knowledge.

So Louise. Maybe you can tell us what happened with the truck driver involved in this incident? Come on you know all about it don't you?

Struggling with that one? Let's here from you about the "other car and its occupants"

No. Not sure?

So why was it that one driver received a different sentence to the other?

No. Stuck in that as well. But yet you can tell us what happened and what should happen.

****.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK

My view hasn't changed despite your unpleasant posts, for clarity I've copied it below:

'Both incidents highlighted in this thread show up two middle aged men with a few quid to be dangerous, irresponsible and in the belief that they are something special.

What does the Jag driver think he is up to racing at double the speed limit and killing innocent bystanders? He needs neutering, that'll slow his testosterone fuelled escapades down a bit.

In my mind there is no question of guilt and culpability for either of these muppets, they both had the opportunity not to drive like pricks but chose to do so willingly and, presumably, without the influence of drugs or drink'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lewyboy said:
My view hasn't changed despite your unpleasant posts, for clarity I've copied it below: 'Both incidents highlighted in this thread show up two middle aged men with a few quid to be dangerous, irresponsible and in the belief that they are something special. What does the Jag driver think he is up to racing at double the speed limit and killing innocent bystanders? He needs neutering, that'll slow his testosterone fuelled escapades down a bit. In my mind there is no question of guilt and culpability for either of these muppets, they both had the opportunity not to drive like pricks but chose to do so willingly and, presumably, without the influence of drugs or drink'.
Copy it again. You use your dislike of me to try and highlight something and somebody you know nothing about. An incident where somebody lost their life becomes your pathetic little attempt to have a pop at me. What possible reason do you have to mention people's financial situation? Oh hang on. Maybe people who are poor don't crash. Is that it? Man up and be honest with yourself and keep your cheap shots to yourself. Almost every thread or post I make you pop up with some irrelevant comment. Grow up. Do some research.

Now to help you.

The Lorry driver was prosecuted for drink driving.

The other car entered the motorway overtaking the lorry as it entered the motorway. This caused the Audi driver to swerve violently right across two lanes catching the Jaguars rear and sending the Jaguar into the centre barrier. The Audi then span back across the motorway pushing the deceased under the lorry. The Jaguar was NOT in contact with or near the deceased' s car.

He stood up and owned up straight away to speeding and subsequently (almost a year later) was charged with Dangerous Driving. He plead guilty, accepted his sentence and served it. The other driver denied everything, hence the longer sentence. The youths in the other car who witnesses claimed started the actual crash!! No charges due to lack of evidence.

Did David set out to kill? No he did not. Did he speed? Yes he did. There is not a day that he does not regret that and wish to god he had not. Did his wealth play any part ? Only in your mind.

Maybe you would like to meet and discuss with David your saintly views on how he should be further punished? Have you never broken the speed limit?

So when you are through with making fun of my poor spelling (caused by 12 months of intensive Chemotherapy and massive Cancer drugs) take a few minutes to reflect. Life is never black and white. There but for the grace of God.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK
 
Last edited:
Yesterday, 55-year-old retired businessman David Steele and company director Edward Parker, 51, were handed a total of 11 years behind bars for causing his death by dangerous driving.
 
lewyboy said:
Yesterday, 55-year-old retired businessman David Steele and company director Edward Parker, 51, were handed a total of 11 years behind bars for causing his death by dangerous driving.
Your point being? Did you miss the point of the entire thread? Have you any useful point to make at all? Tomorrow it may rain!! Monday is a Bank Holiday! I cut my grass today!! He was driving dangerously. We know this. It was in the the article that we all read but you ignored. The test of dangerous in this case was speed. We have now established that you have never broken a speed limit. So what else are trying to say. Would you like to meet him and his family to discuss your virginal excellence. You could bring along your thesaurus and dyslexic joke book.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK
 
I have nothing to add to what have already been said about Nay....

But looking at the dashcam footage you do ask yourself, if some extra-defensive driving on the Signum's driver part could have prevented the crash?

Placing myself in the driver's seat I am thinking - would I have slowed down because of the junction? Or just drive slower on that stretch of road in general? Or keep an eye on the oncoming traffic?

Could I have avoided the crash in similar circumstances? I don't know, but I think its a question worth asking.

I don't think that in these circumstances anything could have been done.
At the moment Signum exits the right hand bend the lorry from the opposite side makes approach blocking his view of the junction and Signum becomes invisible for oncoming traffic behind the lorry.
Taking in an account the speed of Signum and reckless stupid driving of RR I don't think that this tragedy could have been avoided and lifes of two little girls were ruined. My heart goes to them.
We, the drivers, should learn from such tragic events and understand that when sitting behind the wheel we are in a control of very destructive machines which can cause a lot of damage to us and others.
We must remind ourselves that the value of ccm's IS NOT an increment of our ego.
 
Your point being? Did you miss the point of the entire thread? Have you any useful point to make at all? Tomorrow it may rain!! Monday is a Bank Holiday! I cut my grass today!! He was driving dangerously. We know this. It was in the the article that we all read but you ignored. The test of dangerous in this case was speed. We have now established that you have never broken a speed limit. So what else are trying to say. Would you like to meet him and his family to discuss your virginal excellence. You could bring along your thesaurus and dyslexic joke book.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK

The point of the thread?

Surely the point is that driving like a nob can result in death, jail and ruined lives. The two examples on this thread are evidence of this.
 
grober said:
An inevitable consequence of what I call the "vehicular arms race " in private car ownership. How many times has any very heavy poorly handling 4x4 vehicle ever been used as the off road vehicle it was designed to be . I'll wager often never. People buy these behemoths for status and not to mince words for "get out of my way plebians look at my big car can't you see my journey is more important than yours." road presence. The question to be asked:- is aggressive driver behaviour indirectly facilitated/encouraged by private cars that are bigger and heavier than the average private car. Putting it another way- would said driver been more or less likely to have driven in that manner if he had been driving a 1,25 ford fiesta, and despite this would the following impact that caused the life changing injuries to 2 young girls been so severe. I feel the arms race parallel is valid because in the right hands there is nothing inherently wrong with large 4x4 vehicles. Weapons are safe --they are inanimate objects its when they get into the hands of unstable people you get problems. I seriously doubt that was a "one off "behavioural lapse for that particular driver! Statistically the more large heavy 4x4 vehicles out there , the greater the chance some will be driven in an irresponsible way by unsuitable drivers with devastating results. This does not imply all 4x4 vehicles are unsafe or that in the main they are driven responsibly --- its just an increased statistical probabilty the large 4x4 and unsuitable driver may co-incide in todays vehicular arms race. :dk:
That's a very myopic view, so you're saying that someone's driving style is dictated by the car they drive? Just think about that for a moment, then reply with a sensible comment.
 
Last edited:
Not what I said --- What I proposed was that large 4x4 vehicles in the wrong hands [ due to lack of skill or drivers with aggresssive tendencies] are accidents waiting to happen. This type of 4x4 vehicle may contribute because they are more difficult to control for the average driver due to weight distribution and handling and the feeeling of invincibility they may appear give to drivers with unstable personalities. This refers to a specific combination of factors involving vehicle and driver . It should not be used as a generalisation applicable to all drivers of a 4x4 vehicles.
 
Weasels like Nay drive big cars because they want to intimidate others and cant do it physically.
 
Not supporting Nay in any shape or form.... but if he was indeed a Rang Rover off road driving instructor, then (a) he probably had a valid reason to want to own one, and (b) likely he was actually reasonably skilled in controlling the heavy car both on and off road.

The latter of course does not make things any better... in fact I would say that his culpability is actually greater than that of a mindless fool who buys a big car and tosses it around corners at speed without having any grasp of what he is actually doing.

Again, not a defence for Nay... but just to say that I believe his is a unique case of someone who should have known better and yet succumb to an emotional and irrational road-rage whim.
 
While of course you can't generalise, some big 4x4's undoubtedly are driven with attitude and incompetence in equal measure. Where I live in "footballers wives" Cheshire they are almost the universal mode of transport. I've only ever driven one once and while I really liked the ride quality and the good visibility, overall I thought it a big lumbering thing and not for me.
 
There are several valid points worth pointing out.

1) The bigger the vehicle, the more the false sense of security you get. Bigger vehicles are safer, to a point, but you can still be killed in one, so driving as if you are invincible is being dumb in the simplest form.

2) From my own experience being involved in a serious crash, I now slow down at every junction where I perceive a risk. Simply put, if a junction has traffic either pulling out or turning into it, then I'll back off the juice as a precaution. It may not stop me from colliding with a vehicle, but the impact will be so much less.

(Saturday Bridge, which is a 60mph speed limit is where I could have died. I now pass that crossroad junction at 40mph just to be safe.)

3) There are an unlimited number of reasons why another vehicle, or even your own, can deviated from its intended course. Whether it is mechanical failure, a blowout, or simply a driver failing to take note of their surroundings, a collision can occur.

From my own experiences, there were several failings here, some intentional and some not. The RR driver allowed his anger to take control to the point that he was putting ALL OTHER ROAD USERS at risk, not just the woman he was pursuing or the Signum driver and his family.

(Imagine this scenario. The RR pulls across the path of the Signum driver who, instead of swerving to the left, swerves to the right, hitting the parked Mercedes instead, allowing Nay to continue on his path of harassing the Mazda while leaving a scene of devastation.)

The Signum driver did not break his speed at any point, even though he had right of way. Even a reduction of 5mph as he approached the junction could have made a difference. Sometimes we have to give way to others even if we have right of way, because the other driver seems intent on forcing their presence.

This is a tragedy that could so easily be avoided if the people involved had acted as humans rather than animals. We have reason and logic and we should use it.

(Ironically, in my crash, I was asked by the investigating officer if there was any way I could have avoided the crash, even though the other party was at fault. I had already dropped 10mph off my speed when I went passed the junction, so I had done everything possible, with the exception of stopping, to limit any damage. Some accidents are just simply unavoidable, due to the culprit being brain dead.)
 
Driving? it's all "what if's" really. Fate is no discriminator.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So if we say "what if he had steered right?" we have to then think, if he had steered right? then somebody else would have changed their behaviour.

What if he had driven a different route that day? Or, spent and extra ten seconds at breakfast?

Most who have survived a "serious" accident (I am one) end up with lot's of "what if's". The internet is full of people who know exactly what they would have done ;^) - The obvious issue being? it wasn't them involved and most people behave differently to how they think they would when confronted with something that they did not expect.

How many times do we read " if he did that to me?"
 
Most who have survived a "serious" accident (I am one) end up with lot's of "what if's". The internet is full of people who know exactly what they would have done ;^) - The obvious issue being? it wasn't them involved and most people behave differently to how they think they would when confronted with something that they did not expect.

Me too. I spent many a painful sleepless night wondering how I could have possibly have avoided the accident I was in, while my mother was under observation in A&E.

After speaking with the officer in charge of our case, I was convinced that I had taken all reasonable steps to avoid the accident, such as slowing down as I passed the junction. Unfortunately for us, the bimbo driving the other car was so engrossed with her young passenger that she failed to take note that two vehicles were passing the junction at 50mph.

Needless to say, you cannot compensate for someone who fails to demonstrate even the slightest bit of intelligence, but you can minimise the impact of their stupidity. In our case, dropping my speed from 60mph to 50mph while passing the junction was the difference between my elderly mother being badly injured, or my elderly mother dying from her injuries. That 10mph reduction probably saved her life, as well as mine, and the idiot who pulled out in front of us.

For information sake, Saturday Bridge, a notorious black spot south of Holbeach, is a high speed road. I have even seen vehicles approaching speeds of 100mph along that stretch of road. The road is completely straight along that stretch which gives a false sense of security, which also explains why there are so many collisions and near misses on a daily basis.

In my case, the 'what if's' are, should I have swerved left instead of right. Either way, I would have left the road and ended up in a field. Thankfully, the side I ended up in wasn't bordered by a dike, otherwise our injuries would have been a lot worse. Also, I am lucky I was travelling south. If I had been travelling north, I would have ended up in the river, or hitting the bridge barrier, again causing more serious injuries.

As of today, I now reduce my speed to 40mph while passing that dangerous junction, as I do at any junction where I am unsure of the intentions of those at the junction or those approaching the junction from the opposite direction. I have managed to avoid two collisions caused by inattention simply by slowing down a bit instead of insisting that I can do the speed limit of the road.

It's all very well saying, 'I had right of way', but when you lose a loved one, is it really the principle that counts, or our lives?
 
It's all very well saying, 'I had right of way', but when you lose a loved one, is it really the principle that counts, or our lives?

Firstly. I wish you and your family well.

To your point above: As my Grand dad said to me: "He was right - That will look well on your head stone"
 
TheFoX said:
The Signum driver did not break his speed at any point, even though he had right of way. Even a reduction of 5mph as he approached the junction could have made a difference. Sometimes we have to give way to others even if we have right of way, because the other driver seems intent on forcing their presence.

Two comments.

1) The dash cam recording shows the Signum driver was approaching the junction at a steady 54mph. How accurate that figure is we'll never know. What we also don't know is whether he had reduced his speed from around 60 just before the footage in the knowledge that he was approaching the junction. The dash cam recorded his speed increasing to 57mph for a fraction of a second before the collision. Again we don't know if that was a true indication of the car's speed at that point or, if so, why. My point is, however, that I don't think we could have reasonably expected any more caution from the Signum driver.

2) The Signum driver didn't have unique right of way, he only had priority. The road is for all of us. In this instance it would appear that the Signum driver wasn't exerting any particular claim to right of way. Unfortunately too many drivers do, in preference to giving way. In my opinion, assuming you have right of way at any time is potentially dangerous. I don't want to be saying from my hospital bed, "But I had right of way!"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom