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

Your top three driving pet hates...

AFAIK your supposed to keep your foot on the brake whilst the car is in gear. If your dropping to N or P to make use of the parking brake and be friendly to the poor people behind then your increasing the wear on your box?

I believe you are the only one mentioning P and N. But as you brought it up, an automatic can be left in D with the handbrake set. Brakes and gearboxes are separate things or am I missing something here? :dk:
 
I believe you are the only one mentioning P and N. But as you brought it up, an automatic can be left in D with the handbrake set. Brakes and gearboxes are separate things or am I missing something here? :dk:

I am not sure I would be comfortable leaving the car in Drive with out having my foot on the brake.

If this was the norm, why would we be required to press the brakes to disengage from Park. They could just have a sensor on the handbrake?
 
I am not sure I would be comfortable leaving the car in Drive with out having my foot on the brake.

If this was the norm, why would we be required to press the brakes to disengage from Park. They could just have a sensor on the handbrake?

On a lot of mercs the handbrake only barely holds it in Drive.
 
I am not sure I would be comfortable leaving the car in Drive with out having my foot on the brake.

If this was the norm, why would we be required to press the brakes to disengage from Park. They could just have a sensor on the handbrake?

A safety feature to prevent the gearstick being moved into drive by accident or by someone other than the driver engaging drive. PARK on the gearbox has nothing to do with braking what-so-ever.
 
On a lot of mercs the handbrake only barely holds it in Drive.

But they do hold then. If it is only barely being held, however, then something is not working as it ought to, I would suggest.
 
A safety feature to prevent the gearstick being moved into drive by accident or by someone other than the driver engaging drive. PARK on the gearbox has nothing to do with braking what-so-ever.
I didnt try to suggest PARK is the same as the Brake?

But they do hold then. If it is only barely being held, however, then something is not working as it ought to, I would suggest.

But still, your suggesting a weak parking brake that applies force to just the rear wheels is a suitable replacement for my fat foot applying force to all four wheels?

Either way, I think we can agree to disagree eh? Ill continue to do it my way even if it does annoy others. Safety First.
 
Your not supposed to apply the hand brake for short stops.

I didnt try to suggest PARK is the same as the Brake?



But still, your suggesting a weak parking brake that applies force to just the rear wheels is a suitable replacement for my fat foot applying force to all four wheels?

Either way, I think we can agree to disagree eh? Ill continue to do it my way even if it does annoy others. Safety First.

You misunderstand completely. I am not trying to convert you or say that what you are doing is wrong. There was a post pointing out the inherent annoyance caused by people sitting with their foot on the brake, followed up by someone asking how else the car was meant to be held which lead to your statement a little later (above in bold).

I am not asking or arguing for you to do anything other than what you please.

I did earlier ask why "Your not supposed to apply the handbrake for short stops" because if there is some intrinsic mechanical or logical reason for it, I wouldn't mind knowing. End of, nothing more.
 
Last edited:
I did earlier ask why "Your not supposed to apply the handbrake for short stops" because if there is some intrinsic mechanical or logical reason for it, I wouldn't mind knowing. End of, nothing more.

I suspect that the "you're not supposed to" reared its head simply because that's the way he does it, and maybe he was taught that way. I'm guessing that that may be the 'modern' way. My grandson will be learning to drive soon, so I'll be interested to see how driver training has changed since I took my first test 52 years ago. In those days it was taught to use handbrake when stationary for more than a few seconds; at traffic lights for example.

Over the years I've probably had more driver training than most and was always taught that way, but I have to say that the foot operated parking brake on Mercedes-Benz is such a pain, that much against the grain I tend to use the hold function. Also despite comments along the lines of, "if it is only barely being held, however, then something is not working as it ought to, I would suggest", belie the reality of this absurd and useless piece of equipment, the merits (or lack of them) of which have been much discussed in other threads.

Personally I much prefer the electromechanical 'hand'brake, as this can be reliably applied and released without drama, and which in my experience will easily hold an automatic left in drive.

The parking brake is one reason why I have never felt comfortable with my Mercedes-Benz and why I shall be leaving the marque when I get my next new vehicle.
 
People that'll pull out of a side street in front of you and instead of booting it a bit to get up to the pace of the traffic, they drive at about 4mph.
 

It's a problem all over the country. And it will continue whilst, as was reported in the article: "officers say they have already spoken to a number of drivers in the area asking them to consider the safety of pupils when it comes to picking up and dropping off." Speaking to the lazy inconsiderate parents is achieving nothing. They all know it's wrong but will continue to park illegally and dangerously while they're getting away with it. The police need to prosecute before anyone will listen.
 
When stopping at a traffic light, why do some people have to stop at least car length (often more) short and then over the next few minutes inch forward in a stop-start fashion until they are a usual stopping distance behind the car in front?
 
When stopping at a traffic light, why do some people have to stop at least car length (often more) short and then over the next few minutes inch forward in a stop-start fashion until they are a usual stopping distance behind the car in front?

I spoke to a driving instructor who teaches this. It is apparently to allow the pupil to move forward should a following car approach too fast. Nearly as annoying as those who don't want to stop and creep forward the last three thousand feet (I exaggerate the distance, of course).
 
When stopping at a traffic light, why do some people have to stop at least car length (often more) short and then over the next few minutes inch forward in a stop-start fashion until they are a usual stopping distance behind the car in front?

Probably don't have automatics...just hold the brake lightly and move forward slowly and smoothly.
 
People who when sat at a busy traffic light controlled BOX junction and they are head of the long queue...

When their light goes to green they pull away as if their wheels are glued to the road assuring that they and only they, have enough time to clear the junction before the lights return to red leaving you sat in the queue that could have been reduced by multiple cars.

These are the same people who sit at a red traffic light patiently waiting for it to go green at which point they are distracted by their radio, phone, sex aid, whatever and fail to notice the lights are green.
 
People who when sat at a busy traffic light controlled BOX junction and they are head of the long queue...

When their light goes to green they pull away as if their wheels are glued to the road assuring that they and only they, have enough time to clear the junction before the lights return to red leaving you sat in the queue that could have been reduced by multiple cars.

These are the same people who sit at a red traffic light patiently waiting for it to go green at which point they are distracted by their radio, phone, sex aid, whatever and fail to notice the lights are green.

And the car with a sex aid?? Hold on I'll get my card...;)

J.
 
Last edited:
I spoke to a driving instructor who teaches this. It is apparently to allow the pupil to move forward should a following car approach too fast. Nearly as annoying as those who don't want to stop and creep forward the last three thousand feet (I exaggerate the distance, of course).

It's usual to be taught to see "tyres and tarmac" as this enables you to manoeuvre around the car in front if it stalls or breaks down. Personally I see no issue with taking your foot off the accelerator if you can see lights changing ahead you. Less brake wear and nobody is going to actually progress any quicker if you keep moving and then brake more heavily, you still have to wait for the green light. I've had people overtake me because I am cruising at 20 in a 30 because I can see stationary traffic ahead of me. Because they can't be bothered to look beyond my rear bumper doesn't make them a good driver!
 
It's usual to be taught to see "tyres and tarmac" as this enables you to manoeuvre around the car in front if it stalls or breaks down.

It's a technique I was taught many years ago whilst on an ambulance driving course. Although I still do it, I sometimes wonder whether it would lead to inordinately long queues at some traffic lights if everyone did it.

Another technique I employ at traffic lights (or any other stationary situation) is to never stop across a road junction or entrance to someone's driveway. I see this as a courtesy to other drivers who may need to get across a line of traffic.
 
......

Another technique I employ at traffic lights (or any other stationary situation) is to never stop across a road junction or entrance to someone's driveway. I see this as a courtesy to other drivers who may need to get across a line of traffic.

Ditto, plus car park entrances etc.. Also I don't enter a roundabout if I see my exit is blocked. Really p's me off when muppets block roundabouts and junctions, preventing other's progress
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom