SMB driving experts...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kevsgreat said:
This thread has everything. The chance to show you know everything while having a pop at women drivers, van drivers, Audi drivers, people who may or may not be paying their car off over a period of time rather than pulling £20k out of their arse, and fellow board members.

And yet, all that shines is not gerld.
Click to expand...

It rivals a good SMB steak thread imo.
 


1, That mad tart should have a course in anger management as well as courtesy, common sense and decent manners, before being allowed anywhere near a road or other traffic.

2, All Audis should come equipped with a notice attached to their dash informing their drivers that other road users have exactly the same rights as themselves.
 
Her Ivory Tower said:
He could continue, as his was route was clear, so not unsafe. He didn't cross her path she crossed his.
Click to expand...
agreed but he could see what she was doing, so it would not be right for him to continue as the consequence was a collision. so his route was not clear. both at fault. pig headedness set in on both

people should not anticipate kindness as a sign of weakness
 
Audi broke the law when she deliberately drove through the cones (and should have been prosecuted for it). The cones mark the edge of the carriageway, and she was therefor deliberately driving off the carriageway, and endangering other road users, not to mention any members of the workforce who the cones may have been there to protect.
 
I would sue the witch, no way did her foot get run over, wouldn't we able to walk if it had, if she repeated that claim to the plod, she was attempting to pervert the course of justice, which is a criminal offence. It also involved you in a lengthy stressful ordeal both waiting for the police, and then again by reporting the non event to your employers
 
Her Ivory Tower said:
He could continue, as his was route was clear, so not unsafe. He didn't cross her path she crossed his.
Click to expand...
ive just watched it again. the road was not clear for him as the audi pushes in and her car wing is actually on the inside lane. He actually speeds up to stop the audi moving in.

perhaps it is clear as to what "in turn" means. if the road signs were big enough it could read "alternatively".

It is also clear the first audi was allowed in by the car in front. The 2nd audi was not allowed in by the van and actually speeds up, to stop her coming in.

the woman should have read the road better and should not have attempted to barge her way in. She should have stopped and waited for the road to be clear.
The van driver, should not have sped up (thereby stopping the women from merging in turn) as that stopped the audi from progressing. The audi was now actually, partially in the inside lane and the van continued to move forward stopping anyone from moving forward. This created a hazard, both vehicles stopped and they therefore caused an obstruction of the highway.
 
soapster said:
ive just watched it again. the road was not clear for him as the audi pushes in and her car wing is actually on the inside lane. He actually speeds up to stop the audi moving in.

perhaps it is clear as to what "in turn" means. if the road signs were big enough it could read "alternatively".

It is also clear the first audi was allowed in by the car in front. The 2nd audi was not allowed in by the van and actually speeds up, to stop her coming in.

the woman should have read the road better and should not have attempted to barge her way in. She should have stopped and waited for the road to be clear.
The van driver, should not have sped up (thereby stopping the women from merging in turn) as that stopped the audi from progressing. The audi was now actually, partially in the inside lane and the van continued to move forward stopping anyone from moving forward. This created a hazard, both vehicles stopped and they therefore caused an obstruction of the highway.
Click to expand...
She was only in the inside lane because she moved into a lane that wasn't clear.
I will never understand why she deliberately drove into cones though
 
soapster said:
ive just watched it again. the road was not clear for him as the audi pushes in and her car wing is actually on the inside lane.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly, you've illustrated my point which was that SHE crossed HIS path, not the other way around. He never crosses the line. Her path was not clear because it contained the cones, however HIS path was clear, UNTIL she crossed into his lane and caused an obstruction for him and in fact, he was then forced to stop which is when she got out and started gobbing off.

She is entirely at fault because:

1. He had already taken his "turn" at allowing a car (the Ford) to merge and had therefore complied with the signs and the HWC.

2. She crossed the road markings into his lane, willfully trying to cause an obstruction in what would otherwise have been a clear route for him. If there had been an accident then it is always the driver who crossed their line who is at fault.

3. She failed to stop when she reached the cones when her route was no longer clear and instead carried on with reckless and dangerous driving causing damage to the cones and her car. What if there had been a pavement next to her and she sent those cones flying into innocent pedestrians? What is the cones concealed a hole or uneven camber that caused her car to flip out of control into other vehicles or pedestrians? Could have have caused injuries not unlike Westminster Bridge. But she didn't give a fuck about anything but herself.
 
maghater said:
Audi broke the law when she deliberately drove through the cones (and should have been prosecuted for it). The cones mark the edge of the carriageway, and she was therefor deliberately driving off the carriageway, and endangering other road users, not to mention any members of the workforce who the cones may have been there to protect.
Click to expand...
This as fuck

safcforever said:
She was only in the inside lane because she moved into a lane that wasn't clear.
I will never understand why she deliberately drove into cones though
Click to expand...
For damatic split arse effect
 
Last edited:
Her Ivory Tower said:
Yes exactly, you've illustrated my point which was that SHE crossed HIS path, not the other way around. He never crosses the line. Her path was not clear because it contained the cones, however HIS path was clear, UNTIL she crossed into his lane and caused an obstruction for him and in fact, he was then forced to stop which is when she got out and started gobbing off.

She is entirely at fault because:

1. He had already taken his "turn" at allowing a car (the Ford) to merge and had therefore complied with the signs and the HWC.

2. She crossed the road markings into his lane, willfully trying to cause an obstruction in what would otherwise have been a clear route for him. If there had been an accident then it is always the driver who crossed their line who is at fault.

3. She failed to stop when she reached the cones when her route was no longer clear and instead carried on with reckless and dangerous driving causing damage to the cones and her car. What if there had been a pavement next to her and she sent those cones flying into innocent pedestrians? What is the cones concealed a hole or uneven camber that caused her car to flip out of control into other vehicles or pedestrians? Could have have caused injuries not unlike Westminster Bridge. But she didn't give a fuck about anything but herself.
Click to expand...
Spot on. When things did not go her way she immediately played the victim which many dodgepots do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top