Drivers and their problems

I've tried twice in last couple of days to create a lighthearted festive forum topic, and both times it claimed success, but neither (they were the same one) has appeared

wtjs wrote:

I've tried twice in last couple of days to create a lighthearted festive forum topic, and both times it claimed success, but neither (they were the same one) but neither has appeared

I've noticed previously that it can take a couple of hours for the post to show up in the forum posts section, but if it's not appearing at all, then it suggests you've done something wrong.

brooksby wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/22/uk-drivers-warn...

Grauniad wrote:

Motorists have been warned to be vigilant after a 60-fold increase in “crash for cash” fraud claims involving motorbike and scooter riders staging accidents so they can blame innocent drivers.

The insurer Allianz said its data showed that claims relating to this scam increased by 6,000% between January and December 2023 – a significant jump from the 50% increase the year before.

This type of insurance fraud typically involves an “induced accident”, in which a rider attempts to deliberately get hit by a vehicle in order to make a claim.

Criminals often target drivers as they park their cars – for example, they will ride past just as the driver opens the car door so that it hits the motorbike or scooter, with the aim being to make it appear the motorist’s fault.

Erm - but if they open their door without looking and hit someone, even a crook, then it is their fault.

Isn't it?

I can imagine some kind of stand-off (sit-off?) where the driver is waiting to open their door whilst the scammer is waiting to ride past at just the same time. The driver could start to open their door, but then pull it closed as the rider starts to move and then the rider would scoot back a bit to get in the right position.

David9694 wrote:

Residents beg council to remove e-scooter bays as trial ends

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24483851.residents-beg-council-remove-e...

That driver does understand that you are not supposed to park across a dropped kerb providing access to what appears to be a small car park, yes?  Or is that to make a point because they can't park in the bollarded off scooter space?

“Using a phone whilst driving is dangerous – even more so in this scenario where drivers are likely to be further distracted by the collision scene.

“Those drivers we caught will now pay the penalty both financially and with points on their licence – and if anyone was a new driver who has passed in the last two years, then six points means they will lose their licence.”

They should contact Lancashire Constabulary with this shocking news- who would have known that this is an offence?!

And they say 'the comparison [is] "inaccurate" as Glen Sannox is a larger vessel'...that's beside the point.  The fact remains that it is more polluting than the previous vessel.

cyber truck owners are complaining of vandalism due to the Tesla brand now being intrinsically tied to Elon’s negativity & bullshit.

David9694 wrote:

Malicious notes left on car windscreens in Herefordshire

What is the law on leaving nasty notes?

Leaving aggressive notes on car windscreens can land you in hot water, with Dominic Wyatt, an expert from the International Drivers Association (the what-now?), warning last year that "leaving a hostile or abrasive note on a vehicle can now result in a fine in the UK. Civility and propriety should not be discarded when addressing parking concerns.

https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/24477788.malicious-notes-left-car-win...

In my experience, civility and propriety go out the window once someone sits in the driving seat of a car…

The daftest thing is the driver who caused the crash in the first place, won't be fined or given points, even though it's clearly an example of careless driving.

Hirsute wrote:

Ferry recently replaced orginally had 110 spaces but due to the size of cars it could only fit 90, hence in part the new ferry.

Noting the problems of "more car" isn't just the "politics of envy".

Anyway, chalk up another data point for something like Jevons Paradox / "what our fathers called luxuries, we term necessities" (society-wide "lifestyle creep") / keeping up with the Joneses?

Also noting that the more the figures are examined (total cost of obtaining the gas, losses when switching over power systems etc.) the less clear it is that this is any less polluting than the older ferry powerplant - even if the new one were closer in size.

Let's hear it for those ever-dependable professional drivers, filmin' & phonin' & forgettin' to steer round roundabouts so we don't have to.

stonojnr wrote:

More grassy knoll nonsense, "Jumanji Junction" words fail sometimes https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/24337313.anger-grass-a14-seven-hills-...

"If the high grass on the approach from Woodbridge could be cut back for just a few feet, cars and motorbikes coming from the right could be seen clearly again."

I can't think of anything else you might have to look for.

"For cars, it is impossible to see over or through the grass."

That's because cars don't have eyes.

David9694 wrote:

He said: “Not only do we all struggle to park on Priory Road but we have seen people travel up to 50 miles per hour – they will go straight into those bollards."

Stop the war on law-deriding motorists! Take out those pesky bollards and they could do 70 easily.

Quote:

He added: “I use Books on the Hill. It's where I buy my books to go on holiday. And sometimes I can’t park, therefore I go off to Clifton or I go off to Cribbs.”

How often does Cllr Canniford go on holiday?  How much of an imposition would it be for him to pay to park on that occasion?

Seems to me that charging for parking might actually help the traders of Hill Road: people will park, do the things they need to do, then move on, leaving a free space (instead of finding a parking space there, thanking the Gods of Parking and then leaving their car there while they go for a nice long walk all around the town…).

slc wrote:

Maybe a problem we would like drivers to have. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx28wr7lge1o But also an opportunity to float my geometric council tax for cars plan. £512 per tonne per year for the first motor vehicle registered to an address. £1024 for the second, £2048 for the third, £4096, ... . Rising with RPI of course.

Quote:

However, Selin Akdenez, who is a single mum and drives an SUV, says parking in London is already expensive, and the prospect of paying more for residential parking is something that she couldn’t afford.

“I disagree because I have a child so I do have to have a bigger car,” she says. “My mother is really old. If she needs a GP appointment or dentist, I have to take her."

I thought that a child is typically smaller than an adult, so why do you need an SUV to fit one? I'm fairly sure from my failing memory that I've seen families going on holiday with MULTIPLE children in just a standard car.

SaveTheWail wrote:

'I was so lucky that I was doing the speed limit' (!)

http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c17d598vj0qo

If only there was a way to take control of the vehicle speed.

(That is a rare example though of a car "accident" as there's nothing you can do to prevent a deer running into the side of you)

I have to share the same roads with these people, it explains alot.

But just think how big the car will need to be to fit an adult in the rear.

hawkinspeter wrote:

There's nothing you can do to prevent a deer running into the side of you

Nonsense - we just need stronger sentencing for the deer. Flogging and chemical castration should do the trick.

[Am I doing this right?]

hawkinspeter wrote:

typically smaller than an adult, so why do you need an SUV to fit one? I'm fairly sure from my failing memory that I've seen families going on holiday with MULTIPLE children in just a standard car.

Now come on, everyone knows that children, and indeed anyone important, must be placed in an SUV to protect them from, erm, cyclists? Or perhaps large vehicles with a poor of view of nearby objects. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

(That is a rare example though of a car "accident" as there's nothing you can do to prevent a deer running into the side of you)

Disappointing comment - are you not aware of hi-vis?

"I honestly didn't see the car", the deer told our reporter. "I checked before pulling out of the forest as I always do, but it came out of nowhere."

Local officials emphasised the need for drivers to take measures to enhance their visibility to other animal road users, eg. by painting luminous wolves on the sides of their vehicles.

hawkinspeter wrote:

SaveTheWail wrote:

'I was so lucky that I was doing the speed limit' (!)

http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c17d598vj0qo

If only there was a way to take control of the vehicle speed.

(That is a rare example though of a car "accident" as there's nothing you can do to prevent a deer running into the side of you)

Yet even the driver (implicitly) suggests there was something she could have done - she says she now drives (on that road, at least) more cautiously and with better observation.  Had she been driving well within the speed limit, her vehicle and the deer would not have coincided in the first place, but even if they did, the consequences could have been considerably less severe.  If only there were a deer to teach every driver.

David9694 wrote:

Drivers angry about e-scooter and bike bays in Southampton

"Having had a car written off after a driver crashed into his vehicle while it was parked, and claiming drivers speed down the road at 50mph, he felt the bay was also an accident waiting to happen.

He said: “Not only do we all struggle to park on Priory Road but we have seen people travel up to 50 miles per hour – they will go straight into those bollards.""

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24380839.drivers-angry-e-scooter-bike-b...

They can't avoid the bollards, but the parked cars 20 yards down the road are fine?

Quote:

Ash Cartman (Long Ashton, Liberal Democrat) said he was not against parking charges in principle, but said: “This is less a parking strategy than a financial strategy.”

He added: “It’s a Trojan tax — that’s what I’d call it — secretly bringing in tax rises to fill a gap in council finances.”

…

At the meeting on October 16 where the council executive voted to bring in the charges, council leader Mike Bell (Liberal Democrat) said: “We cannot justify subsidising parking when we are having to cut care services for vulnerable adults and children.”

Was Cllr Cartman not at that meeting, or does he just disagree with the council funding care services?  Is he saying that free parking is more important? Hmm…

brooksby wrote:

Was Cllr Cartman not at that meeting

He was, but he left early.

mdavidford wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Was Cllr Cartman not at that meeting

He was, but he left early.

Clearly someone didn't respect his authoritaaa!