Drivers and their problems

Quote:

Along with the bollards, a new traffic island was installed on Sion Hill (East). There is now no right turn from Cavendish Road onto Sion Hill (East). But on Wednesday, one council bin lorry had to drive across the wrong side of the traffic island to make this right turn.

I'm sure that somethings wrong here, but I don't think that it's the new traffic island...

Does nobody sport a sense of humour any more? You can tell this is a jokey festive spoof from:  I did suggest that you take note of the number plate details, maybe use mobile phones, and then upload that to Op Snap," he advised, referring to a police tool for reporting binning reports of traffic offences

brooksby wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/automated-vehicles-bill-2023/...

Pretty sure the distinction between the "user in charge" and the person sitting in the driver's seat already exists in the Scottish legal system! Even if you're seen there before and after a crash a solid "I have no recollection of that" can be enough for the court to conclude that while you were the driver, you weren't actually *driving* in those moments, so it is not moral to hold you responsible.

The notion of "happened in your watch, the buck stops with you" continues to become less generally applicable. (No doubt we'll find out this also doesn't apply to the politicians who ushered in these changes...)

I love the comments in the daily echo, they're such a bunch of miseries.

brooksby wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/29/extreme-car-dependency-u...

I created a forum post about that this morning, but it takes ages to show up.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/29/extreme-car-dependency-u...

I created a forum post about that this morning, but it takes ages to show up.

Sorry,  Peter: I must have missed that one 

brooksby wrote:

Sorry,  Peter: I must have missed that one 

Oh, it's not your fault at all. I know it's there, but can't even find it when clicking on the Forum links. It'll likely appear after an hour or so.

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)