Bad Driving thread

[HumanShield]

TBH, I haven't found that to be an issue yet... BUT what I have found to be an issue, is people hogging the 2nd most right lane, when the 2 lanes to the left are clear of traffic and they're chugging along at 80km/h, and the right most lane is full of traffic flowing at 120km/h... the chugger just refuses point blank to move over for some reason....

N1 northound and southbound JHB<>PTA every damn day, including weekends and public holidays. This weekend on the way to JHB. It was a rather quiet time of the day. The freeway was quiet, 5 lanes open, and this sad excuse for a BMW driver, with the rear fogs on i might add, was cruising along in the overtaking lane at about 100 KPH. After flashing him to move over he speeds up.

To paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson. They should have marksmen shoot these people who dont drive quick enough

 

[f2wohf]

In the traffic at the corner of 12th Avenue and Rivonia, a black C63 (couldn't see the plate) stopped in the middle of the crossing with another street preventing the oncoming traffic to pass in that street.

To let these cars pass, he decided to go on the opposite side lane and turn on Rivonia against the instructions of the traffic police officer (the robot was off).

Well done for creating an entire mess by yourself sir !

 

[TJ99]

Dunno if anyone experienced this, Focken taxis in Durban in the fast lane cruising so I come along doing about 130km flash lights from a distance to warn the ****er, to my surprise, on go the indicators to indicate right turn . Obviously on the freeway so there is no turning but he basically saying fock off to the centre lane I am staying in the fast lane doesn't matter my speed

Pass them on the left, go in front and hit the brakes, so the entitled **** HAS to slow down or change lanes. Then laugh mightily as it takes them 5 minutes to accelerate back to the speed they would have stayed at if they drove like they should have.

 

[TheSlinger]

N1 northound and southbound JHB<>PTA every damn day, including weekends and public holidays. This weekend on the way to JHB. It was a rather quiet time of the day. The freeway was quiet, 5 lanes open, and this sad excuse for a BMW driver, with the rear fogs on i might add, was cruising along in the overtaking lane at about 100 KPH. After flashing him to move over he speeds up.

To paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson. They should have marksmen shoot these people who dont drive quick enough

Similar experience

Once when driving CPT -- PE, just after Ceres, was busy overtaking a BMW cruising at about 90/100, he saw me over taking and floored it. Sped off at like 200, 15 min later, i over took him again, he was once more going at 90...

Was a long time ago, i don't remember the plates or anything...

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Pass them on the left, go in front and hit the brakes, so the entitled **** HAS to slow down or change lanes. Then laugh mightily as it takes them 5 minutes to accelerate back to the speed they would have stayed at if they drove like they should have.

Do you really want a taxi slamming into the back of you?

 

[TJ99]

Do you really want a taxi slamming into the back of you?

You don't do a full on emergency stop, just reduce speed enough so they have to slow down or GTFO the fast lane. Slowing down gently works just as well.

 

[IzZzy]

You don't do a full on emergency stop, just reduce speed enough so they have to slow down or GTFO the fast lane. Slowing down gently works just as well.

Passive aggressive behaviour is no better than ignorant behaviour.

 

[MrGray]

Waited forever for a gap to turn left into Ou Kaapse Weg this morning. Cars behind me getting impatient. Eventually there was a big enough gap in the traffic to turn into the road but as I start moving into the road the chop approaching from the right (who had been at a safe distance when I started moving into the road) put foot and doubled his speed to try and prevent it, by which time I had already entered the road so he almost rear ended me. He then started flashing his lights and driving on my bumper for the next 8 kms. Lovely arriving at work a complete basket case. Hope he drives off a cliff.

 

[TJ99]

Passive aggressive behaviour is no better than ignorant behaviour.

Neither one is being either. It's "be a dick to me, I'll be a dick to you". Pretty straightforward.

Actually, the one refusing to move out of the fast lane is breaking the law by not moving.

 

[IzZzy]

Neither one is being either. It's "be a dick to me, I'll be a dick to you". Pretty straightforward.

Actually, the one refusing to move out of the fast lane is breaking the law by not moving.

Not quite. Brake checking behaviour is extremely irresponsible, and idiotic. You are relying on a third party's actions (i.e. being aware and stopping in time) in order not to cause damage to yourself, in circumstances where you already know that that third party is not entirely aware of his surroundings.

If you brake check me, this is how it will play out:
1) If my car is damaged, I will lay a charge of malicious damage to property because you intentionally applied brakes in a situation which doesn't warrant it [I would have dashcam footage for proof]
2) If I or my passengers are hurt, I will lay a charge of assault or assault GBH;
3) Regardless of the above, I will lay a charge of reckless or negligent driving.

That's three criminal offences in one go. There is no upside to brake checking except a perceived restoration of your ego.

 

[TJ99]

Not quite. Brake checking behaviour is extremely irresponsible, and idiotic. You are relying on a third party's actions (i.e. being aware and stopping in time) in order not to cause damage to yourself, in circumstances where you already know that that third party is not entirely aware of his surroundings.

If you brake check me, this is how it will play out:
1) If my car is damaged, I will lay a charge of malicious damage to property because you intentionally applied brakes in a situation which doesn't warrant it [I would have dashcam footage for proof]
2) If I or my passengers are hurt, I will lay a charge of assault or assault GBH;
3) Regardless of the above, I will lay a charge of reckless or negligent driving.

That's three criminal offences in one go. There is no upside to brake checking except a perceived restoration of your ego.

And the other guy will hopefully have his dashcam proving that you BROKE THE LAW. Law > your personal feels of what is irresponsible.

 

[f2wohf]

Not quite. Brake checking behaviour is extremely irresponsible, and idiotic. You are relying on a third party's actions (i.e. being aware and stopping in time) in order not to cause damage to yourself, in circumstances where you already know that that third party is not entirely aware of his surroundings.

If you brake check me, this is how it will play out:
1) If my car is damaged, I will lay a charge of malicious damage to property because you intentionally applied brakes in a situation which doesn't warrant it [I would have dashcam footage for proof]
2) If I or my passengers are hurt, I will lay a charge of assault or assault GBH;
3) Regardless of the above, I will lay a charge of reckless or negligent driving.

That's three criminal offences in one go. There is no upside to brake checking except a perceived restoration of your ego.

Do you really want a new car that bad ?

I agree that brake checking is completely stupid though, I usually flash the lights, wait a little and see, and if nothing, pass by the left, hoot and leave it there.

 

[IzZzy]

And the other guy will hopefully have his dashcam proving that you BROKE THE LAW. Law > your personal feels of what is irresponsible.

What I described isn't 'personal feels', its the law. A person failing to move over does not entitle one to do what one wants. You could claim that as a mitigating factor, though, in sentence.

Do you really want a new car that bad ?

I agree that brake checking is completely stupid though, I usually flash the lights, wait a little and see, and if nothing, pass by the left, hoot and leave it there.

It's not about getting a new car or not, it's about calling out idiotic, potentially criminal, behaviour - there really is no upside. Yeah I do what you do. What grinds my gears is flashing someone to move over only to have them immediately brake check me. That's two counts of stupid.

 

[f2wohf]

What I described isn't 'personal feels', its the law. A person failing to move over does not entitle one to do what one wants. You could claim that as a mitigating factor, though, in sentence.

Nino Bonino v De Lange: ‘It is a fundamental principle that no man is allowed to take the law into his own hands; no one is permitted to dispossess another forcibly or wrongfully and against his consent of the possession of property, whether movable or immovable. If he does so, the Court will summarily restore the status quo ante, and will do that as a preliminary to any enquiry or investigation into the merits of the dispute.’

 

[Budza]

Two wrongs..

What grinds my gears is flashing someone to move over only to have them immediately brake check me. That's two counts of stupid.

Sufficient incompetence is indistinguishable from malice- it's probably some little old lady whose first instinct when anything out of the ordinary happens is to brake. I see them all the time- those that brake for every corner

 

[IzZzy]

Nino Bonino v De Lange: ‘It is a fundamental principle that no man is allowed to take the law into his own hands; no one is permitted to dispossess another forcibly or wrongfully and against his consent of the possession of property, whether movable or immovable. If he does so, the Court will summarily restore the status quo ante, and will do that as a preliminary to any enquiry or investigation into the merits of the dispute.’

A lawyer quoting case law to another lawyer

 

[isie]

Two wrongs..



Sufficient incompetence is indistinguishable from malice- it's probably some little old lady whose first instinct when anything out of the ordinary happens is to brake. I see them all the time- those that brake for every corner

what two wrongs?
its perfectly legal to flash someone to advise them to move out of the way!

5) Where the driver of a motor vehicle which is being driven in the right hand traffic lane or in the traffic lane furthest to the right on a freeway (hereinafter referred to as the first vehicle) becomes aware that the driver of another motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the second vehicle) intends to overtake the first vehicle, the driver of the first vehicle shall steer that vehicle to a lane to the left of the one in which he or she is driving, without endangering himself or herself or other traffic or property on the freeway, And shall not accelerate the speed of his or her vehicle until the second vehicle has passed.

6) The driver of the second vehicle may make the driver of the first vehicle aware that he or she intends to overtake the first vehicle by giving the driver thereof a visible signal by means of flashing the headlights of his or her vehicle

Source - Rule of the ****ing freeway - AKA The Special Provisions Relating to Freeways, regulation 323

 

[TJ99]

Notice that the first driver SHALL MOVE OUT OF THE WAY if it doesn't endanger anyone.

 

[f2wohf]

A lawyer quoting case law to another lawyer

I was quoting it more to support your answer to TJ99 than for you .

I put it as an assumption that if you don't work with at SABC, you have a real degree and studied it .

 

[IzZzy]

I was quoting it more to support your answer to TJ99 than for you .

I put it as an assumption that if you don't work with at SABC, you have a real degree and studied it .

Yeah I know, thanks Couldn't resist the situation though! Your assumption is a fair one!