Driving standards

[MJI]

Nothing wrong with BMWs but there is with SOME of the users they attract, same with Audi and Mercedes.

 

You can tell from the model what sort they will be.

 

Many are company cars.

 

But smaller the engine, more likely to be an arse.

 

Worst ever BMW driver I have seen was in a 518

 

But the quicker and better ones are bought by enthusiasts who love their Ultimale Driving Machines and take great care of them. So those M3s and M5s will never be the cars annoying you.

[Horsetan]

...So those M3s and M5s will never be the cars annoying you.

I think you need to come down to London to be disabused of that notion.

[Baby Deltic]

Saw someone today, over the centre line, clipped kerbs, wrong lanes, all over the place. Small white car, no idea what it was

 

Were you driving on a verge at the time?

[mezzoman253]

Just to cheer up the BMW owners a Range Rover owner.On the NDR.. in todays Eastern Daily Press..

 

https://youtu.be/jCRC6PBR4E8

Looking at the early part of the video, the RR is on the roundabout before the lorry starts to move. The RR was coming from the right and turning right, so were in the correct lane. At some point you have to cross the outer lanes to exit.

 

However it's one of those where if it were me I'd have let the lorry pass in front and put it down to experience.

 

With today's volume of traffic and the way some roundabouts are laid out, lane wise, it's always a problem to be in the right place.

 

Rob

Edited May 12, 2018 by mezzoman253

[PhilJ W]

Looking at the early part of the video, the RR is on the roundabout before the lorry stars to move. The RR was coming from the right and turning right, so were in the correct lane. At some point you have to cross the outer lanes to exit.

 

However it's one of those where if it were me I'd have let the lorry pass in front and put it down to experience.

 

With today's volume of traffic and the way some roundabouts are laid out, lane wise, it's always a problem to be in the right place.

 

Rob

It would have helped if the RR driver had used their indicators.

[Titan]

It would have helped if the RR driver had used their indicators.

And the lorry too.

[Pacific231G]

 

Or better still, get as much as possible off the road and on to rail. We had an incredible system that worked many years ago and we threw it away. But wheels do turn full circle sometimes........

 

Stewart

I believe it wasn't a terribly efficient way of getting shipments from A to B and not compatible with modern just-in-time logistics.

 

(Though when people say that it was also not compatible with today's desire to order things and get next-day delivery I'm not so sure - first class mail generally managed to get where it was going the next day so far as I know).

 

Rail could even manage same-day delivery. The BBC newsroom I once worked in often used BR's Red Star Parcels service to get film shot in the morning to the studios for that evening's broadcast.  It was a very reliable service- packages had to be personally signed for by the BR staff responsible at each stage- and meant that, as neither the reporter nor the crew needed to return to base with the film, they could be sent to film another feature for the following day's programme. Timing was generally tight but the newsroom co-ordinators knew what time the film had to be at a particular Red Star office to catch a specific train that would get it to our local station  in time for someone to go to the railway station to pick it up in time for  processing and editing.

 

Don't believe the ideological propaganda that the private sector is wonderfully efficient and the public sector the opposite. In my experience both BR and the BBC were very lean and efficient organisations.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Pacific231G

[AndyID]

Looking at the early part of the video, the RR is on the roundabout before the lorry starts to move. The RR was coming from the right and turning right, so were in the correct lane. At some point you have to cross the outer lanes to exit.

 

However it's one of those where if it were me I'd have let the lorry pass in front and put it down to experience.

 

With today's volume of traffic and the way some roundabouts are laid out, lane wise, it's always a problem to be in the right place.

 

Rob

 

Multi-lane roundabouts are horrible. Hate the things.

[Horsetan]

.... Don't believe the ideological propaganda that the private sector is wonderfully efficient and the public sector the opposite. ....

Likewise, don't believe anything you read in the news, as there's a high likelihood it's fake clickbait which the journalist hasn't bothered chasing down properly.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Multi-lane roundabouts are horrible. Hate the things.

 

Most roundabouts have two lanes at least!

 

Mike.

[PhilJ W]

Multi-lane roundabouts are horrible. Hate the things.

Especially when they fit traffic lights to them.

[Pacific231G]

Likewise, don't believe anything you read in the news, as there's a high likelihood it's fake clickbait which the journalist hasn't bothered chasing down properly.

But if you don't believe anything you read in the news then you're no better off than someone who believes everything that's in the news. It's surely better to determine which sources are more or less likely to be accurate. Newsnight and some bloke in the pub who claims to know something somebody once told him may both get it wrong but I know which I'd trust more. The other test is to consider who owns the news source and what they are likely to want you to believe. That takes a bit of work and most people are more inclined to simply believe whatever agrees with what they already think.  Healthy scepticism is one thing but cynicism can be very unhealthy.

[Horsetan]

But if you don't believe anything you read in the news then you're no better off than someone who believes everything that's in the news. It's surely better to determine which sources are more or less likely to be accurate. Newsnight and some bloke in the pub who claims to know something somebody once told him may both get it wrong but I know which I'd trust more. The other test is to consider who owns the news source and what they are likely to want you to believe. That takes a bit of work and most people are more inclined to simply believe whatever agrees with what they already think.  Healthy scepticism is one thing but cynicism can be very unhealthy.

There is no news in the truth, and no truth in the news.

[TheQ]

Multi-lane roundabouts are horrible. Hate the things.

Particularly these ones, some of which have two lanes on one side and three on another. They often have 3 lanes when the most any exit has is two. Straight on is marked as the left hand and centre lanes. So you never know whether it a vehicle in the left hand lane is turning left or not as you can't see a left hand indicator, if used, from the right-hand side.

 

Lorries are a problem on these roundabouts, those going along the NDR, are in to much of a hurry and pull out in front of vehicles crossing. With the roads crossing being 60 mph and the NDR being 70 mph, I've had the same problems driving my land rover they all assume I'm going to be slow arriving/ accelerating./ Crossing the roundabout.

 

The exits on the two way roads, have very short merge areas only two cars long.

 

That video did turn up conviently in the local papers that day, and because the vehicles didn't indicate i posted it.

[ejstubbs]

There is no news in the truth, and no truth in the news.

 

Back in my school days, when I was studying Russian at O-level, I was told that the above originated from behind the Iron Curtain.  In those days the USSR had two 'official' state newspapers: Izvestia (Известия), which translates fairly closely as "news", and Pravda (Правда) which translates literally as "truth".  Both are still going, so quite possibly the saying is still used.

 

But if you don't believe anything you read in the news then you're no better off than someone who believes everything that's in the news. It's surely better to determine which sources are more or less likely to be accurate.

 

As well as having a degree of trust in certain sources, it's sensible to check anything that looks at all dodgy elsewhere. It's surprising how often something stated confidently in a newspaper article can be found to be, if not false, then at least an incomplete rendering of the facts, simply by referring to Wikipedia as a second source.  (Of course Wikipedia is by no means faultless, but the articles do usually list external references which you can follow up.)  Even just a minute or two of judicious keyword-based Googling can turn up some worthwhile contrary or more nuanced views (as well as, unfortunately all too often, a bunch of bonkers conspiracy theories).

 

Basically, taking all information on trust whatever the source is all too likely to leave you with an incomplete or biased understanding of the facts.

 

I find a good rule of thumb to be that, if a news source is simply reporting what the government has said, then you can be fairly certain that the statement stretches the boundaries of veracity at some point...

Edited May 13, 2018 by ejstubbs

[Pacific231G]

There is no news in the truth, and no truth in the news.

Every year, at the start of the Royal Television Society's annual journalism awards, there is a roll call of those, reporters, camera crews, fixers and translators  who have died while doing their job of trying to tell the rest of the world what is happening. It gets longer each year. 

 

Next time you're in central London, go and visit St. Bride's Church near the St. Paul's end of Fleet Street. There is a space there, to the left of the nave, dedicated to the memory of late journalists. An increasing proportion of them have been killed by those who don't want the truth to be reported. You might care to light a candle to those who died so that "the truth" presented to you isn't just what those in power would like it to be.  

[newbryford]

Especially when they fit traffic lights to them.

 

So they are no longer roundabouts, but light controlled gyratory systems..........

[Enterprisingwestern]

So they are no longer roundabouts, but light controlled gyratory systems..........

 

I thought that was a helicopter?

 

Mike.

[TheQ]

You mean like this?

 

 

[Pacific231G]

Especially when they fit traffic lights to them.

Multilane roundabouts (and light controlled gyratory systems) would work better if people didn't think it OK to overtake on the inside. nearside. (Edited for clarity)  

Edited May 14, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Horsetan]

So they are no longer roundabouts, but light controlled gyratory systems..........

 

See Hanger Lane, etc.

[TheQ]

Multilane roundabouts (and light controlled gyratory systems) would work better if people didn't think it OK to overtake on the inside.

but the inside of a round about is  in the centre which is the side you overtake on, so do you mean left or right, port or Starboard?

[Tony_S]

but the inside of a round about is in the centre which is the side you overtake on, so do you mean left or right, port or Starboard?

Our local multi, mini, magic roundabout (Sadlers Farm) was converted back to a conventional shape but with light controlled access from most of the roads joining. However to remove the traffic turning right heading south there is a short cut across the middle of the roundabout.

Confusing for non locals.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Tony_S

[Pacific231G]

but the inside of a round about is  in the centre which is the side you overtake on, so do you mean left or right, port or Starboard?

I meant the nearside so coming past you on your left side.

[Pacific231G]

See Hanger Lane, etc.

I see the Hangar Lane Gyratory rather more often than I'd  like but a similar- though less frenetic- situation pertains at the Greenford Roundabout two major junctions further out.  The real problem is the drivers who think their d**ks will fall off if they're not first at the lights.