Should I bother reporting this guy?

Nephew

Earlier today, I was stopped at a red light in slow moving traffic, third car from the front, waiting to turn right at a T-intersection with a yellow box in the centre. By the time the lights turned green to allow us to turn right, a lorry on the main road had mistimed the amber light and blocked 1/3 of the yellow box rather than go through the red light. The lorry in the yellow box made the right turn a slight bit awkward but it was forgiveable.

As I was making the right turn inside the yellow box, the van behind me decides to undertake me as I was just about to pass the drivers cab of the lorry protruding into the yellow box. Tbh it was the last thing I was expecting anyone to do especially with the lorry making the right turn rather tight, and I had to jam on my brakes so I didn't make contact with the van and let him pass me. He gave no indication that he was going undertake me. It was a pretty pointless manoeuvre anyway as the traffic ahead was slow moving.

Is it worth my while reporting him to the cops it was a G4S van (group 4 securicor), perhaps reporting him to the company will have more of an impact.

I had L plates on the car so he probably felt like he could bully me off the road.

Atomic Pineapple

not sure if anything will happen but its worth reporting any bad driving, ya never know, i think the company would be better to complain to at this stage

Anan1

It sounds as though what he did was quite dangerous, so yes you probably should report him to G4. That said, are sure you were making "adequate progress"? Don't take this the wrong way, but those vans are armoured and thus very slow.:)

Tannylan

Report him to his company. Hate When they do things like this:mad:

Fey!

Report him. Because of the armour, he had huge weight and would have done huge damage if he connected.

hobochris

To be honest theres no point.. even if you had the reg they'd probably not bother doing anything about it.

Thats happened to me a few times before.. What i always do Is continue on(as i have the right of way) should the illegally undertaking vehicle hit you he is in the wrong and its his insurance that will cover the damage for his bad driving not yours...

there are several rules of the road that put him in the wrong in this situation:
1. undertaking is illegal no matter waht way he tries to spin it.
2. you had the right of way.
3. You always give way to the right (udertaking,you would be on his right hand side.)

hobochris

Fey! wrote:

Report him. Because of the armour, he had huge weight and would have done huge damage if he connected.

I know a guy that works for them, and trust me that would be pointless... they are short of drivers and wouldnt risk a driver leaving for calling him up on something like this.

Nephew

Anan1 wrote:

It sounds as though what he did was quite dangerous, so yes you probably should report him to G4. That said, are sure you were making "adequate progress"? Don't take this the wrong way, but those vans are armoured and thus very slow.:)

I know what you're saying but I was going the same speed as everyone else, he gave me no choice but to let him undertake me, as his bomb proof van would have put a nice dent in my car if I decided to play chicken.

Anan1

hobochris wrote:

Thats happened to me a few times before.. What i always do Is continue on(as i have the right of way) should the illegally undertaking vehicle hit you he is in the wrong and its his insurance that will cover the damage for his bad driving not yours...

there are several rules of the road that put him in the wrong in this situation:
1. undertaking is illegal no matter waht way he tries to spin it.
2. you had the right of way.
3. You always give way to the right (udertaking,you would be on his right hand side.)

Unless of course the OP was on a first or third provisional and unaccompanied by a fully licensed driver.

hobochris

Anan1 wrote:

Unless of course the OP was on a first or third provisional and unaccompanied by a fully licensed driver.

I suppose that is true... It depends on the gard that arrives on the scene though, as to weather that would be made an issue or not... they seem to have a tollerence for provisional drivers.

which imo is sometimes too tollerent considering some seem as if they have only been driving a few days yet are on the roads alone.

Anan1

Nephew wrote:

I know what you're saying but I was going the same speed as everyone else, he gave me no choice but to let him undertake me, as his bomb proof van would have put a nice dent in my car if I decided to play chicken.

Don't get me wrong, what the van did was both dangerous and illegal. Just a thought, that's all.;)

gandalf

Ring the company with the time and location, they track all their vehicles. You have done your bit and its up to them to take action then.

Terrontress

Nephew wrote:

Earlier today, I was stopped at a red light in slow moving traffic, third car from the front, waiting to turn right at a T-intersection with a yellow box in the centre. By the time the lights turned green to allow us to turn right, a lorry on the main road had mistimed the amber light and blocked 1/3 of the yellow box rather than go through the red light. The lorry in the yellow box made the right turn a slight bit awkward but it was forgiveable.

As I was making the right turn inside the yellow box, the van behind me decides to undertake me as I was just about to pass the drivers cab of the lorry protruding into the yellow box. Tbh it was the last thing I was expecting anyone to do especially with the lorry making the right turn rather tight, and I had to jam on my brakes so I didn't make contact with the van and let him pass me. He gave no indication that he was going undertake me. It was a pretty pointless manoeuvre anyway as the traffic ahead was slow moving.

Is it worth my while reporting him to the cops it was a G4S van (group 4 securicor), perhaps reporting him to the company will have more of an impact.

I had L plates on the car so he probably felt like he could bully me off the road.

If you are a Learner driver, you obviosuly have never passed any test to say you are a competent driver.

Why should the Gardai, Group 4 or anyone else for that matter believe that you have a rudimentary understanding of the rules of the road?

antodeco

hobochris wrote:

To be honest theres no point.. even if you had the reg they'd probably not bother doing anything about it.

Thats happened to me a few times before.. What i always do Is continue on(as i have the right of way) should the illegally undertaking vehicle hit you he is in the wrong and its his insurance that will cover the damage for his bad driving not yours...

there are several rules of the road that put him in the wrong in this situation:
1. undertaking is illegal no matter waht way he tries to spin it.
2. you had the right of way.
3. You always give way to the right (udertaking,you would be on his right hand side.)

Problem there is that whilst I agree it will be his insurance, the damage caused to the car will have a knock on affect to the resale of the car. If its been crashed, its been crashed. Despite who pays for it. Plus, the car would never be the way it was again!

Padraig Mor

Terrontress wrote:

If you are a Learner driver, you obviosuly have never passed any test to say you are a competent driver.

Why should the Gardai, Group 4 or anyone else for that matter believe that you have a rudimentary understanding of the rules of the road?

Because, presuming he started driving in the last few years, he's passed a Driver Theory Test showing that he has a comprehensive knowledge of the rules of the road - unlike most drivers?

Fey!

Just because someone is a learner doesn't mean that some moron in a truck should be allowed to get away with forcing him/her off the road. That argument reeks of "they haven't passed their test, so they deserve to have their well being put at risk". Also, the OP didn't say that he didn't have a qualified driver in his car in his initial post.

And, in my experience, the guys who drive those trucks really don't seem to care about anyone else, or whether not you have a grey or a pink license.

Terrontress

Fey! wrote:

Just because someone is a learner doesn't mean that some moron in a truck should be allowed to get away with forcing him/her off the road. That argument reeks of "they haven't passed their test, so they deserve to have their well being put at risk". Also, the OP didn't say that he didn't have a qualified driver in his car in his initial post.

And, in my experience, the guys who drive those trucks really don't seem to care about anyone else, or whether not you have a grey or a pink license.

Perhaps the qualified driver in the car should then make a report as they are technically in charge of the vehicle.

Coming from a country where the idea of a learner driving on their own is ridiculous, I would be outraged at an unqualified driver passing judgement on how I drive.

I would imagine that a professional driver, driving a commercial vehicle, would be much more competent than an unqualified, provisionally licensed driver.

daedalus2097

Terrontress wrote:

I would imagine that a professional driver, driving a commercial vehicle, would be much more competent than an unqualified, provisionally licensed driver.

I think you underestimate the level of absolute incompetence this country is rife with as regards "qualified" drivers. Fair enough, there are a lot of unaccompanied learners - most of us have done it at one point or anothere - and there are some learners who don't know what they're doing. But in my every day driving, I have to say that the majority of learners I see behave far better than anyone gives them credit for, and better than a lot of "qualified" drivers. This is probably down to them being a little bit more apprehensive and not yet suffering from the "I'm driving 25 years and I drive a Merc therefore I own the road" syndrome afflicting a high number of the country's most experienced drivers.

The number of qualified drivers, *especially* professional drivers I've had to jam on for, beep at, flash lights at and so on for doing stupid like that is astonishing. They don't have any regard for anyone on the road whatever the colour of their license. They use the wrong lanes onto roundabouts. They assume you'll yield to them because they believe turning on an indicator infers right of way when they finally decide they're not in the appropriate lane. It's very rarely I see learner drivers doing these things.

blastman

Terrontress wrote:

I would imagine that a professional driver, driving a commercial vehicle, would be much more competent than an unqualified, provisionally licensed driver.

Comedy gold!!

You don't get out much, do you? So-called "professional" drivers are apt to do the stupidest, most dangerous things on the road precisely because they think they're better than the average joe.

jules2007.ie

just drive carefully out there. if you cant stay at home. jules2007.ie :rolleyes:

Anan1

blastman wrote:

Comedy gold!!

You don't get out much, do you? So-called "professional" drivers are apt to do the stupidest, most dangerous things on the road precisely because they think they're better than the average joe.

Absolutely true.

Terrontress

daedalus2097 wrote:

I think you underestimate the level of absolute incompetence this country is rife with as regards "qualified" drivers. Fair enough, there are a lot of unaccompanied learners - most of us have done it at one point or anothere - and there are some learners who don't know what they're doing. But in my every day driving, I have to say that the majority of learners I see behave far better than anyone gives them credit for, and better than a lot of "qualified" drivers. This is probably down to them being a little bit more apprehensive and not yet suffering from the "I'm driving 25 years and I drive a Merc therefore I own the road" syndrome afflicting a high number of the country's most experienced drivers.

The number of qualified drivers, *especially* professional drivers I've had to jam on for, beep at, flash lights at and so on for doing stupid like that is astonishing. They don't have any regard for anyone on the road whatever the colour of their license. They use the wrong lanes onto roundabouts. They assume you'll yield to them because they believe turning on an indicator infers right of way when they finally decide they're not in the appropriate lane. It's very rarely I see learner drivers doing these things.

I take your point but can you not understand that a learner driver should not be in the position to appraise and report the actions of a fully qualified driver.

I have seen people with L plates, driving on their own, fail to get the grasp traffic lights in this city. Should the fact that I sounded my horn on them to get them to move be used by them to report me for being overly aggressive, or else if they saw me using the lights correctly, they could accuse me of breaking the lights?

I suppose the fundamental issue is that learner drivers should not be on the roads, but beyond that I think they can be no judge whatsoever of someone who has passed a test to drive.

Terrontress

blastman wrote:

Comedy gold!!

You don't get out much, do you? So-called "professional" drivers are apt to do the stupidest, most dangerous things on the road precisely because they think they're better than the average joe.

Prove it othewise.

The fact that someone has assessed the professional driver and passed them as being safe would give me more confidence than someone putting up an L plate and teaching themselves how to drive on live roads.

daedalus2097

Terrontress wrote:

I have seen people with L plates, driving on their own, fail to get the grasp traffic lights in this city. Should the fact that I sounded my horn on them to get them to move be used by them to report me for being overly aggressive, or else if they saw me using the lights correctly, they could accuse me of breaking the lights?

I suppose the fundamental issue is that learner drivers should not be on the roads, but beyond that I think they can be no judge whatsoever of someone who has passed a test to drive.

This is true, he possibly doesn't have much say being a learner... But then again, I (a fully qualified driver) was down in Cork a year or so ago, and could not figure out the traffic lights on a roundabout just outside the city. There happened to be a Dublin car beside me, he got it wrong too. And he didn't have L-plates either. We both got blown off the road by the locals. I understand I was making a mess of the thing, yet I've passed my test. Knowing or not knowing the lights in a certain area where it's unclear how they work doesn't make you a good/bad driver. What's the difference between me making a mess of that junction the day before I pass my test and the day after? Have I made a mistake the day before but done it on purpose the day after??

Fey!

Terrontress wrote:

Perhaps the qualified driver in the car should then make a report as they are technically in charge of the vehicle.

No they're not; the driver is "technically in charge of the vehicle". The full license holder (note: I don't say "qualified driver") is an overseer.

Terrontress wrote:

Coming from a country where the idea of a learner driving on their own is ridiculous, I would be outraged at an unqualified driver passing judgement on how I drive.

As opposed to someone who may well have gotten their license in an amnesty where they never had to do a test and who may have absolutely NO idea of the rotr?

Terrontress wrote:

I would imagine that a professional driver, driving a commercial vehicle, would be much more competent than an unqualified, provisionally licensed driver.

"Professional Driver"??? You jest, surely? I, like everyone else on here, see commercial drivers every day, and 99% could not be refered to as "professional" even under the loosest meaning of the word!

Terrontress

No they're not; the driver is "technically in charge of the vehicle". The full license holder (note: I don't say "qualified driver") is an overseer.

My apologies for coming from a UK perspective here, and as a result I may be wrong.

In the UK, when a learner driver is accompanied by a qualified driver, it is the qualified driver who is deemed to be in charge.

If a learner driver has a drunk passenger, who has a full license, in the passenger seat, that passenger will lose their license as they are technically in charge of the vehicle.

I presumed it would be the same here or in any other modern country.

As opposed to someone who may well have gotten their license in an amnesty where they never had to do a test and who may have absolutely NO idea of the rotr?

Yeah, another ridiculous situation.

"Professional Driver"??? You jest, surely? I, like everyone else on here, see commercial drivers every day, and 99% could not be refered to as "professional" even under the loosest meaning of the word!

I suppose the difference is that the commercial drivers know that they are doing something in the wrong. Learner drivers have never gone through a system to ensure they understand the rules of the road.

Fey!

That's the problem here; a learner will at least have done a theory test, but the commercial driver may never have done ANY testing!

Anan1

Terrontress wrote:

Learner drivers have never gone through a system to ensure they understand the rules of the road.

If you had taken the time to read the thread then you would know that this is not true. In order to get a provisional license, the applicant must first pass a theory test, thus ensuring that they understand the rules of the road.

Padraig Mor

Terrontress wrote:

. Learner drivers have never gone through a system to ensure they understand the rules of the road.

Did you miss my post above??? All learner drivers for the last five years or so have to pass a comprehensive test of ROTR knowledge before being given a provisional licence. Most 'qualified' drivers wouldn't recognisew the ROTR book if you threw it in their face! This is borne out by my (and other poster above) daily experience - L drivers have a far better idea of the rules than 'full' drivers. And no, I'm not an L driver. All of this also depends on your assumption that the OP is not on his second prov. licence and thus driving perfectly legally.

edit: and before someone posts (as usual) that all you have to do is learn off a few answers to pass the Theory Test - there are 800 possible questions! The required pass rate is 80% IIRC

bo-bo

Terrontress - its amusing to read some of the broad sweeping generalisations you make, yet the scope of your argument is very narrow.

i dont believe its possible for you to assertain a drivers ability or awareness on the basis of their driving licence (you should be in an ideal world, but you cant).

the op can by all means report the driver of the offending vehicle. all he is reporting are facts.

Terrontress

Well, my original point was that a learner driver should not be taken as a credible witness to an offence on the road and I stick by that.

Two wrongs do not make a right so it could also be fair to say that those who were given licenses under some form of an amnesty should also not be given any credibility in these matters.

But in relation to the OP, I think any statement he makes should be discounted.

Padraig Mor

Terrontress wrote:

Two wrongs do not make a right ........But in relation to the OP, I think any statement he makes should be discounted.

What wrong did the OP do? As mentioned, he's perfectly entitled to drive on a second prov. And are you saying that he imagined a van nearly mowing him off the road? Or are you just projecting your prejudices on to him?

bo-bo

Terrontress wrote:

Well, my original point was that a learner driver should not be taken as a credible witness to an offence on the road and I stick by that.

ANYONE in ANY situation can make a credible witness. This happens to be a traffic issue, so be it. What does a drivers level of experience have to do with them being a credible witness? All a witness does is report facts. It is not the witness who ultimately decides what happens the offender, but you cant discount their credibility.

blastman

Terrontress wrote:

Prove it othewise.

The fact that someone has assessed the professional driver and passed them as being safe would give me more confidence than someone putting up an L plate and teaching themselves how to drive on live roads.

Admit it, you're Richard Curtis, aren't you?

Matt Simis

Terrontress wrote:

Well, my original point was that a learner driver should not be taken as a credible witness to an offence on the road and I stick by that.
[snip].

But in relation to the OP, I think any statement he makes should be discounted.

So, in your world, a person who cannot drive at all (say, a non-driver pedestrian), is not a "credible" witness to a traffic accident? Such as say, a car collision, a pedestrian getting hit by a car or near miss etc.

As has been pointed out, you are projecting your frustration and annoyance of what you assume is the "ease" people in Ireland can get driving without any understanding of the history of the issue or the current situation with even getting a driving test.

Spitfire666

although i do understand the point your making terrontress, i cant help but think its flawed. its like saying that if you see somebody break a red light you cant possibly be qualified to say that he/she broke the red light because you havnt passed the test.

On the original point, i had a similar run in with a van from the same company coming off the m1 at the m50 junction from the santry direction and he drove up onto the grass on the right because a large truck was blocking part of the left lane with the back of his trailer so i stopped rather the try squeese through. he sounded the horn the went up onto the grass (all 4 wheels) to go around me and pull up at the lights.

then as we went around the round about i was heading towards the n32 and he was tot the left of me and as i went to pass him and go straight on he pulled out without indicating. i seen him so could avoid him but weather or not i had a full licence or not doesnt mean that i cant say what he done was wrong???

(i did have a full licence)

odonnell

Terrontress wrote:

Perhaps the qualified driver in the car should then make a report as they are technically in charge of the vehicle.

Coming from a country where the idea of a learner driving on their own is ridiculous, I would be outraged at an unqualified driver passing judgement on how I drive.

I would imagine that a professional driver, driving a commercial vehicle, would be much more competent than an unqualified, provisionally licensed driver.

Competence is NOT being RESPONSIBLE.

Youre very naive and ignorant in your statement - and in my experience, you reek of everything that is wrong with the drivers in this country....

there - hows that? or was i too blunt?

Its about time someone stood up to IDIOTS who put people in danger here, not defend them.

daedalus2097

Spitfire666 wrote:

On the original point, i had a similar run in with a van from the same company coming off the m1 at the m50 junction from the santry direction and he drove up onto the grass on the right because a large truck was blocking part of the left lane with the back of his trailer so i stopped rather the try squeese through. he sounded the horn the went up onto the grass (all 4 wheels) to go around me and pull up at the lights.

then as we went around the round about i was heading towards the n32 and he was tot the left of me and as i went to pass him and go straight on he pulled out without indicating.

Now THERE'S a professional driver. I hear that "green" lane is reserved exclusively for them, seeing as they're so much better than your average driver and have passed the test so obviously can handle driving a 5 tonne van on the grass.

Terrontress

Spitfire666 wrote:

although i do understand the point your making terrontress, i cant help but think its flawed. its like saying that if you see somebody break a red light you cant possibly be qualified to say that he/she broke the red light because you havnt passed the test.

On the original point, i had a similar run in with a van from the same company coming off the m1 at the m50 junction from the santry direction and he drove up onto the grass on the right because a large truck was blocking part of the left lane with the back of his trailer so i stopped rather the try squeese through. he sounded the horn the went up onto the grass (all 4 wheels) to go around me and pull up at the lights.

then as we went around the round about i was heading towards the n32 and he was tot the left of me and as i went to pass him and go straight on he pulled out without indicating. i seen him so could avoid him but weather or not i had a full licence or not doesnt mean that i cant say what he done was wrong???

(i did have a full licence)

Because you have a full licence, I would take your complaint seriously and investigate it, if that was my job.

In relation to breaking a red light, I can think of examples where it can be done legally. This comes through being a competent, fully licenced driver. In one of these situations, someone who has not had the same degree of training as I may make a complaint against me due to their ignorance and lack of training.

I'd say that in order for a complaint to be taken seriously by the authorities, from one driver against another, it should come from a fully licenced driver.

Jack Bauer999

Terrontress wrote:

Because you have a full licence, I would take your complaint seriously and investigate it, if that was my job.

In relation to breaking a red light, I can think of examples where it can be done legally. This comes through being a competent, fully licenced driver. In one of these situations, someone who has not had the same degree of training as I may make a complaint against me due to their ignorance and lack of training.

I'd say that in order for a complaint to be taken seriously by the authorities, from one driver against another, it should come from a fully licenced driver.

Good stuff,
i think ill drive into the side of the first car i see with L plates on the way home this evening,
after all ive a full licience so i have to be in the right,

in the words of delboy, "what a plonker"

Terrontress

Jack Bauer999 wrote:

Good stuff,
i think ill drive into the side of the first car i see with L plates on the way home this evening,
after all ive a full licience so i have to be in the right,

in the words of delboy, "what a plonker"

That is different because there will be physical evidence to prove what has happened and there may also be qualified, competent witnesses to make a statement.

None of you can see what is wrong with unqualified drivers on the roads.

Probably the same people who complain about the high death tolls, high insurance costs, people nudging bumpers while parking etc.

If a learner driver made a technical complaint about my driving, I would fight it to the highest court in the land to have them discredit that learner's statement.

Jack Bauer999

Terrontress wrote:

That is different because there will be physical evidence to prove what has happened and there may also be qualified, competent witnesses to make a statement.

None of you can see what is wrong with unqualified drivers on the roads.

Probably the same people who complain about the high death tolls, high insurance costs, people nudging bumpers while parking etc.

If a learner driver made a technical complaint about my driving, I would fight it to the highest court in the land to have them discredit that learner's statement.

ive no illusions about learner drivers but just because you have a green licence doesn't make you a blithering idiot as you make out all learner drivers are.

Terrontress

Jack Bauer999 wrote:

ive no illusions about learner drivers but just because you have a green licence doesn't make you a blithering idiot as you make out all learner drivers are.

I am not saying that they are all blithering idiots. I am sure they are extremely competent in many things. Just not driving.

TwoShedsJackson

In relation to breaking a red light, I can think of examples where it can be done if I feel like it, of course it's never legal to drive through a red light, no matter what God given rights I feel my incredible driving skills bestow upon me - I am the classic example of a cocky driver who thinks they're a lot better than they are at driving

Fixed your post.

daedalus2097

Terrontress wrote:

That is different because there will be physical evidence to prove what has happened and there may also be qualified, competent witnesses to make a statement.

"May"... What if there's not? What if you and a fully qualified driver have a crash, it's totally their fault, but he or she swears blind it's your fault, and the only witness is a pedestrian? Maybe you shouldn't ask the pedestrian to be a witness for your case, because maybe they don't have a full driver's licence? Maybe they don't even have a provisional... Maybe the guy's right, and it was your fault, but you just can't seem to see that...

None of you can see what is wrong with unqualified drivers on the roads.

Probably the same people who complain about the high death tolls, high insurance costs, people nudging bumpers while parking etc.

Nobody is saying it's right to have them on our roads, but they're there, and the majority of the time it's not provisional drivers that cause these accidents. By God don't get me started on "fully qualified" drivers who can't manoevre their car well enough to park! It's anotehr area where I seem to see more incidents caused by "qualified" drivers tending to be more lazy and more careless, as opposed to the L-drivers. Even in my work car park here with about 300 cars, maybe 10 will be over the lines bordering their spaces at any time, and yet I've never seen a car with L-plates like that.

If a learner driver made a technical complaint about my driving, I would fight it to the highest court in the land to have them discredit that learner's statement.

Rather than admit you were wrong? Wow, they're some serious delusions of infallability you have there my friend.

daedalus2097

Terrontress wrote:

I am not saying that they are all blithering idiots. I am sure they are extremely competent in many things. Just not driving.

Aaah, nothing like a generalisation, eh? Once again, the majority of incompetence I see on the roads every day is NOT from learners, but from fully qualified drivers. You don't seem to realise that at all, do you?

bo-bo

Terrontress wrote:

I am not saying that they are all blithering idiots. I am sure they are extremely competent in many things. Just not driving.

Terrontress - i am again going to point out that your argument is fundamentaly flawed. This is not a personal attack or anything, but I would like you to think for one moment about what you are saying or indeed have said in previous posts.

--- deep breath ---

you assume that a learner driver is not technically compotent - fine, thats your assumption. however ,you then proceed to assume that they cant be a credible witness. this is where your argument goes critically pearshaped.

firstly, learner drivers do know the rules of the road (or should), they may not have the experience of their application, but they should know them

secondly a witnesses credibility is not defined by their experience in any given matter. in fact, experience in a given situation can prejudice a witnesses reliability as a witness. (eg what they actually saw as opposed to what they thought they saw).

thirdly, i believe an educated, intelligent and aware attitude on our roads is far more important that 2 different coloured pieces of paper. ok, its the only standard we have, but your argument points to a clear divide in the ability and execution of driving skills between the two, when in reality there is no such boundary.

finally, i would like to point out that if police forces world wide applied your process of thought to witnesses, we would all be in very, very, very deep trouble.

blastman

Sorry T, I was wrong, you aren't Richard Curtis, you're a troll.

(see, admitting you're wrong isn't that difficult)

Spitfire666

if i hadnt a provis licence and was on my way to do my driving test and somebody cut infront of me and went through a red light on a perfectly straight road with no emergency happening, would i be any less qualified to say he went through a red light then 2 hours later when i pass my test?

Your whole argument is stupid and i'd love to see you argue all the way to the highest court in the land.

sesswhat

hobochris wrote:

Thats happened to me a few times before.. What i always do Is continue on(as i have the right of way) should the illegally undertaking vehicle hit you he is in the wrong and its his insurance that will cover the damage for his bad driving not yours...

Your car must look like Father Ted's Cortina at this stage. Anyway if you ended up in a wheelchair being 'in the right' wouldn't be much comfort.

Hotblack Desiato

hobochris wrote:

What i always do Is continue on(as i have the right of way) should the illegally undertaking vehicle hit you he is in the wrong and its his insurance that will cover the damage for his bad driving not yours...

This is insane advice. Even a little fender-bender can result in a large number of people being delayed. The emergency services could be called out unnecessarily. Oil, etc on the road possibly causing another accident later. And all this is assuming no-one gets hurt. All so you can prove a point?

Every driver has a duty to avoid a collision if at all possible, doesn't matter whose fault it was. If you could have avoided it but didn't you can be held partially to blame.