Idiot uk driver captured using 412gw dashcam

[Tony lovelock]

Here’s my video footage of an idiot that I see this week on a major roundabout... have a watch

 

[DashcamDPR]

It turns out if you go the other way round those roundabouts, you don't have to obey traffic lights because they're facing the wrong way

 

[Tony lovelock]

Very true, I’m sure this driver in particular found that out haha

 

[Rajagra]

It turns out if you go the other way round those roundabouts, you don't have to obey traffic lights because they're facing the wrong way

That may have compensated a little for the fact he was doing a left turn by going 270 degrees round the long way!
Either that or he was doing a U-turn the hard way.
Anyone can make a mistake, but some people just won't stop even when it becomes obvious to them. That's the scary part. He could be one of those people who find themselves going the wrong way on a motorway and just ... keep ... going...

 

[Nigel]

Maybe he thought it was a magic roundabout? You can go around them in that direction.

 

[M8TJT]

Anyone can make a mistake, but some people just won't stop even when it becomes obvious to them.

Stop?!!! Then what? Do a U turn on the roundabout?

 

[Nigel]

Stop?!!! Then what? Do a U turn on the roundabout?

No, use reverse gear, so that they are going the correct direction, then it is safe... assuming that they are able to use reverse gear, which a surprising number of people don't appear to be capable of.

 

[Gazwould]

I think these people need to be carbon dated , it might turn out they're the first human to live to 150.

 

[M8TJT]

That was a bit ageist wasn't it? It's not only us old people who have accidents you know. Just look at insurance company's risk/premium profile to find out who are the most dangerous drivers.

 

[Kremmen]

I agree. I'm safer now than I was in my Jack the Lad days.

Fortunately in my JtL days there wasn't the traffic there is now, I would have been lethal

 

[M8TJT]

Strange how most insurance is based on risk. The higher the risk, the higher the premium.
This seems pretty logical to me apart from when the gender equality brigade get hold of it. Under 25s are statistically higher risk than over 25s = higher premium for the under 25s. Women are statistically proven to be 'safer' drivers than men but the PC brigade have scuppered what should obviously be a lower premium.
Still, I suppose it prevents arguments about trans people (ex man), those who prefer to be called gender neutral and those who either can't make up their mind or don't know what 'gender' means.

 

[Nextbase Support]

Glad this didn't end in an accident, it so easily could have.

Especially with the truck.

 

[Rajagra]

Women are statistically proven to be 'safer' drivers than men.

No. They have more accidents PER MILE than men. The only reason they have fewer accidents overall is that they do fewer miles. And since you are supposed to tell the insurance company your expected mileage when they give you a quote, that is already accounted for.

Giving women a discount for being women would mean they would get the same discount twice, unfairly.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Rajagra]

Stop?!!! Then what? Do a U turn on the roundabout?

I didn't mean stop dead. I meant stop continuing with the error. I.e. take the first exit, not continue around the roundabout for 270 degrees - or more? - while dodging oncoming traffic.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Nextbase Support]

Our chosen charity this year is BRAKE they have some interesting data on this topic: http://www.brake.org.uk/facts-resources/1593-driver-gender

 

[M8TJT]

@Tiffany.
Verry interesting reading.

@ Rajagra
And the figures and text pointed to by Tiffany indicate that, when the proportions of male/female and mileage is taken into consideration, women are safer than men with a safer outlook on driving.
See especially 'Introduction' Para 2, which poo poos your theory and supports mine.
I also have difficulty in understanding your logic behind 'double discount' other than your erroneous 'more accidents per mile' premise.

However these figures could be a load of blx, given that they were published by a 'drive slowly' outfit. Ah, no. They are based on third party research.

 

[Nigel]

@Tiffany.
Verry interesting reading.

@ Rajagra
And the figures and text pointed to by Tiffany indicate that, when the proportions of male/female and mileage is taken into consideration, women are safer than men with a safer outlook on driving.
See especially 'Introduction' Para 2, which poo poos your theory and supports mine.
I also have difficulty in understanding your logic behind 'double discount' other than your erroneous 'more accidents per mile' premise.

However these figures could be a load of blx, given that they were published by a 'drive slowly' outfit. Ah, no. They are based on third party research.

I don't find it surprising that few people die on the driving trips too and from schools, which around here are mainly in 20mph speed limits and mainly driven by women with passengers in the car. If men and women changed roles and the men did the school trips with passengers and the females drove the long distance HGVs etc. with no passengers then the statistics might look very different!

Also the statistics are mainly about deaths, and don't include minor bumps which women on school trips do have, but which even when they are counted often result in insurance claims on their husband's insurance.

 

[Rajagra]

https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/blog/who-causes-accidents/
"So men account for roughly 1.73^12 miles driven per year, while women drive a combined total of 1.07^12 miles per year.

That means men drive about 30 percent more miles than women. Yet, they’re implicated in slightly less than 30 percent of car accidents. Men do cause more accidents, but they are actually less at-risk than women, by a small margin."

(I think the writer meant to say "Yet, they’re implicated in slightly less than 30 percent MORE car accidents.")

I also have difficulty in understanding your logic behind 'double discount' other than your erroneous 'more accidents per mile' premise.

It's very simple.
Women drive fewer miles so they have fewer accidents.
So they should get better insurance rates.
But the better rate should be based on the lower mileage. Only. And only once.

They shouldn't get one discount for known lower driven miles PLUS another discount for their gender making it likely they drive lower miles.

The point is that women's low accident rates are due to their low mileage only, not from any other independent factor associated with their gender.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[M8TJT]

No. They have more accidents PER MILE than men.

You seem to have back peddled on this one then and changed your premise for the double discount from 'more accidents per mile' (which the Brake figures don't support) to 'fewer miles', (which the Brake figures do support). Or should it be 'U' turn?
But the Brake figures do support my premise that women are safer drivers than men. Thus for equal mileage (to normalise that parameter) they should be charges a lower premium because they have fewer accidents.

 

[Nigel]

https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/blog/who-causes-accidents/
"So men account for roughly 1.73^12 miles driven per year, while women drive a combined total of 1.07^12 miles per year.

That means men drive about 30 percent more miles than women. Yet, they’re implicated in slightly less than 30 percent of car accidents. Men do cause more accidents, but they are actually less at-risk than women, by a small margin."

(I think the writer meant to say "Yet, they’re implicated in slightly less than 30 percent MORE car accidents.")

Interesting, that is a USA article where when an accident occurs the police get called and it is recorded, the result is different figures to the UK where most female accidents never involve the police.

Try the same in Saudi Arabia and the numbers would be very different again!