It transpires that it was the result of a police chase involving a stolen car. Fortunately noone was seriously injured.
The car on the right with people stood around is the stolen car, a Saab 9-3. The other two, the Mazda and the Audi up the wall, were merely parked. Still can't quite fathom the physics of it.
I was coming here to post that ^
This link includes footage of the actual 'jump'. Top marks to that driver
Dashcam captures car in flight
That's a work of art. They should leave it there and fix the hole in the wall around it.
It's probably very prejudiced of me, but every time I see a quote from a representative of "Brake" in an article like this, it immediately makes me suspicious. I get the impression that, if they could, they'd bring back the Man With The Red Flag.Man with 62 points on his licence allowed to keep on driving
62 penalty points and allowed to continue to drive. So many people get 12 points and plead hardship and get to keep their licence. This has to stop.
It's probably very prejudiced of me, but every time I see a quote from a representative of "Brake" in an article like this, it immediately makes me suspicious. I get the impression that, if they could, they'd bring back the Man With The Red Flag.
I have no idea why someone can rack up 62 points and still be driving, but that must have involved a lot of court appearances and a lot of judges/magistrates, so it's obviously not going to be one of those "give the judge a funny salute and walk out scot free" situations. And it's probably quite appropriate that some degree of confidentiality is necessary, even in such an extreme case.
I've heard stories of people who got over 12 points but managed to keep their licences because a combination of the importance of their job/role and the absence of any alternatives meant that the judge had, at their own discretion, allowed them to keep on driving, but that article says that Greater London is over-represented amongst 12+point drivers, which does seem odd, given that Greater London has a public transport system that you'd think would obviate the absolute need for someone to drive.
*shrug* I reckon there's a lot more to this story than we can ever know.
It's my bleeding heart liberal tendencies coming out again...Fuckem. If you're a shit enough driver to rack up 12 points you should not be on the road. No alternatives? Going to fuck up your life if you can't drive? You shouldn't have driven like a cunt then should you.
I think judges have used that discretion far too often and they should not be allowed to use it anymore.
"he braked before hitting a cyclist who appeared in front of him"
So, the guy on the bike just "appeared" in front of him. FFS.
Yes, Brake are like this. Whereas the IAM and the like believe in a sort of technocratic driver improvement, Brake believe that drivers need to be controlled through regulation & authority. Both are to some extent folly in their own ways. I think Brake comes from a good place, and IIRC has its roots in tragedy, but ends up being factually clueless. The media love them because their message is simpler than the complexities of becoming a better driver.It's probably very prejudiced of me, but every time I see a quote from a representative of "Brake" in an article like this, it immediately makes me suspicious. I get the impression that, if they could, they'd bring back the Man With The Red Flag.
Fuckem. If you're a shit enough driver to rack up 12 points you should not be on the road. No alternatives? Going to fuck up your life if you can't drive? You shouldn't have driven like a cunt then should you.
I think judges have used that discretion far too often and they should not be allowed to use it anymore.
It's possible - there are various factors through which you can look and not see things, such as saccades, or a combination of A-pillar and approach angle. I have no idea if any of those apply in this case.''...Bridges had told the jury he made proper checks after he exited the M48 from the junction one slip road at Aust. But he failed to see Mr Brown, who was wearing a high visibility jacket and cycle helmet, and knocked him off his bike on the roundabout.''
FWIW I think he was fibbing.
It's possible - there are various factors through which you can look and not see things, such as saccades, or a combination of A-pillar and approach angle. I have no idea if any of those apply in this case.
Fuckem. If you're a shit enough driver to rack up 12 points you should not be on the road. No alternatives? Going to fuck up your life if you can't drive? You shouldn't have driven like a cunt then should you.
I think judges have used that discretion far too often and they should not be allowed to use it anymore.
''...Bridges had told the jury he made proper checks after he exited the M48 from the junction one slip road at Aust. But he failed to see Mr Brown, who was wearing a high visibility jacket and cycle helmet, and knocked him off his bike on the roundabout.''
FWIW I think he was fibbing.
It's possible - there are various factors through which you can look and not see things, such as saccades, or a combination of A-pillar and approach angle. I have no idea if any of those apply in this case.
Yes its like that guy who used to have a shark in his roof in Oxford.
Edit: It turns out its still there.
The Headington Shark - Wikipedia
Yes, it's all avoidable. Worth understanding some of the potential pitfalls though.Had he made PROPER checks he would have seen the cyclist. If he checked at all it was a cursory check, (which we all make from time to time), and was not proper enough to see the cyclist.
Yes, it's all avoidable. Worth understanding some of the potential pitfalls though.
I love cars and driving, but am getting increasing pissed off at the language that surrounds driving; "The car was doing 80mph", "The motorbike appeared from nowhere" and so on. It's language designed to remove the blame and is used everywhere when some fucker kills someone cos they were driving wantonly.
A phenomenon I've noticed cropping up more often is delivery/trade vans with reversing sirens, or rather speakers that emit horrible, nerve-shredding little bursts of static noise. Obviously these thingies or versions of them have been fitted on HGV's for ages now, but I don't have a problem with that because for one thing reversing HGV's must be very difficult and potentially danerous and for another they're not usually parking up in residential areas.
Vans though, well it is the driver's responsibility to reverse without hitting anyone not the general public's responsibility to get out of the way. Those with hearing problems may not hear the siren, those with mobility problems may not be able to evade the reversing vehicle in time when they do. At best the siren will do no good to anyone, at worst it will make drivers less likely to pay attention to where they're going.
I drive a van. It has no reversing siren. So far I've killed zero people while reversing, and no bloody awful racket was required to achieve this.