UK Dash Cameras - EXTRA Compilation 3 - 2024 Bad Drivers, Crashes & Close Calls 

Came here to say the same thing and this was the top comment.

Well what would be the point of circling a completely empty mini roundabout with absolutely no inconvenience being caused to anyone else??? What's the point?? Edit: my less than immaculately presented assessment of the events on-screen in this video about the roundabout's emptiness or lack thereof, and when it came to be so, is something I'm not prepared to explain in absolute literal detail. Sick to the back teeth of thanklessly trying to help people begin doing their OWN thinking, to be instead criticised for *giving* free benefit to people. They deserve exactly what they insist on being subjected to.

​@@CaryGrantsSonMaybeYou mean "just because" it's the law? I can't think of many better reasons for doing something to be honest with you.

@@CaryGrantsSonMaybe that maybe they’re a hypocrite?

@d4ngerm4us it's not "the law" to obey the conditions of a lie-sense [that somebody has chosen for you to be subjected to] (why do you imagine it's spelled "licence" in the first place? To hide it in plain sight!) There's no party which is being harmed, no party which is suffering a loss, no lawfully prepared mutual contract that has been broken. There's no party involved in ANY of the events in this video that puts anybody at a disadvantage, and it in fact benefits many people by getting there sooner, using less natural resources, causing less pollution, less noise, less expenditure, less energy, less wear and tear. Doing things "just because" a book or a man sitting in a car next to you directs you to do something without giving a justifiable reason is a folly. And it's therefore humanly unsustainable. Try it for long enough and discover that you can't keep doing something that doesn't make sense. It's actually harmful.

Bicycle clown gonna clown.

He was probably sat there with a cocky Tory smile on his face

@@gerrard8ify sounds like you're obsessed with the Tories mate. If you'd like, I could probably get you into a donors meeting or something, and you can sit in the toilets and scrounge a few lines off them, since you love them so much.

He wants Jeremy vine to accept his friend request

LOL^^^^^^^

@@rory90FiVe you mean apart from passing an obstruction into the path of clearly visible oncoming traffic? He was fine with the first group of 3 parked cars but then there was a massive gap on the left he should have pulled into and given way (whether car or bike) when he saw oncoming traffic, he was on their side of the road when he shouldn’t have been!

I bet he was lycra clad as well. Typical bellend cyclist.

@@rory90FiVe If he is so desperate to have all that space, then he should have pulled into the gap infront of the parked BMW to his left and waited for the other vehicle to pass. Riding on the wrong side of the road, directly down the middle of the lane and expecting the van to reverse out of his way when there is a ton of space to get through is just pathetic.

How's it hypocrisy? What inconvenience was she causing anyone??

@@CaryGrantsSonMaybe if you’re on about the Susan clip, they honked at the other car clipping the roundabout but then clipped the roundabout themselves, hence the hypocrisy.

George H did you contact police driver might not he drunk but having a medical issue

Samuel you had plenty room and should have pulled in between fiesta and BMW obstruction was on your side

​@@CaryGrantsSonMaybeSusan was no way near the roundabout when the white car went on it, the fact Susan honks then does the same exact thing of cutting the roundabout, theres the hypocrisy.

It doesn't matter. She wasn't inconveniencing anyone - the other motorist was. No sense in doing something "just because". That's called being empty headed.

@@CaryGrantsSonMaybeYou mean "just because" it's the law? I can't think of many better reasons for doing something to be honest with you.

@@d4ngerm4us it's not "the law" to obey the conditions of a lie-sense [that somebody has chosen for you to be subjected to] (why do you imagine it's spelled "licence" in the first place? To hide it in plain sight!) There's no party which is being harmed, no party which is suffering a loss, no lawfully prepared mutual contract that has been broken. There's no party involved in ANY of the events in this video that puts anybody at a disadvantage, and it in fact benefits many people by getting there sooner, using less natural resources, causing less pollution, less noise, less expenditure, less energy, less wear and tear. Doing things "just because" a book or a man sitting in a car next to you directs you to do something without giving a justifiable reason is a folly. And it's therefore humanly unsustainable. Try it for long enough and discover that you can't keep doing something that doesn't make sense. It's actually harmful.

@@CaryGrantsSonMaybe exactly, the other motorist wasn't inconveniencing anyone. the cam car was nowhere near the roundabout. if the white car had gone wider around the roundabout they would have been to the cam cars right by the time they got to the roundabout. the rules of roundabouts is to give way to traffic already on the roundabout when necessary. everyone who uses a roundabout has to judge whether they need to give way to the right or if there no one there and they can go. the car doesn't have to just sit there and wait until there isnt a car to the right of them anywhere on the road to the right, no one would ever get onto a round about for hypothetical cars that might be 10 meters down the road. yet the cam car didn't reduce heir speed enough to react to a car already on the roundabout, and honked as if they were annoyed they didn't get to just fly into the roundabout. the car to the left had already entered the roundabout, and so the cam car has to give way to them.

@@ge2719 when I wrote the long reply, I was already overexerting myself, so I wasn't therefore entirely accurate. I was doing so because I'm so tired of having to explain every, single, little detail in the finest manner possible to people. The first car blocking the roundabout WAS causing a problem to the cam car, to clarify things - please don't turn out to be an a**hole who turns around to people and says "yeah but you first said" - not in the mood. 😡 The first car to cut the roundabout was wrong, because it prevented even a *legal* course for the cam car to circulate the mini roundabout, whereas once the cam car had started moving on to it, the other cars had gone, and there was nobody to inconvenience left Right. Now that's perfectly clarified. Anything you're not understanding of about what I'm saying now?

No he isn't, he's just an individual dickhead. The reason why everyone hates cyclists is because everyone's a dickhead and they hate everyone that isn't them.

One plonker on a bike is no reason to hate all cyclists unless you're a sad gammon Sun reader. Plenty of plonkers behind the wheel but nobody hates all drivers for it.

Both are at fault really: no forward planning. The car should have seen Alex's faster approach & slowed to stay in their lane; Alex should have anticipated the car might pull out given they reacted late to the tractor.

Skoda was caught behind the tractor and would obviously pull out at the first opportunity. The safe, and courteous, thing to do, would be to give them space.

Thank goodness I wasn't the only one thinking that. Close call my backside, read "idiot barrels into a situation anyone with a modicum of common sense could see happening a mile off". Alex is exactly the kind of entitled driver who feels that he is in the "fast lane" and the peasants should get out of his way.

​@@StarskyQCyou should see the two Alex defenders who replied to my comment. Definitely fellow lane hoggers

I was thinking the exact same thing. Ashley would be proud of us!

I bet he was doing it on purpose because of the 1.5m space rule, they use that on purpose to justify annoying people, sad little weasels

Samuel did have priority. He would have had to come to a stop in the ample space on his left to let the van go by. He shouldn't have to, having got to the narrowed space first and with the van still not in view. Were he driving a car or another van, it would be obvious. None of that gives me the slightest sympathy for Samuel's passive-aggressive stopping and waiting to punish the van driver, which actually delayed his own journey much longer. The only thing that does, is the number of people who think the van driver did nothing wrong - many of whom, I'm sure, would have piled on the van driver had Samuel been driving a car.

No, but the fact that he was on a bicycle doesn't make the van driver's taking priority and expecting him to adjust in the right either. Edit: it's quite possible that neither of them is fully in the right here and that that they are both being jerks.

It’s called being a cyclist. Being a prick is part of the criteria for riding around on a children’s toy as a fully grown adult

​@@76leeds the irony of your comment calling out others for being childish 🙄 And no, I'm not a cyclist.

He'd already committed to it before the van appeared. They were both in the wrong.

@@neilsimmons5080 At what point did I call someone out for being childish? I feel like you either can’t read or you don’t understand what irony is, but it sounds like a really fun word so you thought you’d try and work into a sentence. What I actually wrote was that a) he’s a prick and b) he’s riding around on a children’s toy

@@76leeds "children's toy". That implies they're childish, so have a read of what you wrote.

Driver 1 was causing an inconvenience and a hazard. Driver 2 was causing no inconvenience and no hazard. Satisfactory?

​@@CaryGrantsSonMaybeBut she was still breaking the law and driving like a twunt.

⁠@@CaryGrantsSonMaybe driver 2 is still a hypocrite. Satisfactory?

@@Only1199 no, it isn't. It's mindless.

​@somethingorother9142 You have said the same comment 6 times, you sad git😂

The "excusing context" is that the cycle was the vehicle that began traversing the obstacle first, upon seeing which the van driver should have stopped and given way. Rather than flashing back to your time at clown college, try imagining it's another car and see if you motorbrain can grasp the situation. And as for the absolutely moronic comment from the channel on that clip - the reason he didn't *and shouldn't "just cycle past" is firstly because that would put him in the door zone of the parked cars which you're taught to stay out of in cycle training at school, ie literal children apparently have a better grasp of cycling than this channel's owner, and secondly because the reason for the 1.5m gap when passing a cyclist thing in the Highway Code that I'm sure some of you drivers will read eventually is that leaving less space than that is dangerous because all it takes is a puncture, a wobble due to a gust of wind, or a pothole and you're so much hairy jam on the carriageway. That risk doesn't magically disappear just because the car is coming towards you rather than moving by.

@@YodhrinsForge I'd personally just say the cyclist is a bike nonce, but hey ho.

@@YodhrinsForge Cyclist is absolutely in the wrong. Firstly, he goes around the BWM when he can already see that there is oncoming traffic. Secondly, he could have easily pulled in between the BMW and the red car when the van is oncoming but chooses not to because he thnks he is special.

Yeah, the van had priority. Cyclist should have pulled in on the left. But you know how cyclists think they own the roads.

To quote the phrase "You could have got a tank through there." Honestly. They demand to the road then act like the most entitled asses on the road. I'm all for them, but seriously, understand that the world doesn't revolve around you. Use commen sense.

Even a tesla owner would be disgusted with that

Probably a Shitting Peugeot.

@@Ineverreadreplies no!!!

It's called priority, but why do you not think it's his? And would you say the same if Samuel were driving a car?

@@ChrisBrown-px1oy priority is given not taken. then to sit there in the middle of the road when there is ample space as a cyclist to just move over slightly and let the opposing vehicle come through is weaponry on another level. this obsession drivers/cyclists like you have with "priority" makes the roads a hotbed for aggravation when there is zero need. you say if this was a car, would you behave like this in a supermarket if someone got in your way? or in the street? if not, then why do that on the road?

@@EricSmith-km1jb You're imputing a lot to me that I didn't say in two brief questions which the OP couldn't be bothered to answer. That priority is given not taken is not an answer either. Both users here assumed and took it. I've had other answers that take a strict splitting approach to blockages, arguing that Samuel should have prepared to stop in the 3 car-length gap the moment the van appeared. Maybe; it doesn't change the likelihood that driving in the van''s position, I would have let the cyclist complete the entire overtake of all the parked vehicles in the interest of best flow and in the spirit of the vulnerability hierarchy. I entirely agree that once they were both stopped, Samuel behaved worse when he could easily have resolved the stand-off.

"the van did nothing wrong" Driving on the PAVEMENT isn't illegal in your delusional world?

Motorcyclist here. In that situation I'm definitely pulling into one of the gaps between the parked cars, like you're supposed to, and giving way to the oncoming vehicle. The problem is most people have a me first "right of way" attitude and alot of cyclists use the roads without even basic road knowledge. Probably why many of them plow through red lights and fly out of side streets without looking.

i live on that road, cyclists are idiots on this road but normally not here but bottom of the hill as two hills they race down to have as much speed to climb the other hill and parked cars at the bottom and they should give way coming other direction but so many try squeeze through at speed even between a bus or huge truck , must be over 1000 a year close call with cyclists at fault. ive cycled and driven this road countless times ive never had an issue and if something comes the other way it a non issue i just go through gap as plenty space in places so adjust speed

exactly, the cam car wasnt going the correct speed to react to the traffic, and expected to just be able to fly over the roundabout them self. this fact further reinforced by the way they then drove ver the middle of the roundabout themselves. the only thing the white car did wrong was going over the roundabout, they had right of way.

Completely agree. Firstly, Susan seemed agitated the other car cut the roundabout, only to then do so herself. Secondly, the other car was on the roundabout prior to Susan being anywhere close to the lines. In-fact, it seemed like she purposely sped up to make a claim of possession when the other car was already committed to the roundabout.

He’ll also be seen next Tuesday too

I'm dazed.

They send these clips in like they're in the right as well. Says it all really

If you're going to try to avoid your comment being filtered, why use the word at all?

@@philipreid2542 i'm not sure what you mean philip, i'm mearly stating he's not ce rated. Please explain yourself.

@@rdrhouse fair enough, I thought you were trying to circumvent YT's comment filter by adding a space between non and ce

@@philipreid2542 oh philip what a thing to say, and you are, who?

​@@rdrhouseany chance of you interacting like a normal person? That reply wasn't particularly promising

What? Did you miss the idiot cutting them up then? That was the point of the video clip.

You obviously dont know what lane hogging is. Cammer wasnt lane hogging. i would say that they are probably a better driver than someone who doesnt use their mirrors.

@@spiderbootsy hilarious that he thinks the driver that cut up the cammer has better lane discipline. There are so many lane hogger comments every week, yet 90% are not hogging at all. It is like some weird obsession with some people.

​@@Steve-wz2mu HC Rule 264. Keep in the left lane unless overtaking. If you are overtaking, you should return to the left lane when it is safe to do so. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that

@@philipreid2542 nothing hard to understand, but you get some people think that means you swerve in and out constantly because they are too short sighted to read the road ahead. This guy can see very slow traffic coming up so why would he move left to just move out again straight away, only an idiot would do that. Is that hard to understand?

So true😂 Nearly took off Lewis’s front wing!

Got a similar corner near me with cars parking up the left side into the junction. People come round the bend at high speed without considering that someone may be coming towards them on their side of the road. I always take it nice and easy in both directions but regularly get "surprised" idiots coming the other way at nearly 30 mph. 🙄

😂😂Of all the things to notice. Good spot😂😂

Yes, there were some real non-events. Some of them looked as if nothing happened at all.I do like this channel but I also think that the numbers of dash cam channels now operating, plus the frequency of their output means that quality videos are going to be in the minority.

I agree. I'm wondering if the low sun on the right was making an already bad driver even worse?

I saw the drain grate coming up ahead at 7:31, and his front wheel heading straight for it, and was waiting for the crash that fortunately didn't come. Yeah, Jake, a bit further out from the kerb please.

Yes, put it away.

Leave him alone, it's a treasured recording of his favourite sheep.

You mean bell*nd roundabout

Maybe he couldn't pull back over to his nearside due the parked car ?

lens distorts distance, it's 2024, please learn some info before spouting your ignorance again

@@RichO1701e Yeh whatever the distortion there are still the same amount of road lines passing between the car in front and the dashcam. Not the brightest button in the box, are you?

Of course.

I do it on the odd occasion. Most of the time the sun finds that gap around the rear view mirror!

Did you notice which parties were inconvenienced in that clip?? Please identify ALL of the up to three inconvenienced parties in that clip, and why the parties that _weren't_ inconvenienced, weren't inconvenienced. Say it out loud.

@@CaryGrantsSonMaybe cam car by some sort of entitlement only but have not watched it again,nor will i

@@bobtudbury8505 No, no - you're trying to *deceive* yourself - "some sort of entitlement". What are you saying they're *not* entitled to do precisely, and why?

@@CaryGrantsSonMaybe Susan, you might think you're 'Sticking it to The Man', but you're just a sh*t driver. Just take the L and be gone with you.