I was negotiating a roundabout this morning, standard kind as shown in the Highway Code's Rule 185 illustation, here:
www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070338
The roundabout is on a B road, and the approach on which I arrived at the give way line splits in to two lanes a few yards before the roundabout. I approached in the left lane, intending to go straight ahead (standard 4 way roundabout, all exits pretty much at right angles to each other). As such I was not indicating as I enterd the roundabout, but started to do so on passing the first exit. Correct, no?
As I entered the roundabout, a Ford Ka entered alongside me in the right lane, however he dod not turn right. As he passed the first exit alongside me, he indicated left (at least he did that much) and then cut infornt of me, leaving very little room between the two cars. Then, he glanced in his mirror, saw me on his tail and decided to do a quick brake test on me, causing me to brake slightly, risking being rear ended. I couldn't really back off much as there was traffic behind me, the road was pretty busy as it was 8.50am.
Looking at the illustration in on the Highway Code website, he shouldn't have been in the right lane if he was intending to go straight ahead. However the verbage below (rule 186) is unclear on the point. It only states to select the "appropriate" lane. So is that saying he is entitled to use both left and right, contrary to the illustration?
Should he have been in the right lane? Am I justified in my irritation that he cut in front of me? Obviously, to brake test me was utter stupidity, but should he have even undertaken the manoeuvre in the first place?
|
|
I agree the diagram shows left lane for straight on as does my hard copy dated 1999, although the text says use either lane. I have always used left lane for left or straight on and right lane for straight on or right. So I would use either lane for straight on depending on circumstances.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 28 Mar 11 at 15:07
|
Yep, see what you're saying. But only where the straight on exit has two lanes. In this case, it's a small B road with only one lane at the straight on exit.
Surely it is dangerous for the Highway Code to be suggesting that two vehicles should be competing for that exit lane? I would think it would be better if they clarified the point and guided all drivers to use the left lane for straight on where there's only one lane at the exit, as per the illustration (which does not show an optional directional arrow from the right entry lane to the straight on exit at all).
My cutter upper almost caused an accident this morning by his actions.
|
|
Sorry I didn't pick up on there only being one exit lane, in that case there should be arrows painted on the approach lanes unless the exit can be seen to have one lane, and the left one used. IMHO :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 28 Mar 11 at 15:18
|
|
There aren't any arrows on the road, it really is a little B road, but it gets heavily used in the rush hour. He doesn't have the excuse of being an out-of-towner either, he went and parked in the office next to mine 3 miles or so down the road. Must be a regular user of the road.
|
|
You could always wander across and brake test his nose. :-)
|
I don't think either of you were right or wrong.
The way the Highway Code is written, it's obvious that it expects a bit of old fashioned courtesy to prevail on the road in some situations.
If you'd both read the road and realised the possibilty of where the other one may have been going, just a second backing off by either one would have meant a nice neat zip for you both.
Pat
|
You could be right, Pat. That's why I've referred to the HC and sought the opinion of others here.
However, I think the brake test I received is somewhat indicative of where the aggression lies in this tale. Being such a small road and roundabout, I had no time to react when he flicked his indicator and I realised he was going to swing in front of me. There were other road users behind me of whom I had to take notice and apply some "courtesy" to also.
|
>> I think the brake test I received is somewhat indicative of where the aggression lies in this tale<<
I agree Alanovic.
Pat
|
Some fairly intensive training in roundabouts when I took my bike test a few years ago and the training for that was, in sigle laned roads:
for Left - indicate left when approaching the roundabout
for Straight on - don't indicate until passed the first opening then indicate left, staying to the left hand side
for right or right round - indicate right on approach, stay to the right of the lane and indicate right until passed the straight on then indicate left
In the case of dual roads into, but not out of the same rules apply
In the case of dual in and out then:
for left - left hand lane indicating left
for straight on - left hand lane no indication until passed lfirst turn off then indicate left - or from the outer lane same approach then indicate left and stay in the outer lane until safe to move into the inner lane.
Thing were also complicated further by whether the 2nd exit was passed the 12-o-clock position on the roundabout schematic. anything passed the 12-o-clock position is treated as a right hand turn.
Unless anyone knows different!
|
>> In the case of dual roads into, but not out of the same rules apply
This was indeed my situation. Ka driver in the wrong I think.
|
There is no correct lane as such, i.e. if there is little or no traffic then the left hand lane is the correct one to use if going straight on.
However if there is a queue of traffic in the left lane because they are turning left then the right hand lane can be used for straight on.
|
Got a link to substantiate that Cheddar, is it it just your interpretation of the Highway Code?
I don't recall reading anywhere that the rules of the road change according to the volume of traffic.
|
>>
>>
>> I don't recall reading anywhere that the rules of the road change according to the
>> volume of traffic.
>>
If the left hand lane of a motorway is empty, use it. If it is full of slow moving traffic, use the middle lane to overtake.
|
Well yes, that's just a straightforward rule of the road though.
Hardly the same situation either, CP.
There was no standing queue as I approached this roundabout, I proceeded directly to the give way line, stopped, gave way to the right, and headed off. As did the Ka, who, the more I think about it, was simply using the roundabout as an overtaking device. Which isn't really the best idea in the world.
Last edited by: Alanović on Mon 28 Mar 11 at 15:50
|
>> Got a link to substantiate that Cheddar, >>
It is a CP says the same principal and a motorway or dual carriageway.
Last edited by: Cheddar on Mon 28 Mar 11 at 15:54
|
Using a roundabout to overtake is the same as moving right on a motorway to do so?
Righto.
|
IMO, the Ka driver did nothing wrong, apart from the stupid brake test, I think you failed to obey the rule of giving way to traffic on your right. Because you did not know that you can use both lanes for going straight on, you did not anticipate that the Ka would do so and you did not give him room to do so. Therefore we could say you were in the wrong for not knowing.
The same situation arises if you are on a straight dual carriageway that is about to turn back into a single lane and there is a car alongside you, do you let him pass or ignore him ?
I would slow slightly, let him go and not tailgate him.
|
>> you failed to obey the rule of giving way to traffic on your right.
That may be a fair point. However, I was incapable of adjusting my speed/position as he was immediately to my right and other traffic was close up my rear end. That he did manage to get in front of me shows I didn't need to "Give Way" any further.
>> Because you did not know that you can use both lanes for going straight on
This point I contend. The Highway Code is ambiguous on the point, the verbage does not explicitly state you can use the right lane, and the supporting illustration indicates that you should not do so.
>> The same situation arises if you are on a straight dual carriageway that is about
>> to turn back into a single lane and there is a car alongside you, do
>> you let him pass or ignore him ?
I would let him pass, but a roundabout is a differnet situation as it is a hazard.
|
>> >> you failed to obey the rule of giving way to traffic on your right.
>>
>> That may be a fair point. However, I was incapable of adjusting my speed/position as
>> he was immediately to my right and other traffic was close up my rear end.
>> That he did manage to get in front of me shows I didn't need to
>> "Give Way" any further.
>>
Other traffic close up your rear end should look after themselves, not your concern, if a child steps out in front of you do you look in your mirror and run over the child if there is other traffic close up your rear end, I hope not.
>> >> Because you did not know that you can use both lanes for going straight
>> on
>>
>> This point I contend. The Highway Code is ambiguous on the point, the verbage does
>> not explicitly state you can use the right lane, and the supporting illustration indicates that
>> you should not do so.
>>
you may contend it because you didn't know it, probably your driving instructor didn't explain it to you
>> >> The same situation arises if you are on a straight dual carriageway that is
>> about
>> >> to turn back into a single lane and there is a car alongside you,
>> do
>> >> you let him pass or ignore him ?
>>
>> I would let him pass, but a roundabout is a differnet situation as it is
>> a hazard.
>>
no difference, once you're on it, a two lane roundabout is just another bit of road, like a curved dual carriageway, not a hazard.
Last edited by: Kithmo on Tue 29 Mar 11 at 11:31
|
>> Other traffic close up your rear end should look after themselves, not your concern, if
>> a child steps out in front of you do you look in your mirror and
>> run over the child if there is other traffic close up your rear end, I
>> hope not.
Of course. But there was no child. I did what I needed to do to prevent an accident.
>> you may contend it because you didn't know it, probably your driving instructor didn't explain
>> it to you
Provide me written evidence that it's the case and I'll agree. Until then, it's ambiguous. Look a tthe latest version of the Highway Code, rather than relying on what your driving instructor may have said many years ago.
>> no difference, once you're on it, a two lane roundabout is just another bit of
>> road, like a curved dual carriageway, not a hazard.
>>
It is a hazard which is accorded a "warning" sign. It is not just another bit of road. See this official Highway Code link:
tinyurl.com/yf8mtpu
|
Alanovic, let me just say that what you did was commendable in the situation you found yourself in, avoiding a collision is a manouvre that requires skill. All I'm trying to put across is that you should expect this kind of thing to happen and prepare for it, because other drivers (myself included) believe that you can use lane 2 and if there are 2 lanes going in to one, the one with the nose in front has the right of way.
>>
>> >> no difference, once you're on it, a two lane roundabout is just another bit
>> of
>> >> road, like a curved dual carriageway, not a hazard.
>> >>
>>
>> It is a hazard which is accorded a "warning" sign. It is not just another
>> bit of road. See this official Highway Code link:
>>
>> tinyurl.com/yf8mtpu
>>
The warning sign does necessarily mean something is a hazard, it is just warning you that the road ahead is changing, the dual carriageway ends and road narrows ahead are on the same page, yet you say they are different ?
You're right about the ambiguity of the highway code on whether one can use lane 2 for straight ahead on a roundabout, but I could argue that it doesn't say you can't, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
Indeed we will. Until someone offers an answer. I think it's quite an unsatisfactory state of affairs and should be cleared up in the Highway Code one way or another. I have submitted comments to their website accordingly.
And yes, I consider negotiating a roundabout to have different demands than a dual carriageway ending and two lanes merging in to one. It's a much more complex manoeuvre.
|
The warning sign does necessarily mean something is a hazard...
Oh yes it does.
|
Kithmo,
Alanovic has said he did what he needed to do to avoid an accident - fair enough and very sensible.
As to who should give way to whom, I have no doubt you are wrong. The Ka driver wasn't merely making his way round a roundabout, he was trying to overtake while negotiating a hazard, exiting from a two lane roundabout into a one lane road. If you are going to do that sort of thing then you have to take responsibility and make sure you have room without interfering with anyone else, as with any overtake.
As to your 'giving way to traffic on the right' point - that certainly applies when entering a roundabout. It does not, in my opinion, apply when somebody wants to cut across from the inside of a roundabout to an exit and is relying on someone else to get out of the way.
And regardless of any rights and wrongs, the Ka driver will come undone if he carries on driving like that. No doubt he will claim he had right of way.
Just my opinion of course.
|
>> This was indeed my situation. Ka driver in the wrong I think.
>>
Absolutely - and he was very lucky that when he tried his stupid antics that you had your wits about you.
Of course in his tiny mind, when he thinks about the same incident (if he thinks at all), he probably believes that he managed to overtake you through his superior bravado and driving skills.
The finale of the "brake test" bothers me though. Highly irrational behaviour. You wonder if some of these people are still the worse for wear from the extravagancies of the night before.
|
|
Indeed, Londoner. Fair point. It can't be a very rational individual who brake tests a Ford Galaxy whilst driving a Ka.
|
|
He wasn't trying on the old "collide with him so he could claim whiplash" was he?
|
I doubt it. It was a 09 reg Ka, bizzarely with reversing sensors on the bumper (which I got to inspect a close quarters). Middle aged bloke in business wear working at a reputable company. Not the profile of that sort of chancer I'd imagine.
Maybe it's a rental car provided by his company car's insurance whilst his usual repmobile is being straightened out after being rear ended at a roundabout.
|
>> Maybe it's a rental car provided by his company car's insurance whilst his usual repmobile
>> is being straightened out after being rear ended at a roundabout.
>>
Ka-boom! Tish!
:-)
|
OP>>Am I justified in my irritation that he cut in front of me?
It's unclear to me why you think you should be justified in being irritated that he was in the inner lane whilst going straight on.
The HC states clearly that for turning right, you should be in the right lane; for left, the left lane; for intermediate exists the "appropriate" lane.
I must say, when overtaking on a roundabout, usually it seems easier to do so on the outside than the inside.
|
>> he was in the inner lane whilst going straight on.
He wasn't. I was.
|
|
I'm fairly sure when I took my test (1985) the Highway Code stated that either lane could be used for going straight on, but traffic in the L/H lane to do so had right of way over traffic using the R/H lane in the event of a single lane straight on exit.
|
The other driver shouldn't have changed lane unless it was safe to do so.
He was probably half asleep, happened to glance in his mirror and thinking you were too close, flashed his brake lights at you.
I was carved-up at some traffic lights last night. I was stopped in the left of two lanes. A couple of hundred yards ahead were more traffic lights and a third lane on the left to turn left. Numpty pulled up to my right. First set of lights changed and numpty accelerated hard to cross two lanes, we could see second set of lights were at red. We stopped. He looked across at me, I was smiling and shaking my head. His reaction led me to believe he could lip-read.
|
They put ambiguity into the system sometimes.
I was on a dual cabbageway, 2 lanes each way. 3 roundabouts in a row.
First one, left lane straight on and left turn. Second, left turn only, r/h lane straight across and right turn. Third as first.
Why ? Trouble was, the arrows were painted and were under standing traffic at all three locations...leading to loads of last minute changing about.
Ted
|
Where there is any doubt I use both lanes on the roundabout.
The is no room to undertake or overtake me on the roundabout.
|
I'm with Pat on this one, i'd probably be in the left lane (unless there were a lot of left indicators, i'd be taking the path of least resistance!) but if someone was in the right lane i wouldn't be dead on side by side with them going round - which you weren't otherwise there would have been a bump.
As for overtaking me on a roundabout, if you want to do it, go for it. Although for the love of all things nice (swear filter's a pain sometimes but keeps you on good behaviour :-) don't slow down on the road after the roundabout. Only pass if you're genuinely wanting to go faster.
That being said you can't be faulted Alanovic, the other guy was clearly a knuckle dragger.
|
As there were no road markings to the contrary, I would quite expect someone to enter on R lane and go straight ahead. Might even do it myself. I seem to recall somewhere (although not in the Highway Code example given) that one can enter on either lane if going straight ahead. But I wouldn't do the brake test - that's plain stupid.
Roundabout lane discipline is definitely getting worse. There's one near me where cars often go in to the roundabout in L lane, to then try and turn R and exit at 3 o'clock.
|
I'd have no qualms about entering the roundabout from the right lane if there was a long queue in the left, but if I did so I would regard it as my responsibility to ensure a clean exit without any cutting in, if I found myself alongside another straight on-er.
Of course you also risk a troublemaker, behind the car alongside, trying to prevent you slotting in - I just let them go as well.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 28 Mar 11 at 19:55
|
It was a very poorly executed manoeuvre.
Firstly, he should not have made you aware of his intentions by indicating, and secondly, he failed to give you the bird before brake testing you.
He obviously hasn't read The Basingstoke Amendment to The Highway Code.
Kevin...
|
It's been a while since i've read a Highway Code...but from memory they used to have a little diagram covering this..and lane 1 was the optimum lane to use..however lane 2 could be used. In the diagram, lane 2 had a dotted line to indicate a car's route, whereas lane 1 had a continuous line.
I'm fairly sure the lane 1 driver has priority and lane 2 has to give way to lane 1..but both lanes can be used....unless road markings dictate otherwise e.g. lane 2 has a turn right only marker.
|
If you'd both read the road and realised the possibilty of where the other one may have been going, just a second backing off by either one would have meant a nice neat zip for you both.
I'd still put the other driver in the wrong. A roundabout, in HC terms, is a hazard and yet the other driver used it for overtaking. That may happen incidentally at some larger roundabouts but it shouldn't be the express purpose of the manoeuvre especially at a small junction like this one.
I'm inclined to think that most accidents result from impatience in one form or another. The kind of driving that - predictably - requires another driver to take evasive action can't be acceptable, whatever the HC says about which lane to use.
|
The Highway Code says on page 65:
If turning left use the left hand lane (abridged).
If turning right or going full circle use the right hand lane (abridged).
"When taking an intermediate exit, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise, select the appropriate lane on approach to the roundabout ..."
|
>> It's been a while since i've read a Highway Code...but from memory they used to
>> have a little diagram
WP, look at my link posted early in this thread which shows the current diagram published in the HC. There is no dotted line.
|
>>
>> I'm fairly sure the lane 1 driver has priority and lane 2 has to give
>> way to lane 1..but both lanes can be used....unless road markings dictate otherwise e.g. lane
>> 2 has a turn right only marker.
>>
That matches my recollection precisely, must try and dig out my old Highway Code.
|
>> That matches my recollection precisely, must try and dig out my old Highway Code.
Link to current version in top post, in case you haven't seen it.
Last edited by: Focus on Tue 29 Mar 11 at 11:10
|
>> He obviously hasn't read The Basingstoke Amendment to The Highway Code.
Funnily enough, this happened about 5 miles outside Basingstoke.
|
>> I was negotiating a roundabout this morning, standard kind as shown in the Highway
>> The roundabout is on a B road, and the approach on which I arrived at
>> the give way line splits in to two lanes a few yards before the roundabout.
Go on then, give us the google or bing maps location so we can see the layout with our own impartial eyes.
Last edited by: John H on Tue 29 Mar 11 at 09:28
|
OK John H, here it is . I was approaching from the north, heading south.
tinyurl.com/4qzaa8g
|
Seems to me the other driver changed lanes as he exited the roundabout.
Having negotiated the roundabout on the outside lane - nearest the island - he darted to the nearside lane on exit.
Nothing wrong with that - provided there are no other road users about at the time.
But there was, the other driver failed to see Alanovic on his nearside.
Bad driving by the other driver.
Last edited by: Iffy on Tue 29 Mar 11 at 10:05
|
>> Having negotiated the roundabout on the outside lane - nearest the island - he darted
>> to the nearside lane on exit.
Yes. He had to as there is only one lane on exit. Hence the reason he shouldn't have approached the roundabout in the right lane when he should have seen that I was in the left lane, not indicating, and therefore intending to go straight on. He shouldn't have been overtaking me on a hazard (the roundabout).
|
I would say when you view it in streetview mode this isn't a roundabout where any firm conclusions can be drawn. It looks to have an offset at the approach such that the left lane really does seem to be heading left. The roundabout itself is a little tight for an overtake but the Ka guy could have genuinely thought you were taking the first left exit and found himself with the slightly forced eventual exit as his only option. I think his *brake test* may have been a misplaced instinct when he realised it all got a bit close.
I'm a very assertive roundabout user but do it such that I don't get in folks way... come to it I'd go right round again to avoid any possible contact if I was the Ka.
|
come to it I'd go right round again to avoid any possible contact
>> if I was the Ka.
>>
You'd go right around from the left lane?
Also, the fact I wasn't indicating should have demonstrated to him that I was going straight on. I don't drive a BMW. ;-)
|
Having the benefit of an aerial view, it looks likely that in practise both lanes are going to be used for going straight on, because the left hand lane is sort of pointing into the first exit. Of course if there were arrows on the road it would remove any ambiguity.
However whichever lane you use it would make sense to watch out for someone else in the other lane attempting to go the same way, which the other driver doesn't appear to have done.
|
>>>You'd go right around from the left lane?
You said the Ka was in the right lane??
>>>Also, the fact I wasn't indicating should have demonstrated to him that I was going straight on. I don't drive a BMW. ;-)
To 100% assume on the basis of another indicating or not is asking for trouble.
|
Oh right, you're saying the Ka should have gone round. Misread your message.
>> To 100% assume on the basis of another indicating or not is asking for trouble.
Fair point, one which has saved my bacon a few times. But you could equally say that the Ka driver assumed I was turning left when he should have been considering more strongly that I was intending to go straight.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 29 Mar 11 at 10:34
|
|
Yeah... not trying to make you in the wrong... just saying it's not a very clear situation on the particular roundabout. It's always asking for trouble where they have two lanes going in and one out (given that straight over is the main road). I think they should put a left arrow in that left lane.
|
Easy to look at it in hindsight but I guess he was probably close behind you on the approach, in that situation with the way the road is laid out with a car behind who might try to pass on the roundabout I would probably have gone straight from the RH lane as well with no other traffic in the left lane.
May be different if you know the roundabout and know normal practice on it but it looks from the streetview as if normal practice would be top go left from the LH lane and straight on from the RH lane. As I say it's easy with hindsight.
|
|
Defensive driving usually works for me. Don't get involved in another drivers problem, he will be gone in a few seconds.
|
After seeing the roundabout, this should have been a non event. Both lanes are straight ahead and there's deliberately extra width for 2 cars exiting south, you're supposed to zip in turn, he gets right of way (being on the right).
I hereby suggest a public throwing of rotten tomatoes at Alanovic.
:-)
|
>> you're supposed to zip
>> in turn, he gets right of way (being on the right).
Opinion seems to be divided on this point. Westpig, a policeman I think, says above: "I'm fairly sure the lane 1 driver has priority and lane 2 has to give way to lane 1".
>> I hereby suggest a public throwing of rotten tomatoes at Alanovic.
Happy to take the tomatoes like a man if this one gets resolved against me. However, I don't think it will be, either way, not definitively anyway. There seems to be a grey area.
|
>> "I'm fairly sure the lane 1 driver has priority and lane 2 has to give way to lane 1".
Makes absolutely no difference what's written on paper, in the real world, the person with a nose in front goes first, and if that doesn't work, i give way.
You wouldn't both arrive on that section side by side unless you're navigating roundabouts side by side which is asking for trouble, people switch lanes without looking.
>> There seems to be a grey area.
Agreed, and in the real world you cannot be faulted. We'll even use tepid water to hose you down afterwards. :-)
|
Here's another local roundabout.
tinyurl.com/49pmxhf
This one is clearly marked with directional arrows in the righthand approach lanes for right turns only.
What's the difference?
|
I'm not having a go here Alanovic, really, but I don't understand this thread at all.
Your OP describes a slightly fraught but fortunately incident-free passage through a roundabout. Countless thousands of other drivers have very similar experiences several times a day. Roundabouts are hazards after all.
I repeat, I don't understand this thread or most of the 60 replies. I often overtake through roundabouts and am occasionally overtaken through them, either on the left or on the right. Even Zero has said, incomprehensibly, that no one can overtake him on either side in a roundabout. Does this mean he changes lanes twice even when there is a lot of other traffic?
It's a mystery to me.
|
I suppose I started it as I was slightly miffed at being brake tested more than anyhting, wanted to get it off my chest and get the thoughts of others on the incident.
I think we're debating correct procedure for negotiating roundabouts safely and considerately as a result.
Some seem to think blasting through willy nilly, from wherever they fancy, is fine, others not.
Thanks for another vote for roundabouts being a hazard though! :-)
Mind you, I reckon they'd be less of a hazard if the Highway Code was clear on their use, which is another point of this thread I suppose.
Zero's input seems the most bizarre to me, however. Sounds like he's deliberately blocking other road users - not one of your favourite tactics generally speaking!
This place is oft described as a virtual pub, and it's the sort of thing I'd chat about to my mates in the pub.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 29 Mar 11 at 14:25
|
I quoted the applicable para from the HC above though your original link has it in detail:
--
Signals and position.
When taking the first exit to the left, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
•signal left and approach in the left-hand lane
•keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to leave
When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
•signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
•keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout
•signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want
When taking any intermediate exit, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
•select the appropriate lane on approach to the roundabout
•you should not normally need to signal on approach
•stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout
•signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want
When there are more than three lanes at the entrance to a roundabout, use the most appropriate lane on approach and through it.
--
"select/use the appropriate lane" means that you have to use your judgement in the circumstances, there is no right or wrong, i.e. some roundabout may many exits, others only three ...
|
...and it's the sort of thing I'd chat about to my mates in the pub...
Picture the scene, the Car4Play Arms on a quiet Tuesday afternoon:
Iffy's mate: "Alan seems to have got the bit between his teeth over this blimmin' roundabout."
Iffy: "Makes a nice change from his usual soft-leftie politics rant, although he can talk about what the hell he likes provided he gets the beers in."
Iffy's mate: "Just don't mention the Daily Mail, or we will all die of thirst."
Iffy: "Or the EU."
|
I think my real world mates would heartily agree with your scenario (yes, I do have some).
I have been well and truly sussed.
However, replace soft left with soft right, Daliy Mail with Guardian, and I suspect we may all be able to work out who may well be the ranter in question.....
;-)
|
At the Car4Play Arms, Alan put a couple of pints down in front of Iffy and his mate, and the conversation continued:
Iffy: "Cheers Al, I know we go on a bit at you sometimes, but you're not far off on this one."
Iffy's mate: "Iffy, did you hear what happened on Friday?"
Iffy: "Alan bought two rounds?"
Iffy's mate: "No, with hobby, quietish lad, been coming in since the place opened.
"He was having a bit of an argument, nowt serious, just the usual stuff.
"Then he announces that's it, he's not coming back."
Iffy: "Was he serious?"
Iffy's mate: "Must have been, left his pint.
"Said something about you couldn't disagree with certain regulars, so it was no longer a nice place to be."
Iffy: "I sort of know what he means, although it doesn't bother me."
Iffy's mate: "Speaking of argumentative beggars, where's that retired computer bloke?
"He can be enough to put you off coming in."
Iffy: "You mean Zero? Think he's in Malta or somewhere like that."
Iffy's mate: "I reckon he comes close to getting out of hand.
"If you ask me, the barman could rein him in a bit, instead of encouraging him."
Iffy: "Never going to happen though, they're mates, or think they are.
"Anyway, never mind who's not here, let's see who is, and who we can ponce a pint off next."
Last edited by: Iffy on Tue 29 Mar 11 at 18:48
|
>> Iffy's mate: "I reckon he comes close to getting out of hand.
"If you ask me, the barman could rein him in a bit, instead of encouraging him."
>> Iffy: "Never going to happen though, they're mates, or think they are.
"Anyway, never mind who's not here, let's see who is, and who we can ponce a pint off next."
(Sound of revving engines and squealing tyres from the car park, followed by slurred cries of 'Yee-hah!', the sound of breaking glass and voices raised in apparently good-humoured but very loud and obscene argument)
Iffy's mate: 'What's going on out there? Sounds like a riot.' (Iffy twitches curtains and peers out).
Iffy: 'No, there's only two or three of them. They're laughing now.... Oh God! It's them! They'll be in in a minute!'
Iffy's mate: 'Let's go in the Public and see what sort of mood Perro's in. I'm not staying in here.'
(exeunt)
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 29 Mar 11 at 19:40
|
Entering-
Bunch of fleece wearers with cameras strapped to their heads...
"Three pints of your best shandy landlord while we download our latest footage"
|
Fleece wearer one: "wait till you see this one"
... pause ...
Fleece wearer one: "Right, watch the guy in the quashqai and that wall, you wont believe what he does to the door"
oh i almost take it back but you said fleece wearer :-P
|
>> (exeunt)
(As they arrive in the dark, smoky Public Bar, in one corner of which a wild-haired, blind drunk individual is sipping a quart pot of scrumpy and declaiming Gaelic epic poems in a South London accent, the roar of a mighty diesel is heard. Iffy peers out again just in time to see a 44-ton HGV doing a perfect handbrake slide into the last 14 places in the car park, running over a couple of cats and hurling the battered remains of the Vicar's G-Whiz into the undergrowth. A handsome middle-aged lady climbs out growling and obviously spoiling for a fight).
Iffy: 'Jeez! She's here too! Let's scarper!'
(exeunt)
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 29 Mar 11 at 19:58
|
>> (exeunt)
(but only as far as the passage between the pub and the bogs, whose outside entrance is blocked by the Lexus that has silently wafted into the last possible non-parking slot. Its owner is clomping over to the group wandering towards the pub, but now quarrelling again, and is already criticising the footwear of the silver-haired Scot who has parked his Queequod in the road outside, and whose impeccable footwear has had its effect ruined by the tartan trousers with y-fronts and sporran rather tastelessly worn outside, instead of inside as they are by all sober Scots. The new arrival whose boots are flashing electronically in several colours and playing the Alleluia Chorus is leering and taking a sheaf of photographs out of his inside pocket).
Iffy (miserably): 'Holy excrement Robin, they're all here! It's a nightmare!'
Iffy's mate: 'Hey, it's my turn to be Batman! That's not fair! (reflectively) 'Pongs a bit out here doesn't it?'
(They lurk miserably in the dark for what seems like hours as mayhem ensues everywhere else).
|
You lot are absolutely mad...but very entertaining so please keep this going:)
Pat
|
Got brake tested today - Old Navy
