When a police force impounds a bunch of supercars and exotics it’ll make waves. That’s what happened only a few days ago in the United Kingdom when Metropolitan Police seized 60 cars worth a combined £6 million ($7.7 million) for what the government calls ‘anti-social driving behavior.’ And no, that doesn’t mean sitting behind the wheel of your sim-rig playing Forza all weekend. Here’s what it said of the results.
Initial reporting from the BBC describes the incident, stating:
The operation launched on the evening of Friday, 2 August and ran across that weekend seizing £6 million worth of cars including McLaren, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Ferrari and Lamborghini, preventing further causing harm on the roads.
The story also mentions how authorities made five arrests in connection with the operation, seemingly tying anti-social driving behavior to being uninsured or under-insured.
To find out if those two things are actually connected I decided to do a deep dive. It turns out that there are a great many things that fall under the UK’s “anti-social laws.” Here’s a breakdown of how to avoid the same fate as the drivers mentioned above. And also just because you might be curious about this odd term not used in the U.S.
Our first clue is what the Metropolitan police responded to in the first place. It says in its report that Westminster residents complained about cars driving poorly or at high speed. That led to the operation in question and five arrests for “insurance fraud, using a mobile phone at the wheel, not using a seatbelt, and driving without due care.”
Those are some additional clues, but it’s worth noting what the BBC (linked above) said about the seized cars: “The main reason for vehicle seizures was no insurance or inadequate insurance,” it claims, attributing that information to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau.
Martin Saunders, head of enforcement at MIB, told the publication: “Our message is clear: high-value cars are not exempt from insurance requirements.” He’s referring to the fact that several cars seized are of the high-profile variety including a Lamborghini Urus, a Ferrari Purosangue, and an unnamed McLaren model.
Interestingly, insurance isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Police Reform Act of 2002 which deals with seizing vehicles. That legislation does provide some additional details though. Specifically, it deals with “Vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance.”
It says that authorities can seize and remove a vehicle under certain conditions like “careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving,” or when a driver “is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.”
In such situations, the law points to another code, the Road Traffic Act of 1988. It’s here that insurance comes into play as one of many reasons that a driver could end up in hot water legally.
Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Cabinet Member for City Management at Westminster City Council pointed at another cause for the operation though. From the BBC:
“People who think it is ok to use our roads as their own private racetrack late at night are not welcome in Westminster.
The noise and dangerous driving from these boy racers is often worse during the summer, so I welcome these results from the enforcement work. This underlines the council’s zero-tolerance approach to anti-social driving. We will continue to work alongside the police and other local authorities to make sure the racing stays on the racetrack and not on our streets.”
In essence, “anti-social driving” can be everything mentioned on this list so far. That includes aggressive driving, speeding, or simply piloting a car without insurance or enough insurance. The United Kingdom’s College of Policing actually has an entire webpage dedicated to defining “Anti-social behaviour.” The page starts by defining the types of “anti-social behavior”:
There are three main types of anti-social behaviour (ASB). These are:
- personal
- nuisance
- environmental
The topics and anti-social behaviours listed on this page may fall into more than one category of ASB.
To put it simply, the full list is long and goes far beyond driving infraction. Sure enough, insurance is listed as one such behavior. It’s actually right beneath the section on careless or inconsiderate driving that includes “in a manner causing alarm or distress.”
In other places around the world, that same statute might be akin to reckless driving, a speed contest, or negligent driving. Of course, driving without insurance is an entirely separate crime but authorities will often cite drivers for multiple infractions when questionable driving happens.
The long and the short of it is this: be courteous on public roads wherever you might be, but be especially courteous on British roads.
I much prefer our local version, where certain traffic acts will get the vehicle confiscated, for good. E.g. Driving => twice the speed limit.
It does not matter who owns the vehicle (unless it has been stolen).
What happens when it’s a rental?
That’s ok as rental vehicles are the fastest things on the road. Legally they can only be driven at 100%.
They are confiscated as well. It took the rental companies a few weeks to get their contracts updated, when this law was implemented. Same for company cars, loaners, car sharing, etc. All are confiscated.
The legislation is quite well thought out, ex:
The very first confiscation involved a daughter driving her mothers near new car and the media tried to make it a big deal. She drove 105 in a 80 zone, (km/h) and then entered a 50 zone without slowing down. They interviewer, a representative from the police force (head of traffic something) was very clear that this was exactly as intended. Had she been doing the speed limit, or even 99 in the 80 zone, she would have gotten a ticket. But getting those, with a general disregard for the speed limit, off the road, was what the rule was made for.
Just so I’m fully understanding, the daughter broke the law, but it cost the mother her car? The daughter wasn’t directly financially impacted or deprived of the use of anything?
Did the mother get her car back after paying a fee or fine, or was the car sold off / crushed by law enforcement?
What happens to confiscated vehicles?
To me, it looks like the wrong person is been punished here, although I don’t have all the details so I can’t be sure.
Why not fine or ban the daughter. I mean she committed the crime, she should have her driving privilege temporarily diminished. or even sometime behind bars for doing double the speed limit and she (the daughter) should be financially impacted.
Oh, she was fined seperately and lost her license for 3 years.
Traffic violations of a certain character, will ban you from driving for 6 months (can be revoked if you take the test again right away), 3 years or 10 years.
The purpose of confiscating the vehicle, under all circumstances but theft, is to get certain people of the road.
You simply have to think about who you lease, loan or lend your vehicle to.
The irony on the comment section on this!
As far as I can gather, the takes amount to:
A.) Screw those rich brats. Nail ‘Em! (typically from those with multiple cars)
B.) Ahh, the Coppers doing their typical over-reach (from those with no worries about that happening to them).
C.) FREEDOM! (from those commenting from another Country, thinking it is insulated)
While this is a process that is happening “across the pond”, those in the US are currently deciding on which of the aforementioned alphabet (albeit very simplified) categories to choose from for the future of 360 million plus fellow brethren.)
Choose wisely and be firm on your decision. The future is not an internet take. The Brits movements are not as uncorrelated as previously thought.
I don’t think people having different opinions is ironic, seems pretty normal. It would be strange if everyone had the same take on all of this.
The irony isn’t in the root of the opinion, it’s more of a “do what I say, not what I do” scenario.
I’m grateful that people have differing opinions. Otherwise, what would I have to laugh at when I look at the Pringles choices?
I’m confused about how you know what they say differs from what they do in each example. “Screw those rich brats” is coming from people with multiple cars? Are you checking their garages? I mean multiple cars could just be two cheap commuter vehicles belonging to spouses. You’re just making weird assumptions there. Everyone is potentially subject to an overreaching police force, unless you think there are billionaires making those comments. You’re probably right about the third since those people love to overshare all over the internet though.
I am very much not in favor of anti-social behavior, at least as I define it. I am also very much not in favor of the government deciding what it is and punishing it.
An act that is against societal wishes or norms should be punished by that same society with appropriate levels of scorn or ostracization. If enough people flout the norms, they change. This is how society works.
Recruiting gun-toting cops to enforce a small influential cadre’s whims is neither society nor democracy.
If you think “scorn” and “ostracization” will stop street takeovers and numbskulls from removing their mufflers and revving engines against their rev-limiters, you’re the textbook image of wishful thinking.
I believe those infractions are illegal and can be prosecuted under the appropriate laws such as reckless driving. Let the law do its job without giving a blank check to the police to prosecute anything and anyone they decide they do not like.
It ain’t the rank and file prosecuting anyone.
The key here is summer residents. Probably half of the exotics being driven in London’s posh neighborhoods in the summer are owned by middle eastern oil money. These cars are a drop of oil in the barrel to the owners.
And the wheels on that RR Cullian look like they came off a Honda CRV- just freaking hideous.
“An act that is against societal wishes or norms should be punished by that same society”
But, that’s exactly what government is doing when it enforces laws! We, as a society, elect people who decide what the rules are. If we don’t like the rules or how they’re being enforced, we get a chance to make changes.
We decided all this! As a society!
About 25 years ago I got to visit England, we were going around seeing the sights, and when waiting outside the palace for some ceremony the Bobby’s on horses were doing crowd control, nobody was being rowdy, we were just all crammed by the fence, but they were literally up there on their high horse telling people to “mind their place”.
Being from the former colony, that struck me as a little much. I saw similar examples of the police state everywhere we went, how they had to queue to buy things, how the tubes operated, yes it was all orderly and nice, but when I took a day to head to Paris and saw a couple kids hop the turnstile getting off the metro at Notre Dame I found it absolutely refreshing.
I guess my point is, yep, that’s England.
So what happens next? Do the police sell the cars or use them for stakeouts? Or do the owners get them back after paying a fine and getting insurance if that’s their crime? “Seizing” temporarily is one thing, civil forfeiture (which is practiced with glee by some police departments / agencies here in the U.S.) is quite another, but that usually requires the vehicle having been somehow involved in the crime or crime-adjacent.
By definition a crime involving a vehicle involves the vehicle.
You can’t drive without insurance unless you drive a vehicle.
I have no problem with asset forfeiture if the asset can be demonstrated to have been used in the commission of a crime and the owner of the asset was the one using the asset in the crime.
It’s when the cops say “oh hey, you have some money in your wallet. Eh, it was probably involved in criminal activity, it’s mine now” or “hey, your roommate hid drugs in your house, get out, we’re seizing the house” that the problems arise.
The biggest concern to me is equal treatment under the law. An “anti-social driver” of a Ferrari is penalized much heavier than the driver of a Fiesta when both cars are confiscated. That’s not equal treatment at all.
Hopefully the cars are eventually given back. In the USA, there is currently a huge problem with cash being seized. They just assume that all cash is drug money, no matter if it’s $1500 or $150,000, and simply take it from any driver pulled over for any reason. You can fight it, but most times, the attorney fees are higher than the amount taken, so citizens just abandon the money.
How so? They both lose the car they were being a complete dick in. That’s quite equal to me (I’m not commenting on the right or wrong of the practice itself)
That reminds me of something: in Switzerland they use what the call “day-fine” where the fine you get is based on your averaged income.
Seizing a Fiesta to a millionaire isn’t as just as seizing it from someone just scraping by.
I think taking a Ferrari away to someone who can afford it or a Ford Sierra to someone who can’t afford anything better is pretty just. Not perfect, but OK.
Well, when both cars are seized, the Ferrari owner is losing an asset that’s most likely worth more than$500k, where as the Fiesta might be worth $20k tops..(I’m using USA dollars, so please excuse that my Euro using friends) .. that’s not equal treatment at all.
That 500k is arguably worth as much to the Ferrari owner as the 20k is to that of the Fiesta. Ultimately it is a philosophical question: what is a fair punishment. Equal in absolute terms may not at all be equal in existential ones.
If anything the Fiesta driver is penalized heavier because that’s probably their only mode of transportation which in the US would be catastrophic, the Ferrari driver I’m sure does not have an issue finding some other mode of transportation. Not making excuses for anyone’s shitty behavior or really making a comment on the confiscations. Just saying while monetarily the Ferrari confiscation is more sever but in the grand scheme of things the Fiesta is more significant.
The Fiesta driver is penalized more. Seize the Ferrari, the owner just drives his Porsche until he gets the Ferrari back. Seize a Fiesta, the owner gets fired because he can’t get to work, then he gets evicted because he can’t pay rent.
Your second paragraph is entirely correct, and has transformed a number of police departments/sheriff’s offices into armed robbery gangs.
A commonly discussed problem is how flat monetary fines are only a punishment to those who can’t afford it, and can be trivial to those with money to burn. It’s still not quite equal if a guy who owns a half a dozen cars gets his Ferrari confiscated vs someone whose only car is confiscated, it’s a much bigger burden on the Fiesta owner if that’s their only means of transportation, even though the monetary value is much less. Equality vs equity, which is actually fair?
The person whose Fiesta got confiscated probably wouldn’t be able to get around without their car. The person who got their Ferrari confiscated for annoying other rich people in Westminster probably sees it as the price of being able to do whatever the fuck they want. Even if they couldn’t afford to replace the Ferrari, they aren’t gonna be carless, for sure. It’s not the same; not even close, but you have it backwards.
Have you seen Steve Lehto’s video on some these cases?
Thank goodness for the Institute for Justice helping people that wouldn’t be able to take these ‘authorities’ to court.
A cop confiscated my license after pulling me over and not giving me a ticket because it had a misprint from the DMV. He then asked why I wasn’t driving away, and I said “because you have my license, and this feels like a trap”
The articles (both the BBC’s and Autopian’s) are probably being a little strong in using the term seized. as in implying they have lost ownership of the car. Most likely once they prove they have insurance on the car they will pay a fine and get points on their license for driving without insurance. IIRC driving without insurance is 6 points with a maximum of 12 points before you get a driving ban.
The cars literally have giant stickers on the windshield that say “Seized by police”
Yeah, but our police, imperfect as they are, and especially the Met, still don’t pull the same ‘theft dressed up as justice’ shit that is civil asset forfeiture as in the US. They very probably can get them back. Not least because, if you can afford a Ferrari, you can absolutely afford to pay a barrister to hassle the police til they give it back to you.
It’s amazing that here in the USA you can have you assets seized by so many agencies, without been convicted of any crime or wrong doing.
“oh traveling with 20K cash to buy a car / truck, well that money MUST be the result of criminal activity hand it over”.
Steve Lehto has some really good videos on this, especially the videos about the safety deposit boxes raid in California. The police thought the owners of the store were up to no good so they seized all the boxes and you had to sue to get your stuff back – incredible
If there are not enough proper laws on the books to be covered before “Anti Social Driving Behavior” becomes a thing, that is some pretty f’n lame-ass government. When they’ve got that problem solved they can go on to the grocery store and impound carts/detain operators for the way some people act in the produce aisle.
I’m surprised not having any Grey Poupon isn’t on the list.
I’m all for prosecuting those who break the law, but the confiscation of automobiles doesn’t sit well with me… reading these comments, I’m reminded of a poem..
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
It’s a slippery slope…beware..
Conflating rich bro’s losing their McLarens for bro-ing around in their douchewagons to the Holocaust is epic dumb.
And yet, it’s happening in real time. The slander and judgement terms you wrote do not change the facts.
Because they were repeatedly breaking the law with impunity. Do you think they should get a free pass?
No. No. No. Absolutely not. There is a caveat, though.
The point of the OP here is a strong one. In string with that post is a reply that insinuates that the assertion is flippant, and equates the notion to something uncorrelated, and in fact, a dangerous train of thought.
Adrian, you are seeing it live over there with governmental overreach. Maybe it’s just me (it’s not), but I’d prefer to not have issues sorted by a “board of directors” that may, or may not have, been elected to speak on my behalf, when they decide to impose more than what is warranted.
Those cited in the article are assholes, no doubt. However, I believe it’s never a great idea to let others decide whether what I feel is anti-social.
Fuck that guy who actually said people are “boy racers.” If someone wants to say that on “record”, then they have no place in my life, nor does that notion. It disqualifies any legitimacy.
This was damn near word salad, but if I get your point, you’re saying you don’t think any government should be deciding what is and is not antisocial.
If so, you’re arguing for anarchy but the fun thing about most people who argue for anarchy is that they don’t really understand what it is.
Under anarchy, if I find your actions to be antisocial, and as a result I murder you, that’s perfectly OK. As long as your relatives don’t hunt me down, I won’t face consequences. And maybe I just kill them too to make sure they won’t come looking for me. Or maybe I miss one of them and they kill me so now my wife is pissed and she goes on her own killing spree.
That’s anarchy. Murders writ large. Arguing for anarchy automatically highlights the arguer as someone who has absolutely no understanding of either anarchy or how society will behave under it.
Dude, you are extrapolating a lot there.
None of us are 12 years old and want to rebel for the sake of it. There is a common sense balance that occurs in between chaos and authoritarian.
The leap between an S720 doing a burnout, and a killing spree, in a Dukes Of Hazard gap.
Anarchy has nothing to do with it.
Janeane Garofolo IRL would never advocate for the bro’s douching around in their McLarens.
@Eslader – there’s a guy in my hood who’s tuned his 350Z to produce absolutely thunderous backfires that sound like artillery rounds, it defies belief and physics. He likes to demonstrate his ‘anti-social behavior’ around 130am. When I do eventually kill him I’ll make sure my wife doesn’t have to take care of any loose ends, so to speak.
Once again, with the labeling and the judging.
Me thinks (and I may be wrong) that your issues with slander reach far beyond car speak.
It’s ok to have fun 😉
If you define fun as being a dick with an obnoxiously loud car at 1:30am in a neighborhood full of sleeping people who need to go to work in the morning, then no, it’s not OK to have “fun.”
Intentionally forcing everyone else to hear your bullshit is only fun to you, and in the anarchic society you seem to be advocating for, you’d have already been shot for it.
Well, if you’re not advocating for anarchy then you’re OK with laws. And laws are passed by “a board of directors” that may or may not have been elected to speak on your behalf. Not all of those laws will restrain themselves to defining antisocial behavior as violent crime. Some will, justifiably, define it as being a horse’s ass behind the wheel, which you don’t seem to like.
Either you’re OK with a government that decides what is and is not antisocial or you are not. Which is it?
The bottom line is that if it’s not illegal and you piss people off when you do it, there might be extra-legal consequences coming your way. If you don’t like that idea, then you should be OK with letting trained professionals stop you from behaving that way instead of letting the rest of us deal with you.
Did you write “extra-legal?” and also bring up 19 as a response to Gilbert?
Cool. Agree to disagree.
That is not, in fact, anarchy. At all.
Got something more to share? Because so far all you’ve said is “nuh uhh!”
It is, in fact, the result of anarchy. If there are no laws, then people do whatever they want. And if you doing whatever you want pisses me off enough, then I do whatever I want and shoot you. That’s anarchy.
Or are you still under the impression that “voluntary cooperation” would actually happen? I think the pandemic showed us it absolutely fucking will not. People won’t even volunteer not to kill each other by wearing masks, and you think they’ll “volunteer” to just get along and let anyone do whatever they want with no consequence? No one is that naive, are they?
No, anarchy is an actual school of political thought. It means ‘no rulers’, not ‘no rules’ What you are describing sounds more like ‘America’ TBH. Tho I do agree with your point, absolutely.
Yes, I know anarchy is an actual school of political thought. My point is that it’s a school of stupid political thought, because functionally, in the real world, “no rulers” means “no rules.”
Anarchy relies on everyone in the system voluntarily cooperating with each other, agreeing on rules of society without a means to enforce them.
That (sometimes) works in very small groups like, say, a child-free family. The more people get involved in the collective, the less likely everyone is going to agree on the rules. Even if they do, it’s still less likely that everyone will follow the rules.
Then what? If there isn’t an entity to enforce the rules of conduct, then it falls to whoever is pissed off by the violation of those rules to do it. And since there’s no entity to enforce the rules of conduct, if your conduct makes me mad, I’m free to choose how I respond to it. Make someone mad enough and they might just decide to make sure you’ll never make them mad again.
The problem with philosophizing over systems of societal organization – political or economic – is that in most cases, nobody takes into account the fact that humans will be involved.
Communism is fantastic on paper. Introduce greedy humans into the mix, and it falls on its face because if you want to get out of following the rules of communism, all you have to do is bribe the people in charge of enforcing the rules and suddenly some people are more equal than others.
Same for any other system of government. Checks and balances have been attempted but as we in the USA are aptly demonstrating to the world right now, once the greedy humans worm their way into the right positions they can short circuit those checks and balances and we’re right back to falling on our face while the greedy humans who don’t want to follow the rules bribe their way into noncompliance. This is why a 34-count convicted felon who tried to overthrow the government is currently roaming around free trying to get himself put in charge of the government again instead of being under the jail where he belongs.
Anarchy doesn’t even attempt to set up the system by which those greedy humans are restrained, so it’s even more impossible to make it work.
I agree the original comment ‘first they came for the….’. If I have to read that as a reply to anything it’ll be a day too soon because it’s so overused as to be rendered meaningless.
I’m not sure where your assertion of UK governmental over reach is coming from. Whom is this board of directors you mention? If you’re referring to the recent civil disorder in the UK, again members of the public broke the law, and are being dealt with by the criminal justice system.
Alright. Since the Internet is your wheelhouse, are you alright with the social media censorship that seems to be occurring at the moment over there?
Honest question.
I’m not alright with hate speech, whatever form it takes and whatever the medium.
I agree!
However, who gets to decide it? I’d like to have the freedom to decide that myself…
Not to ‘drift’ away from cars…
‘Hate speech’ and freedom of speech, where do we draw the line? and does that line move? if so who decides when and where the line moves to?
Also what if it is true? I’d bet true factual speech can be hateful at the same time. Should that be punishable?
Are you okay living in a world where you can be arrested for your thoughts?
“Vaughan-Spruce was arrested again within weeks when she returned to the site and prayed silently in her mind.
The decision to drop the latest case comes within two weeks of Suella Braverman, the British government’s secretary of state for the Home Department, writing to every police force in England and Wales to tell them that silent prayer was not a criminal offense.
In her letter to the police, Braverman said that “silent prayer, within itself, is not unlawful” and that “holding lawful opinions, even if those opinions may offend others, is not a criminal offense.”
First they came for the assholes, and I said nothing because I am not an asshole.
Then they came for the douchenozzles, and I said nothing because I am not a douchenozzle.
Then they came for the fuck weasels, and I said nothing because I am not a fuck weasel.
Then I came to them with a tray of cookies and thanked them for making life better for the rest of us.
Thanks, I needed that. Mazel tov.
ᕕ(⌐■_■)ᕗ ♪♬
You said that much more politely than me.
You just compared having a vehicle temporarily impounded for driving uninsured with the Holocaust. Hooooo buddy, this is peak internet. 10/10. Absolutley incredible work.
James this is an absolutely batshit take, go touch grass
Good.
This isn’t car culture and these arseholes all need a good boot to the face.
What?? Do you even know what these people did? Or are you just jealous of their cars?
Nothing in this article has any specifics on what any individual driver did, just a lot of bluster from government types.
Do you run your local HOA?
Yeah, we know what these people did because, like, it’s in the article. Which we actually read.
“insurance fraud, using a mobile phone at the wheel, not using a seatbelt, and driving without due care,” and then the cars that were seized were being driven under or uninsured.
Insurance is a legal requirement to drive a car in the UK, and the police take a very dim view of anyone doing so without it. This is not some over reach. The law is very clear and the consequences are widely advertised, much the same as they are for mobile phone usage while driving.
And as someone mentioned upthread, they will impound (not the same as seizing – you can get your car back) the cars of normal people as well, and do so regularly.
No, silly, it’s that we live in a fascist dictatorship, where we’ll get locked up for giving even the most mildly controversial wrong opinion (so you are absolutely fucked; I’m honestly surprised you’re still alive at this point), and all we’re allowed to do is twiddle our thumbs until an NHS Death Panel decides how we are to be disposed of. Whilst the forces of justice have been corrupted to the degree that they are TAKING FERRARIS AWAY FROM PEOPLE FOR THE ‘CRIME’ OF BEING SUCCESSFUL!!!1!1! Or something.
Don’t get me started on the NHS. I’m pulling my hair out just trying to get a phone consultation for something minor at this very moment. It’s a fucking disgrace,
Oh, I know; it is my workplace…
These are likely the type seen all over London. They think the law and social obligations do not apply to them, drive and park wherever they want and however they want. Antisocial and reckless driving, blocking emergency vehicles, running lights, harassing pedestrians etc. I know the type of people in the article.
This brings up a topic I think about every once in a while: What drivers are the biggest road going nuisances and are there certain cars associated with those nuisance behaviors?
The way I see it there are two categories, people in a big damn hurry and bullshitters in everyone’s way. There are several behaviors that fall under each category. For example we all know about the person in the Charger or Altima who constantly tailgates and recklessly weaves through traffic in a futile attempt to somehow save a meaningful amount of time from their 15 minute commute. On the other end of the spectrum is the person in a RAV4 or a Lexus ES scared to death and white knuckling it at 15 under while traffic piles up behind them for miles. It could make for an interesting survey based article.
Living in an area where these cars are very common, I’d like to add one more category: the massively entitled.
These are the drivers that casually roll through stop signs/red lights at 30mph like they’re not even there on principle. “Do not enter” and “One Way” are for the poor in their eyes. They speed up when traffic is ahead but slow to a crawl as soon as it’s behind. They’ll kill a cyclist and sleep like a baby the same night.
Mostly fail-sons and unloved housewives pretending they are the villains from RRR in between bottles of Chardonnay. In the spirit of this post, they can all bugger off. Bloody wankers!
“On the other end of the spectrum is the person in a RAV4 or a Lexus ES scared to death and white knuckling it at 15 under while traffic piles up behind them for miles. It could make for an interesting survey based article.”
Around me, it seems like Subaru SUV drivers are almost universally like this, and they always seem to have a sort of shell shocked or horrified expression on their faces
If I had to choose between the two, I guess I’d maybe take my chances with the reckless Altima driver, because they tend to be fairly easy to avoid and then speed off out of the area never to be seen again, but three Forresters, side by side in all 3 lanes, crawling at 50 in a 65 is something you’re stuck with.
Isn’t more dangerous, certainly, but it is a lot more irritating
“Subaru SUV drivers are almost universally like this, and they always seem to have a sort of shell shocked or horrified expression on their faces”
Probably they haven’t figured out how to turn off the lane-keeping / follow cracks in the pavement into oncoming traffic feature.
Oh, so their system works like Hyundai’s? Good to know
The Subaru is also excellent at finding buried gas lines, old trolley tracks, and the shadows of telephone lines. The remnants of Brooklyn’s trolley system really give Subarus fits. I have never had the pleasure to drive a new Subaru in San Francisco but I bet it must be pretty epic.
I just rented and drove a brand new VW Gti from Albany NY to Tampa FL with that feature, and did so through a hurricane. Worked flawlessly. While I’ll never own a VW that’s out of warranty, I’m now very open to leasing one.
Out in the country it is mostly fine, except for the odd phone line shadow.
In cities with several layers of infrastructure dating back one or two hundred years, a pavement patina if you will, it can suffer discombobulation. Remember something that’s 99.999% safe is pretty dangerous.
Yes, honestly my personal experience with this tech is comprised 100% of that one anecdote. The rest of my experience is me personally driving safe 98% of the time.
My MIL and FIL in their white Subarus would like to confirm all of this.
I live around Atlanta now so see all of it on a daily basis.
But having grown up in the northeast, people always ask me who the worst drivers are. I have usually responded with they all suck, but people in the northeast generally drive like d-bags on purpose, southerns drive like d-bags but don’t really know it.
If I had to choose, I would take the person that drives like d-bag on purpose because at least they know what they are doing (for lack of a better way to say that) versus the dumb dumb who is in their own world and oblivious to others around them.
Bravo. Wish it was like that here (DK) too.
The collective exerts its massive thumb on the bourgeoisie. Borg vs. bourgeoisie!
I wonder who will win? Pass the popcorn…Also, bourgeoisie is the most difficult word to spell in the English language, but most fun to say.
The supreme irony, of course, is that England was among the first nations in Europe to get out from under the thumb of their monarchy when they deposed/decapitated Charles I in 1649. Now the commoners are coming for the petit bourgeoisie…
I see this more as a showdown between the collective ruling class (government) versus the rich folk. Both are powerful and neither like to be pushed around.
The petit bourgeoisie, according to Mr. Google are the townsfolk and the bourgeoisie are the people who control the means of production – so Lamborghini owners/rich folk. History and politics are confusing, especially when the French and Germans (Karl Marx) are involved and get hold of the language.
You are correct! I momentarily forgot my Marx, how embarrassing. I have edited my comment.
Bourgeoisie isn’t English, it’s French.
It’s a calque!
Still fun to say.
Lots of French is.
I like “oubliette”
I’m sure the bourgeoisie will not want to be thrown in the oubliette for the crime of hooning. The guillotine is humane by comparison and slightly easier to spell.
Considering what the UK criminalizes and what they let happen without enforcement, it wouldn’t surprise me if being an introvert gets criminalized in the near future.
You thought Brexit was bad? See what happens when you criminalize Harry Potter, Doctor Who and various other SciFi/Fantasy nerd culture.
.
Knowing some people can suffer from sensory overload very easily, the police could use such a person’s disability or altered perception as a reason to do whatever they want. A vehicle’s tires hitting a specific frequency when rolling or chrome trim being too shiny could get it impounded as an example. The intent is for the benefit of the public, but the language is so very open it could easily be abused.
That would get rid of the lifted / coal rolling / tires sticking out an extra 10 inches trucks driving like Mr Toad on TCP in my neck of the woods.
Not an entirely bad thing.
Lawyers have to do something, vague laws keep them employed.
and overly precise laws quickly become ineffective through circumvention of the spirit. My most lasting lesson from HS chemistry, precision is the enemy of accuracy, and vice versa. Teach was arguing against student misuse of significant digits in equations, but it applies to many aspects of life funnily enough.
For context, central London, in particular the hyper wealthy parts like Knightsbridge and Mayfair, have had a real ‘supercar summer’ problem over the last decade. Essentially loads of Middle Eastern brats fly over with their cars for one long summer of misbehaviour before having to return home. This attracted all sorts of knob heads and influencers which of course compounded the problem.
This doesn’t appear to be part of that, but the residents have been rightly complaining about it for years, and although the Met took their sweet time in cracking down on these twats (regardless of nationality) it appears they are finally taking the problem seriously.
I envy the ability of your lot to use the terms Twat and Cunt with impunity
Tbh I rarely use the C word because I’m of the generation where it’s absolutely the rudest slang in the language, but I’m aware the youngsters have no such qualms. ‘He/she is serving C’ is one I see online quite a lot but I would never say that myself.
I’ve always been partial to ‘muppet’ myself, it can be used with real venom but it’s still PG-friendly. Wazzock is a little edgier so I save that for special occasions.
Blimey. Wazzock. There’s an insult I haven’t heard for a long time.
Hmmm.
If it makes you feel better (it probably won’t) I also use muppet as a term of endearment.
You sir, have a great user name.
That’s the great thing about us Brits and the way we say things, the Americans (and I’m sure others) don’t seem to have a grasp on that and I’ve lived here (the US) for over 20 years now.
I enjoy Adrian’s articles for the language as it reminds me of home. The content is good too, although occasionally secondary.
The C word used to have a status that the n word has. It’s so bad we won’t even say it or type it. And fair play to you for having at least some standards…
Although I’m still a bit hurt from when you called us all ‘fuckos’ in an article lol.
I am surprised that one passed the editorial standard.
In football parlance the C word just means someone associated with your rival team.
He’s the Lambo driving gent who ran amok in Kent
Lately he’s been a knob head in Mayfair
You better stay away from him, his misbehaviour is appalling Jim
Huh, I’d like to meet his tuner.
The decorations on that 4 door Datsun lookin’ saloon thing made me wonder if it was a bunch of entitled petro-state dickheads out there doing shit with no previous consequences.
My thought exactly… it’s a C210 Datsun Skyline, probably a 180K (L18 four-banger, 105hp JIS)
Thanks for clarifying that. I lived in Bayswater, (not Westminster , but close enough) for a while, in the 90’s. When I first read the article, my initial thought was, ‘The Met finally decided to do something about that? Good! Maybe that yutz that parked his F50, half on the sidewalk, on Queensway, every freaking Saturday, finally got his car towed.’
For further context, walking down Park Road one year in London, there were multiple car carriers with matching coloured cars on each, out the front of the fancy hotels. No joke, one trailer had a Veyron SS, Ferrari TDF, Ferrari La Ferrari, Porsche 918, and a McLaren P1, with a bunch of fancy SUVs (read, Brabus G Wagen 6×6 with the portal axels level fancy). The thing is, that was the 3rd lot of the then ‘holy trinity’ I’d seen on that one road. Not a single one of these vehicles had a european plate on them. It is a sight to see, but it is obscene, and they literally don’t give a flying eff, as they can buy their way out, or just leave. They don’t actually understand or care about consequences to actions, which is reflected in the way the cars are driven.
When I was studying at the RCA in Kensington I used to the get the bus from Green Park tube. One day I saw the ‘holy trinity’ all parked outside The Dorchester.
It was a Tuesday.
An ASBO on the estate and an ASDO on the roads. Hand them an ASPO if they go a bit too far in the public restrooms and they won’t be able to do anything at all.
(What’s so funny ’bout) Peace, Love, and Understanding?
My take is that a lot of people did not cope well with pandemic isolation, are still recovering, and some forgot how to drive. Mid-Atlantic stomping grounds, I’ve noticed an uptick in anti-social driving behavior. I think we all know it’s better to lean towards the hyper-miler driving style. I just don’t get treating gas and brakes like an on/off switch.
STILL recovering? That was years ago!
Tipping point, trigger, exasperating, always held that everyone is insane, just a matter of degree and direction. “People, they’re the worst”.
The Clark’s reference! Must be from Western PA. I try to catch them live once or twice a year. We made it to the Fayette County Fair this year the night they played.
The Clark’s are cool, it was the Elvis Costello version that popped to mind.
Different cultural touchstones. I’ll have to find that one! Possibly generational.
Man I wish they did something like that here in the states. There are so so so many people who need to have their cars impounded (and preferably crushed).
Im quite sure the police response would have been a bit different if it were in a less affluent town.
Different how? They still seize the cars of relatively poor people, and they still get arrested. It just doesn’t make the news when it’s a dickhead in a 20 year old Fiesta instead of an McLaren.
It’s not like the police here can escalate to shooting anyone.
They have night sticks. At least they did in Charlie Chaplin movies.
They have telescoping batons, and tasers. Both of which are illegal for civilians to have.
Only the firearms offices get tasers.
Ah, must just be me with a mental image of PSNI in Belfast out with the water cannons I guess.
That’s not just less affluent than London, but also a different country.
We calling it its own country now? Or a province?
I’ve lost track now. Seems intentionally left vague.
London is in England, a country that has well defined borders with Scotland and Wales, the other two countries of Great Britain.
Northern Ireland is either a separate country within the “United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, or part of the island of Ireland, but is definitely not England, and arguably not British.
Throw in the long running violent dispute between the two entirely incompatible local religions of Christianity and a slightly different Christianity, plus the genius Brexit induced fuckup of border controls between Britain and Northern Ireland and no border controls between NI and the Republic, and you have a situation which is so complex that the inhabitants of the territory disagree on exactly where it is they live.
My fiancée’s family farm is just outside Belfast. What I’ve learned over the years is you don’t ever discuss politics, religion or which country you are actually in when you are over there, or you’ll get in Troubles. You also don’t mention the Troubles or use it in fun wordplay.
In summary: yes, vague.
I’ve family both in and around Belfast. It’s a game of ‘know your audience (and where you are, if someone else may be listening)’ when the topic comes up.
“Slightly different”?
In terms of a belief system they have hugely more in common than they have differences.
Same trinity of a single god, same god, same founding figures, shared history until Henry VIII wanted a divorce.
Compared to any other religion that isn’t Christianity they should have enough in common to get along just fine.
I don’t follow any UK police forces on social media but they do pop in my feed, and I can assure you they do seize cars for no insurance from everybody, all over. Also they are very hot on overweight loads.
Because all the records, including insurance are centralised they can tell instantly if a driver has no insurance (a legal requirement here in the UK) and usually, but not always that’s an red flag for a whole load of other illegal stuff (driving without a licence, no MOT etc).
Can you imagine if Nissan Altimas were sold in the UK? Yikes.
The Nissan Qashqai fills that ecological niche here!
any Mustangs? 😛
Let me guess. They didn’t keep their pinky up and out while holding onto the steering wheel? Didn’t form the proper queue at a traffic light?
You’re mixing up your laws. What you’re talking about falls under their “uncouth operation of a motor vehicle” laws, not antisocial driving.
Translation: “If we feel like impounding your car, we will find a reason.”
I know nothing of law, but I always assumed legal “codes” in other countries were more objective, unlike the reckless driving crap here in the States for stuff like smoking the tires. Of course my argument that I should be charged based on a measurement as the car is not in motion but rather just a machine making a lot of noise only results in threats of punishment for other subjective crimes like disorderly conduct or obstruction.
From what I can tell there’s a big difference in how crime is defined and policed in each side of the Atlantic. In the UK at least it’s a lot more about the spirit of the law, than the black and white definition.
It probably seems pretty arbitrary and draconian to US readers, but it does work.
If someone is driving without insurance, they are not going to be allowed to continue driving until they have it.
Looks like they can seize you car for driving without a seatbelt, WTF??
No, that would be a talking to or a fixed penalty (£120 fine and three points) if you start giving the office lip.
More likely translation : “Driving like an idiot and/or uninsured will get you arrested, even if you have bags of money and show it by being an idiot in a very expensive car.”
I’m in Canada. A police officer I know told me years ago that with all the laws on the books, if an officer wants to pull you over and charge you, it is almost certain that he could find something to do so.
Ah, you’ve heard of the Ontario Provincial Police, then?
Same is true in the United States, and minor traffic violations are commonly used as an excuse for a “pretext stop” when an officer suspects the vehicle occupants of a more serious criminal violation, e.g. drug possession. Given the racial disparity in who gets stopped, though, there’s been some pushback against pretext stops in recent years.
Causing distress or annoyance? That’s 90% of the drivers I encountered today!
The critical question is distress or annoyance to whom? I’m sure there are portions of the population whose distress or annoyance is more critical to enforcement.
What’s the copper car in the second photo that looks so out of place? I thought it was a Subaru Brat, but it’s a sedan. Leone maybe?
It’s a C210 Nissan Skyline sedan
Thanks, had to zoom in to see the rear quarter window and grille details.
I’m not sure but it’s definitely the car I’d want to have from that photo.
It’s a Nissan skyline C210, also sold as the Datsun 240K GT in the UK, Australia and some European countries.
I was intrigued why it has been seized. On the side of the car there are dotted lines, which suggest it was in some sort of rally. So perhaps reckless driving?
Either reckless driving or driving in pedestrian-only area and/or without a license.
Also, going cross-country in older cars from Kuweit to London is apparently a bit of a thing recently (at least in Kuweit).