alsatian

@OP Is this the section of road: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Atlantic+Rd,+Sheffield+S8+7GD/@53.322002,-1.4912133,139a,35y,44.91h,0.24t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x487983bc08231cbd:0x1e72341105ed62d3!8m2!3d53.3216948!4d-1.4916112 Whilst the cars aren't hurting anyone, I can at least see why you'd find it a little irksome. It'd be more considerate if the owners didn't do it. Your best bet is to start making enquiries with the council. Find out what can be done, if anything. If it's all completely legal, then you've lost nothing but a bit of time finding out.

They are like really big plants that grow out of the ground but that's not important right now.

It's a non story, Up to the Star what they report though. But shows they have low standards for what they report. I say I hear something go bang in the night, next day it's in the Star

Another vote for Butterworths.

I would imagine most urban road deaths involve vehicles traveling much less than 100mph. I doubt that limiting cars electronically to even 70mph would make much difference to road death figures.

How do you know it's not a majority? Do you know them all?

So far I've only had this problem when having a beer outside The Globe / The Howard / The Sheffield Tap. It's happened multiple times each time I've had a drink there. Seems to be a usual run for them as I have asked other people I know and they have experienced the same.

So they were driving with their eyes closed? Or do you think it's more likely they were staring up at the lights with their foot down doing an amber gamble. I know which I would hedge my bets on. I never mentioned anything going to court? I'm positing that an RTA was commited which you disagree with. I doubt this will end up in court. There's no information available that it was even reported to the police? At this point, will just have to wait and see if the article is ever updated.

Yes it does. There's quite clearly a decent amount of time for the driver to have seen the animals and performed an emergency stop, which was perfectly REASONABLE given no car was following close behind. https://www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk/injury-lawyers-blog/2013/03/19/rules-for-emergency-stop-for-an-animal/

I do. You don't take evasive action for animals in the road if doing so would cause a collision with another vehicle. Video quite clearly shows he/she could've stopped well in advance with no risk to anyone else. It's quite clearly an RTA.

That website is full of it. Scam products.

It's hard call on whether it was intentional. If it was intentional, was it for fun or just because they didn't care at all and just wanted the lights. If it wasn't, what world were they in? Too busy staring at the lights as they rushed for them? They must have been utterly distracted or blind to not see those ducks. You can tell from the video that car was far enough away and with a clear view to see those ducks and take evasive action easily. So definitely driving without due care at a minimum. Also, it looks like they have the drivers reg plate but was intentionally blurred out? If so there may be some justice after all.

That's a shame because they are really handy at heating up food and drinks.

Do I. How?

Because of the points outlined in my two previous posts. In addition I haven't seen anything in this thread to make me believe otherwise. This is purely my subjective opinion, of course.