It's about time a rear end was instantly prosecutable with 3 points and a £500 fine. Then perhaps people would take more care. I too have been hit from behind in cars I have owned, yet never once have I hit a vehicle in front of me. I will admit to coming close, but that was due to me not paying attention and being distracted, by my bloody phone when they were hulking great things and called transportable phones!! I learnt my leason.
Are people blind??? (Drivers Rant)
- Thread starter material.buyer
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I'm not trying to make an argument for legalising the use of mobile phones, quite the opposite.
What I don't agree with is that they have been treated differently to other causes of dangerous driving without any justifiable reason and I think the law should be equally applied to them all.
You occasionally hear of the odd case of prosecution due to eating/drinking at the wheel etc. but these are rare (I would guess) in comparison to the numbers I have personally seen doing so.
As a non-smoker I find it hilarious that I can't hold my mobile phone but someone else can have a huge great cigar on fire hanging out of the corner of their mouth ... What more hazard do you need?
And please don't try to tell me that, if it were to fall out and land between their legs, they would control the car in a safe manner whilst they retrieved it
Oilman: I'd consider them a soft target simply because it's obvious to the Police that you're using one. I have personally seen far more near misses due to all the other things I mentioned earlier.
MW
What I don't agree with is that they have been treated differently to other causes of dangerous driving without any justifiable reason and I think the law should be equally applied to them all.
You occasionally hear of the odd case of prosecution due to eating/drinking at the wheel etc. but these are rare (I would guess) in comparison to the numbers I have personally seen doing so.
As a non-smoker I find it hilarious that I can't hold my mobile phone but someone else can have a huge great cigar on fire hanging out of the corner of their mouth ... What more hazard do you need?
And please don't try to tell me that, if it were to fall out and land between their legs, they would control the car in a safe manner whilst they retrieved it
Oilman: I'd consider them a soft target simply because it's obvious to the Police that you're using one. I have personally seen far more near misses due to all the other things I mentioned earlier.
MW
In my opinion, the real criminals are those who fail to secure their kids in the car and therefore let them jump about all over the seats and eat meals off the parcel shelf, strangle each other etc. Their excuse "im not planning to have a crash today, im a safe driver" Bullturd. Idiots. They must really love their kids.
Sponsored Links
Crafty said:
I agree with you. And don't forget the ones who strap their kids in, light up and slowly start to poison them.
my dad was the last one into a 5 car crash which was caused by some idiot woman in front stopping to drop her kids off.. guy behind her braked and caused a chain reaction..
not his fault
they said he caused all the other damage as he was last in and would have "shunted" all the other cars together.. never mind the fact that he hit a 7.5 ton flatbead with it's breaks on...
they said he was speeding but he had just turned out of a side street about 20 yards up the road and could not have been doing more than 20 even with his foot to the floor..
not his fault
they said he caused all the other damage as he was last in and would have "shunted" all the other cars together.. never mind the fact that he hit a 7.5 ton flatbead with it's breaks on...
they said he was speeding but he had just turned out of a side street about 20 yards up the road and could not have been doing more than 20 even with his foot to the floor..
A taxi driver crashed into the back of my Mum once.
His first words were "Why did you stop?"
He then clamied that she rolled back into him!
His first words were "Why did you stop?"
He then clamied that she rolled back into him!
Unfortunately, in the eyes of the law, if you hit someone up the rear end its your fault ... Unless they reverse into you of course
They'll have you for not paying attention and if you argue that you were then they'll have you for incompetance (quoting safe stopping distances in the highway code).
I appreciate your annoyance as I nearly ran up the rear of an elderly woman last week who almost did an emergency stop to allow an oncoming car to turn right ... Unreal!
My survival technique is to assume everyone else on the road is a complete fool who could do something stupid at any time.
They'll have you for not paying attention and if you argue that you were then they'll have you for incompetance (quoting safe stopping distances in the highway code).
I appreciate your annoyance as I nearly ran up the rear of an elderly woman last week who almost did an emergency stop to allow an oncoming car to turn right ... Unreal!
My survival technique is to assume everyone else on the road is a complete fool who could do something stupid at any time.
stoping distances don't mean squat if the car in front comes to a dead stop.. there is no deceleration time.. just thinking time involved then...
the theory is so many feet thinking, so many feet deceleration..
the theory is so many feet thinking, so many feet deceleration..
ColJack said:
Of course it wasn't his fault, car had a mind of it's own didn't it, he wasn't in control was he?
OF COURSE IT WAS HIS FAULT FOR HITTING THE ONE IN FRONT OF HIM!!!!
DRIVE FAR ENOUGH FROM THE ONE IN FRONT SO YOU CAN STOP!!!
ColJack is entitled to think the best of his father, but to me it doesn't add up.
20mph max... 20 yards after turning out of junction... went up the rear of stationary truck (or one which was braking hard) which had its brakes on
20mph max... 20 yards after turning out of junction... went up the rear of stationary truck (or one which was braking hard) which had its brakes on
truck was moving, brakes came on and he hit the car in front.. causing it to stop almost instantly.. even with brilliant breaks a car takes time and distance to stop unless stopped by something immovable..
and by "not his fault" i was referring to the fact that all 4 insurances claimed off his because he was last one in..
how exactly does a car push a truck into another car, and another, and another? all assumingly with their brakes on?
and by "not his fault" i was referring to the fact that all 4 insurances claimed off his because he was last one in..
how exactly does a car push a truck into another car, and another, and another? all assumingly with their brakes on?
Here we are
20 mph stopping distance 12 metres (3 car lengths) including thinking time.
but 30mph 23 metres
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.htm#105
20 mph stopping distance 12 metres (3 car lengths) including thinking time.
but 30mph 23 metres
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.htm#105
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- Big_Spark
- General Discussion
