Reply to: woman who stopped car to help ducks faces life in jail after causing fatal crash

[SueEllen]

Do you chaps & chapesses only pay attention to the car in front on Motorways?

I'm always looking at least 3-4 cars ahead and watching for any signs of slow down - but then I am a driving God

Nope because I'm on the look out for the police in all directions.

I do love it when a fire engine or ambulance with sirens blaring comes behind some people.

You can literally watch them not notice the emergency vehicle for up to 5 minutes while the vehicles in the lanes around them work out how to clear out another lane.

[speling bee]

What happened to the ducks?

They quacked under questioning.

[Troll]

Do you chaps & chapesses only pay attention to the car in front on Motorways?

I'm always looking at least 3-4 cars ahead and watching for any signs of slow down - but then I am a driving God

Didn't help recently on a A road when the dopey bint in front of me decided to do an emergency stop to ask a pedestrian for directions with no thought of the consequences of her actions .. fortunately I have the reactions of a Ninja

[EternalOptimist]

Okay, what now? My argument boils down to something similar to what Lord Woolman thought in the case I posted above.

[vwdan]

So your argument boils down to this :-

The woman is a touchy feely emotional carer for the environment. Which means she is probably a greenie. Therefore she must believe in global warming. So, ipso facto, anyone who believes in the carbon tax must be thrown into jail for life ?

Actually, there may be something in this....

Okay, what now? My argument boils down to something similar to what Lord Woolman thought in the case I posted above.

[vwdan]

This is the kind of stuff I'm getting at, which the judge put far for eloquently than I:

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSOH74.html

Against that background, I hold that Mr Todd was in part to blame for the accident. I conclude that any emergency on the road was created by his own inattention. By braking hard, Mr Todd was in breach of his duty of care to his fellow road users. He did not adhere to the provisions of the Highway Code. He did not brake early and lightly.

[EternalOptimist]

Oh gawd, you're one of those. The law does NOT agree that all rear end collisions are caused by the rear car, because it's just not that simple:

Blog: Is it ever the car in fronts fault for a crash from behind? - Colemans CTTS Solicitors

Bumper rip-off :



And with regards to cash for crash, do you honestly think that deliberately causing a rear end crash is legal? (Hint: It's not, and if caught, they'll do you for it)



Not in the slightest - but there's a WORLD of difference between being in an unfortunate position and putting yourself there. By way of analogy - there are legitimate reasons why I might have to punch someone. It doesn't mean I get to punch anyone and just say "Yeah, but there may have a been a reason - you can't touch me". Stopping unexpectedly on a motorway is EXCEPTIONALLY dangerous and should be treated as such - we all have responsibilities to each other, and not doing stupid things for no good reason is one of them.

And my driving is fine, thanks - I do best the part of 30,000 incident free miles a year in cars and on bikes. However, I believe being a good driver is also being aware of your flaws - none of us are perfect and our eyes don't always give the full story. Detecting movement when you're behind something is actually quite tough, even more so when you're travelling very quickly. There's a reason the Police and Highways panic when someone breaks down in a lane, because it can so easily lead to an accident.

So your argument boils down to this :-

The woman is a touchy feely emotional carer for the environment. Which means she is probably a greenie. Therefore she must believe in global warming. So, ipso facto, anyone who believes in the carbon tax must be thrown into jail for life ?

Actually, there may be something in this....

[northernladuk]

If anyone goes into the back of another car it is their fault. If people don't leave a big enough gap they are cretins who deserve the darwinism treatment.

In a one on one situation then possibly... but I explained that in my post and there isn't enough detail for us to know the situation.

[vwdan]

I know of people who were hit by reversing vehicles but still at fault. As it is to do with proof.

The cash for crash - its only the cash bit that is illegal - the crash bit is still the fault of the car behind.

Oh gawd, you're one of those. The law does NOT agree that all rear end collisions are caused by the rear car, because it's just not that simple:

Blog: Is it ever the car in fronts fault for a crash from behind? - Colemans CTTS Solicitors

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/i...m-9289335.html

http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_...nd_shunts.aspx

The judge apportioned most of the blame (60%) to the car behind (the Transit Van) and 40% to the car in front (the BMW).

And with regards to cash for crash, do you honestly think that deliberately causing a rear end crash is legal? (Hint: It's not, and if caught, they'll do you for it)

You seem determined to reject the fact that a vehicle can be stopped in the fast lane for perfectly legitimate reasons. Maybe not in this particular case, but as a general principle

have you tried specsavers ?

Not in the slightest - but there's a WORLD of difference between being in an unfortunate position and putting yourself there. By way of analogy - there are legitimate reasons why I might have to punch someone. It doesn't mean I get to punch anyone and just say "Yeah, but there may have a been a reason - you can't touch me". Stopping unexpectedly on a motorway is EXCEPTIONALLY dangerous and should be treated as such - we all have responsibilities to each other, and not doing stupid things for no good reason is one of them.

And my driving is fine, thanks - I do best the part of 30,000 incident free miles a year in cars and on bikes. However, I believe being a good driver is also being aware of your flaws - none of us are perfect and our eyes don't always give the full story. Detecting movement when you're behind something is actually quite tough, even more so when you're travelling very quickly. There's a reason the Police and Highways panic when someone breaks down in a lane, because it can so easily lead to an accident.

[EternalOptimist]

Don't be foolish - the car behind has a lot of responsibility, but in no way are they automatically at fault. Otherwise cash for crash wouldn't be illegal would it?

You seem determined to reject the fact that a vehicle can be stopped in the fast lane for perfectly legitimate reasons. Maybe not in this particular case, but as a general principle

have you tried specsavers ?

[BrilloPad]

Don't be foolish - the car behind has a lot of responsibility, but in no way are they automatically at fault. Otherwise cash for crash wouldn't be illegal would it?

I know of people who were hit by reversing vehicles but still at fault. As it is to do with proof.

The cash for crash - its only the cash bit that is illegal - the crash bit is still the fault of the car behind.

[vwdan]

Bollux. Its how the law views it and every reasonable person views it. If you are in too much of a hurry to care about getting to close to car in front then expect the consequences. If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime.

Don't be foolish - the car behind has a lot of responsibility, but in no way are they automatically at fault. Otherwise cash for crash wouldn't be illegal would it?

[BrilloPad]

Except that's not how the law or most reasonable people view it. Stopping distance isn't the only factor - simple truth is that we humans aren't brilliant at reacting to unexpected situations.

Bollux. Its how the law views it and every reasonable person views it. If you are in too much of a hurry to care about getting to close to car in front then expect the consequences. If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime.

[vwdan]

If anyone goes into the back of another car it is their fault. If people don't leave a big enough gap they are cretins who deserve the darwinism treatment.

Except that's not how the law or most reasonable people view it. Stopping distance isn't the only factor - simple truth is that we humans aren't brilliant at reacting to unexpected situations. It takes a long time to register a stationary car when you expect it to be moving - likewise, I was very nearly caught out by a guy with no brake lights on his trailer.

And the use of the word cretin around here is beyond tiresome. Though I'm sure that you somehow surpass all human faults while driving g and have never made a misjudgment or misread the scene.

I was behind a car at night that lost control and rolled - it took me ages to register what was happening because it was so out of the blue.

[BrilloPad]

Accidents involving stationary cars are rarely due to the bloke behind not looking, it's a chain of events that, if the traffic is heavy enough, will always cause an accident however careful people are.

70 mph is 102 feet per second
Safe breaking distance at 70mph is 315 feet.

The guy behind her sees her and acts which takes around 70ft.
That means the guy behind him doesn't see the stationary car until he is 70ft closer. He swerves.
The guy behind him has another 70ft less etc until finally some poor sod as zero time to react and hits the car. That's about 4-5 cars using the numbers above. That's not even taking in to account a bike which can neither swerve nor brake as well.

If anyone goes into the back of another car it is their fault. If people don't leave a big enough gap they are cretins who deserve the darwinism treatment.