Driver ran into me while stationary is now saying i braked
Options
Comments
-
Colin_Maybe wrote: »He stated that she was very old and in his opinion shouldn't be driving, what's so difficult to understand?
He did not state she should not be driving because of her age, he stated a) she was old and b) she should not be driving because of what she didColin_Maybe wrote: »Actually he stated that he had to slow down initially, not that he slammed his brakes on. That only occurred when the 1st woman braked suddenly. So rule 159 of the Highway Code does not apply.
Hah brilliant, you're wrong (given you stated he did not slam his brakes on) and then I proved you were wrong and now you're moving the goal posts. She pulled out into traffic in full breach of 159 and you're trying to pretend it doesn't matter because admitting it does kills your argument. Rule 159 states very clearly you should use mirrors to check the road is clear, look around for blind spots, signal if necessary then look around for a final check. Pulling out onto a 60mph limit forcing cars to slow because you don't check your surrounds is QED a breach of 159 (and thus would be a fail on your test). The fact she then slammed her brakes on, causing the accident just makes it worse!Colin_Maybe wrote: »Nice try at trolling but no, I'm not an older driver (whatever that actually means). Perhaps in your rush to defend @Stoke you jumped to conclusions? Why do you jump to his defence so readily BTW, is there something you want to admit too?
I mentioned it as a query as to why you were assuming Stoke was having a go at old drivers. Trolling is where you deliberately post inflammatory remarks for a response. I asked if you were, nothing more. Good deflection try but failed.Colin_Maybe wrote: »See above to put this nonsense to bed.
Your post above admits the driver pulling out in traffic forced a car to slow. Rule 159 applies. Nice try but it applies 100%.Colin_Maybe wrote: »That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Are you claiming he's got selective memory?
Nope, he mentioned the age of one driver who caused an accident, in passing, he didn't mention the age of another driver. What is selective? It just wasn't mentioned in the post.Colin_Maybe wrote: »This makes even less sense than your previous comment. How can you brake before an event has occurred? All braking is retrospective. Are you saying no one should brake in case it risks the lives of other users?
No idea what this is about. He said he saw a car coming out, he instinctively slowed down in anticipation of the driver doing something stupid, which she did and had to brake because of her terrible driving (imagining a dog)0 -
Colin_Maybe wrote: »He seems to think that anyone over a certain age shouldn't be driving, how's that not showing bias? Did he give her a quick driving test to ascertain her capability or did he base his "judgement" purely off her age?
He wasn't "forced to brake" by her pulling out either, he stated that he slowed down (no mention of whether he used his brakes or not) which would indicate that she actually pulled out correctly. You don't have to wait for a gap big enough that other drivers don't have to adjust slightly. The only reason that the accident happened was that the "female behind" (note that this one doesn't have her age mentioned which reinforces my first point) didn't slow down when @Stoke did and was possibly already too close. Purely down to inattention, driving too close and no doubt too high a speed by the 2nd woman.
The reason for the 1st woman to brake is immaterial, imaginary or not. If you "imagined" a kiddy running out would you stamp on your brakes or not?
Sorry but it doesn't.
Road users on the road/lane you want to enter have priority. If one of those drivers has to alter their course or speed (regardless of whether it involves braking or not) then by definition you have failed to give them priority as you have forced them to give way to you.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
The fact she was a woman has no bearing on it, if you are implying my views were sexist? If it did, then I would not have exonerated the female behind so quickly, would I?
Her age matters because both my grandparents drove until they were very old. One of them gave up her keys because she knew she wasn't safe on the road anymore, which I suspect took huge amount of guts.... My other grandparent did not and the last time she took the car out was with my dad who told me it was absolutely terrifying. He took her keys and she never drove again and passed away early last year.
Age does matter when driving. Your reaction times naturally slow down as you get older, you're an increased risk of undiagnosed dementia (the illness which the second of my two grandparents in the above paragraph succumbed too) and probably a lack of practice and while most older drivers are safe and careful, some are clearly not. Pulling out a junction slowly into 60mph doesn't make you a safe driver, it makes you a dangerous driver.......
No, I'm implying you're ageist which seems to be born out by the rest of your post.Age does matter when driving.
On that we agree, most young drivers are idiots and shouldn't be allowed a pedal cycle let alone a motor vehicle. :rotfl:0 -
He did not state she should not be driving because of her age, he stated a) she was old and b) she should not be driving because of what she did...
You realise the post is still there and and has been quoted right (so no editing applied)?Woman in front, very old, shouldn't have been driving in my opinion
You can twist it all you want but it's there in black & white.
I looked up rule 159 and you're even quoting the wrong rule anyway. The rule I think you should be quoting is rule 170:Take extra care at junctions. You should
Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely.
There's no mention of other drivers having to adjust their speed so she still pulled out safely as @Stoke merely had to slow slightly to allow her to get up to speed.
The rest of your post got what it deserved which is ignored.0 -
I am not ageist at all. As I said, I suspect most older drives are safe, however some are clearly not and yet there appears to be no actual checks in-place to ensure that they are safe to be using a car. I know you might not like my tone, but when you get behind the wheel, you are operating a killing machine. Cars don't kill people though, people kill people and ultimately, it's either careless driving, dangerous driving, reckless driving or a combination of the three that can lead to the cause.Colin_Maybe wrote: »No, I'm implying you're ageist which seems to be born out by the rest of your post.
On that we agree, most young drivers are idiots and shouldn't be allowed a pedal cycle let alone a motor vehicle. :rotfl:
For the avoidance of doubt, I will put in writing that there are !!!!ing thousands of bad drivers out there who aren't elderly. However these are deliberately reckless drivers...... They are over-confident and inconsiderate. The lady in my story was neither of these two. She was simply unaware of what was going on and did not realise how braking in that situation would potentially cause things to happen behind her. As has been pointed out, the onus still lies on the (significantly younger) driver behind to stop, but ultimately, the accident was caused in part by the poor driving of the person in front. Yes, the woman behind should have stopped, but the woman in front shouldn't have.
Totally agree on your point about younger drivers, however, once again, this is not because they are lacking awareness..... it is usually because they are inconsiderate, selfish or simply over-confident. When I was 17, I was probably over-confident as well. Teenagers know everything..... remember?
Colin, I don't need to edit my post. None of what I have said is ageist..... despite your hysteria. You pulled out the "Woman in front, very old, shouldn't have been driving in my opinion" point, without asking for any clarification. If anything, your point about young drivers is a lot more ageist, but let's not get into tit for tat, let's stick to facts.Colin_Maybe wrote: »You realise the post is still there and and has been quoted right (so no editing applied)?
You can twist it all you want but it's there in black & white.
I looked up rule 159 and you're even quoting the wrong rule anyway. The rule I think you should be quoting is rule 170:
There's no mention of other drivers having to adjust their speed so she still pulled out safely as @Stoke merely had to slow slightly to allow her to get up to speed.
The rest of your post got what it deserved which is ignored.
The reason (in my opinion) she should not have been driving wasn't specifically her age, but her actions were dangerous and I wholly believe her age contributed to the decision making process she took.
Just in case you are in any doubt, yes, I had to brake when she pulled out. Not necessarily hard, but I definitely had to slow because I was coming at 60mph and her entrance to the lane far too pedestrian. Had I not braked (foot brake, not engine braking), I would have hit her. 100%. She did not pickup momentum quickly enough (that in itself is not a crime, but a fail on a driving exam) but she subsequently braked hard without warning or a clear reason why. Call it a hunch, but visibly witnessing someone pull out as dangerously as she did into traffic makes you more alert and perhaps I subconsciously thought she might do something daft (didn't know her age at this point, she could have just been another bad young driver that you are quick to condemn), so my reactions were hot on it and I luckily stopped in time. The female behind, I suspect, had an obscured view of what happened in front of me. This was a dual carriageway, traffic rarely comes to a hard stop for no reason and while people are warned to expect the house, they are not advised to predict what is a piece of utterly terrible decision making from the lady who, in my opinion, caused the accident. Yes, the female behind did not leave enough space and learnt a valuable lesson, but the accident did not need to happen and the only reason it did was because of a terrible piece of driving.
This woman said, quote, "I thought I saw the dog leave the through the gate".... and on that hunch decided it was a good idea to stop. I remember those words very well because I turned round and looked at a woman about to be pulled out of a vehicle by a paramedic and thought 'jesus, there is a woman quite seriously injured because of an accident over a dog that was not even there'. That could have been your daughter or niece being pulled out of that vehicle. I wonder if you'd be so quick to defend such a dangerous piece of driving in that instance eh? The lady in front also failed to recognise the seriousness of the crash after it had happened. There were 2 police cars, a fire truck, two ambulances, two tow trucks, one side of the A34 completely closed for traffic in that direction..... my car was a total loss Cat B write off that was unable to be moved without a proper crane because the impact had completely destroyed the rear end and the car behind was a brand new car that was also a total loss because the dashboard had intruded so badly into the cabin.... so this wasn't a trivial shunt that you see everyday in Manchester town centre.... this was a serious accident, yet the lady started saying to me (and a police officer) "oh it's not that bad, she's just bumped you up the bottom" (word for word). I'd love to say I was joking...... but I'm actually not. Her daughter at this point wisely whisked her away and took her inside the house and to be honest, I don't blame her.0 -
There's no mention of other drivers having to adjust their speed so she still pulled out safely as @Stoke merely had to slow slightly to allow her to get up to speed.
'Don't cause other drivers to change their speed or course' is a universal one. It's inconsiderate to break it, if not blindingly dangerous every single time. If she can't 'get up to speed' quick enough, the gap is too small. You're giving this driver licence to just drive out in front of anyone, as long as they don't touch.0 -
'Don't cause other drivers to change their speed or course' is a universal one. It's inconsiderate to break it, if not blindingly dangerous every single time. If she can't 'get up to speed' quick enough, the gap is too small. You're giving this driver licence to just drive out in front of anyone, as long as they don't touch.
I was told this very firmly when learning for my test: "You only enter a road if you can be sure you won't impact on another vehicles momentum" and furthermore when entering the road, you should 'maintain momentum', i.e. drive at the speed limit assuming it is safe to do so and the traffic around you is also travelling at that speed. She failed on both of these counts as she not only caused me to brake, but then failed to gain any speed before slamming her brakes on.
I've come to the conclusion that Colin is going to brush everything I say off as ageist (despite clearly showing bias against young drivers himself). My points are valid and rather than actually trying to answer them, he's going to say "well young drivers are bad too"..... next he'll throw out the "well i'm always tailgated by Audi and Beamer drivers, so who's in the wrong there"......
Still the person who stops because they thought they saw something, at least in my opinion. Tailgating is dangerous..... so is stopping unnecessarily.0 -
I was told this very firmly when learning for my test: "You only enter a road if you can be sure you won't impact on another vehicles momentum" and furthermore when entering the road, you should 'maintain momentum', i.e. drive at the speed limit assuming it is safe to do so and the traffic around you is also travelling at that speed.......
I'm not sure about always driving 'at the speed limit' is good advice as it's a speed limit not a target as many people think0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards