Driver ran into me while stationary is now saying i braked

Car_54

Stoke wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

1. Reckless driving hasn't been an offence for the last 30 years. It's either careless or dangerous.

2. On the other hand, emerging and failing to pick up speed so that you are forced to brake IS indeed a crime - failure to comply with a traffic sign (Give Way).

NBLondon

boliston wrote: »

ok so other people driving at the limit means you have to as well - i will drive at the speed i think is safe rather than the speed someone else feels is safe, even if it is under the posted limit

It used to be called "not making normal progress" as a driving test fail. If you are driving slower because you wish to maintain 56mph and theoretical maximum fuel economy or because your classic car is not suited to a 69mph cruise - you should still be aware of other road users. If however, it is because your judgement of the safe speed is distinctly lower than that of a notional average competent driver such that you impede others - you are not driving competently.

Stoke

boliston wrote: »

ok so other people driving at the limit means you have to as well - i will drive at the speed i think is safe rather than the speed someone else feels is safe, even if it is under the posted limit

No but entering a road knowing you will brake another vehicles momentum is wrong and unsafe and what you are seemingly condoning.

Nick_C

boliston wrote: »

i think insurance companies favour 'defensive' drivers in the way that although a rear end shunt in normally 100% the fault of the car that does the shunting due to driving too close or not paying attention there is also the aspect of people who do not drive 'defensively' such as not slowing down if being tailgated - i always bring my speed right down if someone is on my tail to reduce the risk of a shunt

facade wrote: »

So if the driver behind is not paying attention, and is too close, how does slowing down help you not end up with a car that is somewhat shorter than before you slowed down?

boliston wrote: »

I mean gradually loose speed rather than 'brake test' them

I've just read this thread from start to finish, and was a little disappointed that it was 50 posts in before someone made this point.

If someone tailgates me at 30 in a 30 limit, I take my foot of the gas and gradually slow down to 20. I then accelerate back to 30 to leave a safe gap between me and the idiot behind me.

Sometimes, they will close the gap again, but after doing this procedure twice even the thickest driver usually gets the message.

I've suffered the occasional horn blaring and rude gestures, but no one has, of yet, run into the back of me.

Although it would not be my fault if someone ran into the back of me, I still do everything I reasonably can to prevent it happening. I can understand why premiums are raised for "not at fault" accidents.

facade

Yes, but my somewhat tongue in cheek reply, and partly Stoke's point I think, is that if you can clearly see that the driver behind is on the 'phone or something, and you already know that they are too close for safety, deliberately slowing down at all is likely to result in an accident, for which morally, (and legally too if they could but prove it) you will be partly to blame, as you have no reason to slow down at that point, other than you "feel like it"

Nick_C

If there is an opportunity for the guy behind to overtake, then slowing down makes it easier for him to do so.

It also opens up a bigger gap between yourself and the vehicle in front, and if you do need to stop you can do so slowly and gently and reduce the risk of a collision.

Obviously, if you can pull over and let the guy get past then that is the best action, but it is not always possible.

If you can see that the person behind you is on the phone, not paying attention, and tailgating you, then get his attention with the hazard lights or horn, and pull over as soon as you safely can. You don't want an idiot like that near you.

Cornucopia

facade wrote: »

Yes, but my somewhat tongue in cheek reply, and partly Stoke's point I think, is that if you can clearly see that the driver behind is on the 'phone or something, and you already know that they are too close for safety, deliberately slowing down at all is likely to result in an accident, for which morally, (and legally too if they could but prove it) you will be partly to blame, as you have no reason to slow down at that point, other than you "feel like it"

My interpretation is that isn't what was meant by "slowing down". When you slow your vehicle in those circumstances (if, indeed you slow it at all, as opposed to just showing a flash of your brake lights) you are in control - all the more so if the driver behind is clearly not paying attention. Therefore you can slow just enough to make it clear that you want more space behind you. If the other driver doesn't notice, or doesn't respond, then you have further options, including speeding up to build a larger space, putting other vehicles between you, pulling in, etc. etc.

As above, I really don't want to be sharing a busy road with someone like that. In fact, with someone like the Hire Van driver who was tailgating me the other day with two small children in childseats in the front of the van.

SpaceUp

The car greatly facilitated the life of modern man. But along with this invention, a problem arose with the death of people in road accidents. Due to the fact that we often do not think about the value of human life and ignore the rules of the road, every year car accidents take lives of thousands of people.
We are becoming dependable from cars more and more, and with it the number of accidents that occur due to traffic accidents is increasing. The streets can not cope with large traffic flows. But this is not the only reason for the terrible accidents, which we hear on a daily basis on the radio, TV, and which we see in commercials posted on the Internet. The road users themselves are often guilty. This is not only drivers, but also pedestrians. They do not attach importance to the elementary rules of safety, on which not only health depends, but also the lives of others.
Since childhood we have been taught how to behave properly on the road. In turn, future drivers study the Traffic Rules, take exams and get the rights that give them permission to drive. Why does not the number of fatal road accidents on our roads decrease?
Probably because drivers and pedestrians lose their vigilance at the most inopportune moment, become inattentive and self-confident, do not value their lives and endanger the lives of others. They do not think that among them there can be their friends, relatives and close people. Watch our videos and make some conclusions. We hope viewing and conclusions will help you and save you from terrible accidents on the roads. Take care of yourself and your loved ones and know that the most important rule is mutual understanding and respect for other road users on the road. If we adhere to elementary rules of the behavior, then accidents will become much less!

[Deleted User]

I had someone pile into the back of me when I was stationary at a junction waiting to filter in, caused 2k s worth of damage . the lying dog then claimed I d rolled back into her ( I was on very slight incline ) with my handbrake firmly on..
The advice that the insurers always back the one who was rear ended is wrong. My insurers did a 50/50 split on the claim to avoid it going to court. Always get an independent witness if possible, even if the idiot admits liability at the time which she did and apologised profusely.
She had her mother sat beside her as a biased witness so they probably had a change of mind and went down the fraud route. I thought at the time this was an open and shut case..
My insures ignored my desire to make a court case out of it. Solicitors cost more than the claim. That cost me more for 5 years as my insurance premiums rose through no fault of my own.

Cornucopia

SpaceUp wrote: »

... the number of accidents that occur due to traffic accidents is increasing...

This is not true. The historic trend is clearly downwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain

Perhaps the figures are not decreasing as fast as people would want (but then "speed kills", so that's probably just as well). [Thread in-joke]