While I agree that the driver in front was acting irresponsibly, the fact remains that you were too close (or not paying attention)and therefore putting both parties at risk. What if a child had run out in front and it had been a genuine 'slam on' situation, instead of a foolish attempt to make you back off? If this had been the case I'm sure you'd feel very different, especially if you'd knocked the car in front further forward into said child. Harsh but true.

[Edited by scoobysnacks - 11/2/2001 10:31:32 PM]

 

Edited: I like to delete what i write

--------
Hos


[Edited by Hos - 11/3/2001 6:51:58 AM]

 

I took this post down earlier this morning but here we go:

Alanjack, Sorry to hear this and hope your car isn't too messed up. You learn from your mistakes as they say.
The accident sounds like your fault in the eyes of the law as you hit the car in front by being too close... however the car in front caused the accident. It wouldn't have happened if they didn't slam on the brakes.

i can't see the justification in slamming on the brakes intentionally. Its dangerous! Especially on the motorway. The aspect of driving should be safety safety safety!

I can guarentee if I went out into a busy street leading out of Oxford and slammed on my brakes, a car would slam into the back of me. Why? Well the subaru 4 pots are better than most standard brakes on cars out there, not to mention AP 6 pots etc and if i do it unexpectedly, the factors become reaction time.. not only the brakes.

The safe thing to do if in a 30mph zone is to slow down to 10mph. The car is breaking the law by being too close and if they over take in a 30 zone. they are breaking the law even more. Whats the point in risking your own life by being hit from behind and you lose control and pushed into a lampost? Whats the point in risking the person behinds life or their passengers even if they are driving irresponsible? Could you live with yourself knowing that you caused an accident and people died even if it was by law the
other persons fault.

Abit extreme maybe but from the above posts. Hitting the brakes and making the car behind swerve into a verge? or Slamming on the brakes on the motorway. No more needs to be said.

What did the woman say? Did she say she slammed on the brakes because you were too close or was there another reason?

[Edited by Hos - 11/3/2001 11:50:59 AM]

 

Mahoodlum's post reminded me of the following...

A few years ago, I was in Germany with the TA. We were all briefed by the master driver about a new problem that was becoming common in Germany, especially with British Army vehicles. The problem was Germans were overtaking people and pulling in, just in front of the car they had overtaken, and then slamming on the brakes. You go into the back of them and they make a successful whiplash claim against you. I'm glad to hear they've changed the rules over there.



[Edited by Jerome - 11/5/2001 4:39:06 PM]

 

Thats true, humbug.

They probably blame women for being raped if they wear short skirts.

[Edited by zoog - 11/6/2001 9:36:23 AM]

 

I'll grant you motorways are trickier and we all pretty much reduce our 'safe distance' but there is still 'moderatly safe' and 'flipping stupidly close' and there is a difference between the two I'm sure most of us agree

However in a 30 limit, or even 40 limit there is not the same problem of people moving into gaps in front of you so whats the problem with leaving a safe distance there? Thats the wierd thing about urban tailgating. What advatage do you gain? And it puts your passengers on edge.

The victim is never gonna speed up just because someone gets up his ****. All it does is wind the tailgater up, and wind the tailgatee up. Great - more stress for all involved

Regards

Juan / AlanJack

[Edited by juan - 11/7/2001 12:44:17 PM]

 

hey good idea about the throwaway camera. must get me one too to keep in the motor.

Jerome,
London - euyh! Traffic is shocking. Better to move outta that town and chill

[Edited by juan - 11/7/2001 2:12:49 PM]

 

Today I hit someone up the **** as they slammed on their anchors to suggest "I was driving to close". Within 4 metres accelerating (still in 1st gear) the car in front slammed on for a second time, coming to a standstill leaving me no room in which to stop as I had already closed in on the back of the car anyway.
I believe these actions were pre-meditated and I wondered what fellow Scoobynetters think?
I believe that I wasn't to blame and no driver would have been able to avoid the incident from occurring.
I must point out that I had my girlfriend and 4 month old son in the car both are fine.

 

Glad to hear everyone is okay. Although I can't abide tailgaiters I tedn to just leave more room infront of me to slow down gradually to avoid being hit, but I digress.

does indeed sound premeditated. Aside from your better half do you have any other witnesses?? I personally believe you could well proove to be not at fault - with road rage the way it is these days it's quite likely for someone to anchor up on purpose, especially if they have an old/low value motor.

I assume you're arguing fault with the insurance, good luck.

 

bstard bitch
these people then claim for everything.
they and claims direct etc p1ss me off then people carnt understand why insurance is so high
what p1sses me off most this cow had her young kids in the car at the time how wud she feel if aljac hit the car harder and killed them because of her "ill show him"actions?
some people make me sick
ill bet any money she sits in the centre lane on the motorway ,overtaking nowt, then when you pass her on the inside the thick dog starts flashing her lights etc then reports you for dangerous driving if she were in the correct lane you wunt be able to do that silly cow

sorry for going on but bad drivers need sorting out

 

I'm sorry but if you could not stop then you were too close. End of story. No matter how much or an @rse the person in front of you was being. Either over take or back off.

I slamed on the brakes today because a corsa was 2 feet from my **** for about 2 miles in a 30 limit. He had to sweve into the verge! I dont want some spotty twerp on a free insurance deal messing up my car. It may be have been dangerous but it realy p1sses me off.

He backed off after that

 

I think you are missing the point! The other driver obviously felt that you were too close in the first place, otherwise this wouldn't have happened. Also, try dusting off your copy of the Highway Code, as it's your responsibility to be able to stop safely in all circumstances.........which you patently proved that you couldn't do!

I know how irritating it can be when you run into the back of someone else ( - been there, done that), but I'm afraid you can't blame anyone else but yourself.

 

learn from it. I love it if I am on the N.Circ and some Max Krap idiot comes flying up my rear. I hit the brakes !!! Works a treat.
But only if the road is quiet, wouldnt want them swerving into another car.

 

only a full brakes the two second rule
saying that the person in front is a plank . IMOP

 

Plank! And with your family in your car, you're worse than a plank, you're an irresponsible twerp. What's the difference if you overtake or not? On most roads these days you get to your destination about 35 seconds quicker. Chill out on the road. If you want to drive faster than the speed limit, get on a track. And if you hit someone up the ar$e you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

what it is these people look in there mirrors and think flash bas##rd i will put them in there place and brake test you i have had it loads of times
one particular time i cant beleive i didnt hit this ar##ole up the back i gave him a few choice words and he suddenly thought he would sort me out so i made a hasty retreat and left him
later in the evening i stopped at a offy on the way home made my way home when suddenly screeching around the corner into my cul de sac comes the idiot so i pull up outside my house and realising its him or me or X SCOOBY its time for action he gets out of his car but when seeing me going towards him with a im taking no prisoners look he gets back into his car and reverses at high speed back
what it is these people are just plain and simple jealous of the cars that we have
so good luck and if you need a witness to say that he was driving eratically im your man yes officer i saw it all

 

Thanks for the replies.
Some of you talk complete ****. Others though, understand what I've been through.
I was doing 25mph in a 30 zone.
What can you do if someone slams on, thus drawing you close to them (6ft), then they set off and within 12ft slammed on again only this time completely stopping making hitting them a 100% certainty, is it ok for me to drive like that then? If so i'll be out tommorrow pulling off the same manouvres all day making myself pretty rich.
But then again I reckon Mr Plod would have locked me up for driving like a ****.
I truly feel I shouldn't be made to pay for someone else dangerous driving.
I had my 4 month old son in the car, any of you with any kids will know you DON'T endanger the lives of people who do not have a voice or a choice.

 

Sorry mate - I sympathize with the situation you found yourself in, but it is your responsibility to leave enough space in front of you to be able to stop before hitting anyone or anything.

I hate that I'm sounding "holier than thou" because I too would be pi$$ed off with someone behaving like that, and may well have hit them myself.

My heart's with you on this one, but I don't think you can avoid some of the blame in this case...

If you think I'm talking $hite, that's up to you...

Rich

 

alan imho you should of backed of.you saw the actions the first time,then accelerated up and had to brake again albeit slowly at 25 mph.your fault im afraid.to close.

 

I would be the first to admit blame in the first instance and that said, I had no reason to believe her actions were directed towards me.So would that now give me licence to go out now and do the same?
The way it is, If I get someone to hit me up the **** then the compensation for "personal/mental injury" that I WILL receive will easily pay off next years insurance premium and have cash to spare so therfore it dosen't matter who's right or wrong
Eye for eye sounds good to me, watch out Aljacks about.
So you see, If I am to and it does look likely I will lose may 2yrsNCB I recoup the extra insurance cost off some other innocent driver.

 

Whilst I totally agree with the "you should leave enough distance to be able to stop" statements... I also believe that such 'slamming on' actions by another driver IS illegal - it is the responsibility of each driver to take actions to AVOID an accident. By deliberately slamming on (for no other reason than saying "get off my tail"), is in effect creating an accident situation.
If you have witnesses (other than those in the car) then I would seek legal help (citizens advice would be a good start) - you may find that the other driver could be liable for "driving without due care and attention".

RichD.

 

Indeed, it's all well and good keeping a safe distance when travelling at a constant speed, but we all know that when traffic is in a stop start situation, or in town, gaps close right up.

Anyway, as said above, it's EVERY road users responsibility to drive with due care and attention and hopefully prevent accidents. It's very dangerous and unfair to generalise - "hit up the rear, their fault", or "hit in the side, my fault". Things are never that simple

 

mate, I do sympathise I really do, What she did was tantamount to dangerous driving i.e. doing somthing on the road thayt is likly to cause an accident. the fact she did it delibertly really makes it stink. Yeah, all these people giving you **** about drving too close. I get people driving too close from time to time. I gently left foot brake with my right foot still on the gas to light up my brake lights and they get the message and back off. slamming on is just not on.
Unfortunatly, it will be very difficult to prove that as she will prolly say that something ran out in front of her. So I'm afraid IMO it dont look good.
sorry.
astraboy.

 

I posted earlier saying you were too close or not paying enough attention and I guess I have to stick to that. Your brakes were probably much better than the ones on the car you hit, so really you should have had ample time to react and stop unless you were very very close. How long does it take to stop at 25 mph?
This doesn't mean I think it was your fault however. The person in front was a complete ar**ole for doing that and I would apportion all the blame on them for this accident. It's just that if he had stopped for a good reason and you'd hit him you'd have to admit responsiblity and I guess that's my point - you would not have hit this car if you had been further away and that's why we should all keep our distance especially with people like that on our roads. If the car following had then hit you in the back, wouldn't you say it was their fault for being too close to you no matter how unexpected the situation was?

 

Make sure you include their reason for stopping in the statement to the insurers. Might be as bad as admitting liability.

MB

 

not far from where i live (7 miles) there is a gypsy camp on the main road to and from town and not to long ago they were purposly not indicating (not that they can drive any way)and just slamming on the ancors so people would run in to the back of them so as that the could claim composation they did theis for a few weeks and must have made a fortune .
they also steal from peoples boots while they are sat in the traffic ligts up the road .

 

I think it depends upon the reason for 'slamming on'. For example, it used to be that if the driver in front braked to avoid a dog (because they were licensed animals) and you hit them, it was your fault. But if they braked to avoid a cat and you hit them, it was their fault. I think you're on a sticky wicket here tho', as although you could claim the other driver braked for no reason, she only has to claim she thought she saw a child about to step into the road or something.

I think at the end of the day, regardless of reason, blame, etc. if you run into the back of someone the law views it as your fault for not leaving adequate stopping distance.

 

Thanks for the replies. Does it make any difference though that she slammed on her brakes TWICE?

 

Hmm. i can't say as i like yer chances on the insurance front as they do generally speaking take the view that it's your fault if you hit sum1 from behind, & i shouldn't think that's going to go in your favour just because they have already braked dramatically b4 hand. If anything shouldn't that of made u more weary of just wtf they're playing at? Dont get me wrong thou i do to a degree sympathise with your predicament as they do sound like they were driving sumwot eratically although i can't help but agree with my predicesors in saying that while the brakes of the scooby r often claimed 2 b soft they r still significantly better than most heaps on the road & as already mentioned the reasons 4 the other drivers harsh halting move could have been genuine, even if not in this case, & as such if u were indeed too close ie within the ole 2 second rule then it wood seem u r going 2 have 2 bend over & let the insurance companies take a bite out yer ***
I mean i have heard cases of insurance scams where people flash u 2 let u come out of a junction & then accelerate in2 u saying u just pulled out & thus shafting u on the whiplash etc claim front. However since in real terms u still drove in2 the person infront the responsibility, at least from the insurers point of view lies largely at your door! Sorry but can't see u getting around that
Si

 

AJ,

"Does it make any difference though that she slammed on her brakes TWICE?"

Yes, it means that not only did you not heed the idiot the first time, you were driving even closer the second time........and at the speed you say, you must have been within feet....

However stupid the driver in front was, she proved her point. As for fighting it with the insurance, good luck....

Mark.