FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

wrong by the rules but feel you're right!

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Approaching a large roundabout the way is clear, one car just entered two exits back, the distance between my entrance and the car that just drove onto the roundabout 50 - 75 mtrs.

In my opinion, clear.

The car in front of me has stopped dead and I rear end it, I know I know, I'm in the wrong but....Jesus how much room do you need and isn't that what roundabouts are designed for, keep moving, no need to stop if clear? Or can you just stop on the entrance of these junctions ?

Wish I had a car cam after seeing Car Crash Britain recently, a car just stopped on the road causing an accident, that was caught on cam and they ruled that the car that stopped was at fault, even though they were rear ended.

My insurance company didn't even ask 'what happened' heard rear ended and it was my fault.

My fault was I anticipated the flow of the traffic so I'll take this on the chin as I didn't anticipate the person in front.

But FFS!

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Could have been one of the crash for cash scams, got to have eyes in the back of your head these days.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

But you always have to anticipate, and keep an eye on, the car ahead. They might see something you can't.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

As you said, you were anticipating traffic, but totally missed what the guy in front of you was doing. Kinda important.

I treat all other drivers on the road as if they're insane and drive accordingly. I've managed (touch wood) to never have a bump or crash yet.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"Could have been one of the crash for cash scams, got to have eyes in the back of your head these days."

Its the front facing ones the OP struggled with.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *adybee77Woman
over a year ago

MAMOBA, miles and miles of bugger all (Aberdeenshire)

For all you know there could have been an animal or something crossing the road in front of her that was blocked from your view by her car.

You shouldn't pre-judge what someone else will do, drive with due care, dilligence and attention to what is happening - not what you think might happen.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"As you said, you were anticipating traffic, but totally missed what the guy in front of you was doing. Kinda important.

I treat all other drivers on the road as if they're insane and drive accordingly. I've managed (touch wood) to never have a bump or crash yet."

But but but and BUT!

If she had followed the rules and proceeded my eyes front or backwards facing wouldn't have been needed lol

I know I'm wrong but car cam and....

I've even managed to accidentally post this twice, lol

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

I watched that programme and yes there was a staged crash just how you crashed...who knows if it is a staged one or just someone who is too careful/saw something you didnt....either way as you say, you are the one to blame

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"As you said, you were anticipating traffic, but totally missed what the guy in front of you was doing. Kinda important.

I treat all other drivers on the road as if they're insane and drive accordingly. I've managed (touch wood) to never have a bump or crash yet.

But but but and BUT!

If she had followed the rules and proceeded my eyes front or backwards facing wouldn't have been needed lol

I know I'm wrong but car cam and....

I've even managed to accidentally post this twice, lol"

She could have stalled, she could have had a moment of indecision, she could have just not wanted to go. It doesn't matter whether she drove badly in your opinion, the general rules are, if you rear end someone, you were too close, ergo your fault.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Extremely irritating when something like that happens. Has nearly happened to me several times. Never understood why some cars stop when the way is blatantly clear.

Unlucky fella.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


" if you rear end someone, you were too close, ergo your fault."

this.......

if you are too close not to be able to break if you need to then you are not paying enough attention to whats in front.... thats on you....

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As you said, you were anticipating traffic, but totally missed what the guy in front of you was doing. Kinda important.

I treat all other drivers on the road as if they're insane and drive accordingly. I've managed (touch wood) to never have a bump or crash yet.

But but but and BUT!

If she had followed the rules and proceeded my eyes front or backwards facing wouldn't have been needed lol

I know I'm wrong but car cam and....

I've even managed to accidentally post this twice, lol"

Not everyone is as confident driver as you for whatever reason.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Extremely irritating when something like that happens. Has nearly happened to me several times. Never understood why some cars stop when the way is blatantly clear.

Unlucky fella."

A highly intelligent man, cheers chap lol

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *evaquitCouple
over a year ago

Catthorpe

Yeah, I hear you there but as we both know you're totally in the wrong with most insurance companies. Rear end smashes are notoriously hard to argue against although the guy/gal who pulls off in front of you then slams on the breaks and you end up in the back of them for insurance purposes really should be the opening for the grey area you speak of. Fitting a dash cam is about to be the new car craze in this country as it is others, already considering it myself.

Him.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

And as you dont have and evidence... Unlucky

Best just drive safer in the future and not try readimg the mind of the driver a head of you

Maybe she seen something you did not

As you are the one who crashed in to an non moving large object, we are only right to assume your vision may need testing

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You clearly didn't anticipate the flow of traffic that well did you?

You second guessed the car in front and paid the price. Your fault entirely

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


" if you rear end someone, you were too close, ergo your fault.

this.......

if you are too close not to be able to break if you need to then you are not paying enough attention to whats in front.... thats on you...."

Not anymore with a car cam its the person that stopped for no reasons fault.

There was not anything in front, no animal nothing, she just stopped her car when she should have proceeded on as it was safe and clear.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The problem isn't why she stopped its why didnt you.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The problem isn't why she stopped its why didnt you. "

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" if you rear end someone, you were too close, ergo your fault.

this.......

if you are too close not to be able to break if you need to then you are not paying enough attention to whats in front.... thats on you....

Not anymore with a car cam its the person that stopped for no reasons fault.

There was not anything in front, no animal nothing, she just stopped her car when she should have proceeded on as it was safe and clear."
Unfotunately some drivers dont have the same awareness and anticipation as you. And you bore the brunt of that. Hopefully not too expensive a claim

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


" if you rear end someone, you were too close, ergo your fault.

this.......

if you are too close not to be able to break if you need to then you are not paying enough attention to whats in front.... thats on you....

Not anymore with a car cam its the person that stopped for no reasons fault.

There was not anything in front, no animal nothing, she just stopped her car when she should have proceeded on as it was safe and clear."

Even with a camera in the car you can't say it isn't your fault. The assessor would look to see if you took reasonable care. Approaching a roundabout with caution and stopping may not be seen as unreasonable by the assessor. You charging ahead might be seen as a fault.

Having a camera doesn't absolve you of anything until someone else has assessed it.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Yeah, I hear you there but as we both know you're totally in the wrong with most insurance companies. Rear end smashes are notoriously hard to argue against although the guy/gal who pulls off in front of you then slams on the breaks and you end up in the back of them for insurance purposes really should be the opening for the grey area you speak of. Fitting a dash cam is about to be the new car craze in this country as it is others, already considering it myself.

Him."

Get one guys, £100 and good to go.

I'm getting one now, yeah I know - late lol

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Exactly the same thing happened to me quite a few years ago now when I was young and inexperienced, always check. check and check again now.

I feel your pain

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *uietlyBohemianCouple
over a year ago

Newcastle-under-Lyme

Always give enough space (time) for the car in front to do something idiotic, like put it into reverse instead of forward, and still allowing yourself time to avoid the accident-in-waiting.

Appreciate that it's hard to do in modern city traffic where a nanosecond of hesitation has some twat cut you up or getting irate, but "only a fool breaks the two second rule" is still a useful mantra.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ever thought there might have been something small like a cat or animal of some sort right infront of their car that you couldn't see??

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Extremely irritating when something like that happens. Has nearly happened to me several times. Never understood why some cars stop when the way is blatantly clear.

Unlucky fella."

So you have on several occasions nearly crashed into a stationary vehicle. Could not the problem be your driving ?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *SweetVioletxWoman
over a year ago

Liverpool


" if you rear end someone, you were too close, ergo your fault.

this.......

if you are too close not to be able to break if you need to then you are not paying enough attention to whats in front.... thats on you...."

Yep. If you can't stop in time not to hit the car in front at round a bout speed then you are way too close.

They must have been able to feel your breath on their neck.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

Do dash cams magically improve driving then? That's good to know for when I'm next on the road.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I got rear ended recently at a roundabout wasn't my fault either clutch cable had snapped so far stalled could see exactly what was going to happen me being a pretty decent fella didn't complain or anything wasn't much damage to my car more to the poor young lads clapped out corsa not should always anticipate breaking as never know what can happen

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

As my old man used to say, treat everyone else on the road like an idiot

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

From what you've written, you checked that you wouldn't be pulling dangerously into someone elses path but didn't consider looking where you were going and that your intended route was clear.

I would say that you should count yourself lucky nobody decided to call for plod as you may have ended up facing a careless driving charge

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Extremely irritating when something like that happens. Has nearly happened to me several times. Never understood why some cars stop when the way is blatantly clear.

Unlucky fella.

So you have on several occasions nearly crashed into a stationary vehicle. Could not the problem be your driving ?"
No that is not the case. I have nearly crashed into a cars who suddenly for no "apparent" reason decide they will stop at a roundabout for reasons only they know. Usually when they are at a speed that gives the impression they are going to continue but then change their mind and stop.

The reason I have only "nearly" crashed is because I anticipate it.

To clarify incase you misunderstand me a second time, I have never nearly crashed into a stationary car already at a roundabout in a stopped position. Only one that decides to stop suddenly for no reason that I can see.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As you said, you were anticipating traffic, but totally missed what the guy in front of you was doing. Kinda important.

I treat all other drivers on the road as if they're insane and drive accordingly. I've managed (touch wood) to never have a bump or crash yet."
they made a cartoon abt that

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Extremely irritating when something like that happens. Has nearly happened to me several times. Never understood why some cars stop when the way is blatantly clear.

Unlucky fella.

So you have on several occasions nearly crashed into a stationary vehicle. Could not the problem be your driving ?No that is not the case. I have nearly crashed into a cars who suddenly for no "apparent" reason decide they will stop at a roundabout for reasons only they know. Usually when they are at a speed that gives the impression they are going to continue but then change their mind and stop.

The reason I have only "nearly" crashed is because I anticipate it.

To clarify incase you misunderstand me a second time, I have never nearly crashed into a stationary car already at a roundabout in a stopped position. Only one that decides to stop suddenly for no reason that I can see."

Some drivers seem to 'nearly crash' a lot more than others though

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Extremely irritating when something like that happens. Has nearly happened to me several times. Never understood why some cars stop when the way is blatantly clear.

Unlucky fella.

So you have on several occasions nearly crashed into a stationary vehicle. Could not the problem be your driving ?No that is not the case. I have nearly crashed into a cars who suddenly for no "apparent" reason decide they will stop at a roundabout for reasons only they know. Usually when they are at a speed that gives the impression they are going to continue but then change their mind and stop.

The reason I have only "nearly" crashed is because I anticipate it.

To clarify incase you misunderstand me a second time, I have never nearly crashed into a stationary car already at a roundabout in a stopped position. Only one that decides to stop suddenly for no reason that I can see."

I have been driving longer than you have been alive and this has never happened to me. Maybe you should change your driving style before your nearly crashes turn into real crashes.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

According to the highway code "Always give priority to the traffic coming from the right, unless you have been directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights". It sounds a bit like the driver in front of you was doing that.

It also says: "Check the traffic has moved off in front of you before you proceed to enter the roundabout". It sounds like you didn't do that.

All a camera could do is prove that you made a mistake.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

First observation - nearly did this myself this morning, but had enough room to stop. Yes, it does happen.

Second- my dad always told me to anticipate that everyone else on the road is an idiot, always worked for me.

Third- would op have been so upset if driver had been a bloke??

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Extremely irritating when something like that happens. Has nearly happened to me several times. Never understood why some cars stop when the way is blatantly clear.

Unlucky fella.

So you have on several occasions nearly crashed into a stationary vehicle. Could not the problem be your driving ?No that is not the case. I have nearly crashed into a cars who suddenly for no "apparent" reason decide they will stop at a roundabout for reasons only they know. Usually when they are at a speed that gives the impression they are going to continue but then change their mind and stop.

The reason I have only "nearly" crashed is because I anticipate it.

To clarify incase you misunderstand me a second time, I have never nearly crashed into a stationary car already at a roundabout in a stopped position. Only one that decides to stop suddenly for no reason that I can see.

I have been driving longer than you have been alive and this has never happened to me. Maybe you should change your driving style before your nearly crashes turn into real crashes. "

I drive an average of 50 thousand miles a year without any crashes so I think my style is just fine.

Thanks for your concern though.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"First observation - nearly did this myself this morning, but had enough room to stop. Yes, it does happen.

Second- my dad always told me to anticipate that everyone else on the road is an idiot, always worked for me.

Third- would op have been so upset if driver had been a bloke?? "

4th How would the op have felt if someone had gone into the back of him

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As you said, you were anticipating traffic, but totally missed what the guy in front of you was doing. Kinda important.

I treat all other drivers on the road as if they're insane and drive accordingly. I've managed (touch wood) to never have a bump or crash yet.

But but but and BUT!

If she had followed the rules and proceeded my eyes front or backwards facing wouldn't have been needed lol

I know I'm wrong but car cam and....

I've even managed to accidentally post this twice, lol"

It is one of the most common accidents. Yes, you were most definitely wrong. You were looking elsewhere and not looking at what was in front of you. I hope no one was injured and that you will be more careful in future.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Imagine if a woman with a pram fell off of the side walk infront of you,

you would have ran the pram over and possibly be looking at man slaughter all because you were making your judgement from the traffic on the round a bout and not was in front of you

We all make mistakes and its improving from them that makes us smarter in the next similar situations

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Extremely irritating when something like that happens. Has nearly happened to me several times. Never understood why some cars stop when the way is blatantly clear.

Unlucky fella.

So you have on several occasions nearly crashed into a stationary vehicle. Could not the problem be your driving ?No that is not the case. I have nearly crashed into a cars who suddenly for no "apparent" reason decide they will stop at a roundabout for reasons only they know. Usually when they are at a speed that gives the impression they are going to continue but then change their mind and stop.

The reason I have only "nearly" crashed is because I anticipate it.

To clarify incase you misunderstand me a second time, I have never nearly crashed into a stationary car already at a roundabout in a stopped position. Only one that decides to stop suddenly for no reason that I can see."

Exactly.

And no there was not anything in the way, she just stopped dead with no reason other than she thought it was unsafe to continue.

And for others above, this was a minor acciendent at low speed, no need for plod, no breathing down necks. She was waiting for a carless roundabout and when the car 60mtrs away entered she jammed her breaks on.

Dangerous driving, eyes testing are you serious, some here assume to much, this was an accident not attempted murder lol

The car cam incident I was referring to was not one of the scams, this person just stopped on a dual carriageway, the van with cam behind stopped the vehicle behind this van didn't, this caused a three vehicle shunt. The van cam was viewed by the insurers and the car that just stopped was held responsible.

This is my point, not whether I'm to blame, I was, but a cam may well have shown the opposite.

How many of you would have avoided a collision if for example somebody just did an emergency stop at a green tragic light as they felt it was unsafe to move on. No cats or dogs no blind grannies on vimmer frames, just stopped ?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ig1gaz1Man
over a year ago

bradford


"Do dash cams magically improve driving then? That's good to know for when I'm next on the road."

i already have one and they come in handy as i had someone that tried that insurance scam

braked so hard for no reason and i had plenty of time to stop the car i was driving

they tried to claim for everything severe damage to car and whiplash injuries to 3 other occupants in the car

now the video evidence comes into it

it showed my driving style and the weather conditions also showed i was at the right speed and also that there was no reason for the person to slam all on

what it did show was the person getting out of the car ranting and raving with arms flailing

also showed the car driving away and no damage to the vehicle no police was called as they was no need to do or supply the insurance details

it was a quick case insurance loved the evidence and from what i heard the claimant was done for fraud

are they a godsend more than you think as no one remembers to take photo evidence or video evidence

and its in hired vehicles and wagons as standared due to all the many claims insurance have had

my advice get one asap

also catches the idiots who do road rage as well

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"First observation - nearly did this myself this morning, but had enough room to stop. Yes, it does happen.

Second- my dad always told me to anticipate that everyone else on the road is an idiot, always worked for me.

Third- would op have been so upset if driver had been a bloke?? "

No, I tried to keep sex out of this, obvious where it would have gone

One she slipped in and the cat was out lol

You raised the sexism not me

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As you said, the incident shown on TV was someone stopping dead in the overtaking lane on a dual carriageway. They had no excuse for that.

But when you are approaching a roundabout, you must expect the driver in front to give way to traffic on the roundabout even if you don't think they need to. It's their judgement of whether or not they can pull out and get up to sufficient speed that counts not yours. Sometimes people make mistakes in that judgement and you need to be patient. You were the only one who broke a rule by not making sure the road ahead was clear before you entered the roundabout.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

OP. It is simple. You did not keep your distance. You did not look properly. Do not blame the other driver. You WERE to blame. Drive more considerably and carefully or you will cause a more serious incident.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"OP. It is simple. You did not keep your distance. You did not look properly. Do not blame the other driver. You WERE to blame. Drive more considerably and carefully or you will cause a more serious incident."
the OP admits several times over the course of the thread that he was to blame. He just venting at why the driver didn't continue onto the roundabout. I accept that drivers can't make decisions or process information as quick as I can. Doesn't mean I like it when other people can't but I deal with it.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

4th How would the op have felt if someone had gone into the back of him "

obviously it would have been their fault... as apparently he feels he is right (which the rules says he isn't) and everyone else is wrong (but apparently right last time i checked....)

maybe someone should take a driving test again and see if an instructor would agree with him... hmmmmmmm

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"the OP admits several times over the course of the thread that he was to blame. He just venting at why the driver didn't continue onto the roundabout. I accept that drivers can't make decisions or process information as quick as I can. Doesn't mean I like it when other people can't but I deal with it. "

heres a radical idea... if he is to blame like you say... it might help if he Stopped blaming the person in front for his error...

I know... its radical

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The OP forgot the first rule of driving. Treat every other driver as though they're a complete fucking idiot. You assumed that the other car driver had the merest iota of intelligence and/or the ability to actually drive the 2-tonne potential mass-murder machine they're sitting in. That was your mistake.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"the OP admits several times over the course of the thread that he was to blame. He just venting at why the driver didn't continue onto the roundabout. I accept that drivers can't make decisions or process information as quick as I can. Doesn't mean I like it when other people can't but I deal with it.

heres a radical idea... if he is to blame like you say... it might help if he Stopped blaming the person in front for his error...

I know... its radical"

Here's a radical idea, read what the OP actually said not what you think he said.

There are at least 3 clear instances where he admits he is at fault. Admitting he is at fault isn't blaming the other person is it?

Radical idea - get your eyes tested perhaps before making yourself look even more foolish. Radical eh?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"OP. It is simple. You did not keep your distance. You did not look properly. Do not blame the other driver. You WERE to blame. Drive more considerably and carefully or you will cause a more serious incident.the OP admits several times over the course of the thread that he was to blame. He just venting at why the driver didn't continue onto the roundabout. I accept that drivers can't make decisions or process information as quick as I can. Doesn't mean I like it when other people can't but I deal with it. "

We can all blame the other driver. Driving is a dangerous business and does, unfortunately, require anticipating other idiots on the road. And keeping your distance, as some recent motorway accidents have shown. He can vent as much as he likes. If he is not more careful and does not change his driving habits, the next one may be much more serious. Take responsibility. Someone very close to me suffered a decade of agony because a motorist did not pay care and attention. It is not a joke. It is a matter of life and death.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"OP. It is simple. You did not keep your distance. You did not look properly. Do not blame the other driver. You WERE to blame. Drive more considerably and carefully or you will cause a more serious incident.the OP admits several times over the course of the thread that he was to blame. He just venting at why the driver didn't continue onto the roundabout. I accept that drivers can't make decisions or process information as quick as I can. Doesn't mean I like it when other people can't but I deal with it.

We can all blame the other driver. Driving is a dangerous business and does, unfortunately, require anticipating other idiots on the road. And keeping your distance, as some recent motorway accidents have shown. He can vent as much as he likes. If he is not more careful and does not change his driving habits, the next one may be much more serious. Take responsibility. Someone very close to me suffered a decade of agony because a motorist did not pay care and attention. It is not a joke. It is a matter of life and death. "
I completely agree with everything you said.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"the OP admits several times over the course of the thread that he was to blame. He just venting at why the driver didn't continue onto the roundabout. I accept that drivers can't make decisions or process information as quick as I can. Doesn't mean I like it when other people can't but I deal with it.

heres a radical idea... if he is to blame like you say... it might help if he Stopped blaming the person in front for his error...

I know... its radical

Here's a radical idea, read what the OP actually said not what you think he said.

There are at least 3 clear instances where he admits he is at fault. Admitting he is at fault isn't blaming the other person is it?

Radical idea - get your eyes tested perhaps before making yourself look even more foolish. Radical eh?"

He admits he is wrong in light of the rules but he blames the driver in front for stopping "for no apparent reason" or, basically, not driving as he would have.

The title says he feels he is right.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *omaMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

The OP has admitted he was in the wrong technically. . Not much argument there. I do see his point though not condoning it.

Some dither and dawdle about but, like an old woman in walking in front of you when your rushed, you just gotta hang back.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I did the same once and will never, ever repeat this mistake, it's so clearly etched into my memory.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's just poor judgement, whichever way it's dressed up. Hitting the car immediately in front should be your primary concern in that situation, especially if it's happened before or it's on the rise in some peoples eyes etc.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"the OP admits several times over the course of the thread that he was to blame. He just venting at why the driver didn't continue onto the roundabout. I accept that drivers can't make decisions or process information as quick as I can. Doesn't mean I like it when other people can't but I deal with it.

heres a radical idea... if he is to blame like you say... it might help if he Stopped blaming the person in front for his error...

I know... its radical

Here's a radical idea, read what the OP actually said not what you think he said.

There are at least 3 clear instances where he admits he is at fault. Admitting he is at fault isn't blaming the other person is it?

Radical idea - get your eyes tested perhaps before making yourself look even more foolish. Radical eh?

He admits he is wrong in light of the rules but he blames the driver in front for stopping "for no apparent reason" or, basically, not driving as he would have.

The title says he feels he is right.

"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

I've said that with the cams deing viewed by insurance companies that this may be reversed.

I feel that if I had a recording of what actually happened things may have been different.

We were both rolling slowly towards this roundabout, as you should, if it is clear you proceed. If you wait until the junction is clear of cars you are acting in an unsafe way.

Without a vancam this driver that just stopped would have got away with his stupid actions, he tried, they're was, he didn't.

No matter where a car stops, in case people have forgotten, you should be able to stop in time, this wasn't the case with the above. His insurers got the bill.

So stopping for no reason other than you wanted to no longer counts.

Like I have also witnessed, answer your phone, no pulling over, just stop and take/make a call.

People here want to make this into more than it was, reckless high speed driving shattering cats dogs and kids in buggies all over the roads lol

Now for those that can be bothered answer me this.

Should you brake for an animal in the road or carry on driving before stopping safely ?

I'm not certain but seem to remember you only stop if safe to do so, not brake, swerve or cause a collision.

Hope my memory is correct, cos you lot will crucifie me, even if you had to google the answer lol

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"the OP admits several times over the course of the thread that he was to blame. He just venting at why the driver didn't continue onto the roundabout. I accept that drivers can't make decisions or process information as quick as I can. Doesn't mean I like it when other people can't but I deal with it.

heres a radical idea... if he is to blame like you say... it might help if he Stopped blaming the person in front for his error...

I know... its radical

Here's a radical idea, read what the OP actually said not what you think he said.

There are at least 3 clear instances where he admits he is at fault. Admitting he is at fault isn't blaming the other person is it?

Radical idea - get your eyes tested perhaps before making yourself look even more foolish. Radical eh?

He admits he is wrong in light of the rules but he blames the driver in front for stopping "for no apparent reason" or, basically, not driving as he would have.

The title says he feels he is right.

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

I've said that with the cams deing viewed by insurance companies that this may be reversed.

I feel that if I had a recording of what actually happened things may have been different.

We were both rolling slowly towards this roundabout, as you should, if it is clear you proceed. If you wait until the junction is clear of cars you are acting in an unsafe way.

Without a vancam this driver that just stopped would have got away with his stupid actions, he tried, they're was, he didn't.

No matter where a car stops, in case people have forgotten, you should be able to stop in time, this wasn't the case with the above. His insurers got the bill.

So stopping for no reason other than you wanted to no longer counts.

Like I have also witnessed, answer your phone, no pulling over, just stop and take/make a call.

People here want to make this into more than it was, reckless high speed driving shattering cats dogs and kids in buggies all over the roads lol

Now for those that can be bothered answer me this.

Should you brake for an animal in the road or carry on driving before stopping safely ?

I'm not certain but seem to remember you only stop if safe to do so, not brake, swerve or cause a collision.

Hope my memory is correct, cos you lot will crucifie me, even if you had to google the answer lol

"

You're supposed to hit the animal if it is not safe to stop.

However, when someone has stopped the cars behind them are supposed to notice that and take action to stop too.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

"

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Crystal Wheels, off subject now, but I've got to say I love your bondage pics, absolutely amazing

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You clearly didn't anticipate the flow of traffic that well did you?

You second guessed the car in front and paid the price. Your fault entirely"

Totally agree with this comment

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I did the same once and will never, ever repeat this mistake, it's so clearly etched into my memory. "

Same here.

The irony is that after watching this programme I realised how anticipating other users will not stop serious RTAs

It hurts lol

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title"

OP. Yes. At fault. Car in front of you. You hit it. Cam would make no difference. Get over it and learn to drive.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title"

Your usual selective reading 'I feel I'm in the right' ignore where I've said many times I'm in the wrong and that with vehicle cameras insurers are rethinking this rear end accident policy.

Until recently cars could stop at anytime or anywhere and if they were hit, well you know the rest as you are selectively perfect.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title

OP. Yes. At fault. Car in front of you. You hit it. Cam would make no difference. Get over it and learn to drive."

No need to learn how to drive.

As others that stated there may have been a dog or cat in the road, they would have braked and possible caused a serious incident, I would have driven over the dog or cat.

You don't just stop a vehicle because you want to

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For all you know there could have been an animal or something crossing the road in front of her that was blocked from your view by her car.

You shouldn't pre-judge what someone else will do, drive with due care, dilligence and attention to what is happening - not what you think might happen."

How did you know the first car was driven by a "her"?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title

OP. Yes. At fault. Car in front of you. You hit it. Cam would make no difference. Get over it and learn to drive.

No need to learn how to drive.

As others that stated there may have been a dog or cat in the road, they would have braked and possible caused a serious incident, I would have driven over the dog or cat.

You don't just stop a vehicle because you want to "

But it is reasonable to stop at a roundabout and assess the situation.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title

OP. Yes. At fault. Car in front of you. You hit it. Cam would make no difference. Get over it and learn to drive.

No need to learn how to drive.

As others that stated there may have been a dog or cat in the road, they would have braked and possible caused a serious incident, I would have driven over the dog or cat.

You don't just stop a vehicle because you want to "

You stop it if you think that there is a reason to. The car in front of you obviously thought there was a reason to, you thought there wasn't, you hit her because you weren't paying attention to the traffic in front of you. Not good!

Unfortunately you feel that you're in the right and so will carry on driving without care and attention. I just hope I'm not the one you don't see next time.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Quite often, the actual true cause of an accident is not the same as the one who cops the blame.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title

Your usual selective reading 'I feel I'm in the right' ignore where I've said many times I'm in the wrong and that with vehicle cameras insurers are rethinking this rear end accident policy.

Until recently cars could stop at anytime or anywhere and if they were hit, well you know the rest as you are selectively perfect.

"

Your title clearly impllies that it is only the rules that put you in the wrong and that you feel the other driver is to blame. A stance you have repeated throughout this thread. So how am I guilty of selective reading?

Simple question - regardless of the legalities who is to blame you or the other driver?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

There could have been a great crested newt crossing at the junction and she saw it and decided not to proceed ahead, but you didn't and didn't

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

On Roundabouts I'm always right.....

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

[Removed by poster at 16/02/15 22:35:13]

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You said the other car was on the roundabout 50-75m away. At 30 mph that would roughly 3 to 5 seconds to get to the car in front. I'm assuming that because you saw it so far away on your approach that it was a fairly large roundabout so 30mph isn't an unreasonable speed. The driver of the car in front was obeying a rule of the road by waiting to give way. She may have decided, rightly or wrongly, that her car couldn't pull out and get up to speed before the other car was on top of her. That is a good judgement according to the rules of the road

Perhaps if she'd put her foot down and slipped past it, you'd now be picking bits of the other car out of a huge dent in the offside of yours? And in that case your proposed cam would still be evidence that that was your fault

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *vbride1963TV/TS
over a year ago

E.K . Glasgow

Welcome to the new driverless car era no human errors anymore ? Only software errors

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title

OP. Yes. At fault. Car in front of you. You hit it. Cam would make no difference. Get over it and learn to drive.

No need to learn how to drive.

As others that stated there may have been a dog or cat in the road, they would have braked and possible caused a serious incident, I would have driven over the dog or cat.

You don't just stop a vehicle because you want to

You stop it if you think that there is a reason to. The car in front of you obviously thought there was a reason to, you thought there wasn't, you hit her because you weren't paying attention to the traffic in front of you. Not good!

Unfortunately you feel that you're in the right and so will carry on driving without care and attention. I just hope I'm not the one you don't see next time."

More of the same, tell that to the insurers that are viewing independent cams and those they have installed, opinions are now changing with evidence that backs this type of thing up.

Simple really.

I, that's me 'feel' that had this been filmed, things may have been reversed, that's

Simple simple enough too

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title

OP. Yes. At fault. Car in front of you. You hit it. Cam would make no difference. Get over it and learn to drive.

No need to learn how to drive.

As others that stated there may have been a dog or cat in the road, they would have braked and possible caused a serious incident, I would have driven over the dog or cat.

You don't just stop a vehicle because you want to "

Well, OP, my own opionion is that if you think that driving into a car in front of you is a reaonable decision, then you do need to learn how to drive. You obviously don't hold the same opinion. We will have to beg to differ. I just hope and pray that you are not the one driving behind me.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm still completely lost as to how so many posters have determind that the car in front, stopping for no apparent reason whatsoever, was being driven by a her?

Was she blonde, adjusting her make up or something?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"

I'm still completely lost as to how so many posters have determind that the car in front, stopping for no apparent reason whatsoever, was being driven by a her?

Was she blonde, adjusting her make up or something?

"

The OP used "she" in one post.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Oh, right, i only read his first one.

Thx.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

Done it many times

Suck it up - sadly in the wrong

Frustrating and annoying !

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This driving business is like a game with rules. If we obey them we reduce the chance of some things going wrong. The published rule that the driver in front appears to be following is: "Always give priority to the traffic coming from the right, unless you have been directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights"

Were there any signs, road markings or traffic lights telling that driver not to give way? If not then she was in the right to give priority to the car on the right. She was obeying the rules. You haven't said she stopped for some malicious reason, she just stopped when you didn't expect it, but you should have because you saw a car coming from the right. At that point you broke a rule by failing to observe her and driving/rolling gently, whatever, into the back of her car.

Surround your car with cameras. It won't make any difference - from what you've written she didn't do anything wrong, but you might get £250 from the video clips.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Look on the bright side, at least you didn't have to cope with the instant appearance of 157 witnesses as would happen on the ring road round these parts.

You'd have had no chance of being in the right then. Even if you were rear ended.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title

Your usual selective reading 'I feel I'm in the right' ignore where I've said many times I'm in the wrong and that with vehicle cameras insurers are rethinking this rear end accident policy.

Until recently cars could stop at anytime or anywhere and if they were hit, well you know the rest as you are selectively perfect.

Your title clearly impllies that it is only the rules that put you in the wrong and that you feel the other driver is to blame. A stance you have repeated throughout this thread. So how am I guilty of selective reading?

Simple question - regardless of the legalities who is to blame you or the other driver?"

With evidence 50 50 at best.

She stopped because she felt it was unsafe to continue, a recording would have shown the way was empty and clear, she rolled up to the roundabout increased her speed and then just stopped dead with 60mtrs of clear road on this junction.

Yes I should have stopped yes the rules are as they are, I was wrong but with cams insurers are now obviously rethinking this.

By missing my above points continuously you are being selective at what you are reading.

Or do I now have to anticipate idiots posting

I couldnt make this any clearer, yet you and others seem to be missing this cams in vehicles are quite new in the UK, people are installing them voluntarily especially companies, they are changing commonly help beliefs.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"Yeah, I hear you there but as we both know you're totally in the wrong with most insurance companies. Rear end smashes are notoriously hard to argue against although the guy/gal who pulls off in front of you then slams on the breaks and you end up in the back of them for insurance purposes really should be the opening for the grey area you speak of. Fitting a dash cam is about to be the new car craze in this country as it is others, already considering it myself.

Him.

Get one guys, £100 and good to go.

I'm getting one now, yeah I know - late lol"

you would still be at fault, you dont pass your driving test by looking at whats going on in front of the car in front of you, drive with due care and dilligence and you wont crash into the back of the someone, my god no wonder there are so many accidents on our roads.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title

Your usual selective reading 'I feel I'm in the right' ignore where I've said many times I'm in the wrong and that with vehicle cameras insurers are rethinking this rear end accident policy.

Until recently cars could stop at anytime or anywhere and if they were hit, well you know the rest as you are selectively perfect.

Your title clearly impllies that it is only the rules that put you in the wrong and that you feel the other driver is to blame. A stance you have repeated throughout this thread. So how am I guilty of selective reading?

Simple question - regardless of the legalities who is to blame you or the other driver?

With evidence 50 50 at best.

She stopped because she felt it was unsafe to continue, a recording would have shown the way was empty and clear, she rolled up to the roundabout increased her speed and then just stopped dead with 60mtrs of clear road on this junction.

Yes I should have stopped yes the rules are as they are, I was wrong but with cams insurers are now obviously rethinking this.

By missing my above points continuously you are being selective at what you are reading.

Or do I now have to anticipate idiots posting

I couldnt make this any clearer, yet you and others seem to be missing this cams in vehicles are quite new in the UK, people are installing them voluntarily especially companies, they are changing commonly help beliefs.

"

I've long thought new cars should have them installed by default with a couple of hard drives, say £200 very tops.

What's that on a new car, say a Mondeo at £18-25,000k. Would save an awful lot of hassle, and dare i say fraudulent claims.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title

Your usual selective reading 'I feel I'm in the right' ignore where I've said many times I'm in the wrong and that with vehicle cameras insurers are rethinking this rear end accident policy.

Until recently cars could stop at anytime or anywhere and if they were hit, well you know the rest as you are selectively perfect.

Your title clearly impllies that it is only the rules that put you in the wrong and that you feel the other driver is to blame. A stance you have repeated throughout this thread. So how am I guilty of selective reading?

Simple question - regardless of the legalities who is to blame you or the other driver?

With evidence 50 50 at best.

She stopped because she felt it was unsafe to continue, a recording would have shown the way was empty and clear, she rolled up to the roundabout increased her speed and then just stopped dead with 60mtrs of clear road on this junction.

Yes I should have stopped yes the rules are as they are, I was wrong but with cams insurers are now obviously rethinking this.

By missing my above points continuously you are being selective at what you are reading.

Or do I now have to anticipate idiots posting

I couldnt make this any clearer, yet you and others seem to be missing this cams in vehicles are quite new in the UK, people are installing them voluntarily especially companies, they are changing commonly help beliefs.

"

So myself and others disagreeing with you are idiots. And earlier on in the thread you complimented someones intelligence who agreed with you. Let's be honest - this thread didn't go how you anticipated did it?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Any of us driving in the OP's area will be wise to install rearward facing cameras to catch people not looking where they are going just before they hit us.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"

She stopped because she felt it was unsafe to continue

"

whatever the reason she stopped, she stopped and you were too close to stop..

she wasn't on an open road and stopped, she wasn't in a built up are and stopped she was approaching a hazard and as much as you anticipated she would continue you should also have anticipated the actuality of what happened..

if she had needed to stop for some other reason to avoid whatever then you were in the wrong frame of mind as you had already made your decision it was ok to proceed..

therein lies the difference between no collision and collision..

what ifs and cameras means zilch..

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"Extremely irritating when something like that happens. Has nearly happened to me several times. Never understood why some cars stop when the way is blatantly clear.

Unlucky fella.

So you have on several occasions nearly crashed into a stationary vehicle. Could not the problem be your driving ?No that is not the case. I have nearly crashed into a cars who suddenly for no "apparent" reason decide they will stop at a roundabout for reasons only they know. Usually when they are at a speed that gives the impression they are going to continue but then change their mind and stop.

The reason I have only "nearly" crashed is because I anticipate it.

To clarify incase you misunderstand me a second time, I have never nearly crashed into a stationary car already at a roundabout in a stopped position. Only one that decides to stop suddenly for no reason that I can see.

Exactly.

And no there was not anything in the way, she just stopped dead with no reason other than she thought it was unsafe to continue.

And for others above, this was a minor acciendent at low speed, no need for plod, no breathing down necks. She was waiting for a carless roundabout and when the car 60mtrs away entered she jammed her breaks on.

Dangerous driving, eyes testing are you serious, some here assume to much, this was an accident not attempted murder lol

The car cam incident I was referring to was not one of the scams, this person just stopped on a dual carriageway, the van with cam behind stopped the vehicle behind this van didn't, this caused a three vehicle shunt. The van cam was viewed by the insurers and the car that just stopped was held responsible.

This is my point, not whether I'm to blame, I was, but a cam may well have shown the opposite.

How many of you would have avoided a collision if for example somebody just did an emergency stop at a green tragic light as they felt it was unsafe to move on. No cats or dogs no blind grannies on vimmer frames, just stopped ?

"
. I always assume that someone may stop for any reason and as such I always leave a safe distance between myself and the vehicle in front . Vehicles can stop for any reason and it is up to to driver to be prepared to stop. It is quite possible that the vehicle in front of you has seen something that you have not. I would prefer to be late in this life than arrive too early in the next. If you are concerned about rear end shunts and how to avoid them maybe do an advanced driving test . They are an excellent way of having an independent asssessment of your standard of driving . I drive a lot in heavy traffic and have never come close to rear ending another car. Some people might tailgate in an attempt to get you to close the gap . I just let then pass and drop back to what I believe to be a safe distance . I would never assume at a roundabout that another vehicle will move unless they have actually done so.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

ps OP, good luck if ever you're a pedestrian.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

From experience (at my cost in court) - it doesn't matter what the car does in front of you - if you go on to the back of them its your fault - end of.

And my situation was worse than yours !!!

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It is just plainly strange to me that someone who rear ends a car thinks it is not his fault and that a camera would have proved otherwise.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title

OP. Yes. At fault. Car in front of you. You hit it. Cam would make no difference. Get over it and learn to drive.

No need to learn how to drive.

As others that stated there may have been a dog or cat in the road, they would have braked and possible caused a serious incident, I would have driven over the dog or cat.

You don't just stop a vehicle because you want to

Well, OP, my own opionion is that if you think that driving into a car in front of you is a reaonable decision, then you do need to learn how to drive. You obviously don't hold the same opinion. We will have to beg to differ. I just hope and pray that you are not the one driving behind me."

Last time of saying this.

It's not my decision or yours, it's the insurance companies view, Jesus.

I said that I feel in this case I am in the wrong, bog with bone springs to mind, the dog I killed by not braking and killing kids grannies and ET looking for that bloody phone.

Insurance companies are now disagreeing with you and people that still believe that they are free to just stop their vehicles, drop your hot coffee in your lap, smudge your makeup and claim there was a dog in the road ain't going to cut it anymore if you are being filmed

You can no longer stop your car because you want to, this recent judgement has shown that even when you try to lie

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"Extremely irritating when something like that happens. Has nearly happened to me several times. Never understood why some cars stop when the way is blatantly clear.

Unlucky fella.

So you have on several occasions nearly crashed into a stationary vehicle. Could not the problem be your driving ?No that is not the case. I have nearly crashed into a cars who suddenly for no "apparent" reason decide they will stop at a roundabout for reasons only they know. Usually when they are at a speed that gives the impression they are going to continue but then change their mind and stop.

The reason I have only "nearly" crashed is because I anticipate it.

To clarify incase you misunderstand me a second time, I have never nearly crashed into a stationary car already at a roundabout in a stopped position. Only one that decides to stop suddenly for no reason that I can see.

Exactly.

And no there was not anything in the way, she just stopped dead with no reason other than she thought it was unsafe to continue.

And for others above, this was a minor acciendent at low speed, no need for plod, no breathing down necks. She was waiting for a carless roundabout and when the car 60mtrs away entered she jammed her breaks on.

Dangerous driving, eyes testing are you serious, some here assume to much, this was an accident not attempted murder lol

The car cam incident I was referring to was not one of the scams, this person just stopped on a dual carriageway, the van with cam behind stopped the vehicle behind this van didn't, this caused a three vehicle shunt. The van cam was viewed by the insurers and the car that just stopped was held responsible.

This is my point, not whether I'm to blame, I was, but a cam may well have shown the opposite.

How many of you would have avoided a collision if for example somebody just did an emergency stop at a green tragic light as they felt it was unsafe to move on. No cats or dogs no blind grannies on vimmer frames, just stopped ?

"
. How could a cam possible show you were not to blame ? All the can would show would be your vvehicle driving into the back of a stationery vehicle. The only circumstances where there might be a dispute would be if there were a number of different lanes and the driver either undertook or overtook you and then pulled in very sharply and breaked. Even then a good driver should be watching this in their mirrors and both reducing their speed and dropping back.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"

I'm still completely lost as to how so many posters have determind that the car in front, stopping for no apparent reason whatsoever, was being driven by a her?

Was she blonde, adjusting her make up or something?

"

Putting her mascara on.

I did think the same though, but without reading the thread again I think the OP said her further down the thread, but only after it was assumed.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"

You can no longer stop your car because you want to"

even if there were compulsory camera's in yours and her vehicles by your own account you would still have been in the wrong..

she as said by others didn't feel it safe to move forward with the other vehicle already with priority on the roundabout..

any lawyer will be able to argue that her decision was the right one for her in her vehicle at that time etc..

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I'm still completely lost as to how so many posters have determind that the car in front, stopping for no apparent reason whatsoever, was being driven by a her?

Was she blonde, adjusting her make up or something?

Putting her mascara on.

I did think the same though, but without reading the thread again I think the OP said her further down the thread, but only after it was assumed."

Aye, somebody explained a few posts up, but i noticed the first reply assumed it was a she.

Not to worry. Can happen to anyone who dares to stop.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Yeah I just saw, sorry about that

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

You can no longer stop your car because you want to, this recent judgement has shown that even when you try to lie"

From your own words, the driver in front of you had a valid reason to stop. Just because you think she didn't need to doesn't change that. There was another car approaching on the roundabout and, again from what you've written, it sounds like it would have been next to you in seconds. She can tell the truth, based on what you've told us, and has no worries at all. No matter how many cameras photograph what happened, each one would demonstrate that she didn't do anything wrong.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

To be fair though, what the OP is saying is true, I must have saw the same programme.

Insurance companies are now using cams in cars to determine whether people are putting their anchors on for no reason to hopefully get someone to go into the back of them. On the one I saw the one who was rear ended didn't get paid out and got nicked instead.

Obviously a disclaimer of I don't know what happened in the OP's case.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

She stopped because she felt it was unsafe to continue

whatever the reason she stopped, she stopped and you were too close to stop..

she wasn't on an open road and stopped, she wasn't in a built up are and stopped she was approaching a hazard and as much as you anticipated she would continue you should also have anticipated the actuality of what happened..

if she had needed to stop for some other reason to avoid whatever then you were in the wrong frame of mind as you had already made your decision it was ok to proceed..

therein lies the difference between no collision and collision..

what ifs and cameras means zilch.."

I agree, it is my fault, I made an error of judgement, I haven't claimed otherwise.

Things are not always clearcut people also lie, a bird, dog, cat did this or that when in fact they were at fault and stopped because there was a wasp in the car and yes I've been in a car when this happened, emergency stop and out the car they went.

If I hadn't seen this programme I doubt I would have even wondered if I was in the wrong, I know at this moment in time I was, but after seeing a person who just stopped his car for no reason was held responsible I feel things are going to change.

Insurance companies will use whatever means possible to mitigate any financial responsibility and this is the thin end of the wedge.

That was my point, made badly I now accept, I didn't expect the amount of anticipating needed with people here posting.

Jesus people recognise how technology is changing the world around us yet a cam in a car highlighting what actually happened is simply beyond them.

I couldn't make it any clearer, yet watch them continue with their baiting, learn to drive, get your eyes testing, how can you believe that you are in the right.

If some here had their way, they would be the only drivers on the roads, this was a small common place accident, not as some have implied lol

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"Extremely irritating when something like that happens. Has nearly happened to me several times. Never understood why some cars stop when the way is blatantly clear.

Unlucky fella.

So you have on several occasions nearly crashed into a stationary vehicle. Could not the problem be your driving ?No that is not the case. I have nearly crashed into a cars who suddenly for no "apparent" reason decide they will stop at a roundabout for reasons only they know. Usually when they are at a speed that gives the impression they are going to continue but then change their mind and stop.

The reason I have only "nearly" crashed is because I anticipate it.

To clarify incase you misunderstand me a second time, I have never nearly crashed into a stationary car already at a roundabout in a stopped position. Only one that decides to stop suddenly for no reason that I can see.

Exactly.

And no there was not anything in the way, she just stopped dead with no reason other than she thought it was unsafe to continue.

And for others above, this was a minor acciendent at low speed, no need for plod, no breathing down necks. She was waiting for a carless roundabout and when the car 60mtrs away entered she jammed her breaks on.

Dangerous driving, eyes testing are you serious, some here assume to much, this was an accident not attempted murder lol

The car cam incident I was referring to was not one of the scams, this person just stopped on a dual carriageway, the van with cam behind stopped the vehicle behind this van didn't, this caused a three vehicle shunt. The van cam was viewed by the insurers and the car that just stopped was held responsible.

This is my point, not whether I'm to blame, I was, but a cam may well have shown the opposite.

How many of you would have avoided a collision if for example somebody just did an emergency stop at a green tragic light as they felt it was unsafe to move on. No cats or dogs no blind grannies on vimmer frames, just stopped ?

"

There's a big difference between stopping dead on a dual carriageway and stopping at a junction.

Even a dash cam wouldn't have helped you here. You were wrong. 100% your fault.

Suck it up. Be more careful in future and stop trying to blame anything but yourself.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"

No I'm not, I'm at fault, that's not in question by me its only being questioned by others

Odd, I'd say you questioned it in the wording of your thread title

OP. Yes. At fault. Car in front of you. You hit it. Cam would make no difference. Get over it and learn to drive."

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You should have anticipated the car in front stopping, you didn't, having a camera fitted wouldn't have saved your arse, stop whining and be thankful that nobody was hurt

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *icentiousCouple
over a year ago

Up on them there hills

Don't think the insurance companies take into consideration how good the driver who is in fault thinks he is.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *.BrooksMan
over a year ago

Blackwood


"

She stopped because she felt it was unsafe to continue

whatever the reason she stopped, she stopped and you were too close to stop..

she wasn't on an open road and stopped, she wasn't in a built up are and stopped she was approaching a hazard and as much as you anticipated she would continue you should also have anticipated the actuality of what happened..

if she had needed to stop for some other reason to avoid whatever then you were in the wrong frame of mind as you had already made your decision it was ok to proceed..

therein lies the difference between no collision and collision..

what ifs and cameras means zilch..

I agree, it is my fault, I made an error of judgement, I haven't claimed otherwise.

Things are not always clearcut people also lie, a bird, dog, cat did this or that when in fact they were at fault and stopped because there was a wasp in the car and yes I've been in a car when this happened, emergency stop and out the car they went.

If I hadn't seen this programme I doubt I would have even wondered if I was in the wrong, I know at this moment in time I was, but after seeing a person who just stopped his car for no reason was held responsible I feel things are going to change.

Insurance companies will use whatever means possible to mitigate any financial responsibility and this is the thin end of the wedge.

That was my point, made badly I now accept, I didn't expect the amount of anticipating needed with people here posting.

Jesus people recognise how technology is changing the world around us yet a cam in a car highlighting what actually happened is simply beyond them.

I couldn't make it any clearer, yet watch them continue with their baiting, learn to drive, get your eyes testing, how can you believe that you are in the right.

If some here had their way, they would be the only drivers on the roads, this was a small common place accident, not as some have implied lol

"

OP I can't tell from this response if you were saying that you believe you are still in the wrong or not?

You say if you hadn't watched the programme you wouldn't have wondered if you were in the wrong or not. But now the doubt has been put in your mind because you witnessed a completely differebt scenario to the one that you were involved in. Rear ending someone at a junction where they are very likely to come to a stop and going into the back of someone who suddenly slams their brakes on while travelling at speed are slightly different (although I'd say that increasing the distance between yourself and the vehicle you're following might help that and expect the unexpected). While I can understand the judgement being made that the driver on the dual carriageway was not at fault I can not see anybody finding in favour of someone who rear ends another vehicle at a junction.

As for dashcams/action cams I ride mainly and am always recording ...better safe than sorry. Think they should be mandatory no more he said she said they said.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


" OP I can't tell from this response if you were saying that you believe you are still in the wrong or not?"

He's saying that the current rules consider him wrong because he can't prove he wasn't. He doesn't actually think he was in the wrong though and he thinks a dashcam would prove it.

Apparently stopping suddenly for no reason in the middle of a dual carriageway and someone stopping at a junction when the OP didn't think they should have are the same thing.

The OP is desperately grasping at straws in order to blame someone else and really needs to man up and admit he wasn't paying attention and was driving according to what he thought other road users ought to do/what he would do.

It's desperately sad and it worries me that drivers with this sort of attitude have licenses.

The bottom line is that drivers should expect those in front of them may stop at a junction, in order to be sure it's safe to proceed, even if the way seems clear.

There's a give way line at the entrance to roundabouts for a reason. No insurance company, magistrate or judge would find someone stopping at a give way line to be unreasonable.

In fact it could be said to be showing sensible caution and consideration for other road users.

Unlike ploughing into the back of someone because they didn't do what you expected/thought they should.

Dashcam or no dashcam, ruling about people stopping on dual carriageways or no ruling, the OP is 100% at fault.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

Could be the driver in front has had an accident on a roundabout, now more cautious of traffic on them.

Sounds funny but I am more cautious of cars coming out of junctions on my lext, after car driver knocked me off my bike at a similar junction.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"To be fair though, what the OP is saying is true, I must have saw the same programme.

Insurance companies are now using cams in cars to determine whether people are putting their anchors on for no reason to hopefully get someone to go into the back of them. On the one I saw the one who was rear ended didn't get paid out and got nicked instead.

Obviously a disclaimer of I don't know what happened in the OP's case. "

I saw the same programme ruggers and I can certainly see the value of dash cams. But I can't see how or why the OP is comparing his accident to the car that randomly stopped in the outside lane or the cars causing deliberate accidents. The circumstances he describes is far more akin to the footage of the stationery motorcycle at a roundabout who was rearended by a car that failed to stop

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

I was shunted years ago by a young man who said he didn't expect me to stop. I asked him if he had seen the two cars in front of me which had stopped to let someone out of a junction or whether he expected me to fly over them. He had been tailgating me all the way up a 30mph road in rush hour.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

All a dash cam would have shown would be OP driving into the rear of the vehicle in front.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"To be fair though, what the OP is saying is true, I must have saw the same programme.

Insurance companies are now using cams in cars to determine whether people are putting their anchors on for no reason to hopefully get someone to go into the back of them. On the one I saw the one who was rear ended didn't get paid out and got nicked instead.

Obviously a disclaimer of I don't know what happened in the OP's case.

I saw the same programme ruggers and I can certainly see the value of dash cams. But I can't see how or why the OP is comparing his accident to the car that randomly stopped in the outside lane or the cars causing deliberate accidents. The circumstances he describes is far more akin to the footage of the stationery motorcycle at a roundabout who was rearended by a car that failed to stop"

It wasn't the one where the man stopped in the outside lane that I was talking about.

There was another one where the insurance companies got the footage and got the men nicked.

There were two cars coming up to a junction and went to pull off , the first one braked sharply so the second one had to brake just as the car behind had got closer so he was rear ended. It seems the two cars in front were in on the scam and both got done.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Personally I think the OP knows he cocked up but was just venting....but you can also understand why people would now wonder how many people are staging crashes now, as the insurance companies seem to think it is a problem whatever people here think.

It just means you have to be more aware of other traffic and sadly you the OP wasn't yesterday.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So where above you wrote that the car cam incident you were referring to was the one where a car suddenly stopped on a dual carriageway, we were supposed to realise it was a completely different incident at a roundabout? No wonder you're so frustrated by people being unsympathetic.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

If your post is to me, I am not the OP who mentioned that.

If it isn't to me then ignore me

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"To be fair though, what the OP is saying is true, I must have saw the same programme.

Insurance companies are now using cams in cars to determine whether people are putting their anchors on for no reason to hopefully get someone to go into the back of them. On the one I saw the one who was rear ended didn't get paid out and got nicked instead.

Obviously a disclaimer of I don't know what happened in the OP's case.

I saw the same programme ruggers and I can certainly see the value of dash cams. But I can't see how or why the OP is comparing his accident to the car that randomly stopped in the outside lane or the cars causing deliberate accidents. The circumstances he describes is far more akin to the footage of the stationery motorcycle at a roundabout who was rearended by a car that failed to stop"

Dash cams were introduced for drivers that insurers considered to be a higher risk, the young, those with a high tally of points on their licence etc

What has been revealed by these cams is just how badly other people are driving and that what they have claimed happened, to justify their actions was nonsense, including the organised scams.

The incident I used as an example highlighted this, no details were given as to why he stopped but its guaranteed that the driver was questioned and that a reason was given, the explanation given was clearly dismissed as the judgement went against them.

The example you have highlighted, the motorbike, is valid as far as the vehicle behind should have stopped, end off no argument. The difference between that incident and mine is the footage showed that the bike gave way to traffic approaching him, this roundabout was in fact busy. Mine was not, it was empty with a slow moving car 60 mtrs plus away just entering the junction.

I've also stated directly to you and others reading this that at best I would hope for a 50-50 decision and not blameless in any way.

Hence my earlier comment, you suffer from selective reading and comments.

As to your attempt at drawing me into another tangent ' let's be honest, this didn't go as I expected'. You have no idea what I expected you are simply baiting as I and others have seen you do on other topics, you thrive on controversy and will attempt to needlessly create disagreements.

Answer me this, what difference does it make what I may or may not have expected from this post ? Its Irrelative, it simply gives you a self manufactured angle to disagree for the sake of disagreement.

My opening post made it clear as to my conclusion with people doing as they feel is right and the outcome of the example given. I stretched this decision to cover my accident, not a great leap, neither vehicle needed to stop, both did.

No newts crested or otherwise, no kids cats dogs the old or infirm, no tailgating just 'two' vehicles travelling in the lefthand lane of a dual carriageway towards an empty roundabout and me suggesting that footage of this may have seen a different outcome ie a 50-50 claim.

Time will tell with future outcomes made by insurance companies that use legal advice, with my example there were three vehicles involved here all insured all with a legal departments

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

You can no longer stop your car because you want to

even if there were compulsory camera's in yours and her vehicles by your own account you would still have been in the wrong..

she as said by others didn't feel it safe to move forward with the other vehicle already with priority on the roundabout..

any lawyer will be able to argue that her decision was the right one for her in her vehicle at that time etc..

"

As in the example i gave, a better lawyer argued against that and won

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


" The difference between that incident and mine is the footage showed that the bike gave way to traffic approaching him, this roundabout was in fact busy. Mine was not, it was empty with a slow moving car 60 mtrs plus away just entering the junction."

There is absolutely nothing wrong with stopping at a give way line at a junction to check it's safe to proceed.

It's the responsibility of each driver to satisfy themselves it is safe. Whether or not you thought it was safe to continue, OP, is irrelevant. The driver ahead of you stopped to check.

They stopped at a give way line. That is not stopping "for no reason".

There is no way, even with dashcam footage that this would be assigned 50/50 blame. It wouldn't even be 80/20. You, OP, were 100% at fault.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

The Highway Code specifically says:

185

When reaching the roundabout you should:

look forward before moving off to make sure traffic in front has moved off.

There's nothing saying you shouldn't stop to double check if the roundabout appears clear.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Highway Code specifically says:

185

When reaching the roundabout you should:

look forward before moving off to make sure traffic in front has moved off.

There's nothing saying you shouldn't stop to double check if the roundabout appears clear."

I was just about to post that, too. I doubt whether any court could be persuaded that piling into a car ahead of you at a roundabout was a 50/50 blame situation, no matter how persuasive the advocate.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"

You can no longer stop your car because you want to

even if there were compulsory camera's in yours and her vehicles by your own account you would still have been in the wrong..

she as said by others didn't feel it safe to move forward with the other vehicle already with priority on the roundabout..

any lawyer will be able to argue that her decision was the right one for her in her vehicle at that time etc..

As in the example i gave, a better lawyer argued against that and won"

no lawyer would argue your case from your crash and win, given what you explained, with or without dash cam you are 100% in the wrong, please understand that from a lawyer.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"To be fair though, what the OP is saying is true, I must have saw the same programme.

Insurance companies are now using cams in cars to determine whether people are putting their anchors on for no reason to hopefully get someone to go into the back of them. On the one I saw the one who was rear ended didn't get paid out and got nicked instead.

Obviously a disclaimer of I don't know what happened in the OP's case.

I saw the same programme ruggers and I can certainly see the value of dash cams. But I can't see how or why the OP is comparing his accident to the car that randomly stopped in the outside lane or the cars causing deliberate accidents. The circumstances he describes is far more akin to the footage of the stationery motorcycle at a roundabout who was rearended by a car that failed to stop

It wasn't the one where the man stopped in the outside lane that I was talking about.

There was another one where the insurance companies got the footage and got the men nicked.

There were two cars coming up to a junction and went to pull off , the first one braked sharply so the second one had to brake just as the car behind had got closer so he was rear ended. It seems the two cars in front were in on the scam and both got done."

come to think of it as you say you saw the programme did you see the one where a £12 million pound scam was uncovered? It involved a scam of people breaking at roundabouts when there didn't seem any need to and people crashing into the back of them. The only reason why it was uncovered was office workers watched 3 incidents on the same day with the same person on the roundabout that they could see from their window. They photographed and reported it so the gang were caught.

What the OP was getting at isn't as far removed as people are trying to make out by the looks of it. ( although I obviously don't know if it was the case with him )

If anyone wants to see it the programme is called "Car crash Britian, episode 2 and about 25 minutes on on Iplayer.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Come *

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"To be fair though, what the OP is saying is true, I must have saw the same programme.

Insurance companies are now using cams in cars to determine whether people are putting their anchors on for no reason to hopefully get someone to go into the back of them. On the one I saw the one who was rear ended didn't get paid out and got nicked instead.

Obviously a disclaimer of I don't know what happened in the OP's case.

I saw the same programme ruggers and I can certainly see the value of dash cams. But I can't see how or why the OP is comparing his accident to the car that randomly stopped in the outside lane or the cars causing deliberate accidents. The circumstances he describes is far more akin to the footage of the stationery motorcycle at a roundabout who was rearended by a car that failed to stop

It wasn't the one where the man stopped in the outside lane that I was talking about.

There was another one where the insurance companies got the footage and got the men nicked.

There were two cars coming up to a junction and went to pull off , the first one braked sharply so the second one had to brake just as the car behind had got closer so he was rear ended. It seems the two cars in front were in on the scam and both got done.

come to think of it as you say you saw the programme did you see the one where a £12 million pound scam was uncovered? It involved a scam of people breaking at roundabouts when there didn't seem any need to and people crashing into the back of them. The only reason why it was uncovered was office workers watched 3 incidents on the same day with the same person on the roundabout that they could see from their window. They photographed and reported it so the gang were caught.

What the OP was getting at isn't as far removed as people are trying to make out by the looks of it. ( although I obviously don't know if it was the case with him )

If anyone wants to see it the programme is called "Car crash Britian, episode 2 and about 25 minutes on on Iplayer. "

but the point im making is that is not or would not be a scam, as braking/stopping at a roundabout whether the person behind thinks you should be braking or not is with out doubt a 100% legitimate thing to do and no dash cam will ever change that, it is upto the driver behind to have left a safe enough distance, and be driving with enough care and attention to be aware that the car in front is braking, not to think/assume you are a better driver and look ahead of the car in front deciding for the driver what they should be doing.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Your point is right, we should all be aware of other drivers especially at roundabouts as most people are looking to the right plus ahead so they don't have to stop if they don't need to....BUT as proved, there are scammers about who are hoping you are not looking ahead at the time they stop in front of you.

You don't have to take my word for it, the programme tells you all about the scam

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"

You can no longer stop your car because you want to

even if there were compulsory camera's in yours and her vehicles by your own account you would still have been in the wrong..

she as said by others didn't feel it safe to move forward with the other vehicle already with priority on the roundabout..

any lawyer will be able to argue that her decision was the right one for her in her vehicle at that time etc..

As in the example i gave, a better lawyer argued against that and won"

which in your case is totally irrelevant..

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Your point is right, we should all be aware of other drivers especially at roundabouts as most people are looking to the right plus ahead so they don't have to stop if they don't need to....BUT as proved, there are scammers about who are hoping you are not looking ahead at the time they stop in front of you.

You don't have to take my word for it, the programme tells you all about the scam "

the scam industry and it is as organised as some other industries is huge with some 'firms' having all they need in house, dodgy doctors, solicitors 'injured victims' and the rest they need..

people are right to protect their best interests in general but again its not in the OP's case as he himself recognises..

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"Your point is right, we should all be aware of other drivers especially at roundabouts as most people are looking to the right plus ahead so they don't have to stop if they don't need to....BUT as proved, there are scammers about who are hoping you are not looking ahead at the time they stop in front of you.

You don't have to take my word for it, the programme tells you all about the scam

the scam industry and it is as organised as some other industries is huge with some 'firms' having all they need in house, dodgy doctors, solicitors 'injured victims' and the rest they need..

people are right to protect their best interests in general but again its not in the OP's case as he himself recognises.."

I have said many times that I obviously don't know about the OP crash.

I am finding it difficult to understand why people wont accept these things happen...unless of course every person on these programmes are lying and the prosecutions were all wrong .

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *amslam1000Man
over a year ago

willenhall


"Welcome to the new driverless car era no human errors anymore ? Only software errors "

No No No

there are never software errors just undocumented features! you could claim for a software error an undocumented feature you can't just like i can't get any money back on the crap software we have to use at work that stops after 1,000 entries when we asked for something that would cope with 2,00 a year

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

Sorry but totally, completely and utterly in the wrong. Even with a dash cam, she stopped at a roundabout and you don't have a leg to stand on or case to argue. It's not like she suddenly stopped on a clear road.

Yes, I've nearly done it myself once or twice, in similar circumstances, and counted my lucky stars I looked before it was too late.

Suck it up and stop whining.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"Your point is right, we should all be aware of other drivers especially at roundabouts as most people are looking to the right plus ahead so they don't have to stop if they don't need to....BUT as proved, there are scammers about who are hoping you are not looking ahead at the time they stop in front of you.

You don't have to take my word for it, the programme tells you all about the scam "

I no only to well about the scams that are about, and no doubt there will be more materialise in the future, but im commenting on what the op said and the details he explained, and in his case, no matter how much he thinks hes right or how much a better driver he thought he was than the person in front, he was 100% in the wrong and a dash cam wont change that.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"To be fair though, what the OP is saying is true, I must have saw the same programme.

Insurance companies are now using cams in cars to determine whether people are putting their anchors on for no reason to hopefully get someone to go into the back of them. On the one I saw the one who was rear ended didn't get paid out and got nicked instead.

Obviously a disclaimer of I don't know what happened in the OP's case.

I saw the same programme ruggers and I can certainly see the value of dash cams. But I can't see how or why the OP is comparing his accident to the car that randomly stopped in the outside lane or the cars causing deliberate accidents. The circumstances he describes is far more akin to the footage of the stationery motorcycle at a roundabout who was rearended by a car that failed to stop

Dash cams were introduced for drivers that insurers considered to be a higher risk, the young, those with a high tally of points on their licence etc

What has been revealed by these cams is just how badly other people are driving and that what they have claimed happened, to justify their actions was nonsense, including the organised scams.

The incident I used as an example highlighted this, no details were given as to why he stopped but its guaranteed that the driver was questioned and that a reason was given, the explanation given was clearly dismissed as the judgement went against them.

The example you have highlighted, the motorbike, is valid as far as the vehicle behind should have stopped, end off no argument. The difference between that incident and mine is the footage showed that the bike gave way to traffic approaching him, this roundabout was in fact busy. Mine was not, it was empty with a slow moving car 60 mtrs plus away just entering the junction.

I've also stated directly to you and others reading this that at best I would hope for a 50-50 decision and not blameless in any way.

Hence my earlier comment, you suffer from selective reading and comments.

As to your attempt at drawing me into another tangent ' let's be honest, this didn't go as I expected'. You have no idea what I expected you are simply baiting as I and others have seen you do on other topics, you thrive on controversy and will attempt to needlessly create disagreements.

Answer me this, what difference does it make what I may or may not have expected from this post ? Its Irrelative, it simply gives you a self manufactured angle to disagree for the sake of disagreement.

My opening post made it clear as to my conclusion with people doing as they feel is right and the outcome of the example given. I stretched this decision to cover my accident, not a great leap, neither vehicle needed to stop, both did.

No newts crested or otherwise, no kids cats dogs the old or infirm, no tailgating just 'two' vehicles travelling in the lefthand lane of a dual carriageway towards an empty roundabout and me suggesting that footage of this may have seen a different outcome ie a 50-50 claim.

Time will tell with future outcomes made by insurance companies that use legal advice, with my example there were three vehicles involved here all insured all with a legal departments

"
. As 60 metres is only about twelve car lengths you are not allowing the vehicle if front of you a lot of margin for error and they may not have judged the car to be moving as slowly as you have estimated it to be moving

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"Your point is right, we should all be aware of other drivers especially at roundabouts as most people are looking to the right plus ahead so they don't have to stop if they don't need to....BUT as proved, there are scammers about who are hoping you are not looking ahead at the time they stop in front of you.

You don't have to take my word for it, the programme tells you all about the scam

I no only to well about the scams that are about, and no doubt there will be more materialise in the future, but im commenting on what the op said and the details he explained, and in his case, no matter how much he thinks hes right or how much a better driver he thought he was than the person in front, he was 100% in the wrong and a dash cam wont change that."

I cant say what went on with the OP as I wasn't there and wasn't commenting on it as mentioned by me a few times.

We all know that if you rear end someone for the insurers it is your fault and no one is saying any different... I was commenting on the comments of it all being black and white when investigators have found a good few grey bits in the forum of scams and where the dash cam worked well for the investigators and proved the scam was going on with people staging crashes so they are being rear ended.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I wonder if the OP will be like many UNLOS's , go quiet for a while then be back next week with another rear eneder to tell us about.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"Your point is right, we should all be aware of other drivers especially at roundabouts as most people are looking to the right plus ahead so they don't have to stop if they don't need to....BUT as proved, there are scammers about who are hoping you are not looking ahead at the time they stop in front of you.

You don't have to take my word for it, the programme tells you all about the scam

I no only to well about the scams that are about, and no doubt there will be more materialise in the future, but im commenting on what the op said and the details he explained, and in his case, no matter how much he thinks hes right or how much a better driver he thought he was than the person in front, he was 100% in the wrong and a dash cam wont change that.

I cant say what went on with the OP as I wasn't there and wasn't commenting on it as mentioned by me a few times.

We all know that if you rear end someone for the insurers it is your fault and no one is saying any different... I was commenting on the comments of it all being black and white when investigators have found a good few grey bits in the forum of scams and where the dash cam worked well for the investigators and proved the scam was going on with people staging crashes so they are being rear ended.

"

but in that case, whether its the op or someone else, it will always be black and white, dash cams will never change that, thats the point im making, I never disputed there are scams out there, of course they are out there, its my job to sniff them out when someones trying to pull one over us, but that example will never change.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"Your point is right, we should all be aware of other drivers especially at roundabouts as most people are looking to the right plus ahead so they don't have to stop if they don't need to....BUT as proved, there are scammers about who are hoping you are not looking ahead at the time they stop in front of you.

You don't have to take my word for it, the programme tells you all about the scam

the scam industry and it is as organised as some other industries is huge with some 'firms' having all they need in house, dodgy doctors, solicitors 'injured victims' and the rest they need..

people are right to protect their best interests in general but again its not in the OP's case as he himself recognises..

I have said many times that I obviously don't know about the OP crash.

I am finding it difficult to understand why people wont accept these things happen...unless of course every person on these programmes are lying and the prosecutions were all wrong .

"

I'm not denying scammers exist. I know they do.

The OP started this thread claiming that he didn't feel he was to blame when hit someone who stopped, from what we can tell, perfectly legitimately at a roundabout.

He said he expected the driver to carry on and he hit them because they didn't do as he expected. They were in the wrong for stopping, he said.

He reckoned that a dashcam would have proved it wasn't entirely his fault and his insurer may even have decided the liability was 50/50.

From what he's said, there's no way he'd have been found anything other than 100% liable, even with dashcam footage.

All my comments have been based on the OPs situation and comments.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

I give up. I think sometimes people get stuck on what they have said and wont be swayed, even with evidence.

If people don't want to take my word for it, watch the programme mentioned at the time mentioned and see how a £12 million pound scam was uncovered of people stopping at roundabouts when not needing to. The dashcam has been used on many occasions too, including rear end crashes ( al on the programme )

I am NOT speaking about the OP's case...but it mirrors what he is suggesting might happen.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Looking at this frim the perspective of the 'third' vehicle approaching from the right - many times I have found other motorists pulling onto the roundabout and across my path because they have simply failed to observe correctly.

It is not just about how much distance there is between a vehicle approaching from the right and you.

What type of vehicle is it, how fast is it moving?

For example, a low slung sports car is more capable, and more likely, to be navigating a rounabout a lot faster than a transit van.

Only a few months ago, I was coming around a large roundabout, and while most of the vehicles waiting at the next approach gave way, one young lady in a Ford Ka misjudged things and pulled onto the roundabout, causing me to slam on the anchors - when she realised she'd messed up she too stopped - actually making a collision more likely and the look on her face was a combination of realisation and terror.

It is rather possible that the vehicle in front of OP was taking more time to determine how fast other vehicles were travelling on the roundabout, or was simply being more observant.

The simple fact is that you should never proceed without checking that your exit is clear.

OP seems to me like the kind of motorist who would complain for being fined for stopping in a box juction despite what the law states on the matter.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

I saw that roundabout scam on a programme Ruggers, so I do know what you mean.

That's about moving off and then slamming on the brakes suddenly though, not failing to continue when the driver behind thinks you should. They're very different situations.

From what the OP has said, he had no reason to think the driver in front would carry on, except that he thought they should. His claim they had no reason to stop means nothing because he couldn't see things from their perspective.

The scam also relies on people not leaving enough room and not paying proper attention. Yes, in circumstances like that a dashcam could be useful, but equally, so could driving defensively, leaving enough room and paying attention.

I've had near misses at roundabouts before, so I'm not claiming I am too perfect for this to happen to me by any stretch of the imagination!

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Sorry but totally, completely and utterly in the wrong. Even with a dash cam, she stopped at a roundabout and you don't have a leg to stand on or case to argue. It's not like she suddenly stopped on a clear road.

Yes, I've nearly done it myself once or twice, in similar circumstances, and counted my lucky stars I looked before it was too late.

Suck it up and stop whining."

Suck it up and stop whining:

Who do you think you're talking too, one of your subordinates ?

Thank you for your comments, now go and pin a medal on your chest, you will look and sound far more impressive stood in that uniform.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

You can no longer stop your car because you want to

even if there were compulsory camera's in yours and her vehicles by your own account you would still have been in the wrong..

she as said by others didn't feel it safe to move forward with the other vehicle already with priority on the roundabout..

any lawyer will be able to argue that her decision was the right one for her in her vehicle at that time etc..

As in the example i gave, a better lawyer argued against that and won

no lawyer would argue your case from your crash and win, given what you explained, with or without dash cam you are 100% in the wrong, please understand that from a lawyer."

You must be referring to where I stated that I was at fault, thanks for your services with such a testing and difficult case.

I'm impressed!

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"To be fair though, what the OP is saying is true, I must have saw the same programme.

Insurance companies are now using cams in cars to determine whether people are putting their anchors on for no reason to hopefully get someone to go into the back of them. On the one I saw the one who was rear ended didn't get paid out and got nicked instead.

Obviously a disclaimer of I don't know what happened in the OP's case.

I saw the same programme ruggers and I can certainly see the value of dash cams. But I can't see how or why the OP is comparing his accident to the car that randomly stopped in the outside lane or the cars causing deliberate accidents. The circumstances he describes is far more akin to the footage of the stationery motorcycle at a roundabout who was rearended by a car that failed to stop

Dash cams were introduced for drivers that insurers considered to be a higher risk, the young, those with a high tally of points on their licence etc

What has been revealed by these cams is just how badly other people are driving and that what they have claimed happened, to justify their actions was nonsense, including the organised scams.

The incident I used as an example highlighted this, no details were given as to why he stopped but its guaranteed that the driver was questioned and that a reason was given, the explanation given was clearly dismissed as the judgement went against them.

The example you have highlighted, the motorbike, is valid as far as the vehicle behind should have stopped, end off no argument. The difference between that incident and mine is the footage showed that the bike gave way to traffic approaching him, this roundabout was in fact busy. Mine was not, it was empty with a slow moving car 60 mtrs plus away just entering the junction.

I've also stated directly to you and others reading this that at best I would hope for a 50-50 decision and not blameless in any way.

Hence my earlier comment, you suffer from selective reading and comments.

As to your attempt at drawing me into another tangent ' let's be honest, this didn't go as I expected'. You have no idea what I expected you are simply baiting as I and others have seen you do on other topics, you thrive on controversy and will attempt to needlessly create disagreements.

Answer me this, what difference does it make what I may or may not have expected from this post ? Its Irrelative, it simply gives you a self manufactured angle to disagree for the sake of disagreement.

My opening post made it clear as to my conclusion with people doing as they feel is right and the outcome of the example given. I stretched this decision to cover my accident, not a great leap, neither vehicle needed to stop, both did.

No newts crested or otherwise, no kids cats dogs the old or infirm, no tailgating just 'two' vehicles travelling in the lefthand lane of a dual carriageway towards an empty roundabout and me suggesting that footage of this may have seen a different outcome ie a 50-50 claim.

Time will tell with future outcomes made by insurance companies that use legal advice, with my example there were three vehicles involved here all insured all with a legal departments

. As 60 metres is only about twelve car lengths you are not allowing the vehicle if front of you a lot of margin for error and they may not have judged the car to be moving as slowly as you have estimated it to be moving "

So you accept that there is an unsafe distance 60mtrs.

Next time you are out take a look at just how far 12 cars actually looks in distance.

So in your opinion what distance would have been unsafe ?

Let me give you a little more detail;

This vehicle rolled towards this roundabout, increased its speed and entered the junction, this car was actually halfway on the roundabout, so clear and safe to proceed then applied the brakes and stopped dead - a dashcam would have shown this, which is my entire point.

The distance I Previously estimated was wrong, it was in fact in the region of 100+mtrs which any insurance company would have ascertained and not like our resident lawyer ' trusted' on the word of  notoriously unreliable witness statements.

So back to my example;

It's reasonably safe to assume that the third vehicle involved in this shunt would have held himself liable (in the same way people here are with me) as he hit the second vehicle on a free flowing road, ie too close. Yet footage showed otherwise.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

I wonder if the OP will be like many UNLOS's , go quiet for a while then be back next week with another rear eneder to tell us about."

Delete my account due to the above posters, nice that you used your imagination, now think again and try having an original idea.

All the above have managed is to highlight how resistant to change people are, as with their abrupt bulling and insulting ways that will not change anytime soon.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I made a mistake and will learn from it, will this women learn anything, i doubt it, as she did nothing wrong and would be supported by people here, in the same way you would have condemned the driver of the third vehicle involved in the televised shunt.

Those accident free good drivers can continue on their way.  Those people above with their animal in the way comments can keep braking for animals on the road and until now believing they were in the right to do so, and I'll continue killing dogs, crested newts cats and smiling at the mother and child I didn't kill.

I raised this point as my recent experience was as extreme as the example I have used, both drivers had no safe reason to stop, there ended any similarity.

I may well be wrong, that's not for us to decide.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I saw that roundabout scam on a programme Ruggers, so I do know what you mean.

That's about moving off and then slamming on the brakes suddenly though, not failing to continue when the driver behind thinks you should. They're very different situations.

From what the OP has said, he had no reason to think the driver in front would carry on, except that he thought they should. His claim they had no reason to stop means nothing because he couldn't see things from their perspective.

The scam also relies on people not leaving enough room and not paying proper attention. Yes, in circumstances like that a dashcam could be useful, but equally, so could driving defensively, leaving enough room and paying attention.

I've had near misses at roundabouts before, so I'm not claiming I am too perfect for this to happen to me by any stretch of the imagination!"

Wrong case, no scam, just a stupid driver.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

You have no idea why the driver ahead of you stopped. From _your_ point of view there was no reason to stop. Her point of view was different and there may well have been a good reason, other than just stopping at a junction, which is reasonable in itself.

She stopped at a junction, not as you have suggested, just because she felt like it.

There is a rule that people should stop at junctions to check the way is clear. There is a rule saying before moving off at a junction, make sure the traffic in front of you has moved. There is no rule saying if the way seems clear on a roundabout, do not stop.

She did nothing wrong. You did. It can't get any clearer than that. You weren't caught by a scammer, although scammers do undoubtedly exist, you just weren't paying proper attention.

It's clear you are absolutely desperate for this not to be all your fault but unfortunately it is entirely on you.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"I saw that roundabout scam on a programme Ruggers, so I do know what you mean.

That's about moving off and then slamming on the brakes suddenly though, not failing to continue when the driver behind thinks you should. They're very different situations.

From what the OP has said, he had no reason to think the driver in front would carry on, except that he thought they should. His claim they had no reason to stop means nothing because he couldn't see things from their perspective.

The scam also relies on people not leaving enough room and not paying proper attention. Yes, in circumstances like that a dashcam could be useful, but equally, so could driving defensively, leaving enough room and paying attention.

I've had near misses at roundabouts before, so I'm not claiming I am too perfect for this to happen to me by any stretch of the imagination!

Wrong case, no scam, just a stupid driver."

Ruggers mentioned the scam on a roundabout where the same team caused three accidents in one day. That's the case I'm referring to. I'm replying to Ruggers, which is why I quoted her post.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"I give up. I think sometimes people get stuck on what they have said and wont be swayed, even with evidence.

If people don't want to take my word for it, watch the programme mentioned at the time mentioned and see how a £12 million pound scam was uncovered of people stopping at roundabouts when not needing to. The dashcam has been used on many occasions too, including rear end crashes ( al on the programme )

I am NOT speaking about the OP's case...but it mirrors what he is suggesting might happen."

I have never argued against the fact there are many scams out there, I have agreed a few times that there are many, but the ops argument is flawed in the fact that his case mirrors nothing but him been 100% at fault, someone legitimately stopping at a junction and the car behind going in the back of said car for the reasons of lack of due care and attention, this is very different and does not mirror a driver slamming the brakes on for no reason with the intent of making the car behind go into the back of them, one is a scam, one is not, theres a huge difference, dash cam would help greatly in one and not at all in the other.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"I made a mistake and will learn from it, will this women learn anything, i doubt it, as she did nothing wrong and would be supported by people here, in the same way you would have condemned the driver of the third vehicle involved in the televised shunt.

Those accident free good drivers can continue on their way.  Those people above with their animal in the way comments can keep braking for animals on the road and until now believing they were in the right to do so, and I'll continue killing dogs, crested newts cats and smiling at the mother and child I didn't kill.

I raised this point as my recent experience was as extreme as the example I have used, both drivers had no safe reason to stop, there ended any similarity.

I may well be wrong, that's not for us to decide.

"

why isnt it for us to decide, and again from your details it seems the driver in your case did have good reason to stop and it was totally legitimate and within the law to do so.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"

You can no longer stop your car because you want to

even if there were compulsory camera's in yours and her vehicles by your own account you would still have been in the wrong..

she as said by others didn't feel it safe to move forward with the other vehicle already with priority on the roundabout..

any lawyer will be able to argue that her decision was the right one for her in her vehicle at that time etc..

As in the example i gave, a better lawyer argued against that and won

no lawyer would argue your case from your crash and win, given what you explained, with or without dash cam you are 100% in the wrong, please understand that from a lawyer.

You must be referring to where I stated that I was at fault, thanks for your services with such a testing and difficult case.

I'm impressed!

"

I dont see where I said it was difficult or testing, I was simply replying to your comment about a better lawyer fighting and winning the case, they wouldnt, simple as that.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"To be fair though, what the OP is saying is true, I must have saw the same programme.

Insurance companies are now using cams in cars to determine whether people are putting their anchors on for no reason to hopefully get someone to go into the back of them. On the one I saw the one who was rear ended didn't get paid out and got nicked instead.

Obviously a disclaimer of I don't know what happened in the OP's case.

I saw the same programme ruggers and I can certainly see the value of dash cams. But I can't see how or why the OP is comparing his accident to the car that randomly stopped in the outside lane or the cars causing deliberate accidents. The circumstances he describes is far more akin to the footage of the stationery motorcycle at a roundabout who was rearended by a car that failed to stop

Dash cams were introduced for drivers that insurers considered to be a higher risk, the young, those with a high tally of points on their licence etc

What has been revealed by these cams is just how badly other people are driving and that what they have claimed happened, to justify their actions was nonsense, including the organised scams.

The incident I used as an example highlighted this, no details were given as to why he stopped but its guaranteed that the driver was questioned and that a reason was given, the explanation given was clearly dismissed as the judgement went against them.

The example you have highlighted, the motorbike, is valid as far as the vehicle behind should have stopped, end off no argument. The difference between that incident and mine is the footage showed that the bike gave way to traffic approaching him, this roundabout was in fact busy. Mine was not, it was empty with a slow moving car 60 mtrs plus away just entering the junction.

I've also stated directly to you and others reading this that at best I would hope for a 50-50 decision and not blameless in any way.

Hence my earlier comment, you suffer from selective reading and comments.

As to your attempt at drawing me into another tangent ' let's be honest, this didn't go as I expected'. You have no idea what I expected you are simply baiting as I and others have seen you do on other topics, you thrive on controversy and will attempt to needlessly create disagreements.

Answer me this, what difference does it make what I may or may not have expected from this post ? Its Irrelative, it simply gives you a self manufactured angle to disagree for the sake of disagreement.

My opening post made it clear as to my conclusion with people doing as they feel is right and the outcome of the example given. I stretched this decision to cover my accident, not a great leap, neither vehicle needed to stop, both did.

No newts crested or otherwise, no kids cats dogs the old or infirm, no tailgating just 'two' vehicles travelling in the lefthand lane of a dual carriageway towards an empty roundabout and me suggesting that footage of this may have seen a different outcome ie a 50-50 claim.

Time will tell with future outcomes made by insurance companies that use legal advice, with my example there were three vehicles involved here all insured all with a legal departments

. As 60 metres is only about twelve car lengths you are not allowing the vehicle if front of you a lot of margin for error and they may not have judged the car to be moving as slowly as you have estimated it to be moving

So you accept that there is an unsafe distance 60mtrs.

Next time you are out take a look at just how far 12 cars actually looks in distance.

So in your opinion what distance would have been unsafe ?

Let me give you a little more detail;

This vehicle rolled towards this roundabout, increased its speed and entered the junction, this car was actually halfway on the roundabout, so clear and safe to proceed then applied the brakes and stopped dead - a dashcam would have shown this, which is my entire point.

The distance I Previously estimated was wrong, it was in fact in the region of 100+mtrs which any insurance company would have ascertained and not like our resident lawyer ' trusted' on the word of  notoriously unreliable witness statements.

So back to my example;

It's reasonably safe to assume that the third vehicle involved in this shunt would have held himself liable (in the same way people here are with me) as he hit the second vehicle on a free flowing road, ie too close. Yet footage showed otherwise.

"

are you referring to me with the resident lawyer comment.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"I give up. I think sometimes people get stuck on what they have said and wont be swayed, even with evidence.

If people don't want to take my word for it, watch the programme mentioned at the time mentioned and see how a £12 million pound scam was uncovered of people stopping at roundabouts when not needing to. The dashcam has been used on many occasions too, including rear end crashes ( al on the programme )

I am NOT speaking about the OP's case...but it mirrors what he is suggesting might happen.

I have never argued against the fact there are many scams out there, I have agreed a few times that there are many, but the ops argument is flawed in the fact that his case mirrors nothing but him been 100% at fault, someone legitimately stopping at a junction and the car behind going in the back of said car for the reasons of lack of due care and attention, this is very different and does not mirror a driver slamming the brakes on for no reason with the intent of making the car behind go into the back of them, one is a scam, one is not, theres a huge difference, dash cam would help greatly in one and not at all in the other."

^this

The OP trying to bring scams into it at all smacks of total desperation not to be at fault. There was no scam here. The driver didn't act as the OP expected her to and, despite the fact she broke no rules and he did, that somehow means she was partly to blame.

I'm astounded that anyone could be so unable to admit they made a mistake and accept the blame over a minor traffic accident, (without all the 'well the rules make it my fault but actually I don't think it was' nonsense).

There's so much 'Yes it was my fault, and I've admitted it was my fault but actually I still don't think it was' it's unreal.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"I made a mistake and will learn from it, will this women learn anything, i doubt it, as she did nothing wrong and would be supported by people here, in the same way you would have condemned the driver of the third vehicle involved in the televised shunt.

Those accident free good drivers can continue on their way.  Those people above with their animal in the way comments can keep braking for animals on the road and until now believing they were in the right to do so, and I'll continue killing dogs, crested newts cats and smiling at the mother and child I didn't kill.

I raised this point as my recent experience was as extreme as the example I have used, both drivers had no safe reason to stop, there ended any similarity.

I may well be wrong, that's not for us to decide.

why isnt it for us to decide, and again from your details it seems the driver in your case did have good reason to stop and it was totally legitimate and within the law to do so."

It seems fair to me for us to decide what we think. After all, the OP posted the thread because he decided he wasn't solely to blame.

As usual, several people all with the same opinion, which differs from that of someone else is "bullying".

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Irrespective of whether or not the driver of the vehicle had any reason to stop - they did, thereby giving you reason to stop. The fact that you didn't means you were driving without due care and attention - which is an endorseable offence.

Rather than continue to attempt to convince everyone that it was the driver in fronts fault - which is an argument you are not winnibg - why not simply accept that you made a mistake and consider yourself fortunate that you are not also looking at points and a fine - or a court appearance.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My mum did this years ago - drove into the back of a plain clothes police van full of armed officers on their way to a raid. The police driver suddenly stopped to listen to the radio call coming through. So you can't always predict the driver in front. You simply don't know who is in the car.

Drive as if the person in front is extremely inexperienced, or high on drugs, or an idiot, or all three.

Can't have sympathy in this instance I'm afraid. I've been driving for ten years and roundabouts still make me nervous - I always wait longer than most other people to make sure I feel safe when pulling out. Especially since I had a car crash two years ago.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"To be fair though, what the OP is saying is true, I must have saw the same programme.

Insurance companies are now using cams in cars to determine whether people are putting their anchors on for no reason to hopefully get someone to go into the back of them. On the one I saw the one who was rear ended didn't get paid out and got nicked instead.

Obviously a disclaimer of I don't know what happened in the OP's case.

I saw the same programme ruggers and I can certainly see the value of dash cams. But I can't see how or why the OP is comparing his accident to the car that randomly stopped in the outside lane or the cars causing deliberate accidents. The circumstances he describes is far more akin to the footage of the stationery motorcycle at a roundabout who was rearended by a car that failed to stop

Dash cams were introduced for drivers that insurers considered to be a higher risk, the young, those with a high tally of points on their licence etc

What has been revealed by these cams is just how badly other people are driving and that what they have claimed happened, to justify their actions was nonsense, including the organised scams.

The incident I used as an example highlighted this, no details were given as to why he stopped but its guaranteed that the driver was questioned and that a reason was given, the explanation given was clearly dismissed as the judgement went against them.

The example you have highlighted, the motorbike, is valid as far as the vehicle behind should have stopped, end off no argument. The difference between that incident and mine is the footage showed that the bike gave way to traffic approaching him, this roundabout was in fact busy. Mine was not, it was empty with a slow moving car 60 mtrs plus away just entering the junction.

I've also stated directly to you and others reading this that at best I would hope for a 50-50 decision and not blameless in any way.

Hence my earlier comment, you suffer from selective reading and comments.

As to your attempt at drawing me into another tangent ' let's be honest, this didn't go as I expected'. You have no idea what I expected you are simply baiting as I and others have seen you do on other topics, you thrive on controversy and will attempt to needlessly create disagreements.

Answer me this, what difference does it make what I may or may not have expected from this post ? Its Irrelative, it simply gives you a self manufactured angle to disagree for the sake of disagreement.

My opening post made it clear as to my conclusion with people doing as they feel is right and the outcome of the example given. I stretched this decision to cover my accident, not a great leap, neither vehicle needed to stop, both did.

No newts crested or otherwise, no kids cats dogs the old or infirm, no tailgating just 'two' vehicles travelling in the lefthand lane of a dual carriageway towards an empty roundabout and me suggesting that footage of this may have seen a different outcome ie a 50-50 claim.

Time will tell with future outcomes made by insurance companies that use legal advice, with my example there were three vehicles involved here all insured all with a legal departments

. As 60 metres is only about twelve car lengths you are not allowing the vehicle if front of you a lot of margin for error and they may not have judged the car to be moving as slowly as you have estimated it to be moving

So you accept that there is an unsafe distance 60mtrs.

Next time you are out take a look at just how far 12 cars actually looks in distance.

So in your opinion what distance would have been unsafe ?

Let me give you a little more detail;

This vehicle rolled towards this roundabout, increased its speed and entered the junction, this car was actually halfway on the roundabout, so clear and safe to proceed then applied the brakes and stopped dead - a dashcam would have shown this, which is my entire point.

The distance I Previously estimated was wrong, it was in fact in the region of 100+mtrs which any insurance company would have ascertained and not like our resident lawyer ' trusted' on the word of  notoriously unreliable witness statements.

So back to my example;

It's reasonably safe to assume that the third vehicle involved in this shunt would have held himself liable (in the same way people here are with me) as he hit the second vehicle on a free flowing road, ie too close. Yet footage showed otherwise.

"
. Your appear to have been extremely observant about all the other vehicles on this roundabout but at the same time failed to realise that the vehicle in front of you had stopped. They are only two reasons why you hit a stationery car . a Failing to observe EVERYTHING around you b. Driving too closely . If I drove into the back of a stationery vehicle I would be seeking advice on my driving skills and taking another advanced driving test , not trying to pass part of the blame to a third party. I have had someone slam their brakes on in a road rage incident . I simply braked and then drove round them whereupon they threw a screw driver out of the window at my car . I always without fail leave a safe gap so that I can stop if someone brakes for no reason..

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen


"

Who do you think you're talking too, one of your subordinates ?

Thank you for your comments, now go and pin a medal on your chest, you will look and sound far more impressive stood in that uniform."

Haha made me laugh.

I haven't resorted to personal insults, but it seems I'm talking to a spoilt kid who throws a tantrum and hurls abuse when told he's done something wrong, and blames anyone but himself.

You made the post, thus inviting comment and opinion. If you don't like the answers, don't post.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

I got fed up reading half way down.

You cannot be scammed into hitting someone from behind.

If you hit someone from behind you didn't give them time to move off and were driving too close to stop when they stopped.

Just take the blame.

You moved off too quickly. Didn't pay due attention. You hit another driver. Be thankful no one is dead.

Your fault.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"To be fair though, what the OP is saying is true, I must have saw the same programme.

Insurance companies are now using cams in cars to determine whether people are putting their anchors on for no reason to hopefully get someone to go into the back of them. On the one I saw the one who was rear ended didn't get paid out and got nicked instead.

Obviously a disclaimer of I don't know what happened in the OP's case.

I saw the same programme ruggers and I can certainly see the value of dash cams. But I can't see how or why the OP is comparing his accident to the car that randomly stopped in the outside lane or the cars causing deliberate accidents. The circumstances he describes is far more akin to the footage of the stationery motorcycle at a roundabout who was rearended by a car that failed to stop

Dash cams were introduced for drivers that insurers considered to be a higher risk, the young, those with a high tally of points on their licence etc

What has been revealed by these cams is just how badly other people are driving and that what they have claimed happened, to justify their actions was nonsense, including the organised scams.

The incident I used as an example highlighted this, no details were given as to why he stopped but its guaranteed that the driver was questioned and that a reason was given, the explanation given was clearly dismissed as the judgement went against them.

The example you have highlighted, the motorbike, is valid as far as the vehicle behind should have stopped, end off no argument. The difference between that incident and mine is the footage showed that the bike gave way to traffic approaching him, this roundabout was in fact busy. Mine was not, it was empty with a slow moving car 60 mtrs plus away just entering the junction.

I've also stated directly to you and others reading this that at best I would hope for a 50-50 decision and not blameless in any way.

Hence my earlier comment, you suffer from selective reading and comments.

As to your attempt at drawing me into another tangent ' let's be honest, this didn't go as I expected'. You have no idea what I expected you are simply baiting as I and others have seen you do on other topics, you thrive on controversy and will attempt to needlessly create disagreements.

Answer me this, what difference does it make what I may or may not have expected from this post ? Its Irrelative, it simply gives you a self manufactured angle to disagree for the sake of disagreement.

My opening post made it clear as to my conclusion with people doing as they feel is right and the outcome of the example given. I stretched this decision to cover my accident, not a great leap, neither vehicle needed to stop, both did.

No newts crested or otherwise, no kids cats dogs the old or infirm, no tailgating just 'two' vehicles travelling in the lefthand lane of a dual carriageway towards an empty roundabout and me suggesting that footage of this may have seen a different outcome ie a 50-50 claim.

Time will tell with future outcomes made by insurance companies that use legal advice, with my example there were three vehicles involved here all insured all with a legal departments

. As 60 metres is only about twelve car lengths you are not allowing the vehicle if front of you a lot of margin for error and they may not have judged the car to be moving as slowly as you have estimated it to be moving

So you accept that there is an unsafe distance 60mtrs.

Next time you are out take a look at just how far 12 cars actually looks in distance.

So in your opinion what distance would have been unsafe ?

Let me give you a little more detail;

This vehicle rolled towards this roundabout, increased its speed and entered the junction, this car was actually halfway on the roundabout, so clear and safe to proceed then applied the brakes and stopped dead - a dashcam would have shown this, which is my entire point.

The distance I Previously estimated was wrong, it was in fact in the region of 100+mtrs which any insurance company would have ascertained and not like our resident lawyer ' trusted' on the word of  notoriously unreliable witness statements.

So back to my example;

It's reasonably safe to assume that the third vehicle involved in this shunt would have held himself liable (in the same way people here are with me) as he hit the second vehicle on a free flowing road, ie too close. Yet footage showed otherwise.

are you referring to me with the resident lawyer comment."

Yes.

And I'll tell you why;

I'm surprised at your comments being what you are.

A vehicle double parked or stopped in the road with either the passenger or driver hanging out a window talking with a friend stood on the pavement, stopped in front of a left-hand side road ( T junction) the car behind overtakes, legal move - hope you agree. A car approaching the end of this lefthand side road thinks, how nice they are letting me out and pulls forwards and an accident happens.

The chatters claim that they observed the rules and were being courteous towards other road users

Without footage they get away with it, with they don't, as they can clearly be seen talking.

A car stops on the road and takes a call, same thing happens as above, the overtaking vehicle has a collision with ?

Here comes the dog excuse or any other reason, without footage they get away with it, with footage showing them on the phone, they don't.

A car turning left on a roundabout then suddenly realise its the next exit I need and just pulls right quickly, straight in front of a vehicle which quarter rearends them or causes them to swerve right to avoid them and gets hit or hits a third vehicle. The two cars that came into contact stop, the first car continues on free and clear, I think you see where I'm going with this.

Without footage they get away with it, with they don't.

Now I accept my incident may not apply, and I have said so further above, but I feel things are changing and that my example may fall into this category due to the extremity of the distance and after pulling onto the roundabout then suddenly stopping.

I could revamp an old case of mine where I was hit by a vehicle and my dealings with my insurance company. They had missed a very important document I had sent them or they hoped I'd sent them the original, it was a copy.

I never deal with any company by phone, everything must be in writing.

Frustrated I sought independent legal advise (rare years ago) handed him all the correspondence including the missed document.

Acting on his advise including my new reasonable demands this company offered me everything I asked for plus expenses.

I'm telling you this as I know though my experiences how insurance companies can act, even when they think that they can see a chink in your armour - they don't miss a trick when it comes to limiting their liability and we all know it.

Dashcams herald a change all that remains is how far this will reach, which is why I have said further up, the future will determine this, and not us.

Let me repeat for people above.

I DO AND DID ACCEPT THIS WAS MY FAULT.

I AM NOT CLAIMING THIS WAS A PART OF ANY SCAM. AND HAVE MAINTAINED THAT RIGHT FROM THE VERY BEGINNINGS OF THIS POST.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"To be fair though, what the OP is saying is true, I must have saw the same programme.

Insurance companies are now using cams in cars to determine whether people are putting their anchors on for no reason to hopefully get someone to go into the back of them. On the one I saw the one who was rear ended didn't get paid out and got nicked instead.

Obviously a disclaimer of I don't know what happened in the OP's case.

I saw the same programme ruggers and I can certainly see the value of dash cams. But I can't see how or why the OP is comparing his accident to the car that randomly stopped in the outside lane or the cars causing deliberate accidents. The circumstances he describes is far more akin to the footage of the stationery motorcycle at a roundabout who was rearended by a car that failed to stop

Dash cams were introduced for drivers that insurers considered to be a higher risk, the young, those with a high tally of points on their licence etc

What has been revealed by these cams is just how badly other people are driving and that what they have claimed happened, to justify their actions was nonsense, including the organised scams.

The incident I used as an example highlighted this, no details were given as to why he stopped but its guaranteed that the driver was questioned and that a reason was given, the explanation given was clearly dismissed as the judgement went against them.

The example you have highlighted, the motorbike, is valid as far as the vehicle behind should have stopped, end off no argument. The difference between that incident and mine is the footage showed that the bike gave way to traffic approaching him, this roundabout was in fact busy. Mine was not, it was empty with a slow moving car 60 mtrs plus away just entering the junction.

I've also stated directly to you and others reading this that at best I would hope for a 50-50 decision and not blameless in any way.

Hence my earlier comment, you suffer from selective reading and comments.

As to your attempt at drawing me into another tangent ' let's be honest, this didn't go as I expected'. You have no idea what I expected you are simply baiting as I and others have seen you do on other topics, you thrive on controversy and will attempt to needlessly create disagreements.

Answer me this, what difference does it make what I may or may not have expected from this post ? Its Irrelative, it simply gives you a self manufactured angle to disagree for the sake of disagreement.

My opening post made it clear as to my conclusion with people doing as they feel is right and the outcome of the example given. I stretched this decision to cover my accident, not a great leap, neither vehicle needed to stop, both did.

No newts crested or otherwise, no kids cats dogs the old or infirm, no tailgating just 'two' vehicles travelling in the lefthand lane of a dual carriageway towards an empty roundabout and me suggesting that footage of this may have seen a different outcome ie a 50-50 claim.

Time will tell with future outcomes made by insurance companies that use legal advice, with my example there were three vehicles involved here all insured all with a legal departments

. As 60 metres is only about twelve car lengths you are not allowing the vehicle if front of you a lot of margin for error and they may not have judged the car to be moving as slowly as you have estimated it to be moving

So you accept that there is an unsafe distance 60mtrs.

Next time you are out take a look at just how far 12 cars actually looks in distance.

So in your opinion what distance would have been unsafe ?

Let me give you a little more detail;

This vehicle rolled towards this roundabout, increased its speed and entered the junction, this car was actually halfway on the roundabout, so clear and safe to proceed then applied the brakes and stopped dead - a dashcam would have shown this, which is my entire point.

The distance I Previously estimated was wrong, it was in fact in the region of 100+mtrs which any insurance company would have ascertained and not like our resident lawyer ' trusted' on the word of  notoriously unreliable witness statements.

So back to my example;

It's reasonably safe to assume that the third vehicle involved in this shunt would have held himself liable (in the same way people here are with me) as he hit the second vehicle on a free flowing road, ie too close. Yet footage showed otherwise.

are you referring to me with the resident lawyer comment.

Yes.

And I'll tell you why;

I'm surprised at your comments being what you are.

A vehicle double parked or stopped in the road with either the passenger or driver hanging out a window talking with a friend stood on the pavement, stopped in front of a left-hand side road ( T junction) the car behind overtakes, legal move - hope you agree. A car approaching the end of this lefthand side road thinks, how nice they are letting me out and pulls forwards and an accident happens.

The chatters claim that they observed the rules and were being courteous towards other road users

Without footage they get away with it, with they don't, as they can clearly be seen talking.

A car stops on the road and takes a call, same thing happens as above, the overtaking vehicle has a collision with ?

Here comes the dog excuse or any other reason, without footage they get away with it, with footage showing them on the phone, they don't.

A car turning left on a roundabout then suddenly realise its the next exit I need and just pulls right quickly, straight in front of a vehicle which quarter rearends them or causes them to swerve right to avoid them and gets hit or hits a third vehicle. The two cars that came into contact stop, the first car continues on free and clear, I think you see where I'm going with this.

Without footage they get away with it, with they don't.

Now I accept my incident may not apply, and I have said so further above, but I feel things are changing and that my example may fall into this category due to the extremity of the distance and after pulling onto the roundabout then suddenly stopping.

I could revamp an old case of mine where I was hit by a vehicle and my dealings with my insurance company. They had missed a very important document I had sent them or they hoped I'd sent them the original, it was a copy.

I never deal with any company by phone, everything must be in writing.

Frustrated I sought independent legal advise (rare years ago) handed him all the correspondence including the missed document.

Acting on his advise including my new reasonable demands this company offered me everything I asked for plus expenses.

I'm telling you this as I know though my experiences how insurance companies can act, even when they think that they can see a chink in your armour - they don't miss a trick when it comes to limiting their liability and we all know it.

Dashcams herald a change all that remains is how far this will reach, which is why I have said further up, the future will determine this, and not us.

Let me repeat for people above.

I DO AND DID ACCEPT THIS WAS MY FAULT.

I AM NOT CLAIMING THIS WAS A PART OF ANY SCAM. AND HAVE MAINTAINED THAT RIGHT FROM THE VERY BEGINNINGS OF THIS POST.

"

I totally understand what you are saying with regard to the other examples you are now giving, and now you are talking about another case that you sought independent advice for, I also understand that, but these are entirely different to your original post, which I stated a dash cam would have made no difference in, with the details you provided you would still be 100% at fault.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
back to top