Nearly!

[d3fy]

As you may have noticed on the news, Sheffield is a tad wet. The commute to and from work had gone from bad to awful. Its not been helped at all by the fck wits that have closed off many exits on to the main artery into Sheffield.

This means all the traffic that used to join on 3 exist are new channeled into one. [Rant Over]

So I did the fatal mistake this morning, after queuing for 15 minutes to get to the round about, I spot the gap in traffic, see the car in front pull out, floor the pedal and look back and the car has only moved a few feet out! Slam the anchors on, luckily, very, at the same time the car moves forward another foot and I must have missed hitting him hard by about an inch!

 

[Amchlolor]

I don't think it would have been 100% your fault though,would it ?
It used to be thought that it was always the fault of the person behind,but we all know there are gimps like the one you describe,who start moving then,for some inexplicable reason,stop.
It would have been a knock for knock,wouldn't it ?

Incidentally,I believe the incidents of cars conking out in anything other than shallow puddles is on the increase and it's being attributed to where the air intakes are being placed.
Air intakes used to be a pipe coming off the airfilter into the engine bay,sucking in warm air.
No good for efficiency that,so manufacturers are placing air intakes right at the front.
But radiators get in the way,so they put them down low..
Bottom line,they suck in water easily.

 

[d3fy]

This is a near by car auctions - look carefully at the picture.

Not sure on the law Bowfer just so glad I did not hit it!

 

[Macduff]

I don't think it would have been 100% your fault though,would it ?
It used to be thought that it was always the fault of the person behind,but we all know there are gimps like the one you describe,who start moving then,for some inexplicable reason,stop.

How? From the description of the event I can't see how it wouldn't be 100% d3fy's fault.

It sounds like something we all do, start pulling away while looking out for traffic coming from the right e.g. exiting a side road or joining a roundabout. If the person in front hesitates, stalls etc and you drive into them then it is 100% your fault and all insurance companies will look at it that way.

Even if someone jams on the anchors for absolutely no reason and you hit them it is your fault for not leaving enough distance to stop.

 

[Dandle]

Its still the case that if you hit the car in front you havent left enough room to stop no matter what the reason, so is your fault. You can even be done for undue care for it.

 

[icenutter]

I reckon the rain is at fault.

 

[Amchlolor]

Its still the case that if you hit the car in front you havent left enough room to stop no matter what the reason, so is your fault. You can even be done for undue care for it.

I stand to be corrected by someone who can categorically state the facts one way or the other,but I didn't think it's as cut and dried/black and white as that any more.
Saying it's always the person behind's fault is clearly nonsense.
There are many factors to take into account,just one of which is the actual stopping power of the vehicles concerned.
For example,even if I keep what is considered to be a safe distance behind a Ferrari,his braking power and grip is considerably better than mine,so if he slams the brakes on for no apparent reason,is it 100% my fault if I run into the back of him ?
I think any decent lawyer would rip the **** out of anyone who says it is.

 

[Dandle]

The law is black and white though. A few years ago I hit a vehicle that stopped in the middle of a large roundabout(a full on emergency stop). The car had no brake lights and the guy that was driving had dropped his icecream. The police warned me that if I took it any further I could be done for undue care and attention, the reason they gave me was that you should always leave enough room to stop no matter what has happened to the car in front, the engine could seize or the person could be having a heart attack and slam the brakes on its still down to you to leave enough room to stop. The fact he had no brake lights they werent worried about.

 

[JamS3]

Yes can confirm this with authority, its the persons fault behind!

Yes what Bowfer says about someone pratting about slamming brakes on whilst driving along MAY have some mitigation but as people say a big enough reactionary gap should be left for you to notice this and take avoiding action.

In the cases above where someone moves off from a roundabout and then thinks better then the car behind would be 100% at fault and could very easily be looking at a driving without due care and attention charge as they should have noticed the car stopping again!

 

[smee]

The law is black and white though.

I must be really lucky then. Quite a few years ago (about 15 I think) I was unfortunate enough to smash into the back of a car. Luckily there was a witness who confirmed that the car stopped for no reason and that even though I had left a safe distance I could not stop my fully loaded Transit Luton in time. Our insurance company agreed it was not solely my fault. It was classed as 50/50 and the company insurance was not loaded after it.

BTW that picture of the car park is amazing.

 

[sat1983]

d3fy I was extremely lucky to get the car back in one piece. Was stuck on Brightside Lane Royal Mail depot all night. Parked on the central reservation just opposite the depot and that thankfully saved the car. My priority was my life and the girlfriends of course but of course when we were safe I thought of the car and thought it'd definitely be a write off. Thankfully apart from grime, people mits on the car, and a bit of mud it was fine. I got back home at 3 am, knackered, cold, starving.

 

[Von Maximo]

I must be really lucky then. Quite a few years ago (about 15 I think) I was unfortunate enough to smash into the back of a car. Luckily there was a witness who confirmed that the car stopped for no reason and that even though I had left a safe distance I could not stop my fully loaded Transit Luton in time. Our insurance company agreed it was not solely my fault. It was classed as 50/50 and the company insurance was not loaded after it.

If you had left a safe distance between this car then surely you would have stopped in time and avoided the accident?

 

[simonwjones]

following on from what Bowfer said about the low air intake.

3 weeks ago my brother bought his first audi 54 plate A3 2.0 tdi Sport with lovely dark red leather.

The inetnsion being that his missus would ouse it during the week for work and its his at the weekend, as he uses his van in the week.

5 days later his missus takes youngin for a trip to Drayton Manor Park during that first heavy rain on the friday.

Her Tomtom takes her down some countr6y lane for the last mile or so and some "puddles" as she described them. The first two she gets through fine, slow speed, high revs. the third she gets through but stalls after coming out.

Thats the last time the engine ever started. A few phone calls to mates in the trade said straight away "Hydrolocked" or did they meen Hydrofucked.

He wouldnt even drive there to take a look at it just said, engines gone.


after getting it towed back to him he was 100% correct. It had sucked water into the engine and basically new engine required. Luckily the insurance are coughing up for the £5500 bill.

After talking to other people its amazing how many others know someone who has had this happen to them or someone they know.

My bro was well ******, he's only driven it once since buying it



Simon

 

[Dandle]

I must be really lucky then. Quite a few years ago (about 15 I think) I was unfortunate enough to smash into the back of a car. Luckily there was a witness who confirmed that the car stopped for no reason and that even though I had left a safe distance I could not stop my fully loaded Transit Luton in time. Our insurance company agreed it was not solely my fault. It was classed as 50/50 and the company insurance was not loaded after it.

BTW that picture of the car park is amazing.

Insurance companies arent the law. By the fact it was a 50/50 they have said you have a part in the blame. If your loaded luton van had killed the people do you think the court would say you left a safe distance. As Von pointed out if you can't stop in time its not a safe distance.

 

[Dandle]

following on from what Bowfer said about the low air intake.

3 weeks ago my brother bought his first audi 54 plate A3 2.0 tdi Sport with lovely dark red leather.

The inetnsion being that his missus would ouse it during the week for work and its his at the weekend, as he uses his van in the week.

5 days later his missus takes youngin for a trip to Drayton Manor Park during that first heavy rain on the friday.

Her Tomtom takes her down some countr6y lane for the last mile or so and some "puddles" as she described them. The first two she gets through fine, slow speed, high revs. the third she gets through but stalls after coming out.

Thats the last time the engine ever started. A few phone calls to mates in the trade said straight away "Hydrolocked" or did they meen Hydrofucked.

He wouldnt even drive there to take a look at it just said, engines gone.


after getting it towed back to him he was 100% correct. It had sucked water into the engine and basically new engine required. Luckily the insurance are coughing up for the £5500 bill.

After talking to other people its amazing how many others know someone who has had this happen to them or someone they know.

My bro was well ******, he's only driven it once since buying it



Simon

Citroen had a massive problem with one of there models about 4-5 years ago, the intake was just behind the front bottom of the bumper and if water was over a certian level it just scooped water up. A freind of mine fixed quite a few of them at the Citroen garage he works at(all under warranty).

 

[d3fy]

If you had left a safe distance between this car then surely you would have stopped in time and avoided the accident?

I never said I had left a safe distance? What is a safe distance on a round about anyway? I also did avoid the accident?

d3fy I was extremely lucky to get the car back in one piece. Was stuck on Brightside Lane Royal Mail depot all night. Parked on the central reservation just opposite the depot and that thankfully saved the car. My priority was my life and the girlfriends of course but of course when we were safe I thought of the car and thought it'd definitely be a write off. Thankfully apart from grime, people mits on the car, and a bit of mud it was fine. I got back home at 3 am, knackered, cold, starving.

You got lucky then mate, I was looking at some of the photos, can't believe Meadow Hell has a foot of water in it!

 

[Von Maximo]

I never said I had left a safe distance? What is a safe distance on a round about anyway? I also did avoid the accident?




You got lucky then mate, I was looking at some of the photos, can't believe Meadow Hell has a foot of water in it!

Never said you did. I was replying to a quote from smee

 

[smee]

Never said you did. I was replying to a quote from smee

The point is that I had left a safe distance for the road conditions and the traffic. The idiot in front slammed on the brakes bringing his car to a standstill for absolutely no reason. Road conditions were clear and no other traffic was around. At that stage of my life I was driving just under 100k miles a year and had never had an accident. Even people who look at the road conditions and look ahead cannot compensate for stupidity. Luckily for me there was a pedestrian witness.

My point was that from my experience it is not that clear cut that the driver behind is always at fault. And in this instance the insurance company agreed.

Dandle - Nobody was going to be killed. I was just using an example from personal experience. The collision speed was very slow with slight damage to both vehicles (maybe because I had left quite a distance between my van and the car in front).

 

[SteveS]

following on from what Bowfer said about the low air intake.



"Her Tomtom takes her down some countr6y lane for the last mile or so and some "puddles" as she described them. The first two she gets through fine, slow speed, high revs. the third she gets through but stalls after coming out.

Thats the last time the engine ever started."

ive done about 15yrs of off road trials & green laneing on bikes and in landys and ive always been taught to keep the revs as low as poss in deep water so that if it does suck some it will hopefully just stall rather than having 5000rpm of momentum behind the pistons when they have no where left to go! just thought id share that in these times of underwater driving :icon_thumright:

 

[TDI-line]

This is a near by car auctions - look carefully at the picture.

Where there's blame there's a claim.

 

[Von Maximo]

ive done about 15yrs of off road trials & green laneing on bikes and in landys and ive always been taught to keep the revs as low as poss in deep water so that if it does suck some it will hopefully just stall rather than having 5000rpm of momentum behind the pistons when they have no where left to go! just thought id share that in these times of underwater driving :icon_thumright:

Good bit of information there! I always thought it was best to keep the revs high. But obviously not!

I did get caught in the floods and proceeded to drive through at high rev's at one point the water was bonnet high to at which point I thought I was pushing my luck a bit. Luckly enough when i got home I'd only lost one of the little water deflectors from the front wheel arch (other was just hanging on!) and had to empty the fog lights that were full of water.

 

[normski]

The point is that I had left a safe distance for the road conditions and the traffic. The idiot in front slammed on the brakes bringing his car to a standstill for absolutely no reason. Road conditions were clear and no other traffic was around. At that stage of my life I was driving just under 100k miles a year and had never had an accident. Even people who look at the road conditions and look ahead cannot compensate for stupidity. Luckily for me there was a pedestrian witness.

My point was that from my experience it is not that clear cut that the driver behind is always at fault. And in this instance the insurance company agreed.

Dandle - Nobody was going to be killed. I was just using an example from personal experience. The collision speed was very slow with slight damage to both vehicles (maybe because I had left quite a distance between my van and the car in front).

I think in Smee's circs, as the car infront had clearly driven without consideration for other road users (ie. careless driving) by slamming the brakes on for absolutely no reason where it could never be expected or anticipated, that is why it was put down as 50/50...

As for the one about following a Ferrari at what you consider to be a safe distance Bowfer, and it then slamming its brakes on and you **** ending it because of its superior braking, surely you would be guilty of careless driving as you knew that it had better brakes and therefore you hadn't left a safe distance...

 

[Von Maximo]

I think in Smee's circs, as the car infront had clearly driven without consideration for other road users (ie. careless driving) by slamming the brakes on for absolutely no reason where it could never be expected or anticipated, that is why it was put down as 50/50...

As for the one about following a Ferrari at what you consider to be a safe distance Bowfer, and it then slamming its brakes on and you **** ending it because of its superior braking, surely you would be guilty of careless driving as you knew that it had better brakes and therefore you hadn't left a safe distance...

I kind of agree with what you are saying, Unlike other road hazards that can be preempted, someone who just suddenly decides to stop is an action that cannot be preempted and is totally out of the normality of human nature.

But on the other hand, why would someone suddenly brake to a hault without a defined logical reason? The only reason I can think of is that they wanted to get rear ended for insurance purposes?

 

[AwesomeSarah]

Hi
No
Dont touch the accelorator
Just let the torque of the engine take you through the puddle with NO revs at all , just tickover
If you rev , the CAI will draw air up which you dont want
It is like putting a straw in to a drink without sucking
Sarah

 

[smee]

But on the other hand, why would someone suddenly brake to a hault without a defined logical reason? The only reason I can think of is that they wanted to get rear ended for insurance purposes?

That could have well been it, I suppose if that was what he wanted he got half of it (50/50 judgement). The reason he said he stopped was that a bird flew in front of him which was total nonsense. Firstly neither I or the witness saw a bird and secondly what idiot stops fully because a bird flew in front of them! I was just using an example from personal experience which showed that sometimes the car behind is not at fault.

 

[normski]

I was just using an example from personal experience which showed that sometimes the car behind is not at fault.

Or not completely at least...

 

[Macduff]

I kind of agree with what you are saying, Unlike other road hazards that can be preempted, someone who just suddenly decides to stop is an action that cannot be preempted and is totally out of the normality of human nature.

Doesn't matter if the person has a reason to stop or not. You may not be able to see what's caused that person to do an emergency stop e.g. a small child just ran out in front of them which you didn't see.

The Ferrari analogy may be flawed as well as I was once told (by a copper) that the 2 second rule is based on stopping distance to a stationary object. So even if the car in front was to come to an abrupt halt e.g. head-on collision then you should still be able to pull up in time.

I've not tested it but 2 seconds doesn't sound like enough time to stop from 60 or 70 so the above may be rubbish

 

[Von Maximo]

Doesn't matter if the person has a reason to stop or not. You may not be able to see what's caused that person to do an emergency stop e.g. a small child just ran out in front of them which you didn't see.

If you can't see that the car in front has just done an emergency stop because they've run over a child then you shouldn't be driving!!!!!!!

I dont think you grasped what I was saying. It is very hard to preempt an action by a person that suddenly stops for no reason. I'll stress the point again "For no Reason!"

 

[normski]

The Ferrari analogy may be flawed as well as I was once told (by a copper) that the 2 second rule is based on stopping distance to a stationary object. So even if the car in front was to come to an abrupt halt e.g. head-on collision then you should still be able to pull up in time.

I've not tested it but 2 seconds doesn't sound like enough time to stop from 60 or 70 so the above may be rubbish

Certainly sounds like a load of b@ll@cks to me, based on doing the maths and it being obvious you wouldn't be able to stop in time...

 

[Covenant]

The 2 second rule only ever applies to both vehicles moving. For those that don't know:

Look ahead to a stationary object at the roadside.
As soon as the car in front passes it start counting.
Make sure that you don't pass that object less than two seconds later.

On an average car, in good weather and dry road conditions this will allow you enough reaction time and stopping distance should the car in front brake suddenly.
The rule will not stop you hitting the person in front if they crash and stop immediately.

 

[normski]

The rule will not stop you hitting the person in front if they crash and stop immediately.

Though on a three lane motorway it may well give you enough reaction time/distance to take avoiding action...

 

[Eeef]

For example,even if I keep what is considered to be a safe distance behind a Ferrari,his braking power and grip is considerably better than mine,so if he slams the brakes on for no apparent reason,is it 100% my fault if I run into the back of him ?

Yes

 

[mitch78]

:thumbsup:

 

[Amchlolor]

Yes

Evidently not,as there is precedent above where a rear-ender was 50/50.

 

[Gti Jazz Blue]

The problem is these days with the traffic levels we have, in practical terms any 2 second gap is likely to soon be filled by another motorist

 

[normski]

Up to 40 mph, the 2 second rule covers the full stopping distances quoted by the highway code.

Speed = 30 mph
Highway code stopping distance = 23m (9m thinking, 14m braking)
Distance covered in 2 seconds = 26.8m

Speed = 40 mph
Highway code stopping distance = 36m (12m thinking, 24m braking)
Distance covered in 2 seconds = 35.8m

So up to 40 mph, if you leave a 2 second gap, they could even hit a 6 foot thick concrete wall and you'd still stop without hitting them. With most modern cars stopping well within the highway code distances you would probably be safe at even higher speeds.

And if you drive along the motorway at 40mph you can look forward to being done for careless driving...but at least you can stop in time