my F#$%ing bad Night

[Heeno]

Originally Posted by nudge

So my question is " If she was as far as practical over to the left side of the road as taught to everone and as far as i am aware is the law. Is she partly at fault"
I know it will be still my fault in everyones eyes and thats fine with me i know i f@#ked up and i will wear the consequenses of it but im wondering what everones opinions are.

i still say she should of hit the bloody dog but thats just my opinion, but you bring up a good point there, but i think it doesn't matter anyway you hit her a55 so to them its all your fault, sh!t isn't it, but then again i spose you could reverse into some one or a parked car with no-one in it, and it would be their fault! stupid really they need to go out and acess the situation to see whos in the right and whos in the wrong

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by nudge

i went through the same intersection again today in the dry following another car that was doing exactly what happened the other night( but without the sudden stopping) and i worked out something.
When you make a left turn is it not taught to everone who has ever had driving lessons that you should position your car as far as practical to the left of the road before making the turn.

The car i was following today was all the wa over to the left of the lane and had the same thing happened i would have had room to go around them without hitting either them or the medium strip.

When i ran up the rear end of the chick the other night she was still in the centre/right side of the lane as the glass from my headlight was in the middle of the road.
So my question is " If she was as far as practical over to the left side of the road as taught to everone and as far as i am aware is the law. Is she partly at fault"
I know it will be still my fault in everyones eyes and thats fine with me i know i f@#ked up and i will wear the consequenses of it but im wondering what everones opinions are.

Mate you are wrong in the eyes of the law, that is all. No-one is saying your a ********, far from it, and I comment your honesty throughout.
I've had a bit to say in this thread and I can say that I am speaking from a bit of been there, done that.

Your recall of things says some dippy clueless broad did everything possible to cause an accident, and pooch or not i doubt it would be much different.

I think from your account of things you have done everything right other than to leave enough room for someone to do something totally ridiculous in front of you.

Sadly they do! and the other sad reality is that if you leave the space you need ahead, someone is always dropping into that spot. Its not easy, dont lose spirit, get your car fixed and next time round you'll know to leave just that extra bit of distance. Somehow I think you have a lot more clues than some that came to your defence. best of luck, and be proud you've be man enough to admit what is a tiny mistake.

[EB_5.0_WAGON]

Thanks "red el xr8" for the comments

[PH0EN|X]

Mate you are wrong in the eyes of the law, that is all. No-one is saying you're a ********, far from it, and I commend your honesty throughout.
---------
Agreed.
The rough interpretation of the law is that if someone in front of you, travelling the same direction, at or under the speed limit can stop, then so can you.
However it leaves a few things open...

One of my vehicles is a 1967 Ford Transit Custom - it's 18 ft long, has a 3.3l XA 6cyl, and 4 wheel drum brakes. It weighs almost exactly 3 tonne.
Yet, according to the law, if a 2006 BA falcon slams on the anchors 5 car lengths in front of me, it's my fault if I hit them. Trouble is, it's impossible to leave sufficient braking distance because EVERYBODY overtakes you and then pulls in front of you 1 carlength ahead. The result is you drive everywhere at 40kmh trying to make sure there's enough braking distance - which is just not practical. It only does 70kmh flat out anyway.

If someone pulls out on you on a roundabout, and you go uppa-da-bumma, it wasn't your fault - but you WILL get blamed if there are no witnesses and the victim claims they pulled out safely.

A friend of mine was the last car in a 5-car pileup on the mitchell freeway; in WA at least, that means he had to claim on his insurance for ALL 5 CARS.
This, to me, is totally ridiculous - if 5 cars crash then it should be deemed to be unavoidable, and everyone pays for their own damage.
The problem with that is, what if the cause of the accident was the front guy stopping for a child? Then he isn't at fault, and why should he have to pay for the damage caused by the guy behind him who couldn't stop?

The law is written how it is for the sake of simplicity.
That doesn't mean it's set in stone, and if you firmly believe that you are in the right, that's what courts are for. Better know your ***** before you stand there arguing with that judge though...

Unfortunately you wouldn't have a snowballs chance, arguing your way out of this one!

[PH0EN|X]

wow i didnt realize how old this thread was!

guess i should just keep quiet huh :P

[Fairlane]

Well youve dug a big hole here.

This thread was more buried than the Beaconsfield Miners

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by Fairlane

Well youve dug a big hole here.

This thread was more buried than the Beaconsfield Miners

CLASSIC !!!!!!!!!

[Bucket]

Originally Posted by devil cv8

In NSW you are not to brake or swerve to avoid an animal, but after hitting an animal you must stop and render asistance.

That being said, it is also the responsibility of all road users to leave enough room to safely avoid hitting another car.

So if pushed, both parties would get a negligent driving T.I.N

Correct me if im wrong but in my experience You would only get neg. driving for injuring a 3rd party if your at fault?

[Keepleft]

Phoenix wrote: A friend of mine was the last car in a 5-car pileup on the mitchell freeway; in WA at least, that means he had to claim on his insurance for ALL 5 CARS.

So, the second car had run into the first FIRST? etc?

Or, did he drive at such speed that he impacted the car immediately in front, it in tuirn the next (too close) and down the line? (Rare).

What was the reasonfor the initial crash? A sleeping MP on the road?

One of the problems with having such slow speed limits on roads designed for high speeds is the 'marriage' effect that has on traffic.

Marriage is hell, I'd go the other way and divroce that traffic via (//), but that will take years.

[PETE_XR6]

I can't STAND d1ckheads that drive close to me OR don't slow down when i turn left . If there is someone crossing the road ( human or not! ) I stop to give way to the pedestrian . The problem is with the clown behind me , thinks i am turning left and there is no way on earth i would need to stop to complete the left hand turn . So the clown doesn't slow down ( brake pads might get wore out?) when they realise i have stopped to give way to pedestrians they have to slam on the brakes...I call it classic stupidity

[xr8man83]

tuff luck mate but if you cant advoid a crash like that at under 60 kph and 15mtrs to play with wots your excuses??? sleeping???

[dandaman]

I think you're in the wrong, i would have stopped if it was a dog as well. If it was a cat, then that's a different story, i would have hit the go pedal to try and hit it

[FordFan86]

28-06-05, 10:00 PM

[deesun]

^^^^^^^^^^ Or how about a different tangent. I scratched one of those Honda tyre covers a few months back when I reversed into it. Replacement cost was $900. HOLY CR4P. Lucky it was able to be repaired rather than replaced. So when so called stoopid female driver calls with the quote for her cars damage be prepared.

[dansedgli]

Not the car in fronts fault. If 15 metres wasnt enough distance to stop in time then it was your own fault for not leaving enough space for the conditions you were driving in.

[Sourbastard]

threads been done, and done, and done again.