anyway around hitting the back of someone?

patrickc

unfortunately had a tip last week, to you in the 05 land cruiser you are a pr*ck.

anyhow went through a green light behind a jeep, he proceeded to stop on the main road N9 just after the lights, to let people across, it was wet and i went straight into the back of him, yes I should have kept a bit more distance, wasn't going fast but the car just slid and I couldnt stop in time, anyhow he shouldnt have stopped where he did, no damage to his jeep, nice bit to mine.

just wondering is there anything around the legalities of stopping on a National road, just to let people across.

I'll take it on my insurance fair enough, but what a place to stop,

Mr Benevolent

patrickc wrote: »

unfortunately had a tip last week, to you in the 05 land cruiser you are a pr*ck.

anyhow went through a green light behind a jeep, he proceeded to stop on the main road N9 just after the lights, to let people across, it was wet and i went straight into the back of him, yes I should have kept a bit more distance, wasn't going fast but the car just slid and I couldnt stop in time, anyhow he shouldnt have stopped where he did, no damage to his jeep, nice bit to mine.

just wondering is there anything around the legalities of stopping on a National road, just to let people across.

I'll take it on my insurance fair enough, but what a place to stop,

Car shouldn't have just slid, how fast were you going?

MagicMarker

Sometimes you have to stop suddenly, this is why you should always keep your distance, if you hit him, then that's your fault. Irrespective of why he/she stopped.

patrickc

about 40/50kph, it was the really wet day last Friday was lashing from the heavens

voxpop

I always thought that rule of "hitting the back of someone, then its your fault" - is a load of rubbish. If the person in front does something stupid, it should be their fault, not yours. For example if they miss a turn and jam on to try and make it, or they jam on to let someone out.

I was in a situation before at the goat pub - where the left lane is for going straight and the right is for turning right. This guy drives along the right lane and then pulls in on top of me, then jams on the brakes - only I have v. good brakes or I would have hit him. Now imo, it was they other guys fault, he should never have pull in across me (road marking are clear and its a ploy used by ppl to skip the queue going straight) - but I would have hit the back of his car and this rubbish rule would be rolled out.

I_am_Jebus

nope, afraid no way around it. He doesn't have to justify stopping. Why is he a prick by the way??

You're lucky you didn't damage his vehicle. Stay further back and/or pay more attention to what's in front of you that's all that can be said. Hope it won't cost you too much to fix your car up.

EPM

patrickc wrote: »

about 40/50kph, it was the really wet day last Friday was lashing from the heavens

Doesn't matter. You should drive according to the conditions at the time. If it's wet you should keep an even larger distance between you and the vehicle in front.

If the car skidded into him I'd check your tyres

hobochris

voxpop wrote: »

I always thought that rule of "hitting the back of someone, then its your fault" - is a load of rubbish. If the person in front does something stupid, it should be their fault, not yours. For example if they miss a turn and jam on to try and make it, or they jam on to let someone out.

I was in a situation before at the goat pub - where the left lane is for going straight and the right is for turning right. This guy drives along the right lane and then pulls in on top of me, then jams on the brakes - only I have v. good brakes or I would have hit him. Now imo, it was they other guys fault, he should never have pull in across me (road marking are clear and its a ploy used by ppl to skip the queue going straight) - but I would have hit the back of his car and this rubbish rule would be rolled out.

In your case it would have been his fault had you collided as you had right or way and he crossed lanes without giving way to traffic already in the lane(I.e. you).

As for the op's case the Op doesn't have a leg to stand on unfortunately.

I_am_Jebus

voxpop wrote: »

I always thought that rule of "hitting the back of someone, then its your fault" - is a load of rubbish. If the person in front does something stupid, it should be their fault, not yours. For example if they miss a turn and jam on to try and make it, or they jam on to let someone out.

I was in a situation before at the goat pub - where the left lane is for going straight and the right is for turning right. This guy drives along the right lane and then pulls in on top of me, then jams on the brakes - only I have v. good brakes or I would have hit him. Now imo, it was they other guys fault, he should never have pull in across me (road marking are clear and its a ploy used by ppl to skip the queue going straight) - but I would have hit the back of his car and this rubbish rule would be rolled out.

I'd say if you had have hit him and both of you gave your story to the Gards then at the very least, if it went to court that you would each be told to look after you're own repairs. And maybe you might be lucky enough to get an open minded judge (about 0.5% of judges) and blame may have been apportioned to the other party.

There are exemptions to the driving into the back of someone rule. I have heard of cases where someone fails to indicate properly (being the lead car) and been liable for the car behind hitting them etc...

Jumpy

Did he skid when he stopped to allow the crossing? If he didnt, then you dont have a hope.
If you were close enough to skid into someone completing a controlled stop then you are 100% at fault.

triple-M

unfortunately its entirely your fault for not keeping a safe distance (2 second rule springs to mind)you have to keep in mind that the person driving ahead of you may need to suddenly stop for any reason,this is how pile ups happen,i know because It happened to me before,I suggest just biting the bullet and accept whatever happens and learn from it,

Alun

EPM wrote: »

Doesn't matter. You should drive according to the conditions at the time. If it's wet you should keep an even larger distance between you and the vehicle in front.

If the car skidded into him I'd check your tyres

+1 especially when it rains heavily after a period of relatively dry weather. All the crud on the road that builds up when it's dry is a lethal combination when it gets wet. Marginal tyre tread depth (even if at or above the legal limit) won't help matters either.

patrickc

Jumpy wrote: »

Did he skid when he stopped to allow the crossing? If he didnt, then you dont have a hope.
If you were close enough to skid into someone completing a controlled stop then you are 100% at fault.

he did jam on to let the across, dont know about skidding

triple-M wrote: »

unfortunately its entirely your fault for not keeping a safe distance (2 second rule springs to mind)you have to keep in mind that the person driving ahead of you may need to suddenly stop for any reason,this is how pile ups happen,i know because It happened to me before,I suggest just biting the bullet and accept whatever happens and learn from it,

Yes it's a lesson I've learned, and I normally keep a good distance, was thinking of work at the time, and not on the road as much as I should have, normally people drive straight through lights and suppose didnt expect him to stop

the_syco

patrickc wrote: »

no damage to his jeep

He take your details? More often than not, the damage can't be seen if you hit a car (even slight bumps can leave a good deal of internal damage), but unsure about the land cruisers.

EPM wrote: »

If it's wet you should keep an even larger distance between you and the vehicle in front.

From experience (mates car) if going 30/40kph, you can easily skid for 100 feet (at least 5 seconds) before crashing into a car in front of you, if it's wet.

patrickc

I_am_Jebus wrote: »

nope, afraid no way around it. He doesn't have to justify stopping. Why is he a prick by the way??

You're lucky you didn't damage his vehicle. Stay further back and/or pay more attention to what's in front of you that's all that can be said. Hope it won't cost you too much to fix your car up.

hes a prick because of his attitude at the time,but thats not for here.

EPM wrote: »

Doesn't matter. You should drive according to the conditions at the time. If it's wet you should keep an even larger distance between you and the vehicle in front.

If the car skidded into him I'd check your tyres

my tyres are new since May, and loads of thread on them,

patrickc

the_syco wrote: »

He take your details? More often than not, the damage can't be seen if you hit a car (even slight bumps can leave a good deal of internal damage), but unsure about the land cruisers.


From experience (mates car) if going 30/40kph, you can easily skid for 100 feet (at least 5 seconds) before crashing into a car in front of you, if it's wet.

it was his tow bar i hit, didnt touch the back of his jeep at all..

Jumpy

Doubtful there is structural damage if you just hit the towbar. You wont know until he contacts you though.

Hopefully he wont be a cock about it. There are still some honest people around.

Cuddlesworth

the_syco wrote: »

From experience (mates car) if going 30/40kph, you can easily skid for 100 feet (at least 5 seconds) before crashing into a car in front of you, if it's wet.

?

At 30-40kph I can could engine brake to a stop. Your mate should either check his tires or get off the road.

squod

patrickc wrote: »

it was his tow bar i hit, didnt touch the back of his jeep at all..

Since there's been investigations into similar accidents, I'd be looking into how the road surface was at the time. Due care was taken then it could be the upkeep of the road.

patrickc

squod wrote: »

Since there's been investigations into similar accidents, I'd be looking into how the road surface was at the time. Due care was taken then it could be the upkeep of the road.

its been resurfaced only mayve 5 months ago, so no leg to stand on there


tbh just chancing my arm, didnt think there'd be any way around it, but god loves a trier.

Gurgle

patrickc wrote: »

...the legalities of stopping on a National road, just to let people across

True classic!

r3nu4l

Regarding "stopping on a National Road just to let people across". It's my understanding* that the pedestrian has the right of way and that if even one foot of theirs is on the road surface, the driver should slow (if it's safe to do so) to allow them across.

What has happened me in the past is that I've seen a guy put his brakes on but not realised that he was coming to a complete stop and as a result I just eased off the accelerator and had to jam on at the last minute when I realised the person was actually stopping. So, yes, keeping an even greater distance than the minimum 'safe' distance is sometimes a good idea


*correct me if I'm wrong, I'd like to be wrong in this case

patrickc

from what i could see was a group of school girls waiting to cross, and he just let them go, it's the N9 although we have the Carlow bypass it's still a busy road, you generally wouldnt walk out in front of someone there,

the driver I hit said " I stopped to let the girls across," I asked why and he said because it was a pedestrian crossing, now by no means is it a pedestrian crossing which I proceeded to point out, and also that our light was green and the man was red for anyone to cross at. he just shrugged his shoulders and mumbled at me, he wasn't a local and knew he shouldnt have stopped there, I believe.

but ya know it's not the end of the world noone was hurt thats the main thing

NothingMan

patrickc wrote: »

from what i could see was a group of school girls waiting to cross, and he just let them go,

Ah, see you never mentioned school girls. Who wouldn't jam on to watch a group of teenage girls in tartan skirts march by their car.

seamus

r3nu4l wrote: »

Regarding "stopping on a National Road just to let people across". It's my understanding* that the pedestrian has the right of way and that if even one foot of theirs is on the road surface, the driver should slow (if it's safe to do so) to allow them across.

This is incorrect. A pedestrian does not have right of way by virtue of simply being on the road. Where a pedestrian crossing of any kind exists, the pedestrian is required to use that (if they're within X metres of the crossing, can't recall the figure). Where a crossing does not exist, they must wait for a suitable gap in the traffic before crossing. If they step out in front of a vehicle without waiting for a suitable gap, the pedestrian is technically at fault.*

The idea of "one foot on the road surface" is mistakenly quoted from the requirements of a driver when turning into or out of a roadway. When you are turning into or out of road, you are required to give way to pedestrians crossing the road into which you are turning. So if for example you're sitting waiting to turn right onto road A, and a pedestrian arrives at road A to cross it, they have the right of way and you must yield and wait for them to finish crossing before you can turn.

*Though you can be charged with a whole raft of offences related to not being prepared for a pedestrian to cross the road. All other things being equal though, you have right of way and a pedestrian cannot just walk out on the road in front of you.

RobAMerc

I think you're a bit unlucky but alot screwed.

I rear ended someone years ago after a tractor had pulled out in front of her. She had the lenght of her car more than I to stop, I didn't ( mainly because of the sh*t the farmer had pulled out onto the surface making it slippy )

Anyway - looked to be no damage to hers, she got out screaming at the farmer asking me if I was ok etc etc.

She got very ill by the time she got to the solicitors office and she got 50k out of it, alot of it as her car was written off ( a 15 yo fiesta ! ). Turned out the blame was attributed 50% to me and 50% to the farmer.

It made no difference what the split turned out to be as even 1% against me screwed my ncb and driving record.

The cop on duty was useless when it came to the lack of damage done in the accident - he said he couldn't tell if I had damaged her car as he's not a mechanic !

Your biggest worry is whiplash I would think.

r3nu4l

seamus wrote: »

The idea of "one foot on the road surface" is mistakenly quoted from the requirements of a driver when turning into or out of a roadway. When you are turning into or out of road, you are required to give way to pedestrians crossing the road into which you are turning. So if for example you're sitting waiting to turn right onto road A, and a pedestrian arrives at road A to cross it, they have the right of way and you must yield and wait for them to finish crossing before you can turn.

Cheers Seamus Seems that being an 'ordinary pleb' hasn't dimmed your expertise in any way

sogood

Keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front is the only real way to avoid the above. But then, thats in a perfect world! My experience is that whenever I leave the correct space in front, the impatient pr**k behind me, overtakes and fills the gap, causing me to ease back to compensate and create a "new" safe distance. Whereupon, the impatient pr**k behind me, overtakes and fills the gap etc. etc. etc. In theory, I believe it's possible to drive for hours, cover miles and finish up further back than where you started from!

votejohn

sogood wrote: »

Keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front is the only real way to avoid the above. But then, thats in a perfect world! My experience is that whenever I leave the correct space in front, the impatient pr**k behind me, overtakes and fills the gap, causing me to ease back to compensate and create a "new" safe distance. Whereupon, the impatient pr**k behind me, overtakes and fills the gap etc. etc. etc. In theory, I believe it's possible to drive for hours, cover miles and finish up further back than where you started from!

ha ha very true!!!!

Anan1

sogood wrote: »

Keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front is the only real way to avoid the above. But then, thats in a perfect world! My experience is that whenever I leave the correct space in front, the impatient pr**k behind me, overtakes and fills the gap, causing me to ease back to compensate and create a "new" safe distance. Whereupon, the impatient pr**k behind me, overtakes and fills the gap etc. etc. etc. In theory, I believe it's possible to drive for hours, cover miles and finish up further back than where you started from!

I've never found this, TBH. That said, if it's safe for the car behind me to overtake then it's probably safe for me to overtake.;)

@patrickc - I regularly see people stop for far stupider reasons than the one given by your Land Cruiser. Inattention/tailgating costs, i'm afraid.

jaffa20

sogood wrote: »

Keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front is the only real way to avoid the above. But then, thats in a perfect world! My experience is that whenever I leave the correct space in front, the impatient pr**k behind me, overtakes and fills the gap, causing me to ease back to compensate and create a "new" safe distance. Whereupon, the impatient pr**k behind me, overtakes and fills the gap etc. etc. etc. In theory, I believe it's possible to drive for hours, cover miles and finish up further back than where you started from!

Exactly and you nearly run into the back of the impatient pr**cks when they suddently cut in front of you.

Seth Brundle

NothingMan wrote: »

Ah, see you never mentioned school girls. Who wouldn't jam on to watch a group of teenage girls in tartan skirts march by their car.

Is this you?

maidhc

patrickc wrote: »

hes a prick because of his attitude at the time,but thats not for here.

I'd be pretty annoyed if someone crashed into the back of me to be fair.

Marin Cahill (the "General") once stood on the brakes while being followed by the Gardaí which led to some red faces in Phoenix park, as the Gardai were in the wrong.

As an aside it is very difficult to keep an adequate space between yourself and the car in front in city traffic, because if you leave more that a car length some idiot squeezes in there.

NothingMan

kbannon wrote: »

Is this you?

??? I don't see anything there bar a Account inactive thingy. Who do you think I am?

x in the city

the issue here people are missing is that the lights were

green

green

green

hence a constant flow of traffic behind said driver who stopped suddenly

either he has a very low IQ to stop in such a case, no matter what he was stopping for, or he is a ignorant little fluck.

but tbh, this sort of **** driving is more or less accepted in Ireland.

I have seen ridiculous drivers like behind a lorry stacked 20 foot with bales right up its hole, zero visibility and the chance everything could fall on top of him

would they pass it out

nah... course not.

Seth Brundle

NothingMan wrote: »

??? I don't see anything there bar a Account inactive thingy. Who do you think I am?

x in the city wrote: »

the issue here people are missing is that the lights were

green

green

green

hence a constant flow of traffic behind said driver who stopped suddenly

either he has a very low IQ to stop in such a case, no matter what he was stopping for, or he is a ignorant little fluck.

but tbh, this sort of **** driving is more or less accepted in Ireland.

I have seen ridiculous drivers like behind a lorry stacked 20 foot with bales right up its hole, zero visibility and the chance everything could fall on top of him

would they pass it out

nah... course not.

green does not mean go!

NothingMan

kbannon wrote: »

I knew that picture would come back to haunt me!

sogood

sogood wrote: »

Keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front is the only real way to avoid the above. But then, thats in a perfect world! My experience is that whenever I leave the correct space in front, the impatient pr**k behind me, overtakes and fills the gap, causing me to ease back to compensate and create a "new" safe distance. Whereupon, the impatient pr**k behind me, overtakes and fills the gap etc. etc. etc. In theory, I believe it's possible to drive for hours, cover miles and finish up further back than where you started from!

Never had this problem, then again I would be the person doing the overtaking(safely of course).

From reading the above I would come to the conclusion that you are one of the drivers happy to sit behind a car doing 60km/h on a decent road and refuse to overtake causing a build up of traffic behind you.

Not everybody has the time/patience for that sort of thing!

metzengerstein

i think they should look at the evidence 1st before saying you hit the back of him its your fault straight away ,it makes no sense

id an incident before which involed me driving onto a roundabout,a guy in a jeep flew out infront of me i beeped him out of it and he jammed on and into the back of him i went,he got out throwing a wobbler which i did at him too,the gas part i said to him why did you stop he said 'i didnt' so i replied smartly why are you stopped then ha ha ,anyway the gards were driving down the road so they stopped at us tering each others heads off and they seperated us but it was my fault according to the gard ,i dont see how that makes sense .when he came out in front of me to start and it was that close id no choice but to hit him when he jammed on

Seth Brundle

metzengerstein wrote: »

i think they should look at the evidence 1st before saying you hit the back of him its your fault straight away ,it makes no sense

id an incident before which involed me driving onto a roundabout,a guy in a jeep flew out infront of me i beeped him out of it and he jammed on and into the back of him i went,he got out throwing a wobbler which i did at him too,the gas part i said to him why did you stop he said 'i didnt' so i replied smartly why are you stopped then ha ha ,anyway the gards were driving down the road so they stopped at us tering each others heads off and they seperated us but it was my fault according to the gard ,i dont see how that makes sense .when he came out in front of me to start and it was that close id no choice but to hit him when he jammed on

The garda was correct in this instance as a) he didn't see it and b) you had no proof to show that it wasn't your fault.
Unfortunately there is nothing you can do. There is an urban legend about taxi drivers jamming on the brakes so that cars behind them rear end them!

miju

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

?

At 30-40kph I can could engine brake to a stop. Your mate should either check his tires or get off the road.

so you can just engine break and do an emergency stop at 30-40kph ???

impressive :rolleyes:

Cuddlesworth

miju wrote: »

so you can just engine break and do an emergency stop at 30-40kph ???

impressive :rolleyes:

Over the distance and speed specified yes(100 feet). Unless I was driving on a frozen river.

mcwhirter

patrickc wrote: »

unfortunately had a tip last week, to you in the 05 land cruiser you are a pr*ck.

anyhow went through a green light behind a jeep, he proceeded to stop on the main road N9 just after the lights, to let people across, it was wet and i went straight into the back of him, yes I should have kept a bit more distance, wasn't going fast but the car just slid and I couldnt stop in time, anyhow he shouldnt have stopped where he did, no damage to his jeep, nice bit to mine.

just wondering is there anything around the legalities of stopping on a National road, just to let people across.

I'll take it on my insurance fair enough, but what a place to stop,

That land cruiser was in the wrong in my opinion, although insurance will probably say different.

miju

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Over the distance and speed specified yes(100 feet). Unless I was driving on a frozen river.

im sorry but just engine braking at 30-40kph with a stopping distance of 100ft (30m) would have you in the back of someone if you were just engine braking.

not to be anal about it but heres a graph of stopping distances with modeate - hard braking

RobAMerc

sogood wrote: »

My experience is that whenever I leave the correct space in front, the impatient pr**k behind me, overtakes and fills the gap, causing me to ease back to compensate and create a "new" safe distance. Whereupon, the impatient pr**k behind me, overtakes and fills the gap etc. etc. etc.

I have to say you are in my opinion the one here who is driving like a pr*ck if you are closing up to the car in front with no intention of overtaking.
You are a) traveling too close to the driver in front just to block the so called impatient overtaking pr*ck and b) causing the driver behind to have to overtake you and the guy in front in order to get by.

If you think your being overtaken by guys behind when you have no intention of overtaking yourself leaves you farther behind than when you started, I'm not sure your fully thinking through what your saying.

Anan1

RobAMerc wrote: »

I have to say you are in my opinion the one here who is driving like a pr*ck if you are closing up to the car in front with no intention of overtaking.
You are a) traveling too close to the driver in front just to block the so called impatient overtaking pr*ck and b) causing the driver behind to have to overtake you and the guy in front in order to get by.

And you must be a complete idiot if you think your being overtaken by guys behind when you have no intention of overtaking yourself leaves you farther behind than when you started !

While I sympathise greatly with the sentiment, go easy on the personal insults.

RobAMerc

Anan1 wrote: »

While I sympathise greatly with the sentiment, go easy on the personal insults.

Point taken, I was enraged by this post and let the emotion get to me sorry. I've fixed it.

BigEejit

Question for the op:

Was it a box junction? Did the toyota driver stop on yellow crosshatching while his path was clear and he was not turning right?

patrickc

it's not a box junction, and he was not turning right, as i followed him on up the road after it all.

he just stopped on the road, to let people across even though we had a green light and hey had a red man

metzengerstein

kbannon wrote: »

The garda was correct in this instance as a) he didn't see it and b) you had no proof to show that it wasn't your fault.
Unfortunately there is nothing you can do. There is an urban legend about taxi drivers jamming on the brakes so that cars behind them rear end them!

i dissagree with it,stupid law should be thrown out ,if you do something stupid on the road and cause a crash you should own up and take your comuppins .

as for taxi driver s i dont think thats a legend,and as for gards they just think they are right no matter what they say ,they listen to themselves and not to the people involved ,in other words they make up there own version of what happened and tell you what happened .

mickoneill30

metzengerstein wrote: »

i dissagree with it,stupid law should be thrown out ,if you do something stupid on the road and cause a crash you should own up and take your comuppins .

Someone jams on because somebody steps out in front of them.
Someone jams on becuase they're thick (and there are a lot of thick drivers out there).

One is a valid reason, one isn't. In both cases the person behind should be able to stop without going into the back of the car in front. If you can't stop in time because the car in front jams on then you're travelling too close and the only person who can control that distance is you. So it's your fault.

So I agree with you. If you do something stupid (like drive too close to the car in front) and cause a crash (by not stopping in time if the car in front jams on) then you should own up and take your comeuppance.

I've done it too. Went into the back of a car as we were going through a green light when some muppet broke the reds crossing us. He drove off into the distance like a rocket leaving the two of us to exchange details. It was the guys fault who broke the light but it was also mine for driving too close to the car in front of me.