Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
Car crashes occur every single day because somebody caused them.
Cars don't have crashes without drivers causing them to crash.
While you might say two vehicles crashing into one another is an accident I contend somebody caused it to happen so somebody is at fault. When somebody is at fault that's no accident.
LoL the definition YOU provided says otherwise. It's still an accident if the person did not intend to do it.
There's a simple task that is reported by the Society of Automotive Engineers that cause over two million accidents per year: Turn signal neglect.
And how did they come to that conclusion? Appears from the following sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3700
The SAE analyzed 12,000 vehicles and found that 48% of them neglected turn signals during lane change maneuvers and 25% neglected to signal when turning.
Very ackward sentence. Forty-eight percent of the vehicles neglected to use turn signals during lane change. Vehicles don't neglect to use turn signals, drivers do. But putting that aside, let's say you use your turn signal to make a lane change. That does not give you the right of way. You need make sure the lane is clear before making - as the quote says - a "lane change maneuver."
The same is true with the second half of the sentence. Just because you use your turn signal to make a turn, does not give you the right of way. Whether you use your turn signal or not, if you turn into oncoming traffic and cause an accident it is not because of the turn signal. It is because you are an idiot and don't know how to drive! The driving "maneuver" caused the crash, not whether or not you used a turn signal.
Now use of the turn signal may signal to the other drivers, "Lookout, idiot ahead/beside me about to turn/merge into me" and give you time to plan an evasive "maneuver" to mitigate the crash. But that is secondary to the actual cause of the accident.
Well, there we have it, driver's who don't signal are not just a mere nuisance, they are a menace on the roads.
I wouldn't doubt the statistics. It's why after driving so many years, I have become a more cautious and patient driver, and keep my distance from the vehicle in front of me. It also makes me aware of people who have signaled their intentions, but don't follow through with a turn or lane change, which can be almost as dangerous.
I wouldn't doubt the statistics. It's why after driving so many years, I have become a more cautious and patient driver, and keep my distance from the vehicle in front of me. It also makes me aware of people who have signaled their intentions, but don't follow through with a turn or lane change, which can be almost as dangerous.
I asked my young second cousin, who has just gotten his learner's permit, what it meant when a car's left turn signal was on.
He answered quickly "the driver is going to turn left."
I responded, "not at all, it means his blinker works, and that's it!"
There's always a chance the driver might not turn where he is signaling, better to be safe than sorry.
And how did they come to that conclusion? Appears from the following sentence.
Very ackward sentence. Forty-eight percent of the vehicles neglected to use turn signals during lane change. Vehicles don't neglect to use turn signals, drivers do. But putting that aside, let's say you use your turn signal to make a lane change. That does not give you the right of way. You need make sure the lane is clear before making - as the quote says - a "lane change maneuver."
The same is true with the second half of the sentence. Just because you use your turn signal to make a turn, does not give you the right of way. Whether you use your turn signal or not, if you turn into oncoming traffic and cause an accident it is not because of the turn signal. It is because you are an idiot and don't know how to drive! The driving "maneuver" caused the crash, not whether or not you used a turn signal.
Now use of the turn signal may signal to the other drivers, "Lookout, idiot ahead/beside me about to turn/merge into me" and give you time to plan an evasive "maneuver" to mitigate the crash. But that is secondary to the actual cause of the accident.
This is crucial information for everyone to understand.
If I am driving down a road and someone makes a turn from another road into my path, whether or not they used their signals is meaningless information to me. In fact, there's not really a way for me to know unless he has to cross my path to go the opposite way; even then I am looking at whether they have started to turn their wheels and inch forward, not looking for a blinking light. Whether or not there was enough room between him and I is the only thing that matters.
Same goes for driving in traffic and someone wants to make a lane change into your path, a signal will not do me much good if I am going to get cut off either way. The only value of a signal is if it is used properly to communicate what you will be doing 5 or so seconds from the time it is used.
This is just more scare tactic garbage with crappy data and flawed theory. Why do we defend stupid people so much? Especially when it comes to driving...
This is crucial information for everyone to understand.
If I am driving down a road and someone makes a turn from another road into my path, whether or not they used their signals is meaningless information to me. In fact, there's not really a way for me to know unless he has to cross my path to go the opposite way; even then I am looking at whether they have started to turn their wheels and inch forward, not looking for a blinking light. Whether or not there was enough room between him and I is the only thing that matters.
Same goes for driving in traffic and someone wants to make a lane change into your path, a signal will not do me much good if I am going to get cut off either way. The only value of a signal is if it is used properly to communicate what you will be doing 5 or so seconds from the time it is used.
This is just more scare tactic garbage with crappy data and flawed theory. Why do we defend stupid people so much? Especially when it comes to driving...
IF the person in front of you signals, you know they are about to slow down and you can stop tailgating. If they do not signal and suddenly hit the brakes to turn, you will hit them.
If the person in the lane next to you signals you know they are coming over and can slow down to let them in. If they do nto signal, you do not know to slow down and they may not see you - crunch.
If somoene fails to signal at a 4 way stop, it can result in an accident. Other factors have to come into play also, but the singal often can avoid an accident.
As for the argument over the definition of an accident. It is an accident if it is untentional. If the driver meant to hit you it is a battery. If they were just stupid or distracted it is an accident. Accident deos not mean no one is at fault, it means no one was acting with intent to cause the result. And no, even reckless disregard for possible results is not intent. Intent means "I am going to hit this other car with my car" "I am going to stare at the pretty girl nistead of looking in the direction my car is moving - crunch" , is not intent. It is an accident.
IF the person in front of you signals, you know they are about to slow down and you can stop tailgating. If they do not signal and suddenly hit the brakes to turn, you will hit them.
As for the argument over the definition of an accident. It is an accident if it is untentional. If the driver meant to hit you it is a battery. If they were just stupid or distracted it is an accident. Accident deos not mean no one is at fault, it means no one was acting with intent to cause the result. And no, even reckless disregard for possible results is not intent. Intent means "I am going to hit this other car with my car" "I am going to stare at the pretty girl nistead of looking in the direction my car is moving - crunch" , is not intent. It is an accident.
What do you mean stop tailgating? You should not be tailgating in the first place.
If the car in front of you is 100 ft away and slams on the brakes you will not hit it if you are paying attention. If however you are tailgating at 20 ft and they slam on the brakes you will crash into them and it will be your fault.
People who consistently tailgate get into lots of crashes of which they are at fault. Has nothing to do with an accident.
Many people use the term accident when what they really mean is crash. Cars don't accident into each other they crash into each other or they crash into poles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lol
