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.
happens alot on 3+ lane freeways. I'm in the right lane and want to get in the middle lane. at the same time someone in the left lane wants to get in the middle lane. one doesnt use blinker and you may see a little side swipe or maybe even a pit maneuver.
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.
Sorry you are having difficulty understanding the word accident. An accident is an unintentional event. You seem to think it has something to do with fault. It does not. You cannot change the meaning by repeating your position over and over. Saying something a lot does not make it true. Hate to break this to you but you simply do not know the meaning of the word. But hey, we all learn someting new every day.
Accident is a noun. Thus while you can have an accident, or be in an accident, or cause an accident, cars cannot accident into each other. You cannot accident someone. Think about the sentence" Bob caused an accident, so he had to pay a extra fine to resolve his ticket." If "accident" meant without fault, then it would be impossible to "cause an accident" However to say someone "caused an accident" is gramatically and contextually correct.
You have undoubtely hear the term "unavioable accident" that is akin to forece majeure. It is an accident where no one is at fault. However if it is corect to say "unavoidable accident" then there must also be avoidable accidents meaning accidents where someone was at fault.
You are confusing the term "accident" with the concept commonly called an "act of God" or in some contexts "force majeure" that is an event that is not caused by anyone or at least where no one can be held reposnsible. That is not an accident. An accident is normally caused by someone or something.
I knew that English degree would be useful one day. I always wanted to be an English teacher. How am I doing?
Its an interesting idea, but I would think people not paying(both people at fault, and people not at fault) attention to their surroundings is the leading cause of accidents. The person that hit you may not have been using his signal(and would be at fault), but if you were paying attention to your surroundings(Keeping proper distance, just being aware of whats going on around you) the accident may not have happened as well.
Wrong, I have been involved in two accidents with other drivers who made improper turns without signaling. In both cases, I was paying 100% attention to my surroundings, keeping proper distance, and was well aware of what was going on. I still could not prevent the collisions.
One case, a driver well in front of me pulled over to the side of the road. It looked like he had just parked. As I approached the back of his vehicle, suddenly without any warning, he started a U-turn. I locked up my brakes, and skidded about three car lengths past him. His left front tire dented my right front fender and door.
In another case, late a night a driver in front of me was obviously lost. I could see that he was going back and forth and didn't know which way he should turn. I was trying to stay behind him, and give him plenty of room. Then he slowed to about 20 mph (in a 35 mph zone). I though that was a sign he wanted me to pass him so he could change lanes. So I passed him in the right lane. Yeah, bad decision. He turned right into the side of my truck. I would not have not have tried to overtake him if he had signaled.
I always pay attention when I'm driving. I don't have accidents that are preventable. But I'm not a mind reader, who can know the intentions of some idiot who thinks he owns the road.
Sorry KaaBoom, gotta play devil's advocate here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom
One case, a driver well in front of me pulled over to the side of the road. It looked like he had just parked. As I approached the back of his vehicle, suddenly without any warning, he started a U-turn. I locked up my brakes, and skidded about three car lengths past him. His left front tire dented my right front fender and door.
So if he had signaled and then made this dangerous maneuver, with the same exact timing, you would not have hit him? Sounds to me like he didn't look for traffic, you in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom
In another case, late a night a driver in front of me was obviously lost. I could see that he was going back and forth and didn't know which way he should turn. I was trying to stay behind him, and give him plenty of room. Then he slowed to about 20 mph (in a 35 mph zone). I though that was a sign he wanted me to pass him so he could change lanes. So I passed him in the right lane. Yeah, bad decision. He turned right into the side of my truck. I would not have not have tried to overtake him if he had signaled.
Sure, if he had signaled maybe you wouldn't have done what you did. However you shouldn't have done what you did in the first place! How did that one work out with the insurance if you don't mind me asking?
Wrong, I have been involved in two accidents with other drivers who made improper turns without signaling. In both cases, I was paying 100% attention to my surroundings, keeping proper distance, and was well aware of what was going on. I still could not prevent the collisions.
One case, a driver well in front of me pulled over to the side of the road. It looked like he had just parked. As I approached the back of his vehicle, suddenly without any warning, he started a U-turn. I locked up my brakes, and skidded about three car lengths past him. His left front tire dented my right front fender and door.
In another case, late a night a driver in front of me was obviously lost. I could see that he was going back and forth and didn't know which way he should turn. I was trying to stay behind him, and give him plenty of room. Then he slowed to about 20 mph (in a 35 mph zone). I though that was a sign he wanted me to pass him so he could change lanes. So I passed him in the right lane. Yeah, bad decision. He turned right into the side of my truck. I would not have not have tried to overtake him if he had signaled.
I always pay attention when I'm driving. I don't have accidents that are preventable. But I'm not a mind reader, who can know the intentions of some idiot who thinks he owns the road.
Now think about what you just wrote. Aside from the rudeness in your opening statement (which I would venture to guess extends into your driving), you describe two accidents in which your own poor decision played a role, yet you assign blame fully to the other driver.
In the first, if you skidded multiple carlengths before being able to stop, then you were driving too fast through an unpredictable situation. If you, being 100% aware of your surroundings, had slowed down and proceeded more cautiously, the accident could have been avoided.
In the second, you chose to illegally pass on the right a driver who you admit was clearly unsure of which direction to go. If you had not chosen to pass on the right, the accident could have been avoided.
I am not suggesting that the other drivers were completely without fault, but your statement that both were unavoidable and were caused solely by the other driver not signalling is demonstrably untrue.
I am not surprised. When I moved from Ohio to Phoenix, I was a young driver (20 yrs old, had my license for 2 years). People in Ohio generally use their blinkers, but folks in Phoenix seem to not have that feature on their vehicles. It changed the way I drove and I became a psychic when it came to predicting what idiot things other drivers would do. Cutting you off, slamming on their brakes to make a turn down a tiny side street, or changing lanes without warning. I loved living in Phoenix, but I don't know how many times a day I would think in my head "Nice turn signal, jerk" while having to slam on my brakes to avoid an accident. I'm back in Ohio now for a while, and sometimes it still amazes me that people signal for everything.
Sorry KaaBoom, gotta play devil's advocate here...
So if he had signaled and then made this dangerous maneuver, with the same exact timing, you would not have hit him? Sounds to me like he didn't look for traffic, you in this case.
Thats hard to say. If he had turned on his signal I would have at least slowed down in advance. While trying to figure out what he was intending to do. Then maybe I would have been able to stop before the collision or maybe he would have had enough time to abort his U-turn before hitting my car. I do believe he did try to stop when he saw my car, but it was too late and his tire grazed my car.
So yes, it is possible that the collision could have been avoided if he had just used his signal. As it was, there was nothing I could do. You can't drive down the street expecting that every parked car could potentially pull out in front of you. Thats just crazy. However if the turn signal suddenly comes on, that tells you 1. That there is a driver in the car and 2. He intends to pull out. Thats very good info to know. Might still not prevent the collision, but its good to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lux Hauler
Sure, if he had signaled maybe you wouldn't have done what you did. However you shouldn't have done what you did in the first place! How did that one work out with the insurance if you don't mind me asking?
I shouldn't have done what? I did nothing wrong. I was well aware that he was having issues, and I did everything I could possibly do to stay out of his way.
To the second point. He was driving a rental car. He changed his story and claimed that I pulled out of a parking lot and hit him. The rental agency, and my insurance agreed that the damage was not consistent with his story. The rental agency accepted the liability.
Sorry you are having difficulty understanding the word accident. An accident is an unintentional event. You seem to think it has something to do with fault. It does not. You cannot change the meaning by repeating your position over and over. Saying something a lot does not make it true. Hate to break this to you but you simply do not know the meaning of the word. But hey, we all learn someting new every day.
Accident is a noun. Thus while you can have an accident, or be in an accident, or cause an accident, cars cannot accident into each other. You cannot accident someone. Think about the sentence" Bob caused an accident, so he had to pay a extra fine to resolve his ticket." If "accident" meant without fault, then it would be impossible to "cause an accident" However to say someone "caused an accident" is gramatically and contextually correct.
You have undoubtely hear the term "unavioable accident" that is akin to forece majeure. It is an accident where no one is at fault. However if it is corect to say "unavoidable accident" then there must also be avoidable accidents meaning accidents where someone was at fault.
You are confusing the term "accident" with the concept commonly called an "act of God" or in some contexts "force majeure" that is an event that is not caused by anyone or at least where no one can be held reposnsible. That is not an accident. An accident is normally caused by someone or something.
I knew that English degree would be useful one day. I always wanted to be an English teacher. How am I doing?
You might have an English degree but cars do not accident they crash into one another.
Accidents are thinks that happen by accident, cars do not crash into one another by accident.People like yourself who admit to tailgating are a crash waiting to happen. It has nothing to do with an accident. it was done because people drive stupidly.
You are now going on my ignore list because I refuse to listen to your foolish reply's any longer.
Now think about what you just wrote. Aside from the rudeness in your opening statement (which I would venture to guess extends into your driving), you describe two accidents in which your own poor decision played a role, yet you assign blame fully to the other driver.
In the first, if you skidded multiple carlengths before being able to stop, then you were driving too fast through an unpredictable situation. If you, being 100% aware of your surroundings, had slowed down and proceeded more cautiously, the accident could have been avoided.
1. I wasn't trying to be rude. Just state that you are wrong. 2. I was driving at about the posted speed limit and at a reasonable and prudent speed for that road and conditions. A parked car on the side of the road is generally not considered an unpredictable situation. I've driven past millions of them. This was the only one that jumped out in front of me. The other driver accepted that he was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanman13
In the second, you chose to illegally pass on the right a driver who you admit was clearly unsure of which direction to go. If you had not chosen to pass on the right, the accident could have been avoided.
I am not suggesting that the other drivers were completely without fault, but your statement that both were unavoidable and were caused solely by the other driver not signalling is demonstrably untrue.
He was driving in the left lane, at about half the speed limit. The only way I could pass him was on the right. It is not against the law to pass on the right (at least in California). I had already been staying behind him for several minutes. My gut feeling was that he was going to change lanes. But the indication I got was that he was slowing down to wait for me to pass him first. I would not have passed him had he signaled his intention to change lanes. To continue to pace a car that seems to be wanting to change lanes is kind of rude IMHO.
He was driving in the left lane, at about half the speed limit. The only way I could pass him was on the right. It is not against the law to pass on the right (at least in California). I had already been staying behind him for several minutes. My gut feeling was that he was going to change lanes. But the indication I got was that he was slowing down to wait for me to pass him first. I would not have passed him had he signaled his intention to change lanes. To continue to pace a car that seems to be wanting to change lanes is kind of rude IMHO.
I'm not 100% certain that I wouldn't do the same thing you did. But I would like to think that I would have adhered to something I've found true over the years: if someone is doing something stupid in front of you, assume they have NO IDEA AT ALL you are behind them. I check to the rear a lot but I treat the other cars as if they don't have that kind of awareness.
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.
Wrong, I have been involved in two accidents with other drivers who made improper turns without signaling. In both cases, I was paying 100% attention to my surroundings, keeping proper distance, and was well aware of what was going on. I still could not prevent the collisions. 
