| anschutz_93 |
| Comming out of the school parking lot at lunch today i got up to 70km/h and came around the corner to find that there is a photoradar van right infront of me. so 50m infront of the van i slam on my brakes and slow down to 30. in order to get a ticket they have to get your plate on camera (i only have a plate on the back) but seeing that once i passed the van i was doing 30 i shouldnt set the radar off right? the big light and box thing was pointing towards me and i didnt see a box on the back. they dont have any method to get your plate if you are approaching the van do they? |
|
|
| Prudz_lude |
| nope you should be good if you didn't see a huge flash |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
| But you're lucky someone didn't rear-end you stopping that abruptly.... |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
But you're lucky someone didn't rear-end you stopping that abruptly....
Hi anschutz_93,
You might get a ticket, might not. Normally if you lock them up before you cross the van you are fine. If you get a ticket, it should show up in 2 weeks.
dtjohnst,
Why, It would not be his fault. The other person would be charged with following two closely.
Mike |
|
|
| Prudz_lude |
| hahahaha so true, you have to hate alberta for that one |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
I never said he would be legally at fault for it, and I tend to subscribe to the theory that if you can't stop in time you're doing something wrong. But he'd still have a smashed car. And I also subscribe to theory of driving defensively, with due care and with courtesy to other people on the road, and if you can avoid an accident, you have the responsibility to.
Personally, I wouldn't have rear-ended him because for the most part, I don't speed. So if I wanted to be a selfish ass like the majority of people on the roads, I could just not care. My point was to bring home the fact that if you don't speed, you can avoid these situations where you might potentially get rear ended and be without the use of your vehicle for a period of time.
Let's be honest, whether you're at fault or not in the eyes of the insurance companies, it's still a pain in the ass.
And Prudz, that's pretty much the way it works all across Canada. |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
I never said he would be legally at fault for it, and I tend to subscribe to the theory that if you can't stop in time you're doing something wrong. But he'd still have a smashed car. And I also subscribe to theory of driving defensively, with due care and with courtesy to other people on the road, and if you can avoid an accident, you have the responsibility to.
Personally, I wouldn't have rear-ended him because for the most part, I don't speed. So if I wanted to be a selfish ass like the majority of people on the roads, I could just not care. My point was to bring home the fact that if you don't speed, you can avoid these situations where you might potentially get rear ended and be without the use of your vehicle for a period of time.
Let's be honest, whether you're at fault or not in the eyes of the insurance companies, it's still a pain in the ass.
And Prudz, that's pretty much the way it works all across Canada.
Speeding has seldom has to do with rear ending somone. You can still rear end someone not speeding, doing the posted speed limit or below it. At the end of the day it comes down to paying attention to the driver in front and the road conditions, your reaction time, your tires, brakes, suspension and overall condition of your car. You can be rear ended in a parking lot doing 10 km/hr and your car can still go to the shop for repair.
If he had a smashed car, he would get a rental and the other persons insurance co would deal with it, not him. If he did not have insurance, then his insurance co would pay for it under the uninsured motorist policy. At the end of the day, if someone smashed him and it is not his fault regardless if he was speeding or not, he has nothing to worry about and gets a new paint job, or a nice settlement.
Mike |
|
|
| Prudz_lude |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
And Prudz, that's pretty much the way it works all across Canada.
In BC and Sask due to public insurance its not like that. It's not deemed fault when you rear end someone. Those provinces acknowledge the fact that rear end collisions are not always the fault of the last driver. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by GOT BOOST
Speeding has seldom has to do with rear ending somone. You can still rear end someone not speeding, doing the posted speed limit or below it. At the end of the day it comes down to paying attention to the driver in front and the road conditions, your reaction time, your tires, brakes, suspension and overall condition of your car. You can be rear ended in a parking lot doing 10 km/hr and your car can still go to the shop for repair.
If he had a smashed car, he would get a rental and the other persons insurance co would deal with it, not him. If he did not have insurance, then his insurance co would pay for it under the uninsured motorist policy. At the end of the day, if someone smashed him and it is not his fault regardless if he was speeding or not, he has nothing to worry about and gets a new paint job, or a nice settlement.
Mike
You're obviously missing my point. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Prudz_lude
In BC and Sask due to public insurance its not like that. It's not deemed fault when you rear end someone. Those provinces acknowledge the fact that rear end collisions are not always the fault of the last driver.
Actually, it is like that in Saskatchewan. I can't speak for BC since I never worked there, but I've worked in AB, SK, MB and ON. MB also has public insurance and it works the same way.
In AB it is possible to found not "at fault" when you rear-end someone, but it's rare. If you check the figures for SK and MB, and I'd assume BC, you'd find the same thing: it's rare. If you rear end someone, there's an extremely good chance that you're doing something wrong. |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
You're obviously missing my point.
No, I am being realistic that he has options if he gets smashed into whither he is speeding or not. Last time I sped, I did not rear end anyone. You can be rear ended anywhere. Collisions happen and that is why I pay insurance.
Mike |
|
|
| Prudz_lude |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Actually, it is like that in Saskatchewan. I can't speak for BC since I never worked there, but I've worked in AB, SK, MB and ON. MB also has public insurance and it works the same way.
In AB it is possible to found not "at fault" when you rear-end someone, but it's rare. If you check the figures for SK and MB, and I'd assume BC, you'd find the same thing: it's rare. If you rear end someone, there's an extremely good chance that you're doing something wrong.
well i must have been lucky. I got out of fault in edmonton. that was only due to having a camera handy. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by GOT BOOST
No, I am being realistic that he has options if he gets smashed into whither he is speeding or not. Last time I sped, I did not rear end anyone. You can be rear ended anywhere. Collisions happen and that is why I pay insurance.
Mike
You're still missing my point. I never claimed speeding caused people being rear-ended. That'd be the most assinine comment anyone could make. I'm saying if he's speeding to the point that he needs to slam on his breaks to drop 20km/hr, that rapid deceleration may cause an asshole who's tailgating him to smash into him.
Yes, you pay insurance. But being rear-ended can cause permanent damage to your body and, like I said, it's a hassle whether you're at fault or not. Loaner vehicle and everything aside, it's STILL a hassle.
If all that can be solved AND not having to worry about getting tickets by slowing down, perhaps it's a good idea. |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
You're still missing my point. I never claimed speeding caused people being rear-ended. That'd be the most assinine comment anyone could make. I'm saying if he's speeding to the point that he needs to slam on his breaks to drop 20km/hr, that rapid deceleration may cause an asshole who's tailgating him to smash into him.
Yes, you pay insurance. But being rear-ended can cause permanent damage to your body and, like I said, it's a hassle whether you're at fault or not. Loaner vehicle and everything aside, it's STILL a hassle.
If all that can be solved AND not having to worry about getting tickets by slowing down, perhaps it's a good idea.
I see what you are saying but I do not agree with it. Lets spin the situation. Lets say he is not speeding. He is traveling down a road where the limit is 70. He is doing 70. An idiot behind him is who was going faster before he caught up to him and is now tailgating. An animal or something jumps in front of the road, or lets be more realistic, a cop. This cop jumps out into the middle of traffic cause he nailed the tailgater. Now buddy in the front panics, slams on his breaks and the tailgater slams into him. Did his non speeding collision prevention methods save him from a wreck? No.
Most people that I have seen driving slam on their brakes when they see radar regardless if they are speeding or not. It is up to you, to make sure you leave enough distance between you and the vehicle in front of you and to be aware of your surroundings at all times.
Dealing with collisions is only as complex as you make them to be. Sure there may or may not be other factors that might come to light later in life such as back injuries, etc, but that is the risk of driving and leaving your house.
If people are that paranoid about becoming injured, they should live in a bubble and never leave their home. Even then, they can become injured at home. It is a fact of life, people will get hurt.
Why worry about something which you have absolutely no control over? If I am going to speed, I am not worried about some tool who is going to rear end me the moment I decelerate rapidly. I have accepted the fact that it is likely it will happen the moment I leave my driveway.
Now with all this said, at the end of the day, the person who smashed into him was following too close and should not have been there in the first place.
Mike |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by GOT BOOST
I see what you are saying but I do not agree with it. Lets spin the situation. Lets say he is not speeding. He is traveling down a road where the limit is 70. He is doing 70. An idiot behind him is who was going faster before he caught up to him and is now tailgating. An animal or something jumps in front of the road, or lets be more realistic, a cop. This cop jumps out into the middle of traffic cause he nailed the tailgater. Now buddy in the front panics, slams on his breaks and the tailgater slams into him. Did his non speeding collision prevention methods save him from a wreck? No.
How is this related to what I'm saying at all? Yes, you can be rear-ended for stopping short while not speeding, when have I denied that fact? But, if you can act in a way that reduces the chances of their being an accident, regardless of who's at fault, don't you think you have a responsibility to?
quote:
Most people that I have seen driving slam on their brakes when they see radar regardless if they are speeding or not. It is up to you, to make sure you leave enough distance between you and the vehicle in front of you and to be aware of your surroundings at all times.
No doubt. Am I absolving the person who rear ends of fault? Am I blaming the person who brakes? No, I'm not. I never have. But again, if you're driving in such a way that you may cause a situation that is conducive to causing some jackass to rear-end you, shouldn't you? Yes, not your fault. But will that matter if you end up paralyzed? And even if you don't and nothing happens, if something you did helped create an environment where a jackass did hit you, aren't you at least partially responsible from a moral standpoint if not a legal one? How you can argue against those points is beyond me. They seem like pretty straight-forward "facts" to me.
quote:
Dealing with collisions is only as complex as you make them to be. Sure there may or may not be other factors that might come to light later in life such as back injuries, etc, but that is the risk of driving and leaving your house.
So...even if you could do something to reduce those risks, it's not worth trying because the only way to avoid being hurt is to live in a glass bubble? If you can do something to mitigate and reduce risk, whether that risk would be your fault or not, shouldn't you?
quote:
If people are that paranoid about becoming injured, they should live in a bubble and never leave their home. Even then, they can become injured at home. It is a fact of life, people will get hurt.
Agreed! 100%. But heck, why get your car inspected? Why get insurance? Why change your brakes? Why not disable your airbag, never wear a seatbelt, and get liquored before you get behind the wheel? Oh right, you're trying to limit the chance you'll be hurt. I'm suggesting another way you can do that, and for some reason, everything else is valid in your eyes, but when I suggest not driving fast and then slamming on your breaks, that isn't valid? ok boss. Makes sense.
quote:
Why worry about something which you have absolutely no control over? If I am going to speed, I am not worried about some tool who is going to rear end me the moment I decelerate rapidly. I have accepted the fact that it is likely it will happen the moment I leave my driveway.
It's likely you'll be smashed into by a drunk driver too, why not jump out of a plane without a parachute and paralyze yourself before the drunk can do it? I'm suggesting a way to limit risk. If you don't want to, that's fine. Lots of people do thinks that knowingly increase risk of injury every day. Does that make my point, that perhaps not speeding and then slamming on your brakes is a good idea to reduce risk, any less valid?
quote:
Now with all this said, at the end of the day, the person who smashed into him was following too close and should not have been there in the first place.
Mike
No argument there. The guy was too close and should not have been there, especially since he would also have to be speeding to be there. But do you deny people do follow to close? And again, do you not agree with trying to limit risk? |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
How is this related to what I'm saying at all? Yes, you can be rear-ended for stopping short while not speeding, when have I denied that fact? But, if you can act in a way that reduces the chances of their being an accident, regardless of who's at fault, don't you think you have a responsibility to?
You are the one who said "your're lucky some one didn't rear end you stopping that abruptly. This is relevant. You can stop abruptly at any point in time. I am saying that him speeding and him potentially being rear ended is not relevant. Instead of slowing down for the cash cow, he could have slowed down for a kid crossing a road. End of day, the person behind him has the responsibility to react accordingly, regardless if the person infront of him was speeding or not. Last time I checked I can not control the drivers behind me.
quote:
No doubt. Am I absolving the person who rear ends of fault? Am I blaming the person who brakes? No, I'm not. I never have. But again, if you're driving in such a way that you may cause a situation that is conducive to causing some jackass to rear-end you, shouldn't you? Yes, not your fault. But will that matter if you end up paralyzed? And even if you don't and nothing happens, if something you did helped create an environment where a jackass did hit you, aren't you at least partially responsible from a moral standpoint if not a legal one? How you can argue against those points is beyond me. They seem like pretty straight-forward "facts" to me.
No, again, there is very little I can do to be prevented from being rear ended. I have been rear ended at stop lights, yield signs. So I do not buy into that theory. I would feel no moral responsibility if I was clocking 30 over the limit, locked up the brakes for the photobuggy or something else that needs to be stopped for, and some idiot tailgating me slammed into me cause he was not paying attention to me, nor the road. I can not control other drivers.
quote:
So...even if you could do something to reduce those risks, it's not worth trying because the only way to avoid being hurt is to live in a glass bubble? If you can do something to mitigate and reduce risk, whether that risk would be your fault or not, shouldn't you?
I am more risk tolerant than you. My hedge against risk is my insurance premiums I pay, our court systems, plus a well paid lawyer.
quote:
Agreed! 100%. But heck, why get your car inspected? Why get insurance? Why change your brakes? Why not disable your airbag, never wear a seatbelt, and get liquored before you get behind the wheel? Oh right, you're trying to limit the chance you'll be hurt. I'm suggesting another way you can do that, and for some reason, everything else is valid in your eyes, but when I suggest not driving fast and then slamming on your breaks, that isn't valid? ok boss. Makes sense.
This is surprising coming from you. You need to have certain vehicle equipment regs met for your vehicle to pass inspection and be road worthy. You should look it up.
quote:
It's likely you'll be smashed into by a drunk driver too, why not jump out of a plane without a parachute and paralyze yourself before the drunk can do it? I'm suggesting a way to limit risk. If you don't want to, that's fine. Lots of people do thinks that knowingly increase risk of injury every day. Does that make my point, that perhaps not speeding and then slamming on your brakes is a good idea to reduce risk, any less valid?
Those are all good options. Again, I am not going to slow down all for a farce of reducing risk by thinking I can control the driver behind me. There is no way I can prevent him from running into the back of my car. Regardless if I am speeding or not. If he is not paying attention and I need to stop suddenly, even if I am doing the speed limit, then he will more than likely run into me.
quote:
No argument there. The guy was too close and should not have been there, especially since he would also have to be speeding to be there. But do you deny people do follow to close? And again, do you not agree with trying to limit risk?
Tap the brake lights, dude does not back off, lock em up, or down shift to slow down. Eventually he will go away and another tool will fall behind me.
Mike |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by GOT BOOST
You are the one who said "your're lucky some one didn't rear end you stopping that abruptly. This is relevant. You can stop abruptly at any point in time. I am saying that him speeding and him potentially being rear ended is not relevant. Instead of slowing down for the cash cow, he could have slowed down for a kid crossing a road. End of day, the person behind him has the responsibility to react accordingly, regardless if the person infront of him was speeding or not. Last time I checked I can not control the drivers behind me.
Again, it's obvious you are completely oblivious to the point I am making. Yes, he could have slowed down for any number of reasons. He could have had a seizure on the road, or a heart attack. A tree could've fallen into his path. A suicide bomber could run across the steet in front of him. Jesus himself might give him orders to stop right now. And if some jackass is following too closely and smashed into him, there would be nothing he could have done.
HOWEVER!!! That is NOT the case! We could talk about all situations all day, but we aren't. We're talking about this ONE situation. A situation where accidents occur all the time due to the abrupt speed reduction. A situation which can be prevented and/or altogether avoided by simply not driving too fast.
What is your problem that you believe avoiding a situation which may cause an accident isn't worth your time simply if you're not at fault? There are situations I face every day where I could be involved in a collision and be 100% not at fault, yet I avoid them. And rightfully so. Anyone who disagrees with doing whatever you can to avoid a collision is a moron. Now I'm suggesting a way to avoid causing a situation which is a prime candidate for causing an accident, and you're saying "No, let the accident happen, it's not your fault, I refuse to obey the rules of the road."
By the way......whether or not photo radar is a cash car is not relevant to this discussion, so kindly leave those comments out of it or you'll start a whole new set of arguments.
quote:
No, again, there is very little I can do to be prevented from being rear ended. I have been rear ended at stop lights, yield signs. So I do not buy into that theory. I would feel no moral responsibility if I was clocking 30 over the limit, locked up the brakes for the photobuggy or something else that needs to be stopped for, and some idiot tailgating me slammed into me cause he was not paying attention to me, nor the road. I can not control other drivers.
At what point did I tell you to control other drivers? If you're obeying the law, lock up your tires for a valid reason, and someone smashed into you, you have done everything you can. If you're BREAKING THE LAW, lock up your tires because you're about to be caught BREAKING THE LAW, and someone smashes into you, I think you're both at fault. The law disagrees with me, but that's my opinion. If I steal a car, and then get carjacked while I'm joyriding around in said stolen car, I'd share the blame for that car being stolen because it wouldn't have been where it was when it was jacked. If you break the law and due to that violation of the law create a situation which would not have existed had you not been breaking the law, you share the blame for it morally. Period. So you can stop talking about controlling other drivers or other situations in which it's possible to get rear ended because they are not involved.
This reminds me of when we tried to debate "speed kills" when I was new here and you kept breaking up other factors that can cause accidents and fatalities. We aren't discussing other drivers, we aren't discussing other possible causes of being rear-ended. We're discussing the creation of a situation in which a driver who may be temporarily distracted for a fraction of a second has to face increased insurance, possible physical injury and possible injury to the person they hit because the person they hit has made a decision to violate the law and then try to avoid paying the price for being caught violating said law. So let's stick to the topic at hand, shall we? Otherwise I'll start discussing absolutely random, useless things as well in an effort to spin the discussion away from the point at hand.
quote:
I am more risk tolerant than you. My hedge against risk is my insurance premiums I pay, our court systems, plus a well paid lawyer.
Yes, I'm sure the lawyer will do wonders to keep you out of a wheelchair.
quote:
This is surprising coming from you. You need to have certain vehicle equipment regs met for your vehicle to pass inspection and be road worthy. You should look it up.
ROFL. I'm well aware of that, that was kind of my point. But it's also a requirement that you obey the rules of the road to drive, and yet you're saying it's ok to break that one. If it's ok to break one law, why are you so concerned about the ones I just brought up? You obey those not because they're the law, you obey those because you feel it's not worth the risk to break them. So you see........it proves my point quite nicely. You DO take steps to reduce risk. However, in this case, you don't think you should because it wouldn't be "your fault".
quote:
Those are all good options. Again, I am not going to slow down all for a farce of reducing risk by thinking I can control the driver behind me. There is no way I can prevent him from running into the back of my car. Regardless if I am speeding or not. If he is not paying attention and I need to stop suddenly, even if I am doing the speed limit, then he will more than likely run into me.
But if you're doing the speed limit, you won't need to bleed off 20 or 30km/hr in 2 feet, therefore not creating a situation where an inattentive or careless driver, whom you have no control over, will hit you. You can eliminate the entire situation. If I presented you with a magical device that would prevent you from having to stop for deer, or dogs, or children, and was able to provide you this magical device for free, would you say "What's the point? I can't control the drivers behind me." Of course not! You'd be all for eliminating a situation that might wreck your car or your life or someone elses. Well.....I have just such a free, magical device to prevent you having to slow down for photo radar vans: it's called not speeding.
quote:
Tap the brake lights, dude does not back off, lock em up, or down shift to slow down. Eventually he will go away and another tool will fall behind me.
Mike
Or he'll smash into you, give you whiplash, and put you in a wheelchair.
But then, I guess it'll all be good because "you sure showed him".
Locking up your brakes when someone is tailgating you is like those people who move half onto the shoulder to block cars from passing them when there's hour-long traffic tie-ups. You aren't the fucking police. It's not your job to stop people from breaking the law. It's your job to keep yourself and your passengers safe, and to also do everything in your power to keep those outside your vehicle safe too.
But it's interesting, you know? If a guy is tailgating you, you slow down so he leaves? Why? Why not let him tailgate and smash into you? Why are you trying to eliminate a situation where it's likely you'll get rear-ended? I thought you saw no need to eliminate them? |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
Interesting post, but it still does not change my mind.
Sure he was speeding. I would have done the same thing, lock up my brakes to bring me back to the speed limit, so I do not get nailed by the cash cow. I call it that cause that is my opinion of it. I do not care if you agree or not. If some tool happens to hit me because he was not paying attention, then so be it. That is why I will pay for a high priced lawyer, and put this through insurance. If I am in a wheelchair, then so be it. I can not change the outcome of someones lack of actions.
Bottom line is you have a problem with speeders. I do not.
We share opposing points of view.
Any of those situations you posted could happen while he was doing the speed limit, yielding the same result in a collision.
You are right. Avoiding a situation that I can not control is not worth my time if I am not at fault. I am not here to babysit people in the world for their poor choices. i believe if I slow down for radar whither or not I am speeding and there are cars behind me, I still run the possibility of being involved in a collision.
At the end of the day, if I get nailed for speeding so be it. If I save my ticket and there is another lawbreaker behind me, also speeding and following to closely, and he becomes a victim of circumstance then that is his problem, not mine. He hits me, he deals with his insurance co, and mine.
Speed is a factor in a crash but I do not believe it kills as the sole factor. It is the impact with an object that can potentially do it. I have been involved in a collision where I nailed a concrete barrier at 110km/hr head on. Did it kill me? Well you're a bright boy, you can figure that out.
The nice things about these laws are that they are designed to protect the guilty.
You're right. I am not the police and neither are you.
When I lock up the the brakes or slow down to let him go past, I could care less if "Ohh... I showed you" I seldom travel with passengers, so it is my life on the line. When I travel with passengers, I have a responsibility for them.
Bottom line is that I do not want a moron behind me when I need to slow down quickly for some reason. I will let that moron go by, so he can run into someone else.
I am debating the fact that there is nothing I can do to prevent the moron behind me from runing intro the back of me. In this situation, I would be speeding, so would he. He hit me, he is on the line.
Mike |
|
|
| midnite |
a few times i have looked to the side to see if a van was photo, and slammed on the brakes, and have never had a ticket from those instances because i was able to slow down enough before i hit the radar beam.
if you didn't see the flash, you should be ok. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by GOT BOOST
Interesting post, but it still does not change my mind.
Sure he was speeding. I would have done the same thing, lock up my brakes to bring me back to the speed limit, so I do not get nailed by the cash cow. I call it that cause that is my opinion of it. I do not care if you agree or not. If some tool happens to hit me because he was not paying attention, then so be it. That is why I will pay for a high priced lawyer, and put this through insurance. If I am in a wheelchair, then so be it. I can not change the outcome of someones lack of actions.
Again with the other possibilities and other ways you can be rear-ended. They bear no relevence on this discussion. We're talking about 1 situation that can be avoided, not a billion other situations that might be similar. If you don't mind risking being in a wheelchair because of something YOU could have prevented, even if the cheif cause is someone's inattentiveness, then I guess that's your decision. Seems pretty retarded to me.
quote:
Bottom line is you have a problem with speeders. I do not.
We share opposing points of view.
Not at all. I don't care if people speed. I'm not the police. Like you said, I can't control other people's actions. I can, however, control my own and take steps to avoid being in situations where someone's inattentiveness or lack of caring for the law, their safety or the safety of others can risk damaging my vehicle or injuring me, whether I would be found at fault or not.
"Caring" implies getting upset. For example, when you're wife does something stupid and dangerous, you get mad at her because you care. I don't get upset with speeders any more than I'm upset with people who look like punks or emos. I really could care less. But when I read about an accident and they mention the fact that the dead guy was travelling 40km/hr over the speed limit, it's no longer tragic, it's one less retard driving on the roads to possibly injure me or someone else who's obeying law. Same with when they report they were drunk, or not wearing a seatbelt, or any of those other ILLEGAL activities.
quote:
Any of those situations you posted could happen while he was doing the speed limit, yielding the same result in a collision.
You keep bringing this up and I wonder if I need to get crayola crayons and write it in big, 30' tall colourful letters for you: you are 100% correct. Again, show me where I deny this fact? But.....can the situation of him having to abruptly slow down BECAUSE he's breaking the law and about to be caught happen while he's doing the limit? Nope. It can't. If you aren't speeding, and don't have to slow down abruptly and you eliminate an ENTIRE situation where there could be a collision. THAT is my point. My point has never been that if you NEVER speed you will NEVER be in an accident or you will NEVER be rear ended. Which seems to be your argument: "I could be rear ended in different situations" implies that I'm claiming that's not the case, when I fact I have always fully acknowledged slowing down will NOT make you invulnerable to the actions of retards.
quote:
You are right. Avoiding a situation that I can not control is not worth my time if I am not at fault. I am not here to babysit people in the world for their poor choices. i believe if I slow down for radar whither or not I am speeding and there are cars behind me, I still run the possibility of being involved in a collision.
That's the point: you can control it. Let's try a different analogy seems you don't seem to understand the concept I'm explaining. There was a DC-9 that crashed a decade or so ago when it's hydraulic lines were severed. The DC-9 had 3 independant, redundant hydraulic systems. No one had ever considered the possibility that all 3 could be damaged at once. Yet it happened. 130+ people died. Was the response from the manufacturer and the airlines "well, we can't control these situations, so we won't take steps to prevent it"? No. It wasn't. They added yet another redundant system. And in the 30 or so years that the DC-9 has been flying, have more than this one crashed? Yes, they have. Has this unique, uncontrollable situation ever repeated itself? No. And yet, if it did, the situation of having an uncontrollable hunk of metal with 200+ people in it turning into a crater would be avoided.
You see how that works? You may not be able to control factors which CAUSE you to be hurt, or die, or just plain get in an accident. You also cannot ever guarantee you'll never be hurt, die or in an accident no matter what you do. But you CAN avoid CREATING a situation where that is more likely to occur. Yes, there are a million other ways to get rear-ended, but by simply giving your lead foot a break and obeying the law, you can eliminate an ENTIRE situation in which being rear-ended could occur. Not all of them for sure. Not even most of them. But an entire situation none the less.
quote:
At the end of the day, if I get nailed for speeding so be it. If I save my ticket and there is another lawbreaker behind me, also speeding and following to closely, and he becomes a victim of circumstance then that is his problem, not mine. He hits me, he deals with his insurance co, and mine.
That's pretty selfish. I'm an admitted misanthropist, and yet even I do everything I can to avoid ANYONE having to pay to get a car fix or getting injured. Especially since your speeding saves you what.....3 minutes maybe on your drive home?
quote:
Speed is a factor in a crash but I do not believe it kills as the sole factor. It is the impact with an object that can potentially do it. I have been involved in a collision where I nailed a concrete barrier at 110km/hr head on. Did it kill me? Well you're a bright boy, you can figure that out.
If you want to restart this debate, do it in a different thread.
quote:
The nice things about these laws are that they are designed to protect the guilty.
How does speeding protect the guilty? What about murder? Rape? Running stop signs and red lights? Drinking and driving? How are they protecting the guilty?
quote:
You're right. I am not the police and neither are you.
Exactly.
quote:
When I lock up the the brakes or slow down to let him go past, I could care less if "Ohh... I showed you" I seldom travel with passengers, so it is my life on the line. When I travel with passengers, I have a responsibility for them.
Bottom line is that I do not want a moron behind me when I need to slow down quickly for some reason. I will let that moron go by, so he can run into someone else.
Ahh, now, lifting off the throttle and coasting so he can pass is one thing, I also do that. But that wasn't what you suggested initially. Your initial suggestion was to slam on your breaks. If you don't want a moron behind you when you need to slow down quickly, why slow down quickly on purpose when you don't need to if not to teach him a lesson?
quote:
I am debating the fact that there is nothing I can do to prevent the moron behind me from runing intro the back of me. In this situation, I would be speeding, so would he. He hit me, he is on the line.
Except that......there is. If you're not speeding, and therefore aren't forced to slow down abruptly, he would have to rear-end a car travelling at a constant velocity, which is much different and if he manages that he shouldn't be driving. Now if a child runs out in front of you, since I'm sure you'll bring it up, then yes, there would be nothing you can do. You HAVE to stop for a child. You do NOT have to stop for a photo radar van, and have no reason to if you're not speeding.
It's a very simple, basic concept that either you can't understand or refuse to accept. I don't care either way. I won't be rear-ended for slowing down for a radar van. I might be rear-ended in other situations, but that won't be one of them, because I won't need to do it. |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
So what was the point of that gigantic post? You made the initial comment and I replied.
This is how I sum it up. You are upset cause buddy was speeding. He locked up the brakes to drop 20 km/hr so he does not get a ticket. So you jump in saying he was lucky no one rear-ended him that abruptly.
I throw in my comments of who cares. People can be rear ended whither or not they are speeding by stopping abruptly for other reasons. You get upset. Stopping abruptly is not a cut and dry, nor illegal. Situations are not always black and white as you like to make things be. What I was doing was introducing other variables, which can be present.
As for the speed kills campaign, if memory serves me correctly, and I check the posts, you brought it up first in this thread. So why not follow your own advice and not bring it up.
Laws protect the guilty if this case. Dude was speeding, he locks it to not get a ticket, and another person following to close rear-ends him. The person who rear-ended him will more than likely get the ticket for following to close. He or his insurance has to pay, to fix the cars. Mean while the dude speeding walks off with a new paintjob, new body panels, maybe a new car, and some cash for his troubles. Seems like a good deal to me. Save the crayon for your self.
Stop signs, relights, murder and rape all need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did them. All the person needs to do is deny it, and then it is up to the police to try to gather evidence. If there is not enough evidence to convict the person, well, then we all know what happens.
Sure, I am selfish. I would rather have someone hit me, pay for my damages then me swerve to avoid a collision and hit a curb or pole. I like my money where it is…. In my pocket. If I can get someone else to pay for his or her mistakes, I will. Money is money. As I mentioned, that is their problem for hitting me, not mine.
Interesting analogy on the DC9. I suppose that would be relevant if the person custom built his or her car and rear-ended someone. If the co. did not look at the safety of the aircraft shortly after a crash, they would soon be out of business. Last time I checked I am not an auto manufacturer.
Mike |
|
|
|
