Totally reliant on a 21 year old 110 with 234k on the clock!!

On or around Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:54:50 +0100, "Nige"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Come on ffs, you braked late, he may have had a slight lapse of concentration & rammed you from behind
>but it's hardly a laughing matter is it? If you had laughed at me for that you would be in hospital.

If you ran into the back of mine, and I ended up in hospital, you'd get sued
for GBH. It's your job to avoid running into things.

>Jesus, accidents happen & you just make fun of them? Driving the kind of miles I do for a living you see
>some horrific sights, I don't remember actually laughing at a bloke with no head at the side of the road,
>or a car full of five youngsters that got burned to death.

hardly the same class of incident, though.
>
>You make it sound like *anyone* who gets in *your* way is at fault. The most likely reason for the bloke
>in the WRX (I have one too) to have 3rd party is thieves & other irresponsible drivers that dont see stop
>signs too well.

Maybe so, but that still doesn't excuse him for following so close that he
can't out-brake pretty much any landrover. I daresay the WRX has ABS, and
probably pretty powerful anchors, and undoubtedly grippier tyres.

OK, EMB was being a little bit naughty in anchoring it hard. But what
happens when some kid runs out in the road in front of him, and he genuinely
stands on the anchors for an emergency stop, in order to avoid killing
someone's kid? Is he still at fault when the dickwad behind who was
tailgating him can't stop in time?

If you run into the back of something which is visible, in front of you on
the road and either going your way or at rest, then you're at fault. period.
Even if it's parked around a blind corner - you should have slowed down
enough to be able to stop - you don't *know* there's nothing in the road to
stop for.

Doesn't always guarantee no accidents, of course, but think how many
collisions are avoidable just by being able to stop before hitting
something.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
In Touch: Get in touch with yourself by touching yourself.
If somebody is watching, stop touching yourself.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

>OK, EMB was being a little bit naughty in anchoring it hard.

No he wasn't. He was ****ed off at being tailgated so, by his own
account, deliberately caused an accident which could have killed
someone. If the car was trashed back to the front wheels it is likely
that someone WAS injured - spinal injuries like whiplash often don't
show up for 24 hours. EMB had no way of knowing whether there was a
child in the car, properly belted or otherwise. The WRX could have
swerved and hit an oncoming car head on. The permutations are as
endless as they were unnecessary. So he risked at least one life
basically due to road rage.

As for "the guy behind is always at fault", that's convenient bollocks
for insurance companies. I've had people pull away at roundabouts and
then inexplicably do an emergency stop (never hit one yet, but been
close more than once). Almost daily some tit pulls in / out in front
of me in heavy traffic (usually having overtaking on the inside) then
anchors up before I've had chance to reestablish a safe distance.

EMB behaved like an arsehole, and I hope the WRX driver turns out to
be a lawyer or relative of same.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:18:31 +1200, EMB <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry wrote:
>> Yeah but frequently you have no choice but to scrub away with the wheels
>> when some moron has parked right up your backside.
>>
>>
>
>FFS, it's a Landrover - just ease out of the parking space with minimal
>hauling at the steering wheel and a few slight scraping noises from the
>vehicle that's parked you in.
>
>Speaking of which I collected another idiot (in a WRX) on the rear
>crossmember of the yellow beastie about 15 minutes ago whilst returning
>from a beer buying expedition. He was very indignant that I'd actually
>stopped (and very quickly) for a stop sign. Still, I'm laughing about
>it and I'll be getting a commission from the towing company (owned by a
>mate) who removed his steaming pile of crap from the road with nothing
>forward of the front wheels.

That'll teach him to drive like a ****er. These modern pieces of crap
don't half fold up nicely when they hit something substantial.

Alex

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:36:18 +1200, EMB <[email protected]> wrote:

>Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>> hehe... besides, if he was half-awake, his thing should have easily been
>> able to out-stop yours. so he obviously wasn't...
>
>I've been playing with Series brakes for a fairly long time now and I
>can get them to work extremely well. With a booster, 11" drums and a

Have you got 11" on a SWB originally fitted with 10"? If so, did you
change the master cylinder?

Alex

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:33:57 +0100, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote:

>>OK, EMB was being a little bit naughty in anchoring it hard.
>
>No he wasn't. He was ****ed off at being tailgated so, by his own
>account, deliberately caused an accident which could have killed
>someone. If the car was trashed back to the front wheels it is likely
>that someone WAS injured - spinal injuries like whiplash often don't
>show up for 24 hours. EMB had no way of knowing whether there was a
>child in the car, properly belted or otherwise.

Child should be belted at all times, not "otherwise" There's no excuse
for taking risks with your kids life by letting them not wear a
seatbelt.

Alex

>>Come on ffs, you braked late, he may have had a slight lapse of concentration & rammed you from behind
>>but it's hardly a laughing matter is it? If you had laughed at me for that you would be in hospital.

>If you ran into the back of mine, and I ended up in hospital, you'd get sued
>for GBH. It's your job to avoid running into things.

>
>Maybe so, but that still doesn't excuse him for following so close that he
>can't out-brake pretty much any landrover. I daresay the WRX has ABS, and
>probably pretty powerful anchors, and undoubtedly grippier tyres.
>
>OK, EMB was being a little bit naughty in anchoring it hard. But what
>happens when some kid runs out in the road in front of him, and he genuinely
>stands on the anchors for an emergency stop, in order to avoid killing
>someone's kid? Is he still at fault when the dickwad behind who was
>tailgating him can't stop in time?
>

The defense of "I ran the kid over because i didn't want to brake too
hard and have the bloke behind ram me" will earn you a nice stay in
prison. A "slight lapse of concentration" is not an excuse either -
that sort of thing causes large motorway pileups.

There is very little excuse for hitting somebody up the rear, even if
they did brake exceedingly sharply. As the following vehicle you
should allow sufficient space to safely stop should an emergency
occour. If you don't, then you're not driving properly

Alex

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:39:52 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On or around Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:41:02 GMT, Alex <[email protected]>
>enlightened us thusly:
>
>>>Assuming tyre pressure is somewhere near right and tyre size is as designed.
>>>
>>
>>That should be part of the driving test too - how to check tyre
>>pressures. I do a daily walkround check every morning i take a vehicle
>>out of the yard, and it's part of the bus/lorry test - why not the car
>>test?
>
>should be. That and checking the oil, water, brake fluid and screenwash at
>suitable intervals.
>
>Mind, educating people about things like oil changes would be good - I put a
>perkins prima (of unknown provenance, admnittedly) into a minibus which I
>sold to a friend (never sell motors to friends...) and it's recently been
>here blowing oil out of the breather, and with reports of the oil light
>coming on at idle.
>
>"When did you last get the oil changed" quoth I... you can guess the
>answer...

Mm. I've seen engine failures which can be contributed to infrequent
oil changes, both petrol and deisel. Oil-burners are especially prone
to packing up if the oil isn't changed regularly.

Fortunatly with a Series the need to change the oil is somewhat
redundant, most of them operate on a total loss system anyway,
requiring the constant addition of new oil.

Alex

"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> That'll teach him to drive like a ****er. These modern pieces of crap
> don't half fold up nicely when they hit something substantial.
>
> Alex

It's as well they do with trigger happy idiots in front.

Stunned, absolutely stunned.

Lee D

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:21:15 GMT, Alex <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:33:57 +0100, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>OK, EMB was being a little bit naughty in anchoring it hard.
>>
>>No he wasn't. He was ****ed off at being tailgated so, by his own
>>account, deliberately caused an accident which could have killed
>>someone. If the car was trashed back to the front wheels it is likely
>>that someone WAS injured - spinal injuries like whiplash often don't
>>show up for 24 hours. EMB had no way of knowing whether there was a
>>child in the car, properly belted or otherwise.
>
>Child should be belted at all times, not "otherwise" There's no excuse
>for taking risks with your kids life by letting them not wear a
>seatbelt.
>
>Alex

Nor for risking snapping their spines (belted or not) by deliberately
causing accidents.
--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70

>That'll teach him to drive like a ****er. These modern pieces of crap
>don't half fold up nicely when they hit something substantial.
>
>Alex

I've learnt a lot about human nature from this thread. More than
anything I've learnt that complete ****ers drive Land Rovers too.

I wonder if any of the tossers who have so far cheered on our hero, or
the hero himself, have any family (or indeed friends), and whether
they have considered what it would be like to lose them in a
completely unnecessary accident.

Still, if the bloke behind had died they could at least have consoled
themselves with the fact that he deserved it because he "wasn't
driving properly".

Would our hero have been so quick to teach the driver behind a lesson
if he'd been driving a 15 tonner? Thought not...






--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70

On or around Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:33:57 +0100, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>>OK, EMB was being a little bit naughty in anchoring it hard.
>
>EMB had no way of knowing whether there was a
>child in the car, properly belted or otherwise. The WRX could have
>swerved and hit an oncoming car head on. The permutations are as
>endless as they were unnecessary. So he risked at least one life
>basically due to road rage.

So what happens next time, when he's genuinely got to do an emergency stop?
Chances are, he didn't brake in full emergency mode anyway. Or what happens
if some tit pulls out in front of him and as a result he stops faster than
it's possible to by ordinary braking, due to hitting it? In that case,
WRX-man will be even worse damaged, and in that case as in this it would be
HIS FAULT. I see no reasonable excuse for ramming something that you're
following [not one that cuts in on you, see below] under any circumstances,
short of it reversing into you, which wasn't the case here. In fact, in
this case, it was reportedly a stop sign, and as such WRX-man should have
*expected* the vehicle in front to stop, so there's even less excuse for
tail-ending it.

>As for "the guy behind is always at fault", that's convenient bollocks
>for insurance companies. I've had people pull away at roundabouts and
>then inexplicably do an emergency stop (never hit one yet, but been
>close more than once).

It's not bollocks, in the case involving 2 vehicles only. The only time
it's bollocks is if you're the middle car in a 3-car sandwich, and you
stopped without collision but were rammed from behind into the one in front
of you - in that case, the middle guy, assuming he stopped safely, is not at
fault but the one behind him is. That, of course, doesn't stop the
insurance companies trying to weasel out of paying.

Close is OK. If you stop with an inch of space left, that's not a collision
and you were obviously on the ball; although on the open road, you might say
that 1" of leeway is cutting it a bit fine.

>Almost daily some tit pulls in / out in front
>of me in heavy traffic (usually having overtaking on the inside) then
>anchors up before I've had chance to reestablish a safe distance.

yeah, I grant you that last one. It's the equivalent of either someone
pulling out where they shouldn't or oncoming where they shouldn't, and can
cause an unavoidable collision, which is not your fault. But that doesn't
apply in this case either.

But I repeat: if the vehicle in front is stationary, or moving in your
direction, no excuse for hitting it.

Consider, in the case in question: EMB-bloke has, from the sounds of it, a
heavy vehicle with drum brakes, and OK, he's sorted 'em, but they're not
exactly the equivalent in stopping power to the sort of discs they fit to
the WRX, which is also probably lighter and almost certainly on better
tyres. For the bloke to smash the car that impressively, he had to be
either much too fast, much too close, or much too asleep. If he drives like
that as a habit, he's endangering all sorts of people all the time.

>EMB behaved like an arsehole, and I hope the WRX driver turns out to
>be a lawyer or relative of same.

sorry, but crap. WRX-man is an arsehole in this case, and if he drives like
that as a habit then he's better off not on the road, for everyone's sake.


As for the bit about having an unrestrained child in the car, if he had,
it's even more culpable to drive in such a manner as to run into stuff. It's
also probably against the law, though I don't know, being ennzed, maybe not.
In this country, it certainly would be against the law.

And before you start, yes, I've had collisions, and yes, sometimes it was
partly or solely my fault, but I've never yet tail-ended something that
impressively - such collisions as I've had which caused that sort of damage
have been head-ons.

I did once ride into the back of a transit van on the motorbike, which
stopped unaccountably at an unoccupied roundabout. And yes, that was my
fault, I should have been more observant, instead of looking off around the
roundabout, I should have looked a bit more in front of me. However, at the
speed I was going, no damage was done, except to my pride.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There is plenty of time to win this game, and to thrash the Spaniards
too" Sir Francis Drake (1540? - 1596) Attr. saying when the Armarda was
sighted, 20th July 1588

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:59:24 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On or around Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:33:57 +0100, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]>
>enlightened us thusly:
>
>>EMB had no way of knowing whether there was a
>>child in the car, properly belted or otherwise. The WRX could have
>>swerved and hit an oncoming car head on. The permutations are as
>>endless as they were unnecessary. So he risked at least one life
>>basically due to road rage.
>
>So what happens next time, when he's genuinely got to do an emergency stop?

He does one, and nobody can blame him for what happens next. But to
do one needlessly just to cause a crash and teach the guy a lesson is
utterly indefensible.

>Chances are, he didn't brake in full emergency mode anyway. Or what happens
>if some tit pulls out in front of him and as a result he stops faster than
>it's possible to by ordinary braking, due to hitting it? In that case,
>WRX-man will be even worse damaged, and in that case as in this it would be
>HIS FAULT.

But none of that actually happened, did it? We are in the realms of
fantasy to justify the reality. By his own admission, EMB braked hard
simply to cause the collision. He's also going to profit from it
financially!

>
>>EMB behaved like an arsehole, and I hope the WRX driver turns out to
>>be a lawyer or relative of same.
>
>sorry, but crap. WRX-man is an arsehole in this case, and if he drives like
>that as a habit then he's better off not on the road, for everyone's sake.
>

So it is reasonable, honourable and commendable to cause an accident,
a potentially fatal one, to teach the man a lesson?

I'm not saying WRX man was blameless - far from it. But he didn't
cause this accident - he drove badly so EMB deliberately precipitated
the collision to prove a point when he could equally have braked more
gently than usual to avoid one.
--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70

FFS you lot, it's like uk.transport in 'ere, behave or I'll send
Martyn round with his sandals to slap some legs...
--
Wayne Davies - Mobile 07989 556213 - Harrogate, N.Yorks, UK

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FFS you lot, it's like uk.transport in 'ere, behave or I'll send
> Martyn round with his sandals to slap some legs...
> --
> Wayne Davies - Mobile 07989 556213 - Harrogate, N.Yorks, UK

Look you pink preferenced tart are you pro or anti rear end shuntting?


Lee D

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:14:04 +0100, "Lee_D"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Look you pink preferenced tart are you pro or anti rear end shuntting?

I've read that sentence everal times now, each with a slightly
different interpretation - and my only conclusion is...

.... to have a little lay down in a darkened room

(actually, darkened narrowboat)...

so Tim Hobbs was, like...
>> That'll teach him to drive like a ****er. These modern pieces of crap
>> don't half fold up nicely when they hit something substantial.
>>
>> Alex
>
> I've learnt a lot about human nature from this thread. More than
> anything I've learnt that complete ****ers drive Land Rovers too.
>
> I wonder if any of the tossers who have so far cheered on our hero, or
> the hero himself, have any family (or indeed friends), and whether
> they have considered what it would be like to lose them in a
> completely unnecessary accident.
>
> Still, if the bloke behind had died they could at least have consoled
> themselves with the fact that he deserved it because he "wasn't
> driving properly".

When I was too young to drive, I was a passenger in a car with my friend's
Dad driving. Leeds City centre, and two lads in a Mini driving a bit too
close behind. The driver said something like "I'll teach those kids a
lesson" and slammed on the brakes. The Mini went across three lanes of
traffic, across a pavement and ended up in a shop front. Friend's Dad
scarpered a bit quick when he saw what he's done. It made an impression on
me. The penalty for bad driving in this country is a fine or a ban,
occasionally prison. It isn't the death penalty, whether imposed by the
state or another motorist.

At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, it is not our job to teach others
good driving, except by our own good example. I've been sorely tempted at
times, especially in a battered 90 where the odd dent and scrape was neither
here nor there, but I've always managed to keep my temper, move over, and
let them have their accident somewhere else. I really don't want to be
responsible for someone else's death or injury, even if their bad driving
was largely to blame.

--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:14:04 +0100, "Lee_D"
<[email protected]> made me spill my meths when he
wrote:

>Look you pink preferenced tart are you pro or anti rear end shuntting?

If you can't pot the pink, pot the brown.


--
Wayne Davies - Mobile 07989 556213 - Harrogate, N.Yorks, UK

so Alex was, like...
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:33:57 +0100, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> OK, EMB was being a little bit naughty in anchoring it hard.

>> EMB had no way of knowing whether
>> there was a child in the car, properly belted or otherwise.
>
> Child should be belted at all times, not "otherwise" There's no excuse
> for taking risks with your kids life by letting them not wear a
> seatbelt.

Say the guy is a bad parent and hasn't belted the child in. Is that the
child's fault? Do you risk injuring an innocent life to prove your point
that the guy was too close?

Say the child was killed. The WRX driver would feel bad, but would you feel
any better?


--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)

>
>At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, it is not our job to teach others
>good driving, except by our own good example. I've been sorely tempted at
>times, especially in a battered 90 where the odd dent and scrape was neither
>here nor there, but I've always managed to keep my temper, move over, and
>let them have their accident somewhere else. I really don't want to be
>responsible for someone else's death or injury, even if their bad driving
>was largely to blame.
>

Bloody well said that man
--
John Lubran

so Tim Hobbs was, like...

>> So what happens next time, when he's genuinely got to do an
>> emergency stop?
>
> He does one, and nobody can blame him for what happens next. But to
> do one needlessly just to cause a crash and teach the guy a lesson is
> utterly indefensible.

Agreed.

> he drove badly so EMB deliberately precipitated
> the collision to prove a point when he could equally have braked more
> gently than usual to avoid one.

However badly the guy behind was driving, the guy in front actually caused
the crash to happen. It may feel good to teach the guy a lesson and tell
your friends what a dick he was, but would you still feel that way if
someone (say a passenger or oncoming motorist) died? After the funeral was
out of the way, and everything had settled down, it would be tough not to
question your own involvement and ask "did I really have to do that?"

The guy may have been "an accident waiting to happen", but did you need to
involve yourself in it?

Drivers who have to prove a point, like the little man in the fast lane who
sticks to 69.9 mph with a ten-mile queue behind, generally make my ****
boil.

--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)