and he'd checked his mirrors, indicated, then braked he'd have gone to prison.
Just because you can't leave a sensible distance.
/fluffy really
(, Wed 11 Aug 2004, 11:34, archived)
that would have been fair enough. There was no such child.
I maintain I was a sensible distance behind him. I was there, you weren't.
/edit: fluffy
(, Wed 11 Aug 2004, 11:36, archived)
you would have stopped before you crashed into him
simple logic
(, Wed 11 Aug 2004, 11:37, archived)
It's always the driver's responsibility to ensure you can stop. Even if the car in front does an emergency stop for no reason.
The only way a rear collision can be 'not your fault' really is if you're shunted into another car (which has happened to me).
(, Wed 11 Aug 2004, 11:40, archived)
that if you go into the back of someone, then you are at fault for not leaving enough stopping space.
(, Wed 11 Aug 2004, 11:40, archived)
how the fuck do you know? Were you there?
Had I been any further behind him, I would have been under the wheels of the next car back.
I do not have to justify myself to you. This correspondence is closed.
/edit: apologies for unfluffiness.
(, Wed 11 Aug 2004, 11:40, archived)
maybe you should get your breaks checked if you were that far behind and still crashed into him, i'd say that your brakes might be faulty.
or you were eyeing up the big tittied lady on the pavement and wasn't paying attention to the road.
(, Wed 11 Aug 2004, 11:51, archived)
If I crash... I'll be dying happy... :D
(, Wed 11 Aug 2004, 11:53, archived)
All right, if I'd been paying more attention I probably could have avoided hitting him.
But I trust no one is saying it was okay for him to suddenly brake without any warning. As I recall, in fact, he wanted to turn left and hadn't bothered indicating, which is back where we started.
(, Wed 11 Aug 2004, 11:55, archived)