Rospa jumping on another band wagon
Discussion
So no sooner are the flames out on the M5 at Taunton than Rospa are using it as irrefutable evidence that the motorway speed limit should not be raised to 80 mph. They have only blind prejudice that speed was in any way a cause but not wishing to let facts get in the way they spring in to action.
I use to be a member and achieved a gold but turned my back on them when they reacted similarly over another matter, why do they have to be so stupid.
I use to be a member and achieved a gold but turned my back on them when they reacted similarly over another matter, why do they have to be so stupid.
t ...... the IAM, RAC, AA & brake are no better !There is a thread on the crash that I posed on stating just this.
Campaign for better driving training, including motorway training, enforcement of tailgating regulation etc. Don't claim that a crash in which by all accounts no one was speeding justifies stopping a sensible change to the speed limit.
Campaign for better driving training, including motorway training, enforcement of tailgating regulation etc. Don't claim that a crash in which by all accounts no one was speeding justifies stopping a sensible change to the speed limit.
I've taken several RoSPA tests and maintain my membership. I'm deeply saddened by that spokeswoman appearing on the news.
1. They didn't know the cause of the accident.
2. It's now been on the news that the police are investigating smoke that may have come from the bonfire in the adjoining field naming a local rugby club obscuring visibility.
3. There are enough speed pressure groups. How many groups are there pushing driving standards?
She was called Bullock? Wasn't a former Chief Examiner of the IAM called Bullock too? Surely just a coincidence.
The RoSPA Care on the Road newspaper has printed two letters from the same writer recently shouting down those that dare doubt the speed kills anthem.
You think that writer would realise it's about driving standards and find a 'speed only' interest group if that's how they felt.
I am only a member for the free retests. I am now doubting whether I even want to maintain that level of involvement with RoSPA.
Will I be just as likely now to mantion the RoSPA advanced test to people, something that may or may not cause them to look into taking the test.
How many lives could the IAM and RoSPA saved or improved if they just stuck to the issue of driving standards?
I've just been driving along the M5 and A38, from the West side of Exeter I had an 11 plate people carrier happy to get within 2-4 car lengths at my rear bumper at 70ish. So the driver could see over and through my car that there was another in front of me in the same lane that I was maintaining what I felt was a safe distance but they were happy to hustle me along. Seems what happened on Friday hadn't impacted much on their driving or judgement about what may be safe distances at 70ish.
At least the RoSPA Head Honcho said in their newsapaper that the economy has probably paid a part in the latest low fatality figures, something the BBC news failed to mention when they were going on about it.
I guess I could do the sums and consider not renewing my RoSPA membership and just paying to take the test from scrtach again like a new joiner and do that every 5 years?
1. They didn't know the cause of the accident.
2. It's now been on the news that the police are investigating smoke that may have come from the bonfire in the adjoining field naming a local rugby club obscuring visibility.
3. There are enough speed pressure groups. How many groups are there pushing driving standards?
She was called Bullock? Wasn't a former Chief Examiner of the IAM called Bullock too? Surely just a coincidence.
The RoSPA Care on the Road newspaper has printed two letters from the same writer recently shouting down those that dare doubt the speed kills anthem.
You think that writer would realise it's about driving standards and find a 'speed only' interest group if that's how they felt.
I am only a member for the free retests. I am now doubting whether I even want to maintain that level of involvement with RoSPA.
Will I be just as likely now to mantion the RoSPA advanced test to people, something that may or may not cause them to look into taking the test.
How many lives could the IAM and RoSPA saved or improved if they just stuck to the issue of driving standards?
I've just been driving along the M5 and A38, from the West side of Exeter I had an 11 plate people carrier happy to get within 2-4 car lengths at my rear bumper at 70ish. So the driver could see over and through my car that there was another in front of me in the same lane that I was maintaining what I felt was a safe distance but they were happy to hustle me along. Seems what happened on Friday hadn't impacted much on their driving or judgement about what may be safe distances at 70ish.
At least the RoSPA Head Honcho said in their newsapaper that the economy has probably paid a part in the latest low fatality figures, something the BBC news failed to mention when they were going on about it.
I guess I could do the sums and consider not renewing my RoSPA membership and just paying to take the test from scrtach again like a new joiner and do that every 5 years?
Edited by carinaman on Sunday 6th November 16:37
Edited by carinaman on Sunday 6th November 16:38
Jo Bullock Senior Press Officer for RoSPA, the one the journalists go to for an 'expert' comment on whatever tragedy has struck. I really like this one:
Even getting dressed is a risk, as Jo Bullock, from Rospa, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, explained.
“There used to be a UK database of accidents,” she said.
“It stopped in 2002, but in that year, more than 9,400 people ended up in A&E because they had an accident that involved in some way a pair of trousers.”
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/features/908...
Even getting dressed is a risk, as Jo Bullock, from Rospa, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, explained.
“There used to be a UK database of accidents,” she said.
“It stopped in 2002, but in that year, more than 9,400 people ended up in A&E because they had an accident that involved in some way a pair of trousers.”
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/features/908...
Seems to me a part of the problem is that it's "socially ok" to talk about speed as a factor, whereas (outside places like Pistonheads) it's virtually taboo to mention the real causes of this sort of thing. Too close and too fast for the conditions And, yes, "the conditions" do include a sudden smoke bank from a bonfire.
The fact no-one was breaking the speed limit doesn't mean they weren't driving too fast - and too close - in the circumstances. There really isn't any other explanation for that many cars being unable to stop when an accident happens ahead of them. Given that an awful lot of people seem incapable of judging what a sensible, safe, speed is in any given situation the only avenue open is to impose limits that apply to all.
The fact no-one was breaking the speed limit doesn't mean they weren't driving too fast - and too close - in the circumstances. There really isn't any other explanation for that many cars being unable to stop when an accident happens ahead of them. Given that an awful lot of people seem incapable of judging what a sensible, safe, speed is in any given situation the only avenue open is to impose limits that apply to all.
Do a 'Speed Awarreness' course and they may end it by plugging the IAM and RoSPA advanced driving tests saying 'Those that take further training are less likely to have accidents'.
So you'd kind of think that the authorities have some idea that it may be about driving standards?
Blaming drivers for not being being able to help themselves when that research by Dr Jeremy Broughton that featured in the Summer 2005 issue of Advanced Driving was ignored by the DoT that spent our money commissioning it seems a bit blinkered from where I am sat.
So you'd kind of think that the authorities have some idea that it may be about driving standards?
Blaming drivers for not being being able to help themselves when that research by Dr Jeremy Broughton that featured in the Summer 2005 issue of Advanced Driving was ignored by the DoT that spent our money commissioning it seems a bit blinkered from where I am sat.
Edited by carinaman on Sunday 6th November 22:10
carinaman said:
Do a 'Speed Awarreness' course and they may it by plugging the IAM and RoSPA saying 'Those that take further training are less likely to have accidents'.
So you'd kind of think that the authorities have some idea that it may be about driving standards?
Blaming drivers for not being being able to help themselves when that research by Dr Jeremy Broughton that featured in the Summer 2005 issue of Advanced Driving was ignored by the DoT that spent our money commissioning it seems a bit blinkered from where I am sat.
How do you suggest that they are going to realistically get 30+ million drivers to admit they need further training (that's before we get into the difficulties about providing it) ?So you'd kind of think that the authorities have some idea that it may be about driving standards?
Blaming drivers for not being being able to help themselves when that research by Dr Jeremy Broughton that featured in the Summer 2005 issue of Advanced Driving was ignored by the DoT that spent our money commissioning it seems a bit blinkered from where I am sat.
It's one thing knowing that driving standards are key & quite another to be able to deliver on them.
Rospa and brake and any other'charity' need to have thier wings clipped,i dispair at the news groups who automatically go to them for some kind of moronic comment after a road tradgedy, they really haveno idea what happens in the real world
The amount of ridiculous comments and questions asked by the reporters who you would think knew better is staggering.
The amount of ridiculous comments and questions asked by the reporters who you would think knew better is staggering.
vonhosen said:
How do you suggest that they are going to realistically get 30+ million drivers to admit they need further training (that's before we get into the difficulties about providing it) ?
It's one thing knowing that driving standards are key & quite another to be able to deliver on them.
Ignoring any political impossibilities?It's one thing knowing that driving standards are key & quite another to be able to deliver on them.
Start by an assumption in law that, if you're involved in (note - NOT cause) an accident then you're partially to blame. If it was the other idiot's fault for doing something you couldn't possibly have anticipated then you need to learn better anticipation.
Require anyone involved in an accident to attend a (free) hazard awareness cause run on similar lines to the current speed awareness. They may not learn anything but the aggravation of the half day off work etc etc might make some of them a little more careful.
Require anyone involved in a second accident to take (not free) refresher training. No pass / fail as such.
For those careless enough to be involved in a third accident, automatic suspension of licence until they pass a (not free) IAM or equivalent standard of test.
For those who are clearly shown to cause an accident, apply refresher training for the first, suspension of licence for the second and permanent loss of licence for the third.
For those who choose to drive despite losing their licence (suspension or permanent) under this scheme, automatic 5 year prison sentence.
Optional:
In recognition that driving will soon only be available to responsible people who understand how to manage the risks, two years after introducing this system, remove all speed limits and other regulation - including MOT requirements, seat belt laws and even drink driving and so on - because they'll no longer be needed. The only thing kept should be insurance but that will be so much cheaper because no-one will be crashing any more.
Feel free to iron any bugs out of the above before Parliament decides not to throw their careers away by introducing it....
7mike said:
Even getting dressed is a risk, as Jo Bullock, from Rospa, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, explained.
“There used to be a UK database of accidents,” she said.
“It stopped in 2002, but in that year, more than 9,400 people ended up in A&E because they had an accident that involved in some way a pair of trousers.”
Button fly ftw.“There used to be a UK database of accidents,” she said.
“It stopped in 2002, but in that year, more than 9,400 people ended up in A&E because they had an accident that involved in some way a pair of trousers.”
Variomatic said:
vonhosen said:
How do you suggest that they are going to realistically get 30+ million drivers to admit they need further training (that's before we get into the difficulties about providing it) ?
It's one thing knowing that driving standards are key & quite another to be able to deliver on them.
Ignoring any political impossibilities?It's one thing knowing that driving standards are key & quite another to be able to deliver on them.
Start by an assumption in law that, if you're involved in (note - NOT cause) an accident then you're partially to blame. If it was the other idiot's fault for doing something you couldn't possibly have anticipated then you need to learn better anticipation.
Require anyone involved in an accident to attend a (free) hazard awareness cause run on similar lines to the current speed awareness. They may not learn anything but the aggravation of the half day off work etc etc might make some of them a little more careful.
Require anyone involved in a second accident to take (not free) refresher training. No pass / fail as such.
For those careless enough to be involved in a third accident, automatic suspension of licence until they pass a (not free) IAM or equivalent standard of test.
For those who are clearly shown to cause an accident, apply refresher training for the first, suspension of licence for the second and permanent loss of licence for the third.
For those who choose to drive despite losing their licence (suspension or permanent) under this scheme, automatic 5 year prison sentence.
Optional:
In recognition that driving will soon only be available to responsible people who understand how to manage the risks, two years after introducing this system, remove all speed limits and other regulation - including MOT requirements, seat belt laws and even drink driving and so on - because they'll no longer be needed. The only thing kept should be insurance but that will be so much cheaper because no-one will be crashing any more.
Feel free to iron any bugs out of the above before Parliament decides not to throw their careers away by introducing it....
It falls down at the first hurdle with free courses for those involved in collisions, who is stumping up the money & where's it coming from ?
Variomatic said:
Ignoring any political impossibilities?
Start by an assumption in law that, if you're involved in (note - NOT cause) an accident then you're partially to blame. If it was the other idiot's fault for doing something you couldn't possibly have anticipated then you need to learn better anticipation.
Require anyone involved in an accident to attend a (free) hazard awareness cause run on similar lines to the current speed awareness. They may not learn anything but the aggravation of the half day off work etc etc might make some of them a little more careful.
Why should I have to go on a course if someone runs into the back of me whilst I am stationary at traffic lights and how would I have been partially to blame?Start by an assumption in law that, if you're involved in (note - NOT cause) an accident then you're partially to blame. If it was the other idiot's fault for doing something you couldn't possibly have anticipated then you need to learn better anticipation.
Require anyone involved in an accident to attend a (free) hazard awareness cause run on similar lines to the current speed awareness. They may not learn anything but the aggravation of the half day off work etc etc might make some of them a little more careful.
vonhosen said:
I haven't got a big enough iron & you can't ignore political difficulties if you are serious about it.
It falls down at the first hurdle with free courses for those involved in collisions, who is stumping up the money & where's it coming from ?
Money will have to be put up front by the Government but will lead to substantial savings in the long run so it's a sound investment. I suspect the final clean-up, repairs and disruption cost from Friday's M5 oops would cover quite a few of them for a start! It falls down at the first hurdle with free courses for those involved in collisions, who is stumping up the money & where's it coming from ?
I also agree that you have to factor in political effects but you asked how to get those 30+ million drivers (or however many manage to retain their licenses) to drive safely. How to convince a Govt to commit political suicide by suggesting to all those serial "non-fault" accident participants that maybe they're a factor in their own bad luck is another matter entirely
greygoose said:
Why should I have to go on a course if someone runs into the back of me whilst I am stationary at traffic lights and how would I have been partially to blame?
Because there may well have been a way to avoid it and if there genuinely wasn't then half a day out of the rest of your life is a small price to pay for something that benefits all. If, on the other hand, you're in the habit of repeatedly getting rear ended at traffic lights then the chances are you're doing something wrong. In many years and even more miles driving many different vehicles it's never happened to me, or anyone I know, nor have any of us ever even seen one of these mythical traffic-light-rear-endings which people inevitably dredge up as "non-fault", so they can't exactly be common occurrences. Which suggests that, if you keep having them, there's probably something you could be doing differently.
Variomatic said:
Ignoring any political impossibilities?
Start by an assumption in law that, if you're involved in (note - NOT cause) an accident then you're partially to blame. If it was the other idiot's fault for doing something you couldn't possibly have anticipated then you need to learn better anticipation.
Over the last 35 or so years of my driving career I have been 'involved' in the following 'accidents' - I would be genuinely interested to know how I might have better anticipated or avoided them ?Start by an assumption in law that, if you're involved in (note - NOT cause) an accident then you're partially to blame. If it was the other idiot's fault for doing something you couldn't possibly have anticipated then you need to learn better anticipation.
1) driving at night on a moderately busy single carriageway 'A' road and approaching a bend to the right , I could see the Artic coming the other way over the top of the hedgerow - when almost at the apex of the bend I was confronted with a car on my side of the road , overtaking the Artic round this blind bend , with nowhere to go I could only brake and hold as far left as possible before being hit head on . The other driver turned out to have no licence or insurance , was drunk and had stolen the car .
2) going straight ahead at a roundabout with three lanes on the approach - me in the middle lane designated for straight ahead , was struck on the nearside rear quarter by the flatbed truck which had been behind and in the lane to my left ( designated left turn only ) who decided to also go straight ahead .
3) at the bottom of a motorway slip road , waiting to join a roundabout , was rear-ended by a driver who came down the slip road far too fast and braked too late - I saw him coming but could not go anywhere to avoid the collision .
4) similar to above , stopped in a queue of traffic behind someone waiting to turn right , despite having my foot on brake to keep brake lights lit , and despite having fitted two extra brake lights in the rear window following the slip road incident , was rear ended by a van driver who 'did not see us' , and 'co-incidentally' happened to have a mobile phone in his hand when he stepped out of his van .
5) the morning I awoke to the sound of my garden wall being demolished and my car being written off as it sat on my drive - courtesy of an uninsured driver .
Short of not driving and not owning a car , there is little I could reasonably have done to either forsee or avoid each of these incidents - so I would feel extremely wrongly done by , having already done multiple courses and sat multiple tests in AD .
Pontoneer said:
Over the last 35 or so years of my driving career I have been 'involved' in the following 'accidents' - I would be genuinely interested to know how I might have better anticipated or avoided them ?
1) driving at night on a moderately busy single carriageway 'A' road and approaching a bend to the right , I could see the Artic coming the other way over the top of the hedgerow - when almost at the apex of the bend I was confronted with a car on my side of the road , overtaking the Artic round this blind bend , with nowhere to go I could only brake and hold as far left as possible before being hit head on . The other driver turned out to have no licence or insurance , was drunk and had stolen the car .
2) going straight ahead at a roundabout with three lanes on the approach - me in the middle lane designated for straight ahead , was struck on the nearside rear quarter by the flatbed truck which had been behind and in the lane to my left ( designated left turn only ) who decided to also go straight ahead .
3) at the bottom of a motorway slip road , waiting to join a roundabout , was rear-ended by a driver who came down the slip road far too fast and braked too late - I saw him coming but could not go anywhere to avoid the collision .
4) similar to above , stopped in a queue of traffic behind someone waiting to turn right , despite having my foot on brake to keep brake lights lit , and despite having fitted two extra brake lights in the rear window following the slip road incident , was rear ended by a van driver who 'did not see us' , and 'co-incidentally' happened to have a mobile phone in his hand when he stepped out of his van .
5) the morning I awoke to the sound of my garden wall being demolished and my car being written off as it sat on my drive - courtesy of an uninsured driver .
Short of not driving and not owning a car , there is little I could reasonably have done to either forsee or avoid each of these incidents - so I would feel extremely wrongly done by , having already done multiple courses and sat multiple tests in AD .
Ok, in order:1) driving at night on a moderately busy single carriageway 'A' road and approaching a bend to the right , I could see the Artic coming the other way over the top of the hedgerow - when almost at the apex of the bend I was confronted with a car on my side of the road , overtaking the Artic round this blind bend , with nowhere to go I could only brake and hold as far left as possible before being hit head on . The other driver turned out to have no licence or insurance , was drunk and had stolen the car .
2) going straight ahead at a roundabout with three lanes on the approach - me in the middle lane designated for straight ahead , was struck on the nearside rear quarter by the flatbed truck which had been behind and in the lane to my left ( designated left turn only ) who decided to also go straight ahead .
3) at the bottom of a motorway slip road , waiting to join a roundabout , was rear-ended by a driver who came down the slip road far too fast and braked too late - I saw him coming but could not go anywhere to avoid the collision .
4) similar to above , stopped in a queue of traffic behind someone waiting to turn right , despite having my foot on brake to keep brake lights lit , and despite having fitted two extra brake lights in the rear window following the slip road incident , was rear ended by a van driver who 'did not see us' , and 'co-incidentally' happened to have a mobile phone in his hand when he stepped out of his van .
5) the morning I awoke to the sound of my garden wall being demolished and my car being written off as it sat on my drive - courtesy of an uninsured driver .
Short of not driving and not owning a car , there is little I could reasonably have done to either forsee or avoid each of these incidents - so I would feel extremely wrongly done by , having already done multiple courses and sat multiple tests in AD .
(1) Probably nothing you could have done, although there might have been warning available from the drunk idiot's headlights off the hedges (would have thrown a different effect than lorry on it's own). Still, happy to make the assumption a rebuttable presumption for cases where there's genuinely absolutely nothing you could do.
(2) Were you not aware that the flatbed had failed to take the expected exit? Piss poor lane discipline at roundabouts is a well known problem so should have been anticipated - almost certainly could have been avoided.
(3) Possibly unavoidable but may have been able to grab the idiot's attention by flashing your brake lights, or even your hazards. Flashing lights attract attention far better than steady ones, which is why hazards and emergency vehicle lights aren't steady.
(4) As for number 3.
(5) The suggestion would only apply to accidents while you're actually in your car and on road - if someone hits your car when parked (legally) then they've hit a stationary obstruction, for which there's absolutely no excuse, and automatically become eligible for refresher training / enhanced retest
ETA: Besides which, if all the above were genuinely completely unavoidable and caused by other people's stupidity, by the time you've experienced the second one over 35 years the stupid people who caused numbers 3 through 5 are very unlikely to still be on the road so those ones wouldn't have happened
Edited by Variomatic on Monday 7th November 14:26
Variomatic said:
In many years and even more miles driving many different vehicles it's never happened to me, or anyone I know, nor have any of us ever even seen one of these mythical traffic-light-rear-endings which people inevitably dredge up as "non-fault", so they can't exactly be common occurrences. Which suggests that, if you keep having them, there's probably something you could be doing differently.
As stated above , I have been rear ended twice whilst already stopped , admittedly not at traffic lights , and have seen numerous similar incidents on the roads .To my shame , I must admit that I once rear ended another car very early in my driving career .
I was out in my first car , bought for the princely sum of £100 and just MOT'd , when slowing for a set of traffic lights the brake pedal went straight to the floor ! ( unassisted Alfin drums all round and no dual hydraulic circuits in those days ) I managed to swiftly select first gear and haul on the handbrake which resulted in me almost , but not quite , stopping before I nudged the bumper of the car in front !
Being a lucky sort of guy , the car I ran into just had to be a Rolls-Royce ....... worried about what damage I had done , I crept nervously forward , peering over my front wing ; the driver of the RR , a gent in a camel hair coat , also got out , but there was no damage to either car since my overriders had met his bumper and done their job . The gent just looked at my 1957 Mercedes , said 'nice car you've got' then got back into his Rolls and drove off .
Ever since then , I've been paranoid about brakes , fully rebuilt the brakes on that car which I still have thirty years on , and brakes are always the first thing I check and overhaul on any car I buy - regardless of cost .
Edited by Pontoneer on Monday 7th November 15:17
Variomatic said:
Ok, in order:
(1) Probably nothing you could have done, although there might have been warning available from the drunk idiot's headlights off the hedges (would have thrown a different effect than lorry on it's own). Still, happy to make the assumption a rebuttable presumption for cases where there's genuinely absolutely nothing you could do.
(2) Were you not aware that the flatbed had failed to take the expected exit? Piss poor lane discipline at roundabouts is a well known problem so should have been anticipated - almost certainly could have been avoided.
(3) Possibly unavoidable but may have been able to grab the idiot's attention by flashing your brake lights, or even your hazards. Flashing lights attract attention far better than steady ones, which is why hazards and emergency vehicle lights aren't steady.
(4) As for number 3.
(5) The suggestion would only apply to accidents while you're actually in your car and on road - if someone hits your car when parked (legally) then they've hit a stationary obstruction, for which there's absolutely no excuse, and automatically become eligible for refresher training / enhanced retest
ETA: Besides which, if all the above were genuinely completely unavoidable and caused by other people's stupidity, by the time you've experienced the second one over 35 years the stupid people who caused numbers 3 through 5 are very unlikely to still be on the road so those ones wouldn't have happened
Been through and thought of most of these at the times .(1) Probably nothing you could have done, although there might have been warning available from the drunk idiot's headlights off the hedges (would have thrown a different effect than lorry on it's own). Still, happy to make the assumption a rebuttable presumption for cases where there's genuinely absolutely nothing you could do.
(2) Were you not aware that the flatbed had failed to take the expected exit? Piss poor lane discipline at roundabouts is a well known problem so should have been anticipated - almost certainly could have been avoided.
(3) Possibly unavoidable but may have been able to grab the idiot's attention by flashing your brake lights, or even your hazards. Flashing lights attract attention far better than steady ones, which is why hazards and emergency vehicle lights aren't steady.
(4) As for number 3.
(5) The suggestion would only apply to accidents while you're actually in your car and on road - if someone hits your car when parked (legally) then they've hit a stationary obstruction, for which there's absolutely no excuse, and automatically become eligible for refresher training / enhanced retest
ETA: Besides which, if all the above were genuinely completely unavoidable and caused by other people's stupidity, by the time you've experienced the second one over 35 years the stupid people who caused numbers 3 through 5 are very unlikely to still be on the road so those ones wouldn't have happened
Edited by Variomatic on Monday 7th November 14:26
1) although nighttime , sodium street lighting pretty much masked any light patterns from oncoming vehicles , and no reason to suppose any light was other than the lorry's .
2) no warning nor reason to suspect the truck was doing anything other than turning left , until he suddenly hit me after crossing thick solid line between the two lanes ; I also had traffic ahead , behind and to my right so could go nowhere to avoid him . Incidentally , he failed breath test and was arrested on spot for DD .
3) driver left motorway at silly speed and I saw him approach with wheels locked and smoke pouring from his tyres - he had seen me and other car waiting to join roundabout but just couldn't stop ; traffic lights and metal railings either side of road so no escape to either side and barging onto roundabout would most likely have caused a crash which would then have been my fault .
4) Glasgow city centre , left lane full of parked cars , queue behind right turner - van driver simply not paying attention - doubtful hazard lights would have made any difference .
5) fair enough .
Variomatic said:
greygoose said:
Why should I have to go on a course if someone runs into the back of me whilst I am stationary at traffic lights and how would I have been partially to blame?
Because there may well have been a way to avoid it and if there genuinely wasn't then half a day out of the rest of your life is a small price to pay for something that benefits all. If, on the other hand, you're in the habit of repeatedly getting rear ended at traffic lights then the chances are you're doing something wrong. In many years and even more miles driving many different vehicles it's never happened to me, or anyone I know, nor have any of us ever even seen one of these mythical traffic-light-rear-endings which people inevitably dredge up as "non-fault", so they can't exactly be common occurrences. Which suggests that, if you keep having them, there's probably something you could be doing differently.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff