crash for cash

yes clever boy.....

In message , Ian Jackson wrote

Around my way, the authorities seem keen to putting multiple lights on every roundabout. During busy times it often results people being unable to swap lanes for the turnoff or getting in the correct lane for carrying on around.

When the lights fail traffic flows freely. When in operation very large queues form. The reason for the lights is that it makes life safer for the non-existent cyclists that use the roundabouts. Another "green" policy that does the reverse of what it was meant to do i.e. a lot more pollution created because 99.999% of the road users are now sitting in a stationary car with the engine running.

In message , Alan writes

I wonder if 'your way' is 'my way' (S Bucks). It would be far better to have traffic lights switched off for most of the time. Also, many of the more recent installations or refurbishments have two sets of lights on each pole. No wonder my council tax is pushing £2500!

The new T junction from Preston Road with the new road into Buckshaw Village, near Chorley Lancs has been made ultra safe. There are nineteen poles, each with one set of traffic lights mounted thereon!

In message , brightside S9 writes

While there may be a perfectly valid reason why someone has decided that so many so many lights are required, this sort of apparent waste of the taxpayers' money is one of the things the new government should be investigating.

Although (from reports on TV, radio and in the papers) it appears that the need for so much 'street furniture' is now being questioned in certain quarters, I don't think that any official body has been set up to deal with it. Thinking about it, if it does exist, it will probably become an early victim of the forthcoming spending cuts.

In message , Alan writes

Only for short periods of time.

The reason for the lights at two large roundabouts near here was to cut the horrendous number of accidents. It worked, and the wait at lights is minimal.

I know, all that time at university really paid off - I`m intelligent enough not to drive into stationary objects. Say what you want, but if you think it`s acceptable to drive into something just because you didn`t notice it stopping then you`re wrong, plain and simple.

Like I say you a clever dickie..

Its termed ACCIDENT its not intentional.

Here you go then this was my one and only accident, before I went to university, when I was just 17. Having passed my test only 3 months I was driving my fathers NEW mini and had gone to pick him up from work. Roads were very busy with workers going home. Had Dad in passenger seat and was accelerating away in second, maybe third, from traffic lights...............BANG GLASS everywhere..........front windscreen crashed in..............along with a human body.............yes an old gent in his attempt to run across the road between parked cars..........and I hit and killed him. Never forget that day, never will........an unexpected terrible ACCIDENT.

So? That`s completely different from driving into a stationary object, and completely irrelevant to the point you`ve been trying to make which is that it`s acceptable to drive into a car that has stopped moving. If you think that`s OK, then surely you think it`s fine to have killed someone when they ran out in front of you, and therefore never felt any guilt over it at all.

Say it as many times as you want, you`re still wrong. If you think it`s OK to drive into something that isn`t moving then obviously you have the right to that opinion. However, you`re wrong in that, the same as believing in an imaginary man in the clouds with a beard who punishes you for being naughty on earth, the same as believing in the tooth fairy and the same as believing in the Easter bunny are all ridiculous beliefs.

In message , Simon Finnigan writes

"There was a wasp in the car; My cigarette end/cigar dropped in my lap; The boss sent me a txt; I was watching the tail-gater behind me; I was applying my mascara"....

Do any women read this group?

No it isn't. What if the person who ran out in front of him had stopped to turn back? At the moment of impact he may have been stationary. Does that make it the driver's fault?

Similarly, a friend of mine had an accident where she driving along a busy 30 mph road, at under the speed limit, when an oncoming car wanted to turn right into a side road through her path. It was a bit of a Y junction so the oncoming car only had to turn 40 degrees or so rather than 90, and he was going about 20-30 so he obviously figured he had enough momentum to safely get through the gap in the oncoming traffic. What he didn't see was that the traffic in the side road was queued up, he had to slam his brakes on to avoid tail-ending the stationary car in the side road. So my friend ran into his vehicle while it was stationary. Tell me, whose fault was that accident, the moving vehicle's or the stationary one? What do you think the police said? And the insurance?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Sounds like the movings vehicles fault? Both cars were going at roughly the same speed (20-30mph), and the one that ended-up stationary managed to stop in time, so why didn't the other one also manage to stop?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Was it: "Breath in here, please!" ?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Was it: "Knock-for-knock" ?

Not sure. But the police took the view that if you turn through across oncoming traffic you need to give way to that oncoming traffic. Who was stationary at the point of impact was irrelavent.

Apart from that.

Nope.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

Hitting something which is - and has been - stationary for long enough for you to avoid hitting it (be this hours, minutes or several seconds) is hardly the same thing as hitting something which suddenly places itself in your path - then stops, giving you no time to avoid it. The fact that that the object hit was technically 'stationary' (even 'momentarily stationary') when you hit it, does not make the accident all your fault.

As for hitting someone coming towards you, then turning right across you, into a side road, a prudent driver will always assume that other vehicle might not be able to complete its manoeuvre, and be prepared to brake - and stop - if necessary. I think that "He suddenly started to turn across my path, and stopped" (if true) would be a valid excuse. "I saw him begin to turn across my path, but I didn't think he was going to stop, and I just drove on as normal" probably isn't.

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...

Of course.

Exactly. The PP has been wittering on about how driving into stationary objects is unacceptable and how clever he is to have never hit a stationary car.

And it was.

Yes. In most cases where a moving car hits a stationary car it will be the moving car's fault. But to imply it is *always* the moving car's fault is bullshit.

Not the driver's fault then?

You beat Tim to it :-)