Sigh - you know EXACTLY what I mean, and you`re making some weird arguments to try and discredit my arguement. Driving into a car that has stopped in front of you at a roundbaout is quite simple driving without due care and attention at the very least.
Sigh..... As I said above - this is not the same as driving into the rear of another vehicle that has suddenly stopped in front of you at a roundabout.
In message , Andy Pandy writes
I had been driving for 16 years when on a busy main road the car in front of me signalled and started to turn left into a side road. He stopped halfway through the turn with his rear offside projecting into my lane, and I was unable to stop before I hit him. The reason he stopped was because an idiot was making a 3-point turn in the side road, close to its mouth.
Whose fault? Mine of course, because I had anticipated him clearing my path instead of checking my speed sufficiently to stop if he stopped.. At least that's what our respective insurance companies decided. It cost me two lumps of NCB, and taught me to allow for similar situations by leaving a decent gap.
The poor sod I ran into was insured with Swinton, and in spite of the circumstances he was still waiting for his car to be repaired 3 months later, but they had also cancelled his NCB!
No I'm not, you're only "argument" seems to be that hitting a stationary object is bad driving, and how clever you never to have hit a stationary object. You moved on from the specific incident on the roundabout to a general argument that if you drive into a stationary object then it's your fault. Which is utter bullshit. You do it again right below....
And now you try to wriggle out of by going back to the specific incident on the roundabout. You've made several posts where you didn't mention that incident at all and your only point was that driving into a stationary object was wrong. You are wrong.
In message , Andy Pandy writes
You are in a hole, stop digging.
Have you ever been hit by a stationary car? (Or wall, or lamppost)
Me? You show your utter cluelessness again. When my friend hit the stationary car which turned across oncoming traffic and stopped, the police report and insurance both put the blame on the stationary car's driver. Her NCB was unaffacted.
It's not always the moving driver's fault. Fact.
In message , Andy Pandy writes
OK, but mind how you go, there are stationary cars and objects all over the place. 8-(
Reminds me of that sexist joke about the definition of a tree.
Sorry, I thought that in a thread involving cars stopping infront of you, and being driven into, I would be ok to use stationary as a shorthand to describe the situation. Next time I`ll spell things out in detail each and every time, to allow for the pedants like yourself to understand things more easily.
When I was replying to a thread about driving into a car at a roundabout, when the car infront was stationary. Sorry if you were unable to make the massive mental leap required to understand I was talking about the situation described in the thread.
Should think so too.
LOL! What a pathetic wriggle! Hint - "stationary" means, erm, "not moving". It doesn't mean "a learner driver ahead of me on a roundabout who stopped suddenly". Look it up.
You could have just referred to the incident described. But you didn't. You made several posts implying the only issue was that the car being driven into was stationary. Stop digging and move on instead of trying to argue that what you wrote meant something completely different to what the words said.
Ta ta!
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required