Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
2672 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 417


  Reply # 2162952 18-Jan-2019 09:51
Send private message quote this post

Talkiet:

Jase2985:


the driver in front cant be at fault, period. it doesnt matter what they do, the rear driver must be able to stop in half the traveling distance. its called failing to stop short.



With no exceptions? Oh, ok.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FhiOMkZSo


Cheers - N


 



Your brake check examples show cars pulling in front of another vehicle inside what would be a safe following distance. In normal circumstances the overtaken vehicle should drop back to a safe distance. At anything over 50km/h there is a rule that you have to leave enough following distance to allow for overtaking.

As for performance cars I wouldn't be surprised if at slow speeds your average shopping cart's brakes weren't more effective. Brakes designed for high speeds often need to be bought up to operating temperature.

3878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2457

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 2162956 18-Jan-2019 10:04
3 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

No, hang on... People were saying that there were no instances where the car in front could possibly be at fault... There are clearly examples where that's the case. The following are quotes from this thread...

 

"If you hit a car from behind , you are going too fast and /or following too close. It's that simple."

 

"the driver in front cant be at fault, period. it doesnt matter what they do, the rear driver must be able to stop in half the traveling distance. its called failing to stop short."

 

"The legal distance isn't a number. The legal distance is "can stop if the thing in front suddenly goes from 60km-0km/hr" so by definition, your example is impossible."

 

"The driver in front cannot be responsible for the actions of the person following them. It doesn't matter if they slammed on the brakes because a small child stepped out or just because the light turned orange. And it doesn't matter if they can pull up from 60km/h in 7m in a performance care or 17m in a clapped out Hyundai with dodgy brakes. The responsibility of the following driver is to assess the situation and drive accordingly."

 

None leave any wiggle room, so in the video I posted the truck drivers are clearly at fault when a car pulls straight in front of them and slams on the brakes with the intention of causing an accident, or at least of causing the truck driver to have to take avoiding behaviour or perform an emergency stop.

 

So, assuming you are actually reasonable people, you'd agree that where someone pulls in front of a semi and brake checks them, it's not the truck drivers fault. And by extension, if a sports car pulls in front of a big old car and brake checks them, causing an accident, it's still the sports car driver's fault. I think you'd have to be a massively unreasonable person to deny that.

 

Cheers - N

 

 


 
 
 
 


87 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11


  Reply # 2162958 18-Jan-2019 10:05
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

dafman:

 

I can't believe 

 

 

 

 

i see a runner


6603 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2144

Trusted

  Reply # 2162999 18-Jan-2019 10:19
Send private message quote this post

@talkiet

 

Why am I not surprised that most of those clips on that video are from AU/NZ/UK.... 





 


121 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 41


  Reply # 2163045 18-Jan-2019 11:33
Send private message quote this post

NzBeagle: There are occasions where the front vehicle can be charged for dangerous/reckless driving (or something to that effect) if they do something stupid, eg brake check a vehicle. Not sure if that gets the following vehicle off the hook though.

 

This is the correct answer. If you brake check other cars and it causes an accident, not only can you both be charged for dangerous/reckless driving (depending on the severity of the accident) but more importantly, when your insurance company is shown footage of you intentionally causing the accident by brake checking (or coming to a stop for no appropriate reason), they can and will refuse to cover you. All insurance policies have a clause regarding "intentional" accidents. Before dash cameras became mainstream it was very difficult for your own insurer to prove you intentionally caused an accident. If the other party submits dash camera footage of you intentionally brake checking, you will not be covered. Brake checking is considered dangerous driving by the Police. If someone is tail gating, you can pull over, or call *555, but don't take the matter into your own hands. 


12400 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4096

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2163060 18-Jan-2019 12:17
Send private message quote this post

What is 'brake check' in this context?

 

 






3571 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2037

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2163073 18-Jan-2019 12:23
Send private message quote this post

Geektastic:

 

What is 'brake check' in this context?

 

 

When someone is tailgating you and you brake suddenly to make the jerk behind you back off.





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


741 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 263


  Reply # 2163090 18-Jan-2019 12:44
Send private message quote this post

Talkiet:

 

No, hang on... People were saying that there were no instances where the car in front could possibly be at fault... There are clearly examples where that's the case. The following are quotes from this thread...

 

"If you hit a car from behind , you are going too fast and /or following too close. It's that simple."

 

"the driver in front cant be at fault, period. it doesnt matter what they do, the rear driver must be able to stop in half the traveling distance. its called failing to stop short."

 

"The legal distance isn't a number. The legal distance is "can stop if the thing in front suddenly goes from 60km-0km/hr" so by definition, your example is impossible."

 

"The driver in front cannot be responsible for the actions of the person following them. It doesn't matter if they slammed on the brakes because a small child stepped out or just because the light turned orange. And it doesn't matter if they can pull up from 60km/h in 7m in a performance care or 17m in a clapped out Hyundai with dodgy brakes. The responsibility of the following driver is to assess the situation and drive accordingly."

 

None leave any wiggle room, so in the video I posted the truck drivers are clearly at fault when a car pulls straight in front of them and slams on the brakes with the intention of causing an accident, or at least of causing the truck driver to have to take avoiding behaviour or perform an emergency stop.

 

So, assuming you are actually reasonable people, you'd agree that where someone pulls in front of a semi and brake checks them, it's not the truck drivers fault. And by extension, if a sports car pulls in front of a big old car and brake checks them, causing an accident, it's still the sports car driver's fault. I think you'd have to be a massively unreasonable person to deny that.

 

 

We've just watched a video of cars in traffic so why mention overtaking?

 

My statements are made on the basis of following behind another car.

 

of course there are other circumstances - if you can convince a judge then you're good to go.


3878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2457

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 2163141 18-Jan-2019 12:53
3 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

All I did was show that there were cases where the driver in front can be at fault - I did that because several people said (completely unambiguously) that situation was impossible.

 

If you're going to add restrictions or caveats to your statement, then I'll absolutely agree with you.

 

Of course, now I'm going to argue about the restrictions and caveats - because there will be a situation where a leading driver will be at fault when they were just cruising along being followed by someone.

 

Someone else raised the point that the driver in front could be at fault if they engaged reverse and backed into someone - so there's another exception... There will be others

 

N

 

 


121 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 41


  Reply # 2163163 18-Jan-2019 13:32
Send private message quote this post

Talkiet:

 

I did that because several people said (completely unambiguously) that situation was impossible. 

 

This is why I was prompted to respond. This old school thinking of "if you rear end someone else, you will ALWAYS be at fault" no longer applies in the new age of dash cameras.

 

I would recommend that anyone who commutes more than an hour per day, invest in a unit that has both front and rear facing cameras. If you're someone that drives like a maniac and likes to tailgate, you probably don't want to install a device which could incriminate you. But for those of us who frequently witness insane driving and tail gating (especially on the Russian-like roads of the Hibiscus Coast) a decent dash camera like the BlackVue 7502CH will pay for itself in dispute resolution time alone!

 

 


6603 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2144

Trusted

  Reply # 2163196 18-Jan-2019 13:53
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

premiumtouring:

 

Talkiet:

 

I did that because several people said (completely unambiguously) that situation was impossible. 

 

This is why I was prompted to respond. This old school thinking of "if you rear end someone else, you will ALWAYS be at fault" no longer applies in the new age of dash cameras.

 

I would recommend that anyone who commutes more than an hour per day, invest in a unit that has both front and rear facing cameras. If you're someone that drives like a maniac and likes to tailgate, you probably don't want to install a device which could incriminate you. But for those of us who frequently witness insane driving and tail gating (especially on the Russian-like roads of the Hibiscus Coast) a decent dash camera like the BlackVue 7502CH will pay for itself in dispute resolution time alone!

 

 

 

 

The strangest thing, I have only ever had young females in cars causing troubles on those roads. 
Most recent was on the motorway coming back from there and that's another story but I didn't react very well put it that way.

 

I am probably not alone in this, but in the 10 minute drive from Albany to home I witness a lot of sh*t go down. Especially at Greville. I may get a camera for the hell of it. 





 


121 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 41


  Reply # 2163201 18-Jan-2019 13:58
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Coil:

 

premiumtouring:

 

Talkiet:

 

I did that because several people said (completely unambiguously) that situation was impossible. 

 

This is why I was prompted to respond. This old school thinking of "if you rear end someone else, you will ALWAYS be at fault" no longer applies in the new age of dash cameras.

 

I would recommend that anyone who commutes more than an hour per day, invest in a unit that has both front and rear facing cameras. If you're someone that drives like a maniac and likes to tailgate, you probably don't want to install a device which could incriminate you. But for those of us who frequently witness insane driving and tail gating (especially on the Russian-like roads of the Hibiscus Coast) a decent dash camera like the BlackVue 7502CH will pay for itself in dispute resolution time alone!

 

 

 

 

The strangest thing, I have only ever had young females in cars causing troubles on those roads. 
Most recent was on the motorway coming back from there and that's another story but I didn't react very well put it that way.

 

I am probably not alone in this, but in the 10 minute drive from Albany to home I witness a lot of sh*t go down. Especially at Greville. I may get a camera for the hell of it. 

 

 

Hahaha, I don't make the joke regarding Russia lightly. Seriously, it's a 'near miss' video gold mine on that stretch of road. While I agree some offenders tend to be young females in cars returning from their jobs in Albany, the number men driving Ford Rangers like ash-holes easily balances it out.


5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1386

Trusted
Microsoft

  Reply # 2163205 18-Jan-2019 14:02
Send private message quote this post

premiumtouring:

 

NzBeagle: There are occasions where the front vehicle can be charged for dangerous/reckless driving (or something to that effect) if they do something stupid, eg brake check a vehicle. Not sure if that gets the following vehicle off the hook though.

 

This is the correct answer. If you brake check other cars and it causes an accident, not only can you both be charged for dangerous/reckless driving (depending on the severity of the accident) but more importantly, when your insurance company is shown footage of you intentionally causing the accident by brake checking (or coming to a stop for no appropriate reason), they can and will refuse to cover you. All insurance policies have a clause regarding "intentional" accidents. Before dash cameras became mainstream it was very difficult for your own insurer to prove you intentionally caused an accident. If the other party submits dash camera footage of you intentionally brake checking, you will not be covered. Brake checking is considered dangerous driving by the Police. If someone is tail gating, you can pull over, or call *555, but don't take the matter into your own hands. 

 

 

the driver in front could argue they are a Buddhist and stopped to avoid the dog/fly/moth they were about to hit and murder.


5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1386

Trusted
Microsoft

  Reply # 2163206 18-Jan-2019 14:04
Send private message quote this post

Talkiet:

 

All I did was show that there were cases where the driver in front can be at fault - I did that because several people said (completely unambiguously) that situation was impossible.

 

If you're going to add restrictions or caveats to your statement, then I'll absolutely agree with you.

 

Of course, now I'm going to argue about the restrictions and caveats - because there will be a situation where a leading driver will be at fault when they were just cruising along being followed by someone.

 

Someone else raised the point that the driver in front could be at fault if they engaged reverse and backed into someone - so there's another exception... There will be others

 

N

 

 

 

 

I think the biggest difference in your example is that all things aren't equal, in your freeway brake-check example the road is a multilane carriageway.

 

In the normal fail-to-stop scenario that most are regurgitating here, its a single lane


121 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 41


  Reply # 2163208 18-Jan-2019 14:07
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

nathan:

 

premiumtouring:

 

NzBeagle: There are occasions where the front vehicle can be charged for dangerous/reckless driving (or something to that effect) if they do something stupid, eg brake check a vehicle. Not sure if that gets the following vehicle off the hook though.

 

This is the correct answer. If you brake check other cars and it causes an accident, not only can you both be charged for dangerous/reckless driving (depending on the severity of the accident) but more importantly, when your insurance company is shown footage of you intentionally causing the accident by brake checking (or coming to a stop for no appropriate reason), they can and will refuse to cover you. All insurance policies have a clause regarding "intentional" accidents. Before dash cameras became mainstream it was very difficult for your own insurer to prove you intentionally caused an accident. If the other party submits dash camera footage of you intentionally brake checking, you will not be covered. Brake checking is considered dangerous driving by the Police. If someone is tail gating, you can pull over, or call *555, but don't take the matter into your own hands. 

 

 

the driver in front could argue they are a Buddhist and stopped to avoid the dog/fly/moth they were about to hit and murder.

 

 

You're underestimating the field of view and quality that these new dash cameras capture at. We're talking buttery smooth crystal clear 1080p 60FPS and these latest units are doing 4K 30FPS.. A Moth, fly? Sure. Dog, nope. You can clearly see if the car was stopping to avoid a child, dog, cat or what have you. 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.