nearly rear ended a car today

[Ext User(Kelpie)]

Coming out of the CC Tunnel today, the exit that goes to the Harbour tunnel.
This is the section that it runs parallel to Palmer Street and is separated
by the raised dividers. Palmer Street has a traffic light at the
Woolloomooloo turn off, and the CCT exit just goes straight through. So I'm
sitting behind this car, who continued doing about 50 after the tunnel exit,
and you guessed it, when he was alongside the red-light (for Palmer st) he
fucking locked it up, and I nearly went through his front windscreen.

The apple in my bag somehow went flying into the dashboard. I picked it up
and was so fucking angry I was going to hurl is at him when I got along side
him.

Just curious tho, if I hit him from behind after he emergency braked in
total mistake due to being unable to interpret road conditions, would I be
at fault? I know that generally the car who hits from behind is at fault,
but in this case there is absolutely no reason to expect someone to brake so
harshly.

--
If you're gonna be a dog at least be a good dog!

[Ext User(Kev)]

Kelpie wrote:
>
> Coming out of the CC Tunnel today, the exit that goes to the Harbour tunnel.
> This is the section that it runs parallel to Palmer Street and is separated
> by the raised dividers. Palmer Street has a traffic light at the
> Woolloomooloo turn off, and the CCT exit just goes straight through. So I'm
> sitting behind this car, who continued doing about 50 after the tunnel exit,
> and you guessed it, when he was alongside the red-light (for Palmer st) he
> fucking locked it up, and I nearly went through his front windscreen.
>
> The apple in my bag somehow went flying into the dashboard. I picked it up
> and was so fucking angry I was going to hurl is at him when I got along side
> him.
>
> Just curious tho, if I hit him from behind after he emergency braked in
> total mistake due to being unable to interpret road conditions, would I be
> at fault? I know that generally the car who hits from behind is at fault,
> but in this case there is absolutely no reason to expect someone to brake so
> harshly.


Yep still your fault as you should have maintained a distance that
leaves you enough room to avoid a crash if the driver in front is a
fuckwit and stops suddenly for no reason


Kev

[Ext User(Kelpie)]

"Kev" <kevcat@optunet.com.au> wrote in message
news:438AF45A.9EF81924@optunet.com.au...
>
>
> Kelpie wrote:
> >
> > Coming out of the CC Tunnel today, the exit that goes to the Harbour
tunnel.
> > This is the section that it runs parallel to Palmer Street and is
separated
> > by the raised dividers. Palmer Street has a traffic light at the
> > Woolloomooloo turn off, and the CCT exit just goes straight through. So
I'm
> > sitting behind this car, who continued doing about 50 after the tunnel
exit,
> > and you guessed it, when he was alongside the red-light (for Palmer st)
he
> > fucking locked it up, and I nearly went through his front windscreen.
> >
> > The apple in my bag somehow went flying into the dashboard. I picked it
up
> > and was so fucking angry I was going to hurl is at him when I got along
side
> > him.
> >
> > Just curious tho, if I hit him from behind after he emergency braked in
> > total mistake due to being unable to interpret road conditions, would I
be
> > at fault? I know that generally the car who hits from behind is at
fault,
> > but in this case there is absolutely no reason to expect someone to
brake so
> > harshly.
>
>
> Yep still your fault as you should have maintained a distance that
> leaves you enough room to avoid a crash if the driver in front is a
> fuckwit and stops suddenly for no reason

If I hit him, I think I'd kill the C*&T. Make it worthwhile.
>
>
> Kev

[Ext User(Greg)]

Wouldn't hurt to report this problem to the RTA - sounds like they need to
put a fixed green light over the express lane to avoid confusion.

[Ext User(Kelpie)]

"Greg" <greg.REMOVEsullivan@THIScomputer.org> wrote in message
news:438af88a@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Wouldn't hurt to report this problem to the RTA - sounds like they need to
> put a fixed green light over the express lane to avoid confusion.

Yup. I imagine this would get a lot of the fogged out drivers (85%) on Siddy
roads.
>
>

[Ext User(Greg)]

"Kelpie" <kelpie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:438afab4$0$40923$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
> Yup. I imagine this would get a lot of the fogged out drivers (85%) on
> Siddy
> roads.

Indeed - just like how 85% of them also fail to understand that those little
yellow rubber flappy things up the end of Palmer St are supposed to prevent
them from turning left to go over the bridge. ;^) ;^)

Greg.

[Ext User(Stewart)]

"Kelpie" <kelpie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:438af229$0$40923$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
> Coming out of the CC Tunnel today, the exit that goes to the Harbour
> tunnel.
> This is the section that it runs parallel to Palmer Street and is
> separated
> by the raised dividers. Palmer Street has a traffic light at the
> Woolloomooloo turn off, and the CCT exit just goes straight through. So
> I'm
> sitting behind this car, who continued doing about 50 after the tunnel
> exit,
> and you guessed it, when he was alongside the red-light (for Palmer st) he
> fucking locked it up, and I nearly went through his front windscreen.
>
> The apple in my bag somehow went flying into the dashboard. I picked it up
> and was so fucking angry I was going to hurl is at him when I got along
> side
> him.
>
> Just curious tho, if I hit him from behind after he emergency braked in
> total mistake due to being unable to interpret road conditions, would I be
> at fault? I know that generally the car who hits from behind is at fault,
> but in this case there is absolutely no reason to expect someone to brake
> so
> harshly.

Technically.. you are at fault.. In court, you might be able to get partial
blame on him since his mistake would have contributed to the accident..
either way though, you would have to pay your excess.

[Ext User(ant)]

Kelpie wrote:
> Coming out of the CC Tunnel today,

So you're the one who's using it.


--
ant
http://www.dcita.gov.au/tel/do_not_call
to make your comment on proposals to limit telemarketing

[Ext User(Allan A)]

"Stewart" <gjstewart@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:gDUif.6429$ea6.2107@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Kelpie" <kelpie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:438af229$0$40923$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...

snip
>>
>> Just curious tho, if I hit him from behind after he emergency braked in
>> total mistake due to being unable to interpret road conditions, would I
>> be
>> at fault? I know that generally the car who hits from behind is at fault,
>> but in this case there is absolutely no reason to expect someone to brake
>> so
>> harshly.
>
> Technically.. you are at fault.. In court, you might be able to get
> partial blame on him since his mistake would have contributed to the
> accident.. either way though, you would have to pay your excess.
>
The point is, you can never know with any certainty when to expect someone
to brake harshly. Any sort of emergency can arise which HE might not be able
to anticipate, let alone YOU who are travelling behind thus by definition
with less view of the road ahead of HIM. Hence the onus is on the following
driver to leave enough space in front so that you are able to stop. Always.

Of course, there is always the practical issue of, whenever you leave
reasonable space in traffic, someone else is going to jump into it...

Allan A

[Ext User(Stewart)]

"Allan A" <aaci@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:438c250f$0$18203$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Stewart" <gjstewart@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:gDUif.6429$ea6.2107@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Kelpie" <kelpie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:438af229$0$40923$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> snip
>>>
>>> Just curious tho, if I hit him from behind after he emergency braked in
>>> total mistake due to being unable to interpret road conditions, would I
>>> be
>>> at fault? I know that generally the car who hits from behind is at
>>> fault,
>>> but in this case there is absolutely no reason to expect someone to
>>> brake so
>>> harshly.
>>
>> Technically.. you are at fault.. In court, you might be able to get
>> partial blame on him since his mistake would have contributed to the
>> accident.. either way though, you would have to pay your excess.
>>
> The point is, you can never know with any certainty when to expect someone
> to brake harshly. Any sort of emergency can arise which HE might not be
> able to anticipate, let alone YOU who are travelling behind thus by
> definition with less view of the road ahead of HIM. Hence the onus is on
> the following driver to leave enough space in front so that you are able
> to stop. Always.
>
> Of course, there is always the practical issue of, whenever you leave
> reasonable space in traffic, someone else is going to jump into it...

Yes.. as I said.. technically he is at fault for not leaving enough space
(if an accident had occurred), but if it was to go to court.. it isn't as
black and white as that, especially if the driver in front locked up his
brakes for no reason, or because he incorrectly interpreted traffic signals.
For example, if you cause an accident to avoid a small animal on the road,
then you can be held partially responsible for the accident, even if the
letter of the law says that you are not technically at fault.

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:06:46 GMT, "Stewart" <gjstewart@bigpond.com>
scribbled thusly:


>
>Yes.. as I said.. technically he is at fault for not leaving enough space
>(if an accident had occurred), but if it was to go to court.. it isn't as
>black and white as that, especially if the driver in front locked up his
>brakes for no reason, or because he incorrectly interpreted traffic signals.
>For example, if you cause an accident to avoid a small animal on the road,
>then you can be held partially responsible for the accident, even if the
>letter of the law says that you are not technically at fault.
>
>
Crash stop to avoid an animal and you ARE at fault...that's the law.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Ext User(Kelpie)]

"ant" <mrs_mariam33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3v2l8dF13mrboU1@individual.net...
> Kelpie wrote:
> > Coming out of the CC Tunnel today,
>
> So you're the one who's using it.

Until they put the toll back on :)
>
>
> --
> ant
> http://www.dcita.gov.au/tel/do_not_call
> to make your comment on proposals to limit telemarketing
>
>

[Ext User(Greg)]

Just testing my new signature. ;^)

--
Crossing the city? Use the surFORCE!

"Kelpie" <kelpie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:438d0299$0$6528$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "ant" <mrs_mariam33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3v2l8dF13mrboU1@individual.net...
>> Kelpie wrote:
>> > Coming out of the CC Tunnel today,
>>
>> So you're the one who's using it.
>
> Until they put the toll back on :)
>>
>>
>> --
>> ant
>> http://www.dcita.gov.au/tel/do_not_call
>> to make your comment on proposals to limit telemarketing
>>
>>
>
>

[Ext User(athol)]

Greg <greg.REMOVEsullivan@thiscomputer.org> wrote:
> Just testing my new signature. ;^)

It failed. There was a pile of other people's quoted stuff in it.

The signature belongs at the _bottom_ of the post...

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace.
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Greg)]

"athol" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:1133330452.648059@idlweb...
> The signature belongs at the _bottom_ of the post...

:P

Seriously, I actually prefer the post to include the previous message at the
bottom, unless one is quoting individual sections of the post. Saves
scrolling down to the bottom.

Greg.
--
Crossing the city? Use the surFORCE!

[Ext User(John_H)]

Greg wrote:

>"athol" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:1133330452.648059@idlweb...
>> The signature belongs at the _bottom_ of the post...
>
>:P
>
>Seriously, I actually prefer the post to include the previous message at the
>bottom, unless one is quoting individual sections of the post. Saves
>scrolling down to the bottom.
>
>Greg.

Which doesn't happen to work especially well when you also place
truncation marks _above_ the quoted text!

Do you happen to know what the truncation marks (--) are for?

As Athol says, the signature belongs at the _bottom_ of the post...
irrespective of where you put the reply.

--
John H

[Ext User(athol)]

Greg <greg.REMOVEsullivan@thiscomputer.org> wrote:
> "athol" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>> The signature belongs at the _bottom_ of the post...

> Seriously, I actually prefer the post to include the previous message at the
> bottom, unless one is quoting individual sections of the post. Saves
> scrolling down to the bottom.

If you're not directly referring to a specific part of the other post, and
it is not needed for context, it should be snipped, not left at the bottom
of the post wasting bandwidth.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace.
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Greg)]

"John_H" <john4271@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eqiqo11fpq9f2vdllv3h6s2s56l3ecmap3@4ax.com...
> Which doesn't happen to work especially well when you also place
> truncation marks _above_ the quoted text!

I just thought those "truncation" marks (the two hyphens, right?) were to
mark the end of the newly added text. What's the big deal?
What's wrong with a new post being at the top, followed by the trunctation
marks, then the signature, and then right at the bottom, the old post, for
anyone who happens to want to refer to it. Not sure what all the fuss is
about but I'm listening. :)

Greg.
--
Crossing the city? Use the surFORCE!

[Ext User(Greg)]

"athol" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:1133334321.924226@idlweb...
> Greg <greg.REMOVEsullivan@thiscomputer.org> wrote:
> If you're not directly referring to a specific part of the other post, and
> it is not needed for context, it should be snipped, not left at the bottom
> of the post wasting bandwidth.

This is what I usually do, but sometimes I like to include it, just to make
sure others know which post I am replying to.

Greg.
p.s This is cool - I'm getting to use my new signature more than I thought I
would.
--
Crossing the city? Use the surFORCE!

[Ext User(feral)]

Greg wrote:

> Not sure what all the fuss is
> about but I'm listening. :)

Trouble is you're answering and listening on top, in a news group.
That is the difference and that is why your sig will always get stuffed
up and interferrred with. Good for e-mails, not so good for NG's.
Also, Athols comment that previous surperfluous text should be edited
out to save bandwidth is correct, and it's more easily done by you and
your reader (maybe) if done at the bottom.

--
Take Care.
Feral