Reversing lights? You cannot be serious!

[Wolf]

Dead right. I had a discussion with an Aunty because she was het up that her Brother (an Uncle) had been charged for hitting a car that did a sudden U-Turn in front of him. She couldn't see that even though it may have been the U-turnee's fault from a practical sense, from a legal sense the Uncle was entirely responsible for the collision.

WTF? In what way was it automatically the uncle's fault? A vehicle can U-turn without warning well within the stopping distance of a vehicle. Or are we expected to reduce speed to a crawl and break out the blokes with the red flags whenever we're passing a line of parked cars?

When the plonker U-turned in front of me in Te Awamutu he broke out of a group of cars that were lining one of the streets - no indicator, no warning, just planted boot and swung the wheel.

I stopped in time but only just and I was most impressed with the Savage's braking power at stopping so quickly. If I were in a massier vehicle such as a car I would have smashed into the silly prick owing to the physics of stopping nearly a ton of vehicle.

And I'd be in the wrong?

Fuck that. Screw being done because some wanker doesn't give you sufficient room to bring 1000kg to a halt - I only barely missed him bringing around 215kg of bike and rider to a stop.

[James Deuce]

WTF? In what way was it automatically the uncle's fault? A vehicle can U-turn without warning well within the stopping distance of a vehicle.

It was on the open road, and there was less than a second of separation - the Uncle was tailgating. Unfortunately the cop was watching. BOTH drivers got a careless driving charge, and to compound the problem it was wet, so there is no way Uncle should have been that close, however the Aunty still believes that the U-Turning driver was at fault entirely.

The Uturn wasn't done from the other side of the road, it was done by a vehicle he was following.

[NUTBAR]

if you hit the back of the rav at high speed & all you got was a sore knee & a few bruses. the st must b a fairly solid bike, i think i would end up worse off on my bike, M50 vz00k5 as the brakes are not too good for a heavy cruzzer.

[classic zed]

Jinxed no? Glad you scrubbed off most of the speed before impact. Dont take any chances with the helmet [1]. Get it x-ray'd or put it in the bin - it's an insurance job after all.

[1] I never understand folk who buy used lids

Damned Insurancs company refused to replace my helmet after going head first through the side window of a car suddenly making a "U" turn in front of me.

I had to claim the helmet on my house insurance, stupid really because they were both ASB so the same company paid anyway

[Wolf]

It was on the open road, and there was less than a second of separation - the Uncle was tailgating. Unfortunately the cop was watching. BOTH drivers got a careless driving charge, and to compound the problem it was wet, so there is no way Uncle should have been that close, however the Aunty still believes that the U-Turning driver was at fault entirely.

The Uturn wasn't done from the other side of the road, it was done by a vehicle he was following.

Ah, you were talking of that specific incident and I misconstrued. I thought you meant that legally anyone who hits a U-turning vehicle is at fault.

Thank the gods for that - I may not be so fortunate the next time.

[Rhino]

Yes, and the wheels lock, and it slides... just as if you'd stomped the brakes too hard. In fact, if it were ABS, it would actually stop faster on the brakes than if you'd put it in reverse.

Most modern autos will not lock the wheels and slither to a halt if you engaged reverse while travelling in a forwards direction. The gearbox may go into reverse, but the design of the torque converter will not allow full transmission of torque to the crankshaft and the resulting locked wheels etc. In fact while the reversing lights will operate (due to the switch being operated by the physical position of the shift lever) the controlling electronics will allow the autos internal clutches to slip until the vehicle has stopped.

Even so, they will stop BLOODY QUICKLY when idiots make this sort of f**k up. Maybe the LTSA should chop off the left hand of such tards, so they can only do this once.

[Wolf]

Most modern autos will not lock the wheels and slither to a halt if you engaged reverse while travelling in a forwards direction. The gearbox may go into reverse, but the design of the torque converter will not allow full transmission of torque to the crankshaft and the resulting locked wheels etc. In fact while the reversing lights will operate (due to the switch being operated by the physical position of the shift lever) the controlling electronics will allow the autos internal clutches to slip until the vehicle has stopped.

Sounds like a complex system

Wouldn't it have been simpler to just make it so it can't fucking go into reverse in the first place?

Oh, that's right, the designers of auto transmissions are retards.

Anyone want to start a campaign to ensure that unless you are physically disabled in such a way as to be unable to operate a manual transmission, it is illegal to drive an automatic. Ban all autos except for those used as "mobility vehicles" for those unfortunates that require them, manuals for everyone else.

That or an IQ test before you're allowed to drive an auto as obviously the logistics of not sticking it into reverse are too much for some minds.

[imdying]

They did, it's called the detent, and numb nuts pushed the button in which circumvented it. If you outlawed autos, effectively reducing their economy of scale, then the disabled wouldn't be able to afford them. Autos are better round town, and these days they're also more economical... it's not the auto at fault here.

[Wolf]

They did, it's called the detent, and numb nuts pushed the button in which circumvented it. If you outlawed autos, effectively reducing their economy of scale, then the disabled wouldn't be able to afford them. Autos are better round town, and these days they're also more economical... it's not the auto at fault here.

So we're stuck with the IQ test. We could extend it to cover whether or not they get a licence at all...

[Ixion]

Why not a simple rule that you can only sit your licence in a manual vehicle. Once competance is proven, you can go buy an auto?

And no ABS brakes, traction control etc either. All good things, but I reckon people ought to have to prove that they can manage without them , if necessary, before being allowed to have them.

Oh, and extend that to power anything, and electric starters too please.

Make the test tougher, few morons pass it , fewer morons on the road.

Prolly more unlicensed drivers, but Mr Plod can take care of those - since the licensed ones WILL be competant, the unlicensed ones will stick out and be readily identifiable.

Sorted.

[Lou Girardin]

There is a version of that now. Sit your test in an auto and that's what you're restricted to.
The Euro tests should suffice, it'll cost around $2000 in fees and training before you have a full licence. That'll cut the numbers

[HenryDorsetCase]

That or an IQ test before you're allowed to drive an auto as obviously the logistics of not sticking it into reverse are too much for some minds.

thats a test Id fail. when I was much younger, and driving a morris 1100 land crab down in wellington, I was being followed by a cop car. In those days, for various reasons, I was a lot more nervous about a car full of pleece behind me than I would be today. I got nervous and because I am intellectually challenged I banged the gearbox when changing from third to second instead of going from third to fourth. this caused a rapid deceleration and meant I was nearly hit by the patrol car. So they pull me over and give me the third degree, do my licence and the car etc etc. All I could say to them was seeing a load of cops behind makes me nervous. they seemed to think that was quite funny. :blush:

Im quite happy in my auto thanks. put the transmission in drive, and brain into neutral, crank up the stereo... no worries.

[Wolf]

All I could say to them was seeing a load of cops behind makes me nervous. they seemed to think that was quite funny. :blush:

That's a perfectly natural reaction. I had similar nerve issues driving with my father in the passenger seat - I gave up learning to drive with him after only a couple of lessons. Mum and my friends were less inclined to yell and nowhere near as nerve-wracking.

[Hitcher]

Ah well, once the claim form is filled out and the bureacracy of an insurance claim is activated, anything may happen. Sigh. I shall keep you all posted.

And my knee is slowly on the improve. Still hurts though.

[XP@]

Ah well, once the claim form is filled out and the bureacracy of an insurance claim is activated, anything may happen. Sigh. I shall keep you all posted.

And my knee is slowly on the improve. Still hurts though.

Suggestions for your claim:
You were aware there were no dangers (as opposed to unaware of any dangers) in front of the car, therefore it would have been unsafe for him to slow down.
The reverse light caused momentary confusion, so instead of stopping you almost stopped.
He admitted the use of reverse in a dangerous place and it was a mistake on his part.

Good luck :-)