Oh, no, I crashed - and apparently I am at fault...?

[Katman]

What if he'd been stopping to avoid a child who ran out on to the road?

Would you still be trying to shift the blame?

[Headbanger]

What if he'd been stopping to avoid a child who ran out on to the road?

Would you still be trying to shift the blame?

Yes, To the parents.

Damn idiots, training their kids to run through intersections.

What if was an Alsation in a miniature shopping cart?

Aye?....makes ya think....

[niero]

What if he'd been stopping to avoid a child who ran out on to the road?

Would you still be trying to shift the blame?

OK... thanks for that comment. Do you go on 100km/h areas? I bet you do and since you are (I asume, (NOT taking the piss)) a safe rider, and that same child ran in front of you, would you be able to stop mate? I bet your motorbike is good, but I bet you will not be able to do anything either. So would you be asking this same question if that same child ran infront of you? Would you blame yourself for riding 100 km/h in a 100 km/h area and not being able to get out of the way in time? I would really like to see you outbreak that car mate, I really do. Blaming me for the crash is one thing and I'm ok with that but putting child into this scene and compearing me on the same level to a drunk teenager in his overtuned car traveling 3 times the speed limit not caring about anything and tailgating is damn an other.

[Griffin]

I can see its the pits when people brake suddenly because they've made an error and want to change direction but as pointed out the law is clear... you must have enough room between you and the vehicle in front to allow you to stop safely at all times. We are all guilty of following too closely on occasion and taking for granted that the vehicle in front of us that is speeding away from traffic lights intends to keep moving but unfortunately for you.... this time wasnt to be.

[lostinflyz]

if he dives on the brakes to make a turn it is dangerous driving. so long as u have yet to admit fault to anyone (important) you can weez your way out of it. While you are supposed to be able to stop (and as such you have some liability) he drove in an erratic fashion that caused a dangerous situation.

you can wiggle your way out of almost anything if you are cunning enough. While you are supposed to be able to stop if he goes down the road continuously brake checking you its not completely your fault. Be grateful your not in the states. the law where i used to live was if you hit someone from behind your at fault, no questions asked. here it sounds like you could plead that dangerous driving contributed. if your that way inclinded.

[Katman]

OK... thanks for that comment. Do you go on 100km/h areas? I bet you do and since you are (I asume, (NOT taking the piss)) a safe rider, and that same child ran in front of you, would you be able to stop mate? I bet your motorbike is good, but I bet you will not be able to do anything either. So would you be asking this same question if that same child ran infront of you? Would you blame yourself for riding 100 km/h in a 100 km/h area and not being able to get out of the way in time? I would really like to see you outbreak that car mate, I really do. Blaming me for the crash is one thing and I'm ok with that but putting child into this scene and compearing me on the same level to a drunk teenager in his overtuned car traveling 3 times the speed limit not caring about anything and tailgating is damn an other.

That post doesn't warrant a serious response.

[Oakie]

I can see its the pits when people brake suddenly ... but as pointed out the law is clear... you must have enough room between you and the vehicle in front to allow you to stop safely at all times. We are all guilty of following too closely on occasion and taking for granted that the vehicle in front of us that is speeding away from traffic lights intends to keep moving but unfortunately for you.... this time wasnt to be.

Yeah. That's what happened to me last week. Following a car, straight road, no other traffic when suddenly he slams on anchors. I managed to pull up a few metres short of him with no dramas and as I sat there thinking "WTF?", a mummy duck appeared out from infront of the car and continued to waddle across the road.

[Headbanger]

That post doesn't warrant a serious response.

It was better then yours, The ability to stop in your visible clear space doesn't cover kids running into the road as per your scenario, if it did it wouldn't be legal to travel at more then 2 or 3 km/h.

So, fuck up, fuck off.

[sinfull]

OK... thanks for that comment. Do you go on 100km/h areas? I bet you do and since you are (I asume, (NOT taking the piss)) a safe rider, and that same child ran in front of you, would you be able to stop mate? I bet your motorbike is good, but I bet you will not be able to do anything either. So would you be asking this same question if that same child ran infront of you? Would you blame yourself for riding 100 km/h in a 100 km/h area and not being able to get out of the way in time? I would really like to see you outbreak that car mate, I really do. Blaming me for the crash is one thing and I'm ok with that but putting child into this scene and compearing me on the same level to a drunk teenager in his overtuned car traveling 3 times the speed limit not caring about anything and tailgating is damn an other.

Cut it out DB , Was a straight forward comment ! The guy stopped , don't matter if it cause he changed his mind or if it was a kid, was all KM said ! Your to blame no two ways about it !
If any of us were to be on 100km areas it is up to the operator of the vehical to have anough visibility to stop in half the distance of the vehicle in front !
You left the lights same time as car ! You have twice accelleration car has, by rights you should have twice the stopping power too ! Hello My friend !
Totally fucked it up !

[scracha]

------ SNIP LOAD OF WHINGEING $HITE -----

I would really like to see you outbreak that car mate, I really do.

------ SNIP LOAD OF IRRELEVANT SHITE ------

You don't have to outbrake cars. You just have to follow them at a safe distance to be able to stop in time. And yes, if you're following a Ferrari then you'd damn well best double your following distance.

[niero]

Cut it out DB , Was a straight forward comment ! The guy stopped , don't matter if it cause he changed his mind or if it was a kid, was all KM said ! Your to blame no two ways about it !
If any of us were to be on 100km areas it is up to the operator of the vehical to have anough visibility to stop in half the distance of the vehicle in front !
You left the lights same time as car ! You have twice accelleration car has, by rights you should have twice the stopping power too ! Hello My friend !
Totally fucked it up !

Thanks mate. Respect, I understand, I am at fault as I suspected. I respect everything that you have said, apart from one thing. It does not mean that I can stop at half the distance of a car, in a matter of fact if you compeare my brakes to brembo on a car you will find that the car out stops me. I know that its not an excuse, and that once again I should have followed further behind, but none the less, please undertand my frustration here, would it have been something else (an other car I mean) I would have been fine, the 2 second rule asumes that you have the same braking power as the car in front of you. Unfortunatly with motorbikes thats not the case, generally speaking we take longer to break. Thats why I have adobted the 3-4second rule instead. In any case it does not mean that its OK, and that it excuses me of everything, but what I thought was more than safe, has turned out to be well... this. The blame is mine and I take it as a man should take it but at least a little bit is his... Thanks

Nikolai.

[Ixion]

I am at a loss to comprehend what logic could suggest that your running into the back of another vehicle, which you were following (!) could somehow be his fault.

Moreover, you state that the vehicle in front was going about 30kph ("now going 30km/h btw") : and that you allowed 8 metres following clearance (" I had at least 8 meters clearance") : and that the WRX stopped in 3 metres (about what one might expect at 30kph) ("he litrally stoped in 3 metres).

So, you were unable to stop from30kph in 11metres (8 mtr + 3 mtr).

Any modern bike will easily stop from 50kph let alone 30 in that distance . 60 years ago, when brakes were little more than cast iron ornamentation we could stop in 20 foot from 30 mph.

And yet, you managed to hit both him and another vehicle. And somehow it is his fault ?

The suggestions that the rules on following distance are not able to include someone (a child or otherwise) running out from hiding in front of the vehicle, are correct but irrelevant. The vehicle you hit did not run out in front of you, drop down from the sky, or otherwise unexpectedly materialise in front of you. You were following it!. Did you not see it ?

[<Rhino>]

Stink one mate, sounds like you got off lightly though, little damage and NO injury.

It does suck that cars can just stop in front of you without warning but thats life, it does say you have to be able to stop in half the distance in front of you. I nearly rear ended a car a couple of weeks ago in the wet who did the same.

[Ixion]

T.... It does not mean that I can stop at half the distance of a car, in a matter of fact if you compeare my brakes to brembo on a car you will find that the car out stops me. ... would it have been something else (an other car I mean) I would have been fine, the 2 second rule asumes that you have the same braking power as the car in front of you. Unfortunatly with motorbikes thats not the case, generally speaking we take longer to break. ...

Goodness me. Either urgently get your bike to a qualified repairer for urgent attention to its (apparently severely defective) brakes: or get yourself urgently to a RRRS course or similar.

[niero]

I am at a loss to comprehend what logic could suggest that your running into the back of another vehicle, which you were following (!) could somehow be his fault.

Moreover, you state that the vehicle in front was going about 30kph ("now going 30km/h btw") : and that you allowed 8 metres following clearance (" I had at least 8 meters clearance") : and that the WRX stopped in 3 metres (about what one might expect at 30kph) ("he litrally stoped in 3 metres).

So, you were unable to stop from30kph in 11metres (8 mtr + 3 mtr).

Any modern bike will easily stop from 50kph let alone 30 in that distance . 60 years ago, when brakes were little more than cast iron ornamentation we could stop in 20 foot from 30 mph.

And yet, you managed to hit both him and another vehicle. And somehow it is his fault ?

The suggestions that the rules on following distance are not able to include someone (a child or otherwise) running out from hiding in front of the vehicle, are correct but irrelevant. The vehicle you hit did not run out in front of you, drop down from the sky, or otherwise unexpectedly materialise in front of you. You were following it!. Did you not see it ?

Yes everything is correct here... Please dont take my readings of 3 metres exact, I saw tyre skids and I breaked. Sorry I didnt leave my left brain to calculate the exact measurement of how fast he stoped, if you want lab results ask Brembo, all I am saying is that he stoped, and done so very quickly. Please dont take my values so exact. I was trying to draw a picture, not a lab tested result.