ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th April 2019, 03:02 PM   #41
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,525
Originally Posted by Damien Evans View Post
I have literally never seen or heard of this
Itís common when driving long distances, and itís usually trucks which give the indication to overtake.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2019, 04:51 PM   #42
deadrose
Illuminator
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 3,082
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Itís common when driving long distances, and itís usually trucks which give the indication to overtake.
Here it's usually just flicking the head/taillights on and off and is also used by truckers to indicate when someone's passed far enough to pull back into the lane of traffic safely.

Of course in the city, a flick of the lights, or to high beams and back, usually means you forgot to turn yours on.
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2019, 05:02 PM   #43
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,796
Originally Posted by Damien Evans View Post
I have literally never seen or heard of this
It's common on country roads, and often leads to crashes.

Truck drivers use their right indicator to signal to following cars that they may pass.

Sometimes drivers see the truck indicating right, and drive into the truck which is turning right.
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2019, 05:09 PM   #44
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,811
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
True with caveats though as the article pointed out. Under typical stop conditions your supposed to leave enough distance between you and the car in front of you so that if you are reared ended you'll have time to stop or your skid marks indicate you kept enough room you likely won't be at fault, but if you don't leave enough distance and the evidence indicates then you'll be at fault. It's always in ones best interest to practice defensive driving.
We may be talking about different things. This thread seems to be about when you are already stopped. If you are already stopped, and someone hits your car from behind which drives your car into the car in front of you, the rear car (the one that hit you in this instance) is liable for the accident, not you. You cannot leave enough distance between you and the car in front of you to stop if you are already stopped.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 06:09 AM   #45
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
We may be talking about different things. This thread seems to be about when you are already stopped. If you are already stopped, and someone hits your car from behind which drives your car into the car in front of you, the rear car (the one that hit you in this instance) is liable for the accident, not you. You cannot leave enough distance between you and the car in front of you to stop if you are already stopped.
Yes if someone slams you with such force as to force you into the car ahead but you left a safe distance between your car and the car ahead then the skid marks made by your car will indicate that. But, if you stop to close (tailgate) to the car ahead and the skid marks indicate you were too close then you may be liable because you made no effort to drive defensively. Next time you are stopped and someone stops behind you note if they are tailgating.

Last edited by Steve001; 28th April 2019 at 06:11 AM.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 07:09 AM   #46
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,565
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
What I find perplexing is this response. All the cars are stopped at a light and one of the cars moves a few inches forward almost with out fail the car behind will close the gap. Why? It's a few inches. It's like a knee-jerk response.

Not if it's much more than a few inches and in rush-hour traffic. Then it's an attempt to make room for those behind you. See Novaphile's post 13.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 07:23 AM   #47
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,811
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
Yes if someone slams you with such force as to force you into the car ahead but you left a safe distance between your car and the car ahead then the skid marks made by your car will indicate that. But, if you stop to close (tailgate) to the car ahead and the skid marks indicate you were too close then you may be liable because you made no effort to drive defensively. Next time you are stopped and someone stops behind you note if they are tailgating.
This is simply not true, as shown by the link I gave you earlier. If you are stopped, and someone slams into your car forcing it into another car, you are not liable. Having your car forcibly moved from a stop does not have anything to do with defensive driving, as you were stopped at the time.

By your logic, hitting a car that is parallel parked (i.e. much closer than at a traffic light) with enough force to cause it to hit another car would leave the legally and safely parked car liable for damage caused by your actions to the third car. This is absurd, and so is your claim.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 08:10 AM   #48
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,659
I always wondered -- say you sufficient space to move ahead. You see a car coming up behind you and know it won't be able to stop in time to avoid hitting you.

Do you accelerate, hoping to increase the distance so the car can stop, and lessen the speed difference?

Or do you hold on the brakes and brace your head, thinking the car behind will now hit a "brick wall" and not move you much at all?

I realize there are some factors that would favor one choice over the other.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 10:24 AM   #49
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Not if it's much more than a few inches and in rush-hour traffic. Then it's an attempt to make room for those behind you. See Novaphile's post 13.
I cited a circumstance if a few inches. You proposed a completely different circumstance which is not relevant to the first.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 10:30 AM   #50
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,951
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I always wondered -- say you sufficient space to move ahead. You see a car coming up behind you and know it won't be able to stop in time to avoid hitting you.

Do you accelerate, hoping to increase the distance so the car can stop, and lessen the speed difference?

Or do you hold on the brakes and brace your head, thinking the car behind will now hit a "brick wall" and not move you much at all?

I realize there are some factors that would favor one choice over the other.
I have been in the very situation described. In my case, I put my head back on the head rest, pushed in the clutch to lessen the damage, then, after impact, stood on the brakes to keep from hitting the car stopped in front. I don't know if that was the optimum solution, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 12:51 PM   #51
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
This is simply not true, as shown by the link I gave you earlier. If you are stopped, and someone slams into your car forcing it into another car, you are not liable. Having your car forcibly moved from a stop does not have anything to do with defensive driving, as you were stopped at the time.

By your logic, hitting a car that is parallel parked (i.e. much closer than at a traffic light) with enough force to cause it to hit another car would leave the legally and safely parked car liable for damage caused by your actions to the third car. This is absurd, and so is your claim.
I read the Nolo link again you should too. It foremost mentions negligence, tailgating while stopped is negligent.

Concerning the second paragraph. That is absurd on two accounts, 1. I did not insinuate that remotely and 2. it's an absurd logical rebuttal.

Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
I have been in the very situation described. In my case, I put my head back on the head rest, pushed in the clutch to lessen the damage, then, after impact, stood on the brakes to keep from hitting the car stopped in front. I don't know if that was the optimum solution, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.
If it worked it was the optimum solution.

Last edited by Steve001; 28th April 2019 at 01:03 PM.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 01:26 PM   #52
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 6,070
Originally Posted by Molinaro View Post
First, the actual reason, you are supposed to leave a minimum 3/4 car length gap when stopped at a light is to facilitate getting out of the way if an emergency vehicle approaches from behind.
In what country is this? In the UK one may well fall foul of many other Highway Code Rules whilst attempting to, "facilitate getting out of the way if an emergency vehicle approaches from behind".

Quote:
Second, the only accident I have ever been in was while stopped at a light. It turned green, but the car in front of me only moved about a foot then stopped again. I did the same. The car behind me hit me, pushed me into the car in front of me, and pushed that car into the car in front of them, who it turns out had stalled and never moved when the light changed.
One good reason to leave space is in the event that you are rear ended. My company insists we undertake annual driver training and we are constantly reminded to ensure we can see the rear tyres of the car in front touching the road when stopped in traffic.
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 01:33 PM   #53
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,223
Originally Posted by ZirconBlue View Post
Nope. I have a new Subaru, and the collision avoidance system is very sophisticated, and won't take any action in the normal "stopping at an intersection" process.
Even when I'm J-walking in between all the stopped cars?
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 01:35 PM   #54
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,811
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
I read the Nolo link again you should too. It foremost mentions negligence, tailgating while stopped is negligent.

Concerning the second paragraph. That is absurd on two accounts, 1. I did not insinuate that remotely and 2. it's an absurd logical rebuttal.
It sounds absurd, because your position is absurd. There is no such thing as tailgating while stopped.

If you are stopped at a stoplight, stop sign, parked in a spot, what ever, and another driver hits your car (whether you are in it or not) and the force of that impact drives your car into a third car (or anything else), you are not liable, the driver that hit you is.

Look, I get that you really want it to be true, but I've already shown you that it's false. If you disagree, how about you showing me any legal source that supports your "tailgating while stopped" or "failure to leave enough room to stop a stopped car" would be liable. While you're at it, can you tell me the approximate distance required to stop a car that isn't moving? That could also help you think through your error.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 01:35 PM   #55
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,524
Interesting to read how other areas have rules and guidelines for driving safely and courteously. Novel idea.

Here in New Jersey USA, our driving style is only influenced by lateness or fear of death. Turn signals are used only when bumped by accident after dropping the crack pipe. Acceptable following distance is widely agreed to be such that a playing card can fit between two vehicles' bumpers, but not pass through.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 05:03 PM   #56
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
It sounds absurd, because your position is absurd. There is no such thing as tailgating while stopped.

If you are stopped at a stoplight, stop sign, parked in a spot, what ever, and another driver hits your car (whether you are in it or not) and the force of that impact drives your car into a third car (or anything else), you are not liable, the driver that hit you is.

Look, I get that you really want it to be true, but I've already shown you that it's false. If you disagree, how about you showing me any legal source that supports your "tailgating while stopped" or "failure to leave enough room to stop a stopped car" would be liable. While you're at it, can you tell me the approximate distance required to stop a car that isn't moving? That could also help you think through your error.
Since the term "tailgating" upsets you I'll stop using it even though it's visually descriptive, concise and leaves no doubt as to what I mean in this specific case and requires less typing than "stopped too closely".
Generally speaking there are no precise law(s), but there are prudent reasons for leaving a safe distance which you can look up. The general recommended distance is the back tires touching the road surface should be visible. If you disagree (likely) then give your auto insurance carrier a call to ask them what their policy is in the event of an accident caused by being "stopped too closely" behind the car in front of you.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2019, 05:28 PM   #57
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,811
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
Since the term "tailgating" upsets you I'll stop using it even though it's visually descriptive, concise and leaves no doubt as to what I mean in this specific case and requires less typing than "stopped too closely".
Generally speaking there are no precise law(s), but there are prudent reasons for leaving a safe distance which you can look up. The general recommended distance is the back tires touching the road surface should be visible. If you disagree (likely) then give your auto insurance carrier a call to ask them what their policy is in the event of an accident caused by being "stopped too closely" behind the car in front of you.
Your claim was that you are at fault if another car hits yours and drives it into another. I disproved that claim. I'm not going to call my insurance company to ask what their policy is on whatever made up term you want. If you can't support your own claim, don't expect me to make my agent fall out of his seat laughing at the idea of not providing enough space to stop when you aren't moving.

eta: in fact, can you explain how any accident at all is caused by being "stopped too closely"? The scenario we have been discussing involves an accident caused by the car behind yours' failure to stop. You were stopped. No accident occurred until an outside force rammed your car into the third car.

Last edited by wareyin; 28th April 2019 at 05:39 PM.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2019, 04:36 AM   #58
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Your claim was that you are at fault if another car hits yours and drives it into another. I disproved that claim. I'm not going to call my insurance company to ask what their policy is on whatever made up term you want. If you can't support your own claim, don't expect me to make my agent fall out of his seat laughing at the idea of not providing enough space to stop when you aren't moving.

eta: in fact, can you explain how any accident at all is caused by being "stopped too closely"? The scenario we have been discussing involves an accident caused by the car behind yours' failure to stop. You were stopped. No accident occurred until an outside force rammed your car into the third car.
It's negligent. Since you think you're right, are you willing to put your no at fault contention into practice in order to find out what your insurance carrier has to say about it?
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2019, 07:28 AM   #59
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,811
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
It's negligent. Since you think you're right, are you willing to put your no at fault contention into practice in order to find out what your insurance carrier has to say about it?
What is negligent? Be specific, please.

Every single legal source I can find specifies negligence as either non-functioning brake lights, sudden stopping, or reversing your car. I cannot find "tailgating while stopped", "stopped too closely", or any of your other made up terms. I can find plenty of non-legal, pulled out of one's ass assertions like yours, but not one of those has any legal or authoritative basis whatsoever.

This is your claim, the onus is on you to support it. Please do so.

Last edited by wareyin; 29th April 2019 at 07:29 AM.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.