Male errors 'killing women' on road

Cuddlesworth

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Id like to see the figures to show the number of males vs female drivers in this country. And I think more importantly the average time a male spends driving compared to women. I`d guess that the average male spends more time in a care than your average women so thus you would expect above results based on pure statistical probability.

Exactly. How about actual statistics that focus on all the facts. Like if for example,

90% of female passenger journeys are driven by a male.
66% of all female passenger fatalities are with a male driver.
45% of all female passenger injury's are with a male driver.

That would imply its safer in a car with a male wouldn't it. But no, the RSA wouldn't release those sort of facts. Makes more sense to incriminate males because we statistically drive much more then females.

Drummerboy08

How did I miss this thread??!! Sweet.

First off, I ****ing hate that ad. It puts male drivers in such a bad light, its not even funny. I genuinely get annoyed by it, as I know it is specifically aimed at people like me - a 21 year old male.

Secondly, as it was pointed out earlier in the thread - I'd imagine that there are alot more men on the road than women, and I would think that they spend alot more time on the roads too. Of course the statistics will show what they show. Its not proportional to the driving population.

One thing I would like to point out, and that maybe this thread needs is the fact that there are men out there like this. There are men out there who are as bad as some women. But, I was in Sligo last week on hols, down around Rosses Point. For those of you who know the area, its basically one road in and out of the Point. Its fairly wide, but its still one road.

I was driving along, minding my own business, when I see a white Skoda Felicia estate on the wrong side of the road. As it got closer I realised that the car was not going to get back onto the right side of the road in time, causing me to brake heavily and swerve to avoid. As it passed, i was amazed to see what the driver - a female driver - was doing. In one hand, she had a 99 ice cream, steering with her wrist on top of the wheel. In the other hand, she had her mobile phone, which was up against her ear! :eek: I was amazed that someone could be that thick.

Now the above is a good example of what i see on the roads on a daily basis. Women doing make up, playing with their hair, etc. Spending more time with their eyes in the mirror rather than on the road. Dont get me wrong, i see male drivers at stupid things too, but at least we know where to draw the line.

I really think that if the RSA spent more time trying to prevent the bad driving that causes these deaths, rather than telling other people basically not to get into a car with any male, and let them kill themselves, it would be money better spent.

P.C.

Anan1 wrote: »

Is this a joke? I was driving to Galway last month, doing 120km/h on a national primary road when the car in front of me hit an oncoming SUV which was turning across our path. I managed to stop before hitting the car. Guess why?

I met a guy today, who was driving an A*A Breakdown Assist van.
He had just driven into the back of someone (an off duty Gardia) - I asked him about the 'accident' and this is his story:

I was going round a roundabout when the car infront of me stoped sudenly, I braked and swerved left, but just clipped the rear passenger side of his car. He (the off duty Gardia) had rear ended another car which had slammed on half way round the roundabout (no point for guessing who was driving the car).

Now, I ask you - who slames on their brakes half way round a roundabout for no reason - ie, no danger has presented itself. And how many of us would be prepaird for such an incident.

While I agree that in your example above, we should all be able to stop before hitting the vehicle in front of us, there are examples where you would not expect someone to stop and the person stopping would have no reason for stopping.

Anan1

P.C. wrote: »

I met a guy today, who was driving an A*A Breakdown Assist van.
He had just driven into the back of someone (an off duty Gardia) - I asked him about the 'accident' and this is his story:

I was going round a roundabout when the car infront of me stoped sudenly, I braked and swerved left, but just clipped the rear passenger side of his car. He (the off duty Gardia) had rear ended another car which had slammed on half way round the roundabout (no point for guessing who was driving the car).

Now, I ask you - who slames on their brakes half way round a roundabout for no reason - ie, no danger has presented itself. And how many of us would be prepaird for such an incident.

While I agree that in your example above, we should all be able to stop before hitting the vehicle in front of us, there are examples where you would not expect someone to stop and the person stopping would have no reason for stopping.

Are you really surprised by that story? People do stupid things all the time - if you're not prepared for the car in front to slam on for no apparent reason then you're not prepared for driving. The AA driver and the Garda were either driving too close for the speed or not paying attention, it was a completely avoidable accident.

Gran Hermano

I'll post this again in case anyone has missed it:
http://www.bcc.ie/

It's time to take a stand gents and lodge a formal complaint as I have done.
No excuse for a campaign with this level of generalisation and sexist overtones, especially when it's based on incomplete statistics.

DarkJager

Gran Hermano wrote: »

I'll post this again in case anyone has missed it:
http://www.bcc.ie/

It's time to take a stand gents and lodge a formal complaint as I have done.
No excuse for a campaign with this level of generalisation and sexist overtones, especially when it's based on incomplete statistics.

Hit the RSA as well while you're at it:

info@rsa.ie

Let them know exactly what you think of their advert.

Anan1

Gran Hermano wrote: »

I'll post this again in case anyone has missed it:
http://www.bcc.ie/

It's time to take a stand gents and lodge a formal complaint as I have done.
No excuse for a campaign with this level of generalisation and sexist overtones, especially when it's based on incomplete statistics.

Is someone going to do this? I'd be genuinely very interested to see what the response is - keep us posted.

P.C.

Anan1 wrote: »

Are you really surprised by that story? People do stupid things all the time - if you're not prepared for the car in front to slam on for no apparent reason then you're not prepared for driving. The AA driver and the Garda were either driving too close for the speed or not paying attention, it was a completely avoidable accident.

No, I had a good laugh! An AXA Breakdown Assist driver and an off duty Garda.
Two drivers who should know better.

I see amazing things on the road when I am driving, or when I am walking on the pavement.
Putting silly, sexist ads on the radio is not going to do anything, except irritate me.

Proper traffic policing is the only way to go!

Saruman

Anan1 wrote: »

Is someone going to do this? I'd be genuinely very interested to see what the response is - keep us posted.

I did it from the other thread and I got a response along the lines of they are contacting todayfm (where I heard it) and they have 14 days to respond.

No mention of actually contacting the RSA about it which seems pointless.

smash

Anan1 wrote: »

Is someone going to do this? I'd be genuinely very interested to see what the response is - keep us posted.

I complained about it when it first came out about a year ago... I got a response to basically say they had nothing to do with it.

Anan1

Saruman wrote: »

I did it from the other thread and I got a response along the lines of they are contacting todayfm (where I heard it) and they have 14 days to respond.

No mention of actually contacting the RSA about it which seems pointless.

steve06 wrote: »

I complained about it when it first came out about a year ago... I got a response to basically say they had nothing to do with it.

I wonder is it the broadcaster rather than the RSA who is responsible to the ASA?

igglou

Hey All,

I'm a female driver but don't worry I'm not on here to defend my gender.

Like many of you, I have stories to match all of your observations of women behind the wheel. Only yesterday, there was a very slow moving car (driven by an elderly lady of course) heading for Kells at 65kph. I was two cars back and as a long straight stretch appeared I gave the driver in front time to make their overtake manouver but they stayed put so I decided to over take both cars, just then the other car pulled out without looking and I had to slam on to stop them hitting the side of my car and you guessed it, she was a woman and then she took her time overtaking, cut up the slow car and left me no room to pull in after her so I had to floor it to pass her too!

It was a woman driver who hit my car in the car park while reversing out of her spot only a few weeks ago.

The advanced driving instructor told me recently that he has noticed a serious rise in the amount of girl racers on the roads who are very aggressive.

I have to say I'm the 1% of female drivers who prefers to do all the driving on family outings and spend more time driving during the week than my husband. I'm a bit of a ladette at heart and I'd be rightly insulted and offended if I were male with this new campaign!

slimjimmc

igglou wrote: »

Hey All,

I'm a female driver but don't worry I'm not on here to defend my gender.

Like many of you, I have stories to match all of your observations of women behind the wheel. Only yesterday, there was a very slow moving car (driven by an elderly lady of course) heading for Kells at 65kph. I was two cars back and as a long straight stretch appeared I gave the driver in front time to make their overtake manouver but they stayed put so I decided to over take both cars, just then the other car pulled out without looking and I had to slam on to stop them hitting the side of my car and you guessed it, she was a woman and then she took her time overtaking, cut up the slow car and left me no room to pull in after her so I had to floor it to pass her too!

It was a woman driver who hit my car in the car park while reversing out of her spot only a few weeks ago.

The advanced driving instructor told me recently that he has noticed a serious rise in the amount of girl racers on the roads who are very aggressive.

I have to say I'm the 1% of female drivers who prefers to do all the driving on family outings and spend more time driving during the week than my husband. I'm a bit of a ladette at heart and I'd be rightly insulted and offended if I were male with this new campaign!

So basically you decided to overtake the slow auld biddy without ensuring there was enough room for you to pull back in safely :eek: . That's a very dangerous (and manly :cool:) thing to do. I often see it though, 2 cars overtake at the same time in the hope they'll squeeze back in somehow.

igglou

I was actually the only vehicle overtaking, and ensured plenty of time with absolutely no oncoming traffic. The 2 vehicles I was over taking were moving at 65kph and I was in a 520d so had enough power to get me to complete to manouever safely. My point was the lady pulling out without looking.

Stark

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Id like to see the figures to show the number of males vs female drivers in this country. And I think more importantly the average time a male spends driving compared to women. I`d guess that the average male spends more time in a care than your average women so thus you would expect above results based on pure statistical probability.

AA did a survey on this actually: http://www.aaireland.ie/publicaffairs/press-centre/summer09-pollresults.aspx

Note that males come out on top for high mileage and females for low mileage.

Loomis

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Id like to see the figures to show the number of males vs female drivers in this country. And I think more importantly the average time a male spends driving compared to women. I`d guess that the average male spends more time in a care than your average women so thus you would expect above results based on pure statistical probability.

But why use common sense when they could go off and spend a ton of money getting pretty graphs drawn up from surveys, analysists, statisticians, supervisors (and people to supervise the supervisers) and sensationalise it?
That's much more entertaining.

slimjimmc

Ahh, so there were 2 slow biddies who just swapped position, then you decided to go past both. I'd got the point about her not looking but interpreted being forced to overtake both as getting caught out. No worries, I would've done the same meself.

Saruman

I saw something fun today. There was a slow driver holding up a load of traffic and way up front of the queue someone started overtaking on a ghost island. Anyway after that manoeuvre was done a few cars back two cars moved in the ghost Island, the one at the back was a learner driver and happened to be a woman. Anyway what she did not realise was that the person in front of her was NOT overtaking on the ghost island (illegal) but using it correctly and turning right. Needless to say she found herself stuck and a long line of traffic streaming past her. Unfortunately someone took pity on her ahead of me and slowed down to let her back in.

Ghost Islands are there for a reason (turning) and the only time I would overtake using one is if it is a tractor or construction vehicle doing 20kph and never a long line of traffic.

Wibbs

Anan1 wrote: »

Are you really surprised by that story? People do stupid things all the time - if you're not prepared for the car in front to slam on for no apparent reason then you're not prepared for driving. The AA driver and the Garda were either driving too close for the speed or not paying attention, it was a completely avoidable accident.

I'm sorry and with respect but that's utter nonsense. An example of beige minded pedantry and as such not always applicable in the real world. Oh yes wonderful in theory, but in reality? The reality is that unless you're in a constant state of twitchy readiness (and no one is, including you BTW), there will be scenarios where the unexpected will catch anyone out(again including you). A scenario where someone jams on for no reason on a roundabout is one of them. Or when someone just pulls out of a parking spot without indicating and goes straight into you. The list is long.

Unless your name is Ms. Mystic Meg Geller or you've a Ouija board in place of your satnav, there will be times when even the best of drivers will be caught out. There are too many variable conditions and too many variable drivers and too many variable cars with variable stopping distances, that it's almost a given that sooner or later you will be caught out. You may get lucky and for the most part people do, especially good and aware drivers. That certainly increases the chances of the "luck" going your way. Otherwise as I said it's utter nonsense. Fine if it makes you feel better and improves your everyday driving, but a reality check is also useful.

I've been driving for 22 years and I've never hit anyone. Am I a good driver? I'm ok but theres always room for improvement, but on more than a few occasions when faced with moronic drivers or sudden unexpected events, it was as much luck as judgement.

As for the ad, yes I think it's guff and the usual heavyhanded approach of eejits who forget what it was like to be young and what might appeal to the young. Hell when I was first driving half the time women would egg you on to go faster as some youthful excitement thing. Telling an 18yr old they might die, is not exactly useful. Most 18 year olds think themselves immortal. It's part of being an 18 year old. The ones who will listen would be the types not to be of the mindset in the first place.

If they want to cut deaths in the young there are other ways of doing it. The driving test needs an overhaul. IMHO It's vastly out of date as far as driving nowadays is concerned. The going down the gears while stopping originated in the 50's london metropolitan police driving test, when cars brakes were simply not up to the task. On more than one occasion I've seen an inexperienced driver, fresh from the learning to drive for the test school of driving, run into the back of another car at the lights when their foot slipped off the clutch going down the gears and braking. I'd much rather have someone coast into me than drive into me. The feeding the wheel is also from way back in the day of non power assisted steering and bigger steering wheels. Yes it is good practice in most cases, but not always and I can't think of a good experienced safe driver that does it to the degree required for the test, or goes down the gears when stopping(inc police advanced driving instructors. One Irish, one British).

Introduce drivers classes in school. Way before they ever step into a car.

Before they ever get near a public road, learners should learn how to control the car to a standard on a private road. Include skidpan training too.

Learner drivers should not be let out at all unless in a dual control car until they pass the test. Passing the test should only be the start. They should introduce a second level probational L plate that shows the person is under probation and should still only be driving with a full driving licence holder. Then a second driving test a year later to look at their car control and just as importantly driving awareness. I can think of a few people who have spectacular car control(including one who races cars as a pastime), but whose awareness is minimal.

Probational learners should be restricted in engine size. Nothing more than 1.3.

Every ten years a short driving test. Nothing to crazy, just a quick test to see how they drive down the line.

Instructors should be fully licenced and must pass a specific driving course. They should be themselves retested every 3 years.

If you fail your driving test more than 3 times, you should be banned from driving for two years and have to start all over again.

That little lot should have more of an effect than any ads.

My 2 cents

Biro

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm sorry and with respect but that's utter nonsense. An example of beige minded pedantry and as such not always applicable in the real world. Oh yes wonderful in theory, but in reality? The reality is that unless you're in a constant state of twitchy readiness (and no one is, including you BTW), there will be scenarios where the unexpected will catch anyone out(again including you). A scenario where someone jams on for no reason on a roundabout is one of them. Or when someone just pulls out of a parking spot without indicating and goes straight into you. The list is long.

Unless your name is Ms. Mystic Meg Geller or you've a Ouija board in place of your satnav, there will be times when even the best of drivers will be caught out. There are too many variable conditions and too many variable drivers and too many variable cars with variable stopping distances, that it's almost a given that sooner or later you will be caught out. You may get lucky and for the most part people do, especially good and aware drivers. That certainly increases the chances of the "luck" going your way. Otherwise as I said it's utter nonsense. Fine if it makes you feel better and improves your everyday driving, but a reality check is also useful.

I've been driving for 22 years and I've never hit anyone. Am I a good driver? I'm ok but theres always room for improvement, but on more than a few occasions when faced with moronic drivers or sudden unexpected events, it was as much luck as judgement.

As for the ad, yes I think it's guff and the usual heavyhanded approach of eejits who forget what it was like to be young and what might appeal to the young. Hell when I was first driving half the time women would egg you on to go faster as some youthful excitement thing. Telling an 18yr old they might die, is not exactly useful. Most 18 year olds think themselves immortal. It's part of being an 18 year old. The ones who will listen would be the types not to be of the mindset in the first place.

If they want to cut deaths in the young there are other ways of doing it. The driving test needs an overhaul. IMHO It's vastly out of date as far as driving nowadays is concerned. The going down the gears while stopping originated in the 50's london metropolitan police driving test, when cars brakes were simply not up to the task. On more than one occasion I've seen an inexperienced driver, fresh from the learning to drive for the test school of driving, run into the back of another car at the lights when their foot slipped off the clutch going down the gears and braking. I'd much rather have someone coast into me than drive into me. The feeding the wheel is also from way back in the day of non power assisted steering and bigger steering wheels. Yes it is good practice in most cases, but not always and I can't think of a good experienced safe driver that does it to the degree required for the test, or goes down the gears when stopping(inc police advanced driving instructors. One Irish, one British).

Introduce drivers classes in school. Way before they ever step into a car.

Before they ever get near a public road, learners should learn how to control the car to a standard on a private road. Include skidpan training too.

Learner drivers should not be let out at all unless in a dual control car until they pass the test. Passing the test should only be the start. They should introduce a second level probational L plate that shows the person is under probation and should still only be driving with a full driving licence holder. Then a second driving test a year later to look at their car control and just as importantly driving awareness. I can think of a few people who have spectacular car control(including one who races cars as a pastime), but whose awareness is minimal.

Probational learners should be restricted in engine size. Nothing more than 1.3.

Every ten years a short driving test. Nothing to crazy, just a quick test to see how they drive down the line.

Instructors should be fully licenced and must pass a specific driving course. They should be themselves retested every 3 years.

If you fail your driving test more than 3 times, you should be banned from driving for two years and have to start all over again.

That little lot should have more of an effect than any ads.

My 2 cents

I agree with most there, but to be fair to Anan he does have a point. Staying aware and keeping an appropriate distance from the car in front will help you out 8 out of 10 times. The 9th time might be for some unusual and rare situation and the 10th time is because we're human and we made a mistake, but you never hit anyone in 22 years because you're obviously keeping a safe distance more often than not!
I'd restrict horse power rather than engine size, limit to 100bhp.
The cops could do plenty too. Shooting fish in a barrel is no way to reduce speeding. They should be after driver attitude, which includes penalising people for turning left from the right lane on approach to a roundabout, hogging the overtaking lane, driving too close, all that kind of thing. If they clamped down hard on this for 6 months, they'd catch nearly all of us at some stage, leading us all to analyse our day-to-day attitude in the car and ask ourselves questions.
Far more useful than just being told to mind where that needle is on your speedo, after that you're grand!
I'd also support a few cops policing the rural roads near nightclubs at 3am, when most of the fatalities happen.

Anan1

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm sorry and with respect but that's utter nonsense. An example of beige minded pedantry and as such not always applicable in the real world. Oh yes wonderful in theory, but in reality? The reality is that unless you're in a constant state of twitchy readiness (and no one is, including you BTW), there will be scenarios where the unexpected will catch anyone out(again including you). A scenario where someone jams on for no reason on a roundabout is one of them.

Again with respect, there are only two reasons why people drive into the back of the car in front - lack of awareness and lack of space. (Discounting mechanical failure, the car in front having shed its oil, etc) You don't need any superhuman skills if you maintain adequate separation. Honestly, this is a simple and self-evident point - why are people soo resistant to it?

Wibbs wrote: »

Or when someone just pulls out of a parking spot without indicating and goes straight into you. The list is long.

Sure. What is the relevance of this to what I said?

Wibbs wrote: »

Unless your name is Ms. Mystic Meg Geller or you've a Ouija board in place of your satnav, there will be times when even the best of drivers will be caught out. There are too many variable conditions and too many variable drivers and too many variable cars with variable stopping distances, that it's almost a given that sooner or later you will be caught out. You may get lucky and for the most part people do, especially good and aware drivers. That certainly increases the chances of the "luck" going your way. Otherwise as I said it's utter nonsense. Fine if it makes you feel better and improves your everyday driving, but a reality check is also useful.

I've been driving for 22 years and I've never hit anyone. Am I a good driver? I'm ok but theres always room for improvement, but on more than a few occasions when faced with moronic drivers or sudden unexpected events, it was as much luck as judgement.

As above.

congo_90

The op raises a good point the RSA somehow forgot here:
Male dirvers kill passengers of both sexes..

I've never had a complaint about my driving except when the mother is the passenger lol. Other than that my friends (female and male) have both commented on my safe but not too boring driving (I don't show off with the opposite sex).
2 years on the road legally and I have yet to kill anything bigger than a badger (f*cker damaged my bumper )

More male drivers kill more because there are more male drivers! Women (most) use a car for A-B while men like to go out and drive around and have some fun.
So, mile per mile, per head who is safer?

Anan1

congo_90 wrote: »

So, mile per mile, per head who is safer?

I'm guessing in terms of injuries/deaths it's women, in terms of all accidents it's men. Wouldn't mind seeing the statistics though.

Eoin

Going by this thread you'd swear that there weren't lots of young fellas driving like lunatics, and I'm not sure that's true.

Anan1

eoin wrote: »

Going by this thread you'd swear that there weren't lots of young fellas driving like lunatics, and I'm not sure that's true.

Any boardsie who didn't drive like McRae when they were 19 has no business calling themselves a car enthusiast IMO.;)

Cuddlesworth

eoin wrote: »

Going by this thread you'd swear that there weren't lots of young fellas driving like lunatics, and I'm not sure that's true.

I would hope that most people are like me, just annoyed that the RSA have once again cherry picked statistics rather then did something productive with the airtime.

If even 67% of all female passenger journeys are driven by males then the ad is extremely sexist and should say female errors "killing men" on road.

Does anybody here think that less then 66% of all female passengers journeys are driven by males?

Mr. Presentable

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm guessing in terms of injuries/deaths it's women, in terms of all accidents it's men. Wouldn't mind seeing the statistics though.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/inclusion/women/incarsafetyandthepersonalsec3265?page=4

Saruman

Anan1 wrote: »

Again with respect, there are only two reasons why people drive into the back of the car in front - lack of awareness and lack of space. (Discounting mechanical failure, the car in front having shed its oil, etc) You don't need any superhuman skills if you maintain adequate separation. Honestly, this is a simple and self-evident point - why are people soo resistant to it?

I would agree with you for the most part but there are more than two reasons and I would imagine many more. I will give you two more.
The car in front is a Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren and jams on the brakes (deer or something rungs out in front of it). This car has a stopping distance from 70mph of something like 160 feet :eek: A normal family car at the same speed is something like 450 feet or more. so unless you are driving hundreds of feet behind the car in front, there is no way to avoid either hitting the merc or else having to swerve to avoid it.
different cars have different stopping distances and I am sure there are other cars out there with better brakes than the average family car.

Another scenario is one that happened to me. 3 cars stopped at traffic lights. I am the 3rd car. Lights go green, off we go and the car in front is a polish car, sees a building site no more than 10 meters from the lights and slams on the brakes to swerve in to the site (looking for work they said after) The car behind them hits them as they turn. Since it is a building site, the road is full of gravel. So my car keeps sliding in to the 2nd car.
No damage done to the car (light tap) as the speed was so low but the point is, there was nothing wrong with the driving of either myself or the car in front of me but no one can expect a car pulling away from traffic lights to do that sort of crazy move and you can not expect the gravel when you can not see it until its too late.

It is not so clear cut anan, and I bet there are plenty of other plausible scenarios where someone has driven in to the back of a car and there was no way to humanly avoid it.

What is adequate separationto you? Keeping a distance of 400 feet between you and the car in front at all times?

I am not saying it is not mostly the fault of the driver at the rear, I am just saying there ARE valid reasons

Cuddlesworth

nipplenuts wrote: »

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/inclusion/women/incarsafetyandthepersonalsec3265?page=4

Took out the important bits there.

The STATS 19 data (1996-1998) comprises 950,000 passenger car drivers involved in a collision resulting in injury to a road user and provides a broad overview of the environmental circumstances at the time of the collision together with limited vehicle damage and occupant injury information.


It is reported that women make fewer and shorter trips as a car driver compared to their male counterparts (DETR, 1998). This is reflected in the ratio of mileage driven per annum between the genders given in Table 3. Comparing the ratio of annual mileage with that for collision involvement as a driver, female drivers account for a quarter of total mileage but a third of all injury accidents. This leads to the conclusion that women are more likely to be the driver in an injury crash per mile driven. Only in the youngest age group (17-20 years) are men more likely to be involved in a collision than their female counterpart. It should be noted that this exposure data does not apportion blame for the occurrence of a collision.

Eoin

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Took out the important bits there.

Indeed:

Only in the youngest age group (17-20 years) are men more likely to be involved in a collision than their female counterpart

Cuddlesworth

Saruman wrote: »

Another scenario is one that happened to me. 3 cars stopped at traffic lights. I am the 3rd car. Lights go green, off we go and the car in front is a polish car, sees a building site no more than 10 meters from the lights and slams on the brakes to swerve in to the site (looking for work they said after) The car behind them hits them as they turn. Since it is a building site, the road is full of gravel. So my car keeps sliding in to the 2nd car.
No damage done to the car (light tap) as the speed was so low but the point is, there was nothing wrong with the driving of either myself or the car in front of me but no one can expect a car pulling away from traffic lights to do that sort of crazy move and you can not expect the gravel when you can not see it until its too late.

Not to sound like I'm riding my high horse(reaches down to pet Sarah Jessica Parker, good girl), but it really sounds like you were too close to the car in front. You were two cars back from the person who caused the accident, twice the distance I would have expected. Gravel aside this should have been more then enough. And why were you not looking at the possibility of the road being dirty from the building site and adjusting your distance accordingly. I have to do it all the time, otherwise I'll most likely end up dead.

Anan1

Saruman wrote: »

I would agree with you for the most part but there are more than two reasons and I would imagine many more. I will give you two more.
The car in front is a Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren and jams on the brakes (deer or something rungs out in front of it). This car has a stopping distance from 70mph of something like 160 feet :eek: A normal family car at the same speed is something like 450 feet or more. so unless you are driving hundreds of feet behind the car in front, there is no way to avoid either hitting the merc or else having to swerve to avoid it.
different cars have different stopping distances and I am sure there are other cars out there with better brakes than the average family car.

Another scenario is one that happened to me. 3 cars stopped at traffic lights. I am the 3rd car. Lights go green, off we go and the car in front is a polish car, sees a building site no more than 10 meters from the lights and slams on the brakes to swerve in to the site (looking for work they said after) The car behind them hits them as they turn. Since it is a building site, the road is full of gravel. So my car keeps sliding in to the 2nd car.
No damage done to the car (light tap) as the speed was so low but the point is, there was nothing wrong with the driving of either myself or the car in front of me but no one can expect a car pulling away from traffic lights to do that sort of crazy move and you can not expect the gravel when you can not see it until its too late.

It is not so clear cut anan, and I bet there are plenty of other plausible scenarios where someone has driven in to the back of a car and there was no way to humanly avoid it.

What is adequate separationto you? Keeping a distance of 400 feet between you and the car in front at all times?

I am not saying it is not mostly the fault of the driver at the rear, I am just saying there ARE valid reasons

Adequate separation is enough room to stop before hitting the car in front. As we all know, it varies with speed, weather, road condition/surface etc. The McLaren argument doesn't really wash as a Micra will stop at least as fast as the McLaren if it hits a car coming across its path. Take your case as an example - if you'd been a bit further back then you wouldn't have hit the other car. On motorways there is often an alternative escape route which can be factored in. There are other areas where it's not reasonably possible to eliminate the risk - cars coming out of side roads, running red lights, swerving into your lane etc, but it's easily possible (mechanical failure/oil spills etc aside) to ensure that we don't drive into the back of a car we can see in front of us.

P.C.

Anan1 wrote: »

Adequate separation is enough room to stop before hitting the car in front. As we all know, it varies with speed, weather, road condition/surface etc. The McLaren argument doesn't really wash as a Micra will stop at least as fast as the McLaren if it hits a car coming across its path. Take your case as an example - if you'd been a bit further back then you wouldn't have hit the other car. On motorways there is often an alternative escape route which can be factored in. There are other areas where it's not reasonably possible to eliminate the risk - cars coming out of side roads, running red lights, swerving into your lane etc, but it's easily possible (mechanical failure/oil spills etc aside) to ensure that we don't drive into the back of a car we can see in front of us.

When you drive into the car in front of you, will you be honest enough to post it on boards?

It happens - I don't wish it on anyone, but it happens.

Anan1

P.C. wrote: »

When you drive into the car in front of you, will you be honest enough to post it on boards?

It happens - I don't wish it on anyone, but it happens.

I wouldn't dream of denying you the satisfaction.:D Seriously though, of course it could happen. Like anyone else my concentration isn't perfect. Difference is, if it does happen to me i'll freely admit that it was both avoidable and completely my own fault.

spiggotpaddy

statistics can be used to prove anything. 40% of all people know that.

Wibbs

Anan1 wrote: »

Again with respect, there are only two reasons why people drive into the back of the car in front - lack of awareness and lack of space. (Discounting mechanical failure, the car in front having shed its oil, etc) You don't need any superhuman skills if you maintain adequate separation. Honestly, this is a simple and self-evident point - why are people soo resistant to it?

I'm certainly not or I would have hit cars and other objects in 20 odd years of driving. What I am resistant to is pedantry, black and white thinking and holier than thou bolloxology, especially when it's presented as immovable fact. That does little to stop the madness that does infect our roads at times.

Accident http://www.thefreedictionary.com/accident. "An unexpected and undesirable event" though usually followed by the C definition in that link "An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing".

I agree with Biro when he said "Staying aware and keeping an appropriate distance from the car in front will help you out 8 out of 10 times. The 9th time might be for some unusual and rare situation and the 10th time is because we're human and we made a mistake", though I would add pure dumb luck somewhere into the equation.

Yes being aware massively reduces the chances, being in control of your car? Ditto. leaving enough space? Defo. But variables are there. Variables beyond your control, unless your second name is God and your address is No 1, Heaven Road.

Sure. What is the relevance of this to what I said?

As above.

The relevance is or should be obvious. Just because you're in complete control of your car(and you're not, nor never are), others may not be and the conditions and variables of your car, the road and other road users may change beyond your capabilities to deal with them. Basically my issue is that you and others I have met think that regardless that you can, by dint of your awareness and car control, control the massive variables that may lead to an accident. You can't. You can reduce them, but not eliminate them. End of. Do not get me wrong I would prefer if the world was full of hugely aware and in control drivers, but even in that imaginary world accidents, like shít would still happen.

Saruman

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Not to sound like I'm riding my high horse(reaches down to pet Sarah Jessica Parker, good girl), but it really sounds like you were too close to the car in front. You were two cars back from the person who caused the accident, twice the distance I would have expected. Gravel aside this should have been more then enough. And why were you not looking at the possibility of the road being dirty from the building site and adjusting your distance accordingly. I have to do it all the time, otherwise I'll most likely end up dead.

This is one of those "You had to be there" scenarios. Remember what I said, I was so close because we were all stopped at traffic lights! You do not leave a large gap between you and the car in front at traffic lights, you keep as a rule of thumb enough of a gap so you can see the wheels of the back of the car and that is about 5 feet or so. When moving off no one waits until the car in front has moved a few car lengths away from you before moving off themselves, If people did that you would only have two or three cars getting through thr traffic lights :rolleyes: Remember this accident happened within 5 seconds (if even) of moving away from the traffic lights. I had not even got out of first gear!! You simply can not expect that sort of thing, no one can. For one thing, the first reaction on seeing that is WTF?? And your reaction is not as instant as if it happened at a faster speed or at a junction where you might expect something like that.

Secondly as to why I did not expect gravel at a building site? Simple... what building site?? It was not until the accident happened that I even noticed a building site. Probably part of the reason the car in front was already past the entrance when it slammed on the brakes to try and get in. It was surrounded by a nice big wall and there was nothing to indicate a building site until you passed the gates and saw the signs.

Yes I am afraid you were in fact riding your own horse Trust me, I am a safe and confident driver with very fast reflexes. I drive for a living pretty much (IT engineer) and have avoided thousands of collisions due to muppets on the road doing stupid things. This one time, nothing could prevent what happened unless my car had actually stalled and I had not had a chance to move off. There is not a driver in the world that could have avoided it if the circumstances where the same.
All I can say was there was plenty of stopping distance and it would have been avoided if not for the gravel as there was almost no speed involved.

galwaytt

Anan1 wrote: »

Adequate separation is enough room to stop before hitting the car in front. As we all know, it varies with speed, weather, road condition/surface etc. [/I].

Yes, but that's in a stream of moving traffic. Stopped at a light/junction, and moving off, you're going to be what.......1500mm behind, as you're moving from 0 km/h. 2-second rule and all that, all refers to moving traffic. If you're advocating using stopping distances to judge BEFORE you move off, from a stop, be prepared for some very, very irate people behind you. And missing the Green, too, I'd say...............oh, and quite possibly someone trying to pull you out through the window.........


Meanwhile, taking the thread title at it's simplest, then the single biggest mistake men make is........selling cars to women in the first place...

Saruman

galwaytt wrote: »

Meanwhile, taking the thread title at it's simplest, then the single biggest mistake men make is........selling cars to women in the first place...

Sorry, completely out of order and so on but Jaysus I laughed out loud on that one