It amazes me how badly some people fail at driving....

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

And then one day you cause a wreck and at best get the fault put on you by the police, and at worst kill someone else and/or yourself.

LostProphetFLCL

If you hit the back of someone it's your fault, it doesn't matter if they slammed on the brakes on not. If you didn't have time to stop, you were following too closely.

Exactly, which is why in that case the prospect of a minor collision doesn't bother me (because also it would only be a minor bump. Not like I am coming to a stop or anything).

They rear-end me and I am bringing their ass to court and they can pay their. Maybe next time they won't be a total idiot while driving.

Actually if they rear end you because you stopped or slowed down for no reason, you're the one who's liable for the collision. That's the one exception to the "following too closely" rule that a lot of people are unaware of.

[QUOTE="Dank_Dangler"]

If all you have to do is drive down the street and park (in most States), it is no wonder there are so many clowns on the road in the US. British driving tests are very hard to pass. You actually have to prove that you can drive, and there are(virtually) NO automatic tranny vehicles on the road there.

Driving tests are much more involved than "drive straight and park" in the US. You have to pass written exams and the driving exam has you go through a live course and an obstacle course, plus a parking test (both normal and parallel).

Also, in case you didn't notice, some of the videos on that site were of British drivers. There are idiots in every country.

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

If you hit the back of someone it's your fault, it doesn't matter if they slammed on the brakes on not. If you didn't have time to stop, you were following too closely.

gameguy6700

Exactly, which is why in that case the prospect of a minor collision doesn't bother me (because also it would only be a minor bump. Not like I am coming to a stop or anything).

They rear-end me and I am bringing their ass to court and they can pay their. Maybe next time they won't be a total idiot while driving.

Actually if they rear end you because you stopped or slowed down for no reason, you're the one who's liable for the collision. That's the one exception to the "following too closely" rule that a lot of people are unaware of.

No not at all.

If you are following close enough that you can't help but hit the person in front of you when they brake YOU ARE LIABLE! END OF STORY!!!

Not only that, but I would LOVE to see someone in court try and prove that I had no reason to stop. You simply can't do it.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

Exactly, which is why in that case the prospect of a minor collision doesn't bother me (because also it would only be a minor bump. Not like I am coming to a stop or anything).

They rear-end me and I am bringing their ass to court and they can pay their. Maybe next time they won't be a total idiot while driving.

LostProphetFLCL

Actually if they rear end you because you stopped or slowed down for no reason, you're the one who's liable for the collision. That's the one exception to the "following too closely" rule that a lot of people are unaware of.

No not at all.

If you are following close enough that you can't help but hit the person in front of you when they brake YOU ARE LIABLE! END OF STORY!!!

Not only that, but I would LOVE to see someone in court try and prove that I had no reason to stop. You simply can't do it.

Usually you're liable, yes. But as the cop who talked to my driver's ed class back in high school explained, there are exceptions, namely in that if the guy in front of you is an idiot and hits the breaks for no reason, he's liable. And yes, it can be proven. Insurance companies are ****ing pros when it comes to singling out drivers who caused other cars to rear into them. They have to be since it's a type of con art to get people up on your tail and then slam the breaks when the guy behind you isn't expecting it so that they crash into you and you collect "damages".

Actually if they rear end you because you stopped or slowed down for no reason, you're the one who's liable for the collision. That's the one exception to the "following too closely" rule that a lot of people are unaware of.

gameguy6700

You're wrong. Even if they slam on their brakes for no reason at all, the ONLY reason you would hit them in the rear is if you were following too closely. Google it, ask a lawyer, whatever, you're wrong.

"However, the general jurisdiction in rear end car accidents is that its always the drivers fault who rear ended the other vehicle. The simple reasoning behind that is "you should always keep a safe distance between a car infront of you and thus if you rear ended it, you did not keep a safe distance." Source, and so on and so forth.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Actually if they rear end you because you stopped or slowed down for no reason, you're the one who's liable for the collision. That's the one exception to the "following too closely" rule that a lot of people are unaware of.

br0kenrabbit

You're wrong. Even if they slam on their brakes for no reason at all, the ONLY reason you would hit them in the rear is if you were following too closely. Google it, ask a lawyer, whatever, you're wrong.

"However, the general jurisdiction in rear end car accidents is that its always the drivers fault who rear ended the other vehicle. The simple reasoning behind that is "you should always keep a safe distance between a car infront of you and thus if you rear ended it, you did not keep a safe distance." Source, and so on and so forth.

Unless of course the guy in front of you is slamming on his breaks for ****s and giggles, in which case you'll get cited for following too closely and he'll get cited for reckless driving.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Actually if they rear end you because you stopped or slowed down for no reason, you're the one who's liable for the collision. That's the one exception to the "following too closely" rule that a lot of people are unaware of.

gameguy6700

You're wrong. Even if they slam on their brakes for no reason at all, the ONLY reason you would hit them in the rear is if you were following too closely. Google it, ask a lawyer, whatever, you're wrong.

"However, the general jurisdiction in rear end car accidents is that its always the drivers fault who rear ended the other vehicle. The simple reasoning behind that is "you should always keep a safe distance between a car infront of you and thus if you rear ended it, you did not keep a safe distance." Source, and so on and so forth.

Unless of course the guy in front of you is slamming on his breaks for ****s and giggles, in which case you'll get cited for following too closely and he'll get cited for reckless driving.

All the guy has to say was "I was trying to avoid a dog/cat/road debris/whatever" or "I almost missed my turn". Seriously, if you rear-end someone, YOU were being stupid and WILL have to pay up.

This isn't an opinion.

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Actually if they rear end you because you stopped or slowed down for no reason, you're the one who's liable for the collision. That's the one exception to the "following too closely" rule that a lot of people are unaware of.

gameguy6700

No not at all.

If you are following close enough that you can't help but hit the person in front of you when they brake YOU ARE LIABLE! END OF STORY!!!

Not only that, but I would LOVE to see someone in court try and prove that I had no reason to stop. You simply can't do it.

Usually you're liable, yes. But as the cop who talked to my driver's ed class back in high school explained, there are exceptions, namely in that if the guy in front of you is an idiot and hits the breaks for no reason, he's liable. And yes, it can be proven. Insurance companies are ****ing pros when it comes to singling out drivers who caused other cars to rear into them. They have to be since it's a type of con art to get people up on your tail and then slam the breaks when the guy behind you isn't expecting it so that they crash into you and you collect "damages".

you are suppossed to be following 5 car lengths behind or around that distance.LostProphetFLCL

It's one car length per every 10MPH. So at 65MPH you should be 6 1/2 car lengths back.

Come live in Florida, people don't know what the left lane is for. They also insist on driving parallel to each other when driving the same speeds.

Come live in Florida, people don't know what the left lane is for. They also insist on driving parallel to each other when driving the same speeds.

Meat_Wad_Fan

Oh they do that here in Michigan to.

The best part is those people who drive side-by-side are usually doing like 10 under for no ******* reason. Makes me want to just kick them in the mouth....

Its funny because some people try so hard on the road test then once they get their license they just dont give effort anymore.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

No not at all.

If you are following close enough that you can't help but hit the person in front of you when they brake YOU ARE LIABLE! END OF STORY!!!

Not only that, but I would LOVE to see someone in court try and prove that I had no reason to stop. You simply can't do it.

LostProphetFLCL

Usually you're liable, yes. But as the cop who talked to my driver's ed class back in high school explained, there are exceptions, namely in that if the guy in front of you is an idiot and hits the breaks for no reason, he's liable. And yes, it can be proven. Insurance companies are ****ing pros when it comes to singling out drivers who caused other cars to rear into them. They have to be since it's a type of con art to get people up on your tail and then slam the breaks when the guy behind you isn't expecting it so that they crash into you and you collect "damages".

Do you drive that far behind other cars? I seriously doubt it seeing as how I've yet to see anyone on the road following the 1 car length per 10 MPH rule in the six or so years I've been driving. So unless you actually do do that, you should probably get off your high horse.

Anyway, my point was just that it isn't legal to go around slamming on your breaks when the guy behind you ticks you off. But yeah, I suppose it's hard to prove your fault since you could just claim a small critter ran out into the road and you hit the breaks to avoid it, or something like that. So have fun being passive agressive on the road and putting everyone at risk in the process.

lol:lol: at the second one! I litterally lol'd at that. I agree with you on that one. You'll get idiots that'll text and drive, can't keep their speed, park crooked knowing that they are, talk on the phone without a headset, drive on your tail, when stopped at a stop light you'll get a idiot that'll look like he's about to run into you and then he'll be on your tail and van drivers are the worst, Some people drive in both lanes, They cut you off, knowing they need to get over they come over at the last minute forcing you to slam on the brakes, and when they do come over they squeeze in between me and another car. Sometimes I want to beat the crap out of people like that. I can't drive yet (I turn the age to start this year) but I know not to do any of that. WTH is so important to send a text message to someone while driving? And if they're talking on the phone without a headset they can't drive worth crap either. Sometimes If they get into a reck I just want to ask Wow it was that important huh? in a sarcastic way. And the thing that gets me is I see people on base and they'll be on the phone and before they get to the gate, they'll quickly put the phone down, and then once they get past it and far Enough, they'll start talking again. You aren't supposed to be talking on the phone while on base So that tells you right there they know better.

the last one happened pretty close to my area lmao

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Usually you're liable, yes. But as the cop who talked to my driver's ed class back in high school explained, there are exceptions, namely in that if the guy in front of you is an idiot and hits the breaks for no reason, he's liable. And yes, it can be proven. Insurance companies are ****ing pros when it comes to singling out drivers who caused other cars to rear into them. They have to be since it's a type of con art to get people up on your tail and then slam the breaks when the guy behind you isn't expecting it so that they crash into you and you collect "damages".

gameguy6700

Do you drive that far behind other cars? I seriously doubt it seeing as how I've yet to see anyone on the road following the 1 car length per 10 MPH rule in the six or so years I've been driving. So unless you actually do do that, you should probably get off your high horse.

Anyway, my point was just that it isn't legal to go around slamming on your breaks when the guy behind you ticks you off. But yeah, I suppose it's hard to prove your fault since you could just claim a small critter ran out into the road and you hit the breaks to avoid it, or something like that. So have fun being passive agressive on the road and putting everyone at risk in the process.

If someones on my ass they are putting my safety at risk and I will do what it takes to get them of my ass, including scaring the Jesus out of them by taping my brakes.

Much better that than do nothing and REALLY have to slam the brakes for whatever reason and then they can plow into me.

Oh my the truck driver one was hilarious.. did you see his truck after it rolled down? :lol: omg!!

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"] Once again, you are simply wrong. The only remotely PLAUSIBLE case where you could prove someone had no legitimate reason to brake would be if you had video evidence, which even then isn't a given since you have no idea what is going through someones head, if maybe they just realized they needed to turn or something. And also, I have to re-iterate the simple fact that if you are close enough to be rear-ending someone because they brake you are too close to begin with and once again you are at fault as you are not following basic driving procedure which is you are suppossed to be following 5 car lengths behind or around that distance.LostProphetFLCL

Do you drive that far behind other cars? I seriously doubt it seeing as how I've yet to see anyone on the road following the 1 car length per 10 MPH rule in the six or so years I've been driving. So unless you actually do do that, you should probably get off your high horse.

Anyway, my point was just that it isn't legal to go around slamming on your breaks when the guy behind you ticks you off. But yeah, I suppose it's hard to prove your fault since you could just claim a small critter ran out into the road and you hit the breaks to avoid it, or something like that. So have fun being passive agressive on the road and putting everyone at risk in the process.

If someones on my ass they are putting my safety at risk and I will do what it takes to get them of my ass, including scaring the Jesus out of them by taping my brakes.

Much better that than do nothing and REALLY have to slam the brakes for whatever reason and then they can plow into me.

No, it's just as bad. If they're on your ass and you do nothing, there's the chance that there will be an accident because of their stupidity. If, however, you tap the breaks then that chance of an accident skyrockets because of your stupidity. And let's say they freak out, or maybe you slowed down too much and they do end up plowing into you, well great, now you've got a major accident on your hands. And if you pull this crap on the interstate you'll probably cause a multicar pileup in the process.

I mean, really, have you even bothered to analyze how messed up your logic is with this little tactic of your's? "If I hit the breaks there could be a wreck because the guy behind me is following so close, so to keep from having a wreck I'm going to hit the breaks".

The correct response is to switch lanes/turn off and let them pass you. Doing what you do just takes you down to the same level as the tailgater.

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Do you drive that far behind other cars? I seriously doubt it seeing as how I've yet to see anyone on the road following the 1 car length per 10 MPH rule in the six or so years I've been driving. So unless you actually do do that, you should probably get off your high horse.

Anyway, my point was just that it isn't legal to go around slamming on your breaks when the guy behind you ticks you off. But yeah, I suppose it's hard to prove your fault since you could just claim a small critter ran out into the road and you hit the breaks to avoid it, or something like that. So have fun being passive agressive on the road and putting everyone at risk in the process.

gameguy6700

If someones on my ass they are putting my safety at risk and I will do what it takes to get them of my ass, including scaring the Jesus out of them by taping my brakes.

Much better that than do nothing and REALLY have to slam the brakes for whatever reason and then they can plow into me.

No, it's just as bad. If they're on your ass and you do nothing, there's the chance that there will be an accident because of their stupidity. If, however, you tap the breaks then that chance of an accident skyrockets because of your stupidity. And let's say they freak out, or maybe you slowed down too much and they do end up plowing into you, well great, now you've got a major accident on your hands. And if you pull this crap on the interstate you'll probably cause a multicar pileup in the process.

I mean, really, have you even bothered to analyze how messed up your logic is with this little tactic of your's? "If I hit the breaks there could be a wreck because the guy behind me is following so close, so to keep from having a wreck I'm going to hit the breaks".

The correct response is to switch lanes/turn off and let them pass you. Doing what you do just takes you down to the same level as the tailgater.

HOW DID THESE PEOPLE GET THEIR LICENSE???

LostProphetFLCL

I hope to drive as badly as they do someday.kulmiye

Some of those are pretty bad! The first video and the one about the parking brake are the worst.

I'm surprised that the SUV didn't appear to do much damage, but that might have just been the camera.

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaam! That is insane!