Fined for Failure to Keep a Safe Distance after Accident

Lflopsy on 19/07/2018 - 18:11
Last edited 19/07/2018 - 18:31 by 1 other user

Last weekend I was driving on an expressway when a kangaroo jumped out from behind a safety barrier, into the Median Strip. I was traveling in the far lane and saw it from a good distance back. Naturally, traffic was slowing, but as we got closer to the roo I realized (too late) the X5 in front of me had slammed his brakes. I put on full brakes straight away, skidded for a while but still managed to hit him (just) and put a crack in his rear bumper.

He apologized profusely, saying that he only saw the kangaroo when it was "right in front of him" (in the median strip with a whole lane between, but I digress). He even explained this to police at the scene.

The officers responding to the crash told me that, for insurance purposes, the driver behind is always at fault, which I knew and completely accepted. I protested that I was at a safe distance which the other driver concurred and they said it didn't matter. I totally agreed and accepted this and have no problem with him claiming on my insurance for it.

Today, I received an expiation notice for "Failure to Keep Safe Distance from Vehicle In-front". There is no evidence provided and I wasn't informed at the scene this would happen.

So here are my questions:

  • Is this standard after a rear end accident? I feel like I'm being prosecuted for something I didn't do without evidence or prior warning.

  • What constitutes safe distance?

I had always gone by two seconds but I can't find one clear official definition. The cars were traveling about 80km/h, slowing from 100km/h and I am sure I was at least 2 seconds from him when I realised he had actually slammed his brakes on from just slowing down. He was in a new BMW X5 and I was in an old Ford Fiesta with 100+kg of equipment in it, not to mention I slowed down enough from 80km/h to just crack his bumper.

  • Right and wrong aside, do I have any real chance of getting this waived or at least reduced? Ideally with less/no demerits.

TL;DR:
Charged with "Failure to Keep Safe Distance" days after incident, with no evidence or mention of it at the time. Believe I was absolutely at a safe distance. Should I appeal?

Happy to hear the truth no matter how hard. Thanks in advance.

Automotive

Comments

    • Blitzfx on 20/07/2018 - 09:51
      +5

      I was in an old Ford Fiesta with 100+kg of equipment in it,

      I'll keep my full comment about this aside, except for the fact that it is the WRONG type of car to transport stuff in.

      Hmm, so you're saying if I transport your mother in my car, that's the wrong type of car? :)

      • pegaxs on 20/07/2018 - 12:37
        +1

        Yo momma so fat, I can't take her shopping in my Ford Fiesta…

        Two average adults in that car would be more than 100kg…

        • Blitzfx on 20/07/2018 - 18:23

          Yeah, this comment only came to mind because I know a friend who's almost hitting 100kg unfortunately lol

  • tezza on 19/07/2018 - 19:58

    Why is a fiesta the wrong car to transport 100kg of stuff in?

  • try2bhelpful on 19/07/2018 - 20:00
    +4

    We were travelling up the Melbourne Geelong road one day when the cops decided to set up a breathalyzer on a blind bend of the freeway. It was absolute carnage; the traffic was horrific and people were crashing into each other all over the place. We ended up doing a U-turn and hanging around Geelong for a few hours to let them clear the road. I agree with keeping a good distance and brethalizers are important but the cops really screwed it up that day.

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 19/07/2018 - 23:22
      +1

      That's outrageous behaviour from the police, did any of them get prostituted? Any link would be appreciated.

      • theguru1 on 20/07/2018 - 07:35
        +1

        How is this relevant?

      • jacross on 20/07/2018 - 09:02
        +8

        Lol I think its unlikely they got prostituted but who knows.

      • try2bhelpful on 20/07/2018 - 10:27

        don't know if they got "prostituted" but I do wonder if they were blowing into their own bags?

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 11:49

      While it may have been inconvenient - if people were crashing into each other that's really on them. What if, instead of there being police, it was a rock or something that had fallen off of a truck? One of the key parts of driving safely is that you're at a speed that accounts for visibility, whether that's a bend in the road or weather (rain/fog).

      • macrocephalic on 20/07/2018 - 13:28

        Because causing injury just because people are doing the wrong thing isn't smart. Do you mow down jaywalkers or brake for them? Do you trip up cyclists who aren't wearing helmets?

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 15:04
          -1

          It's not the police causing injury. It's people failing to follow at a safe distance causing injury.

          Do you mow down jaywalkers or brake for them? Do you trip up cyclists who aren't wearing helmets?

          In both these cases you'd be at fault. In the above case, the drivers are at fault. Do you know how analogies work?

  • poohduck on 19/07/2018 - 20:21
    +3

    Personally tailgating is one of my pet hates. If somebody runs into the back of your car it's you who gets injured. I just think it's arrogance or bullying.

  • dylo on 19/07/2018 - 20:25

    This will close shortly like the speeding fine thread. RIP OP.

  • Ughhh on 19/07/2018 - 20:53

    Last weekend I was driving on an expressway when a kangaroo jumped out from behind a safety barrier, into the Median Strip. I was traveling in the far lane and saw it from a good distance back.

    So you saw the hazard from a good distance, but didn't use that knowledge to take precautions by slowing down and keeping a longer distance from the car Infront…

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 19/07/2018 - 23:50

      I agree, having said that the "safety barrier" wasn't very safe.

      • poohduck on 20/07/2018 - 17:05

        The safety barriers are designed to keep cars travelling in a forward direction when they go to run off the road. They are usually where you could run down a big bank, hit a tree, or in this case run into oncoming traffic. They kind of work like dodgem cars. For motorbikes they're actually worse, but great for cars.

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 11:47

      Honestly they should've been keeping that "longer distance" in the first place, because that would've been the safe distance.

  • jacross on 20/07/2018 - 08:44
    +2

    If only there was something we could look up to find out the rules of the road in Australia…

    Australian Road Rules

    126—Keeping a safe distance behind vehicles

    A driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle travelling in front of the driver so the driver can, if necessary, stop safely to avoid a collision with the vehicle.

    You can tell you weren't traveling a safe distance behind the vehicle in front because you collided with them. That collision is the evidence. They also aren't required to give you prior warning that you will be issued.

    Also, two seconds is a decent rule of thumb to account for the period from initiating braking to a full stop. Add another second for reaction time, plus additional time if there are deletirious conditions.

    S126 is one of if not the most frequently broken road rules by motorists. We all do it. I do it on occasion and I hate tailgaters (and i have a broad definition of tailgating). I have myself run up the back of someone when i was younger. Twice. Once was on a motorcycle. They rank as the stupidest things Ive ever done.

    We break this rule because its a low probability event, and as humans we are very bad at intuitive probability and risk calculations. Unfortunately its also a high impact event. Luckily this time your incident wasnt too serious.

  • Ozpit on 20/07/2018 - 09:01

    Why don't kangaroos know to look to the left, look to the right and then look to the left again before hopping across a road? I think a road safety education program for all kangaroos of hopping age is long overdue.

  • Roll Eyes on 20/07/2018 - 09:17
    +2

    Good. Maybe you’ll keep this in mind when driving.
    You claim you saw the kangaroo so you should’ve already been slowing down.
    The 3 second rule was relevant when people had more intelligence. Now when drivers see brake lights, their first reaction is to try and go around them (regardless of the cars around them). Either that or they’re looking at their phone and don’t see them at all. Drivers have such a refusal to slow down for anything.
    Anyway i don’t know what you don’t understand - you ran into the back of the car in front of you.

  • grandinferno on 20/07/2018 - 09:28

    You hit the car in front of you, therefore you failed to keep a safe distance.

    I had a women brake hard at a level crossing literally after one ding, and I didn't see that she'd braked (I was turning before the crossing) and whacked into the back of her.

    There's no real argument if you hit the car in front of you, no matter how hard they braked. Because you didn't keep a safe distance.

    Also this sounds like an example of target fixation. You see it all the time. You were looking at the kangaroo and didn't see the car brake… because you were so focused on the roo.

    Just my 5c.

  • picklewizard on 20/07/2018 - 09:31
    +5

    If you were unable to emergency brake while BEING FULLY AWARE OF A HAZARD AHEAD THAT WOULD LIKELY RESULT IN HEAVY BREAKING BY THE CAR AHEAD then you were WAY TOO CLOSE.

    The fact that you are doubling down in the face of the most obvious evidence possible that you were in fact too close, maintaining that you were not, is deeply concerning. Reassess your driving habits for the sake of yourself, your passengers and those around you.

  • Plug on 20/07/2018 - 09:42

    An opportunity to impose a fine is never missed by plod. It's what they do best.

    • pegaxs on 20/07/2018 - 12:42
      -2

      Don't break the road rules and they have no reason to impose a fine.

      I like to think of traffic infringements as akin to paying a toll. If you want to go faster than everyone else, pay the toll. Want to tailgate, pay the toll…

      Traffic infringements are totally voluntery. The road rules are available in a multitude of different places for people to read and adhere to. If you then so choose to think the road rules don't apply to you, then… "pay the toll" :D

  • lint on 20/07/2018 - 10:04

    The evidence is that you slammed your brakes hard and still managed to rear end the X5. So you failed to keep a safe distance and/or you were momentarily distracted to realise the driver in front had slowed significantly or stopped.

    You even said yourself that you keep 2 seconds behind the vehicle in front, that is not a safe distance.

  • abb on 20/07/2018 - 10:30

    I put on full brakes straight away, skidded for a while

    FYI, skidding is not the most effective way to stop. If you brake to the point of skidding, you should let off on the brakes to allow the tyres to regain traction, then apply more braking force again (this time, hopefully, not so hard as to skid).

    It's counterintuitive and difficult to think of in a stressful situation, but it might have saved you from this crash. It saved me from rear-ending someone when my old car lost traction in slow moving traffic (oil residue + water on the road I think).

    • pegaxs on 20/07/2018 - 12:46

      Works good in theory, but when the "oh (fropanity), we are gonna crash!" is going through your head, all that most people can do is bury their foot to the floor via the brake pedal.

      Stabbing at the brakes is what causes lock up, set up and squeezing the brakes is what is more effective…

      • Piranha2004 on 20/07/2018 - 13:55

        It's called cadence braking. ABS works in this manner.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_braking

        • pegaxs on 20/07/2018 - 16:13
          +1

          Again, aint nobody got time fo' dat… There would be a very minute portion of the driving population that could perform this manner of braking, let alone perform it while under panic braking. Most people assume the brace position. Push as hard as they can on the brake and steering wheel

          From the link you provided…

          It needs to be learned and practised.

          So, I would put it to you, that without training, learning and a lot of practice, this method of stopping the vehicle is moot.

        • Piranha2004 on 20/07/2018 - 19:30

          @pegaxs: Since you read the wiki, you wouldve also read that releasing the brake pedal will allow you to steer the vehicle which is another method of avoiding a crash.

        • pegaxs on 20/07/2018 - 20:14

          @Piranha2004:

          Ya just don’t get it, do you?

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 13:58
      +1

      It's honestly easier to just leave a greater following distance than to learn how to do the manual version of ABS braking.

      • abb on 23/07/2018 - 17:31
        +1

        ¿Por que no los dos?

  • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 11:45

    the X5 in front of me had slammed his brakes. I put on full brakes straight away, skidded for a while but still managed to hit him (just) and put a crack in his rear bumper.

    Your fault.

    Either you didn't keep a safe distance, or you were driving negligently (in failing to see the car brake in time).

    This is open and shut.

  • CLoSeR on 20/07/2018 - 11:59

    The X5 would be able to pull up a lot faster than your old Ford Fiesta.

    You should have allowed more room.

  • lltravel on 20/07/2018 - 12:21

    lol so you saw the traffic slowing down and still kept your same speed? You're at fault

    Also get some better tyres or new car

    If your car had ABS it would not skid that hard and the tyres would have enough grip to stop.

  • kellycarlos on 20/07/2018 - 12:22

    Police will rarely call it an 'accident', its a collision and there is someone at fault.
    and if you are at fault it is because the law wasn't followed.
    so technically yes you broke the law and you were fined accordingly.

  • Herbse on 20/07/2018 - 12:26

    There's no rule that suggests how far behind is a "safe distance". You need to know your car and know to leave a big enough gap.
    If the car in front has better brakes or tyres than you, he's going to stop faster than you will.

    2 seconds is a guideline, it's not a rule.

    The only questionable situation would be is if the car in front of you t-boned a car that pulled out in front of him. Causing him to stop faster than a normal car would. So a "safe distance" cannot apply here.
    I've always wondered if the default "car behind is at fault" rule still applies to that.

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 12:57

      That'd depend on the circumstances. If you would otherwise have been able to stop but didn't because the car in front literally stopped on a dime (and was presumably pan-caked), it'd be a fairly gray area. The "car behind is always at fault" is still just a rebuttable presumption.

    • trapper on 26/07/2018 - 18:50

      'Car behind is at fault' is just a simplification of the 'car which caused the collision is at fault'.

      The car in front is either moving away from you, or not moving at all. If you drive into him then it's your car hitting his car, hence your fault.

      So even if the car in front stops almost instantly due to another accident, it is still your fault (for the second accident) if you now crash into him.

      However if for example the car behind you rams you into the car in front of you, well now that is not your fault. The car at the back caused the entire accident.

      • Herbse on 26/07/2018 - 18:55

        But couldn't the car that caused the T-bone be classified as the one who caused the accident?

        This is why I'm unsure and always wanted to know how an insurance company would call it. Given, if it was an unnatural stop, there's no chance of leaving a safe distance.

        • trapper on 27/07/2018 - 13:38

          There is no such concept as an 'unnatural stop'.

          When there is a 20 car pileup the first car to crash isn't responsible for the next 18 cars that pile into the back. Each following car is individually responsible for his own part of the accident by not stopping in time to avoid crashing into the car in front of him.

        • HighAndDry on 01/08/2018 - 15:01

          Given, if it was an unnatural stop, there's no chance of leaving a safe distance.

          That's incorrect. There'd be an apportioning of fault, but you can certainly leave enough distance so that you can stop safely even if the car in front stops suddenly.

  • Save Medicare on 20/07/2018 - 12:41

    Better get those brembos next time

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 12:59

      OP's tyres were skidding, so really they need better tyres, or update their car to one that has ABS and EBFD.

      • pegaxs on 20/07/2018 - 18:05

        ABS and EBFD does not make cars stop faster. It’s a common misconception that ABS pulls up cars faster. It can reduce braking distance in certain conditions though. It’s not a cover all for every situation to say ABS is “faster”

        What ABS does is allows more control under heavy braking, so you can still manoeuvre the vehicle. EBFD tried to keep the car straight and tries to stop the vehicle from getting to far sideways.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 18:15

          I was under the impression they prevented skidding (which decreases stopping ability) and so improves braking. Actually I'm fairly sure that's how it works…

          https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69936/does-abs-s…

          To be completely honest, I definitely didn't understand this well to begin with, but scroll down to the ticked answer.

          Basically I think it comes down to:

          When you're skidding with wheels/brakes locked, you're only stopping via tyre-friction-with-road, because the wheel is not moving relative to the brakes.

          Maximum braking is when you're using both tyre friction with the road, and wheel friction with the brake pads.

        • trapper on 26/07/2018 - 19:12

          ABS makes cars stop faster as it prevents skidding.

          On a dry road this may not make a major difference, but on a wet road this makes a dramatic difference.

  • shaiguy on 20/07/2018 - 13:03
    -1

    I think you have an argument… whether you are successful in your appeal is another thing. It seems like there are no demerit points for hitting an animal if they do something unpredictable and you cannot safely stop in time but not something that another car does. I do understand safe distances etc. and the OP should compensate for hitting the other car, but I think in this instance getting demerit points is a bit harsh.

    As an aside, I have a friend who crashed into the back of another car when they were accelerating onto a freeway and the car suddenly stopped… apparently they stopped as there was cardboard on the road. This would have been valid until my friend pointed out that it was flat and that 1. she was not going to pay for it and 2. he had to pay for her damage. She is quite a hot-head so was successful in both those points. Arguably this could have gone both ways if you're basing it on keeping distance rules.

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 13:06
      +3

      Nope. Your friend is completely in the wrong - they effectively accelerated into the back of another car. If she was at a safe distance and was paying due attention to the road, she would've had time to stop. That she convinced the other driver to pay isn't really relevant - she's still wrong, and the other driver's an idiot.

      • Herbse on 20/07/2018 - 13:18

        This. If this is true, Sounds like your friend co-erced someone into taking on something that was her fault.

        Regardless of kangaroo, cardboard, children crossing the road. You need to make sure you're watching the car ahead of you and can stop in enough time if they decide to brake at any time, for any reason.

  • Mrgreenz on 20/07/2018 - 13:15

    So you recieved a fine? Or you have to explain yourself, and if they warrent it insufficient then you will recieve the fine?

    Just say what you said at the scene and hope for the best.

  • caileach on 20/07/2018 - 13:50

    @flopsy

    I had always gone by two seconds but I can't find one clear official definition.

    The "3 second rule"
    http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/the-hazard-perception-test/safe-f…

    Page 20 of the SA drivers handbook…
    http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/32850…

    • trapper on 26/07/2018 - 19:18

      The 'three second rule' is not an actual road rule.

  • try2bhelpful on 20/07/2018 - 13:57

    My man is a good driver and always leaves a good gap to the car in front, but you always get (profanity) who decided to dive into the gap at the last moment and expect the car behind to be able to break in time to avoid them.

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 14:00

      Yup. And also gotta remember, people like that are on the road, and could be the car in front of you - meaning they might brake suddenly for no reason, brake at the last second for no reason, be tailgating themselves and so stop on a dime with no time to brake themselves, etc.

      It's like a lot of things in life, kind of got to set our own behaviours to consider the lowest common denominator.

      • try2bhelpful on 20/07/2018 - 14:05
        +1

        People should respect the gap that people are leaving and not expect to be able to dive across. We have seen some really horrendous driving lately, people diving across 3 lanes of traffic to exit, U turns in busy major roads, high speed driving, we even saw one guy evading a cop that had pulled him over. You are right, there are entitled morons everywhere and all we can do is drive defensively.

        • poohduck on 20/07/2018 - 17:09

          Yes. There is another important reason for having a safe distance to the car in front - overtaking. I have seen someone attempting to overtake and there was nowhere for them to pull in. It's so arrogant and dangerous. A lot of people just don't like to be overtaken

        • Eeples on 24/07/2018 - 10:26

          There is a stop sign near me that everyone rolls through.

          I only stop at it if no1 is behind me.

          If I stop at it I would say I’m 50-50 at being rear ended.

          Ridiculous.

    • jmi on 20/07/2018 - 14:57

      This is why you should always have a dashcam installed. I cannot stress this enough.

      You may think you're a safe driver but there are lots of idiotic drivers on the road. You may never get into an accident in your whole life but should an accident happen, you'll be glad the dashcam is there. Even if you do not have a dashcam, using an old smartphone with an installed dashcam app in its place is still better than nothing.

  • dealbreaker on 20/07/2018 - 14:38

    Without reading every comment, if you have a good driving record (10 years with no issues in NSW, less in other states) you can ask for leniency based on your good driving record and you should get away with no fine and no points.

  • Herbse on 20/07/2018 - 14:52

    Lots of replies. No response from the OP

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 15:13
      +1

      Honestly not much for OP to say considering the fairly general consensus in the comments. It'd just be "Oh, okay."

    • SydStrand on 20/07/2018 - 15:32
      +1

      Most of these dumb auto threads are 'I goofed but I swear I was right. How do I get out of it?'

      • Herbse on 20/07/2018 - 15:34

        Seems to be popular these days.

        I did something stupid, illegal or expensive. How do I weasel out of it?

        • pegaxs on 21/07/2018 - 12:19

          I used to be against them and wanted them locked or deleted. But now I enjoy the absolute reaming the OP gets when they post them.

          Classic example was the speeding ticket goofball that got roasted and the thread lasted about 2 hours before it was shut down.

          The other thing I don't mind is reading the mindless morons that have licenses quoting made up garbage they think is the version of road rules in their head.

          It kind of scares me that these people are on our roads and allowed to drive. And when people say "why are there so many idiots on the roads?" I just link them to this forum…

  • SpotTheOzzie on 20/07/2018 - 18:31

    One of my biggest pet peeves is when people follow in a close proximity. I always get incredibly nervous when I'm riding passenger in a car that does this.

    I know someone who follows like 1-2 car lengths behind and has had several accidents as they've rammed someone. The excuse is usually 'THEY SLAMMED THEIR BRAKES ON'.

    There's literally no logic to not have a gap, you don't get to your destination any quicker but yet the majority of people do.

    • T1OOO on 20/07/2018 - 21:54

      I saw half a car length tail hater on the princes higway in Wollongong. I’m really really puzzled at peoples stupidity.

  • T1OOO on 20/07/2018 - 21:53

    Oh boy! Op thinks he was in a safe distance … which is meant to cover you when the driver suddenly breaks in an accident or emergency. Driver in front breaks. Op can’t break in time. Either. 1. Not with in safe distance to react. Or was a safe distance and not paying attention! Take ur pick.

    Can’t belive the people we met drive. Might as well be giving children loaded guns it wouldn’t be safer.

  • ozzpete on 20/07/2018 - 22:52
    -1

    I'm not sure on the exact legal definition. Nonetheless, a safe distance= distance so as if the vehicle in front were to slam on brakes and stop unexpectedly due to some emergency or any situation that calls for stopping, then you should be able to stop If the distance you are away is too close as to not allow you to stop in any instance then you were too close (or something on your vehicle failed/malfunctioned) .
    I have been a passenger in a vehicle, where there was like a 5 or so car pile up in front of us, the driver of our car was clearly a 'safe distance' away and avoided collision. However the other 5 cars, well it was kind of like dominos, ie. 1 car stopped suddenly for some reason, then the next car was too close and collided, car behind them was too close and collided, and so on.
    It sounds like you possibly unintentially confessed to wrongdoing and a crime here. If you were a 'safe distance' well why did the collision occur ? Were you distracted, were you negligent ? Was your reaction slow, if so then why ?
    I always try to keep a 'safe distance' whereby anything at all could happen, and I still have distance to stop. It does become quite frustrating at times, because I leave ample distance then another car will squeeze in the gap dangerously. It's not that I am not in a hurry to get where I'm going (quite the opposite) I just try to be wary of anticipating/expecting the unexpected and being prepared.
    Btw Some friendly advice, I certainly would not argue or contest this if I were you. If you contest that you were a safe stopping distance away, then you may likely find yourself on some other charges such as negligent driving
    Take it as a lesson in life and in driving be thankful nobody got hurt this time, and keep a safe distance behind in future, and/or stay more alert (if you were distracted or not paying attention, if this was the reason you did not stop in time, rather than you being too close) .
    And don't be annoyed at the police officers involved, they have to attend fatal accidents including accidents involving child fatalities. They are just trying to keep the road toll down and save lives. Luckily nobody was hurt this time.

  • Brucet on 21/07/2018 - 20:48
    -2

    The X5 car shouldn't stopped.
    In this situation just run over kangaroo.

    • pegaxs on 22/07/2018 - 08:50
      +1

      So, what you’re saying is, it’s a catch-22 situation. No matter what the X5 did, they were going to get their car damaged.

      What the thread should have been was from the X5 driver asking… “I hit a kangaroo, but my insurance wants me to pay the excess. I wasn’t at fault, the kangaroo was. How do I get the kangaroo to pay?”

  • Covfish87 on 21/07/2018 - 22:34

    If you hit the other car then at the moment of collision you were exactly 0 seconds behind that car which is too close.

  • freemoneyhunter on 22/07/2018 - 10:28

    Thankfully the Kangaroo don't get hurt, that's the main thing.

  • dufflover on 22/07/2018 - 10:35
    +2

    I think this thread is more OP realising that "just because everyone else does it" doesn't mean you always get away with it.

    Earlier comment said it best.
    "The fact you hit the car proves the point you were not at a safe distance for the conditions."
    /end of thread
    :P

  • DiscoJango on 22/07/2018 - 13:26
    -2

    the police issued you a revenue raising, sorry, safety fine. just pay it man, its for safety!

  • trapper on 26/07/2018 - 18:33

    What constitutes safe distance?

    Enough distance that you won't hit the car in front if they stop unexpectedly!

  • Schmendrick on 28/07/2018 - 05:47

    It's because of people like you that drive up other people's arses is the reason that this has happened.

    The two second rule is actually 3 seconds which explains exactly why, again, it's your fault.

  • Schmendrick on 28/07/2018 - 05:53

    a "safe distance" means "not" hitting the car in front of you.

    "the driver behind is always at fault, which I knew and completely accepted. I protested that I was at a safe distance"

    Did you accept it or protest it?

  • tooblue on 31/08/2018 - 13:05

    Police don't want to attend the crash site unless there is injury. The fine is just to teach you a lesson: next time don't call police if there is only property damage.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join