5 car pile up.

muon · 6 Dec 2012 at 22:38

Kenai said:
Since when does there need to be a rule for such a thing as a safe stationary distance to exist?

Does safety not exist unless rules say it does?

So what's the minimum safe distance required to not having a domino effect when someone rear ends you at 30/40mph with a 2 tonne vehicle? I bet you don't keep it.

Just seeing the tarmac wouldn't be enough.

edit:

My entire point this that a hypothetical minimum safe distance doesn't really exist. It's pointless to say the drivers in the OPs scenario for not keeping a minimum safe distance.

Kenai · 6 Dec 2012 at 22:45

I vary the distance depending on the conditions - if i'm at the back of a queue in an unusual place, i'll normally be pretty much stopped 4 or 5 car lengths back and just slowly roll closer once i'm sure the car approaching behind has noticed the traffic is stopped for example.

Also, to cater for your love of rules, the highway code does state the following:

"leave enough space to be able to manoeuvre if the vehicle in front breaks down or an emergency vehicle needs to get past"

Sometimes though, when you're driving, you have to think and use your own brain - there aren't defined rules and distances for everything but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for the concept of something to even exist.

SilverTongue · 6 Dec 2012 at 22:45

muon said:
Please point me to this.

Nothing specific in the Highway Code, however just plain common sense :confused:

muon said:
People having their brake lights on in stationary traffic is actually very annoying.

Then I think you need a better perspective on life if somebody driving safely annoys you...

muon said:
So what's the minimum safe distance required to not having a domino effect when someone rear ends you at 30/40mph with a 2 tonne vehicle? I bet you don't keep it.

Just seeing the tarmac wouldn't be enough.

let me guess you've recently passed your test and think you are gods gift to driving?

muon · 6 Dec 2012 at 22:46

Kenai said:
I vary the distance depending on the conditions - if i'm at the back of a queue in an unusual place, i'll normally be pretty much stopped 4 or 5 car lengths back and just slowly roll closer once i'm sure the car approaching behind has noticed the traffic is stopped for example.

BS, you don't keep a 4-5 car distance until you have a stationary car behind you. That only works when you have a car directly behind you as well.

Also as we've seen it isn't just the car behind you which can cause a problem.

Kenai · 6 Dec 2012 at 22:49

muon said:
BS, you don't keep a 4-5 car distance until you have a stationary car behind you. That only works when you have a car directly behind you as well.

Also as we've seen it isn't just the car behind you which can cause a problem.

I didn't say until I have a stationary car behind me.

Learn to read and try again. A small element of critical thinking might help too.

I'll check up on your progress in the morning.

muon · 6 Dec 2012 at 22:51

Kenai said:
I didn't say until I have a stationary car behind me.

Learn to read and try again.

Otherwise what you describe is braking gently which is irrelevant to this. I'm not saying that people are free to brake hard, I'm pretty sure a police officer could get you for braking hard as well.

You can't talk about things which aren't applicable to the original point, and ask me to say where you are wrong.

Kenai · 6 Dec 2012 at 22:55

muon said:
Otherwise what you describe is braking gently which is irrelevant to this. I'm not saying that people are free to brake hard, I'm pretty sure a police officer could get you for braking hard as well.

You can't talk about things which aren't applicable to the original point.

What are you waffling on about? :confused:

I brake normally, however with a large distance. I only begin to move closer once I see the car approaching behind is slowing and has thus obviously noticed the traffic ahead. Also, as I say, I only do this in areas where I know it would be unusual to encounter traffic and so people are liable to be on autopilot and notice things late.

Where on earth you get this nonsense about braking hard and getting done by the police i've no idea.

Maybe I need to draw you pictures, as you seem to having difficulty comprehending what I thought was a fairly basic concept.

Brookert · 6 Dec 2012 at 22:58

Didn't take long for the OCUK inquisition to come into the thread to have a dig. Don't worry op, no judgements from me

Hope if all gets sorted pronto, bad time of year to have a crash.

Simon · 6 Dec 2012 at 23:01

Imagine the scenario if you were driving further away from the car in front.

You wouldn't have had to brake so hard which would have meant the guy behind would have had more chance to stop as you wouldn't have panic braked

SilverTongue · 6 Dec 2012 at 23:01

Sorry would just like to clarify I'm not having a dig at OP, was actually having a dig at the troll.

Hope this get sorted very quickly for you OP, though looking at the damage it doesn't look too bad.

Pabl0 · 6 Dec 2012 at 23:25

very unlucky op.

Regarding the distance when stationary in traffic, common sense should prevail and you shouldn't need a rule to stick to, i was always taught tarmac and tyres so a 8-10ft.

Also, you should have had your hand-brake on (i know its a pain to do this every 5 seconds) even if you have your foot on the brake, if you get a good shunt from behind your foot will more then likely come off the pedal pushing you into the car in front or even worst into a junction etc at least with a hand brake its dead-locked so to speak.

I hope your cars gets sorted out without any hassle, and your premiums do not increase!

mOdO · 6 Dec 2012 at 23:30

squarebutt said:
The woman with the blue light was possibly trying to slow traffic down in her own twisted way. That needs mentioning to the police. Is it a road where locals have been known to complain about people speeding.

It's on the a309 from Hampton court palace, opposite Weston green road - I have no idea about complaints on speeding.

I'll be calling the legal team tomorrow to arrange repairs so hopefully sorted soon.

As for the people saying to leave a bigger gap.... Well yeah I could have done so.

axer · 6 Dec 2012 at 23:33

mOdO said:
Just got off the phone with Admiral, they said the Mercedes will be at fault and I will not have to pay the excess. It should not affect my no claims and premium.... it better not!

I'm with Admiral and my insurance rose after declaring a non fault incident (there wasn't even a payout) but I followed the rules by informing the insurance company and have lived to regret it.

mOdO · 6 Dec 2012 at 23:36

axer said:
I'm with Admiral and my insurance rose after declaring a non fault incident (there wasn't even a payout) but I followed the rules by informing the insurance company and have lived to regret it.

Doesn't look to good for me :mad:

iaind · 6 Dec 2012 at 23:40

axer said:
I'm with Admiral and my insurance rose after declaring a non fault incident (there wasn't even a payout) but I followed the rules by informing the insurance company and have lived to regret it.

You don't really have a choice. One of my old cars was broken into so I called my insurance company to ask about the excess etc, see if it was worth claiming. They filed it as a claim which I then cancelled as it wasn't worth the bother, got the window done by paying the windscreen excess and left it at that.

Renewal time comes around, I find a better price elsewhere, go through the steps of buying it online only to be told it couldn't be processed and I had to call them. Called them up and they said its because I had a claim that I didn't declare. A no payout malicious damage claim added £200 to my renewal.

Zero Pope · 6 Dec 2012 at 23:48

Saw the first few cars and thought it was hardly a pile up then saw the bumper behind the transit. That merc certainly did a number on itself. Glad you're alright and not the one directly rear ended.