MrSmith Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Or there could have been a diesel spill. I know there wasn't, but we didn't know that when the OP jumped to her conclusions. But a diesel spill wouldn't cause an accident just like ice doesn't cause an accident. The cause is someone braking, steering or accelerating harshly whilst on the slippery surface, and the back car would have been nowhere near any possible spill when the first car drove over it if had been travaling at a safe distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdy Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 But a diesel spill wouldn't cause an accident just like ice doesn't cause an accident. The cause is someone braking, steering or accelerating harshly whilst on the slippery surface, and the back car would have been nowhere near any possible spill when the first car drove over it if had been travaling at a safe distance. I don't think that he's come to terms with the fact that his horse died last week.:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Unless it was a large spill of course and nobody realised until the guy tried to change lane and lost the back end, at which point everyone brakes (hard probably) and everyone is immediately out of control. Diesel doesn't cause an accident, but it makes it far more likely to happen, and that's with people at legal speeds and reasonable stopping distances. I know that's not what happened here, but I was arguing against the presumption of guilt without evidence, not saying that it wasn't likely that they weren't driving safely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdy Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Unless it was a large spill of course and nobody realised until the guy tried to change lane and lost the back end, at which point everyone brakes (hard probably) and everyone is immediately out of control. Diesel doesn't cause an accident, but it makes it far more likely to happen, and that's with people at legal speeds and reasonable stopping distances. I know that's not what happened here, but I was arguing against the presumption of guilt without evidence, not saying that it wasn't likely that they weren't driving safely. I think they were all swept away in a tsunami. You are certainly drowning in one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Unless it was a large spill of course and nobody realised until the guy tried to change lane and lost the back end, at which point everyone brakes (hard probably) and everyone is immediately out of control. Diesel doesn't cause an accident, but it makes it far more likely to happen, and that's with people at legal speeds and reasonable stopping distances. I know that's not what happened here, but I was arguing against the presumption of guilt without evidence, not saying that it wasn't likely that they weren't driving safely. I would accept that if the first car lost control on a diesel spill that the second and third car driving at a safe distance may end up involved in the accident but if every car was driving at a safe distance the last car would most defiantly have time to react, which leaves the conclusion that at least some of the cars weren’t driving a safe distance from the car in front. Also bear in mind that if the cars in front of the last car are driving too close to each other a safe driver would increase their distance to compensate. The logical conclusion of 10 cars in a convoy all driving into each other is that some if not all were driving to close to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 carnage lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 The logical conclusion of 10 cars in a convoy all driving into each other is that some if not all were driving to close to each other. So you agree with the OP, all multiple vehicle motorway accidents are the result of people driving too close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 I think they were all swept away in a tsunami. You are certainly drowning in one. If you say so. Did you have anything to actually contribute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 So you agree with the OP, all multiple vehicle motorway accidents are the result of people driving too close. Travelling to close can’t cause the accident but it would be a very big contributory factor in that many cars crashing into each other. In every multiple vehicle pileup on a motorway some of the drivers involved will have been travelling to close or speeding or not paying attention or a combination of all three. I’m assuming by multicar pileup we are talking about at least ten cars as that is the amount in the OP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdy Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 So you agree with the OP, all multiple vehicle motorway accidents are the result of people driving too close. Get a life old chap! If you say so. Did you have anything to actually contribute? Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.