sgtkate Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Not sure how this relates to what you're responding to. All I'm saying is that you can only react to what's in front of you. You can't really do anything about what's behind you. If you get rear ended its because the driver of the vehicle that's rear ended you has failed in his/her responsibility to observe, treat and react to what's in front of them. Yes, but you've still been rear ended. It might have been possible that if you'd seen a car was v close to you, you could have pulled back from the car in front of you to allow you a much longer and more gentle breaking distance allowing the tailgater a chance to actually not rear end you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 i'm a bit confused by what you are saying. You said "If you have something close behind you, and a small dog runs out, you are going to run over the dog. Safer than getting rear ended. If there is nothing behind you, you brake for the dog. There may be a child following Rover trying to grab him..." What if there is a child following Rover and there IS something behind you? do run over child and Rover? ---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 14:45 ---------- Unless I'm changing direction I don't feel the need to consciously/deliberately check what is directly behind me (though I probably do subconsciously all the time). I'm not going to run into something that suddenly appears in front of me while I'm considering what is behind me. Cyclone has already answered the point regarding HGV's so I wont reiterate that. If you don't check behind you, you are a poor driver. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 This is why you have little credibility. You make things up, you lie, you try to stir trouble. Now the more naive forum members would probably fall for it hook line and sinker but not me fella. I just sit back and laugh I can't see that you've demonstrated anything having been made up, or any lies being committed (I can only guess from the context that you were referring to the assertion that it is perfectly legal for cyclists to overtake slow-moving traffic on the inside). Of course, there's always the approach of making an unfounded allegation, having a big strop and then telling people that you don't want to hear your arguments critiqued, and that you feel yourself above having to be rational and have your opinions held up to scrutiny. It doesn't do much for your credibility though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Not sure how this relates to what you're responding to. All I'm saying is that you can only react to what's in front of you. You can't really do anything about what's behind you. If you get rear ended its because the driver of the vehicle that's rear ended you has failed in his/her responsibility to observe, treat and react to what's in front of them. Rubbish. You can react to what's behind you - every been overtaken by a blue light vehicle? If you react to their approach you make life and progress easier for them. Ever had someone following to closely? The correct reaction is to slow down gently so they are not to close - or pull over and let them overtake more easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Not sure how this relates to what you're responding to. All I'm saying is that you can only react to what's in front of you. You can't really do anything about what's behind you. If you get rear ended its because the driver of the vehicle that's rear ended you has failed in his/her responsibility to observe, treat and react to what's in front of them. Clearly it's not true. You can react to things behind you by doing many things. Perhaps what you mean is you can't control the vehicles behind you, but equally you can't control the ones in front of you. What you can do is anticipate their behaviour, and you can only do that if you've been observing them, or at the very least are aware that they're there. If you get rear ended you're still out of pocket and still potentially injured. Saying "it's not my fault" doesn't change those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted September 29, 2015 Author Share Posted September 29, 2015 Unless I'm changing direction I don't feel the need to consciously/deliberately check what is directly behind me (though I probably do subconsciously all the time). I'm not going to run into something that suddenly appears in front of me while I'm considering what is behind me. Then you are an unsafe/inconsiderate driver (of which there are many).It takes no effort to check what is behind you other than moving your eyes in a position where they can spot what is in the rear-view mirror, whilst remaining aware of what is going on in front. Why is it relevant to know what is behind you? So that you can adjust your road-position as required, a whole host of situations dictate that, here are a few: Approaching emergency vehicles Filtering traffic (bikes, either motorised or not) Awareness (Who is behind you, what speed are they doing, are they likely to overtake, are they wanting to turn left/right and could you provide more room by moving forward 5 feet) I can carry on, but these are the most important. If you feel that the above three are negligible than you are indeed an unsafe/inconsiderate driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 If I've made something up then feel free to point it out and I'll retract it. Oh, I see you've now done the "I'm out of this thread" post, so you don't have to try to prove your allegations. i will direct you to your post #84 where you alleged that I stated we should just run them over. you seem to have conveniently forgotten about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 i will direct you to your post #84 where you alleged that I stated we should just run them over. you seem to have conveniently forgotten about it. And I'll quite happily quote the sentence Didn't he say earlier that he think people should run into them deliberately? And direct you to the punctuation at the end of the it. It was Timeh though, who has so far failed to substantiate what he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Yes, but you've still been rear ended. It might have been possible that if you'd seen a car was v close to you, you could have pulled back from the car in front of you to allow you a much longer and more gentle breaking distance allowing the tailgater a chance to actually not rear end you. As per my post #108 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 And I'll quite happily quote the sentence And direct you to the punctuation at the end of the it. It was Timeh though, who has so far failed to substantiate what he said. Nice gloss over. Unlike you to avoid the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now