Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Driving down the motorway to work, I got undercut by a bimbo R plate driver (for anyone who doesn't know, that's a plate you're required to display on your car for the first year after passing your test). I slammed on the brakes and the horn, and we both stopped dead on the road. I was shouting my head off, and I tried to get out but there was too many cars and lorries going past my door. Meanwhile she took a look out of her car, then got back in and drove off, then jumped off at the next exit. It wasn't until I got into work that I saw the scuff mark, meaning that I had hit her.

I'm going sick with worry here. The accepted rule is, whoever goes into the back of someone is always to blame. No matter how stupid the driver in front was. So if she decides to go to the insurers I might be trouble. Then again, it is all her fault really, and she did run off from the scene. I just wish I got her licence plate. I don't think she got mine, because one of the beauties of an Alfa Romeo is that due to its heart shaped grill, the front licence plate is to the left, were our cars would have been connected.

This is twice now I've been rammed by stupid dopey drivers. And this comes after a few close calls too, with lunatics undercutting me. I just want one year where it doesnt happen and I don't have sleepless nights worrying about if I able to afford to drive again. I'm going out this weekend to buy four cameras for my car. Full 360 view.

Not a bad idea. No worries though - in 20 years practically every car on the road will be driven by a computer program and accidents will be practically non existent.

it happens, and she drove off so im guessing her car was not too badly damaged, so guess your lucky this time?

also cameras are a good idea. very good one.

Well if she makes a claim, get her done for a hit and run.

Because if you hit something, you have a legal obligation to hang around and report the accident.


If you don't, it's a fine and points.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Driving down the motorway to work, I got undercut by a bimbo R plate driver (for anyone who doesn't know, that's a plate you're required to display on your car for the first year after passing your test). I slammed on the brakes and the horn, and we both stopped dead on the road. I was shouting my head off, and I tried to get out but there was too many cars and lorries going past my door. Meanwhile she took a look out of her car, then got back in and drove off, then jumped off at the next exit. It wasn't until I got into work that I saw the scuff mark, meaning that I had hit her.

I'm going sick with worry here. The accepted rule is, whoever goes into the back of someone is always to blame. No matter how stupid the driver in front was. So if she decides to go to the insurers I might be trouble. Then again, it is all her fault really, and she did run off from the scene. I just wish I got her licence plate. I don't think she got mine, because one of the beauties of an Alfa Romeo is that due to its heart shaped grill, the front licence plate is to the left, were our cars would have been connected.

This is twice now I've been rammed by stupid dopey drivers. And this comes after a few close calls too, with lunatics undercutting me. I just want one year where it doesnt happen and I don't have sleepless nights worrying about if I able to afford to drive again. I'm going out this weekend to buy four cameras for my car. Full 360 view.

I'm confused. It sounds like...another person entered the roadway in front of you and you hit her, stopping in the middle of the road and yelling at her.

It sounds like you suck at driving and have no impulse control if you are "shouting your head off." Hey thats why my wife carries a cannon and my daughter bear mace.

I wouldn't worry, it doesn't sound like there would be much noticeable damage to her car given how minor it sounds like it was to yours considering that by the time she pays her excess and that even a no-fault claim will affect her future premiums, especially as a new driver these will be pretty high to begin with, I doubt it would be worth her while to even try to claim.

That said, as frustrating as it is, try to remain calm. Shouting your head off, especially at a new (presumably young and alone?) woman driver isn't going to help and would probably not reflect well if the Police had to attend. No one got hurt and there was no serious damage.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well if she makes a claim, get her done for a hit and run.

Because if you hit something, you have a legal obligation to hang around and report the accident.


If you don't, it's a fine and points.

Sounds like he hit her actually.

@ Frazzled

If that's what you think from reading that then you need to read it again. She shot up the inside lane and undercut me, with no signalling. Undertaking is illegal for this very reason. She sideswiped me.

Tell me that I suck driving again now. Actually, don't bother. I won't see it.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Not a bad idea. No worries though - in 20 years practically every car on the road will be driven by a computer program and accidents will be practically non existent.

Right, because if we've learned one thing about technology, it's that it operates seamlessly and flawlessly.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Frazzled

If that's what you think from reading that then you need to read it again. She shot up the inside lane and undercut me, with no signalling. Undertaking is illegal for this very reason. She sideswiped me.

Tell me that I suck driving again now. Actually, don't bother. I won't see it.

It reads like she cut you off and you rear-ended her, and not in the good way. Perhaps your British English doesn't transfer to American English.

Was she an donkey-cave? Yes.

Did you hit her? Yes.

If I understand what you're describing, you're lucky she drove away and didn't complain about a sore neck and call the law.

Perhaps some more verbage around "undercutting", which is a meaningless term when applied to driving in the states.

For the record, the motorway had three lanes: outside, middle and inside. The inside lane veers away to the left at this point whilst the other two carry on straight. These two lanes were bumper to bumper but the inside was empty. I was in the middle lane with a huge lorry behind me, and I was just reaching the point were they separate when she came speeding up that inside lane and cut across. Inches between my car and the crash barrier. She couldn't bother to wait in traffic like the rest of us. She just wanted to speed up that inside lane and ram her way to the front.

It was my front lefthand side against her back righthand side. Side to side, not back to back, my bad. I think she actually decided that it was better to hit my car rather than go straight into a crash barrier.

 gorgon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Not a bad idea. No worries though - in 20 years practically every car on the road will be driven by a computer program and accidents will be practically non existent.

Right, because if we've learned one thing about technology, it's that it operates seamlessly and flawlessly.

Flawless is the goal but it only needs to be better than a human. Humans get distracted/angry/tired/cocky. Machines do not. They also don't speed/undercut/fail to signal/get intoxicated. Remove the human and there will be a reduction in accidents probably something like 95% reduction.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Not a bad idea. No worries though - in 20 years practically every car on the road will be driven by a computer program and accidents will be practically non existent.

Right, because if we've learned one thing about technology, it's that it operates seamlessly and flawlessly.

Flawless is the goal but it only needs to be better than a human. Humans get distracted/angry/tired/cocky. Machines do not. They also don't speed/undercut/fail to signal/get intoxicated. Remove the human and there will be a reduction in accidents probably something like 95% reduction.

I wonder if they will be programmed to solve the "The Trolley Problem". If so, how will they be programmed to solve it?

Do I plow into a crowd of people on a bridge and wound/kill many, or do I drive off the bridge, killing/wounding the passenger(s)?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
For the record, the motorway had three lanes: outside, middle and inside. The inside lane veers away to the left at this point whilst the other two carry on straight. These two lanes were bumper to bumper but the inside was empty. I was in the middle lane with a huge lorry behind me, and I was just reaching the point were they separate when she came speeding up that inside lane and cut across. Inches between my car and the crash barrier. She couldn't bother to wait in traffic like the rest of us. She just wanted to speed up that inside lane and ram her way to the front.

It was my front lefthand side against her back righthand side. Side to side, not back to back, my bad. I think she actually decided that it was better to hit my car rather than go straight into a crash barrier.

In the US we call this getting "cut off" and I think most would agree that getting cut off makes the accident their fault. This is lame but I'm just gonna repeat something my mom taught me when I was learning to drive. If you treat everyone on the road like they will do the dumbest thing possible at any moment - you will never get in an accident. Literally - you should expect that someone is going to cut you off and allow them space to do it safely when you see it coming.

Well, being a dab hand at car insurance, it does sound like you'd be found at fault.

The best you could hope for would be 50/50 - but even then the onus would be on you to prove she changed lanes, and not the other way around. That's just how it works. It's also worth noting it's long established in Case Law that speeding is not negligence - on account it's damn near impossible to prove.

I cast no aspersions about your character, but you wouldn't believe the claims I've seen. Including 'the skip was at fault because it was in the road'...and 'he was speeding up the road and when I pulled out he hit me'.....

Both hazards there to be seen. Both solely the driver's fault.

Other oddities.

My policy holder (PH) was reversing up the road. Third party (TP) moved off their drive, and we drove into them.

Result? TP 100% at fault.

See, PH was established and correctly proceeding. That means they were already on the road, and once on the road, you can drive however you wish (you could do donuts if you really wanted), so our reversing mattered not one jot.

The TP was joining the highway. From their drive. And was reversing to do so. Highest and indeed only onus of care there was on them. They created a hazard in our established path.

Side roads! Used to be settled under Wadsworth vs Gillespie 1978 case law, which results in a split liability. Except Davis vs Swinwood (2003) is more modern, and is 100% fault for the party pulling out - the rationale is that the driver joining the highway needs to make sure their way is clear. Even if another car is indicating to turn in, they've done nothing wrong. An indication is just that - they're free to change their mind, or even be indicating to pull up just after the junction. Sole tort there is the pulling out party making the assumption as to what the other car is doing.

 kronk wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Not a bad idea. No worries though - in 20 years practically every car on the road will be driven by a computer program and accidents will be practically non existent.

Right, because if we've learned one thing about technology, it's that it operates seamlessly and flawlessly.

Flawless is the goal but it only needs to be better than a human. Humans get distracted/angry/tired/cocky. Machines do not. They also don't speed/undercut/fail to signal/get intoxicated. Remove the human and there will be a reduction in accidents probably something like 95% reduction.

I wonder if they will be programmed to solve the "The Trolley Problem". If so, how will they be programmed to solve it?

Do I plow into a crowd of people on a bridge and wound/kill many, or do I drive off the bridge, killing/wounding the passenger(s)?

If the machine is programmed to avoid this situation all together better than a human can and it reduces traffic deaths it's better than what we have. Situations like you describe will occur and it's likely a human will fail in this situation too but at least a machine could be programmed to always cause the least harm when harm is inevitable. I believe these events will be exceptionally rare though - Usually caused by some kind of road failure or a sink hole or a volcano. In regular conditions it's not really plausible.

Underwriters are already considering the T&Cs for driverless cars - and the interesting thing is who would be at fault.

Let's say I drive Car A, and you drive Car B. They're both driverless, and from separate manufacturers.

We're on the motorway/highway/freeway, minding our own business, perhaps reading a book.

Then there's an accident.

Now, neither you nor I can really be held at fault any more than a passenger would be at fault with conventional cars. So does the liability pass back to the manufacturer? Or is it on the car owner to make sure the tech does what it's meant to do? If so, what is a reasonable reaction time there? What if someone was hacking/jamming the sensors?

It's very interesting stuff!

The green P plate isn't mandatory, but I think it should be for the first 6 months or so. I had mine on for about 2 months so other drivers would know there's a noob to watch out for, and I only removed it out of vanity. I should really have kept it on for the first 6 months. I'm keeping hold of it for when my sister passes because the thought of her with a dedicated transport terrifies me

 Xenomancers wrote:

In the US we call this getting "cut off" and I think most would agree that getting cut off makes the accident their fault. This is lame but I'm just gonna repeat something my mom taught me when I was learning to drive. If you treat everyone on the road like they will do the dumbest thing possible at any moment - you will never get in an accident. Literally - you should expect that someone is going to cut you off and allow them space to do it safely when you see it coming.

That's how I drive, my dad told me more or less the same thing

I'm very careful around learner drivers. It's only a couple of years since that was me and I remember how much concentration it took just to drive; if a dangerous situation came up that required an instant brake or change of course I don't think I could have handled it well

ok its been clarified there is a sideswipe issue here.

However if you have had multiple accidents in a short period of time you need to revisit your driving methods and anger management. Yelling at another driver is not helpful, indicative of a lack of coherent thinking, and can get your god damn head blown off.

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
The green P plate isn't mandatory, but I think it should be for the first 6 months or so. I had mine on for about 2 months so other drivers would know there's a noob to watch out for, and I only removed it out of vanity. I should really have kept it on for the first 6 months. I'm keeping hold of it for when my sister passes because the thought of her with a dedicated transport terrifies me

 Xenomancers wrote:

In the US we call this getting "cut off" and I think most would agree that getting cut off makes the accident their fault. This is lame but I'm just gonna repeat something my mom taught me when I was learning to drive. If you treat everyone on the road like they will do the dumbest thing possible at any moment - you will never get in an accident. Literally - you should expect that someone is going to cut you off and allow them space to do it safely when you see it coming.

That's how I drive, my dad told me more or less the same thing

I'm very careful around learner drivers. It's only a couple of years since that was me and I remember how much concentration it took just to drive; if a dangerous situation came up that required an instant brake or change of course I don't think I could have handled it well

aye, i always give P plates extra room, im only passed 2 years and still learning as such, you always are
and anything can happen, the more stupid the more likely!

I work for a major insurance company and take auto claims.. You rear ended her so most likely you are at fault for the accident. It's every driver responsible to maintain a safe distance between vehicles. Of course if a claim is filed an Adjuster (at least in the USA) will be assigned to the claim and determine fault by gathering evidence from both drivers statements. But being rear ended and hit while parked at no fault accidents to the person being hit for the most part. Most likely you would be found at fault when determining liability for the accident. Good luck

What is undercutting? I googled it and just saw a video of someone trying to overtake on the outside when there was no lane so they ran out of space and went off the road.

Anyway, I still largely agree with the law saying anyone who runs up the arse of someone else is to blame.

I've rarely come across a time where I couldn't stop when someone pulled in front of me, even if the person pulling in front is doing something stupid. You have to account for stupid drivers and not try and "hold your ground" when the end result will be an accident. The only time you're right royally fethed is if a vehicle with better brakes pulls in front and then slams on the anchors... at that point it's physically impossible to avoid hitting them no matter how careful you are. Or if someone pulls in front of you when they are travelling so much slower than you can't avoid hitting them, but in that case the collision usually isn't a pure rear ending but rather an angled strike.

My car is old and has crap brakes, so I take more care and I haven't had an accident caused by not being able to stop so far (knock on wood....). Don't follow closely, if the lane next to you is moving far slower make sure you slow to a speed safe to stop if an idiot pulls out and if an idiot tries to overtake you when there's no room, just let them in even if they're supposed to be giving way to you.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
What is undercutting? I googled it and just saw a video of someone trying to overtake on the outside when there was no lane so they ran out of space.

Anyway, I still largely agree with the law saying anyone who runs up the arse of someone else is to blame.

I've rarely come across a time where I couldn't stop when someone pulled in front of me, even if the person pulling in front is doing something stupid. You have to account for stupid drivers and not try and "hold your ground" when the end result will be an accident. The only time you're right royally fethed is if a vehicle with better brakes pulls in front and then slams on the anchors... at that point it's physically impossible to avoid hitting them no matter how careful you are. Or if someone pulls in front of you when they are travelling so much slower than you can't avoid hitting them, but in that case the collision usually isn't a pure rear ending but rather an angled strike.

in the OP's defense there are circumstances for that. I've seen more than one driver jump into right when the driver in front had to break thus causing the person behind them (who initially had a safe space) no room to break properly.

As for automatic cars, the wife and I are down with that (for her). Both of the kids are now really concerned about her driving which is an interesting combination of not caring, and distracted.

Sorry Frazz, in the above situation the car changing lanes remains at fault - failure to maintain a safe breaking distance.

Had the car in front of that one hit someone, thus necessitating the changing of lanes (due to the extremely abrupt halt) one could plead Proximate Cause - but you'd still need a witness or two to support.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
What is undercutting? I googled it and just saw a video of someone trying to overtake on the outside when there was no lane so they ran out of space and went off the road.

Anyway, I still largely agree with the law saying anyone who runs up the arse of someone else is to blame.

I've rarely come across a time where I couldn't stop when someone pulled in front of me, even if the person pulling in front is doing something stupid. You have to account for stupid drivers and not try and "hold your ground" when the end result will be an accident. The only time you're right royally fethed is if a vehicle with better brakes pulls in front and then slams on the anchors... at that point it's physically impossible to avoid hitting them no matter how careful you are. Or if someone pulls in front of you when they are travelling so much slower than you can't avoid hitting them, but in that case the collision usually isn't a pure rear ending but rather an angled strike.

Under cutting is overtaking on the passenger side (left in the UK), which is an illegal manouevre on UK roads. In this case if I understand correctly it sounds like the other driver used an empty exit or diverging lane to jump a queue of near stationary traffic and try and squeeze in at the last minute at which point she grazed the front of the op's car. At least I think from reading what he's posted that's what happened.

 Frazzled wrote:
ok its been clarified there is a sideswipe issue here.

However if you have had multiple accidents in a short period of time you need to revisit your driving methods and anger management. Yelling at another driver is not helpful, indicative of a lack of coherent thinking, and can get your god damn head blown off.

Only in America, in more civilised countries we settle our automotive disputes with tire irons and the odd screwdriver.

I missed the "sideswipe" part, if that was the case then you shouldn't be in the wrong. The "always in the wrong when rear ending" people to my understanding is only when it's a pretty direct rear ending, if it's an angled hit or a sideswipe then the damage on the cars will show that it wasn't simply caused by your travelling at a speed too fast to stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

simonr1978 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
What is undercutting? I googled it and just saw a video of someone trying to overtake on the outside when there was no lane so they ran out of space and went off the road.

Anyway, I still largely agree with the law saying anyone who runs up the arse of someone else is to blame.

I've rarely come across a time where I couldn't stop when someone pulled in front of me, even if the person pulling in front is doing something stupid. You have to account for stupid drivers and not try and "hold your ground" when the end result will be an accident. The only time you're right royally fethed is if a vehicle with better brakes pulls in front and then slams on the anchors... at that point it's physically impossible to avoid hitting them no matter how careful you are. Or if someone pulls in front of you when they are travelling so much slower than you can't avoid hitting them, but in that case the collision usually isn't a pure rear ending but rather an angled strike.

Under cutting is overtaking on the passenger side (left in the UK), which is an illegal manouevre on UK roads.

Ah ok, in many countries it's illegal to overtake on the passenger side on highways/freeways, but only if traffic is moving at high speed. If traffic is slow or the speed limit is under a certain amount (like 90-100km/h) then you're allowed to overtake on the passenger side as long as a lane exists to do so, at least that's my understanding in most countries, dunno if the UK is different. The video I saw no lane existed (or it had ended several car lengths before attempting the overtake).

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Driving down the motorway to work, I got undercut by a bimbo R plate driver (for anyone who doesn't know, that's a plate you're required to display on your car for the first year after passing your test). I slammed on the brakes and the horn, and we both stopped dead on the road. I was shouting my head off, and I tried to get out but there was too many cars and lorries going past my door. Meanwhile she took a look out of her car, then got back in and drove off, then jumped off at the next exit. It wasn't until I got into work that I saw the scuff mark, meaning that I had hit her.

I'm going sick with worry here. The accepted rule is, whoever goes into the back of someone is always to blame. No matter how stupid the driver in front was. So if she decides to go to the insurers I might be trouble. Then again, it is all her fault really, and she did run off from the scene. I just wish I got her licence plate. I don't think she got mine, because one of the beauties of an Alfa Romeo is that due to its heart shaped grill, the front licence plate is to the left, were our cars would have been connected.

This is twice now I've been rammed by stupid dopey drivers. And this comes after a few close calls too, with lunatics undercutting me. I just want one year where it doesnt happen and I don't have sleepless nights worrying about if I able to afford to drive again. I'm going out this weekend to buy four cameras for my car. Full 360 view.

This would be better suited for your own personal blog/social media account.

As a reminder:

The Off-Topic forum is a place for you to discuss non-wargaming related topics, something that is not normally allowed in the rest of the forums.

HOWEVER, please be aware that all of the other normal rules for the site apply. In particular that means you still need to be polite and friendly, even when discussing such hot topics as politics and religion.

Also, even though this is a forum for discussion about non-gaming topics, any thread started must still contain an actual topic for discussion. So for example, the following types of threads (and posts) would not be acceptable, even in this off-topic forum:

• Spam thread (or post) that is essentially gibberish.
• General thread asking what other users are doing today/this week, etc. or
• 'Blog'-style thread about random things happening in your life.


Just remember that even though this is the off-topic forum, it is still a forum designed for topics of discussion. If you do not have an actual topic of discussion and instead you are just looking to vent/share or post something random for your own amusement, that is not allowed.

Thanks!