Well, driving along behind a Range Rover Sport, next thing I know, it brakes and attempts a late 90 degree right turn up a lane. Due to the late braking and the snowy weather, I skid right into the back of it. It was on a hill too which didn't help.
Pictures that you all love
And to make it worse, there car had a scratch. Literally, a scratch. So she didn't bother exchanging details much to my dismay. I got her private number plate. Speaking about people either think it she was un-insured hence the quick get away, or her and her husband were drug dealers and wanted away before the police were involved.
Car eventually started and managed to get it home (wasn't far away). Mechanic looked at it for a few seconds and said it looks like alots been damaged, and basicly a whole new front.
Really not happy.
#2: Re: Crashed Today Author: namgaj, Location: Chasing Ash, Addaz and Lee........... hopefully catching Addaz and havin fun :PPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:31 pm ---- OOPS gutted mate, you may be ok with the bumper but if not, good chance to get a sports one! Should be repairable cheapish if you know the right people
#3: Re: Crashed Today Author: JordGJ, Location: Leeds / West MidlandsPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:32 pm ---- No way, gutted mate don't dwell on it though get sources parts to fix it straight away
#4: Re: Crashed Today Author: -RAJ-, Location: COVPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:32 pm ---- ahh sorry to hear about that but these things happen eh. maybe shes not insured but her husband is
#5: Re: Crashed Today Author: qwert, Location: ukPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:33 pm ---- wouldn't matter if you did get her details. It was your fault
#6: Re: Crashed Today Author: ukskater01, Location: sutton surrey/welwyn garden cityPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:34 pm ---- At least your ok, probably didn't wanna stop as it would be hard to prove who was at fault and could of gone 50/50 with insurance. Although usally if you go into the back of someone it's your fault
#7: Re: Crashed Today Author: JDave, Location: Airdrie, ScotlandPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:34 pm ---- Honestly, I am so angry about it. NOT what I needed. Need a new radiator and its p**sing fluid out, new lights, bonnet, fan, upper grille and the front 'arms' are bent as Graham Norton so needs a new frame. A lot of work.
wouldn't matter if you did get her details. It was your fault
surely not if the car infront braked too late?
#9: Re: Crashed Today Author: Seabook, Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:37 pm ---- even you got her detail you will have to pay for your repair cost. there is no way going to be the front car fault
sorry to hear that.
#10: Re: Crashed Today Author: JDave, Location: Airdrie, ScotlandPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:38 pm ---- Naa. Regardless of the circumstances, if you run into the back of someone its your fault.
Honestly, I am so angry about it. NOT what I needed. Need a new radiator and its p**sing fluid out, new lights, bonnet, fan, upper grille and the front 'arms' are bent as Graham Norton so needs a new frame. A lot of work.
that doesn't sound cheap
#13: Re: Crashed Today Author: Jay794, Location: Sheffield/Chesterfield/DronfieldPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:44 pm ---- Surely it's a case of not stopping at an RTA? which is illegal? The fact you got her plate I would contact the police
#14: Re: Crashed Today Author: Rob2859, Location: HalifaxPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:45 pm ---- doesn't look that bad in the pics. get the rad fixed and take it around a few bodyshops. Make sure you shop around. got any pics of under the bonnet?
my mate recently hit the back of a land rover. Again just a scratch but it wrote his off. They are still built like tanks. Last edited by Rob2859 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
doesn't look that bad in the pics. get the rad fixed and take it around a few bodyshops. Make sure you shop around. got any pics of under the bonnet?
Naa, I will tomorow morning though.
#17: Re: Crashed Today Author: Rusky, Location: suffolkPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:59 pm ---- Your right about the running into the back of someone they will 99 out of 100 say its your folt on the upside your pug looks as angry as you looks like its cartoon crawling in your pic
#18: Re: Crashed Today Author: Bailey, Location: Finding Dr. RobotnikPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:31 pm ---- Unlucky mate. Hope it's not too dear for you to get it back to it's former glory.
#19: Re: Crashed Today Author: Barking, Location: sarcasm-in-shedloadsPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:32 am ----
JDave wrote:
Naa. Regardless of the circumstances, if you run into the back of someone its your fault.
not true, not all circumstances are the same
gutted for you though, looked like you had a nice car
#20: Re: Crashed Today Author: Timon2210, Location: PalestinePosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:45 am ---- so sorry about that mate,but it can be fixed :),few parts,and it will be back to street in no time
#21: Re: Crashed Today Author: bashyy1, Location: Milton KeynesPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:48 am ---- Sh*t..i know exactly how you feel..i had 2 crashes within a month or two...both not my fault...but as you hit him from behind your probably liable, so thats really unlucky for you.
#22: Re: Crashed Today Author: E5GDM, Location: EssexPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:06 am ---- & the lesson to learn is keep enough braking space between you & the vehicle in front.
#23: Re: Crashed Today Author: LilLew, Location: PlymouthPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:25 am ---- sorry to hear about it but tbh it dont look to bad you will probaly wont need alot
#24: Re: Crashed Today Author: dopey, Location: Hastings, Near BrightonPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:30 am ---- I wouldnt get police involved she did stop but she told him she didnt want to claim which is a winner.
A lot of peope dont wamt to claim now for scratches as even if you have a non fault claim your premiums rise. See it every day.
And then u get the someone who only has a scratch to there veh and goes off, tn puts a claim in!
If you had a independent and viable witness you could have POSSIBLY got a split, ive managed to on some of mt cases like this at work, but some insurance companies wont take a split in these circs, and some companies wont even bother trying for you!
#25: Re: Crashed Today Author: Jayde, Location: BrightonPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:44 am ---- Gutted to see such a poorly peugeot, and that it's going to be a fair bit of work to get it running again. Hope you're ok and still in one piece.
It's women like that, that really don't help the female driving populations reputation.
#26: Re: Crashed Today Author: myke, Location: United KingdomPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:49 am ----
Rob2859 wrote:
doesn't look that bad in the pics. get the rad fixed and take it around a few bodyshops. Make sure you shop around. got any pics of under the bonnet?
my mate recently hit the back of a land rover. Again just a scratch but it wrote his off. They are still built like tanks.
Same here Rob, a guy I know hit the back of a land rover the other day and his car was very much like the OP's car in terms of state, the but the land rover wasn't even slightly bumped, it's crazzyyy.
Sorry to see .. hope it gets sorted soon, it looks like it was/is a nice car
#27: Re: Crashed Today Author: Lewis1304, Location: NuneatonPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:14 am ---- I had a crash last year, did about the same ammount of damage. It cost me around 500 quid to get fixed with the help of teebag doing spraying etc.
Use sites like www.partsgateway.co.uk to get cheap used parts with warranties and yh ideal time to upgrade to sport parts shouldn't cost much more dude.
Lewis
#28: Re: Crashed Today Author: Harry, Location: StaffordPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:16 am ---- Had similar, someone decided to pull out and it turned into a 5 car pile up me being at the back. Knew straight away even though it's bulls**t it was my fault, in the same way it was pretty much everyone's fault for hitting the person in front.
Just got a new bonnet and lights and it was pretty sorted
#29: Re: Crashed Today Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:30 am ----
Jay794 wrote:
Surely it's a case of not stopping at an RTA? which is illegal? The fact you got her plate I would contact the police
She has committed the crime of failing to stop at the scene of an accident. Although she did stop, she is required to give her name and address to any party involved. You might find that she was driving without insurance or even a licence. If no one is injured then the police don't need informing, but on this occaision you should contact the police. You may find that if she has no licence, then her driving falls below that of what you would expect of a competant driver and she be held partly to blame.
#30: Re: Crashed Today Author: sam-c, Location: Uni: Kent Home: ScunthorpePosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:46 am ----
insurance company might not pay out but small claims court would and it would be free to claim and if you win then any soliciotrs costs she would have to pay. no licence means that her quality of driving isnt that of the reasonable motorist meaning that it is easier to prove she was at least partially at fault as it can be argued she wasnt driving in a manor you expect of the reasonable road user
#31: Re: Crashed Today Author: pudmonkey, Location: EdinburghPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:03 am ---- Bad luck mate, these things happen from time to time. Sounds like your taking it on the chin though, which i was going to suggest anyway. Always amazes me the amount of dreamers on this site, the two posts above from sam-c and macca for example. Her car wasnt damaged so she said fair enough and drove on, i did this once myself as the girl who bumped my car was happy it was her fault. Where did all this talk of her not having a license and being a drug dealer come from!?
#32: Re: Crashed Today Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:21 am ----
pudmonkey wrote:
Where did all this talk of her not having a license and being a drug dealer come from!?
I don't know about the drug dealer bit, but I have dealt with quite a few people that had a bump and either offered cash or said id didn't matter as damage was slight. I would say that about 80% of these people had something to hide. I've had drink drivers, no insurance, no licence and even stolen cars. It's alright her saying it doesn't matter, but who will pay for the scratch on hers? If she (or her other half) decides to go to the insurance to get the damage repaired, then it is the OP who will have the questioned asked on why did you not report it? All insurance companies ask the question, Have you had an accident in the last 5 years? You should tell them of any accidents even if you were in a company vehicle.
#33: Re: Crashed Today Author: Ali_H, Location: Chichester, SussexPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:22 am ----
JDave wrote:
And to make it worse, there car had a scratch. Literally, a scratch. So she didn't bother exchanging details much to my dismay. I got her private number plate. Speaking about people either think it she was un-insured hence the quick get away, or her and her husband were drug dealers and wanted away before the police were involved.
Car eventually started and managed to get it home (wasn't far away). Mechanic looked at it for a few seconds and said it looks like alots been damaged, and basicly a whole new front.
Really not happy.
Why? It's your fault.
I'd have to question why they were able to brake and turn suddenly but you couldn't even stop in a straight line?
Sorry to hear about the car though, live and learn
#34: Re: Crashed Today Author: Danny., Location: PeterboroughPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:31 am ---- Gotta remember if its Raining its technically a 4 Second gap.. Since it was snowy so can be icy i would allways leave about 5-6 seconds may seem exsesive but better chance of not crashing
#35: Re: Crashed Today Author: matcarlin24, Location: RedditchPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:49 am ----
qwert wrote:
wouldn't matter if you did get her details. It was your fault
LOL
#36: Re: Crashed Today Author: MrBSI, Location: What's it to you? ? ?Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:04 am ---- Total operator error.
You where to near the car in front to stop safely for the road conditions.
100% your fault.
#37: Re: Crashed Today Author: JDave, Location: Airdrie, ScotlandPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:22 pm ---- Mechanics said I need to try and find a donor car to get the part off. The frame of the car is bent and so this may be the most expensive part to fix. Keep y'all updated.
#38: Re: Crashed Today Author: panason1c, Location: SomersetPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:04 am ----
macca1411 wrote:
Jay794 wrote:
Surely it's a case of not stopping at an RTA? which is illegal? The fact you got her plate I would contact the police
She has committed the crime of failing to stop at the scene of an accident. Although she did stop, she is required to give her name and address to any party involved. You might find that she was driving without insurance or even a licence. If no one is injured then the police don't need informing, but on this occaision you should contact the police. You may find that if she has no licence, then her driving falls below that of what you would expect of a competant driver and she be held partly to blame.
Unless you really want to multiply your own misfortune then Completely disregard the above posts!!!.............regardless of whether she was insured or not you are Sooooo lucky that she did not take your details and particularly that the police were not called (which is not necessary unless there are injuries or suspected alcohol/drugs use involved)
YOU were the one at fault, there is no question about that, and you are lucky that you dont have to involve your insurance company where you would have had to pay an excess plus a loss of bonus for the next few years and if the police had been called you would very probably have been booked for driving without due care and attention for travelling too close, regardless of the legality of the lady concerned!!...........there are NO circumstances where you drive into the rear of someone without you being solely to blame.
There are many times where we have ALL made a late decision to make a last minute change of direction, this lady was no exception and we certainly dont expect someone to plough into the back of us because they were too close or not paying attention!!!......Just think of it this way, instead of making the turn, what if the lady had instead slammed her brakes on to avoid some animal that had suddenly run out of a hedge and into the road...you would still have hit her except that you wouldnt have had the convenient 'excuse' of her making a late turning......... . .
If you'd been travelling at a safe distance that suited the road conditions then you would have been able to stop or slow down before hitting her.
Too many times i've had a 'boy racer' up my a**e, its extremely annoying and it serves them right when they do it one time too many and come a cropper. Its a harsh lesson but, nethertheless, a lesson learned. Last edited by panason1c on Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:12 am; edited 2 times in total
#39: Re: Crashed Today Author: Seabook, Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:25 am ----
JDave wrote:
Mechanics said I need to try and find a donor car to get the part off. The frame of the car is bent and so this may be the most expensive part to fix. Keep y'all updated.
if the chassisis bent you better scrap it.
no point to fix it.
#40: Re: Crashed Today Author: MrBSI, Location: What's it to you? ? ?Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:29 am ---- Front end chassis legs can be replaced, at the end of the day is it worth it being an old 206
Also remember the 206 bodyshell bends very easily, i would seek the advice of a proper bodyshop / Peugeot accident repair centre before deciding on if to repair it.
Any seatbelts in use at the time also need replacing, they will have stretched even if they haven't fired.
#41: Re: Crashed Today Author: MrrNoName, Location: UKPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:30 am ---- agreed with seabook on both posts above. they almost always take it as the person who was behind to be at fault. ive even heard of cases when someone has rolled back into a stationary car, and it was still classed as the stationary cars fault!
whats it driving instructors say... "if you cant see tires and tarmac your too close" lol
also ive had a fiesta written off before because of tiny ripples in the roof indicating that the chassis was bent.
I know it sucks dude, but its probs just as cheap, and a hell of a lot easier to get another 206 and just transfer all your good bits onto it
I personally think she was pretty generous to accept the scratch and let you keep your all important no claims, if that was my 206 i would be like "uhh pay up for the scratch..." lol
#42: Re: Crashed Today Author: Seabook, Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:37 am ---- and i still don't understand why you think she is a drug dealer/ without licence/ insurance...
just because she didn't screw you up doesn't mean she has something to hide....
#43: Re: Crashed Today Author: MrrNoName, Location: UKPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:38 am ---- thing is tho thats irrelevent anyway. even if she was that would make no difference to the fact you would be at fault and loose yr no claims
#44: Re: Crashed Today Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:53 am ---- Just a quick question, are you 3rd party or fully comp? Someone will say whats this got to do with it, but it will be important if you end up scrapping it.
Panason1c says you would probablt get done with due care if the police were called. It would be more likely, and I speak from experience here, that they would supervise the exchange of details and give you the advice of "let the insurance sort it out" They may evem look at her manner of driving as she caused another road user to have a collision. That is in fact reckless driving. We can only speculate what she was doing. One reason she braked so heavy was to get you to hit her, then today she goes to the hospital complaining of a sore neck and bangs in a claim against you. There are naughty people out there that do that. She got a scratch on her bumper, that could now be a massive dent and your the one being prosecuted for not giving her your details. Always cover your own back. Unless you make a claim against you insurance, then your NCB should not be affected. You will still need to declare that you have been involved in a collision at your next renewal, otherwise toyr insurance could be invalid if they find out.
#45: Re: Crashed Today Author: panason1c, Location: SomersetPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:14 am ----
macca1411 wrote:
They may evem look at her manner of driving as she caused another road user to have a collision. That is in fact reckless driving. We can only speculate what she was doing. One reason she braked so heavy was to get you to hit her, then today she goes to the hospital complaining of a sore neck and bangs in a claim against you.
"Well, driving along behind a Range Rover Sport, next thing I know, it brakes and attempts a late 90 degree right turn up a lane. "
Well, we dont have to speculate what she was doing as the answer is clearly documented above by the OP himself and your suggestion of reckless driving by her is laughable to be honest!.........i rather doubt that the police would be charging her with reckless driving for the reason of successfully making a late turn!..........and if she was after an insurance claim why would she not insist on exchanging insurance details at the time she stopped?, she didnt even take or ask for his details!!
The police would be obliged to charge the OP if he pursued a case against the lady......Period!!
The FACT is that the op was either travelling too close or not paying attention... or both.
#46: Re: Crashed Today Author: M60SHW, Location: CarlislePosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:31 am ---- Around my parts you see alot of farmers with range rovers with dints and scratches even sport and vouge models, they dont care 7 out of 10 sports that I see are ruff becouse there a works vehicle,
Imo she probely felt sorry for you, I would take it on the chin and forget it.
#47: Re: Crashed Today Author: Ali_H, Location: Chichester, SussexPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:09 pm ---- My word. people really need to engage their brain before posting on here sometimes. Some of these posts are at best laughable, at worst complete bulls**t.
Why the hell would she deliberately cause an accident to get compensation without asking for his details? And reckless driving?? Seriously, get a grip.
#48: Re: Crashed Today Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:22 pm ---- I suppose 5 years of traffic and 2 of those in accident investigation make me unknowledgable with motoring incidents. Believe it or not, you will get more compensation from a hit and run driver. I am just giving a scenario that may occur (and has in the past) Obviously all those of you with rose tinted glasses on live in the perfect crime free world, while the rest of us live in reality. It's up to the OP what he does regarding the incident, I am just giving my own opinion from my knowledge and experiences. We all have our own opinions it's just some people don't like to listen to other peoples opinions and advice.
#49: Re: Crashed Today Author: panason1c, Location: SomersetPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:43 pm ----
Ali_H wrote:
My word. people really need to engage their brain before posting on here sometimes. Some of these posts are at best laughable, at worst complete bulls**t.
Why the hell would she deliberately cause an accident to get compensation without asking for his details? And reckless driving?? Seriously, get a grip.
#50: Re: Crashed Today Author: shellis, Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:13 pm ---- time to learn to keep your distance in adverse weather conditions any other forum i've used in the past 5 years would've ripped you to shreds for this thread, lucky everyone on here's so kind with there words!
If she braked/turned so sharply how come she didn't skid downhill if it was as slippy as you say?? not pointing the blame there but i think people really take the quality of there own driving for granted these days!
#51: Re: Crashed Today Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:27 am ----
shellis wrote:
If she braked/turned so sharply how come she didn't skid downhill if it was as slippy as you say??
Depending on the year and model of Range Rover. It was obviously 4WD (although we don't know if this was engaged), but we can only guess on all the other technology it had on board. ASR, ABS, EBD, EBA. The tyres would automatically provide a bigger footprint on the road surface. From the pictures, it doesn't look snowy, just damp although with the weather in Scotland over the last 72 hours freezing conditions may have been an issue. Everyone is jumping to conclusions that the OP was either travelling too fast or too close. We don't have that information. Unless the OP used cadence braking, which increases the stopping distance) they could have locked all four wheels up and gone into a skid which actually would have increased the speed of the vehicle. Rather than jumping to the conclusion that the OP is the guilty party, look at the broader picture, look at other circimstances involved. I wrote my car off in the snow. Driving to the conditions, hit a patch of compacted snow which began a skid which caused the car to hit the kerb and twist the chassis. 100% my fault you would say. The insurance company is now pursueing the local council for recovery of some of the money as they left a major road untreated.
#52: Re: Crashed Today Author: panason1c, Location: SomersetPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:44 am ----
macca1411 wrote:
shellis wrote:
If she braked/turned so sharply how come she didn't skid downhill if it was as slippy as you say??
Depending on the year and model of Range Rover. It was obviously 4WD (although we don't know if this was engaged), but we can only guess on all the other technology it had on board. ASR, ABS, EBD, EBA. The tyres would automatically provide a bigger footprint on the road surface. From the pictures, it doesn't look snowy, just damp although with the weather in Scotland over the last 72 hours freezing conditions may have been an issue. Everyone is jumping to conclusions that the OP was either travelling too fast or too close. We don't have that information. Unless the OP used cadence braking, which increases the stopping distance) they could have locked all four wheels up and gone into a skid which actually would have increased the speed of the vehicle. Rather than jumping to the conclusion that the OP is the guilty party, look at the broader picture, look at other circimstances involved. I wrote my car off in the snow. Driving to the conditions, hit a patch of compacted snow which began a skid which caused the car to hit the kerb and twist the chassis. 100% my fault you would say. The insurance company is now pursueing the local council for recovery of some of the money as they left a major road untreated.
So it seemsyou are now suggesting that, as a rule, if the vehicle travelling in front of me is technically more advanced than my lowly basic 206, (ie.. 4wd and fitted with ABS, EBS, ESP, etc) then i have a legitimate excuse to slam into the rear of it because it can stop more effectively than mine and i can rightfully declare "not my fault guv, you've got better brakes than me".!!
Again....laughable!!
macca1411 wrote:
wrote my car off in the snow. Driving to the conditions, hit a patch of compacted snow which began a skid which caused the car to hit the kerb and twist the chassis. 100% my fault you would say. The insurance company is now pursueing the local council for recovery of some of the money as they left a major road untreated.
If you lost control then i would argue that you were NOT driving to the conditions at that time!............
I suspect you are one of those people who never accept responsibility for their own actions and always look to blame someone else for their own mistakes.
#53: Re: Crashed Today Author: E5GDM, Location: EssexPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:54 am ---- This is getting stupid! It's down to the following driver to ensure they have sufficient braking distance between them & the vehicle in front. As for cascade braking 'increasing' stopping distance that is just wrong. It decreases it as it acts like a manual ABS. The only senario it won't decrease the stopping distance (along with ABS) is in deep snow where it acts as a wedge against the Tyres.
#54: Re: Crashed Today Author: MrBSI, Location: What's it to you? ? ?Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:57 am ---- I doubt the OP or 3/4 of the forum even knows what cadence braking actaully is
#55: Re: Crashed Today Author: panason1c, Location: SomersetPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:03 am ---- For the benefit of some.........basically, Cadence braking is a hard application of the brake until the wheels lock and then instantly releasing the brakes and re-applying them, again to the point of wheel lock....keep repeating rapidly this procedure until the vehicle comes to a halt. This method of braking is used on non-abs cars and allows steering ability whilst performing an emergency braking manouvre.
Not quite an exact description but a basic outline of cadence braking.
#56: Re: Crashed Today Author: MrBSI, Location: What's it to you? ? ?Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:10 am ---- The OP's ABS sounds like it worked perfectly
All
Brakes
Skid
#57: Re: Crashed Today Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:11 am ----
panason1c wrote:
So it seemsyou are now suggesting that, as a rule, if the vehicle travelling in front of me is technically more advanced than my lowly basic 206, (ie.. 4wd and fitted with ABS, EBS, ESP, etc) then i have a legitimate excuse to slam into the rear of it because it can stop more effectively than mine and i can rightfully declare "not my fault guv, you've got better brakes than me".!!
Again....laughable!!
macca1411 wrote:
wrote my car off in the snow. Driving to the conditions, hit a patch of compacted snow which began a skid which caused the car to hit the kerb and twist the chassis. 100% my fault you would say. The insurance company is now pursueing the local council for recovery of some of the money as they left a major road untreated.
If you lost control then i would argue that you were NOT driving to the conditions at that time!............
I suspect you are one of those people who never accept responsibility for their own actions and always look to blame someone else for their own mistakes.
If you want to have a collision with another vehicle then do so at your own risk. I was trying to explain that there may be more circumstances to this collision than we already know about. You need to look at all the facts, not just be blinkered to what is easy to pick up on.
I pay an insurance premium, they same as you and if an insurance company want to pursue another party following an incident then it is down to them. I like many other people put the facts onto the claim form, it is down to the insurance what they do after that.
As for your last comment, even though it is off topic and verging on a personal attack, you don't know me so you can't really jump to a conclusion. Although if you would like to PM me with what you think then I'd be happy to take it up with you in private. A public forum is not a place to make an attack on someones character.
#58: Re: Crashed Today Author: panason1c, Location: SomersetPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:17 am ----
macca1411 wrote:
panason1c wrote:
So it seemsyou are now suggesting that, as a rule, if the vehicle travelling in front of me is technically more advanced than my lowly basic 206, (ie.. 4wd and fitted with ABS, EBS, ESP, etc) then i have a legitimate excuse to slam into the rear of it because it can stop more effectively than mine and i can rightfully declare "not my fault guv, you've got better brakes than me".!!
Again....laughable!!
macca1411 wrote:
wrote my car off in the snow. Driving to the conditions, hit a patch of compacted snow which began a skid which caused the car to hit the kerb and twist the chassis. 100% my fault you would say. The insurance company is now pursueing the local council for recovery of some of the money as they left a major road untreated.
If you lost control then i would argue that you were NOT driving to the conditions at that time!............
I suspect you are one of those people who never accept responsibility for their own actions and always look to blame someone else for their own mistakes.
If you want to have a collision with another vehicle then do so at your own risk. I was trying to explain that there may be more circumstances to this collision than we already know about. You need to look at all the facts, not just be blinkered to what is easy to pick up on.
I pay an insurance premium, they same as you and if an insurance company want to pursue another party following an incident then it is down to them. I like many other people put the facts onto the claim form, it is down to the insurance what they do after that.
As for your last comment, even though it is off topic and verging on a personal attack, you don't know me so you can't really jump to a conclusion. Although if you would like to PM me with what you think then I'd be happy to take it up with you in private. A public forum is not a place to make an attack on someones character.
I find it bewildering and frustrating that you seem oblivious to the simplicity of the OP's incident!.............it is sooo obvious that the lady slowed to make a turn and the op was either too close to stop or was not paying attention!!........
What part of 'too close' and 'not paying attention' do you not understand?
ps...........I havent noticed too many posts supporting your arguement, does that not tell you anything?
#59: Re: Crashed Today Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:27 am ----
panason1c wrote:
I find it bewildering and frustrating that you seem oblivious to the simplicity of the OP's incident!.............it is sooo obvious that the lady slowed to make a turn and the op was either too close to stop or was not paying attention!!........what part of 'too close' and 'not paying attention' do you not understand?
How close was the OP to the vehicle? How fast were both vehicles travelling?
Why did the Range Rover make such a late turn? Was there any indication from the Range Rover prior to making the turn? Were the brake lights fully functional on the Range Rover? How slippy was the road? (You may need to work out the coefficient of friction for that one). There are more questions that will arise from the answers to these. When you have answered these questions, then you may be able to put 100% blame onto the OP. Until then keep an open mind and give everyone the benefit of doubt.
#60: Re: Crashed Today Author: panason1c, Location: SomersetPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:28 am ---- I GIVE UP !!! (sigh)
Overdosed on 'CSI' methinks....
#61: Re: Crashed Today Author: GazRG, Location: Bournemouth/CardiffPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:54 am ----
macca1411 wrote:
panason1c wrote:
I find it bewildering and frustrating that you seem oblivious to the simplicity of the OP's incident!.............it is sooo obvious that the lady slowed to make a turn and the op was either too close to stop or was not paying attention!!........what part of 'too close' and 'not paying attention' do you not understand?
How close was the OP to the vehicle? How fast were both vehicles travelling?
Why did the Range Rover make such a late turn? Was there any indication from the Range Rover prior to making the turn? Were the brake lights fully functional on the Range Rover? How slippy was the road? (You may need to work out the coefficient of friction for that one). There are more questions that will arise from the answers to these. When you have answered these questions, then you may be able to put 100% blame onto the OP. Until then keep an open mind and give everyone the benefit of doubt.
The bottom line, and simple fact, is that good driving includes keeping a sensible distance from the car in front. This should take into account ALL factors - the speed of the vehicle being followed, its choice of turning or not - and if a correct gap was chosen and maintained, it should not have been an issue
#62: Re: Crashed Today Author: matcarlin24, Location: RedditchPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:28 pm ---- LOL this forum is always a debate, I might start a thread arguing which day of the week it is see what happens...
#64: Re: Crashed Today Author: Seabook, Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:09 pm ---- who care about the debate? is not me having the crash
#65: Re: Crashed Today Author: abs06, Location: East SussexPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:16 pm ---- You could be keeping a safe distance and still crash in to the back of someone.
Example. Following a VERY safe distance, you could get a lorryinn the gap. And the car in front was braking. So i started braked even tho i was vey far away. But the car in front was braking hard as he was tailing the car infront so by the time you then realise the car in front is stopping quicky, u slam your brakes harder and came to a stand still with space left. (bear in mind the car in front has been braking for the whole time and lights showing)
You can leave a a safe distance or a triple safe distance, BUT if the car in front brakes late and hard, unless you judge this in time, your gna end up close to or hitting thr car in front
I have had this a few times on my work journey due to unexpected ques, deers, slow moving vehicles, or just roundabouts/juntions/lights which have tail backs.
Im sure heir are poeple who agree or have experianced similar.
Sorry if it offrnds anyone
#66: Re: Crashed Today Author: -Dave-, Location: North ManchesterPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:18 pm ----
You could be keeping a safe distance and still crash in to the back of someone.
Example. Following a VERY safe distance, you could get a lorryinn the gap. And the car in front was braking. So i started braked even tho i was vey far away. But the car in front was braking hard as he was tailing the car infront so by the time you then realise the car in front is stopping quicky, u slam your brakes harder and came to a stand still with space left. (bear in mind the car in front has been braking for the whole time and lights showing)
You can leave a a safe distance or a triple safe distance, BUT if the car in front brakes late and hard, unless you judge this in time, your gna end up close to or hitting thr car in front
I have had this a few times on my work journey due to unexpected ques, deers, slow moving vehicles, or just roundabouts/juntions/lights which have tail backs.
Im sure heir are poeple who agree or have experianced similar.
Sorry if it offrnds anyone
so are you saying you shouldn't leave a safe distance between car because no matter what you did you will end up in someone's a**?
#68: Re: Crashed Today Author: abs06, Location: East SussexPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:52 pm ---- No thats not what i was saying. I was pointing out that even by leaving a good gap, you can misjudge the braking of the car infront. We only have the brake lights to tell us the car in front is braking. We dont have anythink to tell us how hard. I know on new cars the hazards flash under hard braking. Which is good.
No thats not what i was saying. I was pointing out that even by leaving a good gap, you can misjudge the braking of the car infront. We only have the brake lights to tell us the car in front is braking. We dont have anythink to tell us how hard. I know on new cars the hazards flash under hard braking. Which is good.
I agree, people are so quick to judge and point the blame.
I was following a van, down a straight road. I couldn't see anything in front of it, not because I was too close, but because the road was straight and the van was huge.
All of a sudden their brake lights come on for about half a second and then it stopped almost instantly like it hit a wall. I slammed my breaks on but still ended up hitting him. It turned out a car had pulled out and 3 cars before the van had piled up.
It's easy to sit here and say looking back, I would have given a massive gap between it but I think some people have their heads up their arses if they think for a second they drive around leaving enough space between the car in front for anything to happen.
You could be keeping a safe distance and still crash in to the back of someone.
You can leave a a safe distance or a triple safe distance, BUT if the car in front brakes late and hard, unless you judge this in time, your gna end up close to or hitting thr car in front
The op didn't mention lorries or deer, but even if he did the onus is on the following car to fall back & leave a safe stopping distance that takes into account all scenario's. If you can't 'judge this in time', & hit a vehicle, your probably end up in the wrong.
I was following a van, down a straight road. I couldn't see anything in front of it, not because I was too close, but because the road was straight and the van was huge.
All of a sudden their brake lights come on for about half a second and then it stopped almost instantly like it hit a wall. I slammed my breaks on but still ended up hitting him. It turned out a car had pulled out and 3 cars before the van had piled up.
It's easy to sit here and say looking back, I would have given a massive gap between it but I think some people have their heads up their arses if they think for a second they drive around leaving enough space between the car in front for anything to happen.
We all drive to close to the vehicle in front sometimes, ie someone pulls into our braking space & we get p**sed off & don't pull back, but your senario above is text book to close, & after all the van managed to stop ok.
I was following a van, down a straight road. I couldn't see anything in front of it, not because I was too close, but because the road was straight and the van was huge.
All of a sudden their brake lights come on for about half a second and then it stopped almost instantly like it hit a wall. I slammed my breaks on but still ended up hitting him. It turned out a car had pulled out and 3 cars before the van had piled up.
It's easy to sit here and say looking back, I would have given a massive gap between it but I think some people have their heads up their arses if they think for a second they drive around leaving enough space between the car in front for anything to happen.
We all drive to close to the vehicle in front sometimes, ie someone pulls into our braking space & we get p**sed off & don't pull back, but your senario above is text book to close, & after all the van managed to stop ok.
He didn't stop ok he smashed into the car in front, unless you call that ok? . In the same way the car in front smashed into the car in front of that.
I was travelling along, all of a sudden it stopped (and when I say stopped i mean literally stopped from 40 - 0 in a few metres ) it was nasty.
If you still think I was too close, and I should have left enough room for the van to instantly stop when he hit a parked car in front then I can't argue my case any more but I will tell you now I was doing the same distance everyone else was doing - and everyone else does, hell I think it was around the same distance I drove on my driving test.
I'm not assuming my case is like everyone elses. There is a massive difference between the car in front breaking harshly and it stopping instantly.
Especially since it was a van and I couldn't see anything in front of it. If it was a car I would have mostly likely seen the cars in front and breaked normally well in advanced, but I didn't even have any reason to break until the van was still and in that case it was too late.
Imagine this - two cars are driving along and a car pulls out in front of the car in front. When I say pull out I mean a second before the first car passes the junction, and as a result the first car side swipes it.
Are you saying that when the second car inevitably hits it, because let's face it that's what going to happen no ones leaves THAT much room it would be ridiculous that it's the second driver's fault for being too close?
#73: Re: Crashed Today Author: Mike_XS, Location: SouthamptonPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:07 pm ---- Wow, I just wasted half an hour reading this...
At the end of the day, if the road surface was slippery, it's entirely possible that the Range Rover managed to keep grip and as mentioned before they are much better at gripping in bad conditions than a 206. The OP was clearly unlucky enough not to be able to grip and couldn't pull up in time. If the car in front grips and you can't, a safe stopping distance won't magically make you stop.
Why rip everyone's opinions up? It's only their view, just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you have to be a pr*ck about it.
If the car in front grips and you can't, a safe stopping distance won't magically make you stop.
.
I nominate the above for the 'Moronic statement of the month award'
#75: Re: Crashed Today Author: abs06, Location: East SussexPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:14 pm ----
E5GDM wrote:
If you can't 'judge this in time', & hit a vehicle, your probably end up in the wrong.
By leaving a safe gap, we give our selves thinking time, hence if the car/van in front brakes, you brake. However if they then suddenly Brake harder, and your still gently braking, by the time
You have realised this, the gap you originally left would have now reduced. Giving you less time to follow suit and slam on your own brakes. Which then sends a shock wave effect down the line of traffic.
On motorways when their is standstill traffic, people joining the back will put their hazards lights on. To warn of he upcaming que. Alerting traffic behind that their is a need to slow down from motorway speeds.
But we cant drive around A roads doing this. Hence newer cars having auto flashing hazard lights under hard braking
:? He didn't stop ok he smashed into the car in front, unless you call that ok? . In the same way the car in front smashed into the car in front of that.
I was travelling along, all of a sudden it stopped (and when I say stopped i mean literally stopped from 40 - 0 in a few metres ) it was nasty.
If you still think I was too close, and I should have left enough room for the van to instantly stop when he hit a parked car in front then I can't argue my case any more
Sorry, read piled in as pulled up!!
But I still say you were to close, especially as you couldn't see in front of the van.
:? He didn't stop ok he smashed into the car in front, unless you call that ok? . In the same way the car in front smashed into the car in front of that.
I was travelling along, all of a sudden it stopped (and when I say stopped i mean literally stopped from 40 - 0 in a few metres ) it was nasty.
If you still think I was too close, and I should have left enough room for the van to instantly stop when he hit a parked car in front then I can't argue my case any more
Sorry, read piled in as pulled up!!
But I still say you were to close, especially as you couldn't see in front of the van.
If you can't 'judge this in time', & hit a vehicle, your probably end up in the wrong.
By leaving a safe gap, we give our selves thinking time, hence if the car/van in front brakes, you brake. However if they then suddenly Brake harder, and your still gently braking, by the time
You have realised this, the gap you originally left would have now reduced. Giving you less time to follow suit and slam on your own brakes. Which then sends a shock wave effect down the line of traffic.
On motorways when their is standstill traffic, people joining the back will put their hazards lights on. To warn of he upcaming que. Alerting traffic behind that their is a need to slow down from motorway speeds.
But we cant drive around A roads doing this. Hence newer cars having auto flashing hazard lights under hard braking
You shouldn't be relying on the brake lights of the vehicle immediately in front of you as your first chance to react. You should be looking & reading the road as far ahead as possible for maximum warning of impending doom. If you can't do that as the vehicle in front is blocking your view, drop even further back. Not sure what you 'can't drive around A roads doing', but as they & B roads are more dangerous than motorways I suggest you do. Like I said before, we all drive to close sometimes, but that don't make it right, & it deffinetly don't mean we won't get the blame for rear ending someone.
Why rip everyone's opinions up? It's only their view, just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you have to be a pr*ck about it.
Why start insulting people & swearing in what has been a fairly good natured debate? Let's hope the mods only delete your post instead of bining the thread.
#84: Re: Crashed Today Author: abs06, Location: East SussexPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:03 pm ---- If you read my post it says it all in it.
Hazard lights
Newer cars having auto flashing hazards under hard braking.
#85: Re: Crashed Today Author: Bailey, Location: Finding Dr. RobotnikPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:47 pm ---- People are forgetting, reaction times and braking ability. I'm not talking about the OP. Just in reference to some comments earlier. but for example a 206 gti180 would almost certainly stop in less time than a 1.1
Also some people aren't as quick to react as others. This reaction time could be the difference between a right off, to a tiny bump to just a close call. There are many variables that people could debate/argue allday long about.
#86: Re: Crashed Today Author: E5GDM, Location: EssexPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:00 am ----
Bailey wrote:
People are forgetting, reaction times and braking ability. I'm not talking about the OP. Just in reference to some comments earlier. but for example a 206 gti180 would almost certainly stop in less time than a 1.1
Also some people aren't as quick to react as others. This reaction time could be the difference between a right off, to a tiny bump to just a close call. There are many variables that people could debate/argue allday long about.
I haven't forgoten reaction times etc, & there should be no debate. We should leave enough room between ourselves & the vehicle in front so we can stop in the distance available. But leaving the correct amount for all eventualities is virtually impossible as other vehicles pull into that space.
#87: Re: Crashed Today Author: Mike_XS, Location: SouthamptonPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:44 am ----
E5GDM wrote:
AsphericSmile wrote:
Why rip everyone's opinions up? It's only their view, just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you have to be a pr*ck about it.
Why start insulting people & swearing in what has been a fairly good natured debate? Let's hope the mods only delete your post instead of bining the thread.
It's not been a good natured debate in my opinion. It seems that some people are on here just to slate others. And it happens on many other threads.
#88: Re: Crashed Today Author: Mike_XS, Location: SouthamptonPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:53 am ----
E5GDM wrote:
AsphericSmile wrote:
If the car in front grips and you can't, a safe stopping distance won't magically make you stop.
It's got nothing to do with magic, but everything to do with good driving by setting your braking distance acording to all the road conditions.
So your saying that if you keep a good distance you will stop before you smash in to the car in front no matter what? A Range Rover's stopping and gripping abilities are much greater than a 206. By your logic, even if the Range Rover has gripped and the 206 hasn't there won't be an accident.
I'm not saying that the OP wasn't driving too close, he might of been. But unless we were there, we won't know. There could of been many resulting factors in this and just saying 'he was driving too close, end of.' is a bit closed minded.
I've had an accident in the rain where I spun out on a corner and crashed into a wall. The car in front, who was travelling faster managed to get round ok. Now i've done that corner in rain before at the same speed and faster and got round. But the day I crashed I had hit oil that was on the road and I lost control.
But I'm sure that most people on here will still assume I was driving too fast for the conditions, which in actual fact, I wasn't, I was just unlucky enough to hit an oil patch.
Edit: This corner can easily be taken at 35mph in the dry, I was doing 25mph because I was driving to the conditions.
#89: Re: Crashed Today Author: E5GDM, Location: EssexPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:15 am ----
AsphericSmile wrote:
So your saying that if you keep a good distance you will stop before you smash in to the car in front no matter what?
No, not a 'Good' distance, its got to be the correct distance. & that's where the problem lays as there are so many variables. The fact a Range Rover can out stop a 206 (if it can) is immaterial, because that is just one of the variables a good driver will have taken into account in gauging how close to follow it to allow enough distance to stop, even if they hit a brick wall. Like I said earlier, you should be looking past the vehicle in front as far as possible to anticipate any problems, not relying on their brake lights as a first warning off danger.
As for you hitting oil, did you get the police to come & sort it out?
#90: Re: Crashed Today Author: Harry, Location: StaffordPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:16 am ----
E5GDM wrote:
Harry wrote:
:? He didn't stop ok he smashed into the car in front, unless you call that ok? . In the same way the car in front smashed into the car in front of that.
I was travelling along, all of a sudden it stopped (and when I say stopped i mean literally stopped from 40 - 0 in a few metres ) it was nasty.
If you still think I was too close, and I should have left enough room for the van to instantly stop when he hit a parked car in front then I can't argue my case any more
Sorry, read piled in as pulled up!!
But I still say you were to close, especially as you couldn't see in front of the van.
The distance was normal, honestly the same distance the average person drives in average traffic.
The problem was I didn't know to stop until the van had stopped which at a good 30 mph + thinking distance the chances of being able to stop is highly unlikely.
I do agree that leaving a larger gap would have solved it in reality that doesn't happen no one leaves a 100m gap just incase the unexpected happens.
Feels like I'm repeating myself, but if a car were to pull out right in front of another car (the person would have to be literally blind) and a crash happened. The person behind that car is extremely likely to hit them as well and when they I wouldnt say it was their fault for driving too close. Sometimes we are just unlucky.
#91: Re: Crashed Today Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:17 am ----
panason1c wrote:
AsphericSmile wrote:
panason1c wrote:
AsphericSmile wrote:
If the car in front grips and you can't, a safe stopping distance won't magically make you stop.
.
I nominate the above for the 'Moronic statement of the month award'
See, Pr*ck.
How is it? All off your posts in this thread have been moronic insults.
Probably in response to moronic posts such as yours where you previously refered to some posters as "pricks"!!!!
I can't speak for others, but I believe that this thread has been fairly good natured. I've had my say, others have had their say. If I am one of those "pricks" referred to, then fine, I am happy to be a "p***k" living in a world where we can have free speech and a fairly good humored debate. If we all agreed then this forum would be a fairly boring place. What we can all agree on is that the OP crashed. Why is always open for discussion! None of us on here, including the OP will ever know why the crash happened, and frankly, do any of us actually care. We all learn from our mistakes, maybe the OP has learnt something. I know I have, I'm buying a Range Rover as if alls the car gets is a scratch, and the other vehicle gets that much damage, I know what i'd prefer to be in.
#92: Re: Crashed Today Author: panason1c, Location: SomersetPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:17 am ----
AsphericSmile wrote:
I've had an accident in the rain where I spun out on a corner and crashed into a wall. The car in front, who was travelling faster managed to get round ok. Now i've done that corner in rain before at the same speed and faster and got round. But the day I crashed I had hit oil that was on the road and I lost control.
So lets get this right...........You were following a car (in the rain) that was going faster than you (your own words!) and he managed to get round the corner, in spite of alleged oil on the road but you, who was following at a slower speed, still managed to lose control and crash!!!??
I really dont know what to say to that!!.............but one thing is for sure, you was NOT driving to the road conditions. Last edited by panason1c on Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:13 am; edited 3 times in total
#93: Re: Crashed Today Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:27 am ----
panason1c wrote:
AsphericSmile wrote:
I've had an accident in the rain where I spun out on a corner and crashed into a wall. The car in front, who was travelling faster managed to get round ok. Now i've done that corner in rain before at the same speed and faster and got round. But the day I crashed I had hit oil that was on the road and I lost control.
So lets get this right...........You were following a car that was going faster than you (your own words!) and he managed to get round the corner, in spite of alledged oil on the road but you, who was driving at a slower speed, still managed to lose control and crash!!!
I really dont know what to say to that!!
Maybe the car in front was dropping the oil (only joking)
Again it is half a story. A Porshe 911 has superior grip to a Ford Sierra, but the Porshe has it's engine in the boot so it is tail heavy and more likely to spin out if you give it a heavy right foot. Asphericsmile, you can't just give us half a story. Now we will end up having a debate about your standard of driving based on the little you have told us.
Panason1c, are you ready for round 2? lol
#94: Re: Crashed Today Author: panason1c, Location: SomersetPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:31 am ---- Yes macca, i'm ready for round 2, sadly, its like shooting fish in a barrel with the standard of some of the posts. lol
#95: Re: Crashed Today Author: sillyhilly, Location: The Mean Streets of CoventryPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:39 am ----
panason1c wrote:
Yes macca, i'm ready for round 2, sadly, its like shooting fish in a barrel with the standard of some of the posts. lol
After careful consideration and reading this godforsaken thread for 20 minutes, I don't think you are in any position to insult the standards of other posters.
But welcome to 206info, where people are easy to out-argue thanks to a lack of common sense and basic grammar and punctuation...
The only decent post here was Ali. He says, and I quote, that this entire thread is bulls**t. He hit that nail on the head...
#96: Re: Crashed Today Author: Addaz, Location: SuffolkPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:42 am ---- More biatching? Suprise suprise
Chillax peoples
#97: Re: Crashed Today Author: panason1c, Location: SomersetPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:44 am ----
sillyhilly wrote:
After careful consideration and reading this godforsaken thread for 20 minutes, I don't think you are in any position to insult the standards of other posters.
But welcome to 206info, where people are easy to out-argue thanks to a lack of common sense and basic grammar and punctuation...
...
Point 1...I disagree
Point 2...I strongly agree
#98: Re: Crashed Today Author: sillyhilly, Location: The Mean Streets of CoventryPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:47 am ----
panason1c wrote:
sillyhilly wrote:
After careful consideration and reading this godforsaken thread for 20 minutes, I don't think you are in any position to insult the standards of other posters.
But welcome to 206info, where people are easy to out-argue thanks to a lack of common sense and basic grammar and punctuation...
...
Point 1...I disagree
Point 2...I strongly agree
Whoops! Panasonic please accept my apologies, I'm getting my wires crossed here and re-read what you've been saying. Completely agree with everything you've mentioned... You're the only one speaking sense from the looks of it
Please carry on the arguments though, it makes daytime info so much more exciting
#99: Re: Crashed Today Author: panason1c, Location: SomersetPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:51 am ----
sillyhilly wrote:
panason1c wrote:
sillyhilly wrote:
After careful consideration and reading this godforsaken thread for 20 minutes, I don't think you are in any position to insult the standards of other posters.
But welcome to 206info, where people are easy to out-argue thanks to a lack of common sense and basic grammar and punctuation...
...
Point 1...I disagree
Point 2...I strongly agree
Whoops! Panasonic please accept my apologies, I'm getting my wires crossed here and re-read what you've been saying. Completely agree with everything you've mentioned... You're the only one speaking sense from the looks of it
Please carry on the arguments though, it makes daytime info so much more exciting
No probs.
#100: Re: Crashed Today Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:58 am ----
Addaz wrote:
More biatching? Suprise suprise
Chillax peoples
Don't worry I won't be starting round 2 as it all goes round in circles, and I think that everything has been covered already, so we would all just be repeating ourselves.
#101: Re: Crashed Today Author: panason1c, Location: SomersetPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:09 am ----
macca1411 wrote:
I think that everything has been covered already, so we would all just be repeating ourselves.
#102: Re: Crashed Today Author: Jay794, Location: Sheffield/Chesterfield/DronfieldPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:30 am ---- Can't a mod just lock this thread and finished the argument as Macca said "everything has been covered" so get over it
We are not responsible for comments posted by our users, as they are the property of the poster
Interactive software released under GNU GPL,
Code Credits,
Privacy Policy
Membership:
Latest: 
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 17130
Online Now [326]:
Visitors: 325
Members: 0
Staff Online Now:
Page Views:
General
don't dwell on it though get sources parts to fix it straight away 
He didn't stop ok he smashed into the car in front, unless you call that ok? 
