asshole de jour

C.H. wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:24:26 -0500, DTJ wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 20:50:43 -0700, "C.H." > wrote:
> >
> >>While I don't condone either driver's behavior I am curious how you knew
> >>he would have been able to slow down far enough in the given distance.
> >>
> >>Most people overestimate the brakes of any truck-trailer combo and there
> >>are situations where you only have the choice between trying to make it
> >>around the sloth and hitting him.
> >
> > Sorry, but that is bull****. You DON'T OVERDRIVE YOUR ****ING BRAKES!
>
> If someone pulls in in front of you and cuts you off you are not
> overdriving your brakes. The driver on the onramp has to make sure he
> either is so far ahead that the driver behind him can safely brake (and
> technically shouldn't even have to brake) or he has to wait until the
> truck has passed him and pull in behind it.

But that's not what happened here. Go back and read what I posted,
they were BOTH on the same onramp, and BOTH were doing something stupid
(the SUV for trying to merge into 70ish MPH traffic at 45 MPH, the
truck driver for trying to pass the SUV on the shoulder.)

nate

In article >, C.H. wrote:

> If someone pulls in in front of you and cuts you off you are not
> overdriving your brakes.
<...>

> What would you do if you are driving along the right lane at a legal 60mph
> and some SUV idiot cuts you off at 30 with much less than the brake
> distance necessary to scrub off the speed? Disappear into thin air? Tunnel
> through him? Smash into him although you could have avoided a possibly
> fatal accident by pulling into the emergency lane and risk spraying some
> guy behind you with some gravel, for heaven's sake?

Actually with what happened with the torqueless wonder car, I found that
cops and insurance companies do expect you to violate the laws of physics
to avoid a collision. Failure to violate the physical laws of the
universe is your problem and the resulting collision your fault.

I was cut off by a 17 year old driving the family minivan. I had less
than a car length to avoid the collision. I successfully did so until the
kid slammed on the brakes. This rendered avoidance impossible. I tried to
get into the median but a high square curb kept the car in the lane.

I was ticketed for failure to wear a seat belt. I explained to the
officer that I was wearing it. He then changed the ticket to failure
to reduce speed to avoid a collision, Now, I don't know what gould
technology I was supposed to have on a 1986 automobile to stop that
quickly, but obviously it's required.

The kid's insurance company rep I argued with at great length. He simply
refused to pay, claiming it was my fault even though he could not
articulate what I could have done to avoid the collision that I had not
done. The fact that I had avoided the collision initially somehow in his
warped insurance adjuster brain meant that everything was reset and
somehow I was supposed to magically come up with a safe following
distance instantly, despite having it set by the kid driving the minivan.

Thusly, my interpetation is that one may cut off anyone they choose any
time they like because of this sort of mentality. If you don't care about
your vehicle, the law and insurance industry is on the side of the person
doing the cutting off. There simply appears to be no liability in cutting
off another driver.

One thing I learned from my insurance co and the kid's is that if they
hit you in the side, then it's their fault. But if they get in front of
you, no matter how, and get hit in the rear, it's likely going to be your
fault. Thusly, I've changed my driving appropiately given these rules.

Now that I know the rules of the game, I will not be a victim of it
again.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:14:44 -0500, Brent P wrote:

> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>
>> What would you do if you are driving along the right lane at a legal
>> 60mph and some SUV idiot cuts you off at 30 with much less than the
>> brake distance necessary to scrub off the speed? Disappear into thin
>> air? Tunnel through him? Smash into him although you could have avoided
>> a possibly fatal accident by pulling into the emergency lane and risk
>> spraying some guy behind you with some gravel, for heaven's sake?
>
> Actually with what happened with the torqueless wonder car, I found that
> cops and insurance companies do expect you to violate the laws of physics
> to avoid a collision. Failure to violate the physical laws of the universe
> is your problem and the resulting collision your fault.

I don't mind violating any law to keep from getting killed. Unfortunately
the laws of physics are rather immutable, at least around here. But if I
have a choice between hitting a car or spraying a different car with
gravel I will choose the latter.

> I was ticketed for failure to wear a seat belt. I explained to the officer
> that I was wearing it. He then changed the ticket to failure to reduce
> speed to avoid a collision, Now, I don't know what gould technology I was
> supposed to have on a 1986 automobile to stop that quickly, but obviously
> it's required.

I would have tried the same thing you did. And I would very likely have
gotten into the same collision. Sometimes you just can't win no matter how
hard you try.

> The kid's insurance company rep I argued with at great length. He simply
> refused to pay, claiming it was my fault even though he could not
> articulate what I could have done to avoid the collision that I had not
> done. The fact that I had avoided the collision initially somehow in his
> warped insurance adjuster brain meant that everything was reset and
> somehow I was supposed to magically come up with a safe following distance
> instantly, despite having it set by the kid driving the minivan.

A friend of mine was in the same situation. He decided to call the
insurance company's bluff and went to court. Fortunately the judge did see
things his way and awarded him full compensation, citing that if someone
merges he has to yield. Always.

> Thusly, my interpetation is that one may cut off anyone they choose any
> time they like because of this sort of mentality. If you don't care about
> your vehicle, the law and insurance industry is on the side of the person
> doing the cutting off. There simply appears to be no liability in cutting
> off another driver.

Unfortunately you are completely right. And that's why I respect a big rig
driver who manages to drive around an asshole cutting him off, even at the
expense of flying gravel.

> One thing I learned from my insurance co and the kid's is that if they
> hit you in the side, then it's their fault. But if they get in front of
> you, no matter how, and get hit in the rear, it's likely going to be
> your fault. Thusly, I've changed my driving appropiately given these
> rules.

Can't say I blame you.

Chris

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:14:44 -0500, Brent P wrote:

>
>>Thusly, my interpetation is that one may cut off anyone they choose any
>>time they like because of this sort of mentality. If you don't care about
>>your vehicle, the law and insurance industry is on the side of the person
>>doing the cutting off. There simply appears to be no liability in cutting
>>off another driver.
>
>
> Unfortunately you are completely right. And that's why I respect a big rig
> driver who manages to drive around an asshole cutting him off, even at the
> expense of flying gravel.
>

You really do have a reading comprehension problem don't you?

here it is again:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...33e9af99ae38c2

now where did I say that a) the SUV cut off the trucker or b) the
trucker ever actually passed the SUV? I believe I even later clarified
that a) the trucker ran up on the SUV's ass, there was no cutting off
involved and that b) there was absolutely no way he was ever going to
get past on the shoulder because it simply wasn't wide enough.

geez...

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:19:17 -0700, "C.H." >
wrote:

>>>Most people overestimate the brakes of any truck-trailer combo and there
>>>are situations where you only have the choice between trying to make it
>>>around the sloth and hitting him.
>>
>> Sorry, but that is bull****. You DON'T OVERDRIVE YOUR ****ING BRAKES!
>
>If someone pulls in in front of you and cuts you off you are not
>overdriving your brakes. The driver on the onramp has to make sure he
>either is so far ahead that the driver behind him can safely brake (and
>technically shouldn't even have to brake) or he has to wait until the
>truck has passed him and pull in behind it.

Ah, it would appear you or I are misreading this. I say the truck was
coming down the entrance ramp like the SUV, while it appears you
believe he was already on the highway. Nate?

>What would you do if you are driving along the right lane at a legal 60mph
>and some SUV idiot cuts you off at 30 with much less than the brake
>distance necessary to scrub off the speed? Disappear into thin air? Tunnel
>through him? Smash into him although you could have avoided a possibly
>fatal accident by pulling into the emergency lane and risk spraying some
>guy behind you with some gravel, for heaven's sake?

Um, it can't happen. I manage to avoid assholes who pull out in front
of me when I am doing highway speeds, your scenario is so much easier
to handle.

>And don't tell me you advocate driving on the freeway at 30mph to avoid
>such a situation.

No, I like life.

>> Especially in a truck. The SUV driver was an idiot or an asshole or both.
>> The truck driver should be shot.
>
>The truck driver very likely had no other option. He had the right of way
>and the right to drive at a legal speed in the right lane. The SUV cut him
>off and forced him to take evasive action. That Nate's car got damaged is
>regrettable but better than a smashed SUV and possibly dead passengers
>therein.

See above, if I am wrong, then I apologize for over reacting.

>The funny thing is that I used to think like you until I pulled a trailer
>with the Dodge for the first time. But I can assure you, getting cut off
>by idiots either wanting to make the exit or neglecting to accelerate on
>the on-ramp gives you a totally new perspective.

Totally different though, as a trucker is paid big bucks to know how
to handle his rig. A person who drives a trailer once a year by
definition is not as experienced.

On 11 Jul 2005 09:53:36 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:

>> >>Most people overestimate the brakes of any truck-trailer combo and there
>> >>are situations where you only have the choice between trying to make it
>> >>around the sloth and hitting him.
>> >
>> > Sorry, but that is bull****. You DON'T OVERDRIVE YOUR ****ING BRAKES!
>>
>> If someone pulls in in front of you and cuts you off you are not
>> overdriving your brakes. The driver on the onramp has to make sure he
>> either is so far ahead that the driver behind him can safely brake (and
>> technically shouldn't even have to brake) or he has to wait until the
>> truck has passed him and pull in behind it.
>
>But that's not what happened here. Go back and read what I posted,
>they were BOTH on the same onramp, and BOTH were doing something stupid
>(the SUV for trying to merge into 70ish MPH traffic at 45 MPH, the
>truck driver for trying to pass the SUV on the shoulder.)
>
>nate

I thought so - offered apology for over reacting hereby retracted.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:41:31 -0500, DTJ wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:19:17 -0700, "C.H." > wrote:
>
>>If someone pulls in in front of you and cuts you off you are not
>>overdriving your brakes. The driver on the onramp has to make sure he
>>either is so far ahead that the driver behind him can safely brake (and
>>technically shouldn't even have to brake) or he has to wait until the
>>truck has passed him and pull in behind it.
>
> Ah, it would appear you or I are misreading this. I say the truck was
> coming down the entrance ramp like the SUV, while it appears you believe
> he was already on the highway. Nate?

On rereading the OP I find you are right. I just misread it the first
time. Apologies.

I thought the truck was in the right lane and the SUV was merging in front
of him, mostly because I have been in the same situation before (the
truck, not the SUV.

>>What would you do if you are driving along the right lane at a legal
>>60mph and some SUV idiot cuts you off at 30 with much less than the
>>brake distance necessary to scrub off the speed? Disappear into thin
>>air? Tunnel through him? Smash into him although you could have avoided
>>a possibly fatal accident by pulling into the emergency lane and risk
>>spraying some guy behind you with some gravel, for heaven's sake?
>
> Um, it can't happen. I manage to avoid assholes who pull out in front
> of me when I am doing highway speeds,

With truck and trailer?

> your scenario is so much easier to handle.

Not really.

>>The funny thing is that I used to think like you until I pulled a
>>trailer with the Dodge for the first time. But I can assure you, getting
>>cut off by idiots either wanting to make the exit or neglecting to
>>accelerate on the on-ramp gives you a totally new perspective.
>
> Totally different though, as a trucker is paid big bucks to know how to
> handle his rig. A person who drives a trailer once a year by definition
> is not as experienced.

The trucker is paid for driving his rig, not for breaking the laws of
physics. The trucker can do only so much and if an evasive maneuver is
more promising than braking I would do the same if I was him.

Chris

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:49:57 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:14:44 -0500, Brent P wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately you are completely right. And that's why I respect a big
>> rig driver who manages to drive around an asshole cutting him off, even
>> at the expense of flying gravel.
>>
> You really do have a reading comprehension problem don't you?

I did reread the article and find you are right.

The situation Brent was commenting on, though was truck in right lane and
SUV cutting him off and I said what I would do in _that_ situation.

Apologies.

Chris

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...


> The kid's insurance company rep I argued with at great length. He simply
> refused to pay, claiming it was my fault even though he could not
> articulate what I could have done to avoid the collision that I had not
> done. The fact that I had avoided the collision initially somehow in his
> warped insurance adjuster brain meant that everything was reset and
> somehow I was supposed to magically come up with a safe following
> distance instantly, despite having it set by the kid driving the minivan.
>
> Thusly, my interpetation is that one may cut off anyone they choose any
> time they like because of this sort of mentality. If you don't care about
> your vehicle, the law and insurance industry is on the side of the person
> doing the cutting off. There simply appears to be no liability in cutting
> off another driver.
>
> One thing I learned from my insurance co and the kid's is that if they
> hit you in the side, then it's their fault. But if they get in front of
> you, no matter how, and get hit in the rear, it's likely going to be your
> fault. Thusly, I've changed my driving appropiately given these rules.
>
> Now that I know the rules of the game, I will not be a victim of it
> again.

Did you discuss this with an attorney? Often, a letter from an attorney
will work with insurance companies.

Around 7/11/2005 7:14 PM, Brent P wrote:

> I was cut off by a 17 year old driving the family minivan. I had less
> than a car length to avoid the collision. I successfully did so until the
> kid slammed on the brakes. This rendered avoidance impossible. I tried to
> get into the median but a high square curb kept the car in the lane.
>
> I was ticketed for failure to wear a seat belt. I explained to the
> officer that I was wearing it. He then changed the ticket to failure
> to reduce speed to avoid a collision, Now, I don't know what gould
> technology I was supposed to have on a 1986 automobile to stop that
> quickly, but obviously it's required.

"Sorry officer, my tailhook missed the last cable"?


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)