Bizarre accident

FlashSA said:
That SH would be instant written warning if I caught one of my guys doing it!!
Click to expand...

Good luck with making that written warning actually stick.
You are not the police, it is not your job or your right to enforce the law.
 
Brenden_E said:
You don't say. This specific instance is not an exception covered by law. If the person did not swerve out at the last minute, the employee in the Ford would have *still* went into the back of them. Why? Because he wasn't maintaining a safe following distance. It's really not that hard to follow.

/* Whoosh goes the obvious over IzZzy's head */
Click to expand...

Even if the person did not swerve out at the last minute, there is no automatic presumption of guilt.
 
"A safe following distance is when you are able to bring your car to a halt without swerving to avoid the car in front of you if it suddenly stops. "

I'm trying to understand this from the employee's perspective. He was riding behind a car, it suddenly swerved out of his way and then your car was in his way.

Now according to safe following distance if the car in front of him suddenly stopped he should have been able to stop without swerving. If the car suddenly swerved and your car was revealed (and your brake lights were working/weren't riding on the clutch) then he had more than enough time to stop without swerving as your car was in front of the car ahead of him and he should have been keeping a safe following distance relative to the car in front of him (ie should have had ample of time to avoid you).

So I would guess that maybe he was speeding, tailgating, or not paying attention. Not sure how this can possibly not be his fault.

As for paying the excess, if it was a stranger that had hit the OP the stranger would have to pay his own excess and there's no way anyone on this forum would not try to recover the excess (or let there insurer do it on their behalf) they had to pay for someone riding into them.
 
Last edited:
ToxicBunny said:
Even if the person did not swerve out at the last minute, there is no automatic presumption of guilt.
Click to expand...

There's also no automatic presumption of guilt when caught raping someone. You still have to go to court and have to be found guilty. But you will be found guilty and that's that. The reasoning you are following makes so little sense. If what Flash said is true, the employee will be guilty. Sure it's not "automatic", but that's the outcome.
 
^^^

There is a big difference between reacting to a vehicle suddenly slowing down, and attempting to slow down for a stationary object that is suddenly revealed to you.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Good luck with making that written warning actually stick.
You are not the police, it is not your job or your right to enforce the law.
Click to expand...

Wrong, sir! If you are in a company branded vehicle you are bound by said company's code of conduct. Doing an illegal U-Turn on a national highway certainly qualifies as both unlawful action and bringing the company into disrepute and the relevant disciplinary action will follow!
 
FlashSA said:
Wrong, sir! If you are in a company branded vehicle you are bound by said company's code of conduct. Doing an illegal U-Turn on a national highway certainly qualifies as both unlawful action and bringing the company into disrepute and the relevant disciplinary action will follow!
Click to expand...

I think Toxic is either the employee, or something similar happened to him. Or he just hates "the boss"! :D
 
Brenden_E said:
There's also no automatic presumption of guilt when caught raping someone. You still have to go to court and have to be found guilty. But you will be found guilty and that's that. The reasoning you are following makes so little sense. If what Flash said is true, the employee will be guilty. Sure it's not "automatic", but that's the outcome.
Click to expand...

That there is the important point everyone seems to be wanting to gloss over. Courts.

FlashSA is not a court, is not a legal body able to dispense verdicts, but he is automatically assuming guilt which is wrong on every level, and potentially wanting to financially impact the employee based on that. I'm sure the CCMA would take a very dim view of that.
 
FlashSA said:
Wrong, sir! If you are in a company branded vehicle you are bound by said company's code of conduct. Doing an illegal U-Turn on a national highway certainly qualifies as both unlawful action and bringing the company into disrepute and the relevant disciplinary action will follow!
Click to expand...

Does your company policy/code of conduct have a codified section dealing with driving?

You would need evidence of said action to make a written warning stick. Your word is not good enough.
 
Brenden_E said:
You don't say. This specific instance is not an exception covered by law. If the person did not swerve out at the last sec, the employee in the Ford would have *still* went into the back of them. Why? Because he wasn't maintaining a safe following distance. It's really not that hard to follow.

/* Whoosh goes the obvious over IzZzy's head */
Click to expand...
IzZzy was responding only to the general assertion that "the law says". He was not making an assessment about this particular case. You do him in injustice.
 
The one case which is very unfair, is when a car is keeping a safe following distance between him and the car in front of him.
Then out of nowhere comes a car that squeezes into that gap, and then slams on brakes for whatever reason.
You drive into the back of the idiot that just closed that gap.
Who's to blame? The law would be on his side, because YOU drove into the back of him.
In a scenario like that, you better hope there were a couple witnesses.
 
Arthur said:
IzZzy was responding only to the general assertion that "the law says". He was not making an assessment about this particular case. You do him in injustice.
Click to expand...

Was I doing him doggy style *in* injustice? I certainly do love to do that.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Does your company policy/code of conduct have a codified section dealing with driving?

You would need evidence of said action to make a written warning stick. Your word is not good enough.
Click to expand...

Our code of conduct is tight.

If someone phoned in to report one of our drivers acting recklessly, we would chat to the driver and find out his side of the story and then if the driver admits wrong doing we would verbally warn them. If they admit to nothing, there is nothing we can do apart from remind them about our code.

If a member of management visually saw a transgression with his/her own eyes, a written warning would be issued after a hearing.
 
ToxicBunny said:
^^^

There is a big difference between reacting to a vehicle suddenly slowing down, and attempting to slow down for a stationary object that is suddenly revealed to you.
Click to expand...

Safe following distance says suddenly stops, not suddenly slowing down. A car that suddenly stops doesn't take 10 seconds to do so.

1. He must keep a safe following distance to the swerving vehicle.
2. Swerving vehicle swerved for a reason.
3. Car in front of the swerving car was further than the car that he was supposed to keep safe following distance from.

Sorry I just don't see how it's not his fault.

CodeMaster said:
Who's to blame? The law would be on his side, because YOU drove into the back of him.
In a scenario like that, you better hope there were a couple witnesses.
Click to expand...

No. It wouldn't.
 
CodeMaster said:
The one case which is very unfair, is when a car is keeping a safe following distance between him and the car in front of him.
Then out of nowhere comes a car that squeezes into that gap, and then slams on brakes for whatever reason.
You drive into the back of the idiot that just closed that gap.
Who's to blame? The law would be on his side, because YOU drove into the back of him.
In a scenario like that, you better hope there were a couple witnesses.
Click to expand...

This is one of the exceptions. He'll be charged with reckless driving and you will be home free. And yes, you do hope there's witnesses else it could get ugly.
 
FlashSA said:
Our code of conduct is tight.

If someone phoned in to report one of our drivers acting recklessly, we would chat to the driver and find out his side of the story and then if the driver admits wrong doing we would verbally warn them. If they admit to nothing, there is nothing we can do apart from remind them about our code.

If a member of management visually saw a transgression with his/her own eyes, a written warning would be issued after a hearing.
Click to expand...

If the driver admitted to doing wrong, then warn him either verbally or via a written warning.

In terms of dishing out a written warning if management saw a transgression and doing so without a hearing. That written warning would hold no weight what so ever, and any employee with half a brain would refuse to sign said written warning.
 
Safe following distance is 2 seconds. At 120km/h thats 67m. If the "middle" car swerved out at the last moment the following driver has 67m to get to a complete stop, and luckily for him the average stopping distance at 120km/h is ±96m... Oh wait, 96 is greater than 67...
 
Archer said:
Safe following distance is 2 seconds. At 120km/h thats 67m. If the "middle" car swerved out at the last second the following driver has 67m to get to a complete stop, and luckily for him the average stopping distance at 120km/h is ±96m... Oh wait, 96 is greater than 67...
Click to expand...

Don't bring logic into this..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X