Bizarre accident

Archer said:
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...
Click to expand...

Someone bought their license. It's called the 3 second rule for a reason. Because it's 3 seconds and not 2. LoL.
 
Brenden_E said:
Someone bought their license. It's called the 3 second rule for a reason. Because it's 3 seconds and not 2. LoL.
Click to expand...

Which law dictates this "3 second rule" you talk of?

Or is it the same law as this "if you rear end someone you are guilty" law?
 
Brenden_E said:
Someone bought their license. It's called the 3 second rule for a reason. Because it's 3 seconds and not 2. LoL.
Click to expand...

Insults, the best form of conversation. Particularly effective when you are wrong on all accounts
The national traffic act does NOT mandate any form of minimum distance. It is just a guideline provided in your K53 learners book. And its 2 seconds there (or did the Arrive Alive guys also buy their licence? :rolleyes:).

No person driving or having a vehicle on a public road shall –
b) follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent having regard to the speed of such other vehicle and the traffic on and the condition of the roadway, or more closely than is prescribed in these regulations;
Click to expand...
http://www.acts.co.za/national-road-traffic-act-1996/

All recommend the 2 seconds rule... (3 for heavy vehicles)

http://www.arrivealive.co.za/Following-Distances-and-Road-Crashes
http://www.insurancechat.co.za/2012-01/the-correct-following-distance-can-prevent-many-car-crashes/
http://www.aa.co.za/about/press-room/press-releases/aa-legal-eagle-the-two-second-rule.html
 
Last edited:
Part of the reading material when you do your learners. They were also so nice to paint it on the highways at one point - see 3 arrows between you and the car in front of you.

If you didn't know, those were painted so that at 120km/h it would take a second to get to the next arrow. I guess you adopted that signature :>
 
Brenden_E said:
Part of the reading material when you do your learners. They were also so nice to paint it on the highways at one point - see 3 arrows between you and the car in front of you.

If you didn't know, those were painted so that at 120km/h it would take a second to get to the next arrow. I guess you adopted that signature :>
Click to expand...

Learners guideline and K53 guideline are different.
K53 trumps, since its your driving license test.

Those 3 arrows on the highway are again purely a guideline and are not compulsory, or mandated by law. The 2 second rule still applies since it is codified in the K53.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Which law dictates this "3 second rule" you talk of?

Or is it the same law as this "if you rear end someone you are guilty" law?
Click to expand...

Think its the same as the latter
If a 10 ton truck rear ends you, and you then rear end the car in front of you its obviously your fault. You didnt adhere to the "25m between stopped vehicles" rule!
 
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...

You are not getting it. There is no exception to "the general presumption of fault", rather the facts prove negligence.

Because you repeatedly fail to get this, I would ask you for proof as to this automatic presumption you speak about - but one cannot prove a negative so I will save you the trouble.
 
IzZzy said:
You are not getting it. There is no exception to "the general presumption of fault", rather the facts prove negligence.

Because you repeatedly fail to get this, I would ask you for proof as to this automatic presumption you speak about - but one cannot prove a negative so I will save you the trouble.
Click to expand...

I think you aren't getting it. It doesn't matter that there's no "automatic fault", when you sure as hell will be found guilty at the end of the process. The outcome is the same. Capiche?
 
ToxicBunny said:
So you never did your K53 test then did you?
Click to expand...

And they somehow say you should only see 2 as per law? I doubt that. I never read or was told anything in that vein. The only actual law that I'm aware of is that your following distance must be adequate that no matter the actions of the driver in front of you, you are able to stop.

And that's where I'm going to leave it. You can moan and bitch as much as you want, the employee will be guilty and he'll have to pay. And that, as they say, is that.
 
Last edited:
Archer said:
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...
Click to expand...

And that proves what exactly?

Safe following distance is to stop without swerving if the car in front of you suddenly stops.

2/3 seconds rules are called guidelines for a reason, guidelines which should be increased for other factors on the road such as road condition, tiredness, etc.

Please do not try and tell me that if you were in the same position as the employee your defense would be "but I kept a 2 second following distance that's all I needed to do" I honestly do not think that will help.

All your post proves is one should follow at an even greater time/distance than suggested.

Don't misunderstand me though, while I think the employee is at fault and should pay both excesses I am not saying the OP should automatically charge it to the employee.
 
Last edited:
Brenden_E said:
And they somehow say you should only see 2 as per law? I doubt that. I never read or was told anything in that vein. The only actual law that I'm aware of is that your following distance must be adequate that no matter the actions of the driver in front of you, you are able to stop.
Click to expand...

The law purely says adequate, the guideline that is in the K53 states 2 seconds. Whether you didn't read it or were not told it, is irrelevant.
 
Why exactly should I read that again.

Do you have trouble understanding that there is no automatic presumption of guilt, regardless of what YOU feel the outcome would be.
That the safe following distance is generally accepted as 2 seconds in this country, and yes that is generally safe enough to stop if the vehicle travelling in front of you has to suddenly brake. It may or may not be adequate if you are suddenly suddenly presented with a stationary object in front of you, but that is not a regular occurrence.
 
Brenden_E said:
I think you aren't getting it. It doesn't matter that there's no "automatic fault", when you sure as hell will be found guilty at the end of the process. The outcome is the same. Capiche?
Click to expand...


So you concede on count 1 ;)

The rest of your post is a non sequitur. Just because you have had an accident doesn't mean :

(1) You are criminally liable, for which you can be said to be 'guilty'; nor

(2) 'liable' under civil law.

You do know liability is apportioned under civil law, if the facts justify it? The brakes could have not been serviced properly etcetera.

What I am saying is it is a non sequitur when you say "he will be found guilty" at the end of the process - on no other facts apart from that there was an accident, and his employer may charge him.

Not only are you preempting an investigation, but methinks you confuse civil and criminal law.
 
Of course the employee can fight it. It's his right, but he'll be darn stupid to given the circumstances.
There's nothing to indicate that there was anything wrong with the vehicle. So saying the bakes could not have been serviced is just fishing.

In all likelihood he'll lose and then he'll have to cough up lawyer fees as well. So if he's smart, he won't be a hard-ass about it and pay for his mistake.
 
Brenden_E said:
Of course the employee can fight it. It's his right, but he'll be darn stupid to given the circumstances.
There's nothing to indicate that there was anything wrong with the vehicle. So saying the bakes could not have been serviced is just fishing.

In all likelihood he'll lose and then he'll have to cough up lawyer fees as well. So if he's smart, he won't be a hard-ass about it and pay for his mistake.
Click to expand...

There has been no indication that the vehicle has been properly and regularly serviced, so you cannot say there is nothing to indicate that there was anything wrong with the vehicle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X