People don't stop for the pedestrians waiting at the crossing. They sometimes stop for the brave ones that just cross.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How frequently are you watching FIFA World Cup 2026 matches?
Rear accident rant
- Thread starter Musiclover08
- Start date
People don't stop for the pedestrians waiting at the crossing. They sometimes stop for the brave ones that just cross.
Had a similar case 2 weeks ago, when I was stationary in a slipway, waiting for oncoming traffic approaching from the right. A BM-driver rearends our car, then claims I was stopped too far into the slipway, so he thought I was moving. I was legally standing behind the lines, but of-course mr-I'm-chatting-on-my-handsfree-sales-manager didn't notice this and carried on going. FOLLOWING DISTANCE, NUMBNUT!
That's pretty sad. If you're in flowing traffic, then you're only supposed to stop for pedestrians who're waiting to cross, if it's safe for you to do so. But to blindly cut off the pedestrian if you're the only car is just rude. As stated earlier, in a traffic-circle which is already intended to slow the traffic down, you should stop for pedestrians and the vehicles behind you should have a large enough following distance that they can too
Last edited:
HavocXphere
Honorary Master
Close, but not ALWAYS. If he can prove that you braked hard for absolutely no reason then you'll be at vault. i.e. If you brake-test someone & he can prove it then you're in trouble. Actually proving that is near impossible though.
This sounds bad but I'm absolutely terrified of stoppping at a pedestrian crossing that's on the exit of the circle I'm leaving.
I'll drive over it even if someone is waiting to cross because of the risk of being rear ended by some hooligan barreling through the circle. Obviosuly I'll stop if someone is in walking across.
I'd rather have a ticket then get smashed into.
I'll drive over it even if someone is waiting to cross because of the risk of being rear ended by some hooligan barreling through the circle. Obviosuly I'll stop if someone is in walking across.
I'd rather have a ticket then get smashed into.
SinghDude
Chief Sports Analyst
" A rear-end collision is a traffic accident wherein a vehicle, regardless of cause, collides into the vehicle in front of it. Rear-end collisions are the most common type of accident on our roadways.
The NRTA require drivers to follow at a safe distance and be able to stop for vehicles in front of them. If a driver fails to reduce speed before striking the vehicle in front them, then law enforcement officers generally assume that he or she is at fault for causing the accident.
In many cases, this assumption holds true. Many drivers follow too closely and at a far greater speed than is safe to stop.
However, this does not suggest that a driver who rear-ends a vehicle in front of them is solely at fault for a collision. A lead vehicle may have an equipment failure, such as no brake lights or a defective signal light.
Human beings are generally poor judges of closing speed, and without brake lights or signal lights, motorists may not be able to determine that the vehicle in front of them is slowing. This is also compounded by the fact that many motorists make sudden stops or turns in traffic where such actions are prohibited.
Our accident reconstruction expert can examine vehicle damage and scene evidence in order to determine how fast a vehicle was going when it rear-ended the vehicle in front of it. We always utilize peer reviewed and validated ethodologies in producing our expert reconstruction opinions.
Accident Reconstruction Services by Accident Reconstruction Experts - www.accidentreconstruction.co.za
Rear end accidents are often referred to as in-line collisions by accident reconstructionists. Our expert can use slight variations of the conservation of linear momentum equation to determine the impact speed for the striking vehicle. The law of conservation of linear momentum is a fundamental law of nature, and it states that the total momentum of a closed system of objects is constant. In addition, as long as the units remain the same throughout the equation, any unit of weight and velocity (speed) may be used. "
The NRTA require drivers to follow at a safe distance and be able to stop for vehicles in front of them. If a driver fails to reduce speed before striking the vehicle in front them, then law enforcement officers generally assume that he or she is at fault for causing the accident.
In many cases, this assumption holds true. Many drivers follow too closely and at a far greater speed than is safe to stop.
However, this does not suggest that a driver who rear-ends a vehicle in front of them is solely at fault for a collision. A lead vehicle may have an equipment failure, such as no brake lights or a defective signal light.
Human beings are generally poor judges of closing speed, and without brake lights or signal lights, motorists may not be able to determine that the vehicle in front of them is slowing. This is also compounded by the fact that many motorists make sudden stops or turns in traffic where such actions are prohibited.
Our accident reconstruction expert can examine vehicle damage and scene evidence in order to determine how fast a vehicle was going when it rear-ended the vehicle in front of it. We always utilize peer reviewed and validated ethodologies in producing our expert reconstruction opinions.
Accident Reconstruction Services by Accident Reconstruction Experts - www.accidentreconstruction.co.za
Rear end accidents are often referred to as in-line collisions by accident reconstructionists. Our expert can use slight variations of the conservation of linear momentum equation to determine the impact speed for the striking vehicle. The law of conservation of linear momentum is a fundamental law of nature, and it states that the total momentum of a closed system of objects is constant. In addition, as long as the units remain the same throughout the equation, any unit of weight and velocity (speed) may be used. "
Musiclover08
Senior Member
Just realised that my foot was also on the brake, meaning that I had three red lights on at the time of the accident.
good point.
Jonny Two Shoes
Expert Member
What if you reverse into the front of some bloke. Can you blame it on him? 
What if you reverse into the front of some bloke. Can you blame it on him?
Without other witnesses, it'll be interesting to see how the responsiblity would be assessed/investigated
Kornhub
Blackburn Fan
Recently we almost hit a lady running with her ipod...she was jogging across the road and didn't see her and turned right...almost clapped her.She had a dumb verbal rant...we just said shove it because when you cross the road you should be looking left and right and not in laaa laaaa land.
I'll be honest and say that I didn't know that pedestrians have right of way at a pedestrian crossing. Got my license years ago and I didn't buy it 
, got it legally. I'm sure there are a whole lot more South Africans who don't know what I know now......
, got it legally. I'm sure there are a whole lot more South Africans who don't know what I know now......The_Unbeliever
Honorary Master
...and then you get those type who literally crawl up your exhaust pipe. 
...and does a cyclist have right of way when you're turning left, and they are going straight? I find it's always a dice to decide if I must wait for them, or go.
I think (might be wrong) that a cyclist is seen in the same light as a pedestrian, although they are also required to observe the rules of the road same as a motorist. More importantly, the "who has the right of way" is of little importance when it comes to a crash. The only thing a motorist should be concerned about is avoiding a collision at all costs, regardless of who has the right of way.
The way I understand it, in the event of a crash which sees the driver in court, the court will only be interested in whether the driver (of the motor vehicle) did everything in his / her ability to prevent the crash. Failing that, the driver might well be held responsible, regardless of "fault", "right of way", or "who broke the law".
The question of "who has the right of way" is often asked, but carries little wait when people's lives are at stake. It is a driver's responsibility to avoid a crash, regardless of the incorrect actions of others. So if a cyclist or a pedestrian crosses over a pedestrian crossing, you have to yield to him/her. The same holds true if they cross the road without the presence of a pedestrian crossing.
As for turning left with a cyclist on your inside, it is simple really. If you can execute the turn without endangering the cyclist (or anyone else) then you may, if not, then you must yield. It is for this exact reason (amongst others) that the NRTA requires a driver to check your left blind spot before turning left, ensuring that it is safe to execute the turn BEFORE you turn.
The way I understand it, in the event of a crash which sees the driver in court, the court will only be interested in whether the driver (of the motor vehicle) did everything in his / her ability to prevent the crash. Failing that, the driver might well be held responsible, regardless of "fault", "right of way", or "who broke the law".
The question of "who has the right of way" is often asked, but carries little wait when people's lives are at stake. It is a driver's responsibility to avoid a crash, regardless of the incorrect actions of others. So if a cyclist or a pedestrian crosses over a pedestrian crossing, you have to yield to him/her. The same holds true if they cross the road without the presence of a pedestrian crossing.
As for turning left with a cyclist on your inside, it is simple really. If you can execute the turn without endangering the cyclist (or anyone else) then you may, if not, then you must yield. It is for this exact reason (amongst others) that the NRTA requires a driver to check your left blind spot before turning left, ensuring that it is safe to execute the turn BEFORE you turn.