Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 9 10

AIBU?

to think this driver was a twat

241 replies

PunkrockerGirl · 04/12/2015 22:01

Driving home about 6pm, very busy main road, 30mph speed limit.
A cat ran out in front of me, I braked, the car behind went right into me.
I got out of the car to a tirade of abuse and that if anything happened to the baby in the car I would be responsible
I gently suggested that she had been driving very close to me right up my arse but just got screamed at.
I asked if they'd called the police and they said that they had. In the meantime, I called dh and ds to come and be with me. The police didn't turn up because they hadn't been called. Loads of incensed and abusive relatives turned up instead.

My dh and ds came, police were called and (rightly so) an ambulance to check the baby over (who was beaming and being bounced up and down by the outraged mother when dh went to see if they were ok).
Anyway, I feel very shaken up but glad that nobody was hurt.

Anyway, aibu to think if you drive so close to the person in front that you can't stop in time when they brake, then baby or no baby on board, you are driving like a twat.
And to say you've called the police when in fact what you've done is called loads of relatives to swerve up and intimidate the person you've bashed into is about as low as it gets.

OP posts:

Report

LunchpackOfNotreDame · 04/12/2015 22:02

You're in the wrong. Legally you should have hit the cat.

somepeopledontknowthat · 04/12/2015 22:03

I thought it was always the fault of the person who goes into the back of the other car but I could be wrong.

HunterHearstHelmsley · 04/12/2015 22:03

YANBU.

Even though you're not meant to brake for animals it's instinctive to do so. It was her fault.

What a knobber.

wanderings · 04/12/2015 22:04

Their bluff was well and truly called! Let them enjoy the hike in the cost of their insurance, and attention from the police.

Tailgating should be an offence in itself.

AgentProvocateur · 04/12/2015 22:04

Er, no she's not. The car behind should have left enough stopping distance.

Nishky · 04/12/2015 22:05

Car behind should have left room to stop -they are at fault.

LunchpackOfNotreDame · 04/12/2015 22:05

Yes she should have left more room but there again you don't expect someone to slam the anchors on for a cat.

Wombatinabathhat · 04/12/2015 22:06

But you called your relatives rather than the police as well

PolterGoose · 04/12/2015 22:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Unreasonablebetty · 04/12/2015 22:08

She went into you, not the other way round.
Sorry you had such an experience... Pours you a whiskey, please try not to give this much more thought. It sounds like you were a bit ganged up on.

LordEmsworth · 04/12/2015 22:09

Yes she should have left more room but there again you don't expect someone to slam the anchors on for a cat.

Lots of things happen when driving that you don't expect. That's why you have to leave enough room to stop if the car in front brakes suddenly. That's pretty much the first rule of driving, isn't it?

thecatsarecrazy · 04/12/2015 22:10

She had been told the police had already been called.

pictish · 04/12/2015 22:10

Yep...law states you have to leave a stopping distance according to your speed/the conditions because if the car in front slams the brakes on (for whatever reason) it's down to you to have been a safe enough distance away to stop without hitting them.

ADishBestEatenCold · 04/12/2015 22:10

"You're in the wrong."

No, she wasn't, and I really hope OP hasn't admitted to any blame.

The cat is irrelevant. Any vehicle must leave sufficient stopping distance (at the speed they are travelling) between themselves and the vehicle in front. If they do not and collide with the vehicle in front when it does an emergency stop, they (the vehicle to the rear) is at fault.

OP could have braked for an imaginary shadow, that just wasn't there, and the other driver would still be at fault.

originalusernamefail · 04/12/2015 22:11

Person behind is a twat. Technically you shouldn't brake for small animals but how was she to know you weren't breaking for a person/ accident / hole in the road/ your car was broken etc etc etc. You must always leave time to stop .

Alisvolatpropiis · 04/12/2015 22:11

I think legally you can only stop/swerve for dogs. All other animals,no. (Could be wrong, happy to be told otherwise).

somepeopledontknowthat · 04/12/2015 22:11

"you don't expect someone to slam the anchors on for a cat."

If you're in the car behind you won't necessarily see what the hazard is, anyway.

I very much doubt the driver behind thought "oh, there's a cat, I won't keep a reasonable distance because the person in front will just drive into it".

Much more likely the driver behind was driving too close and probably didn't even see the cat.

pictish · 04/12/2015 22:12

You don't expect someone to slam the anchors on at all. Except you have to...hence stopping distances and liability.

MrsBungle · 04/12/2015 22:13

They were at fault. They should have left a safe breaking distance. Absolute rubbish that "legally you should have hit the cat". What law is that then?

Slowjog · 04/12/2015 22:15

She was driving too closely behind you without leaving a proper stopping distance. If she had left a proper stopping distance she would have been fine.

She LIED. She hadn't called the police. You didn't lie.

ADishBestEatenCold · 04/12/2015 22:15

"but there again you don't expect someone to slam the anchors on for a cat."

Again irrelevant, Lunchpack. When driving behind another vehicle (indeed, when driving at all) you should expect the unexpected and drive at an appropriate speed and leave an appropriate space between you and the vehicle in front.

Nishky · 04/12/2015 22:15

I think you are wrong, not sure there is any law about which animals you can drive into, but the Highway Code is clear about leaving enough stopping distance, I know of someone who was prosecuted for careless driving for going into the back of someone.

PolterGoose · 04/12/2015 22:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Sighing · 04/12/2015 22:17

She hit you. She failed to stop / was not paying due attention to the road. She is at fault. Any damage she caused be it to her car or the baby she claims is not her responsibility ... all her for driving too close/ fast / carelessly to be able to stop.
As far as calling the pitchfork clan instead of an ambulance or the police. Beggars belief.

Nishky · 04/12/2015 22:17

And yes, an emergency stop is not something that can be predicted by the car behind-hence it's name.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 9 10

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.