to want to thank the lady in a blue mazda on M25

[mw27pink]

We were travelling on M25 this morning at about 9.30 on the fast lane. Couple of cars before us suddenly slowed down, but the breaks in our car did not work. All I remeber is me shouting at my husband to slow down as I could see us crashing into this convertable blue mazda(not sure about the make). The lady herself was able to break on time and get out of our way by 10 cm...I am still shaking. We were going out for a fun family day and it could have gone soo wrong. We never got a chance to say thank you to her as we had to move out of the motorway all togather, but I have been thinking of that woman all day as I dont think she realised how lucky she was avoiding us at 70ml/h crashing on her back. So whoever you are THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!

Or Animation, rather. Sorry.

" "Touth" TOOTH "

Thanks hobnobs, I thought it was some weird piece of mumsnet anatomy like fanjos and norks.

Goblin

How could the Mazda driver take evasive action if OP was driving too close?

As someone who drives on the M25 a lot I would have to say all you "perfect" space giving drivers are liars.Perhaps you are those muppets that stick in the two middle lanes ignoring the fact that you are yet to overtake those lorries in the nearside lane.Everyone else has to go really fast in the outside lane around you and gets bunched up because we only have the one lane. Have you not noticed the really big gaps in the nearside lane? Yes you have space but only because no one else can pull in without dropping the road speed to 50mph.

In case you think I'm spelling a well worn debate...that's all this thread has become.

There's a knack to braking at speed...it doesn't mean the brakes don't work.

I'd like salt on the top, sweet underneath please.

Touth? TOUTH??? Who misspells that fgs?

Am I the only person who has a spell check enabled on the web browser? Surely not [mad]

To you drivers then - are you saying that in no circumstances would it be ever possible to plough into the back of another car unless you were driving irresponsibly.

Ahh hahahaha justonemorethan - and how many years have you been driving?

I'm with vbusymum1 on this one. It makes no sense to me either.
The Mazda managed to brake and get out of the way - if the OP's car was not braking and the car in front was braking, how did the OP's car not hit the Mazda. Or, alternatively, why the massive gratitude to the driver of the car in front which braked, nearly causing an accident, but somehow managed to get out of the way.
I have a very clear picture in my head of the OP's car driving far too close to the car in front who brake-tested to try to get the OP's car off her tail and then moved over sharpish as the OP's car gunned up behind, barely missing her. The OP then bizarrely decides that the Mazda driver might be on Mumsnet so makes a pre-emptive strike thread with a tale of failing brakes.
I can't see any realistic explanation of the incident or reason for the thread.

Animation - there are no circumstances where the driver in front would be at fault (unless they were reversing).

The Mazda Goddess presumably glanced into her rear view mirror, saw that the OP was going to rear end her and pulled to the side. In much the same manner as LadyBiscuit was forced to.

I've never understood salty popcorn! Surely popcorn is a sweet confection? No?

Are you missing out the fact that they kept driving afterwards?
Ice, oil on the road, attack by killer bees or rabid meerkats. You just wouldn't continue driving unless you'd solved the problem.

Yes. If you run into the back of a vehicle, you are liable for the damage. Your insurance company will have to pay out. Not the insurance company of the car in front.

Just about the only circumstance in which damage to the rear of a vehicle (which is not moving backwards in reverse gear) is NOT the fault of the vehicle which drives into it is when there is a stationary queue of traffic with multiple 'shunts' - and even then each car sues the one behind.

Oh Goblin never fear for surely , verily there would have been another angel in a blue car.....

Salty is like crisps but you need butter

I love salty popcorn, salt on my pancakes and salt on my porridge. It's an ethnic thing, don't diss my heritage.

Yes Animation that is what we are saying, unless as scurryfunge says the car in front is moving backwards.

If you run into a stationery car or a car that is moving forward then you are at fault, always.

Beacause of course the OP is one blessed with angels on every corner.......(if her husband is that bad a driver/her car is that crap or both boy will she need all the angels she can get just pity the other poor sods on the road)

Interesting point annec555, I hadn't thought of that

" Add message | Report | Message poster Animation Mon 27-Sep-10 21:51:33
To you drivers then - are you saying that in no circumstances would it be ever possible to plough into the back of another car unless you were driving irresponsibly.
"

There is one circumstance I can think of. A reinforced steel wall magically appeared from nowhere right in front of the car infront causing it to stop dead and you to go in the back of it. In that mythical case though, I don't think culpability would be top of anyone's list

Scurryfunge - so you're going 70 on the M1 and grind to a halt. The car behind consequently ploughs into the back of you.

Who's REALLY to blame - if you want to play the blame game.

" Oh Goblin never fear for surely , verily there would have been another angel in a blue car....."

Or a sudden bolt of lightning? A flaming sword for smiting?
Op and her ilk are one of the reasons that Bad Things Happen To Good People. Has the makings of a cable TV show I think.

How many more times? The car behind is at fault. No matter why.

I drive an MX5 and, believe me, when stationary in a jam with no cars yet behind, I am watching my rear view mirror proportionatly more than I am the cars in front. There's not much space between my rear bumber and me.

And I can't even begin to comment on your motorway driving habits, justonemorethen.