people that do an emergency stop when the lights change are dangerous and wrong

[magrate]

I drive for about two hours everyday for my new job. Have to go through over 20 sets of lights. So many people think that as soon as the lights change you must stop. Aibu to expect people to still go though a second after they go red?

You said the other driver took responsibility.
There was a collision.
It was your dh's responsibility

You wouldnt have known the was no damage without the car being checked at the car shop.
My car was hit from behind and the damage was not apparent without closer inspection by the mechanic.
A car can be made unsafe by a "mild" collision.
The other driver might well acknowledge he shouldnt have stopped where he did
But that doesnt make him responsible for the collision.

for no good reason

This part is actually irrelevant.

But how can you say that he wasn't driving too close then?? I don't understand!

Your dh was lucky that there was no damage, ThatBloodyWoman. I got hit from behind, when I stopped to turn right. The driver behind me was going too fast, was too close, or wasn't paying attention.

It was a low speed, minimal impact collision, and there didn't appear to be any damage, but in the following weeks we started having problems with the electrics, and the mechanic confirmed that was most likely due to the impact.

You ought to accept that your dh had NOT left enough space to stop safely, with the braking forces he was happy to use in the circumstances. Knowing he did not want to brake sharply, he should have left extra stopping space, and the fact that he made contact with the car in front proves that he did not leave enough space. That is his responsibility!!

It was a 1980's ford fiesta built like a brick shit house.
The owner stated there was no damage.
TheReal I don't really know how much minutae you have the energy to go into.
We were barely moving when we touched him.

For emphasis, I repeat:

The fact that he could not stop without making contact with the car in front PROVES that he had not left enough stopping distance for the braking forces HE was choosing to use!!

But it doesn't matter SDT.

Why does it matter so much?

He stopped safely.

No damage was done.

This is minutae now.

It matters because you, and more importantly your DH who is the (apparently) professional driver, still think you have the right to judge whether a car has stopped for a 'good reason' or not and then decide whether to brake to ensure you don't hit them, or just brake a little bit and nudge into them.

Your DH was not driving safely.

Stopping safely means stopping without making contact with the vehicle in front It matters because you refuse to accept this simple fact.

Apologies for the lack of punctuation in the middle of that post!

If You were barely moving when you touched him then surely you didn't need to touch him at all. If that's true then gently applying the brakes would have been enough to stop short of his car.

Its a difference of opinion we won't solve here,methinks.

I just can't see how we were stopping unsafely,and I'll be the judge of my family's safety,I think.

And clearly the other driver didn't feel unsafe.

So hey ho!

I can see both sides of the situation thatbloody woman

If you DH had done an emergency stop (as the driver in front had) then his breaking distance would have been ok, given that his braking distance was almost adequate with normal braking applied.

An emergency stop should not be performed willy nilly. It is not an everyday procedure and can cause accidents, because other drivers are "reading the road" and there appears to have been no reason to brake suddenly so it was unnecessary and an insurance company would view this as a mitigating factor - there was no emergency.

Your DH should have been prepared to do an emergency stop in any case. He didn't, because he's probably been worried about your wound and the baby and tried his best to stop in time without properly slamming the brakes on.

I don't think there's any need to get stuck into thatbloodywoman to quite the extent PP have on here. Accidents happen. No-one was hurt. thatbloodywoman I hope your DH now give sufficient braking distance.

Its a difference of opinion

No it isn't. It's your refusal to accept straightforward facts.

I'll be the judge of my family's safety

I'm not sure whether you'll do a better job of that than your husband...

If you touch another car when you brake, you're driving too close or not braking sufficiently (so still driving too close for your manner of driving). It's not a matter of opinion - it is fact.

You clearly don't have the good grace to concede your opinion is incorrect, and agree your DH's driving was poor in this instance (as you're reported it, although there have been differing versions). So I'm not wasting any more time on this thread, but I hope I never run into your DH, or you if you drive, on the road!

Thank you holdme

pun not intended!

Zfactor, I hope I never run into your DH, or you if you drive, on the road
He'll probably run into you first!

People have accepted that accidents happen and that nobody was hurt. Hurrah
The issue continues to be debated becasue thatbloodywoman stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that her dh, (granted, without malice of forethought) was "at fault" for the collision.
Its frustrating.

Ah, cross post .

I dont think ppl have got stuck into thatbloodywoman
She has reinvented and argued over the events in order to try to have them read differently.
Then later is troubled by the inclusion of "minutae"

I don't believe I have deliberately misinformed.I was a little unsure of the details to begin with,then clarified them.
The intention to reinvent the details in order to have them read differently quite simply isn't there.

Ahem
Peace, love and drive safe folks.

But peace and love first, yes?