Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

417 replies

magrate · 13/02/2015 09:02

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?

OP posts:
steff13 · 13/02/2015 15:19

thatbloodywoman if you drive into the back of someone for whatever reason it is always your fault no matter what the driver in front says. You are simply too close.

That's how it is here in the US, too. You shouldn't be following someone so closely that you hit them if the have to brake hard.

To the OP, yes, you are being unreasonable to expect people to go through a red light.

ThatBloodyWoman · 13/02/2015 15:20

No this is my opinion Minus.
I don't need my dh to tell me my opinion. Wink
Like I say -the other driver was there and he said it was his fault.
None of you were there.
So I intend to go with the person involved who had no reason to take blame unless he felt he was to blame.

The thread is about emergency stops at traffic lights,not my dh's driving.
I was responding to some harshposts directed at me.

Perhaps we can get back on the main point of the thread.

ThatBloodyWoman · 13/02/2015 15:21

26 why are you trying to make out it was something it wasn't?

steff13 · 13/02/2015 15:21

An emergency stop would have hurt me.

How does this work, that stopping short would have injured you but "gliding" (cars don't really glide) into the car in front of you wouldn't? As long as you're wearing a seatbelt, an emergency stop isn't going to hurt you.

Sallyingforth · 13/02/2015 15:22

I rather think your DH is blowing smoke up your ass

Of course he was.
We all like to believe we are superb drivers, and it's always the other person's fault when anything goes wrong. But it's quite clear that in this case he was simply following too closely. That's all there was too it.

MrsTerryPratchett · 13/02/2015 15:24

the other driver was there and he said it was his fault He is wrong. He just is.

Bumbiscuits · 13/02/2015 15:27

Yep, he was trying to cover up for driving dangerously with his newborn in the car.

I reversed into a parked car once. Completely my fault, as I was looking over my other shoulder concentrating on a moving car. The other driver (sitting in the parked car) apologised and said it was her fault. It wasn't of course. People do say dafty things right after an accident.

Bumbiscuits · 13/02/2015 15:28

It would be interesting to know which insurance company stumped up for MrBloodyWoman's car repairs.

steff13 · 13/02/2015 15:32

BTW in Canada the rule if lights are broken is that the junction turns into a four-way stop. It works really well.

That's the rule here, too. It does work well, as long as people remember the rule.

ThatBloodyWoman · 13/02/2015 15:33

Rtft Bum there were no repairs.

No one was hurt.
There was no damage.
No babies,pedestrians,animals were distressed.
Everyone was smiling.

But,hey,don't let that stop anyone.

steff13 · 13/02/2015 15:34

Like I say -the other driver was there and he said it was his fault.
None of you were there.

We didn't have to be there; if you rear-end someone, you're at fault, you were following too closely. The other driver was wrong to take the blame.

laughingmyarseoff · 13/02/2015 15:38

ThatBloodyWoman he is wrong. He probably apologised because of your new baby in the car. I apologised and claimed 'wrongness' when a friend clearly was, I felt guilty though because she was six months pregnant and was worried I'd stressed her out, later on when I calmed down we had a proper talk and I set her straight about it. At the time though i felt awful and guilty, despite not being so.

As I mentioned before, had you gone through insurance, your DH would have been held in the wrong.

Sallyingforth · 13/02/2015 15:41

I'm very glad to hear that there were no injuries or damage.
If there had been, the insurance companies would have laid the blame clearly at your driver regardless of any comments or admissions made at the time.
It's a simple, unarguable case.

laughingmyarseoff · 13/02/2015 15:42

And I think the reason people keep going on is because if you and your DH accept someone else is wrong then the chances are this could happen again and in that case the other driver may end up going through insurance and you'll have a nasty shock. So by trying to get you to see the truth, it may make your DH consider his topping distance and reduce the risk of future accidents.

It certainly worked for my friend though sadly, she learnt the hard way through a steep insurance hike and whiplash!

laughingmyarseoff · 13/02/2015 15:42

Stopping distance, not topping distance!

chilephilly · 13/02/2015 15:43

YABVU. If you go through a red light yoy get a ticket. 1 second after the lights change you get a day at naughty school, any more it's a sliding scake of fine/ points. Guess how I know.

TammySwanson · 13/02/2015 15:47

I find it hard to believe that 'gliding' into a car in front in order to avoid performing an emergency stop would have resulted in no damage to either car. If you actually need to do an emergency stop you are close enough and going fast enough to have to stop to avoid injury to car or person, otherwise it's just a much less exciting and noteworthy (and postworthy) 'slight braking'. Unless it was bumper cars of course, in which case all bets are off.

TheRealAmandaClarke · 13/02/2015 15:55

I think people might sometimes use the term "emergency stop" when referring to the person in front stopping in a way that inconveniences them or takes them by surprise because they were driving too fast/ close/ without paying attention.

bloodywoman your dh's reluctance to do an emergency stop sounds similsr to the reluctance that ppl experience after abdominalsurgery, hence the so called "6 week rule" about druving after a cs.
If he was so anti- braking he should have left more distance between his and the car in front.
We all make mistakes.
But if you drive into the back of someone it is your fault. Never the fault of the driver whose car you rear-ended.

TheRealAmandaClarke · 13/02/2015 15:56

it really does not matter that the other driver said it was his fault. It Wasn't.

TheRealAmandaClarke · 13/02/2015 15:57

Unless he was reversing.
Was he reversing?

ThatBloodyWoman · 13/02/2015 15:59

Is it ok to emergency brake on a light that has just gone amber from green?

26Point2Miles · 13/02/2015 16:00

bloodywoman you are making excuses. Nobody believes you or agrees with what your 'd' h did

ThatBloodyWoman · 13/02/2015 16:09

Ok,this never went to insurance because it wasn't an actual accident,so who would be found liable is neither here nor there.
It was a real on the ground,resolved situation,with each party quite ok,nobody coerced,no biggie -despite it being made out as such by some.
Had the impact been great enough to cause damage or possible injury then I would think insurance would favour the other driver -but had that been the likely outcome my dh would have braked harder and avoided it happening.It seems some posters are making this out to be something it wasn't!

This was a situation where another driver did something daft,and accepted the outcome as reasonable in the circumstances.

Sallyingforth · 13/02/2015 16:09

emergency braking is only required in very rare circumstances, e.g. a child running into the street or someone pulling out in front of you without looking.
Traffic lights change all the time. This is entirely predictable and manageable and does not need sudden braking.

ThatBloodyWoman · 13/02/2015 16:10

Anyway,is it ok to emergency brake on a light that has just gone from green to amber?

Swipe left for the next trending thread