Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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 Confused
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:
wasonthelist · 05/12/2015 15:04

TheFairyCaravan Sat 05-Dec-15 10:20:17
LunchPack is right. The OP presented a danger to the driver behind and as such has caused issues around who is responsible.

You're supposed to check your mirrors before you do an emergency stop.

NO you are 100% WRONG about this. In fact, if you do this on your driving test (check mirror before carrying out an emergency stop) it is a valid reason for FAILURE.

www.drivingtesttips.biz/the-emergency-stop.html

"EMERGENCY STOP TEST FAILURE
The most common reason for failing the driving test in relation to the emergency stop is:

Mirrors – checking the mirrors before applying the brake."

It is very worrying that we're sharing the roads with people who have this level of ignorance.

BreadPitt · 05/12/2015 15:10

Personally I find it fucking scary that there are so many people without a clue seemingly driving on our roads.
Drive to the conditions. Always assume the car in front will emergency stop and leave enough room for yourself. It's THAT simple.

As for checking the mirror before an emergency stop, hilarious. Kind of does away with the point of an emergency stop really doesn't it? The extra seconds you take to check your mirror could be the difference between killing the kid/dog/cat/deer/grandma etc or stopping short.

TheFairyCaravan · 05/12/2015 15:11

I've already said I was wrong on that wasonthelist.

It's very worrying that we're sharing the roads with people unable to read!

wasonthelist · 05/12/2015 15:14

Fairynuff Fairy :)

ProvisionallyAnxious · 05/12/2015 15:21

But the officer isn't reported telling anyone off, but asking repeatedly if the driver was driving too close. That's an evidence gathering technique to get further admissions or evidence to support or challenge the charge that the driver was in deed driving too close.

That was how I interpreted the quoted exchange, and what I was trying to get at, limited.

Dipankrispaneven · 05/12/2015 15:22

Ok, I got it wrong about the mirrors but she was wrong about the cat, hence the link, and obviously hadn't been checking in her mirrors hence she would have known the other driver was too near to her and she was causing danger to them by doing the emergency stop for the cat.

As pointed out upthread, when something runs out suddenly into the road in front of you, it is wholly unrealistic to demand that you work out whether it's a cat, a dog or a child and make a decision that you'll stop if it's a child or a dog but carry on if it's a cat. By the time you've worked that one out the child is dead.

TheFairyCaravan · 05/12/2015 15:48

Read that link from the book I up thread Dip

It says "Certainly, you should brake hard in order to save the life of a small animal, but only if you know there is no risk of another vehicle hitting the rear of your car^."

The case of Gussman v Gratton-Storey set a precedent for this when the person who slammed the brakes on to avoid a pheasant causing the person behind to rear end them was found to be in the wrong.

Nishky · 05/12/2015 16:28

That is a civil case though, not criminal -some on here have claimed that op will 'get a ticket for dangerous driving' -still waiting for the precedent for that little nugget

Original poster
PunkrockerGirl · 05/12/2015 16:42

Nishky I'd missed that pearl of wisdom!
So, I'm going to get a "ticket for dangerous driving", am I? Grin Grin

Ffs

OP posts:
SauvignonBlanche · 05/12/2015 16:46

YWNBU Op, the other driver was at fault and their insurance will have to pay out.
Are you ok today?

TheFairyCaravan · 05/12/2015 17:01

Maybe the other driver will take out a civil case? Who knows?

Original poster
PunkrockerGirl · 05/12/2015 17:05

Yes thanks Sauvignon. I was still a bit shaken this morning but feel much better now.
I spoke to the insurers earlier who said it'll be a clear cut case of the other drier being at fault. They said she can argue all she likes (and she will) that I shouldn't have braked, but the fact remains she should have been able to do an emergency stop without ramming the car in front.
If she's so concerned about her baby's safety, perhaps she'll think twice next time before driving so far up the arse of the car in front. Confused

OP posts:
SauvignonBlanche · 05/12/2015 17:11

Exactly OP, I'm glad you haven't ended up whiplash, I had it once, it was awful.

PolterGoose · 05/12/2015 17:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SirChenjin · 05/12/2015 17:35

Glad to hear you've a successful (and informed) resolution.

Given the amount of utter crap I've read on here, I'm not surprised at some of the quality of driving I see on the roads. Some people genuinely don't seem to have a clue.

greenfolder · 05/12/2015 17:53

You have to be able to pull up safely.
You have to leave a safe breaking distance.
Braking sharply for a cat is pretty normal behaviour.
You don't have to report a collision with a cat, this does not have any effect on legality of whether it is reasonable to stop vs hit.
There is some case law but this is basically where people have swerved into the opposite carriageway, not simply braked to avoid it. If I remember correctly, basically small animals cannot be used as an "agony of the moment decision"
She is in the wrong. Her insurers will cough up.

Dipankrispaneven · 05/12/2015 18:21

The trouble with the Gussman v Gratton-Storey case is that it is often cited as a precedent with only the very barest of facts, and we don't know all the circumstances or even the level of court that made the decision. What does appear to be the case is that it was very fact-specific.

An authority that goes the other way is Welch v O’Leary, which concerned a claim by someone who was rear-ended when he did an emergency stop to avoid ducks crossing the road. The defendant claimed that his welfare, as a human being, should override that of wild birds and it was therefore unreasonable to perform an emergency stop to save the birds when it put him at harm, and he argued that Gussman should be followed. The claimant argued that it was the defendant’s responsibility to allow a safe stopping distance at any time. The claimant won his claim for damages and was not considered to be at all negligent.

BoneyBackJefferson · 05/12/2015 18:27

SirChenjin
"Glad to hear you've a successful (and informed) resolution."

I hate to put a damper on this this but that is the OP's insurers. It still has to go through the other person's.

SmallLegsOrSmallEggs · 05/12/2015 19:11

boney the other insurers will agree.
If you rear end someone, you pay.
If you are reversing in most cases you are deemed to be a fault.
If you come out of a side road into the path of another driver, you pay.

Insurers don't bother to dispute this.

SmallLegsOrSmallEggs · 05/12/2015 19:12

the other driver was too near to her and she was causing danger to them by doing the emergency stop for the cat.

Nope the other driver was too close and was causing danger to themself

SirChenjin · 05/12/2015 20:06

Boney - yes, I know - but as small says, the other insurer will have no choice but to pay out. Woman with baby went into the rear of another car - there is no wiggle room here.

The belief that he other driver was too near to her and she was causing danger to them by doing the emergency stop for the cat is just scary. So many drivers out there who have a very limited understanding of stopping distance and its purpose.

Original poster
PunkrockerGirl · 05/12/2015 20:22

Maybe the other driver will take out a civil case Grin
Bring it on.

Boney the other driver's insurers will agree. They may try it on and twat about, but ultimately they will have to pay out. The other driver was driving too close right up my arse and couldn't stop in time when I braked. There is no question about who was in the wrong here.
It'll be settled through insurance.
As I said before, maybe, just maybe, the other driver will actually consider her baby's safety and keep a safe distance in the future. I was doing 30mph, she clearly had a problem with that and was practically climbing into the boot with me she was so close. And it's my fault that when I had to break, she couldn't stop.
How is this my fault, exactly? Confused

OP posts:
nortonhouse · 05/12/2015 20:25

I have always understood that if someone hits your car from behind, they were following too closely and therefore the accident is their fault. End of.

I loathe tailgaters - they are my pet road peeve.

Permanentlyexhausted · 05/12/2015 20:31

The driver sounds like a twat but you should not have braked do suddenly without checking to make sure it was safe to do so in your rear view mirror. The fact that you had some arsehole driving too close meant no.

Haven't been on MN all day but this prize gem caught my eye. It may be many years since I took my driving test but "check your mirrors" is not part of the emergency stop procedure which is the manoeuvre the OP was undertaking. The cat was not standing 300 yards down the road doing the can-can whilst she considered whether to run it over or not. It ran out in front of her.

Original poster
PunkrockerGirl · 05/12/2015 20:35

You're right norton
Only on MN would the tailgater who cant stop in time and causes an accident be considered legally in the right by some posters.

OP posts: