Totally reliant on a 21 year old 110 with 234k on the clock!!

On or around Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:36:18 +1200, EMB enlightened us thusly:

Icing on the cake, innit.

My SIII now stops, as well - standard non-servo with 11" drums, and normal linings. OK, it takes a bit of weight on the pedal, but it pulls up quite well if you make the effort.

On or around Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:54:50 +0100, "Nige" enlightened us thusly:

rammed you from behind

would be in hospital.

If you ran into the back of mine, and I ended up in hospital, you'd get sued for GBH. It's your job to avoid running into things.

I do for a living you see

head at the side of the road,

hardly the same class of incident, though.

likely reason for the bloke

drivers that dont see stop

Maybe so, but that still doesn't excuse him for following so close that he can't out-brake pretty much any landrover. I daresay the WRX has ABS, and probably pretty powerful anchors, and undoubtedly grippier tyres.

OK, EMB was being a little bit naughty in anchoring it hard. But what happens when some kid runs out in the road in front of him, and he genuinely stands on the anchors for an emergency stop, in order to avoid killing someone's kid? Is he still at fault when the dickwad behind who was tailgating him can't stop in time?

If you run into the back of something which is visible, in front of you on the road and either going your way or at rest, then you're at fault. period. Even if it's parked around a blind corner - you should have slowed down enough to be able to stop - you don't *know* there's nothing in the road to stop for.

Doesn't always guarantee no accidents, of course, but think how many collisions are avoidable just by being able to stop before hitting something.

That'll teach him to drive like a wanker. These modern pieces of crap don't half fold up nicely when they hit something substantial.

Alex

Have you got 11" on a SWB originally fitted with 10"? If so, did you change the master cylinder?

Alex

Child should be belted at all times, not "otherwise" There's no excuse for taking risks with your kids life by letting them not wear a seatbelt.

Alex

It's as well they do with trigger happy idiots in front.

Stunned, absolutely stunned.

Lee D

would be in hospital.

The defense of "I ran the kid over because i didn't want to brake too hard and have the bloke behind ram me" will earn you a nice stay in prison. A "slight lapse of concentration" is not an excuse either - that sort of thing causes large motorway pileups.

There is very little excuse for hitting somebody up the rear, even if they did brake exceedingly sharply. As the following vehicle you should allow sufficient space to safely stop should an emergency occour. If you don't, then you're not driving properly

Alex

Mm. I've seen engine failures which can be contributed to infrequent oil changes, both petrol and deisel. Oil-burners are especially prone to packing up if the oil isn't changed regularly.

Fortunatly with a Series the need to change the oil is somewhat redundant, most of them operate on a total loss system anyway, requiring the constant addition of new oil.

Alex

Nor for risking snapping their spines (belted or not) by deliberately causing accidents.

I've learnt a lot about human nature from this thread. More than anything I've learnt that complete wankers drive Land Rovers too.

I wonder if any of the tossers who have so far cheered on our hero, or the hero himself, have any family (or indeed friends), and whether they have considered what it would be like to lose them in a completely unnecessary accident.

Still, if the bloke behind had died they could at least have consoled themselves with the fact that he deserved it because he "wasn't driving properly".

Would our hero have been so quick to teach the driver behind a lesson if he'd been driving a 15 tonner? Thought not...

FFS you lot, it's like uk.transport in 'ere, behave or I'll send Martyn round with his sandals to slap some legs...

Look you pink preferenced tart are you pro or anti rear end shuntting?

Lee D

I've read that sentence everal times now, each with a slightly different interpretation - and my only conclusion is...

... to have a little lay down in a darkened room

(actually, darkened narrowboat)...

so Tim Hobbs was, like...

When I was too young to drive, I was a passenger in a car with my friend's Dad driving. Leeds City centre, and two lads in a Mini driving a bit too close behind. The driver said something like "I'll teach those kids a lesson" and slammed on the brakes. The Mini went across three lanes of traffic, across a pavement and ended up in a shop front. Friend's Dad scarpered a bit quick when he saw what he's done. It made an impression on me. The penalty for bad driving in this country is a fine or a ban, occasionally prison. It isn't the death penalty, whether imposed by the state or another motorist.

At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, it is not our job to teach others good driving, except by our own good example. I've been sorely tempted at times, especially in a battered 90 where the odd dent and scrape was neither here nor there, but I've always managed to keep my temper, move over, and let them have their accident somewhere else. I really don't want to be responsible for someone else's death or injury, even if their bad driving was largely to blame.

If you can't pot the pink, pot the brown.

Bloody well said that man

Say the guy is a bad parent and hasn't belted the child in. Is that the child's fault? Do you risk injuring an innocent life to prove your point that the guy was too close?

Say the child was killed. The WRX driver would feel bad, but would you feel any better?

so Tim Hobbs was, like...

Agreed.

However badly the guy behind was driving, the guy in front actually caused the crash to happen. It may feel good to teach the guy a lesson and tell your friends what a dick he was, but would you still feel that way if someone (say a passenger or oncoming motorist) died? After the funeral was out of the way, and everything had settled down, it would be tough not to question your own involvement and ask "did I really have to do that?"

The guy may have been "an accident waiting to happen", but did you need to involve yourself in it?

Drivers who have to prove a point, like the little man in the fast lane who sticks to 69.9 mph with a ten-mile queue behind, generally make my piss boil.

so Alex was, like...

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. The point is that the original poster seemed to say that he caused the accident by braking harder than necessary - in other words he chose what he did, rather than reacting to a genuine emergency. The fact that he seems to be ready to take a backhander from the recovery company for the "work" weakens his case even more, in my view.