twintornados Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 You will continue to fail and it could one day cost a life..... Hey drama queen....in case you didn't read it earlier....I did not fail, I prevailed...as in won, hopefully the kid learned a valuable lesson too and will be a more responsible driver....like you and I....maybe, he will knock down the snowbanks and install a turn-out in his driveway too like I have so I don't break the law every time I go to work or leave my house. Where did you get your "judging" skills from....a mail order diploma service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Cars are not designed to be wrecked into stuff. They most certainly are. That's a huge part of the design process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordtech1 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 They most certainly are. That's a huge part of the design process. If they were designed to wreck, then it would be able to do it over and over again. I agree that safety is very much into the structual design of a car. However, its intentions is not to be wrecked. Its only as a "if it happens the car gives up its life to save yours" scenario. If cars were meant to be wrecked, we would be strapped into 5 point harnesses with a no frills interior filled with enegry absorbing material surrounding you like a cocoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 If they were designed to wreck, then it would be able to do it over and over again. I agree that safety is very much into the structual design of a car. However, its intentions is not to be wrecked. Its only as a "if it happens the car gives up its life to save yours" scenario. If cars were meant to be wrecked, we would be strapped into 5 point harnesses with a no frills interior filled with enegry absorbing material surrounding you like a cocoon. aren't we already, front airbags, side airbags, thorax airbags, air curtains and whoopee cushions....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordtech1 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 aren't we already, front airbags, side airbags, thorax airbags, air curtains and whoopee cushions....... True, But I was thinking like in Demolition man with the foam filling the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 If they were designed to wreck, then it would be able to do it over and over again. I agree that safety is very much into the structual design of a car. However, its intentions is not to be wrecked. Its only as a "if it happens the car gives up its life to save yours" scenario. If cars were meant to be wrecked, we would be strapped into 5 point harnesses with a no frills interior filled with enegry absorbing material surrounding you like a cocoon. That's like saying a car designed to perform can't have airbags because they don't have anything to do with performance. Cars are very obviously designed with what happens in a collision in mind, though that's also very obviously not the only thing they're designed for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggoodin Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Hey drama queen....in case you didn't read it earlier....I did not fail, I prevailed...as in won, hopefully the kid learned a valuable lesson too and will be a more responsible driver....like you and I....maybe, he will knock down the snowbanks and install a turn-out in his driveway too like I have so I don't break the law every time I go to work or leave my house. Where did you get your "judging" skills from....a mail order diploma service? Let me know when you want to get serious about what goes on out on the road. Until then I just hope no one I know crosses your dangerous path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 You were in your car driving. You have some fault. How could you have avoided it? -Look ahead, move your eyes, you should have seen reverse lights, or movement, you might have even seen him get in the car if you were looking real far ahead. -If your horn works you should have used it to alert him that you were approaching. Leave nothing to chance. -Were you driving too fast for the conditions? Like if there are structures blocking your view of the sides of the road or thick parked traffic or anything that can keep you from seeing a hazard like that from a distance. You have to slow down so you have a chance to react. I judge auto accidents, amongst other things, for one of the largest transportation companies in the world. We hold our people accountable for nearly every auto incident. There are almost no no-fault accidents. Sorry, but must side with twintornados here. You judge auto accidents, nice to know. You do not judge the laws of the road that drivers should be required to follow, which would reduce the number of wrecks much quicker than the suggestions you offer. Rather than picking on the victim and trying to tell them how they could have avoided an accident, which is a good lesson but not always possible, maybe the main focus of our attention should be on enforcing the laws and the people who fail to follow the rules of the road that are the cause of these accidents. I've been in multiple wrecks, which were all the other drivers faults, per the law. I call them wrecks because most the time they aren't accidents since most drivers causing the wrecks conduct their actions purposely disobeying the laws. One guy was speeding and ran a red light, broadsiding me. Another a person decided to pull out of a gas station taking both lanes, clipping my front end. Another guy decided he didn't want to wait for the traffic at a light, turned in front of me causing me to broadside him. Each wreck I had witnesses from other vehicles, the other driver received multiple tickets (Careless driving, speeeding, failure to stop, failure to yield and driving on a suspended license) and were practically instantaneous and unavoidable. The last one in '06, the other guys insurance (AIG) wanted to do a 50/50 fault, said "Hell No", got my insurance involved (Farmers), AIG dropped it to an 80/20 fault, but would still not accept. Finally went to an arbitrator and came back as a 100% fault by the other guy. This from a guy with two DUI's on his record and was driving on a suspended license. Still receiving restitution checks every couple months from it. You will continue to fail and it could one day cost a life. Don't feel bad. You aren't the only one. You are part of the majority of drivers out there. Stop making excuses and raise the bar or one night you will not make it home. Anyways it sucks that the Fusion scored poorly in this test. Its the only negative press I have seen about the 2010's. twintornados is not failing and would not cost someone their life. It would be the person who caused the wreck not the victim. It's that backwards thinking again. If he is supposedly making excuses, why are you making excuses and defending the driver that caused the wreck? We can not be accountable for the actions of others, do everything right, but you'd still portray the victim as the bad guy. Too bad too many people can't aqccept their own actions and want to sue someone else. Like the guy at McDonalds who spills hot coffee on themselves and sues. Or the gal sueing Monroe University for $70K cause she can't get a job. It's not McDonalds fault you spilt the coffee that says "HOT" on the lid or Monroe's fault the economy tanked and people are laying off not hiring. Hey drama queen....in case you didn't read it earlier....I did not fail, I prevailed...as in won, hopefully the kid learned a valuable lesson too and will be a more responsible driver....like you and I....maybe, he will knock down the snowbanks and install a turn-out in his driveway too like I have so I don't break the law every time I go to work or leave my house. Where did you get your "judging" skills from....a mail order diploma service? He seems to be coming with the insurance company type of thought processes that they will do anything not to pay out for their poor driving client. I totally understand the accident avoidance thought process and try as I might to practice it. But this will not cure the majority of wrecks, while enforcing the laws and making people drive by these laws would have a much farther reaching impact on the decrease in wrecks. Let me know when you want to get serious about what goes on out on the road. Until then I just hope no one I know crosses your dangerous path. Common sense says the person who caused the accident is much more dangerous than the victim. So maybe you should be preaching to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 This Smart car failed the low speed bumper test... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggoodin Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Sorry, but must side with twintornados here. You judge auto accidents, nice to know. You do not judge the laws of the road that drivers should be required to follow, which would reduce the number of wrecks much quicker than the suggestions you offer. Rather than picking on the victim and trying to tell them how they could have avoided an accident, which is a good lesson but not always possible, maybe the main focus of our attention should be on enforcing the laws and the people who fail to follow the rules of the road that are the cause of these accidents. I've been in multiple wrecks, which were all the other drivers faults, per the law. I call them wrecks because most the time they aren't accidents since most drivers causing the wrecks conduct their actions purposely disobeying the laws. One guy was speeding and ran a red light, broadsiding me. Another a person decided to pull out of a gas station taking both lanes, clipping my front end. Another guy decided he didn't want to wait for the traffic at a light, turned in front of me causing me to broadside him. Each wreck I had witnesses from other vehicles, the other driver received multiple tickets (Careless driving, speeeding, failure to stop, failure to yield and driving on a suspended license) and were practically instantaneous and unavoidable. The last one in '06, the other guys insurance (AIG) wanted to do a 50/50 fault, said "Hell No", got my insurance involved (Farmers), AIG dropped it to an 80/20 fault, but would still not accept. Finally went to an arbitrator and came back as a 100% fault by the other guy. This from a guy with two DUI's on his record and was driving on a suspended license. Still receiving restitution checks every couple months from it. twintornados is not failing and would not cost someone their life. It would be the person who caused the wreck not the victim. It's that backwards thinking again. If he is supposedly making excuses, why are you making excuses and defending the driver that caused the wreck? We can not be accountable for the actions of others, do everything right, but you'd still portray the victim as the bad guy. Too bad too many people can't aqccept their own actions and want to sue someone else. Like the guy at McDonalds who spills hot coffee on themselves and sues. Or the gal sueing Monroe University for $70K cause she can't get a job. It's not McDonalds fault you spilt the coffee that says "HOT" on the lid or Monroe's fault the economy tanked and people are laying off not hiring. He seems to be coming with the insurance company type of thought processes that they will do anything not to pay out for their poor driving client. I totally understand the accident avoidance thought process and try as I might to practice it. But this will not cure the majority of wrecks, while enforcing the laws and making people drive by these laws would have a much farther reaching impact on the decrease in wrecks. Common sense says the person who caused the accident is much more dangerous than the victim. So maybe you should be preaching to them. An excuse for everything. Take some initiative and responsibility. I have no financial stake in how I have to judge avoidability. Money is not the issue. Its making sure that people understand what they could have done better or differently so they can make it home at night. Who cares who broke the law, injured is injured, dead is dead. You guys seem to think that because someone broke the law and ran a stop sign (for instance) and you died, your death is justifiable because that person broke the law. That is absolute insanity. I work towards stopping the shit from ever happening in the first place and not relying on the law to keep people from smashing into you. Your eyes, your caution and your alertness get you home every night safe, not the laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Let me know when you want to get serious about what goes on out on the road. Until then I just hope no one I know crosses your dangerous path. And I hope no one I know has to endure your dangerous "judgment"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I work towards stopping the shit from ever happening in the first place..... Oh your highness....how can I ever thank you for your benevolent kindness..... :hysterical: Pal....you are delusional if you think your "judgements" will stop an accident....they are called accidents for a reason....you could have helped prevent my accident by helping that kid understand that he should have A.) removed the 5 foot tall snow banks at the end of his moms driveway, blocking both his view and my ability to see his rearward approach, and.. B.) instruct him to the value of backing into the driveway so he would instead pull out onto the road instead of vise versa... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Sorry, but must side with twintornados here.... Thanks V8-X... :yup: Couldn't have said it better myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggoodin Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Oh your highness....how can I ever thank you for your benevolent kindness..... :hysterical: Pal....you are delusional if you think your "judgements" will stop an accident....they are called accidents for a reason....you could have helped prevent my accident by helping that kid understand that he should have A.) removed the 5 foot tall snow banks at the end of his moms driveway, blocking both his view and my ability to see his rearward approach, and.. B.) instruct him to the value of backing into the driveway so he would instead pull out onto the road instead of vise versa... A.) You have recognize potentially hazardous situation. You have slow down. You have make adjustments. Kid does not hit you. You took his carelessness right out of the equation by exercising appropriate caution. B.) Finally something I can agree with. You never back into a situation that is not fresh. Ever. Always back before you park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 A.) You have recognize potentially hazardous situation. You have slow down. You have make adjustments. Kid does not hit you. You took his carelessness right out of the equation by exercising appropriate caution. B.) Finally something I can agree with. You never back into a situation that is not fresh. Ever. Always back before you park. ....see? You still don't know all the facts......you automatically assumed I was speeding...I was doing 15-20 miles an hour when little johnny impacted my car.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 ....see? You still don't know all the facts......you automatically assumed I was speeding...I was doing 15-20 miles an hour when little johnny impacted my car.... Twin, don't you see? If you would have done what any responsible driver would have done, and wrapped your car in bubble wrap before you left home, the accident wouldn't have happened. Therefore, I say at least 75% of the responsibility is on you. :shades: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 A judge judges law not accident avoid-ability. Adjust speed to conditions. When approaching blind corners use your horn. You did not do everything you possibly could have done. You will continue to have accidents until you take control of the situation and leave nothing to chance. This isn't rocket science, its breaking the situation down, finding the failure and retraining. Thats it. Its a heck of a lot easier to point the finger at someone else than look for what you did wrong or failed to do or could do better. You appear to sound as one that tries to be in absolute control. Unfortunatly, there is no such thing. Peace and Blessings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 An excuse for everything. Take some initiative and responsibility. I have no financial stake in how I have to judge avoidability. Money is not the issue. Its making sure that people understand what they could have done better or differently so they can make it home at night. Who cares who broke the law, injured is injured, dead is dead. You guys seem to think that because someone broke the law and ran a stop sign (for instance) and you died, your death is justifiable because that person broke the law. That is absolute insanity. I work towards stopping the shit from ever happening in the first place and not relying on the law to keep people from smashing into you. Your eyes, your caution and your alertness get you home every night safe, not the laws. We should send you to Iraq and Afghanistan. You can clear out the enemies with your amazing ability to see 2 seconds into the future. A lot of lives could be saved. Heck. We could implement your ideas across the world. No more wars. Certainly no more terrorist attacks. You are able to avoid death simply by being you. Do you know how empty that sounds. Peace and Blessings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 ....see? You still don't know all the facts......you automatically assumed I was speeding...I was doing 15-20 miles an hour when little johnny impacted my car.... Well, you should have been going 0...then he wouldn't have hit you! Or, you should have just stayed at home that day. aggoodin, I am going to take some of your advice. I am going to hard-wire my horn on both of my vehicles to honk whenever the vehicle is in gear (any gear). That will make sure I'm not in any accidents because people will hear me coming! Twin is right...You Are Wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 (edited) Well, you should have been going 0...then he wouldn't have hit you! Or, you should have just stayed at home that day. aggoodin, I am going to take some of your advice. I am going to hard-wire my horn on both of my vehicles to honk whenever the vehicle is in gear (any gear). That will make sure I'm not in any accidents because people will hear me coming! Twin is right...You Are Wrong! Edited August 13, 2009 by rmc523 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggoodin Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 ....see? You still don't know all the facts......you automatically assumed I was speeding...I was doing 15-20 miles an hour when little johnny impacted my car.... Get your mind off the law, thats where all of your excuses come from. Speeding no, too fast for the conditions, yes. With 5 foot snow banks and little johnny moving in reverse and you are going about 22ft per second at 15 miles per hour. It takes about 3/4 of a second for your mind to process what is happening and another 25 feet to stop maybe more. That puts you 41 feet away from little johnny. Could you see him from 41 feet? Probably not with 5 ft snowbanks. What is the controllable variable on you? Speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 (edited) Get your mind off the law, thats where all of your excuses come from. Speeding no, too fast for the conditions, yes. With 5 foot snow banks and little johnny moving in reverse and you are going about 22ft per second at 15 miles per hour. It takes about 3/4 of a second for your mind to process what is happening and another 25 feet to stop maybe more. That puts you 41 feet away from little johnny. Could you see him from 41 feet? Probably not with 5 ft snowbanks. What is the controllable variable on you? Speed. Lets try this one....more....time......when did I see little johnny? When the back of his moms Honda was impacting my car...in your scenario, I would have had to rely on telepathy to know he was backing out into the road... Using your model...I would have to stop at every snowbank...sound my horn...and then move on....that would have avoided my accident, but it would have also taken about an hour to travel the city block I was on and would have woken every homeowner on that block so they could come out and advise me that their children were in fact not backing their cars out of their driveways and that the area was secure for my safe passage....you are grasping as straws aggoodin....we did have some common agreement.... B.) Finally something I can agree with. You never back into a situation that is not fresh. Ever. Always back before you park. ...But your "judgment" is wrong and as flawed as your argument... Bottom line here is...in the only court that matters...a court of law...I prevailed...maybe little johnny should have hired you, or maybe AllState...but either way...you would have been proven wrong and lost. Edited August 13, 2009 by twintornados Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Get your mind off the law, thats where all of your excuses come from. Speeding no, too fast for the conditions, yes. With 5 foot snow banks and little johnny moving in reverse and you are going about 22ft per second at 15 miles per hour. It takes about 3/4 of a second for your mind to process what is happening and another 25 feet to stop maybe more. That puts you 41 feet away from little johnny. Could you see him from 41 feet? Probably not with 5 ft snowbanks. What is the controllable variable on you? Speed. Ring ring...it's for you. It's the clue phone. I think you should take the call! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Get your mind off the law, thats where all of your excuses come from. Speeding no, too fast for the conditions, yes. With 5 foot snow banks and little johnny moving in reverse and you are going about 22ft per second at 15 miles per hour. It takes about 3/4 of a second for your mind to process what is happening and another 25 feet to stop maybe more. That puts you 41 feet away from little johnny. Could you see him from 41 feet? Probably not with 5 ft snowbanks. What is the controllable variable on you? Speed. You're on the wrong board to be preaching the gospel of personal responsibility when it comes to ANYTHING related to cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggoodin Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Lets try this one....more....time......when did I see little johnny? When the back of his moms Honda was impacting my car...in your scenario, I would have had to rely on telepathy to know he was backing out into the road... Using your model...I would have to stop at every snowbank...sound my horn...and then move on....that would have avoided my accident, but it would have also taken about an hour to travel the city block I was on and would have woken every homeowner on that block so they could come out and advise me that their children were in fact not backing their cars out of their driveways and that the area was secure for my safe passage....you are grasping as straws aggoodin....we did have some common agreement.... ...But your "judgment" is wrong and as flawed as your argument... Bottom line here is...in the only court that matters...a court of law...I prevailed...maybe little johnny should have hired you, or maybe AllState...but either way...you would have been proven wrong and lost. Who cares who is right in court when someone ends up dead. I don't get why who is right or wrong in the eyes of the law has anything to do with safe driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts