what if you do hit the brakes and come to a complete stop, meanwhile the plastic bag continues on and still hits your car?
what if you do hit the brakes and come to a complete stop, meanwhile the plastic bag continues on and still hits your car?
Just generally, what is up with this plastic bag? Does it cover the windscreen causing you to crash? Is it filled with some kind of lighter than air explosive? Perhaps it clings to the muffler making it smell like burnt plastic.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,185
- 4,845
- 126
If you aren't driving, then you aren't following at all. If you aren't following, then by definition, it is impossible to follow too close, just the right distance, or too far. This situation is not covered by my comments above. You cannot use it to disprove or to prove my comments.
Note: I'm assuming you just want to get under my skin. It isn't happening today. Keep picking away with situations that don't apply. As long as they don't apply to my comment, it doesn't disprove my comment.
I can say I'm attracted to tall blond women. Then you come back with an example of a 20 foot tall blond female space creature covered with whatever nasty stuff you want. The fact that I'm not attracted to that alien doesn't disprove the statement that I like tall blond women. Why not? The alien isn't a woman. It is female but it isn't a huMAN required to be a woMAN. Same goes with your silly, I'm not driving a car, can I be following too close post.
Duh. Obviously you are supposed to throw it in reverse and then floor it in an attempt to avoid the bag. But don't swerve into another lane because that could be dangerous
I'm not trying to argue whether he is liable or not anymore. I already got my answer to that.
What I'm arguing is you weren't there to witness the scene so you therefore cannot tell me I was following too closely.
And like others have already stated, it is entirely possible to be following at a safe distance and still be hit by road debris from the car directly in front of you.
You don't know the force, trajectory, wind/air resistance that comes into play in any given scenario, so you cannot make a blanket statement like that.
I was about to ask the same thing..I've been in ice storms where sheets of ice a half inch thick and 10 feet square flies off semi trailers.
i don't know about liability..
I think the driver would be liable...it was on the vehicle, driver of said vehicle chose to not remove it.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
That may have been your point. However, your comments very clearly make it sound as though you were saying that he was not maintaining a safe distance.
I agree that the driver of the other car, provided that said other car was being operated in a reasonable and prudent fashion, is not liable for any damages. However, your previous statements are very far from being clearly limited to a discussion of liability. In fact, when viewed purely logically, your comments must be read as using tailgating to prove the liability. They cannot be interpreted as applying only to liability for hitting the object without the caveat that you have only just added.
ZV
Gunslinger08
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2001
- 13,234
- 2
- 81
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
In Ohio at least, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without clearing the snow from the roof, hood, and trunk (and, of course, the headlights and tail-lights). Of course, this is almost never enforced, but it is required.
ZV
FYI -
dullard is always right...at least in his mind. He will also spend hours posting lengthly posts that supposedly prove him right.
It's all black and white with him...he has envisioned every possible scenario in his head...of course.
:roll:
Pretty much...
dullard is always right...at least in his mind. He will also spend hours posting lengthly posts that supposedly prove him right.
It's all black and white with him...he has envisioned every possible scenario in his head...of course.
:roll:
Pretty much...
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Originally posted by: Aikouka
Seems to me that people are arguing whether or not it's the OP's fault because he should've been able to avoid it.
It's comprehensive by the way. Also, trying to swerve out of the way of a possible comprehensive claim accident is a bad idea, you can end up wrecking or causing an accident. Comprehensive usually doesn't ever raise your rates, collision does
Correct. That's more or less what I posted in the first reply.
Think of it this way (if it helps)... the road debris is at fault... but uninsured.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,185
- 4,845
- 126
I never said you weren't at a safe distance. But if you are close enough that the foce, trajectory, wind/air resistance allowed an object(s) to hit you, then you were too close on that day for that location. You were probably at a very safe driving distance. But safety is different from avoiding all damage to your car. It is a cut and dry case. But as long as you think I'm talking about safety, you'll misunderstand me.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,185
- 4,845
- 126
My own words: "tailgating or not, you were too close". I intended to say exactly that. If you were tailgating (unsafe distance), you were too close. If you weren't tailgating (safe driving distance), you were still too close for that situation.
I am sorry that was misinterpreted. Let me retype it.
It doesn't matter if you were tailgating or not. For this situation, you were too close to avoid the debris. It is your car, and you were too close. Thus, you have the liability.
Is that more clear?
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,185
- 4,845
- 126
All the personal attacks, and yet I'm the douche. All I said was if you hit flying objects in situations like the OP described, it is your liability. If that is being a douche, then I'm a douche.
I will clairify this issue. I am often wrong. I admit I'm wrong on these forums frequently. I post opinions at times, and opinions can be wrong.
However, if I have indisputable facts, I won't back down. I will bring links, scientific studies, or whatever it takes. I don't admit to losing an argument if I'm in the right. I also don't argue if I'm in the wrong. I take my lumps early and bow out to the experts. I let the people who know better than I do the talking.
So, if I'm arguing, I'm always right. That doesn't mean that I'm always right. It just means I selectively choose when to argue and when to admit I'm wrong.
Gunslinger08
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2001
- 13,234
- 2
- 81
Cars get dinged, knicked, scratched by every day events. Nobody is really "at fault." It just happens to come with the territory of moving vehicles, acts of nature, and physics. I doubt the driver in front of the OP intended on scratching the guys car behind him by running over road debris.
Get over it.
Get over it.
Squisher
Lifer
- Aug 17, 2000
- 21,204
- 66
- 91
I was driving down the e-way once doing 70 mph with quite a bit of traffic around me. A car two lanes over kicked something that kinda looked like two bear traps connected by a foot of chain about 60 feet in the air. As I watched the two bear traps gracefully spinning in the air I noticed the trajectory of the traps were starting to veer toward my lane. Well, it wasn't the traps that were turning it was that e-way had a slight curve. About the time I started to see the potential for trouble the bear traps seemed to be accelerating at the speed of a Peregrine Falcon and were about twenty feet from windshield. At about ten feet from impact my body, without any thought, decided that I needed to duck. So, there I was, laying down on the bench seat of my pickup doing 60 mph staring at my dashboard when it hit, the windshield looked like someone had dropped a barbell on it.
Insurance is a wonderful thing.
Insurance is a wonderful thing.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
You actually said "call it tailgating or not, you were too close." Most people would interpret that as meaning whether the OP's opinion was that he was tailgating or not, he was too close (a.k.a. tailgating). That is why people interpreted it differently from how you say you intended it.
Eh, I rarely see you admit that you're wrong, even when you are wrong. You're obviously a very intelligent guy, but I think sometimes you post things without thinking them through completely. I've noticed a pattern with you when you post something that is incorrect. You start arguing it from all different angles, moving the conversation completely away from your original point so that you're arguing something entirely different in the end. Then you can declare victory, even if what you said originally was wrong.
I respect you a lot, you're one of the few elites who I think truly deserves the title. You almost always have thorough information and well-thought arguments, but sometimes you're just too bull-headed. I can be the same way, but I think posting on Anandtech has trained me to think things through more thoroughly before I post them and subject myself to PWNAGE
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,185
- 4,845
- 126
Ok, you are forgiven. I really don't hold grudges, so you were forgiven anyways.
It was my attempt at humor. But, I admit my humor is far from the norm. I like using extreme examples to prove my point. I laugh at the idea of the extremes and I hope a little humor takes the passion and anger away from the debate. Since my humor is way off in left field, I can see how it doesn't always work out as I planned.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter