Self Driving Cars

[peterw...@hotmail.com]

In his column in today's _Wall Street Journal_, Holman Jenkins points out that Google's self driving cars have been involved in a statistically high number of minor accidents that are the fault of the other driver:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-robo-cars-crash-its-your-fault-1433891675

This is from a relatively small data set. Also, some readers have pointed out that the damage in some of the accidents is so small that human drivers would likely not have reported it at all, which would distort the statistics.

Still, it's an interesting question if it is possible for any entity to drive in such a way as to increase other people's mistakes.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

peterw...@hotmail.com wrote in
news:a31137e6-dd36-4f14...@googlegroups.com:

> Still, it's an interesting question if it is possible for any
> entity to drive in such a way as to increase other people's
> mistakes.
>

Certainly it's possible. For instance, if you see a car with no
driver, you might be distracted enough to run in to something.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[William December Starr]

In article <XnsA4B65E81E6A...@69.16.179.43>,
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:

> peterw...@hotmail.com wrote

>
>> Still, it's an interesting question if it is possible for any
>> entity to drive in such a way as to increase other people's
>> mistakes.
>
> Certainly it's possible. For instance, if you see a car with no
> driver, you might be distracted enough to run in to something.

Now I desperately want somebody at Google to put the autopilot from
"Airplane" in one of their cars' driver's seats and send it out on
the road.

-- wds

[peterw...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:17:28 AM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> peterw...@hotmail.com wrote in
> news:a31137e6-dd36-4f14...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > Still, it's an interesting question if it is possible for any
> > entity to drive in such a way as to increase other people's
> > mistakes.
> >
> Certainly it's possible. For instance, if you see a car with no
> driver, you might be distracted enough to run in to something.
>

I don't think this applies. To operate on public roads the Google cars have to have a qualified driver at the controls ready to take over at an instants notice. On the other hand, the cars are recognizable by the special equipment they carry. The accident rate of Google cars might be compared to that of recognizable celebrities, or distinctive vehicles such a Batmobile replica.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Don Bruder]

In article <4c4d00a0-f63f-4c59...@googlegroups.com>,

From the (very) little I've paid attention to, the only wrecks involving
google cars so far have all been "some dummy slammed into the rear end"
situations. True? False? Dunno - Only speaking of the little I've seen.

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:mldah1$ji5$1
@panix2.panix.com:

And a second one on the passenger side so it can use the HOV lane?

[Kevrob]

I'd bet any kind of money, if I had any, that the googlemobiles are stopping
at yellow lights, surprising the heck out of those following who are unused
to such behavior. :)

Keivn R

[J. Clarke]

In article <f7a960ef-150c-4315...@googlegroups.com>,
kev...@my-deja.com says...

4 of the 8 rearenders occurred while under manual control. One in
autonomous mode occurred when the Google car, stopped in traffic, was
struck by another car that had itself been rearended, with that impact
forcing it into the Google car, another occured while it was trying to
make a right turn on red and was actually moving forward, a third
occurred when it was stopped at a traffic light behind other traffic.
So there's only one real chance for your scenario to have played out.

[D.F. Manno]

In article <XnsA4B65E81E6A...@69.16.179.43>,
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Still, it's an interesting question if it is possible for any
> > entity to drive in such a way as to increase other people's
> > mistakes.
> >
> Certainly it's possible. For instance, if you see a car with no
> driver, you might be distracted enough to run in to something.

Or someone might think Google would want to quietly settle an "accident"
involving their driverless car, and so maneuver their car into one.

--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[JRStern]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:55:08 -0700 (PDT), peterw...@hotmail.com
wrote:

It's a stereotype that oriental females do just about exactly that.

I think that a lot of driving is not so much following the laws as
following the examples of others around you, and maybe also being
paranoid and watching intersections for people violating the law and
normal expectations.

Or it could as simple as any car voluntarily driving under the speed
limit causes accidents all around.

I wonder how many accidents the Google cars cause, not involving the
Google car itself!

J.

[Dimensional Traveler]

I suspect its at least partially because a computer driven vehicle moves
subtly differently than a human driven vehicle and this unconsciously
throws human drivers off.

--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

[Gene Wirchenko]

I suspect that this is just a convenient excuse. If one is
driving so close to the wire that little differences make a big
difference, then such a driver is driving dangerously.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in
news:1fnonalfl0tv5cnhh...@4ax.com:

One must also consider that it might be the self driving car that
is driving too close. Not too close if the cars around it were also
self driving, but too close for human reaction times and
expectations.

I think the real trick is that one cannot generalize from such a
small data set. Each accident must be examined individually.

[lal_truckee]

On 6/13/15 2:40 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> I think the real trick is that one cannot generalize from such a
> small data set. Each accident must be examined individually.

I dearly hope the self-driving car developers don't make the grievous
error of attempting to read meaning into flashing turn signals.

Also are self-driving car developers going to take advantage of
profiling? Everybody knows beamer drivers are self-righteous pricks who
think the traffic laws and rules of road courtesy don't apply to them.

[Greg Goss]

lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Also are self-driving car developers going to take advantage of
>profiling? Everybody knows beamer drivers are self-righteous pricks who
>think the traffic laws and rules of road courtesy don't apply to them.

Debbie: Why did he pull over there before going inside?
Greg: That way someone else can use the pump.
Debbie: But he's driving a Beamer.
Greg: They can't ALL be assholes.
Debbie: I wonder if he's single?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Jerry Brown]

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:55:57 -0700, lal_truckee
<lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 6/13/15 2:40 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> I think the real trick is that one cannot generalize from such a
>> small data set. Each accident must be examined individually.
>
>I dearly hope the self-driving car developers don't make the grievous
>error of attempting to read meaning into flashing turn signals.

...or lack thereof

>Also are self-driving car developers going to take advantage of
>profiling? Everybody knows beamer drivers are self-righteous pricks who
>think the traffic laws and rules of road courtesy don't apply to them.

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:cu3v7m...@mid.individual.net:

> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Also are self-driving car developers going to take advantage of
>>profiling? Everybody knows beamer drivers are self-righteous
>>pricks who think the traffic laws and rules of road courtesy
>>don't apply to them.
>
> Debbie: Why did he pull over there before going inside?
> Greg: That way someone else can use the pump.
> Debbie: But he's driving a Beamer.
> Greg: They can't ALL be assholes.
> Debbie: I wonder if he's single?

Indeed. While everybody may know this, that doesn't mean it's true.
In places that don't have a lot of luxury cars, drivers of luxury
cars tend to be better drivers, because they don't want their toys
banged up. Here in Southern California, well, it doesn't make much
difference. *Everybody* is an asshole.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 14:40:24 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in
>news:1fnonalfl0tv5cnhh...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 21:46:28 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

[snip]

>>>I suspect its at least partially because a computer driven
>>>vehicle moves subtly differently than a human driven vehicle and
>>>this unconsciously throws human drivers off.
>>
>> I suspect that this is just a convenient excuse. If one is
>> driving so close to the wire that little differences make a big
>> difference, then such a driver is driving dangerously.
>>
>One must also consider that it might be the self driving car that
>is driving too close. Not too close if the cars around it were also
>self driving, but too close for human reaction times and
>expectations.

I was thinking more of the word "subtle". Driving too close is
not subtle.

>I think the real trick is that one cannot generalize from such a
>small data set. Each accident must be examined individually.

True and true. And we are still at the point where every such
accident can be examined individually.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in

news:redvna5a7cng5st79...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 14:40:24 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in
>>news:1fnonalfl0tv5cnhh...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 21:46:28 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>I suspect its at least partially because a computer driven
>>>>vehicle moves subtly differently than a human driven vehicle
>>>>and this unconsciously throws human drivers off.
>>>
>>> I suspect that this is just a convenient excuse. If one
>>> is
>>> driving so close to the wire that little differences make a
>>> big difference, then such a driver is driving dangerously.
>>>
>>One must also consider that it might be the self driving car
>>that is driving too close. Not too close if the cars around it
>>were also self driving, but too close for human reaction times
>>and expectations.
>
> I was thinking more of the word "subtle". Driving too
> close is
> not subtle.

That is not necessarily true. As an example, when I was a teenager,
living in rural Misouri, I generally drive about 5 mph faster than
anyone else, just to show how studly I was. There are certain
species of birds that are prone to becoming adenaline junkies, and
love to swoop down in front of cars on the highway. They were very
skilled at it, generally able to get within a few feet, at most, of
the windshields. 5 mph difference at highway speeds is subtle - few
humans could tell the difference at all, but it's enough to turn a
close call in to a cloud of feathers and a blood smear.

Comfort zones are a very subtle aspect of human psychology. A few
feet of difference can really distract some people, without them
realizing it.

>
>>I think the real trick is that one cannot generalize from such a
>>small data set. Each accident must be examined individually.
>
> True and true. And we are still at the point where every
> such
> accident can be examined individually.
>

If the claims of accident reduction are even close to true, we
should continue to be.

[peterw...@hotmail.com]

One avenue of investigation is to see if there is any other subset of drivers with the same profile, i.e. high accident rate with OTHER drivers being at fault.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Greg Goss]

peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:


>> I wonder how many accidents the Google cars cause, not involving the
>> Google car itself!
>>
>One avenue of investigation is to see if there is any other subset of drivers with the same profile, i.e. high accident rate with OTHER drivers being at fault.
>
>Peter Wezeman
>anti-social Darwinist

I've been rear-ended six times over the years, totalling two cars and
causing essentially zilch damage the other four times. My wife's been
rear-ended four times, causing damage to the airbag switch underneath
her 400 pound husband for one of them, a need to peel the bumper to
check the shock absorbers for it ($1000 to the insurance company) and
serious neck and shoulder pain for her.

Rear enders are always the other guy's fault, but both of these
numbers seem high.

In one of them, my trailer hitch receiver punched a perfect square
hole in the other person's front licence plate.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:47:11 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in

>news:redvna5a7cng5st79...@4ax.com:

[snip]

>> I was thinking more of the word "subtle". Driving too
>> close is
>> not subtle.
>
>That is not necessarily true. As an example, when I was a teenager,

Distance too small is a red flag for me.

>living in rural Misouri, I generally drive about 5 mph faster than
>anyone else, just to show how studly I was. There are certain

And were you? <G>

>species of birds that are prone to becoming adenaline junkies, and
>love to swoop down in front of cars on the highway. They were very
>skilled at it, generally able to get within a few feet, at most, of
>the windshields. 5 mph difference at highway speeds is subtle - few
>humans could tell the difference at all, but it's enough to turn a
>close call in to a cloud of feathers and a blood smear.

On a trip over Sautrday to Monday, one bird struck the windshield
of the SUV I was in. Before that, a jaywalking deer nearly suicided
on us. (The timing could not have been much better for dead deer. We
missed by inches.) Yesterday, we saw another deer who did not do so
well.

>Comfort zones are a very subtle aspect of human psychology. A few
>feet of difference can really distract some people, without them
>realizing it.

I see your point. I suppose that I am just more sensitive to the
issue.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in

news:bqs1oatd81hq29vkm...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:47:11 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in
>>news:redvna5a7cng5st79...@4ax.com:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> I was thinking more of the word "subtle". Driving too
>>> close is
>>> not subtle.
>>
>>That is not necessarily true. As an example, when I was a
>>teenager,
>
> Distance too small is a red flag for me.

And you can't always do much about it.

>
>>living in rural Misouri, I generally drive about 5 mph faster
>>than anyone else, just to show how studly I was. There are
>>certain
>
> And were you? <G>

Of course, I was the studliest stud who ever studded a stud. All
you had to do was ask me.

>
>>species of birds that are prone to becoming adenaline junkies,
>>and love to swoop down in front of cars on the highway. They
>>were very skilled at it, generally able to get within a few
>>feet, at most, of the windshields. 5 mph difference at highway
>>speeds is subtle - few humans could tell the difference at all,
>>but it's enough to turn a close call in to a cloud of feathers
>>and a blood smear.
>
> On a trip over Sautrday to Monday, one bird struck the
> windshield
> of the SUV I was in.

I hit several birds through the course of 2 1/2 years od driving to
school. All crows or pigeons, I believe. Crows, I feel no sorrow
for, seeing as they are smarter than most people. Pigeons, of
course, deserve it.

> Before that, a jaywalking deer nearly
> suicided on us. (The timing could not have been much better for
> dead deer. We missed by inches.) Yesterday, we saw another
> deer who did not do so well.

I lost count of how many rabbits I hit. (The car I drove had a low
profile, and wasn't built for radial tires, which sit a bit lower
than the regular kind, so I had about 1 1/2" of clearance on the A-
frame of the car. Rabbits, too, apparently, are adreniline junkies,
and like to run in front of the car, then stop in the middle, so
the car goes over them. Bit thrill. Unless the clearance under the
car is less than the height of the rabbit's head, in which case
it's road kill for dinner.)

>
>>Comfort zones are a very subtle aspect of human psychology. A
>>few feet of difference can really distract some people, without
>>them realizing it.
>
> I see your point. I suppose that I am just more sensitive
> to the
> issue.

That could well put you in the high risk group, under the right
conditions. Driverless car gets too close for your comfort, you
react by moving away, then overreact when you get too close to
another car.

Pity there's no way to collect statitics on how many accidnets are
caused by Google cars between _other_ vehicles.

[JRStern]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:48:22 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>> I wonder how many accidents the Google cars cause, not involving the
>>> Google car itself!
>>>
>>One avenue of investigation is to see if there is any other subset of drivers with the same profile, i.e. high accident rate with OTHER drivers being at fault.
>>
>>Peter Wezeman
>>anti-social Darwinist
>
>I've been rear-ended six times over the years, totalling two cars and
>causing essentially zilch damage the other four times. My wife's been
>rear-ended four times, causing damage to the airbag switch underneath
>her 400 pound husband for one of them, a need to peel the bumper to
>check the shock absorbers for it ($1000 to the insurance company)

Yeah, I had one of those, I just kept driving, my insurance company
doesn't take kindly to requests for $1,000 of their money.

>and
>serious neck and shoulder pain for her.

Unfortunate.

>Rear enders are always the other guy's fault, but both of these
>numbers seem high.

Legally, yes. In most cases, yes. In all cases? A sudden stop or
blocking a lane can draw this into question. I've been the "perp"
just about as often as I've been hit.

>In one of them, my trailer hitch receiver punched a perfect square
>hole in the other person's front licence plate.

Yeah, when I hit a Range Rover at about 3mph with my Accord their
hitch smashed my hood very nicely and the smirking "victim" drove off
with no damage. Too bad their bumper was about a foot about mine. My
fault. Grrr.


J.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
news:l3c3oalacipejv1dr...@4ax.com:

If you're close enough that you can't stop in time, no matter how
hard the car in front of you hits the brakes, you're too close.
That's the basis of the legal reality, and it has some merit (even
if it's not always practical).

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:38:55 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA4BC767F062...@69.16.179.42> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> If you're close enough that you can't stop in time, no
> matter how hard the car in front of you hits the brakes,
> you're too close. That's the basis of the legal reality,
> and it has some merit (even if it's not always
> practical).

Very soon after I started driving again after a ten-year
hiatus, I got an object lesson in how it can sometimes be
completely out of the question. Approaching Chicago from
the southeast on I-90 I suddenly found myself boxed by four
semis travelling in close formation about 20 mph over the
nominal speed limit.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[pete...@gmail.com]

Last time I rearended someone, it was because I was shoved into them
by the car rear-ending *me*. Avoid that one. (I got a whiplash).

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:snakndhjw6ik.1xhcnu1pbbmf9$.d...@40tude.net:

> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:38:55 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
> in<news:XnsA4BC767F062...@69.16.179.42> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
>> If you're close enough that you can't stop in time, no
>> matter how hard the car in front of you hits the brakes,
>> you're too close. That's the basis of the legal reality,
>> and it has some merit (even if it's not always
>> practical).
>
> Very soon after I started driving again after a ten-year
> hiatus, I got an object lesson in how it can sometimes be
> completely out of the question. Approaching Chicago from
> the southeast on I-90 I suddenly found myself boxed by four
> semis travelling in close formation about 20 mph over the
> nominal speed limit.
>

It happens, but in real life, it's fairly rare. When traffic is
heavy enough that you just *can't* keep enough space, things
usually slow down to a more reasonable speed. The trick is to get
used to people in the next lane pulling in to the space you leave
in front of you, and not go postal about it.

In your case, you simply slow down until there's proper space in
front of you. The guy behind you isn't going to rear end you,
after all, since that's *not* one of the questionable scenarios on
who is at fault.

You do have to pay attention, though. If you're aware of what's
going on around you, even the professional "swoop & sqat" artists
aren't going to get anywhere. (Been there, done that.)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

pete...@gmail.com wrote in
news:b89dbc86-7773-431b...@googlegroups.com:

Most common at stop lights, when only the back-most car is moving,
but yeah, it happens. My father had a guy cross a busy, large
intersection and drive up on to a sidewalk to run into him once.

But that's not an excuse for not leaving a safe distance between
you and the car in front of you. That you can't eliminate all
accidents is a stupid excuse for not eliminating what you can.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:01:06 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA4BC8E9A5B7...@69.16.179.42> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> news:snakndhjw6ik.1xhcnu1pbbmf9$.d...@40tude.net:

>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:38:55 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in<news:XnsA4BC767F062...@69.16.179.42> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:

>> [...]

>>> If you're close enough that you can't stop in time, no
>>> matter how hard the car in front of you hits the brakes,
>>> you're too close. That's the basis of the legal reality,
>>> and it has some merit (even if it's not always
>>> practical).

>> Very soon after I started driving again after a ten-year
>> hiatus, I got an object lesson in how it can sometimes be
>> completely out of the question. Approaching Chicago from
>> the southeast on I-90 I suddenly found myself boxed by four
>> semis travelling in close formation about 20 mph over the
>> nominal speed limit.

[...]

> In your case, you simply slow down until there's proper
> space in front of you. The guy behind you isn't going to
> rear end you, after all, since that's *not* one of the
> questionable scenarios on who is at fault.

Yep. And after a bit I opened up enough room to duck out
of the box. (I was glad that I was driving at that point
and not my ex-wife, and even more so later in the
stop-and-go, even though I was a bit rusty: she tended to
get a little worked up under such conditions.)

[...]

[pete...@gmail.com]

There was actually be pretty big gap in front of me - as I said, I
was hit hard enough to get whiplash.

On the highway, I'm pretty fanatical about leaving a long gap in front
of me, and yes, having someone pull in front of me into that gap is
a frequent occurrence. I make up for it by being a bit of a lead-foot
when things are clear, and being reasonably adept at switching lanes to
keep moving - I have the patterns of flow on my regualr runs pretty well
memorized.

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in

news:1t8cr9s6d4pqz.m...@40tude.net:

Southern California didn't invent road rage, but we organized the
first professional teams.

[synthi...@yahoo.com]

"bumper about a foot above"
The SUV is actually illegal since it does not have bumpers. They are
functionally battering rams. They were manufactured under a special
exemption for farm tractors.

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Last time I rearended someone, it was because I was shoved into
>> them by the car rear-ending *me*. Avoid that one. (I got a
>> whiplash).
>>
>Most common at stop lights, when only the back-most car is moving,
>but yeah, it happens. My father had a guy cross a busy, large
>intersection and drive up on to a sidewalk to run into him once.

My brother had his car stolen. Six months later, it was the middle
car in such a pile-up. Since one driver jumped out and "ran for the
hills", the other two did, too. When they came back, there was
nothing about to explode, but the car in the middle still had the
Alberta plates (in Saskatchewan).

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:06:17 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Southern California didn't invent road rage, but we organized the
>first professional teams.

That line is a keeper, Terry.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in

news:tne6oala3smrmp6p5...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:06:17 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>Southern California didn't invent road rage, but we organized the
>>first professional teams.
>
> That line is a keeper, Terry.

I agree. We need bumper stickers.

[Sjouke Burry]

On 19.06.15 0:40, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in
> news:tne6oala3smrmp6p5...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:06:17 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Southern California didn't invent road rage, but we organized the
>>> first professional teams.
>>
>> That line is a keeper, Terry.
>
> I agree. We need bumper stickers.
>

Why do you want to stick to someones bumper?

That looks mighty dangerous to me ..... :)

[Don Bruder]

In article <55834a3c$0$6779$703f...@textnews.kpn.nl>,

Only if you use cheap glue...

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 6/18/2015 4:46 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <55834a3c$0$6779$703f...@textnews.kpn.nl>,
> Sjouke Burry <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:
>
>> On 19.06.15 0:40, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in
>>> news:tne6oala3smrmp6p5...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:06:17 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>>>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> Southern California didn't invent road rage, but we organized the
>>>>> first professional teams.
>>>>
>>>> That line is a keeper, Terry.
>>>
>>> I agree. We need bumper stickers.
>>>
>> Why do you want to stick to someones bumper?
>>
>> That looks mighty dangerous to me ..... :)
>
> Only if you use cheap glue...
>

You just have to use your bumper to smack it onto the other vehicle's
bumper hard enough.

--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Sjouke Burry <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote in
news:55834a3c$0$6779$703f...@textnews.kpn.nl:

Isn't that the point?

[Richard Hershberger]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 1:42:40 PM UTC-4, JRStern wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:48:22 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> >peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> I wonder how many accidents the Google cars cause, not involving the
> >>> Google car itself!
> >>>
> >>One avenue of investigation is to see if there is any other subset of drivers with the same profile, i.e. high accident rate with OTHER drivers being at fault.
> >>
> >>Peter Wezeman
> >>anti-social Darwinist
> >
> >I've been rear-ended six times over the years, totalling two cars and
> >causing essentially zilch damage the other four times. My wife's been
> >rear-ended four times, causing damage to the airbag switch underneath
> >her 400 pound husband for one of them, a need to peel the bumper to
> >check the shock absorbers for it ($1000 to the insurance company)
>
> Yeah, I had one of those, I just kept driving, my insurance company
> doesn't take kindly to requests for $1,000 of their money.

The idea is that the other guy's insurance company pays out that one big one. At least that's how it works in a jurisdiction that hasn't hopelessly fucked with how automobile insurance works. I suppose that in a no-fault insurance state, your insurance company might jack up your premiums if you file a claim after being rear-ended. That would be a pretty strong sign that it is time to change insurance companies.

Richard R. Hershberger

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Richard Hershberger <rrh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c34392d1-bd16-4f14...@googlegroups.com:

In places where insurance companies do that sort of thing, they
_all_ do the same. So good luck with that.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:40:00 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in
>news:tne6oala3smrmp6p5...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:06:17 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>Southern California didn't invent road rage, but we organized the
>>>first professional teams.
>>
>> That line is a keeper, Terry.
>
>I agree. We need bumper stickers.

You just topped yourself.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in

news:l8m8oat6dh7ss8pp7...@4ax.com:

With whip cream and a maraschino cherry.

Or, if you prefer, with chocolate syrup, and nothing else. You pervy
little boy, you.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:02:16 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
<ge...@telus.net> wrote
in<news:l8m8oat6dh7ss8pp7...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> You just topped yourself.

He’s a switch?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in

news:gcbcybuhn574.1y1a109iw7npr$.d...@40tude.net:

> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:02:16 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
> <ge...@telus.net> wrote
> in<news:l8m8oat6dh7ss8pp7...@4ax.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
>> You just topped yourself.
>
> He’s a switch?
>

There' a really disgusting clone joke in there somewhere.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:27:44 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA4BE9D4A42E...@69.16.179.43> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> news:gcbcybuhn574.1y1a109iw7npr$.d...@40tude.net:

>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:02:16 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
>> <ge...@telus.net> wrote
>> in<news:l8m8oat6dh7ss8pp7...@4ax.com> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:

>> [...]

>>> You just topped yourself.

>> He's a switch?

> There' a really disgusting clone joke in there somewhere.

Not only have you topped yourself, I think that you've just
won the race to the bottom as well!

Brian
--
Using her breasts as a shelf was the most practical thing
Helene had done all day. -- Meljean Brook, _The Kraken
King_

[JRStern]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:38:30 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hershberger
<rrh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >I've been rear-ended six times over the years, totalling two cars and
>> >causing essentially zilch damage the other four times. My wife's been
>> >rear-ended four times, causing damage to the airbag switch underneath
>> >her 400 pound husband for one of them, a need to peel the bumper to
>> >check the shock absorbers for it ($1000 to the insurance company)
>>
>> Yeah, I had one of those, I just kept driving, my insurance company
>> doesn't take kindly to requests for $1,000 of their money.
>
>The idea is that the other guy's insurance company pays out that one big one. At least that's how it works in a jurisdiction that hasn't hopelessly fucked with how automobile insurance works. I suppose that in a no-fault insurance state, your insurance company might jack up your premiums if you file a claim after being rear-ended. That would be a pretty strong sign that it is time to change insurance companies.

Now that you mention it of course that's right, and for that matter I
could pursue the claim in small claims court myself without bothering
the insurance and without a lawyer and without a deductible, etc.
OTOH *proving* it in a court of law would certainly take more time and
effort than it's worth, and of course still might lose.

The whole thing is a bad exercise, you peel off a $200 (factory)
bumper skin to inspect the $100 worth of styrofoam "shock absorbers"
and the $200 spring steel holder, pay another $200 to paint-match it
and another $500 for the labor, depending on what actually needs
replacing. Or you drive around with a few scratches on your bumper
and maybe less styrofoam padding than it came with, which doesn't hurt
until the NEXT time you are rear-ended with about the same or more
force.

I think that car was rear-ended three times in a three year lease,
only the last even suggested replacement. I forget the first, I think
it was in a parking lot and I came out to find it happened, the second
time an old lady driver eating chinese shrimp from the passenger seat
in the rain in her Mercedes coupe, the third time a young kid with no
license and no insurance in a new used car that didn't even have
plates yet. Life in the big city.

J.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in

news:16ctl6cxx6hnr.1...@40tude.net:

> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:27:44 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
> in<news:XnsA4BE9D4A42E...@69.16.179.43> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>> news:gcbcybuhn574.1y1a109iw7npr$.d...@40tude.net:
>
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:02:16 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
>>> <ge...@telus.net> wrote
>>> in<news:l8m8oat6dh7ss8pp7...@4ax.com> in
>>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>>> [...]
>
>>>> You just topped yourself.
>
>>> He's a switch?
>
>> There' a really disgusting clone joke in there somewhere.
>
> Not only have you topped yourself, I think that you've just
> won the race to the bottom as well!
>

I generally have to find a ladder for my mind to be in the gutter.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
news:o099oadsgusoltu7a...@4ax.com:

> Now that you mention it of course that's right, and for that
> matter I could pursue the claim in small claims court myself
> without bothering the insurance and without a lawyer and without
> a deductible, etc.

In point of fact, you probably gave up that right when you signed teh
contract with your insurance company. Otherwise, you could do a
really shitty job in court, and they'd still be responsible.

This is why you occasionally read news storeis about people suing
_their own_ insurance company, when the other driver is clearly at
fault (and they and their insurance company have admitted it).

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:54:38 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA4BEAC068B2...@69.16.179.42> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> I generally have to find a ladder for my mind to be in
> the gutter.

Heh. I distinctly remember making a very similar comment
to Mary Gentle (aka Roxanne Morgan) over in rasfc some
years ago. As I recall, she too claimed membership in the
club.

[Robert Bannister]

Problems mainly seem to occur when the other person is insured with the
same company as you are. They are happy to take money from another
company, but become deaf when asked to pay out from their own funds.

--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia

[William December Starr]

In article <55839a0c$0$36546$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

They did that on "Mission: Impossible" once. Small box with
electromagnet holding it onto your front bumper. Pull up behind
target car at red light, move up until front of box is touching
_their_ rear bumper. Press button on remote control and presto,
electromagnet on front of box turns on and the one at the back of
the box turns off. Wait for light to change. Watch unsuspecting
target car drive off carrying your package. Snicker.

I forget what the point was. Probably just "Because that's the way
my mind _works_, that's why."

-- wds

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:1xyc9brrzvlde
$.9r4ae1qv...@40tude.net:

> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:54:38 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
> in<news:XnsA4BEAC068B2...@69.16.179.42> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
>> I generally have to find a ladder for my mind to be in
>> the gutter.
>
> Heh. I distinctly remember making a very similar comment
> to Mary Gentle (aka Roxanne Morgan) over in rasfc some
> years ago. As I recall, she too claimed membership in the
> club.
>

It's a common malady.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in
news:cujuea...@mid.individual.net:

Not all insurance companies are the same.

(Best situation I had was when a teenager pulled out in front of me
and totaled both cars. Her (daddy's) insurance was a company
notable for their no-nonsense attitude - their driver was clearly
at fault, so they paid without issue - and mine was notable for
wanting to settle as quickly as reasonably possible in all cases
(and there were no injuries), so I had a check in a week.)

[David Duffy]

Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:54:38 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
> in<news:XnsA4BEAC068B2...@69.16.179.42> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
>> I generally have to find a ladder for my mind to be in
>> the gutter.
>
> Heh. I distinctly remember making a very similar comment
> to Mary Gentle (aka Roxanne Morgan) over in rasfc some
> years ago. As I recall, she too claimed membership in the
> club.

ObSF (sort of): "all of us are sitting in the gutter, but some of us are
looking down the drain"

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Duffy <dav...@qimr.edu.au> wrote in
news:mmcllf$m3e$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

And the rest are looking back up?

[synthi...@yahoo.com]

I don't know if everyone here knows the original quote being made fun of here is "we may be laying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars".

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 8:40:05 AM UTC+10, synthi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't know if everyone here knows the original quote being made fun of here is "we may be laying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars".

"All of us get lost in the darkness
Dreamers learn to steer by the stars
All of us do time in the gutter
Dreamers turn to look at the cars"

[Don Bruder]

In article <41cd9153-a299-4856...@googlegroups.com>,

Presto! Another Rush fan!

[Robert Bannister]

On 24/06/2015 12:51 am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in
> news:cujuea...@mid.individual.net:

>> Problems mainly seem to occur when the other person is insured
>> with the same company as you are. They are happy to take money
>> from another company, but become deaf when asked to pay out from
>> their own funds.
>>
> Not all insurance companies are the same.
>
> (Best situation I had was when a teenager pulled out in front of me
> and totaled both cars. Her (daddy's) insurance was a company
> notable for their no-nonsense attitude - their driver was clearly
> at fault, so they paid without issue - and mine was notable for
> wanting to settle as quickly as reasonably possible in all cases
> (and there were no injuries), so I had a check in a week.)
>

That must have been great, but a but unexpected.

[Anthony Nance]

synthi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't know if everyone here knows the original quote being made fun of here is "we may be laying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars".

Which I first ran across in the song "Message of Love" by the Pretenders:

" ...
Now look at the people
In the streets, in the bars
We are all of us in the gutter
But some of us are looking at the stars
Look round the room
Life is unkind
We fall but we keep gettin' up
Over and over and over and over and over and over
... "

Tony

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in

news:cuulqs...@mid.individual.net:

Only if you don't do your research in the first place. Do you pick an
insurance company by throwing darts at a Yellow Pages?

[Kevrob]

Oscar Wilde - "Lady Windermere's Fan"

[quote]

DUMBY. I don't think we are bad. I think we are all good, except Tuppy.

LORD DARLINGTON. No, we are all in the gutter, but some of us are
looking at the stars. [_Sits down at C. table_.]

DUMBY. We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the
stars? Upon my word, you are very romantic to-night, Darlington.

[/quote]

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/790

Chrissy "stealing" from the best.

Kevin R

[Anthony Nance]

Oh definitely. There was probably a 5-10 year gap between me
knowing the song and learning that Wilde was the originator,
though.

Tony

[Richard Hershberger]

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 8:00:17 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
> news:o099oadsgusoltu7a...@4ax.com:
>
> > Now that you mention it of course that's right, and for that
> > matter I could pursue the claim in small claims court myself
> > without bothering the insurance and without a lawyer and without
> > a deductible, etc.
>
> In point of fact, you probably gave up that right when you signed teh
> contract with your insurance company. Otherwise, you could do a
> really shitty job in court, and they'd still be responsible.

Different jurisdictions treat automobile insurance wildly differently, so it is hard to generalize. In a jurisdiction that has maintained more or less traditional common law liability (i.e. not "no-fault" or "limited liability"), your insurance contract is mostly irrelevant to your right to sue someone else. At most you might end up waiving your collision coverage, and I'm not sure even of that. You certainly didn't waive your right to sue in general. People sue due to car accidents all the time.

In actual practice, if we are talking about property damage only, and you have collision coverage, and the property damage is within your policy limits, and within the policy limits of the other guy's liability coverage, then we are really only talking about whether or not you have to pay your deductible. File a claim with the other guy's carrier. Notify your own carrier. If the accident really is straightforward, and a rear-ender is the most straightforward of accidents, the other guy's carrier will accept liability. Have a discussion with the adjuster about what shop to take it to. Some of the big insurance companies have their own shops that they will want you to go to. You don't have to do this. If you have concerns about the quality of work (not an unreasonable concern) or simply geographic convenience, you can go somewhere else. If the estimate is outrageous, they can challenge it, but in actual practice this isn't a problem with a reputable shop. At that point the shop will do the repair and run the billing directly through the insurance company without you having to worry about it. I am no great fan of insurance companies, but they really do a good job on this sort of repair. I have gone through this personally, and I deal with it professionally all the time.

If your car is declared a total loss (a term of art meaning the repair estimate is higher than the blue book value of the car), things won't go quite as well. You will find the offer disappointingly low, and not very amendable to negotiation.

If the other guy's carrier disputes liability (i.e. says it wasn't their guy's fault) then run it through your own collision coverage, paying the deductible. The insurance industry has an internal arbitration system for this sort of thing. If the arbitration comes back that yes, it really was the other guy's fault, then his carrier will reimburse your carrier, plus cutting you a check for the deductible you previously paid.

But what if the arbitration comes back and says it was your fault. Won't your carrier jack up your premiums? Possibly. It depends. But seriously, use the opportunity to shop around. Car insurance companies are like cell phone companies. Once they have you, they figure that you probably will stay with them through sheer inertia, and will quietly raise your rates. You often can get comparable coverage simply by shopping around.

The problem with letting a rear-ender slide is that modern bumpers are designed to absorb the energy of a collision, and they do a really good job of it. They aren't designed to necessarily do it twice. Not repairing it can lead to bad results the next time you are rear-ended.

>
> This is why you occasionally read news storeis about people suing
> _their own_ insurance company, when the other driver is clearly at
> fault (and they and their insurance company have admitted it).

These suits typically are with regard to uninsured or under-insured motorist coverage ("UM" and "UIM" respectively, in the jargon of the business). Suppose you are hit and injured, and everyone agrees it was the other guy's fault. You are injured pretty bad, say, a $100K injury. But the other guy only has $30K in coverage. You can still sue him, but you run into the blood from a turnip problem. He might be a rich idiot who only bought minimal coverage, but usually someone with minimal coverage doesn't have any assets. So there is no point in suing.

But fortunately, in this scenario, you had the wisdom to purchase UM/UIM coverage on your own policy. So you file a UIM claim with your own carrier for the $70K difference. Suppose they come back and say "Pshaw! You have only a $50K injury. We'll send you a check for $20K, take it or leave it." If you haven't lawyered up already, who definitely need to at this point, and sue. The argument isn't over liability (i.e. whose fault the accident was) but over damages (i.e. how much money are we talking about).

This is entirely typical of automobile accident cases. Often liability isn't in serious dispute. If there is only property damage, then the amount is straightforward: the cost to repair it or the blue book value of the car, whichever is less. It is with injuries that arguments break out. How much treatment you think you need can be very different from how much treatment some insurance company thinks they should pay for. This is before we even get into non-economic damages (i.e. "pain and suffering").

Richard Hershberger

[Richard Hershberger]

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 12:51:58 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> Not all insurance companies are the same.
>
> (Best situation I had was when a teenager pulled out in front of me
> and totaled both cars. Her (daddy's) insurance was a company
> notable for their no-nonsense attitude - their driver was clearly
> at fault, so they paid without issue - and mine was notable for
> wanting to settle as quickly as reasonably possible in all cases
> (and there were no injuries), so I had a check in a week.)

Heh. You got that check in return for a release. Injuries aren't always immediately obvious. Hence the haste to get the paperwork completed. Good for you that this worked out all right, and it might be that you had good reason to be sure you were OK, but I would have waited a few weeks before signing the papers.

Richard R. Hershberger

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Richard Hershberger <rrh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d6081058-8446-484c...@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 8:00:17 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>> news:o099oadsgusoltu7a...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > Now that you mention it of course that's right, and for that
>> > matter I could pursue the claim in small claims court myself
>> > without bothering the insurance and without a lawyer and
>> > without a deductible, etc.
>>
>> In point of fact, you probably gave up that right when you
>> signed teh contract with your insurance company. Otherwise, you
>> could do a really shitty job in court, and they'd still be
>> responsible.
>
> Different jurisdictions treat automobile insurance wildly
> differently,

Hence, the word "probably."

> If your car is declared a total loss (a term of art meaning the
> repair estimate is higher than the blue book value of the car),
> things won't go quite as well. You will find the offer
> disappointingly low, and not very amendable to negotiation.
>

That hasn't been my experience. The first total loss claim (single
car accident, no injuries) the offer was just about Blue Book. The
second one (mentioned above), the offer was *above* Blue Book,
though not by a lot. (They may have rated it in better condition
that I did. Still an entirely fair offer from her insurance
company.)

Again, it all depends on the insurance companies. Again, don't pick
your insurance by throwing darts at a Yellow Pages.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Richard Hershberger <rrh...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:ab1fa652-8dbd-47c6...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 12:51:58 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>> Not all insurance companies are the same.
>>
>> (Best situation I had was when a teenager pulled out in front
>> of me and totaled both cars. Her (daddy's) insurance was a
>> company notable for their no-nonsense attitude - their driver
>> was clearly at fault, so they paid without issue - and mine was
>> notable for wanting to settle as quickly as reasonably possible
>> in all cases (and there were no injuries), so I had a check in
>> a week.)
>
> Heh. You got that check in return for a release.

Yes.

> Injuries
> aren't always immediately obvious.

True. But their absence is sometimes obvious. Both insurance
companies were quite reasonable on the subject.

> Hence the haste to get the
> paperwork completed.

The lack of injuries is one of the criteria that trigger that
response from them. They (either company) did not in any way resist
any medical examinations that I might have wanted, but there was no
need.

> Good for you that this worked out all
> right, and it might be that you had good reason to be sure you
> were OK, but I would have waited a few weeks before signing the
> papers.
>

And that is why insurance is so expensive. Well, that, a greed and
easily bought politicians.

[Greg Goss]

Richard Hershberger <rrh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>If your car is declared a total loss (a term of art meaning the repair estimate is higher than the blue book value of the car), things won't go quite as well. You will find the offer disappointingly low, and not very amendable to negotiation.

Back in 1999, I suffered a total loss in a rear-ender. I consider the
offer by the insurance company to have been reasonable, but was upset
that the rental car contract ended the day that the payment was
offered. I needed the rental to investigate used cars to replace the
one that was paid out.

In the end, I bought a car for less than the payout that turned out to
be a major lemon. The Dodge Colt that was written off was one of the
best cars I've ever owned and the Toy Tercel that replaced it was one
of the worst cars I've ever owned. (see Toy Rust thread a month or so
back). But the first-year Tercel was a beautiful car to everyone but
me, so its lemonhood was unexpected. But that means I overpaid on the
replacement car, not that ICBC underpaid on the Colt.

>If the other guy's carrier disputes liability (i.e. says it wasn't their guy's fault) then run it through your own collision coverage, paying the deductible. The insurance industry has an internal arbitration system for this sort of thing. If the arbitration comes back that yes, it really was the other guy's fault, then his carrier will reimburse your carrier, plus cutting you a check for the deductible you previously paid.

My ex-wife got rear-ended in January. Eventually the other party said
that there had been no collision and that we were making the whole
thing up. I'm not sure where that was resolved, but we heard nothing
further about it after our company informed us.

My jurisdiction placed an absurdly low limit on soft-tissue claims, so
my wife's ongoing Chiro treatments after the two rear-enders in a year
rapidly became our problem.

>The problem with letting a rear-ender slide is that modern bumpers are designed to absorb the energy of a collision, and they do a really good job of it. They aren't designed to necessarily do it twice. Not repairing it can lead to bad results the next time you are rear-ended.

Back when I was a starving student, I bought a written-off car with
the bumper in the trunk. My jurisdiction at the time allowed cars to
continue to be driven after a write-off payout. I kept meaning to
mount a 4x4 or I-beam across the back, but never did, and eventually
got rear-ended. The insurance company (eventually, after a couple of
absurd offers) gave me a fair payout and let me keep the car. I
jacked the fender off the left back tire and continued to drive it,
but the shake-up of the second accident did something in the engine
and it was never reliable after that. See my "golf ball" anecdote
that I've related several times in various newsgroups.

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Robert Bannister]

A few years ago, some idiot drove into me for no apparent reason and
totalled my car. I can't remember the wording, but I think I was insured
for replacement value rather than market value and was pleasantly
surprised to get $6000 for my ten-year-Hyundai. Moreover, they didn't
lower my no claims bonus. I still changed insurance companies, though -
I found whose annual premium was $100 cheaper. I doubt the cover is as
good, but on a pension, a $100 is important.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in

news:cv3k41...@mid.individual.net:

Unless (or until) you have another accident.

[Robert Bannister]

Of course. I am taking a calculated risk to save money.

[John F. Eldredge]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:09:28 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in

> news:bqs1oatd81hq29vkm...@4ax.com:

>
>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:47:11 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in

>>>news:redvna5a7cng5st79...@4ax.com:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> I was thinking more of the word "subtle". Driving too close is
>>>> not subtle.
>>>
>>>That is not necessarily true. As an example, when I was a teenager,
>>
>> Distance too small is a red flag for me.
>
> And you can't always do much about it.
>>
>>>living in rural Misouri, I generally drive about 5 mph faster than
>>>anyone else, just to show how studly I was. There are certain
>>
>> And were you? <G>
>
> Of course, I was the studliest stud who ever studded a stud. All you had
> to do was ask me.
>>
>>>species of birds that are prone to becoming adenaline junkies, and love
>>>to swoop down in front of cars on the highway. They were very skilled
>>>at it, generally able to get within a few feet, at most, of the
>>>windshields. 5 mph difference at highway speeds is subtle - few humans
>>>could tell the difference at all,
>>>but it's enough to turn a close call in to a cloud of feathers and a
>>>blood smear.
>>
>> On a trip over Sautrday to Monday, one bird struck the windshield
>> of the SUV I was in.
>
> I hit several birds through the course of 2 1/2 years od driving to
> school. All crows or pigeons, I believe. Crows, I feel no sorrow for,
> seeing as they are smarter than most people. Pigeons, of course, deserve
> it.
>
>> Before that, a jaywalking deer nearly
>> suicided on us. (The timing could not have been much better for dead
>> deer. We missed by inches.) Yesterday, we saw another deer who did
>> not do so well.
>
> I lost count of how many rabbits I hit. (The car I drove had a low
> profile, and wasn't built for radial tires, which sit a bit lower than
> the regular kind, so I had about 1 1/2" of clearance on the A-
> frame of the car. Rabbits, too, apparently, are adreniline junkies,
> and like to run in front of the car, then stop in the middle, so the car
> goes over them. Bit thrill. Unless the clearance under the car is less
> than the height of the rabbit's head, in which case it's road kill for
> dinner.)
>>
>>>Comfort zones are a very subtle aspect of human psychology. A few feet
>>>of difference can really distract some people, without them realizing
>>>it.
>>
>> I see your point. I suppose that I am just more sensitive to the
>> issue.
>
> That could well put you in the high risk group, under the right
> conditions. Driverless car gets too close for your comfort, you react by
> moving away, then overreact when you get too close to another car.
>
> Pity there's no way to collect statitics on how many accidnets are
> caused by Google cars between _other_ vehicles.

In the early 1970s, my church youth choir went on a week-long singing
tour, in a converted school bus. I remember seeing a swallow ahead of us
that was playing daredevil. It would fly towards an oncoming car at hood
level, pull up just in time for the car to pass under it, then move back
down to hood level again. It may have been catching insects that had
been disoriented by the vortex from each passing car. Unfortunately,
when it tried to do this with the bus, it failed to allow for the bus's
greater height, and pancaked against the middle of the windshield,
probably dying instantly.

[John F. Eldredge]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:42:40 -0700, JRStern wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:48:22 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>>peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I wonder how many accidents the Google cars cause, not involving the
>>>> Google car itself!
>>>>
>>>One avenue of investigation is to see if there is any other subset of
>>>drivers with the same profile, i.e. high accident rate with OTHER
>>>drivers being at fault.
>>>
>>>Peter Wezeman anti-social Darwinist
>>
>>I've been rear-ended six times over the years, totalling two cars and
>>causing essentially zilch damage the other four times. My wife's been
>>rear-ended four times, causing damage to the airbag switch underneath
>>her 400 pound husband for one of them, a need to peel the bumper to
>>check the shock absorbers for it ($1000 to the insurance company)
>
> Yeah, I had one of those, I just kept driving, my insurance company
> doesn't take kindly to requests for $1,000 of their money.
>

>>and serious neck and shoulder pain for her.
>
> Unfortunate.
>
>>Rear enders are always the other guy's fault, but both of these numbers
>>seem high.
>
> Legally, yes. In most cases, yes. In all cases? A sudden stop or
> blocking a lane can draw this into question. I've been the "perp" just
> about as often as I've been hit.
>
>>In one of them, my trailer hitch receiver punched a perfect square hole
>>in the other person's front licence plate.
>
> Yeah, when I hit a Range Rover at about 3mph with my Accord their hitch
> smashed my hood very nicely and the smirking "victim" drove off with no
> damage. Too bad their bumper was about a foot about mine. My fault.
> Grrr.
>
>
> J.

On the other hand, the time a Toyota pickup truck back-ended my Chevy
Caprice station wagon, it slightly bent my bumper, but broke the engine
block in the pickup truck. That station wagon was a brute, with an empty
weight of 5500 pounds (2.5 tons).

[John F. Eldredge]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:02:54 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> pete...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:b89dbc86-7773-431b...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella

>> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in

>>> news:l3c3oalacipejv1dr...@4ax.com:

>>>
>>> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:48:22 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>> I wonder how many accidents the Google cars cause, not involving
>>> >>>> the Google car itself!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>One avenue of investigation is to see if there is any other subset
>>> >>>of drivers with the same profile, i.e. high accident rate with
>>> >>>OTHER drivers being at fault.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Peter Wezeman anti-social Darwinist
>>> >>
>>> >>I've been rear-ended six times over the years, totalling two cars
>>> >>and causing essentially zilch damage the other four times. My wife's
>>> >>been rear-ended four times, causing damage to the airbag switch
>>> >>underneath her 400 pound husband for one of them, a need to peel the
>>> >>bumper to check the shock absorbers for it ($1000 to the insurance
>>> >>company)
>>> >
>>> > Yeah, I had one of those, I just kept driving, my insurance company
>>> > doesn't take kindly to requests for $1,000 of their money.
>>> >
>>> >>and serious neck and shoulder pain for her.
>>> >
>>> > Unfortunate.
>>> >
>>> >>Rear enders are always the other guy's fault, but both of these
>>> >>numbers seem high.
>>> >
>>> > Legally, yes. In most cases, yes. In all cases? A sudden stop or
>>> > blocking a lane can draw this into question. I've been the "perp"
>>> > just about as often as I've been hit.
>>>

>>> If you're close enough that you can't stop in time, no matter how hard
>>> the car in front of you hits the brakes, you're too close. That's the
>>> basis of the legal reality, and it has some merit (even if it's not
>>> always practical).
>>
>> Last time I rearended someone, it was because I was shoved into them by
>> the car rear-ending *me*. Avoid that one. (I got a whiplash).
>>
> Most common at stop lights, when only the back-most car is moving,
> but yeah, it happens. My father had a guy cross a busy, large
> intersection and drive up on to a sidewalk to run into him once.
>
> But that's not an excuse for not leaving a safe distance between you and
> the car in front of you. That you can't eliminate all accidents is a
> stupid excuse for not eliminating what you can.

I think the special case described above is usually considered the fault
of the moving vehicle, not of the car in the middle.

[John F. Eldredge]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:20:58 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

>> The idea is that the other guy's insurance company pays out that one
>> big one. At least that's how it works in a jurisdiction that hasn't
>> hopelessly fucked with how automobile insurance works. I suppose that
>> in a no-fault insurance state, your insurance company might jack up
>> your premiums if you file a claim after being rear-ended. That would
>> be a pretty strong sign that it is time to change insurance companies.
>>

> In places where insurance companies do that sort of thing, they _all_ do
> the same. So good luck with that.

I can say, from personal experience, that if you have to file a claim on
your car insurance because you were back-ended by a hit-and-run driver,
your rates go WAY up. Fortunately, they eventually went back down again.

[Brian M. Scott]

On 3 Jul 2015 03:53:47 GMT, "John F. Eldredge"
<jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote
in<news:cvmfaa...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> That station wagon was a brute, with an empty weight of
> 5500 pounds (2.5 tons).

2.75

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[John F. Eldredge]

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 00:45:00 -0400, Brian M. Scott wrote:

> On 3 Jul 2015 03:53:47 GMT, "John F. Eldredge"
> <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote in<news:cvmfaa...@mid.individual.net> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
>> That station wagon was a brute, with an empty weight of 5500 pounds
>> (2.5 tons).
>
> 2.75
>
> Brian

Yes, a few minutes after I posted that, I realized that my off-the-cuff
conversion was wrong. Oops!

[Gene Wirchenko]

On 3 Jul 2015 15:40:07 GMT, "John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 00:45:00 -0400, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>> On 3 Jul 2015 03:53:47 GMT, "John F. Eldredge"
>> <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote in<news:cvmfaa...@mid.individual.net> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> That station wagon was a brute, with an empty weight of 5500 pounds
>>> (2.5 tons).
>>
>> 2.75

>Yes, a few minutes after I posted that, I realized that my off-the-cuff
>conversion was wrong. Oops!

It is rather close if converting to metric tons.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[lal_truckee]

On 7/2/15 8:53 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> On the other hand, the time a Toyota pickup truck back-ended my Chevy
> Caprice station wagon, it slightly bent my bumper, but broke the engine
> block in the pickup truck. That station wagon was a brute, with an empty
> weight of 5500 pounds (2.5 tons).

When we had our first baby I moved the wife out of her VW beetle into a
massive middle aged Ford wagon with belts and car seat, theoretically
for safety.
The wife found Cadillac to hit.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote in

news:cvmf3f...@mid.individual.net:

> probably dying instantly.
>
One would hope, for the bird's sake.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote in

news:cvmfdp...@mid.individual.net:

I suspect it gets complicated, and varies by state (and combination
of insurance companies).

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote in

news:cvmfl1F...@mid.individual.net:

Where you are.

[Anthony Nance]

John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:09:28 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in
>> news:bqs1oatd81hq29vkm...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:47:11 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in
>>>>news:redvna5a7cng5st79...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> [snip]

On a long vacation trip, we were driving on a straight
stretch of rural highway when, a hundred yards away, we
saw two birds in our lane, one to the left and one to
the right, with one about five feet farther down the road
than the other. As we approached, no movement, no movement,
no movement ... my friend swerved the car mildly to avoid
them at the last second, which was just enough to screw up
the birds' escape plans and he hit them both.

It was on this same trip that we went through an exceedingly
dense gnat storm - so dense that there were remains of dozens
of gnats on the radio antenna.

Tony

[William December Starr]

In article <mnggsm$ogd$1...@dont-email.me>,

na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) said:

> It was on this same trip that we went through an
> exceedingly dense gnat storm - so dense that there
> were remains of dozens of gnats on the radio antenna.

Now we're bordering on "The Birds" territory -- what radio
message were they so determined that you not receive?

-- wds

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:32:22 +0000 (UTC), Anthony Nance
<na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote
in<news:mnggsm$ogd$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> It was on this same trip that we went through an
> exceedingly dense gnat storm - so dense that there were
> remains of dozens of gnats on the radio antenna.

On a bike ride a few years ago we went through a couple of
low spots where the damned things were so thick that one
literally couldn’t breathe. Bleagh.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 13 June 2015 23:56:01 UTC+1, lal_truckee wrote:
> On 6/13/15 2:40 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> > I think the real trick is that one cannot generalize from such a
> > small data set. Each accident must be examined individually.
>
> I dearly hope the self-driving car developers don't make the grievous
> error of attempting to read meaning into flashing turn signals.

I don't remember if I've raised this before, but,
how much gasoline does that turn signal burn?
I mean, each time it ignites? Since, around here -
central Scotland - cars mostly don't use them when
waiting at junctions; only when they start moving.
So I suppose it's dangerous to use when stationary.

Anyway, the Google car recognises hand signals as of 2014
according to
<http://www.gizmag.com/google-self-driving-car-video-cyclists/31821/>

> Also are self-driving car developers going to take advantage of
> profiling? Everybody knows beamer drivers are self-righteous pricks who
> think the traffic laws and rules of road courtesy don't apply to them.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 20:15:37 UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> > If you're close enough that you can't stop in time, no matter how
> > hard the car in front of you hits the brakes, you're too close.
> > That's the basis of the legal reality, and it has some merit (even
> > if it's not always practical).

Laws of physics. Space and time. In this case
it doesn't take Einstein.

> Last time I rearended someone, it was because I was shoved into them
> by the car rear-ending *me*. Avoid that one. (I got a whiplash).

You probably could have done it on your own.
The correct safety margin is if the car in
front hits an invisible brick wall then you
have time to stop - like the truck doesn't
in the titles of _Under The Dome_.

Granted, when a car hits you from behind,
your occupancy of the car probably ceases
to count as "driving", but, if they can
push you on into the /next/ car, then,
were you not too close?

...I suppose if the two cars ahead are
going at 10 mph and the one behind at 70,
then, what can you do? Except fit a
motion-sensing chaff launcher. But that
requires forethought.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 7/18/2015 1:38 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 June 2015 23:56:01 UTC+1, lal_truckee wrote:
>> On 6/13/15 2:40 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> I think the real trick is that one cannot generalize from such a
>>> small data set. Each accident must be examined individually.
>>
>> I dearly hope the self-driving car developers don't make the grievous
>> error of attempting to read meaning into flashing turn signals.
>
> I don't remember if I've raised this before, but,
> how much gasoline does that turn signal burn?
> I mean, each time it ignites? Since, around here -
> central Scotland - cars mostly don't use them when
> waiting at junctions; only when they start moving.
> So I suppose it's dangerous to use when stationary.
>

A quick-n-dirty search indicates that most car turn signals bulbs are
about 20 watts. So how much gas does it take to power a pair of 20 watt
bulbs? I suspect the answer is "not much".

As for it being dangerous to use turn signals when stationary, drivers
here in the US routinely use them when stationary and I'm not aware of
any reports of cars spontaneously bursting into flames as a result.

--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

[J. Clarke]

In article <55abf9d1$0$36584$742e...@news.sonic.net>, dtr...@sonic.net
says...

One of my ex girlfriends never used turn signals because she was afraid
of running the battery down. I really don't know where people the the
ideas they do about turn signals.

[Cryptoengineer]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:5c5d6258-1ce0-47bc...@googlegroups.com:

Since we're talking about an accident I had, I can supply
some more detail.

This was on Rt 2 in Massachusetts, eastbound, at the first
stoplight for 40 miles - Rt2 isn't quite an interstate;
its a 'super 2', 2 lanes each direction but occasional
traffic controls, and a scattering of very non-highway
appropriate intersections, driveways, and sometimes (this
was such a case) poor sight lines.

In this case, the red light was invisible from the point
the traffic had backed up to, round a bend, under an
overpass, and over a hill It was raining, and the road was
slick.

I came over the top and saw the (very unusual) traffic
at a dead stop in front of me. I managed an emergency stop,
but was immediately plowed into by the car behind me, which
didn't. It pushed me into car in front - I'm sure the
slickness of the road contributed to its inablility to stop,
and my car's sliding after it was hit.

I was hit hard enough that I had whiplash to the point of
having to take a day off work, and see a doctor. I had a
neckbrace for a few days. The car remained driveable, and
the airbag did not go off, which demonstrates that I and
my car absorbed nearly all the energy.

It's easy to second guess, and say that I stopped to close,
but it was an emergency stop, and a successful one. The
guy behind me was held 100% at fault, and I was held blameless.

pt

[Greg Goss]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>One of my ex girlfriends never used turn signals because she was afraid
>of running the battery down. I really don't know where people the the
>ideas they do about turn signals.

My motor scooter has been in the shop about as much as it's been in my
garage. After the second time they replaced the computer, my signals
no longer turn off when the key is off. If the steering lock is on,
opening the seat-trunk presses on the turn signal control, often
leaving the signals running. If it's daytime, I might not notice the
signals running as I walk away.

My turn signals have run the battery down twice. And until I
installed an access wire, you need a 10 mm driver to get at the
battery. Sigh.

But not while driving. As my brother once said (after his wife died
and he tried dating an ex-GF from way back): "There are reasons that
exes are exes."

[Robert Bannister]

I would imagine almost all drivers of cars waiting to turn at an
intersection use their indicators while stationary. The main problem is
that drivers in my city don't seem to know what the indicators are for.

[Robert Bannister]

On 20/07/2015 3:56 am, J. Clarke wrote:

> One of my ex girlfriends never used turn signals because she was afraid
> of running the battery down. I really don't know where people the the
> ideas they do about turn signals.
>

When we were getting our bus ready to travel round the world, one of my
foolish friends left me in charge of the wiring. It looked very pretty
with all the interior lights and the headlights all winking on and off.
They didn't give me electrical jobs after that.

[Greg Goss]

In my 1971 Toyota pickup, the fuse box was in an awkward position and
the spaces BETWEEN the clips were about the same size as the spaces
within the clips.

After one fuse change, I drove off happily until my first turn. The
dome light would flash in time to the turn signal.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:15:04 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:

>This was on Rt 2 in Massachusetts, eastbound, at the first
>stoplight for 40 miles - Rt2 isn't quite an interstate;
>its a 'super 2', 2 lanes each direction but occasional
>traffic controls, and a scattering of very non-highway
>appropriate intersections, driveways, and sometimes (this
>was such a case) poor sight lines.

Where, the bend at the foot of the long hill into Cambridge?




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Gene Wirchenko]

"Flash Bannister" has a nice ring to it.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Jerry Brown]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:10:13 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

<snip>

>I would imagine almost all drivers of cars waiting to turn at an
>intersection use their indicators while stationary. The main problem is
>that drivers in my city don't seem to know what the indicators are for.

Supplying information to the enemy

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

[Scott Lurndal]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 20:15:37 UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> > If you're close enough that you can't stop in time, no matter how
>> > hard the car in front of you hits the brakes, you're too close.
>> > That's the basis of the legal reality, and it has some merit (even
>> > if it's not always practical).
>
>Laws of physics. Space and time. In this case
>it doesn't take Einstein.
>
>> Last time I rearended someone, it was because I was shoved into them
>> by the car rear-ending *me*. Avoid that one. (I got a whiplash).
>
>You probably could have done it on your own.
>The correct safety margin is if the car in
>front hits an invisible brick wall then you
>have time to stop - like the truck doesn't
>in the titles of _Under The Dome_.
>
>Granted, when a car hits you from behind,
>your occupancy of the car probably ceases
>to count as "driving", but, if they can
>push you on into the /next/ car, then,
>were you not too close?

Not if, as was the case for me on new years eve day
back in 1987, one is waiting at
a red light when one is struck from behind.