Break checked and crashed

[chic0821]

And then to try to overtake with no room!!! Plonker.

You can't call him that I was chastised on an earlier post for calling him an idiot

 

[markjay]

For the record... I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the school of thought that says that the Audi driver did nothing wrong.

Here's my analysis of events.....

The OP was driving behind the Audi. The Audi was signaling left (and, presumably, so was the OP). The Audi then brakes hard.

There have been three suggestions as to why the Audi driver applied the brakes:

1. The Audi driver got confused and changed his mind (very poor driving, and dangerous, but not malicious).

2. The Audi driver reacted instinctively to the OP's flashing (very poor driving, and dangerous, but not malicious).

3. The Audi driver decided (for whatever reason) to test-brake the OP (very poor driving, dangerous and malicious). This is what the OP thinks happened.

Now here's where the OP's troubles started. He was either too close to stop safely and had no choice but to swerve right, meaning he had already made the mistake of not keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front of him (let's call it mistake 1a), or he just decided to embark on a maneuver to overtake the stopped Audi, which is wrong because he should have slowed-down and stopped behind the Audi, possibly sounding tbe horn to indicate to the Audi driver that it is dangerous for both of them to be stopped in the slip road in this way (let's call it mistake 1b).

Next, we see the OP speed-up into the traffic cones. The OP is saying that he could not complete the overtaking manoeuvre because the Audi was now accelerating alongside him and wouldn't let him get on the slip road. We can't see in the video what the Audi was doing, but the OP's version sounds very plausible.

So why did the Audi driver 'push' the OP off the slip road? I can't help but think of a malicious act, either that, or the Audi driver was high on something. But there's no innocent explanation here... The OP was at this point well ahead of the Audi driver, who must have seen him, and the OP was going quite fast as well, meaning that the Audi had to accelerate very hard from standstill in order to be able to successfully block the OP's path.

This is quite consistent with the OP's assertion that the Audi driver acted maliciously. It seems that he stopped in front of the OP, and when tbe OP tried to overtake he deliberately and aggressively blocked the OP's path pushing him back on to the main road.

At this point we may wonder why the OP didn't abort the overtaking maneuver and fell-back behind the now-speeding Audi? The OP is saying that there was another car behind him driving at speed, and slowing-down or stopping on the inner lane was not a safe option. We can't see the other car in the video, but we can accept the OP's version of events. The key point here is that if the OP hasn't made mistake 1 (either 1a or 1b), he would not have found himself in this difficult position now.

The reason that 1b (a voluntary overtaking manoeuvre instead of stopping behind the Audi) was a mistake, is that even if the Audi remained where it was and didn't speed-up (as the OP claimshe did), the OP's manoeuvre of accelerating and overtaking the Audi before the reaching the traffic cones was always going to be boy-racer behaviour, an attempt at a very tight manoeuvre not befitting a safe, mature and responsible driver.

Next, the OP made the mistake of trying to complete the overtaking manoeuvre at all cost, instead of the safer option of continuing on the main road (and missing the turn). Let's call it mistake 2.

In conclusion, I am willing to accept that on the balance of probabilities the Audi driver did act maliciously, as the OP suggested, but even so, the Audi driver was only able to cause the OP to crash into the traffic cones because of the two mistakes that the OP did. Had the OP done only mistake 1 he would have still been fine, but having made both mistake 1 and mistake 2 he ran out of options and crashed.

In other words, hard as the Audi driver might try, he would not have been able to cause a safe driver to crash. The OP took the bait and responded to the Audi's bad driving with some poor driving of his own. On the plus side, the OP seems to be listening to what we are saying, and learning from this experience.

As for the insurer... had the Audi suffered any damage (which it did not), I am guessing this would have gone knock-for-knock.

 

[ChrisHGTV]

For the record... I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the school of thought that says that the Audi driver did nothing wrong.

Here's my analysis of events.....

The OP was driving behind the Audi. The Audi was signaling left (and, presumably, so was the OP). The Audi then brakes hard.

There have been three suggestions as to why the Audi driver applied the brakes:

1. The Audi driver got confused and changed his mind (very poor driving, and dangerous, but not malicious).

2. The Audi driver reacted instinctively to the OP's flashing (very poor driving, and dangerous, but not malicious).

3. The Audi driver decided (for whatever reason) to test-brake the OP (very poor driving, dangerous malicious). This is what the OP thinks happened.

Now heres where the OP's troubles started. He was either too close to stop safely and had no choice but to swerve right, meaning he had already made the mistake of not keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front of him (let's call it mistake 1a), or he just decided to embark on a maneuver to overtake the stopped Audi, which is wrong because he should have slowed-down and stopped behind the Audi, possibly sounding tbe horn to indicate to the Audi driver that it is dangerous for both of them to be stopped in the slip road in this way (let's call it mistake 1b).

Next, we see the OP speed-up into the cones. The OP is saying that he could not complete the overtaking manoeuvre because the Audi was now accelerating alongside him and wouldn't let him get on tne slip road. We can't in the video what the Audi was doing, but the OP's version sounds very plausible.

So why did the Audi driver 'push' the OP off the slip road? I can't help but think of a malicious act, either that or the Audi driver was high on something. But there's no innocent explanation here... The OP was at this point well ahead of the Audi driver, who must have seen him, and he was going quite fast, meaning the Audi had to accelerate real hard from standstill in order to be able to successfully block the OP.

This is quite consistent with the OP's assertion that the Audi driver acted maliciously. It seems that he stopped in front of the OP and when tbe OP tried to overtake him he deliberately and aggressively blocked the OP's path pushing him back on to the main road.

At this point we may wonder why the OP didn't abort the overtaking maneuver and fell-back behind tbe speeding Audi? The OP is saying that there was another car behind him driving at speed, and slowing-down or stopping was not a safe option. We can't see the other car in the video, but we can accept the OP's version of events. The key point here is that if the OP hasn't made mistake 1 (1a or 1b), he would not have found himself in this difficult position.

The reason that 1b (a voluntary overtaking manoeuvre instead of stopping behind the Audi) was a mistake, is that even if the Audi remained where it was, the OP's manoeuvre of speeding-up and overtaking the Audi before the reaching the cones was always going to be a boy-racer behaviour, an attempt at a very tight manoeuvre not befitting a safe, mature and responsible driver.

Next, the OP made the mistake of trying to complete the overtaking manoeuvre at all cost, instead of the safer option of continuing on the main road (and missing the turn). Let's call it mistake 2.

In conclusion, I am willing to accept that on the balance of probabilities the Audi driver did act maliciously, but even so, he was only able to cause the OP to crash into the traffic cones because of the two mistakes that the OP did. Had the OP done only mistake 1 he would have still been fine, but having made both mistake 1 and mistake 2 he ran out of options and crashed.

In other words, hard as the Audi driver might try, he would not have been able to cause a safe driver to crash. The OP took the bait and responded to the Audi's bad driving with some poor driving of his own. On the plus side, the OP seems to be listening to what we say and learning from this experience.

As for the insurer... had the Audi suffered any damage (which it did not), I am guessing this would have gone knock-for-knock.

Yes, in my experience when things go wrong, they go wrong quickly, hence always better to ensure there is space which provides time. Increasing speed towards or reducing the distance to a hazard (in this case the Audi) is seldom the best option. But most people make mistakes, learning from them is the key.

 

[Deleted member 108742]

For the record... I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the school of thought that says that the Audi driver did nothing wrong.

Here's my analysis of events.....

The OP was driving behind the Audi. The Audi was signaling left (and, presumably, so was the OP). The Audi then brakes hard.

There have been three suggestions as to why the Audi driver applied the brakes:

1. The Audi driver got confused and changed his mind (very poor driving, and dangerous, but not malicious).

2. The Audi driver reacted instinctively to the OP's flashing (very poor driving, and dangerous, but not malicious).

3. The Audi driver decided (for whatever reason) to test-brake the OP (very poor driving, dangerous and malicious). This is what the OP thinks happened.

Now here's where the OP's troubles started. He was either too close to stop safely and had no choice but to swerve right, meaning he had already made the mistake of not keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front of him (let's call it mistake 1a), or he just decided to embark on a maneuver to overtake the stopped Audi, which is wrong because he should have slowed-down and stopped behind the Audi, possibly sounding tbe horn to indicate to the Audi driver that it is dangerous for both of them to be stopped in the slip road in this way (let's call it mistake 1b).

Next, we see the OP speed-up into the traffic cones. The OP is saying that he could not complete the overtaking manoeuvre because the Audi was now accelerating alongside him and wouldn't let him get on the slip road. We can't see in the video what the Audi was doing, but the OP's version sounds very plausible.

So why did the Audi driver 'push' the OP off the slip road? I can't help but think of a malicious act, either that, or the Audi driver was high on something. But there's no innocent explanation here... The OP was at this point well ahead of the Audi driver, who must have seen him, and the OP was going quite fast as well, meaning that the Audi had to accelerate very hard from standstill in order to be able to successfully block the OP's path.

This is quite consistent with the OP's assertion that the Audi driver acted maliciously. It seems that he stopped in front of the OP, and when tbe OP tried to overtake he deliberately and aggressively blocked the OP's path pushing him back on to the main road.

At this point we may wonder why the OP didn't abort the overtaking maneuver and fell-back behind the now-speeding Audi? The OP is saying that there was another car behind him driving at speed, and slowing-down or stopping was not a safe option. We can't see the other car in the video, but we can accept the OP's version of events. The key point here is that if the OP hasn't made mistake 1 (1a or 1b), he would not have found himself in this difficult position.

The reason that 1b (a voluntary overtaking manoeuvre instead of stopping behind the Audi) was a mistake, is that even if the Audi remained where it was, the OP's manoeuvre of speeding-up and overtaking the Audi before the reaching the cones was always going to be a boy-racer behaviour, an attempt at a very tight manoeuvre not befitting a safe, mature and responsible driver.

Next, the OP made the mistake of trying to complete the overtaking manoeuvre at all cost, instead of the safer option of continuing on the main road (and missing the turn). Let's call it mistake 2.

In conclusion, I am willing to accept that on the balance of probabilities the Audi driver did act maliciously, but even so, he was only able to cause the OP to crash into the traffic cones because of the two mistakes that the OP did. Had the OP done only mistake 1 he would have still been fine, but having made both mistake 1 and mistake 2 he ran out of options and crashed.

In other words, hard as the Audi driver might try, he would not have been able to cause a safe driver to crash. The OP took the bait and responded to the Audi's bad driving with some poor driving of his own. On the plus side, the OP seems to be listening to what we say and learning from this experience.

As for the insurer... had the Audi suffered any damage (which it did not), I am guessing this would have gone knock-for-knock.

Your analysis is correct sir. A mix of mistakes and wrong judgments made in less than a second in order not to crash other vehicles but mine.

 

[markjay]

Yes, in my experience when things go wrong, they go wrong quickly, hence always better to ensure there is space which provides time. Increasing speed towards or reducing the distance to a hazard (in this case the Audi) is seldom the best option. But most people make mistakes, learning from them is the key.

Fully agree.

Also, the benefits of going slower (when it's safe to do so) are:

- You have more time to react to unfolding events.

- Even if you didn't see something coming, the slower you are moving, the more others have a better chance of avoiding you.

- Even if you didn't see it coming, and the other party didn't manage to avoid you, whatever damage or injury caused will be less severe than if you were driving faster.

 

[Deleted member 108742]

Your analysis is correct sir. A mix of mistakes and wrong judgments made in less than a second in order not to crash other vehicles but mine.

Also, wide angle lenses could distort things and enhance perspective. This means that the objects looks closer than it was.
It does look like I am very close to the audi driver but I dont think I actually was.

Speed was 60 miles an hour, as per that sector of the M1
As I said, a mix of f* ups

 

[markjay]

Your analysis is correct sir. A mix of mistakes and wrong judgments made in less than a second in order not to crash other vehicles but mine.

Alexpast, your decision - made in less than a second, as you said - to crash into the traffic cones instead of into another vehicle, was the last action in a long chain of mistakes made by all parties involved.

The Audi driver was wrong to stop, and wrong to accelerate. The car behind you was wrong to not keep a safe distance from you (thus preventing you from slowing down and falling back behind the Audi). And you made the two mistakes I mentioned in my post.

This series of unfortunate events that preceded the crash brought you to the point where you had no good options left. The key is to never allow yourself to be manoeuvred into a position where you run out of options.

 

[Deleted member 108742]

Alexpast, your decision - made in less than a second, as you said - to crash into the traffic cones instead of into another vehicle was the last action in a long chain of mistakes made by all parties involved.

The Audi driver was wrong to stop, and wrong to accelerate. The car behind you was wrong to not keep a safe distance from you (thus preventing you from slowing down and falling back behind the Audi). And you made the two mistakes I mentioned in my post.

This series of unfortunate events that preceded the crash brought you to the point where you had no good options left. The key is to never allow yourself to be manoeuvred into a position where you run out of options.

Appreciate it, thank you

 

[HB]

For the record... I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the school of thought that says that the Audi driver did nothing wrong.

Here's my analysis of events.....

The OP was driving behind the Audi. The Audi was signaling left (and, presumably, so was the OP). The Audi then brakes hard.

There have been three suggestions as to why the Audi driver applied the brakes:

1. The Audi driver got confused and changed his mind (very poor driving, and dangerous, but not malicious).

2. The Audi driver reacted instinctively to the OP's flashing (very poor driving, and dangerous, but not malicious).

3. The Audi driver decided (for whatever reason) to test-brake the OP (very poor driving, dangerous and malicious). This is what the OP thinks happened.

Now here's where the OP's troubles started. He was either too close to stop safely and had no choice but to swerve right, meaning he had already made the mistake of not keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front of him (let's call it mistake 1a), or he just decided to embark on a maneuver to overtake the stopped Audi, which is wrong because he should have slowed-down and stopped behind the Audi, possibly sounding tbe horn to indicate to the Audi driver that it is dangerous for both of them to be stopped in the slip road in this way (let's call it mistake 1b).

Next, we see the OP speed-up into the traffic cones. The OP is saying that he could not complete the overtaking manoeuvre because the Audi was now accelerating alongside him and wouldn't let him get on the slip road. We can't see in the video what the Audi was doing, but the OP's version sounds very plausible.

So why did the Audi driver 'push' the OP off the slip road? I can't help but think of a malicious act, either that, or the Audi driver was high on something. But there's no innocent explanation here... The OP was at this point well ahead of the Audi driver, who must have seen him, and the OP was going quite fast as well, meaning that the Audi had to accelerate very hard from standstill in order to be able to successfully block the OP's path.

This is quite consistent with the OP's assertion that the Audi driver acted maliciously. It seems that he stopped in front of the OP, and when tbe OP tried to overtake he deliberately and aggressively blocked the OP's path pushing him back on to the main road.

At this point we may wonder why the OP didn't abort the overtaking maneuver and fell-back behind the now-speeding Audi? The OP is saying that there was another car behind him driving at speed, and slowing-down or stopping on the inner lane was not a safe option. We can't see the other car in the video, but we can accept the OP's version of events. The key point here is that if the OP hasn't made mistake 1 (either 1a or 1b), he would not have found himself in this difficult position now.

The reason that 1b (a voluntary overtaking manoeuvre instead of stopping behind the Audi) was a mistake, is that even if the Audi remained where it was and didn't speed-up (as the OP claimshe did), the OP's manoeuvre of accelerating and overtaking the Audi before the reaching the traffic cones was always going to be boy-racer behaviour, an attempt at a very tight manoeuvre not befitting a safe, mature and responsible driver.

Next, the OP made the mistake of trying to complete the overtaking manoeuvre at all cost, instead of the safer option of continuing on the main road (and missing the turn). Let's call it mistake 2.

In conclusion, I am willing to accept that on the balance of probabilities the Audi driver did act maliciously, as the OP suggested, but even so, the Audi driver was only able to cause the OP to crash into the traffic cones because of the two mistakes that the OP did. Had the OP done only mistake 1 he would have still been fine, but having made both mistake 1 and mistake 2 he ran out of options and crashed.

In other words, hard as the Audi driver might try, he would not have been able to cause a safe driver to crash. The OP took the bait and responded to the Audi's bad driving with some poor driving of his own. On the plus side, the OP seems to be listening to what we are saying, and learning from this experience.

As for the insurer... had the Audi suffered any damage (which it did not), I am guessing this would have gone knock-for-knock.

The Audi driver hit his brakes as he saw the OP flashing his lights at him. Lots of plonkers have the same reaction to flashing lights.

 

[Deleted member 108742]

Op is posting this on other websites to try and find somebody who says it was the Audi drivers fault, but alas to no avail so far.

Ehm, so? I asked for opinions, not trying to find somebody to say it was the audi driver's fault. Grow up perhaps?

 

[Deleted member 126251]

............

This series of unfortunate events that preceded the crash ................

Pretty much the norm for any accident ....it is not usually one event but a series of events that leads the accident.

 

[Peter S]

Has the video been deleted now? I’ve watched it a few times and I can’t help thinking it was the OPs fault. I think he should have regulated speed and stayed in lane behind the Audi. I’m not sure it really matters how the Audi was behaving to be honest, you have to drive defensively at all times.

The video has been deleted, but it’s available here still:

imgur.com

Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users.

imgur.com

No idea why the OP flashed the headlights - the Audi had been in that lane for ages. OP swooped from outside lane to the slip road, flashed the headlights and spooked the Audi as far as I can see. OP also had nowhere to go, though hard braking would, I think, have avoided it. In fact, I’m pretty sure that my car would already have slammed the brakes on itself if I’d tried such a manoeuvre!

 

[BPD07]

Having seen the video, I’m sorry OP it’s all down to your aggressiveness. The Audi driver probably panicked when you flashed them for no other reason than they were going to slow for you - you then tried a poorly judged overtake and drove into the cones rather than return to the motorway. Your insurance will pay out but I’d lose the camera evidence.

Having said that, you had milliseconds to make the decisions you made, and when you ran out of options you choose the best course - so well done. It if you’d just matched speeds and stayed behind them with no flashing it could possibly all have been avoided. There goes any of us though.

 

[m80]

I see no evidence that the Audi actually stopped. A brake test can be no more than enough application of brakes to 'remind' the following driver to allow a safe distance.
I generally use my hazard warning indicators for that as it is safer.

As I looked at the video Alex wasn't aggressively close earlier on as he dropped behind the Audi. During the flashing lights / brake test (if that is what it was) Alex could have applied his brakes, the following vehicle may have been close but that would demonstrate that Alex had earlier 'slotted in'.

Asking for 'opinions' Alex, I conclude you intentionally attempted to overtake the Audi when you needn't have.
In your defence I would also have been angry at the behaviour of the Audi driver and on a bad day may well have grown red horns because.

I hope I can remember your expensive , and thankfully not physically painful, outcome should I find myself in a similar situation.


I wrote on here my experience going north on the M6 recently of clowns racing for little spaces and a van pushing at my rear bumper following a serious accident hold up on the south carriageway. We had all seen the mangled wreckage but some were still apparently indestructible.
I have been questioning my use of our roads at busy times. I feel there is more aggression out there, and that increases risks to me even if I'm trying to stay away from it.
Recently there seems to be a few wagon / car / van type smashes, usually inner lane events.
As I've said previously I find when I drive south this is more apparent, but it's migrating.
W/o the near non existent policing it can't be beaten, so I now wonder how to avoid being there.

 

[renault12ts]

Alexpast, your decision - made in less than a second, as you said - to crash into the traffic cones instead of into another vehicle, was the last action in a long chain of mistakes made by all parties involved.

The Audi driver was wrong to stop, and wrong to accelerate. The car behind you was wrong to not keep a safe distance from you (thus preventing you from slowing down and falling back behind the Audi). And you made the two mistakes I mentioned in my post.

This series of unfortunate events that preceded the crash brought you to the point where you had no good options left. The key is to never allow yourself to be manoeuvred into a position where you run out of options.

Very generous of you MJ...but...I don't see the Audi stop, merely brake. I don't see the Audi accelerate...we only have the OP's word for that and we are being asked to comment on the video. We do not see a car behind, again only the OP's word for that.
We do see a move from lane 3 to 1 and the OP flashing the Audi for no apparent reason. OP's fault. Malicious flashing caused this. The OP should be glad this type of flashing is not an arrestable offence.

 

[m80]

Maybe Alex could explain why he felt the need to flash.
But tbh I see no reason for the Audi to brake 'just because' he was flashed.
I can't count a 1/2 second between the Audi and Alex pre flash, so he was far too close, but it still seems possible for Alex to have braked out of the situation.

Had the Audi driver merely decelerated, no issue.
Had Alex braked hard, aside from the possible following vehicle - no issue.

I gotta wonder if the Audi had an expensive issue with his motor and writing it off on some one else's insurance was his intent. But there are a few thousand scenarios could be applied.

 

[markjay]

...I don't see the Audi stop, merely brake. I don't see the Audi accelerate...we only have the OP's word for that and we are being asked to comment on the video. We do not see a car behind, again only the OP's word for that...

I do not disagree, but:

- My analysis was based on the OP's version of events, for practical reasons. There are obviously other possibilities.

- To be fair to the OP, his version of events is plausible, I.e. it does not require a leap of faith...

- The OP's version of events puts him in the best possible light. But even so, he had at least two chances to avoid the crash, chances that a safe and experienced driver would not have missed.

...OP's fault...

As for 'Fault', this is a term that the insurance industry uses to establish financial compensation. My view is that in real life, there's no such thing as fault, just the question of whether either party could have reasonably avoided the crash. And to my mind the answer is that they both had ample opportunities to prevent this from happening. So they are both to blame. But, of course, each person is responsible only for their own actions, so in practical terms the OP has only himself to blame. Poor drivers are all around us, what maters is not what the Audi driver did, what matters is that the OP could have reasonably avoided the crash, but didn't.

 

[Petrol Pete]

Whatever the outcome the OP's car is probably a write off.

 

[m80]

Whatever the outcome the OP's car is probably a write off.

The pride will have taken a battering too.

 

[John]

Maybe Alex could explain why he felt the need to flash.

+1 @Alexpast

Was it from an earlier incident or set of incidents?

Or was it because the Audi was perceived to be driving too slowly?

If the latter, you better get used to other drivers who do that as there are plenty!

Far better to pull into lane 1 much sooner and give drivers like the one in the Audi plenty of room.