C63 test drive ends with a golf in the boot!

[davidjpowell]

I was in my uncles Volvo 240 estate in Edinburgh when I was a kid, and a ford escort van did this to us. The Volvo had a towbar.

The damage to my Uncle's car was a cracked tail light. The front of the Escort was demolished with water leaking everywhere.

 

[Dizwen]

Well we've both been to the docs. My mates on prescription pain killers and told to rest. I've pulled a muscle in my shoulder/neck and told to take anti-inflammatory pain killers. Biggest thing for me was I was sat slightly leaning forward and twisted in my seat so I could see clearly up the road. time to claim?

 

[Gridlock]

No

Man up and move on.

If you're losing money because of this, then maybe, but otherwise tell all the vampire scum who'll cold call you soon trying to get you to claim to f&*% off.

 

[Rory]

What do you mean by "pretending to go"? There are circumstances when just as you go something occurs (as in the op) to make you stop. That's not pretending. The Golf driver was very clearly at fault. The only person who could have avoided this accident was the driver who stopped looking at the car in front.

I believe that many accidents could be avoided if the driver in front "controlled" the driver behind them. Starting to go when it's not clearly safe and then needing to stop again is asking for trouble. You see at traffic lights and roundabouts regularly.

Sure it goes down as 100% the fault of the driver behind, but it's still a lot of hassle for the driver in front which in many cases he could prevented.

Imagine the scene if the C63 driver had stopped looking at the Corsa and proceeded on his way because the last time he looked the Corsa had moved over but then (when he wasn't looking ) had moved back again...big bang!

Remind me of the 0-60 time of a C63? And if the Corsa was that close then he shouldn't have been thinking of pulling out.

 

[renault12ts]

I believe that many accidents could be avoided if the driver in front "controlled" the driver behind them. Starting to go when it's not clearly safe and then needing to stop again is asking for trouble. You see at traffic lights and roundabouts regularly.

Sure it goes down as 100% the fault of the driver behind, but it's still a lot of hassle for the driver in front which in many cases he could prevented.



Remind me of the 0-60 time of a C63? And if the Corsa was that close then he shouldn't have been thinking of pulling out.

Read the OP, the Corsa had moved into the overtaking lane and the C63 would have been justified in moving out, but if he had done so without constantly checking the status of the Corsa an accident would have resulted, because the Corsa then changed back to the nearside lane.

 

[Rory]

Read the OP, the Corsa had moved into the overtaking lane...

I've read the OP. It doesn't say that.

...and the C63 would have been justified in moving out,

Hmmm..."justified"? OK, in everyday cut and thrust motoring, I probably would have pulled out too. I'd like to think that in someone else's £50K+ car I'd have waited until I was more certain though and the Corsa had gone past.

...but if he had done so without constantly checking the status of the Corsa an accident would have resulted, because the Corsa then changed back to the nearside lane.

Perhaps the Corsa decided the OP wasn't going to pull out so resumed lane 1 again? Perhaps if he had pulled out the Corsa would have moved easily to lane 2 and there would have been no issue? If it was so close that the first happened or the second would have been dangerous, then it must have been *very* close, so why not just let it go past?

This is the problem with basing your decisons on other drivers' apparent intentions. You just don't know what they're going to do, hence waiting is the best course of action.

 

[timskemp]

Anyone got any stats on rear end shunts involving Mercedes? I know someone who's been hit twice, I've been hit once. Does the whole "brake assist" thing cause more abrupt stopping than the person behind may expect (I know mine can be a bit edgy on the motorway if you got straight from throttle to brake!)

 

[amgmaster]

will the dealership inform any potential customers that the car has had a knock on the back of the c63 or not when they come to sell it.

 

[timskemp]

will the dealership inform any potential customers that the car has had a knock on the back of the c63 or not when they come to sell it.

Should they? It's a second-hand car when they sell it, if repaired to standard (and being on the other parties insurance they have no reason not to) it'll be as good as new.

I've done over 100k miles after mine was repaired, no issues relating to the crash.

 

[Dizwen]

I've read the OP. It doesn't say that.

Hmmm..."justified"? OK, in everyday cut and thrust motoring, I probably would have pulled out too. I'd like to think that in someone else's £50K+ car I'd have waited until I was more certain though and the Corsa had gone past.

Perhaps the Corsa decided the OP wasn't going to pull out so resumed lane 1 again? Perhaps if he had pulled out the Corsa would have moved easily to lane 2 and there would have been no issue? If it was so close that the first happened or the second would have been dangerous, then it must have been *very* close, so why not just let it go past?

This is the problem with basing your decisons on other drivers' apparent intentions. You just don't know what they're going to do, hence waiting is the best course of action.

There's always one who, if they had been driving this never would have happened. there's always one who is better than everyone else and a far better driver. Are you happy in your ivory tower? looking down on us poor mortals?

 

[Rory]

There's always one who, if they had been driving this never would have happened. there's always one who is better than everyone else and a far better driver. Are you happy in your ivory tower? looking down on us poor mortals?

I'm not saying I wouldn't have had this accident. In fact I have.

I'm saying that that this type of accident is initiated by the person in the leading car and, as such, is almost totally preventable.

Don't forget to report it to your own insurer.

 

[nick.ged]

that junction is a nightmare, it really should be altered before more are killed there.

 

[comports]

I'm sorry Rory - I don't agree with your stance on this one.

I can't believe you are saying that "by driving along and minding your own business, it was your fault someone behind you was not paying attention to the road ahead of them"..! That's unbelievable I'm afraid.

We need to take responsibility for our own actions in life, especially when driving. I for one do not drive thinking "I won't do that because the man behind might do something silly". I give clear indication to what I intent to do and when safe, I do it.... If the man behind drives too close, or is not paying attention to the road then how can that be judged as my fault..?

After all - He also knows it is a junction and should be making sure the car in front has moved on before trying to do so..

Sorry again - but I think you being a tad hard on ALL drivers here. You can't be expected to think about what people behind you are doing when you yourself are trying to pull out onto what sounds a busy road. That's his problem to deal with.

Just my 2p worth - Sorry.

 

[NISFAN]

Having worked for the 'worlds safest company' and undergone regular driver safety instruction courses with that company, my eye's have been well and truelly opened. The company view was that ALL accidents are preventable, and that includes motor accidents being hit from behind.

At first I thought this view was absolute rubbish, how can you prevent yourslef from being hit from behind? But after doing all the driving courses and presentations by the safety officer, I realised how wrong my intial views were.

The OP's example shows our general lack of discipline (not having a go at OP, just pointing out the human factor problem). He 'assumed' the Corsa driver was moving over to let him in. Made a half move, which led to motorist behind to 'assume' the C63 was moving on. Bang. The result of two drivers assuming.

As soon as you place trust in another motorist, you leave yourself wide open to this kind of incident. Reminds me of some old geezer in a tractor waving motorists past, regardless of the fact that an articulated lorry was closing in from the other direction.

Again not having a go at the drivers involved, this is a very common issue, just hopefully opening other readers eye's.

I am glad it turned out being just a bumper bashing, it could have ended far worse being pushed into a dual carriageway.

 

[MOCAŠ]

I find myself increasingly having to 'prevent' drivers running into the back of me at traffic-light controlled roundabouts, where they seem to expect you to go through on amber (or even red, sometimes) and just hug your rear bumper trying to follow you through.

Happened to me on Saturday as I was rejoining the M25. Lights changed to amber as I was approaching them, so I slowed to stop, only to see something silver looming down on me in my rear-view mirror, apparently still accellerating. Two choices: stand my ground knowing I was in the right, and wait for the inevitable crunch - and probably be pushed into the path of traffic; or floor the accelerator to get away from him before the lights finally turned to red. Obviously I took the latter course, but I hate being forced to act against my better nature like that purely due to another driver's impatience and/or inattention.

It's rare for me to have to actually move off again like that to avoid a collision, but there have been several occasions where I've had to roll forward over the stop line to give a following driver room to pull up without running into me. Does no-one understand what an amber light means these days?

 

[comports]

Not wishing to start a war here and I do accept the theory that you could potentially prevent an accident of this nature if you are aware of the car behinds intentions but should we all succumb to what amounts to be bullying (as suggested in MOCAs' post above).

What you are saying is 'act based on what the driver behind you wants to do rather what you would normally do'..?

This is giving in to the other drivers aggression. Surely the emphasis should be on the following vehicle drivers education about road awareness rather than faulting your own. I know we are talking principle here but we cannot be held responsible for every other driver on the roads.

I'm seriously NOT trying to argue, more playing devils advocate so no offence meant to any other poster.

 

[TaffH]

I can understand NISFAN's point about putting your faith in other drivers but at the same time I am right behind comports on this one.
My first Mercedes (a gorgeous 300CE) was written off for me by a guy behind me not paying attention when the traffic in front, in the outside lane of the M6) suddenly slowed. There was no panic, I simply slowed down with everyone else. Unfortunately the guy behind was doing something other than watching the traffic and hit my car so hard it was barely capable of making it to the hard shoulder.
There is no way you can drive along the roads constantly trying to take people like that into account.

 

[Rory]

I give clear indication to what I intent to do and when safe, I do it....

...which isn't what the OP did. He started to do something, then stopped again.

It'll go down as 100% the fault of the driver behind, but if the OP had either gone, or stayed still then chances are that the accident wouldn't have happened.

I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou here - like I said earlier, I've had this accident when someone ran into the back of me.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Not wishing to start a war here and I do accept the theory that you could potentially prevent an accident of this nature if you are aware of the car behinds intentions but should we all succumb to what amounts to be bullying (as suggested in MOCAs' post above).

What you are saying is 'act based on what the driver behind you wants to do rather what you would normally do'..?

This is giving in to the other drivers aggression. Surely the emphasis should be on the following vehicle drivers education about road awareness rather than faulting your own. I know we are talking principle here but we cannot be held responsible for every other driver on the roads.

I do my best to be aware of drivers all around me - perhaps not their intentions, but certainly their position and actions. For instance, I always look in my mirrors before braking (MSM again), so that I can a) decide whether it's appropriate and b) be ready to take preemptive action if necessary. So in the above example, I was aware that there was a car some way behind me as I approached the lights, but I was also aware that he had plenty of room to stop. The problem was that he had other ideas.

I could have been pig-headed and just sat there with my brakes on, but I can guarantee that had I done so a collision would have ensued. Yes, it would have been the other driver's fault, but I'd still have been left stuck on a busy motorway roundabout in inclement weather with a damaged car and all the consequent hassle that entails, along with the risk that the other dirver might not have been insured. No thanks. It's not so much a matter of giving in to bullying, more taking evasive action to prevent another driver's actions having an adverse effect on me. Viewed from that perspective, I was taking control of the situation.

 

[comports]

I know Rory but you are assuming that their are only 2 drivers on the road at any one time. What about ALL the other drivers around you.

I agree that you should only attempt a manoeuvre (i.e. join a flow of traffic), when you believe it safe to do so, but what if you think it safe, pull away, someone in the right hand lane pulls across (someone that showed no intention or gave no signal) into lane 1, thus stopping you or making you brake to avoid that collision.? What would you suggest about the driver behind you then. Would that be avoidable by you.??