Still getting over it

[KatherineB]

Dear Little Miss ABC-1234

I am delighted that your text conversation was so important to you that you, who were stopped behind a car waiting to turn, decided to as long as you flashed your indicator once, that absolved you of the responsibility of doing a head-check and actually looking to see if anyone might actually driving at 60kph in the neighbouring lane.

Thanks only to the fact that I have excellent brake pads - and I almost had to put my entire (and very substantial it is too) body weight on the brake pedal to have them kick in in time - and that I was able to steer into the gutter (almost mounting it) I avoided having your car to wear as a shiny new hood ornament on my own vehicle.

If you're wondering why I didn't sound my horn, it's because I had a choice between that and preventing what would have been a particularly costly accident for you and your insurance company. Luckily for you, I chose the latter. I hope you noticed my friendly 'wave' as I went past you some blocks further on.

Dear CS readers, should the number plate I have mentioned above happen to mean anything to anyone, feel free to tell the little bitch that she owes me a new pair of underwear and new brake pads at the very least. Feel free also to warn her that I am very likely to dob her in to the police for using her mobile phone while driving. While that fine is likely to be less than the excess of her insurance would have been had I not been able to avoid the accident, I live in hope that she might think twice next time.

Heading off for that change of underwear now,

A very pissed-off KB

[emax4]

In the US, at least here in Pennsylvania, I'm understanding that if person B hits person A from behind, person B is always at fault as they should have their vehicle under control. If alcohol is detected in person A's vehicle, I don't know if person A is automatically at fault or what. I would at least hope the same principle applies to those who are texting while driving, even if they're stopped at a stoplight. Glad you're okay though.

[LillFilly]

In the US, at least here in Pennsylvania, I'm understanding that if person B hits person A from behind, person B is always at fault as they should have their vehicle under control.

It might depend. If they prove she was texting while moving, that's illegal. Also, usually at the lights you're in lanes with solid white lines; she would be at fault if she had changed lanes there.

Invest in a dash cam or recording sunglasses!

Glad you survived. Hope your underwear are ok!

[KatherineB]

The law in Victoria says this:

"Whenever you change lanes from one marked lane or line of traffic to another, you must give way to vehicles already in that lane or line of traffic. This includes crossing over any broken line marked on the road which indicates that a lane ends, for example when merging into freeway traffic."

I don't think I would have hit the rear of her car. It's much more likely my front driver's corner would have taken out her front or rear passenger door, which would certainly have proved who was at fault.

That said, if I am wrong in this, I would be happy for other Victorian drivers to correct me.

[sms001]

gah! Glad you're ok, and kudos for being heads-up enough to prevent the accident.

I'm guessing it would have been faulted to Miss Texter. The rule of thumb emax noted is for two cars in the same lane. (Usually cited as FTC; following too closely.) Rereading your original, I gather that there were at least two lanes of traffic. You are in one, and Texter is in the other behind someone. She decides to go around the stopped car, hits her turn signal, then pulls around without checking the lane she's pulling into ---yours. DEFINITELY her fault.
But it doesn't matter who gets hit with the claim, the hassle of repairs, injuries, etc. means those of us who, you know, take responsibility for themselves and others when driving now have to be more alert than ever before 'cause the clueless have a new way to distract themselves.

[wolfie]

OP did something a lot of trucking companies tell their drivers NOT to do - take sudden evasive action to avoid colliding with a moron. While it's not as bad in a car (but mounting the curb is still a BAD THING), it creates the risk of losing control and possibly rolling over while the doofus who caused it drives off without a scratch. Safer (for the trucker) to hit the idiot and take minor damage to the front corner of the truck.

[Lace Neil Singer]

My first motorbike accident was caused by a dickhead who was too busy blabbering on his mobile phone to notice that he was driving on the wrong side of the road. Basically, he drove at speed round a blind corner on the wrong side and it was only by swerving to the left that I avoided certain death in a head on collision to his penis extension car. And later on, he tried to put the blame on to me by saying I'd ridden my bike right at him. Yeah, cuz I really didn't want to stay alive, actually.

[PepperElf]

It might depend. If they prove she was texting while moving, that's illegal. Also, usually at the lights you're in lanes with solid white lines; she would be at fault if she had changed lanes there.

Invest in a dash cam or recording sunglasses!

Glad you survived. Hope your underwear are ok!

I heard about a story on the news over the summer. A motorcyclist sued the driver and the driver's girlfriend for the accident that took his legs.

The driver, because he was answering a text, and the girlfriend who sent the text - under the notion that she should have known he was driving.

He lost the judgement against the girlfriend (cos it's clearly not her fault the guy didn't pull over first) but he sure as hell won the suit against the driver.