Come on, whose fault is this?

[Degner]

Whilst I realise many may not agree, I blame the red car for totally inappropriate speed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229163/He...

[sebhaque]

I blame the Passat for being a knob and not letting anybody out + blocking the road

That red car - Civic? Polo? did seem to be piling it down the road though.

[onesickpuppy]

I'm 100% with you, totally inappropriate speed but I can't see how anyone would disagree.

[trickywoo]

Red car was going crazy fast for the situation.

[Dave Hedgehog]

whose going to argue with that, the red car driver is a prick of the highest order driving that fast in such heavy traffic

[PinkFatBunny]

Red car - far too fast for a street like that.

[Pixelpeep]

Degner said:

Whilst I realise many may not agree, I blame the red car for totally inappropriate speed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229163/He...

you know what, i REFUSE to sit through 30 seconds of advert for a 2 minute clip. Internet advertising is, like TV, starting to drag everything down.

Imagine hovering over the channel changer on your Sky remote and a little add starts running 'thinking of changing channel? why not try our new superchanger - take the stress out of changing channel...' blah blah blah.

and i have to PAY for internet access. it'd be like the BBC showing adverts as well as having a licence. ARRRRGHHHHHH.

</pointless rant that had nothing to do with the topic>

[KevinA4quattro]

Two people to blame here. The red car driver (too fast for the conditions) and the pedestrian. Why try and cross a busy road by emerging from between parked cars? I am sure there must be a pedestrian crossing near.

[R8Steve]

The woman - for leaving the pavement while unsafe to do so

The red car did nothing to help the situation of course

[whitecobra]

Both! The red car was driving above what i would class acceptable for the situation, but ultimately it was the silver car's decision that caused the accident. He clearly didn't have sufficient visibility to pull out.


If i was basing this purely from an insurance point of view i would put my money on the red car winning. The red car had priority and it's at the silver car's own risk to pull into a major road from a minor.

[judas]

PinkFatBunny said:

Red car - far too fast for a street like that.

This. It's nobbers like who hand so many easy wins to the anti-car brigade.

[:J:]

Surely the silver car is at fault?

Give way markings.
Pulled out.
Hit a car.

The behaviour of others may have contributed and people have rightly pointed out their behaviour can be attributed through blame, but as far as fault goes, I believe it is with silver car? No silver car pulling out, no crash (maybe, we will never know).

[judas]

:J: said:

Surely the silver car is at fault?

Contributed possibly, but even if he hadn't been there there's no way the red car would have stopped in time anyhow.

[Motorrad]

Pixelpeep said:

you know what, i REFUSE to sit through 30 seconds of advert for a 2 minute clip. Internet advertising is, like TV, starting to drag everything down.

Imagine hovering over the channel changer on your Sky remote and a little add starts running 'thinking of changing channel? why not try our new superchanger - take the stress out of changing channel...' blah blah blah.

and i have to PAY for internet access. it'd be like the BBC showing adverts as well as having a licence. ARRRRGHHHHHH.

</pointless rant that had nothing to do with the topic>

I don't see any of the adverts you're talking about. Probably because I use an ad-blocker.

[Chapppers]

Pixelpeep said:

and i have to PAY for internet access. it'd be like the BBC showing adverts as well as having a licence. ARRRRGHHHHHH.

</pointless rant that had nothing to do with the topic>

The Daily Mail don't get any money from your O2/Talktalk/whoever broadband subscription. Your money pays for the servers and data being sent to your house. Advertising pays for the content written by paid journalists and hosting costs of the website itself.

It is annoying, but unfortunately it's necessary. Just press mute and look at a different tab. Do some work maybe?

[Pixelpeep]

Motorrad said:

I don't see any of the adverts you're talking about. Probably because I use an ad-blocker.

its if you scroll down to watch the video, its imbedded in the video. you click play, you get advert first.

[TITWONK]

Pixelpeep said:

you know what, i REFUSE to sit through 30 seconds of advert for a 2 minute clip. Internet advertising is, like TV, starting to drag everything down.

Imagine hovering over the channel changer on your Sky remote and a little add starts running 'thinking of changing channel? why not try our new superchanger - take the stress out of changing channel...' blah blah blah.

and i have to PAY for internet access. it'd be like the BBC showing adverts as well as having a licence. ARRRRGHHHHHH.

</pointless rant that had nothing to do with the topic>

as do I! forcing me to watch their st adverts. its a load of bks!

[furtive]

Motorrad said:

I don't see any of the adverts you're talking about. Probably because I use an ad-blocker.

Have you watched the video clip?

[:J:]

judas said:

:J: said:

Surely the silver car is at fault?

Contributed possibly, but even if he hadn't been there there's no way the red car would have stopped in time anyhow.

You are just making things up now?

[judas]

:J: said:

judas said:

:J: said:

Surely the silver car is at fault?

Contributed possibly, but even if he hadn't been there there's no way the red car would have stopped in time anyhow.

You are just making things up now?

Go look at the video again and tell me that red car was going slow enough to stop in the space the silver car took up behind the other queing traffic.