CalgaryAMC

Wow, lucky to be alive!

Your husband is right. I would not have any discussion at the scene of an accident save to assertain whether anyone needs emergency medical attention. Nothing about this is morally right or wrong, nor is it about fairness. It's about the other person's insurance company suing you and inflating allegations to maximize their recovery. They will be neither reasonable nor fair when they are coming after you for whatever they can get. You don't want to provide any ammunition to help them do this.

anotherlimey

I think not admitting it's your fault is a requirement by some insurance companies. In the UK our company's insurance required us to do this as part of the policy.

-tom

CitySimon

Same here, If I'd had an accident and admitted fault at the scene, my insurance would have been invalid.

I was a passenger in a car a couple of months back and rear ended a minivan at a red light (the driver, my father in law, completely missed the lights). The first words out of my mouth were "don't accept responsibility to them!".

What were the first words out of his mouth when he approached the other car..... "My fault!".

I have never been afraid driving my car but some people over here definitely put me on edge!!!


I'm wordering if the worst state to drive in is The United State(s)!!!

Ash UK/US

Our insurance policy (the part we have to carry in the car) also has written on it in nice big bold letters not to admit fault.

Ash

PBC_1966

I don't see any objection to this system. In fact on many modern European cars there is a tiny amber signal surrounded by a much larger red brake light in the same lens assembly, and in bright daylight it's actually quite difficult to make out the flashing amber signal when the brakes are applied at the same time. You don't get that problem with combined brake/turn signals.

There is another minor advantage on those cars with twin brake/signal lights each side. If one of the two bulbs blows, you still have both a brake light and a turn signal on that side of the car, just half the size. Most cars wired for independent signals only have a single turn signal bulb, so if it blows you loose the signal that side entirely.

By the way, combined brake/turn signals were permitted on British cars up until 1965, so red indicators aren't a purely American system.

CitySimon

Completely agree with the first point. I can't remember what car it is but, yeah... they have the stupid little yellow lights in the middle of the big red one.. That annoys me too!

The problem I have with the cars where the break lights themselves flash... So, when a car turns (and the driver actually decides to indicates), one brake light is solid while the other flashes...


So we agree with each other then? Combined brake lights and indicators are complete crap!


The point is that they got rid of them in Britain. The USA still has them. What did the Brits realize in 1965 that the Yanks are yet to figure out.


On a completely different subject... My car had been doing some funny things recently, so I took to the garage today to be fixed....

Guess what, I've been driving with only one of my four brakes working 100% since it passed its inspection (MOT equivelancy) in June. Thank god I changed garages!!

Bob

nice....

PBC_1966

Er, no.......

I was saying that I don't see a problem with the common-bulb arrangement and that where the comnbination brake/turn signals use two bulbs (wired parallel behind the red lens) there is a minor advantage of still having a functioning turn signal even if one filament blows.

How far out were the others? As about 80% of braking effort is on the front wheels (when driving forwards! ) if the front brakes were low on efficiency it would probably have been noticeable. And if the two front brakes weren't reasonably well matched in braking force, you would have noticed it pulling badly to one side.

CitySimon

I'm not in a state of mind to talk about the lights because I'm kind of hung-over this morning.

It was pulling to the right big time. The front drivers side brake disk was actually cracked with no pads left and the rear drivers side was not working at all (I think I got sold a lemon). The cars body and engine is great but the brakes were complete crap... $800 later , the brakes are now fantastic!

CalgaryAMC

If you lived with it daily, I suspect you would.

Is he turning? Is he braking? Is it a combination of the two? Or is one of the brake lights just out?...With the style of driving in the US (brake tapping on highways, failing to signal, etc.) , I am amazed that combination brake/turning signals are still legal here.

As for yellow indicators surrounded by a brake light - fine, that may be unsafe too, that's a separate issue.

PBC_1966

I have lived with it daily when I lived in Nebraska.

One side flashing: Turning
Both sides on solid: Braking
One side on, other side flashing: Braking & turning simultaneously.

I don't see how that can be misinterpreted.

CalgaryAMC

Nebraska: little traffic, long straight roads and slow driving (in the cities too). I've lived on the prairies myself.

Take any east coast metro area: 12 lanes of traffic, 75 miles an hour bumper to bumper, multiple lane changes occurring simultaneously on all sides, more often than not you can't see both sides of the vehicle that is either turning or braking. The split second of ambiguity of red turn/brake lights is something that - in my opinion - is unecessary and can't be afforded from a safety perspective.