| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 103055 | 2009-09-11 00:10:00 | Full Car Licence | convair (13650) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 808708 | 2009-09-12 01:52:00 | Yep - DO NOT exceed the speed limit in any way. Don't know what it's like in Auckland but down here you don't go over at all. I failed my restricted the first time slowing down from an 80 to a 50 area, was doing around 60 when I passed the sign. Just cause you don't get a ticket doesn't mean you should drive at that speed during a test. | wratterus (105) | ||
| 808709 | 2009-09-12 02:06:00 | The guy taking the test told me so. Shouldn't be fined for that on the main road. Usually they give you 9km over the limit before they snap you. Was it near a school? AFAIK there is no discretion near schools. wainuitech: Re braking hard for the dog, is there something about no sudden stopping? Never heard of no sudden stopping law. If there is one I have broken it a few years ago. Borrowed my mates XY Falcoon was used to cars with mediocre brakes. I just what I thought touched the brakes and I got propelled into the windscreen getting a bloody nose next intersection same thing coon locks up brakes again. Even though quite old they had disks on the front and a gigantic brake booster. I there was a law against sudden stopping then bastards who tail gate and rear end you would have a defence. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 808710 | 2009-09-12 03:02:00 | wainuitech: Re braking hard for the dog, is there something about no sudden stopping? There used to be a clause, and I cant remember the exact wording - but it went something like -- you were not meant to stop suddenly to avoid hitting dogs, cats, ducks etc if it were to cause a more serious accident, Eg: only other option was swerving into oncoming Traffic. Most people though if a dog runs onto the road will stop - then sometimes followed by the rear end crash as some idiot following to close behind, not paying attention couldn't stop. Actually saw one minor accident a long time ago :groan: some woman stopped suddenly because some bird was eating a crust on the road, and she didn't want to run it over - the car behind her---------- Screeeeeechh- !smack! |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 808711 | 2009-09-12 03:53:00 | Thought as much. That's why there is following distance, two seconds or whatever. So it's always the jackass-behind-you's fault for following too closely. Another similar incident that comes to mind - what happened to my friend about two years ago. He was turning at a controlled intersection, and when the light turned yellow, the guy in front of him slammed on the brakes, causing a crash. My friend ended up charged with reckless driving. And ended up paying for the repair for both cars. (Sucks to have no insurance) We had a look deep into this and the only thing we could find is, that one should stop on a yellow light UNLESS it's not safe. The police, and later the judge didn't want to hear about any of this. |
Cato (6936) | ||
| 808712 | 2009-09-12 04:03:00 | From the Road Code (www.ltsa.govt.nz) A yellow signal means stop, unless you are so close to the intersection that you can't stop safely. |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 808713 | 2009-09-12 04:35:00 | If you slam on your brakes here to "capture" someone and have them run into you, you get the fine . It's pretty easy to tell since NO animal is given any grace if it's on a road or freeway and if it does damage to your vehicle and the owner can be found - they have to pay for all the damage and then they also get a fine for letting their animal off it's leash . It's a prima-facia citation if you rear-end another vehicle that is stopped for a traffic control device - sign/light/crosswalking pedestrian, etc - but almost all times you are usually at fault if you hit another car in the back unless the first condition exists . We call that activity "swoop-and-brake" and the insurance companies really investigate these claims with every CIS device they have available . That's why the same companies want the black boxes that are all in modern vehicles to be used for evidentiary procedures in accidents . So far it isn't gonna happen since there's the freedom of information act that forbids it . . |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 808714 | 2009-09-12 05:15:00 | From the Road Code (www.ltsa.govt.nz) When you have well crossed the pedestrian crossing and the car behind you has crossed it too... That is in no way safe. SJ, a good friend of my sister's died 10 odd years ago when he hit a deer. I'd rather fly off the road then meet a deer/horse/cow head on. |
Cato (6936) | ||
| 808715 | 2009-09-12 06:12:00 | Would that have been near Stoke school, they also like placing the van on Nayland road by Carters pointing back towards Stoke, on Hill St Richmond in the dip and under the bridge on the deviation pointing towards town | gary67 (56) | ||
| 808716 | 2009-09-12 09:33:00 | Can't stand automatic trans in cars, I would rather be in control of the car | convair (13650) | ||
| 808717 | 2009-09-12 10:03:00 | In my car or work truck if anyone tail gates me I always slam on the brakes, never a moments hesitation and let them hit my tow bar. Then later at work flash up the oxy acetylene and bend it back out. If they are insured they get to pay for any other damage including uninsured persons damage from previous hit. One car driver is a legge run into the back of my work truck twice tailgating on State Highway 16. When ever they say why did you brake I always say you freaked me out and I panicked would you like to get the police involved? |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||