ADUK Archive

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27892412

What point do you think was missed here?

It's a shame they didn't hit the fraudsters harder with a much heavier vehicle?

I presume the point you're making is 'be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear' - but would you have been able to?

trashbat wrote:I presume the point you're making is 'be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear' - but would you have been able to?

You might be right but I'm not sure that would make any difference. The vehicle behind still won't stop in time...they are part of the scam...but I suppose had the 3rd party left more space it would have avoided the collision entirely...oh yeah I see what you mean!

The lorry might have been following too close...?

trashbat wrote:I presume the point you're making is 'be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear' - but would you have been able to?

Yes, I would like to think so. The video vehicle was leaving less than a 1 second gap behind the Astra right at the start of the clip.

I made it more than that (and a Mercedes C class), maybe 1.5 seconds at first.

I reckon I'd be in with a chance, but not a great one. No visual clues except the binary nature of brake lights, and hard to make sense of why it's happening as it happens.

trashbat wrote:I made it more than that (and a Mercedes C class), maybe 1.5 seconds at first.

I reckon I'd be in with a chance, but not a great one. No visual clues except the binary nature of brake lights, and hard to make sense of why it's happening as it happens.

My mistake - a C class.

I take your point about not understanding that "our" vehicle needs to stop until it's too late, but actually the way they staged the "accident" is fairly convincing and is the kind of thing that could happen without the fraud.

The distance - at time zero of the video, the C class' rear has not yet gone past the triangular warning sign with the plate underneath. By time 00:01, "our" vehicle has already passed the sign.