You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

--
Adam

ARW wrote:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

Why do you need to ask?

ARW Wrote in message:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

--
Adam


Interesting question. I was going to say that letting your vehicle
roll and be accelerated by the colliding vehicle would probably
reduce damage, but I suspect only minimally.

Perhaps more importantly is the acceleration you undergo inside
the vehicle. I think keeping your foot planted on the brakes
*might* reduce this, at the cost of more damage.

In practice I'm not sure how much tyre friction on the road with
locked wheel would alter impact forces.

I guess someone must have done the research?

Tim
--

ARW Wrote in message:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

What did you do? ;-)

Tim


--

ARW wrote:

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front

Yes, so that there's no doubt it's all the idiot behind's fault.

On 26/07/2018 18:54, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
ARW wrote:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

Why do you need to ask?


Because today I decided to keep my foot on the brake so that I would not
hit the car in front.

I am just wondering if I would be a little less sore had I let my foot
off the brake.


--
Adam

On 26/07/2018 18:50, Tim+ wrote:
ARW Wrote in message:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

--
Adam


Interesting question. I was going to say that letting your vehicle
roll and be accelerated by the colliding vehicle would probably
reduce damage, but I suspect only minimally.

Perhaps more importantly is the acceleration you undergo inside
the vehicle. I think keeping your foot planted on the brakes
*might* reduce this, at the cost of more damage.

In practice I'm not sure how much tyre friction on the road with
locked wheel would alter impact forces.

I guess someone must have done the research?
https://www.sae.org/publications/tec.../2010-01-0067/


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 26/07/2018 19:02, ARW wrote:
On 26/07/2018 18:54, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
ARW wrote:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

Why do you need to ask?


Because today I decided to keep my foot on the brake so that I would not
hit the car in front.

I am just wondering if I would be a little less sore had I let my foot
off the brake.

I'd say you'd be more sore, as your vehicle would have accelerated
faster and then decellerated rapidly when it hit the vehicle in front.
With the brakes on, you'll have accelerated slower and decellerated
slower so less force acting on you.

SteveW

On 26/07/2018 19:19, Steve Walker wrote:
On 26/07/2018 19:02, ARW wrote:
On 26/07/2018 18:54, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
ARW wrote:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

Why do you need to ask?


Because today I decided to keep my foot on the brake so that I would
not hit the car in front.

I am just wondering if I would be a little less sore had I let my foot
off the brake.

I'd say you'd be more sore, as your vehicle would have accelerated
faster and then decellerated rapidly when it hit the vehicle in front.
With the brakes on, you'll have accelerated slower and decellerated
slower so less force acting on you.


Well I have no intention of going out and trying it again with my brakes
off:-)


--
Adam

On 26/07/2018 19:02, Andy Burns wrote:
ARW wrote:

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front

Yes, so that there's no doubt it's all the idiot behind's fault.

Note at the very end of the video what pulls up. Driver jumps out and
give me a card with his details and says that was on my dashcam. I'll
get it tommorow.

But here is my dashcam footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjRy...ature=youtu.be

--
Adam

You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

So how far were you from the car in front, and what was your speed?

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

So how far were you from the car in front, and what was your speed?

I withdraw the question after seeing your video!
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On 26/07/2018 19:02, Andy Burns wrote:
ARW wrote:

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front

Yes, so that there's no doubt it's all the idiot behind's fault.

Note at the very end of the video what pulls up. Driver jumps out and
give me a card with his details and says that was on my dashcam. I'll
get it tommorow.


That's nice of him, further proof that he was liable.

It used to be the case that insurance companies warned you to never
admit liability, even when it's obvious it was your fault, is that no
longer the case?

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/2018 19:02, Andy Burns wrote:
ARW wrote:

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front

Yes, so that there's no doubt it's all the idiot behind's fault.

Note at the very end of the video what pulls up. Driver jumps out and give
me a card with his details and says that was on my dashcam. I'll get it
tommorow.

But here is my dashcam footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjRy...ature=youtu.be

jeeze, you weren't even slowing down when he hit you

he must have been a right idiot

tim



--
Adam

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:50:25 PM UTC+1, Graham. wrote:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

So how far were you from the car in front, and what was your speed?

I withdraw the question after seeing your video!
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

He was too busy checking your ladders were properly secured to the roof.
Multitasking failure.

On 26/07/2018 19:02, ARW wrote:
On 26/07/2018 18:54, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
ARW wrote:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

Why do you need to ask?


Because today I decided to keep my foot on the brake so that I would not
hit the car in front.

I am just wondering if I would be a little less sore had I let my foot
off the brake.

Foot on the brake is surely the right answer? Foot off and you're going
to get an even more sore neck from the uncontrolled acceleration of your
car. Foot on and the friction between the tyres and road is going to
reduce it.

Hope you're OK.

--
F

ARW wrote

You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into the
car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps but of
less severity?

Depends on whether you have the car comprehensively
insured or not and if you wouldnt mind if the car was
written off with the rear ender paying for you new car.

If you are fully insured, best to not have
your foot on the brake so you can claim for
whiplash injury as well as getting a new car.

If you have no insurance, safer to not have
your foot on the brake to minimise the
damage that you might have to pay for
yourself if the rear ender also isnt insured
and just makes an obscene gesture in your
general direction when you send in the bailiff

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 19:35:07 +0100, ARW wrote:

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed
into
the car in front

Didn't we have a discussion about this not that long ago?

But here is my dashcam footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjRy...ature=youtu.be

Ouch, he gave you quite a whack, the groan doesn't sound like a "oh
WTF is the damage" but a "ow, that wasn't very comfortable".

As has been mentioned if you are pushed into the one in front you get
a double whammy, one when you're hit and one when you hit the one in
front.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
ARW wrote:

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into the
car in front

Yes, so that there's no doubt it's all the idiot behind's fault.

But if the idiot behind isnt insured and has no assets that
you can **** him over for to repair you own car and you
arent insured yourself, it would be better to minimise the
damage that you need to fix.

Tho I spose you can make a case that just damage at the
back of your car will be cheaper to fix than damage at
both ends of your car.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/2018 18:54, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
ARW wrote:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

Why do you need to ask?


Because today I decided to keep my foot on the brake so that I would not
hit the car in front.

I am just wondering if I would be a little less sore had I let my foot off
the brake.

Maybe. But more likely to have triggered your airbag
when you ran into the car in front and that might even
have killed you with all those Takata airbags still out there.

Even if the airbag doesnt kill you, you can still be quite
sore after it goes off, particularly given you wear glasses.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/2018 18:50, Tim+ wrote:
ARW Wrote in message:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

--
Adam


Interesting question. I was going to say that letting your vehicle
roll and be accelerated by the colliding vehicle would probably
reduce damage, but I suspect only minimally.

Perhaps more importantly is the acceleration you undergo inside
the vehicle. I think keeping your foot planted on the brakes
*might* reduce this, at the cost of more damage.

In practice I'm not sure how much tyre friction on the road with
locked wheel would alter impact forces.

I guess someone must have done the research?
https://www.sae.org/publications/tec.../2010-01-0067/

That didnt test deliberately not braking.

F explained :
Foot on the brake is surely the right answer? Foot off and you're going to
get an even more sore neck from the uncontrolled acceleration of your car.
Foot on and the friction between the tyres and road is going to reduce it.

Plus, your brake lights will be on, giving the following vehicle a bit
more warning.

Many years ago, driving a Transit truck, the vehicles ahead came to a
stop, so I stopped at the back with the handbrake (rear wheels) on no
footbrake around 5 foot from a BT van. Steaming in the back came a
brand new car with a low sloping front. It was obvious looking in my
mirror, they driver wasn't paying much attention, maybe distracted by
the new cars 'toys'. He seemed not to notice I had stopped until the
last second, I heard the squeal of his brakes, then the back end of the
truck lifted as he went under it. He pushed me into the BT van. He
likely would not have been able to do that, had I not been lifted off
the road and pushed that last few feet.

I now always habitually keep the foot brake on, until at least one
vehicle has stopped behind me.

On 26/07/2018 21:22, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 19:35:07 +0100, ARW wrote:

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed
into
the car in front

Didn't we have a discussion about this not that long ago?

But here is my dashcam footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjRy...ature=youtu.be



Ouch, he gave you quite a whack, the groan doesn't sound like a "oh
WTF is the damage" but a "ow, that wasn't very comfortable".

Right at the end when I got out of the van?

It was a bit uncomfortable.


--
Adam

In article , ARW
writes
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?


If you don't hit the car in front you are at no fault. If you do hit the
car in front then they claim against you as to them you are at fault.
BICBW

--
bert

On 26/07/2018 18:43, ARW wrote:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?


You keep your foot on the brake so you minimise your chances of injury.
If you don't have your foot on the brake you will be accelerated
forwards faster and hence suffer more injury.
The van might be more crumpled but who cares.
The one hitting you might suffer more damage too.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/2018 19:02, Andy Burns wrote:
ARW wrote:

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front

Yes, so that there's no doubt it's all the idiot behind's fault.

Note at the very end of the video what pulls up. Driver jumps out and give
me a card with his details and says that was on my dashcam. I'll get it
tommorow.

But here is my dashcam footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjRy...ature=youtu.be

You'll never make youtube, you didnt even swear.

"Graham." wrote in message
...
On 26/07/2018 19:02, Andy Burns wrote:
ARW wrote:

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front

Yes, so that there's no doubt it's all the idiot behind's fault.

Note at the very end of the video what pulls up. Driver jumps out and
give me a card with his details and says that was on my dashcam. I'll
get it tommorow.


That's nice of him, further proof that he was liable.

I read it that it was someone else not involved.

It used to be the case that insurance companies
warned you to never admit liability, even when it's
obvious it was your fault, is that no longer the case?

On 26/07/2018 19:02, Nightjar wrote:

https://www.sae.org/publications/tec.../2010-01-0067/



Odd statement from that link..

"Seat belt forces were lower for all occupants in the aware condition,
indicating that their internal musculature altered their subsequent
forward rebound motion."

There is a better alternative theory for that.. when the brakes are on
there is less forward acceleration of the van and hence less force on
the passengers to create the rebound.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 21:41:34 +0100, ARW wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjRy...ature=youtu.be

Ouch, he gave you quite a whack, the groan doesn't sound like a
"oh
WTF is the damage" but a "ow, that wasn't very comfortable".

Right at the end when I got out of the van?

It was a bit uncomfortable.

Well I don't know what you where doing, can only see straight
ahead... The van had been stationary for a second or so and the white
car in front was driving off, completely unaware of what was going on
behind them.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
F explained :
Foot on the brake is surely the right answer? Foot off and you're going
to get an even more sore neck from the uncontrolled acceleration of your
car. Foot on and the friction between the tyres and road is going to
reduce it.

Plus, your brake lights will be on, giving the following vehicle a bit
more warning.

Many years ago, driving a Transit truck, the vehicles ahead came to a
stop, so I stopped at the back with the handbrake (rear wheels) on no
footbrake around 5 foot from a BT van. Steaming in the back came a brand
new car with a low sloping front. It was obvious looking in my mirror,
they driver wasn't paying much attention, maybe distracted by the new cars
'toys'. He seemed not to notice I had stopped until the last second, I
heard the squeal of his brakes, then the back end of the truck lifted as
he went under it. He pushed me into the BT van. He likely would not have
been able to do that, had I not been lifted off the road and pushed that
last few feet.

I now always habitually keep the foot brake on, until at least one vehicle
has stopped behind me.

Didn't work for me the only time I have been rear ended.

I was stopped at a pedestrian crossing, with my foot on
the foot brake. I could see the taxi coming up behind me
had the driver gawking at some bimbo in a microskirt, this
was in the 60s. Didn't do the VW Beetle any good at all.

On 26/07/2018 21:41, bert wrote:
In article , ARW
writes
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?


If you don't hit the car in front you are at no fault. If you do hit the
car in front then they claim against you as to them you are at fault. BICBW

I am pretty sure that that was changed years ago and now both the
drivers hit can claim directly against the rear driver.

SteveW

On 26/07/2018 21:41, bert wrote:
In article , ARW
writes
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?


If you don't hit the car in front you are at no fault. If you do hit the
car in front then they claim against you as to them you are at fault. BICBW

I am afraid you are wrong.

Liability is through negligence. If you were stationary with handbrake
on, foot on footbrake and still rear-end the car in front after an
impact onto your car, you are simply not negligent.

More likely you would be their witness for a claim from the driver that
hit you.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:16:56 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:


Depends on whether you have the car comprehensively
insured or not and if you wouldn¢t mind if the car was
written off with the rear ender paying for you new car.

If you are fully insured, best to not have
your foot on the brake so you can claim for
whiplash injury as well as getting a new car.

If you have no insurance, safer to not have
your foot on the brake to minimise the
damage that you might have to pay for
yourself if the rear ender also isnt insured
and just makes an obscene gesture in your
general direction when you send in the bailiff

SIX idiotic posts by you in this thread. Not ONE reply! I LIKE that! LOL

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 07:15:06 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:


Didn't work for me the only time I have been rear ended.

I was stopped at a pedestrian crossing, with my foot on
the foot brake. I could see the taxi coming up behind me
had the driver gawking at some bimbo in a microskirt, this
was in the 60s. Didn't do the VW Beetle any good at all.

SEVEN idiotic posts from you in this thread by now? And STILL not one reply
for you, senile Rot? I LOVE it! LMAO ...oh, and keep trying! LOL

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

"Graham." wrote in message
.. .
On 26/07/2018 19:02, Andy Burns wrote:
ARW wrote:

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front

Yes, so that there's no doubt it's all the idiot behind's fault.

Note at the very end of the video what pulls up. Driver jumps out and
give me a card with his details and says that was on my dashcam. I'll
get it tommorow.


That's nice of him, further proof that he was liable.

I read it that it was someone else not involved.

It used to be the case that insurance companies
warned you to never admit liability, even when it's
obvious it was your fault, is that no longer the case?



Ah, an independent witness, that makes more sense.
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

After serious thinking dennis@home wrote :
There is a better alternative theory for that.. when the brakes are on there
is less forward acceleration of the van and hence less force on the
passengers to create the rebound.

You are correct, their conclusion is an odd one to arrive at..

On 26/07/2018 18:43, ARW wrote:
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

Keep the brakes on. The back's getting hit anyway, might as well save
the front (and the complexity of another party involved).

On 26/07/2018 18:43, ARW wrote:

You know that you are going to get arse ended.

It is a rather annoying situation to find yourself in. Our driver was
able to give a countdown of time to impact as the driver behind
continued his animated conversation with his passenger until it was too
late. He did brake at the very last minute dipping his bonnet which got
neatly peeled back to the windscreen. Cars vital fluids all dropped out.

It is really annoying to be a sitting duck at the tail end of a motorway
contraflow queue with nowhere to go. We were conveniently in front of
the place where the recovery vehicles were parked up!

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?

If you are already stationary then both handbrake and footbrake on to
maximum and head back against the headrest. You want to offer as much
resistance to forward acceleration as you can muster. It may well
destroy the car that impacts behind you but that isn't your problem ;-)

Think of Newton's cradle. In the extreme case of offering no resistance
and perfectly elastic collisions you get pummelled again and again as
you hit the vehicles on either side of you repeatedly and bounce off.

The other thing to remember is that damage scales as the square of the
mass ratio which is why you should never pick a fight with an HGV. A car
was made airborne in a recent A19 crash which closed it for half a day.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 27/07/2018 10:51, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 23:25:54 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 26/07/2018 21:41, bert wrote:
In article , ARW
writes
You know that you are going to get arse ended.

Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into
the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps
but of less severity?


If you don't hit the car in front you are at no fault. If you do hit
the car in front then they claim against you as to them you are at
fault. BICBW

I am afraid you are wrong.

Liability is through negligence. If you were stationary with handbrake
on, foot on footbrake and still rear-end the car in front after an
impact onto your car, you are simply not negligent.

More likely you would be their witness for a claim from the driver that
hit you.

Isn't it a bit more nuanced that that ? Many years ago my Dad was rear-
ended into another car. My Dads insurance paid out to the car in front,
but my Dad lost his excess and NCB as the driver of the car that hit him
****ed off. Which made my Dad liable. Despite having handbrake on and
footbrake on.

Unfortunately there are/were some agreements between insurance companies
that led to this and the consequential loss of NCB.

I suspect the issue was one of proof, and he would have lost his NCB
anyway from an insurance claim to repair damage to his rear.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 21:58:53 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 26/07/2018 19:02, Nightjar wrote:

https://www.sae.org/publications/tec.../2010-01-0067/


Odd statement from that link..

"Seat belt forces were lower for all occupants in the aware condition,
indicating that their internal musculature altered their subsequent
forward rebound motion."

There is a better alternative theory for that.. when the brakes are on
there is less forward acceleration of the van and hence less force on
the passengers to create the rebound.

Any statement on here involving physics/mechanics is immediately
suspect.