Originally Posted by
stevieturbo
It's actually very easy. A competent driver doesnt drive into the back of stationary vehicles.
TBH the cause or reasons used to try and justify it are irrelevant. If the police deem that sort of person safer than one who may speed but has never had an accident in their life....well, that's a seriously fucked up logic.
In fact, most motoring related "offences" are seriously fucked up and have been created purely so they can issue easy fines.
That's not the case at all.
The "simple logic" is that unless someone is injured, the road is obstructed, or someone involved in the accident has left the scene, the police genuinely have better things to do, like hunting down drug dealers, rapists, murderers, etc.
It's up to you to be grown up about the matter and sort it out yourself, which is something people in this country have become increasingly incapable of doing.
If you're speeding, you're breaking the law. If you're taking drugs, you're breaking the law. Just because you're not instantly reprimanded at the moment you break the law, it doesn't make what you're doing any safer or more legal, or socially acceptable than someone who sneezes at the wheel and drives into the back of your car - they didn't break the law by sneezing, but by your logic, they're a criminal who needs to have a police car with probably two officers come and see what's happened, escort the driver to a cell, interview him, charge him with driving without due care and attention, and have him prosecuted. Time? Money?
Meanwhile, your parents house is being robbed. They call the police, who can't come for several hours. Everybody throws their toys out of the pram and demands to know "Why?" Because they're dealing with a minor bump'n'shunt that two adults couldn't sort out between themselves!
And also by your logic, a competent driver (and I'm assuming you're putting yourself in this bracket) doesn't commit any kind of motoring offence, and therefore has nothing to complain about. Or did I miss the point?