And I did not say the report was mandated because of the leased vehicle. The other driver was right in reporting it so he would not get blamed for the damage by the leasing company.
Sometimes a slight accident can cause a lot more damage than is evident.
I think we agree on this one.
well, it appeared somebody was implying that, at least to me. OP originally did (as I read the post) and then you seemed to take up with the same reasoning. Maybe it was just my misunderstanding of OP and your meaning.
all is cool at FA again
I hope. The following is not meant to be argumentative but simple a bit of info.
Justalayman, you are calling me a liar. The company van I was driving had about 10,000 miles on it. I was driving at about forty five miles an hour in a forty mile an hour zone. As I came around a curve in the road, I saw that the traffic was backed up at a light. I started to brake, with plenty of time and distance, when one rear wheel hit a manhole cover and hopped into the air. The wheel immediately locked up, And the Anti-lock system backed off on my braking. I let up on the pedal for a fraction of a second and then down again. Stopping just in time.
I have over fifty years of driving experience. And have been a Driving Instructor, drove a race car, a highway patrolman, and currently drive over a hundred miles of mixed town and highway a day. And haven’t had an accident that was my fault in about fifty years.
The damn anti-lock is not perfect.
It is supposed to back off if a wheel, or wheels lock up. I haven’t made the mistake of locking up my wheels in over fifty years.
And the Officer Did Not see the cell phone in use, and did not check to see if it was available. Had he checked and found it in the backpack it might have been different. Taking the word of some other driver is a joke.
Calling you a liar? Absolutely not but I would like you to understand that I have worked on brake systems for decades. I even testified in court about anti-lock brakes before. I understand them quite well and know what they do and do not do.
a modern day anti lock brake system uses a 4 channel actuator. It is capable of pulsing each wheels brakes independently from any other. It uses a sensor for each wheel and compares the speed of each wheel to every other wheel. When any wheel is found to be rotating at a predetermined speed less than any other wheel while the brakes are applied, the pressure to that one wheel is reduced, via the pulsing action you feel in the pedal, so to allow it to be at the same speed as the other wheels.
a common incorrect assumption and use of the anti-lock system is that a human can provide a more forceful braking action by self modulation. The fact is; they can't. An ABS system can determine the speed of each wheel independently and modulate each wheel independently so as to provide the maximum braking force possible.
By releasing the brakes at all, you have now reduced the pressure to all wheels and as such, have reduced the force being applied for braking. The ABS will allow the higher pressure to continue at any wheel that is not showing signs of skidding and will modulate the pressure at any wheel that is skidding. You cannot do this with your foot.
In your situation with the van (if you had 4 channel ABS), you would have stopped sooner had you not lifted your foot. That split second of no braking translates into distance. At 40 mph, you are travelling about 58 feet per second. If you release the brake for 1/4 second, you have now added 14.5 feet to your stopping distance that would not have been lost by simply continuing to apply pressure. There is nothing you can do to recover that distance. You have simply moved forward with no braking action at all to slow you.
Now, one thing I would like to add;
many trucks do not use 4 channel ABS, or at least the didn't up until quite recently. In fact, many trucks had a very simple system that only actuated on the rear brakes. Those were actually intended less to improve stopping distance and more to add a level of safety as a truck when unloaded has an inherent tendency to lock the rear wheels which can cause the truck to spin. If I remember correctly, Ford had a huge problem with this.
There was actually a mechanical system used before electronic ABS systems were available. It used a variable proportioning valve that responded to the distance in between the axle and the frame. As a vehicle stops, obviously the rear lifts which increased the distance. A connecting arm translated this motion to the valve which reduced the amount of pressure allowed through the proportioning valve. An unloaded truck sets higher and will lift more under braking so the valve would restrict pressure more with an unloaded truck than one that is loaded and hopefully prevent rear wheel lock-up and the resulting spin.
Even being that, since the rear brakes are the only brakes with reduced pressure, it will not tend to increase stopping distance any great amount simply due to the fact that, especially when not loaded, the front brakes of a truck will provide the greatest percentage of the braking action. Somewhere north of 70% would not be uncommon and usually even more.
In a situation with a rear wheel only system, I am not convinced that your reaction was beneficial but not worth arguing. I can't prove it and am not of the mind to research and study it.
And the Officer Did Not see the cell phone in use, and did not check to see if it was available. Had he checked and found it in the backpack it might have been different. Taking the word of some other driver is a joke.
like I said, on the phone, not on the phone; irrelevant. I quoted the MCL that the hit itself was all that was needed to charge him with careless driving.
It may have caused the officer to not issue a ticket at all if the phone was not involved but in reality, the charge was righteous.