In reference to this post, which is still quite active, I got rear-ended by a SUV today. I was driving down the freeway in my 1994 Ford Ranger, when the freeway ended due to some routine weekend repairs.
I entered the frontage road. Stopped at a stop light. Went forward toward the freeway entrance. I was in the second lane to the left. I merged into the left lane to enter the freeway. The SUV behind allowed enough room for me to merge, but did not back up one bit to allow any extra space. Of course, with three lanes of autos trying to get into one freeway entrance lane, there was a little slowing down. Boom! I felt a jolt from the SUV hitting me.
I pull into the triangular “no mans land” that forms between 2 lanes splitting to see the damage. His lights were busted, his front, fiberglass bumper was cracked and bent. My rear bumper had negligable damage.
Relieved at the sight, I went to the driver of the SUV, who was looking at the ground in guilt, and told him, “My truck lookes fine to me,” how about we just don’t worry about it." He looked very relieved. Oh sure, his “tough” SUV just got cracked up by my little Ford Ranger, which happens to have a sturdy back bumper. But I had no desire to file a report, especially since my truck had no damage.
If he drove into you from behind, can’t you technically fleece that bastard for all he has? Do it. Suckers need to learn not to drive like crap. But I guess if there’s no visible damage you can’t really clutch your head and scream “it’s practically written off! Now how will I drive my daughter’s dialysis machine to her at the hospital every third hour?”.
Sounds like failure to yield or driving too fast for conditions on the SUV’s part, to me - the OP said the SUV left sufficient room for him to merge in, but did not take into account that traffic may be slowing down. The OP stopped in time when traffic slowed, the SUV didn’t.
Most states also have a law against vehicles slowing down in the acceleration lane.
To the OP…
One thing to consider…I don’t care what kind of vehicle one is driving…one made today is going to be safer than one built in 1994. Today, vehicles are made to crumple to protect the driver. Oftentimes, the better shape the vehicle is in after an accident, the worse shape the driver is in.
That SUV is a great example, but I’ll give another. Three years ago, my mother was involved in a head-on crash in an interstate construction zone (everyone lived). Both vehicles had managed to slow to about 30-40 mph before the accident happened. One car was a 1999 Honda Accord, the other car was a 1977 Monte Carlo. The Accord was my mom’s vehicle…it was completely totaled. The entire front end crumpled up to nothing…but the driving compartment was unscathed. She was able to stumble out of her vehicle without a scratch. The other driver in his Monte Carlo was in much worse shape. The front end did not crumple…the entire thing got pushed into the drivers compartment. The man had to be rescued with the jaws of life and sent to the emergency room. He broke two ribs (the broken ribs were the most severe of his injuries).
So, in other words…the more “sturdy” a vehicle is generally means it is more dangerous as well. Your 1994 Ford Ranger is 10 times more safe than that '77 Monte Carlo…but in a crash, I would probably rather be driving the SUV that rear ended you (you never stated year/make/model).
Some “SUVs” are merely SWOTTs. They are Station Wagons On Tall Tires. I don’t have a problem with this masquerade, as most SUV drivers really don’t need an SUV and never leave the road intentionally.
Well Tony you have succeeded in putting yourself in the majority. ONe either loves them or hates them. My wife needs to be coaxed into it when we decide to go anywhere. She drives a brand new 2003 Jetta GLI 6-speed. Granted her car is more fun, but when you drive mine it feels like your flying a plane.
I’m not at all insulted, I can see peoples mouths when I drive by saying [mouthed] damn that’s ugly[/mouthed] it doesn’t really bother me.
