Commando wrote:Yeah, you'll find non-ABS cars do feel different. Especially at 100kph on a wet road when a roo jumps out in front of you.
ABS = spongy brakes, but you'll slow to about 60
non-ABS = lock up at 100 & skid past the roo doing about 95. But you'll look sick doing it
Commando wrote:Yeah, you'll find non-ABS cars do feel different. Especially at 100kph on a wet road when a roo jumps out in front of you.
ABS = spongy brakes, but you'll slow to about 60
non-ABS = lock up at 100 & skid past the roo doing about 95. But you'll look sick doing it
Sundeep wrote:Ash,
Clearly from reading this thread you can see that no cvnt has any idea wtf is at fault. It's all purple monkey dishwasher in here. Call your insurance company or talk to the Police.
Commando wrote:Yeah, you'll find non-ABS cars do feel different. Especially at 100kph on a wet road when a roo jumps out in front of you.
ABS = spongy brakes, but you'll slow to about 60
non-ABS = lock up at 100 & skid past the roo doing about 95. But you'll look sick doing it
Rollin wrote:It isn't fucking rocket surgery.
If car 'a' is not fucking moving and car 'b' crashes into it then clearly car 'b' is to blame, regardless of the direction of travel at the time. How the **** can you be at fault in a stationary car?
Find me a legal definition that states what exactly 'enough room' is? How far can you expect to be able to blithely 'roll back' without having to worry about hitting the car behind you?
If you are reversing into a car parking bay and you hit the car behind you, are they at fault because they parked too close to the end of the parking bay?
Commando wrote:Yeah, you'll find non-ABS cars do feel different. Especially at 100kph on a wet road when a roo jumps out in front of you.
ABS = spongy brakes, but you'll slow to about 60
non-ABS = lock up at 100 & skid past the roo doing about 95. But you'll look sick doing it
Users browsing this forum: No registered users