Driving automobiles

Rear Ended on Freeway

I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn’t
see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
didn’t give her enough room. I don’t think I should have to pay for the
extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)

24 Responses to “Rear Ended on Freeway”

  1. admin says:

    In article <1156657841.658745.111…@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, guerrerorun…@gmail.com wrote:
    > I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
    > was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
    > brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn’t
    > see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
    > safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    > for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
    > didn’t give her enough room. I don’t think I should have to pay for the
    > extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

    She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
    foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
    faulted you and insurance would still fault you.

    Least that’s my experience…..

    Needless to say, you were directly behind her and couldn’t stop so… yes
    it’s your fault. It’s pretty clear that if you did maintain distance you
    didn’t react quickly enough or there is fault in your vehicle’s breaking
    system. Or you drive one of those giant SUVs that’s equiped with brakes I
    would consider insuffient on a civic.

    Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
    up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn’t stopping as quickly as
    possible.

    The only way I can see this being her fault is if she did it for no
    reason but to cause a collision or she hit something in front of her,
    which brought her to a very sudden stop.

  2. admin says:

    guerrerorun…@gmail.com wrote:
    > I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
    > was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
    > brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn’t
    > see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
    > safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    > for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
    > didn’t give her enough room. I don’t think I should have to pay for the
    > extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

    As Brent said, the only way you could fail to stop before hitting her
    with a 3 sec gap is  mechanical failure (bad brakes), not paying
    attention, or very poor reflexes.

    There is also the question of why you didn’t try to avoid her by
    steering around her on one side or the other.

    Harry K

  3. admin says:

    On 26 Aug 2006 22:50:41 -0700, guerrerorun…@gmail.com wrote:

    >I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
    >was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
    >brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn’t
    >see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
    >safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    >for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
    >didn’t give her enough room. I don’t think I should have to pay for the
    >extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

    Well, you hit her fair and square. A three-second space should have
    been enough, but if you still hit her, it obviously wasn’t, for some
    reason. Are your brakes in good shape? How are your tires? Did you eat
    up two of those seconds fiddling with the radio, or anythign else?
    It’s interesting that you don’t complain about paying for the damage
    to HER car, just to yours.
    I can only surmise you don’t have collision insurance, right?

    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"

  4. admin says:

    On 26 Aug 2006 22:50:41 -0700, guerrerorun…@gmail.com wrote:

    >I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
    >was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
    >brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn’t
    >see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
    >safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    >for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
    >didn’t give her enough room. I don’t think I should have to pay for the
    >extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

    If you’d been doing 50 you’d have been able to stop in time. You can’t
    drive too slow.

  5. admin says:

    On 27 Aug 2006 06:55:06 -0700, "Harry K" <turnkey4…@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >As Brent said, the only way you could fail to stop before hitting her
    >with a 3 sec gap is  mechanical failure (bad brakes), not paying
    >attention, or very poor reflexes.

    What was the driver stopping for?  I think we all agree that it’s
    dangerous to slam on the breaks to a complete stop in a 70mph zone for
    no good reason. It’s just not expected.

    Was there a squirrel in the road? A pedestrian in the road? Needed to
    stop to take a look at the map? Needed to stop to change lanes to make
    an exit in time? I wish they’d drive right PAST the exit and come back
    to it. That’s what I do.

    I was involved in such an accident and hit the car ahead of me.
    Unfortunately I had to learn who’s fault it is was, based on the law.
    My insurance covered the accident. And now I look out for brake
    slammers and provide extra space. I warn other people that sometimes
    drivers will just slam on the brakes for no apparent reason.

  6. admin says:

    guerrerorun…@gmail.com wrote:
    > I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
    > was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
    > brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn’t
    > see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
    > safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    > for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
    > didn’t give her enough room. I don’t think I should have to pay for the
    > extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

    Since you ran into the rear of her car you were following too close for
    circumstances.  And yes you should and will have to pay for the
    extensive damage to both your car and hers.  Period.

  7. admin says:

    "Scott en Aztlán" <scottenazt…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:tpb3f2diiai1crtv7ksifp50ubnrr35od9@4ax.com…

    > guerrerorun…@gmail.com said in rec.autos.driving:

    > >I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
    > >was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
    > >brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn’t
    > >see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
    > >safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    > >for me to stop my car.

    > Did anyone miss the irony of that statement?
    > —
    > I’m a wreckless driver and damn proud of it!

    Just to make it unanimous, yes, it’s your fault.

  8. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    Tim923 wrote:
    > On 27 Aug 2006 06:55:06 -0700, "Harry K" <turnkey4…@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:

    > >As Brent said, the only way you could fail to stop before hitting her
    > >with a 3 sec gap is  mechanical failure (bad brakes), not paying
    > >attention, or very poor reflexes.

    > What was the driver stopping for?  I think we all agree that it’s
    > dangerous to slam on the breaks to a complete stop in a 70mph zone for
    > no good reason. It’s just not expected.

    > Was there a squirrel in the road? A pedestrian in the road? Needed to
    > stop to take a look at the map? Needed to stop to change lanes to make
    > an exit in time? I wish they’d drive right PAST the exit and come back
    > to it. That’s what I do.

    > I was involved in such an accident and hit the car ahead of me.
    > Unfortunately I had to learn who’s fault it is was, based on the law.
    > My insurance covered the accident. And now I look out for brake
    > slammers and provide extra space. I warn other people that sometimes
    > drivers will just slam on the brakes for no apparent reason.

    Granted that slamming on brakes is a poor practice but if you rear end
    someone, _why_ they slammed them on is of no interest to anyone except
    maybe you (excepting swoop and stops of course).

    Harry K

  9. admin says:

    On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:11:37 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are

    MURDERERS <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >On 26 Aug 2006 22:50:41 -0700, guerrerorun…@gmail.com wrote:

    >>I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
    >>was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
    >>brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn’t
    >>see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
    >>safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    >>for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
    >>didn’t give her enough room. I don’t think I should have to pay for the
    >>extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

    >If you’d been doing 50 you’d have been able to stop in time. You can’t
    >drive too slow.

    Then why do you recommend 50mph?
    Have the nice man in the white jacket explain this question to you.

    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"

  10. admin says:

    On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:57:23 -0700, Bill Funk <BigB…@there.com>
    wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    >On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:11:37 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
    >MURDERERS <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >>On 26 Aug 2006 22:50:41 -0700, guerrerorun…@gmail.com wrote:

    >>>I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
    >>>was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
    >>>brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn’t
    >>>see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
    >>>safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    >>>for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
    >>>didn’t give her enough room. I don’t think I should have to pay for the
    >>>extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

    >>If you’d been doing 50 you’d have been able to stop in time. You can’t
    >>drive too slow.

    >Then why do you recommend 50mph?

    The OP said freeway, you nitwit. Most freeways have speed minimums.
    THINK

  11. admin says:

    On 27 Aug 2006 11:34:06 -0700, "Harry K" <turnkey4…@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Granted that slamming on brakes is a poor practice but if you rear end
    >someone, _why_ they slammed them on is of no interest to anyone except
    >maybe you (excepting swoop and stops of course).

    That’s Swoop and Squat…
    http://www.allstate.com/About/PageRender.asp?page=fraud.htm
     :-)

    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"

  12. admin says:

    On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:08:02 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    MURDERERS <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:57:23 -0700, Bill Funk <BigB…@there.com>
    >wrote:

    >>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:11:37 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
    >>MURDERERS <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >>>On 26 Aug 2006 22:50:41 -0700, guerrerorun…@gmail.com wrote:

    >>>>I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
    >>>>was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
    >>>>brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn’t
    >>>>see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
    >>>>safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    >>>>for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
    >>>>didn’t give her enough room. I don’t think I should have to pay for the
    >>>>extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

    >>>If you’d been doing 50 you’d have been able to stop in time. You can’t
    >>>drive too slow.

    >>Then why do you recommend 50mph?

    >The OP said freeway, you nitwit. Most freeways have speed minimums.
    >THINK

    But you said that you can’t go too slow, and now you say you can.
    Confused? Let that nice man in the white jacket know; maybe your meds
    are reacting to each other.

    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"

  13. admin says:

    Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>
    > She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
    > foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
    > faulted you and insurance would still fault you.

    > Least that’s my experience…..

    I would love to hear more about that.

    > Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
    > up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn’t stopping as quickly as
    > possible.

    Really?!  Have you read this?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system#Effectiveness

    "A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
    with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
    distance from 80-0 km/h)"
     —–

    - gpsman

  14. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    gpsman wrote:
    > Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>

    >>She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
    >>foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
    >>faulted you and insurance would still fault you.

    >>Least that’s my experience…..

    > I would love to hear more about that.

    >>Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
    >>up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn’t stopping as quickly as
    >>possible.

    > Really?!  Have you read this?

    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system#Effectiveness

    > "A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
    > with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
    > distance from 80-0 km/h)"
    >  —–

    > – gpsman

    did you have a point?  No, I haven’t read that article before, but it
    agrees with common knowledge, and Brent’s assertion, that a locked wheel
    stops slower than a rolling one being threshold or ABS braked, except
    for loose surfaces (which one would assume wasn’t the case on a freeway,
    which are usually made of asphalt or concrete.)  Which anyone who has
    any basic knowledge of driving should know.  This is why, incidentally,
    that rear wheels locking prior to the fronts in heavy braking tends to
    destabilize a vehicle; because the unlocked fronts are trying harder to
    slow the car than the locked rears, the car acts as if it is being
    pushed from the front, akin to trying to balance it on its nose.  It
    *can* be held stable, sometimes, without unlocking the rear brakes, but
    takes reflexes, skill, and most of all flat, straight pavement as well
    as a healthy dose of luck.

    nate


    replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
    http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

  15. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    In article <ect8tv02…@news4.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel wrote:
    > gpsman wrote:
    >> Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>
    >>>Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
    >>>up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn’t stopping as quickly as
    >>>possible.
    >> Really?!  Have you read this?
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system#Effectiveness

    >> "A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
    >> with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
    >> distance from 80-0 km/h)"
    > did you have a point?  No, I haven’t read that article before, but it
    > agrees with common knowledge, and Brent’s assertion, that a locked wheel
    > stops slower than a rolling one being threshold or ABS braked, except
    > for loose surfaces (which one would assume wasn’t the case on a freeway,
    > which are usually made of asphalt or concrete.)

    Well, you know the sniping troll…. I forgot the ‘unless on snow or
    gravel sometimes’ disclaimer (which isn’t needed since we are discussing
    a dry expressway) he’s got to make a snipe. Sad, sad, sore loser he is.

    > Which anyone who has
    > any basic knowledge of driving should know.  This is why, incidentally,
    > that rear wheels locking prior to the fronts in heavy braking tends to
    > destabilize a vehicle; because the unlocked fronts are trying harder to
    > slow the car than the locked rears, the car acts as if it is being
    > pushed from the front, akin to trying to balance it on its nose.  It
    > *can* be held stable, sometimes, without unlocking the rear brakes, but
    > takes reflexes, skill, and most of all flat, straight pavement as well
    > as a healthy dose of luck.

    I’ve noticed that in driving video games, that the brakes tend to lock up
    the rears really easy sending the car into a spin… Really annoying in
    that every one i’ve ever played if I drive it as were a real car it
    doesn’t respond correctly.

    I think the programers decided to write it like it was an episode of
    CHiPs.

  16. admin says:

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > On 27 Aug 2006 11:34:06 -0700, "Harry K" <turnkey4…@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:

    > >Granted that slamming on brakes is a poor practice but if you rear end
    > >someone, _why_ they slammed them on is of no interest to anyone except
    > >maybe you (excepting swoop and stops of course).

    > That’s Swoop and Squat…
    > http://www.allstate.com/About/PageRender.asp?page=fraud.htm
    >  :-)
    > —
    > Bill Funk
    > replace "g" with "a"

    Yep,  I had a ‘senior moment’ and couldn’t recall the squat.

    Harry K

  17. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:08:02 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
    > MURDERERS <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > >On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:57:23 -0700, Bill Funk <BigB…@there.com>
    > >wrote:

    > >>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:11:37 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
    > >>MURDERERS <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > >>>On 26 Aug 2006 22:50:41 -0700, guerrerorun…@gmail.com wrote:

    > >>>>I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
    > >>>>was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
    > >>>>brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn’t
    > >>>>see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
    > >>>>safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    > >>>>for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
    > >>>>didn’t give her enough room. I don’t think I should have to pay for the
    > >>>>extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

    > >>>If you’d been doing 50 you’d have been able to stop in time. You can’t
    > >>>drive too slow.

    > >>Then why do you recommend 50mph?

    > >The OP said freeway, you nitwit. Most freeways have speed minimums.
    > >THINK

    > But you said that you can’t go too slow, and now you say you can.
    > Confused? Let that nice man in the white jacket know; maybe your meds
    > are reacting to each other.
    > —
    > Bill Funk
    > replace "g" with "a"

    Don’t confuse the poor thing.  It is now arguing with itself.

    Harry K

  18. admin says:

    Alexander Rogge wrote:
    > > I was maintaining a
    > > safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    > > for me to stop my car.

    > Driver reaction times, not following distances, are measured in seconds.
    >   In driving school, you should’ve learned to set speeds and following
    > distances properly.  If your reaction time is measured in whole seconds,
    > you shouldn’t be driving.

    > > The officer claimed it was my fault because I
    > > didn’t give her enough room.

    > It was your fault because you hit a skidding vehicle.

    ???  Mesuring in seconds is the recommended way as it is far easier and
    more accurate than the old ‘car lengths’ method which hardly anyone can
    come within 20 feet of guessing.

    Harry K

  19. admin says:

    Scott en Aztlán wrote:

    . I was maintaining a

    > >safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    > >for me to stop my car.

    > Did anyone miss the irony of that statement?

    No, I saw it right away.

    But I have to be sympathetic here.  In most freeway situations in town,
    you absolutely cannot have a safe stopping distance between you and the
    car in front.  There are too many cars and not enough room. If you
    tried to leave one length for every 10 mph, three cars would have
    filled it up.  Consequently, if any driver slammed on the brakes, there
    is most likely going to be a tail-ender.  Or more than one.

    So sure, the driver didn’t maintain a safe distance.  Because doing so
    is impossible.  And we live–and drive–with that every day.

    Another reason to push for mass transit.  (Then if there is a wreck we
    can ALL be in it….)

  20. admin says:

    Harry K wrote:
    > ???  Mesuring in seconds is the recommended way as it is far easier and
    > more accurate than the old ‘car lengths’ method which hardly anyone can
    > come within 20 feet of guessing.

    > Harry K

    The old cars used to be longer, which gave more safety measure.  ;<)

  21. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    Nate Nagel wrote:
    > gpsman wrote:
    > > Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>

    > >>She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
    > >>foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
    > >>faulted you and insurance would still fault you.

    > >>Least that’s my experience…..

    > > I would love to hear more about that.

    > >>Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
    > >>up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn’t stopping as quickly as
    > >>possible.

    > > Really?!  Have you read this?

    > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system#Effectiveness

    > > "A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
    > > with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
    > > distance from 80-0 km/h)"

    > did you have a point?  No,

    Not with that reference, I didn’t.  My bad.
     —–

    - gpsman

  22. admin says:

    Brent P wrote:

    > I’ve noticed that in driving video games, that the brakes tend to lock up
    > the rears really easy sending the car into a spin… Really annoying in
    > that every one i’ve ever played if I drive it as were a real car it
    > doesn’t respond correctly.

    How would you know…?!

    Do you have any experience operating a real car at video game
    velocities?

    IME video driving simulators recreate an incredibly realistic
    experience… except for the shitty AI of the other drivers.
     —–

    - gpsman

  23. admin says:

    Actually in california MOST freeways dont. and it would have been
    stupid to drive 50 when the speed limit is 70!
    Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:57:23 -0700, Bill Funk <BigB…@there.com>
    > wrote:

    > >On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:11:37 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
    > >MURDERERS <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > >>On 26 Aug 2006 22:50:41 -0700, guerrerorun…@gmail.com wrote:

    > >>>I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
    > >>>was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
    > >>>brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn’t
    > >>>see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
    > >>>safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
    > >>>for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
    > >>>didn’t give her enough room. I don’t think I should have to pay for the
    > >>>extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

    > >>If you’d been doing 50 you’d have been able to stop in time. You can’t
    > >>drive too slow.

    > >Then why do you recommend 50mph?

    > The OP said freeway, you nitwit. Most freeways have speed minimums.
    > THINK

  24. admin says:

    On 27 Aug 2006 19:10:43 -0700, "Harry K" <turnkey4…@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >> >>Then why do you recommend 50mph?

    >> >The OP said freeway, you nitwit. Most freeways have speed minimums.
    >> >THINK

    >> But you said that you can’t go too slow, and now you say you can.
    >> Confused? Let that nice man in the white jacket know; maybe your meds
    >> are reacting to each other.
    >> —
    >> Bill Funk
    >> replace "g" with "a"

    >Don’t confuse the poor thing.  It is now arguing with itself.

    >Harry K

    He argues with everyone.
    That nice man in the white jacket who helps him, is changed out every
    two days. That’s the longest anyone can take it. The white jacket
    assignments for him are in a strict rotation; everyone gets their turn
    in the barrel.

    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"