|
heebeegeetee
19,529 posts
117 months
|
The only problem with apportioning some blame to the guy in front, is that the driver behind does not have one single good reason for being too close to the car in front.
Being too close neither speeds your journey up or gives you a better view ahead. Being too close is dumb whichever way you look at it.
So no matter what the guy in front does, it doesn't excuse anyone behind for running into him. The guy in front may make a mistake, but being too close is a deliberate act.
|
|
|
PUA
1,056 posts
28 months
|
Derp said: never seen that before, interesting vid!
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,916 posts
114 months
|
Strawman said: Ari said: So I went into Capri, but I'd maintain the incident wasn't my fault. I think that would stand up in court, IIRC if you are driving behind a lorry say and due to mechanical failure it comes to an abrupt halt, leaving you not enough room to brake to a stop, so you hit it, then you are not held responsible. There's a precedent case where it was held not to be the fault of the following driver if his braking distance was taken up by another vehicle swerving in front of him.
|
|
|
KelWedge
849 posts
54 months
|
heebeegeetee said: The only problem with apportioning some blame to the guy in front, is that the driver behind does not have one single good reason for being too close to the car in front.
Being too close neither speeds your journey up or gives you a better view ahead. Being too close is dumb whichever way you look at it.
So no matter what the guy in front does, it doesn't excuse anyone behind for running into him. The guy in front may make a mistake, but being too close is a deliberate act. It's a good point which I agree with as normal, but my earlier post shows it can be wrong! Ps two years on it still causes issues! Me being driver of the saloon and thanks by luck to the off duty paramedics in the car behind the 3x3 !
|
|
|
Ozzie Osmond
12,083 posts
115 months
|
Yes, usually "fault" is attributed to the car behind. But sudden unexplained braking, if proved, can get you into all kinds of trouble. Bib says,
"If I'm patrolling & someone is tailgating then they are looking at being reported by me for Driving Without Due Care And Attention".
"If I'm patrolling & someone brake tests a following vehicle they are looking at being reported by me for Dangerous Driving". [A much more serious offence.]
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Captain Muppet
5,937 posts
134 months
|
Derp said: I have not read the topic... Seven posts. That's how many you couldn't be bothered to read before posting. FFS.
|
|
|
kambites
32,864 posts
90 months
|
It's certainly true that a good driver is (perhaps marginally) less likely to be read-ended than a bad driver, overall. This is why being rear-ended pushes up insurance risk calculations. However, with the exception of some very special situations, the driver behind is always entirely at fault, to my mind.
Brake testing someone just because they're tail-gating you is clearly stupid and dangerous and deserves to be called "dangerous driving", but I'd still view a resulting accident as the fault of the driver behind (who is pretty much by definition also driving dangerously, if they couldn't stop). Standing on the brakes because a squirrel runs out in front of you, for example, is to my mind not dangerous driving - it's just a natural reaction.
|
|
|
OllieC
2,810 posts
83 months
|
Ozzie Osmond said: Yes, usually "fault" is attributed to the car behind. But sudden unexplained braking, if proved, can get you into all kinds of trouble. Bib says,
"If I'm patrolling & someone is tailgating then they are looking at being reported by me for Driving Without Due Care And Attention".
"If I'm patrolling & someone brake tests a following vehicle they are looking at being reported by me for Dangerous Driving". [A much more serious offence.] quite right too !
|
|
|
Davie
843 posts
84 months
|
I was hit from behind (oo-er!) a few years back and the claim became farcical. I was stopped in queing traffic, handbrake on minding my business and some fat bint in a Saxo ploughed straight into me at 50mph. A witness behind her said her brake lights never came on. Lovely. She immediately claimed that my brake lights weren't working (no s  t, they're now somewhere near the roof line!) and that's what her argument was for her insurer too. They actually went with that and claimed it was my fault as "at the time of the crash, the Vauxhall Cavalier had no red brake lights showing to the year" Seriously! It took many angry calls to point out that a) no brake lights work when stationary, handbrake applied and foot off the brake and b) at the time of the crash, my brake lights were reduced to a million pieces of broken glass, smashed plastic and twisted metal. Sadly even the police were a bit unsure and at teh time seemed quite convinced by her claims that I stood on the brakes, no brake lights illumnated and thus she hit me. It was only thanks to the chap in front of me (who I subsequently hit) making a statement syaing that he'd looked in his mirror and could confirm I was stationary for a good number of seconds before the imapact. Just a bloody nightmare, forget the actual crash, loosing my car, being off work, not being able to climb for months... hell that was a walk in the park compared to dealing with her moronic insurer. Still, least she was insured...
|
|
|
monthefish
15,709 posts
100 months
|
Ari said: I rear ended someone once and would suggest it wasn't my fault. Approaching a set of traffic lights, two lanes in my direction, left lane turning left, right lane going straight on. One car, a Sierra, in front, neither of us going fast, nothing in lefthand lane. Behind, a Mini and a jacked up Ford Capri, young lads chasing each other come haring down the inside lane as we approach the lights, which are green. Mini decides he's going to be clever, and lose his mate by switching into the righthand lane in front of the Sierra without sgnalling. So he cuts in front, just as lights change. so he bangs on the brakes and screeches to a halt, forcing the Sierra to stand on everything to avoid running into him. I stand on the brakes too, however I've got a correct brakig distance so enough room to stop before hitting the Sierra. Unfortunately numpty in the Capri, seeing his mate dive right decides to dive into the gap between me and Sierra just as his mate stands on the brakes forcing the Sierra to perform an emergancy stop. Capri hits Sierra. Braking gap between me and Sierra now full of w ker in bent stationary Capri so I hit Capri. So I went into Capri, but I'd maintain the incident wasn't my fault. I agree it doesn't sound like it was your fault, but you could probably have avoided the collision.
|
|
|
mrmr96
11,945 posts
73 months
|
Deva Link said: Strawman said: Ari said: So I went into Capri, but I'd maintain the incident wasn't my fault. I think that would stand up in court, IIRC if you are driving behind a lorry say and due to mechanical failure it comes to an abrupt halt, leaving you not enough room to brake to a stop, so you hit it, then you are not held responsible. There's a precedent case where it was held not to be the fault of the following driver if his braking distance was taken up by another vehicle swerving in front of him. Strawman, I think you're wrong. The difference is between: - A vehicle you're following stops, and you hit it. It will be your fault. - A vehicle pulls into your braking zone and stops, and you hit it. It may not be your fault. Similarly if you're driving on an NSL single carriageway, approach a junction. The car waiting to pull out is stationary, so you must assume they've seen you and are waiting for you to pass. They then pull out in front of you and you hit the rear of their car. That would be mostly their fault IMO, as they pulled into your braking zone. Same as the Capri story above. (The distinction between that and what you posted was that no one has come into your braking zone.)
|
|
|
kambites
32,864 posts
90 months
|
Davie said: I was hit from behind (oo-er!) a few years back and the claim became farcical. I was stopped in queing traffic, handbrake on minding my business and some fat bint in a Saxo ploughed straight into me at 50mph. A witness behind her said her brake lights never came on. Lovely. She immediately claimed that my brake lights weren't working (no s t, they're now somewhere near the roof line!) and that's what her argument was for her insurer too. They actually went with that and claimed it was my fault as "at the time of the crash, the Vauxhall Cavalier had no red brake lights showing to the year" Seriously! It took many angry calls to point out that a) no brake lights work when stationary, handbrake applied and foot off the brake and b) at the time of the crash, my brake lights were reduced to a million pieces of broken glass, smashed plastic and twisted metal. Sadly even the police were a bit unsure and at teh time seemed quite convinced by her claims that I stood on the brakes, no brake lights illumnated and thus she hit me. It was only thanks to the chap in front of me (who I subsequently hit) making a statement syaing that he'd looked in his mirror and could confirm I was stationary for a good number of seconds before the imapact. Just a bloody nightmare, forget the actual crash, loosing my car, being off work, not being able to climb for months... hell that was a walk in the park compared to dealing with her moronic insurer. Still, least she was insured... Obviously these kinds of conflicting claims need to be investigated fully but given that it sounds like it was ultimately fairly clear that she was simply lying, I've never understood why she doesn't get banged up for fraud/lying in a court of law/wasting police time/any number of other such crimes. Nothing particularly to do with motoring accidents, it happens in all aspects of law.
|
|
|
Krikkit
2,446 posts
50 months
|
mrmr96 said: Similarly if you're driving on an NSL single carriageway, approach a junction. The car waiting to pull out is stationary, so you must assume they've seen you and are waiting for you to pass. They then pull out in front of you and you hit the rear of their car. That would be mostlyentirely their fault IMO, as they pulled into your braking zone. Same as the Capri story above. (The distinction between that and what you posted was that no one has come into your braking zone.) FTFY.
|
|
|
monthefish
15,709 posts
100 months
|
Krikkit said: mrmr96 said: Similarly if you're driving on an NSL single carriageway, approach a junction. The car waiting to pull out is stationary, so you must assume they've seen you and are waiting for you to pass. They then pull out in front of you and you hit the rear of their car. That would be mostlyentirely their fault IMO, as they pulled into your braking zone. Same as the Capri story above. (The distinction between that and what you posted was that no one has come into your braking zone.) FTFY. Thing is, on a motorbike such an accident being " mostlyentirely their fault" isn't much consolation, and therefore it is advisable to do whatever possible to avoid a collision (regardless of whose fault the resultant collison might be)
|
|
|
kambites
32,864 posts
90 months
|
monthefish said: Thing is, on a motorbike such an accident being "mostlyentirely their fault" isn't much consolation, and therefore it is advisable to do whatever possible to avoid a collision (regardless of whose fault the resultant collison might be) I'd say that even in a car it's advisable to do whatever possible to avoid a collision regardless of whose "fault" it might be - sadly very few drivers seem to share this view. There are obviously some road accidents in which one party is clearly 100% the victim, but I get the feeling they're in a minority. Just simple things like making sure you are always slowing brake lights to the rear if you're stopped and there is no car behind you probably help quite a lot.
|
|
|
Strawman
5,095 posts
76 months
|
mrmr96 said: Strawman, I think you're wrong. The difference is between:
- A vehicle you're following stops, and you hit it. It will be your fault. Depends how quickly it stops, following at a safe distance (say a couple of seconds) can be less than the distance needed to brake to a stop.
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,916 posts
114 months
|
Davie said: I was stopped in queing traffic, handbrake on minding my business and some fat bint in a Saxo ploughed straight into me at 50mph.
......
no brake lights work when stationary, handbrake applied and foot off the brake Has the incident caused you to modify they way you handle such situations now?
|
|
|
ewenm
24,448 posts
114 months
|
Strawman said: Depends how quickly it stops, following at a safe distance (say a couple of seconds) can be less than the distance needed to brake to a stop. Wouldn't that suggest that the gap wasn't actually a "safe distance"? Of course, if you're on the motorway and leave a proper "safe gap", someone will fill it.
|
|
|
mrmr96
11,945 posts
73 months
|
Strawman said: mrmr96 said: Strawman, I think you're wrong. The difference is between:
- A vehicle you're following stops, and you hit it. It will be your fault. Depends how quickly it stops, following at a safe distance (say a couple of seconds) can be less than the distance needed to brake to a stop. Logic error, divide by zero. What nonsense. I suggest you re-evaluate your definition of "safe distance".
|
|
|
Derp
1,347 posts
23 months
|
Captain Muppet said: Seven posts. That's how many you couldn't be bothered to read before posting.
FFS. u mad bro?
|
|
