Rear ended = partly your fault
Discussion
I know that if you get rear-ended it's usually the other drivers fault and I am under the impression that it still affects your insurance premium, just like all non-fault accidents will.
However, to what extent do you contribute to the accident.
If your braking is too sharp or you hesitate at the roundabout then surely its partly your fault?
What about if you have to brake hard because the driver in front has slammed their brakes on?
Maybe you should leave a bigger gap?
Maybe that's what the insurance companies think, I don't know.
I've been rear ended. In around 1989 in a Mk3 Cortina at a roundabout. I hesitated and bham!, one written off Sierra!
"I thought you pulled out mate" etc
So. Is it partly your fault that you get rear ended or is 100% the other drivers?
VOTE NOW!!!
However, to what extent do you contribute to the accident.
If your braking is too sharp or you hesitate at the roundabout then surely its partly your fault?
What about if you have to brake hard because the driver in front has slammed their brakes on?
Maybe you should leave a bigger gap?
Maybe that's what the insurance companies think, I don't know.
I've been rear ended. In around 1989 in a Mk3 Cortina at a roundabout. I hesitated and bham!, one written off Sierra!
"I thought you pulled out mate" etc
So. Is it partly your fault that you get rear ended or is 100% the other drivers?
VOTE NOW!!!
GTIR said:
I know that if you get rear-ended it's usually the other drivers fault and I am under the impression that it still affects your insurance premium, just like all non-fault accidents will.
However, to what extent do you contribute to the accident.
If your braking is too sharp or you hesitate at the roundabout then surely its partly your fault?
What about if you have to brake hard because the driver in front has slammed their brakes on?
Maybe you should leave a bigger gap?
Maybe that's what the insurance companies think, I don't know.
I've been rear ended. In around 1989 in a Mk3 Cortina at a roundabout. I hesitated and bham!, one written off Sierra!
"I thought you pulled out mate" etc
So. Is it partly your fault that you get rear ended or is 100% the other drivers?
VOTE NOW!!!
Nope. Person behind could have left more space if they hit you. Or they assumed you had pulled away. Or they were not paying attention. Or they were going to fast...However, to what extent do you contribute to the accident.
If your braking is too sharp or you hesitate at the roundabout then surely its partly your fault?
What about if you have to brake hard because the driver in front has slammed their brakes on?
Maybe you should leave a bigger gap?
Maybe that's what the insurance companies think, I don't know.
I've been rear ended. In around 1989 in a Mk3 Cortina at a roundabout. I hesitated and bham!, one written off Sierra!
"I thought you pulled out mate" etc
So. Is it partly your fault that you get rear ended or is 100% the other drivers?
VOTE NOW!!!
Etc, etc....
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2011/2011C...
Good case about it
"The Legal Framework
[30] Guidance about the distance to be observed between vehicles in the context of negligence is provided by Brown and Lynn v Western SMT Co 1945 SC 31. Lord Justice Clerk Cooper stated at pages 35-36:
"The distance which should separate any two vehicles travelling one behind the other must depend on many variable factors-their speed, the nature of the locality, the other traffic present or to be expected, the opportunity available to the following driver of commanding a view ahead of the leading vehicle, the distance within which the following vehicle can be pulled up, and many other things. The following driver is, in my view, bound, so far as reasonably possible, to take up such a position, and to drive in such a fashion, as will enable him to deal successfully with all traffic exigencies reasonably to be anticipated: but whether he has fulfilled this duty must in every case be a matter of fact, just as it is a question of fact whether, on any emergency disclosing itself, the following driver acted with the alertness, skill and judgment reasonably to be expected in the circumstances."
[31] A case with some similarities is Smith v Harris [1939] 3 All ER 960. The lead rider motorcyclist in a group involved in a treasure hunt missed a turning and stopped suddenly. Another rider collided into him. The passenger on the following bike sustained injuries. It was held that the two motorcyclists were equally to blame. Because every case turns on its own facts, however, I can derive only limited assistance from such an illustration.
Was Mr Todd Negligent?
[32] In determining negligence, the key question is whether or not Mr Todd was confronted by an emergency. If there was one, then he was not negligent. He was entitled to brake as he did. But if there was no emergency, then that throws the spotlight on his actions.
[33] In my view, the onus of proof does have a bearing on the decision in this case. In many cases, when all the evidence has been adduced, the question of onus usually ceases to be important: Jenkins v Allied Ironfounders Ltd 1970 SC (HL) 37, 41 per Lord Reid; Sanderson v McManus 1997 SC (HL) 55, 62 G-H, per Lord Hope. However, a sudden and unexpected manoeuvre may call for an explanation. In Mars v Glasgow Corporation 1940 SC 202, two passengers in a tram were injured when it stopped. Lord President Normand stated at page 206:
"... the stopping of a tramway car by braking so violently as to throw passengers of their seats is evidence of negligence, and conclusive evidence of negligence if no justification is proved."
[34] In this case, the question of why Mr Todd braked has not been satisfactorily answered. I attach importance to two matters. First, as the junction was signposted, he was put on alert that he might require to stop or slow down as another vehicle might seek to turn into, or exit from, the side road. Secondly and more importantly, Mr Todd should have been aware that that Mr Davidson was going to stop his pick-up truck because (a) it was slowing down gradually; (b) its indicators were on; and (c) at some point its brake lights also came on. Against that background, I hold that Mr Todd was in part to blame for the accident. I conclude that any emergency on the road was created by his own inattention. By braking hard, Mr Todd was in breach of his duty of care to his fellow road users. He did not adhere to the provisions of the Highway Code. He did not brake early and lightly."
edit:
There is also another case involving a taxi driver braking suddenly upon finding an address, but for example if you slam on your brakes on a slip road it could be £10K in whiplash claims for you or it could be you were an idiot for doing a full stop on a slip road with no hazards.
Good case about it
"The Legal Framework
[30] Guidance about the distance to be observed between vehicles in the context of negligence is provided by Brown and Lynn v Western SMT Co 1945 SC 31. Lord Justice Clerk Cooper stated at pages 35-36:
"The distance which should separate any two vehicles travelling one behind the other must depend on many variable factors-their speed, the nature of the locality, the other traffic present or to be expected, the opportunity available to the following driver of commanding a view ahead of the leading vehicle, the distance within which the following vehicle can be pulled up, and many other things. The following driver is, in my view, bound, so far as reasonably possible, to take up such a position, and to drive in such a fashion, as will enable him to deal successfully with all traffic exigencies reasonably to be anticipated: but whether he has fulfilled this duty must in every case be a matter of fact, just as it is a question of fact whether, on any emergency disclosing itself, the following driver acted with the alertness, skill and judgment reasonably to be expected in the circumstances."
[31] A case with some similarities is Smith v Harris [1939] 3 All ER 960. The lead rider motorcyclist in a group involved in a treasure hunt missed a turning and stopped suddenly. Another rider collided into him. The passenger on the following bike sustained injuries. It was held that the two motorcyclists were equally to blame. Because every case turns on its own facts, however, I can derive only limited assistance from such an illustration.
Was Mr Todd Negligent?
[32] In determining negligence, the key question is whether or not Mr Todd was confronted by an emergency. If there was one, then he was not negligent. He was entitled to brake as he did. But if there was no emergency, then that throws the spotlight on his actions.
[33] In my view, the onus of proof does have a bearing on the decision in this case. In many cases, when all the evidence has been adduced, the question of onus usually ceases to be important: Jenkins v Allied Ironfounders Ltd 1970 SC (HL) 37, 41 per Lord Reid; Sanderson v McManus 1997 SC (HL) 55, 62 G-H, per Lord Hope. However, a sudden and unexpected manoeuvre may call for an explanation. In Mars v Glasgow Corporation 1940 SC 202, two passengers in a tram were injured when it stopped. Lord President Normand stated at page 206:
"... the stopping of a tramway car by braking so violently as to throw passengers of their seats is evidence of negligence, and conclusive evidence of negligence if no justification is proved."
[34] In this case, the question of why Mr Todd braked has not been satisfactorily answered. I attach importance to two matters. First, as the junction was signposted, he was put on alert that he might require to stop or slow down as another vehicle might seek to turn into, or exit from, the side road. Secondly and more importantly, Mr Todd should have been aware that that Mr Davidson was going to stop his pick-up truck because (a) it was slowing down gradually; (b) its indicators were on; and (c) at some point its brake lights also came on. Against that background, I hold that Mr Todd was in part to blame for the accident. I conclude that any emergency on the road was created by his own inattention. By braking hard, Mr Todd was in breach of his duty of care to his fellow road users. He did not adhere to the provisions of the Highway Code. He did not brake early and lightly."
edit:
There is also another case involving a taxi driver braking suddenly upon finding an address, but for example if you slam on your brakes on a slip road it could be £10K in whiplash claims for you or it could be you were an idiot for doing a full stop on a slip road with no hazards.
Edited by tercelgold on Tuesday 4th September 20:33
I got driven into while stationary in a car park. How much of that was my fault? None, just another driver not looking where he was going and driving way to fast for the conditions, he admitted full liability and paid for all of the damage to my car. Unfortunately, it will have a bearing, no matter how minor, on the prices I pay for the next few years at least.
Sometimes, you get rear ended simply because you braked, the guy behind you was too close to you and not reading the road beyond your car. You can have no fault at all and still get taken out by a numpty.
Sometimes, you get rear ended simply because you braked, the guy behind you was too close to you and not reading the road beyond your car. You can have no fault at all and still get taken out by a numpty.
Vehicle A Driving along at 50 MPH on a nice straight A Road
Vehicle B Driving along at about 50 MPH going in the other Direction
Vehicle B Swearves accross road just before they pass and looses it and spins and ends up going up the road backwards towards Vehicle A on Vehicle A's side of the road
Vehicle A slams on brakes no room to get out of way and hits the rear of person B still coming backwards.
Vehicle B ends up off the road on Person A's side minus its rear wheel and suspension etc (4X4 ends up 3X3
)
Vehicle A Front Nearside and front smashed in where it had Hit rear of Vehicle B
(Both Vehicles B a 4X4 and A a large German Saloon Written off)
= 100% Vehicle B Fault
Vehicle B Driving along at about 50 MPH going in the other Direction
Vehicle B Swearves accross road just before they pass and looses it and spins and ends up going up the road backwards towards Vehicle A on Vehicle A's side of the road
Vehicle A slams on brakes no room to get out of way and hits the rear of person B still coming backwards.
Vehicle B ends up off the road on Person A's side minus its rear wheel and suspension etc (4X4 ends up 3X3
)Vehicle A Front Nearside and front smashed in where it had Hit rear of Vehicle B
(Both Vehicles B a 4X4 and A a large German Saloon Written off)
= 100% Vehicle B Fault
KelWedge said:
Vehicle A Driving along at 50 MPH on a nice straight A Road
Vehicle B Driving along at about 50 MPH going in the other Direction
Vehicle B Swearves accross road just before they pass and looses it and spins and ends up going up the road backwards towards Vehicle A on Vehicle A's side of the road
Vehicle A slams on brakes no room to get out of way and hits the rear of person B still coming backwards.
Vehicle B ends up off the road on Person A's side minus its rear wheel and suspension etc (4X4 ends up 3X3)
Vehicle A Front Nearside and front smashed in where it had Hit rear of Vehicle B
(Both Vehicles B a 4X4 and A a large German Saloon Written off)
= 100% Vehicle B Fault
What if they both spin and crash backwards into each other? That would confuse the insurance companies Vehicle B Driving along at about 50 MPH going in the other Direction
Vehicle B Swearves accross road just before they pass and looses it and spins and ends up going up the road backwards towards Vehicle A on Vehicle A's side of the road
Vehicle A slams on brakes no room to get out of way and hits the rear of person B still coming backwards.
Vehicle B ends up off the road on Person A's side minus its rear wheel and suspension etc (4X4 ends up 3X3
)Vehicle A Front Nearside and front smashed in where it had Hit rear of Vehicle B
(Both Vehicles B a 4X4 and A a large German Saloon Written off)
= 100% Vehicle B Fault
I have not read the topic, but i was sat in traffic at the start of this year.
In accordance with good practice i left plenty of room between me and the car in front. The old cronie behind (who probably pays about £5.75 per year in insurance because she got her licence in 1923) decided she would just crash into the back of me for no reason.
My premium went up. 'Because I am at greater risk'.
Greater risk of what exactly, getting stuck in traffic in front of someone who cant control a car? Alas, from now on i shall always make sure NOBODY is within 500 yards of my rear end. If they are i will pull over and let them pass.
f
king insurance bks.
In accordance with good practice i left plenty of room between me and the car in front. The old cronie behind (who probably pays about £5.75 per year in insurance because she got her licence in 1923) decided she would just crash into the back of me for no reason.
My premium went up. 'Because I am at greater risk'.
Greater risk of what exactly, getting stuck in traffic in front of someone who cant control a car? Alas, from now on i shall always make sure NOBODY is within 500 yards of my rear end. If they are i will pull over and let them pass.
f
king insurance bks.
miniman said:
That was really good. As much as i love top gear these days, a bit less cocking around and more films like this would be much more appreciated. Do i want to watch tom cruise drive a st car round the track, or learn a bit about brakes, tyres and suspension....Mastodon2 said:
I got driven into while stationary in a car park. How much of that was my fault? None, just another driver not looking where he was going and driving way to fast for the conditions, he admitted full liability and paid for all of the damage to my car. Unfortunately, it will have a bearing, no matter how minor, on the prices I pay for the next few years at least.
Someone drove into my car in a car park whilst I was stood 10m away from it so I know how you feel regarding inflated prices following "your accident"The bigger joke is that my **** of an insurance company sold my details even though I NEVER proceeded with a claim as the guy who hit me had no insurance/licence etc so although I never made a claim nor got a penny from my insurance company nor did they incur any costs I not only pay more I have the pleasure of receiving numerous calls from ambulance chasing f
kwits who want to encourage me to claim the £3k I supposedly deserve. The only time that I have been rear ended was when I was sat stationary in traffic behind a bus outside the Troxy near limehouse, a taxi driver didnt even brake and drove into the back of me because he was waving at his mates on the other side of the road. How on earth am I supposed to avoid that and why would that indicate that I am more likely to make a claim in the future? 
My one and only accident so far:
I was tired after a long day, and it was cold and icy. About 8pm. I was turning left at a large roundabout, which was ruled by traffic lights rather than the person on the right has way. The left turn in question is actually quite a steep down hill. The person in the lane next to me decided he needed to turn left, so when the lights went green cut me up something rotten. He then slammed his brakes on for no real reason. I tried to drive past him on the right because there was no way I would stop in time, as he had taken my braking distance. Unfortuantly a car behind had seen this and had already overtaken on the right, clipping my rear bumper as it happened. Due to rather bad grip in the ice, this spun the front of my car right in to the back of the idiot.
Things I wish I'd done:
Be constantly alert as to what other drivers are doing.
Immediatly reclaim any breaking distance, even if it means having to wait another turn at the lights.
When icy, leave about 20 metres room.
Don't be too cocky about winter tyres. Its still no substitute for a warm and sunny day.
The blame, in my opinion, was purely down to the rather stupid maneuvre by the person in front. But had I been a better driver, both cars would still be running. It was the reason why I had to scrap my car come MOT time.
On the plus, it made me a far more alert driver and as a result of having to get a new car, I'm now in a 3 series rather than a peugeot
silver lining and all that.
I was tired after a long day, and it was cold and icy. About 8pm. I was turning left at a large roundabout, which was ruled by traffic lights rather than the person on the right has way. The left turn in question is actually quite a steep down hill. The person in the lane next to me decided he needed to turn left, so when the lights went green cut me up something rotten. He then slammed his brakes on for no real reason. I tried to drive past him on the right because there was no way I would stop in time, as he had taken my braking distance. Unfortuantly a car behind had seen this and had already overtaken on the right, clipping my rear bumper as it happened. Due to rather bad grip in the ice, this spun the front of my car right in to the back of the idiot.
Things I wish I'd done:
Be constantly alert as to what other drivers are doing.
Immediatly reclaim any breaking distance, even if it means having to wait another turn at the lights.
When icy, leave about 20 metres room.
Don't be too cocky about winter tyres. Its still no substitute for a warm and sunny day.
The blame, in my opinion, was purely down to the rather stupid maneuvre by the person in front. But had I been a better driver, both cars would still be running. It was the reason why I had to scrap my car come MOT time.
On the plus, it made me a far more alert driver and as a result of having to get a new car, I'm now in a 3 series rather than a peugeot
silver lining and all that.
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 wker in bent stationary Capri so I hit Capri.
So I went into Capri, but I'd maintain the incident 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.
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. Derp said:
That was really good. As much as i love top gear these days, a bit less cocking around and more films like this would be much more appreciated. Do i want to watch tom cruise drive a st car round the track, or learn a bit about brakes, tyres and suspension....
It was good but Top Gear is a brand now, and brands don't sell on low viewing figures and informative films.t car round the track, or learn a bit about brakes, tyres and suspension....Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff