Brake testing question..

[gtidriver]

After watching a LOT of the videos on the st driving thread,i notice a lot of people love a bit of brake testing. What happens insurance wise if you drive into these knobheads??would you still be liable as your driving too close?? if you had a dash cam would this evidence sway towards being the other drivers fault? or is it your still too close.

[CaptainSlow]

The idiot could just state they saw something in the road that caused them to brake, you and your insurer couldn't prove otherwise so will go against you.

[anonymous-user]

Depends.

You'd have to take the complete context into consideration but in general if someone deliberately slams their brakes on for no reason other than expressing anger it will not go well for them from a legal or an insurance standpoint.

[anonymous-user]

Quite a lot of PH's do themselves partake in a spot of 'brake testing' - so I'm not sure which 'knobheads' you're referring to

In the absence of dashcam footage (or independent witness testimony), it might be difficult for the 'shunter' to avoid 100% culpability.

You should always be able to stop, comfortably, within the distance you can see to be clear.

[Countdown]

280E said:

Quite a lot of PH's do themselves partake in a spot of 'brake testing' - so I'm not sure which 'knobheads' you're referring to

Sadly, being a PH'er and being a knobhead aren't mutually exclusive.

[hedgefinder]

Countdown said:

Sadly, being a PH'er and being a knobhead aren't mutually exclusive.

yes, but its usually the same individuals who do "brake test" and complain about people sitting on their rear bumper who actually sit on other peoples rear bumper and complain about people dawdling.....

[paintman]

Frankly it's an idiotic practice.

Scenario 1: You're being tailgated. You decide to 'brake test' him. He runs into the back of your car. Your car is damaged and you and/or your passengers are injured. Oh dear, he's uninsured.

Scenario 2: You're being tailgated. You decide to 'brake test' him. He runs into the back of you. Your car is damaged and you and/or your passengers are injured. He is insured. The insurance company payout.

Scenario 3: You're being tailgated. You decide to 'brake test' him. He runs into the back of you. Your car is damaged and you and/or your passengers are injured. He is insured. His dashcam and/or independent witnesses support his claim that you braked suddenly and for no apparent reason. The insurance companies withhold payment and start an investigation into you in the belief that you are a 'crash for cash' fraudster.

Whilst 2 would appear to be 'best case outcome' bear in mind the attendant hassle of sorting it all out and the possibility that any injury could be lifechanging.

Nobody 'wins'.

[Landshark]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HXpZcosOj4Y


This isn't a crash for cash, there was more to the background story. But in essence the car was annoyed with the van and was brake testing it. Unfortunately for the van the lorry behind couldn't stop. There is nothing in front of the car, the van driver and lorry driver were cleared by the vans dashcam and the car driver prosecuted.

[Dr Jekyll]

Landshark said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HXpZcosOj4Y


This isn't a crash for cash, there was more to the background story. But in essence the car was annoyed with the van and was brake testing it. Unfortunately for the van the lorry behind couldn't stop. There is nothing in front of the car, the van driver and lorry driver were cleared by the vans dashcam and the car driver prosecuted.

How could the lorry driver possibly be cleared?

[TheEnd]

I would have thought it would come under the "careless or inconsiderate driving" if it was proved to be done on purpose to cause an issue.

[numtumfutunch]

Somebody on the dashcam thread posted a clip of their missus antagonising another motorist who then brake tested her

He allegedly had the BiB interested but despite several reminders never did say how it all panned out

So dont rely on a dashcam.....

EDIT: here you go, Fiat brakes suddenly for small child/dog not seen by camera car - probably

Poster never did say what the outcome was which makes me suspect the dashcam was of no help

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKrJq46G35I

Edited by numtumfutunch on Sunday 6th September 18:28

[V8LM]

Dr Jekyll said:

How could the lorry driver possibly be cleared?

Yes, how? The van had come to a halt (not a 'screeching' one either) and was stationary when the lorry hit it, and at some speed judging by how far the van was pushed forward.

[flemke]

In certain spots on the Autobahn, cameras are set up to measure following distances between vehicles. Might be a good idea in UK to devote less camera time to speed detection and more to tailgating detection.

[Aretnap]

There was an appeal court case a couple of years ago where a BMW driver braked suddenly and for no good reason (reading between the lines: brake tested) while being tailgated by a transit driver. Liability was split - the guy in front was held to be 40% to blame for braking for no good reason and the guy behind was 60% liable for driving too close.

http://www.forbessolicitors.co.uk/blog/2011/12/is-...

If you weren't tailgating and had maintained a sensible distance then a greater share of the blame might go to the guy in front, but I doubt whether you'd get off without any blame whatsoever as you should still have been able to stop if you'd paid more attention.

In practice insurance companies don't like expensive court cases over relatively small claims, so unless it was a big personal injury claim and/or you had unusually good evidence to show blame on the part of the guy in front they would tend to default to the position of the guy behind being 100% to blame (which is true of the vast majority of rear end shunts in any case).

[Ian Geary]

numtumfutunch said:

Somebody on the dashcam thread posted a clip of their missus antagonising another motorist who then brake tested her

He allegedly had the BiB interested but despite several reminders never did say how it all panned out

So dont rely on a dashcam.....

EDIT: here you go, Fiat brakes suddenly for small child/dog not seen by camera car - probably

Poster never did say what the outcome was which makes me suspect the dashcam was of no help

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKrJq46G35I

Edited by numtumfutunch on Sunday 6th September 18:28

I remember reading an update to that thread. It stuck in my mind because an MR2 turbo goes past after the accident that was the spitting image of my old one.

The update was along the lines of: after viewing the footage, the other car's insurer decided that driver had deliberately caused the accident, and was thereby not covered under the terms of their insurance policy. So repairs paid for by that insurer would then become due back from the (un)insured.

Not going to go looking for the post, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't just a dream.

Ian

[cmaguire]

Brake testers are wk@rs, however you cut it, and doing it makes them a dangerous driver irrespective of any claims by them to the contrary.
The idiot in the blue Peugeot should (as he/she probably didn't) have had an automatic disqualification for that. As for the unseen truck that rear-ended the van, yes he might well have been paying more attention and avoided the accident, but on a road that appeared to present no danger (dry, light traffic, straight) he may well have been looking ahead immediately prior to the incident and taken a casual look elsewhere at the moment the nonsence started.

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

Brake testers are wk@rs, however you cut it, and doing it makes them a dangerous driver irrespective of any claims by them to the contrary.
The idiot in the blue Peugeot should (as he/she probably didn't) have had an automatic disqualification for that. As for the unseen truck that rear-ended the van, yes he might well have been paying more attention and avoided the accident, but on a road that appeared to present no danger (dry, light traffic, straight) he may well have been looking ahead immediately prior to the incident and taken a casual look elsewhere at the moment the nonsence started.

Can't see why anyone would brake test anyone else unless they've been antagonised by some tailgater. They're both equally to blame.

As for the truck driver, frankly he simply got what he deserved. Too close.

[flemke]

What do people here think of "brake light testing", whereby the driver does not slow the car but either turns on the lights, so that the lit rear running lights momentarily read as "brake" lights, or barely touches the brake pedal whilst keeping the right foot on the throttle?

[zarjaz1991]

flemke said:

What do people here think of "brake light testing", whereby the driver does not slow the car but either turns on the lights, so that the lit rear running lights momentarily read as "brake" lights, or barely touches the brake pedal whilst keeping the right foot on the throttle?

Complete nobs with knobs on.

[Moonhawk]

Never understood the thinking behind turning a potentially dangerous situation into an actually dangerous one.