Driving into the back....

BlazingSaddler

of the car in front. Are you always perceived to be in the wrong? If the driver in front does an emergency stop at 50-60kmh. If the total stopping distance in dry conditions for 50km/h is 24metres and a ford focus is 4.8m long then you'd have to leave 5 car lengths between cars to avoid a collision. Is this correct? I ask as it has just happened to my wife.

Stheno

Did she hit someone or did someone else hit her?

bazz26

Nothing is every 100% certain but you are supposed to keep enough distance between you and the car in front for you to react, in the event that the car in front has to make a sudden emergency stop. Unless you can prove otherwise then most insurance companies will go along with this afaik.

HandsomeDan

Your wife was too close. Plain and simple.

Atlantic Dawn

Car infront could have brand new premium tyres and supercar brakes, car behind could have ditchfinder tyres.

Dardania

I remember when Mercedes brought out their brake assist feature, people predicted an increase in rear end collisions as a result...

tailgating bad, mkay?

BlazingSaddler

Stheno wrote: »

Did she hit someone or did someone else hit her?

There were 3 cars involved, front car stopped suddenly, car behind swerved left to avoid, clipping the bumper but also stopping suddenly, my wife then swerved left herself, couldn't avoid car no. 2 causing an awful lot of damage to car no. 2's passenger side and her own drivers side.

I'm certainly not disputing that she was too close, I suppose she must have been, but surely for any of us to be able to avoid a collision in this situation would require us to be leaving more space between the car in front than we currently do. I suspect even the two second rule would leave it tight.

Atlantic Dawn

mattb74 wrote: »

I'm certainly not disputing that she was too close, I suppose she must have been, but surely for any of us to be able to avoid a collision in this situation would require us to be leaving more space between the car in front than we currently do. I suspect even the two second rule would leave it tight.

What brand, age and condition were the tyres on her car?

El_Duderino 09

Your question seems to amount to 'I know you have to leave enough space to avoid a collision and I know she didn't leave enough space. Is there any way we can argue it wasn't her fault?'

Unfortunately the answer is not really. You would be surprised by how much room you need to leave in order to cover all unexpected and unusual events. An unusual event occurred in front of your wife and she hadn't left enough space to avoid a collision.

pippip

I think its a mix of leaving enough room and also being aware of whats ahead yourself.

You can't just star at the car in front and wait for them to brake. I know I would be looking generally a few cars ahead to spot anything that might occur.

ChippingSodbury

pippip wrote: »

I think its a mix of leaving enough room and also being aware of whats ahead yourself.

You can't just star at the car in front and wait for them to brake. I know I would be looking generally a few cars ahead to spot anything that might occur.

I hate travelling directly behind vans or trucks because I can't see brakelights of traffic in front of them.

corktina

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

I hate travelling directly behind vans or trucks because I can't see brakelights of traffic in front of them.

back off until you can.

renofan

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

I hate travelling directly behind vans or trucks because I can't see brakelights of traffic in front of them.

Your post indicates to me you're driving too close to the van/truck.

@ OP I fear your wife was was too close to avoid a collision. Also the condition of the brakes/tyres would have an affect too.

Anjobe

mattb74 wrote: »

I'm certainly not disputing that she was too close, I suppose she must have been, but surely for any of us to be able to avoid a collision in this situation would require us to be leaving more space between the car in front than we currently do. I suspect even the two second rule would leave it tight.

The 2 second rule would imply a safe gap of 28 m at 50 km/h (13.89 m/s), which really should be plenty.

Dardania wrote: »

I remember when Mercedes brought out their brake assist feature, people predicted an increase in rear end collisions as a result...

tailgating bad, mkay?

The Jaguar Mk 2 had a "Disc Brakes!" sign on the boot to warn following drivers that it might stop more quickly than they wold expect!

dr.fuzzenstein

There was a case a few years ago where a car was stopped at traffic lights with a bus stopped behind her (think it was a woman). As the light went green, car drove off and after a short distance she jumped on the brakes with both feet. The bus rear-ended her. She was found to be partially responsible for deliberately causing the crash in order to get compensation.
I can't find a link at the moment, anyone remember?
In Germany (and other countries), you are also partially responsible if you do an emergency stop for no reason, but proving it can be difficult as German courts do not like dashcam footage. But I wholeheartedly agree with that one. Jumping on the brakes from full speed with no warning and no reason should see someone banned for 2 years for reckless endangerment.
But really, 99% of the time it's the rear ender who is at fault.

Markcheese

Often wonder what's the story if you've left plenty of space in traffic, another car nips into the space and then stands on the brakes either because traffic is slowing or because of scam ect ? I suppose a lot depends on what can be proved -

*Kol*

Most people are generally under the impression (wrongly) that they have ample space left between them and the car in front. It usually takes a brown trouser moment to remind them otherwise. Reaction time has a lot to do with it too. I would say that most people have had the slow motion/life flashing before your eyes moment where you see brake lights and it seems to take an eternity to get your foot to the brake pedal, never mind to get it pressed, all the while you are approaching the car in front at a rate you would prefer not to!!

visual

Why did the first car stop suddenly ?

mullingar

As cruel as it sounds, your wife was simply driving too close (or was not paying full attention)

BlazingSaddler

visual wrote: »

Why did the first car stop suddenly ?

Apparently she thought a car coming in the opposite direction was going to turn right quickly crossing her path

joe912

I have actually considered that cars should have brake lights that vary in colour depending how hard you are braking say they are reddish turning purple the harder you brake.

kirving

Plenty of cars, sold in the past 10 years have brake lights which flash under very heavy braking.

visual

mattb74 wrote: »

Apparently she thought a car coming in the opposite direction was going to turn right quickly crossing her path

Poor excuse for causing a pile up.
The law was changed some years ago to remove the 100% automatic blame from car that runs into the back of another. Can't find link but it was changed to proportion blame probably won't help much as most of claim will still be proportion to your wife and it relies on some blame being assigned to first car.

wonski

visual wrote: »

Poor excuse for causing a pile up.
The law was changed some years ago to remove the 100% automatic blame from car that runs into the back of another. Can't find link but it was changed to proportion blame probably won't help much as most of claim will still be proportion to your wife and it relies on some blame being assigned to first car.

I doubt there ever was a "law".

Insurance companies don't make up laws, and Gardai are not to decide who is at fault.

MugMugs

mattb74 wrote: »

Are you always perceived to be in the wrong?

Generally speaking, yes. The logic behind that is that if you've collided with the rear of the car in front, you were too close to begin with.

There have been instances where liability has been sucessfully defended but they were unique scenarios where the other party could prove that the person in front jammed on for no good reason.

corktina

MugMugs wrote: »

Generally speaking, yes. The logic behind that is that if you've collided with the rear of the car in front, you were too close to begin with.

There have been instances where liability has been sucessfully defended but they were unique scenarios where the other party could prove that the person in front jammed on for no good reason.

Generally yes, maybe dash cam evidence that there was not a real emergency would help

MugMugs

corktina wrote: »

Generally yes, maybe dash cam evidence that there was not a real emergency would help

From memory there was a remarkable defence put forward by Dublin Bus a few years ago. Young lady on the Quays stopped suddenly on a green light. CIE ran it to court and using footage from the bus (which one would assume is professional and quality) the judge ruled that there was no actual need for the plaintiff to have stopped in the manner in which she did and ruled in favour of the defendant.

alias no.9

mattb74 wrote: »

There were 3 cars involved, front car stopped suddenly, car behind swerved left to avoid, clipping the bumper but also stopping suddenly, my wife then swerved left herself, couldn't avoid car no. 2 causing an awful lot of damage to car no. 2's passenger side and her own drivers side.

I'm certainly not disputing that she was too close, I suppose she must have been, but surely for any of us to be able to avoid a collision in this situation would require us to be leaving more space between the car in front than we currently do. I suspect even the two second rule would leave it tight.

Happened me a couple of years ago, heading inbound on the N4 at the M50 Junction in the right hand lane of the two city bound lanes, the car in front came to a dead stop in free flowing traffic because they'd missed their turn, I stopped but the person behind hit into me. The car that caused the whole incident proceeded to cross the hatched markings at the last possible point, barely clearing the big green bollard shown here https://goo.gl/maps/PP4lM and almost causing another crash with traffic already in the M50 southbound lane.

I got the make / model / registration of the idiot who caused the whole thing and passed it onto the Gardai and the insurance company of the person who hit me but my damage was covered by the insurance of the person who hit me and to the best of my knowledge, the idiot who caused the whole thing toddled off about their merry way with no further repercussions.

From personal experience, I don't see this going any further than the OP's wifes insurance.

Bio Mech

MugMugs wrote: »

From memory there was a remarkable defence put forward by Dublin Bus a few years ago. Young lady on the Quays stopped suddenly on a green light. CIE ran it to court and using footage from the bus (which one would assume is professional and quality) the judge ruled that there was no actual need for the plaintiff to have stopped in the manner in which she did and ruled in favour of the defendant.

Yes but there were independent witnesses (or at least one) who saw the car driver look in her mirror, look around and then stand on the brakes while the lights were green and the witnesses went to court and testified to that. Dublin Bus underwrite themselves so they were willing to go to court. An insurance company normally wont.

Bio Mech

alias no.9 wrote: »

From personal experience, I don't see this going any further than the OP's wifes insurance.

I don't either. I bet they will settle and accept.

MugMugs

Bio Mech wrote: »

Yes but there were independent witnesses (or at least one) who saw the car driver look in her mirror, look around and then stand on the brakes while the lights were green and the witnesses went to court and testified to that. Dublin Bus underwrite themselves so they were willing to go to court. An insurance company normally wont.

An Insurer will do what is financially beneficial for it to do.

If it's known that there is a significant risk going to litigation then they won't.

It doesn't matter who underwrite Dublin Bus. I imagine it was the same Solicitors and Counsel advising them as other insurers. The law is well proven at being an ass.

The point being made was and still remains that in very rare cases, with sufficent evidence, there is a defence for the collision of the rear of another vehicle.

RoryMurphyJnr

Have you ever tried driving on the m50 leaving a safe distance between you and the car in front?
Almost impossible, everytime you do leave a space some idiot sees the opportunity and dives into it

corktina

RoryMurphyJnr wrote: »

Have you ever tried driving on the m50 leaving a safe distance between you and the car in front?
Almost impossible, everytime you do leave a space some idiot sees the opportunity and dives into it

so you drive unsafely all the time then?

Bio Mech

MugMugs wrote: »

An Insurer will do what is financially beneficial for it to do.

If it's known that there is a significant risk going to litigation then they won't.

It doesn't matter who underwrite Dublin Bus. I imagine it was the same Solicitors and Counsel advising them as other insurers. The law is well proven at being an ass.

The point being made was and still remains that in very rare cases, with sufficent evidence, there is a defence for the collision of the rear of another vehicle.

Well you are basically agreeing with me then? In my experience insurance companies are very unwilling to go to court unless they are defending a massive payout

The point being made here was and still is that this case is not one of the rare cases and there is not sufficient evidence so there will be no defence and the insurance company will settle.

Bio Mech

corktina wrote: »

so you drive unsafely all the time then?

It is tricky in fairness at times to leave as much distance as you would like. Perhaps you are not familiar with the wacky races that are the M50 in rush hour. As the poster above said if you leave as much room as you would like someone often pulls into it.

If you slow down to generate more space the car behind you overtakes and pulls into the space. So you are often driving with less space than you would like and you just have to be aware and be ready to respond because slow downs happen all over the place.

corktina

Bio Mech wrote: »

It is tricky in fairness at times to leave as much distance as you would like. Perhaps you are not familiar with the wacky races that are the M50 in rush hour. As the poster above said if you leave as much room as you would like someone often pulls into it.

If you slow down to generate more space the car behind you overtakes and pulls into the space. So you are often driving with less space than you would like and you just have to be aware and be ready to respond because slow downs happen all over the place.

Nevertheless, the correct way is to leave a safe gap...if someone compromises it, the safe thing to do is back off. If, as the guy says, it isn't safe to be so close, no amount of awareness will stop you in an emergency.

MugMugs

Bio Mech wrote: »

Well you are basically agreeing with me then? In my experience insurance companies are very unwilling to go to court unless they are defending a massive payout

The point being made here was and still is that this case is not one of the rare cases and there is not sufficient evidence so there will be no defence and the insurance company will settle.

At no stage have I disagreed with you. In my inital post I advised that generally, liability will be conceded by the insurer at the back. I however went on to explore a rare case where there was a sucessful defence.

I have never suggested that this is an exceptional case though and I have never deviated from that point. The OP asked a question, I answered that specific question and ignored the following detail.

Your observation with respect to isurers is partially correct. Generally speaking, it's not worth the risk of going to full blown litigation unless there is a solid defence and / or a question with respect to fraud / potential fraud. Whilst quantum would have a significant bearing on cases, it would be unfair to suggest that an Insuer would not attempt to defend a case where there is a solid defence.

Bio Mech

MugMugs wrote: »

At no stage have I disagreed with you. In my inital post I advised that generally, liability will be conceded by the insurer at the back. I however went on to explore a rare case where there was a sucessful defence.

I have never suggested that this is an exceptional case though and I have never deviated from that point. The OP asked a question, I answered that specific question and ignored the following detail.

Your observation with respect to isurers is partially correct. Generally speaking, it's not worth the risk of going to full blown litigation unless there is a solid defence and / or a question with respect to fraud / potential fraud. Whilst quantum would have a significant bearing on cases, it would be unfair to suggest that an Insuer would not attempt to defend a case where there is a solid defence.

Sweet consensus then.

_Kaiser_

corktina wrote: »

Nevertheless, the correct way is to leave a safe gap...if someone compromises it, the safe thing to do is back off. If, as the guy says, it isn't safe to be so close, no amount of awareness will stop you in an emergency.

They're right though.. The M50 is a free-for-all and really needs to be declassified as the volume of traffic plus number of exits/merges over a short distance means normal motorway rules just don't work in reality

If you leave any more than a car length some tool will force their way into that space.. Keep backing off as you suggest and you only invite more such muppetry.

Ditto the lane discipline. Traffic volumes and people cutting across lanes to exit/merge means that "keep left" doesn't work. All lanes should be used as traffic/driving lanes (especially during peak times) as in reality that's what happens anyway.

The M50 is not something to be tackled without a willingness to engage in defensive driving, the ability to read the traffic and intentions of others, and to be willing to use the accelerator to maintain your road position and dissuade the idiots from making stupid maneuvers.

Bio Mech

corktina wrote: »

Nevertheless, the correct way is to leave a safe gap...if someone compromises it, the safe thing to do is back off. If, as the guy says, it isn't safe to be so close, no amount of awareness will stop you in an emergency.

Yes but traffic is so heavy (but moving) that when you back off someone fills the space, when you back off again someone fills the space again and you would end up going backwards (in the line of cars not literally) or driving at 50 kph all the time with everyone else whizzing past.

Its a case of the theory not really working in practice due to everyones driving habits.

MugMugs

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The M50 is not something to be tackled without a willingness to engage in defensive driving, the ability to read the traffic and intentions of others, and to be willing to use the accelerator to maintain your road position and dissuade the idiots from making stupid maneuvers.

One could argue that perhaps, this mentality is the overall problem

RoryMurphyJnr

corktina wrote: »

Nevertheless, the correct way is to leave a safe gap...if someone compromises it, the safe thing to do is back off. If, as the guy says, it isn't safe to be so close, no amount of awareness will stop you in an emergency.

I never said I don't leave the correct gap, and I never said I drive unsafely so if you read the post properly I said it was almost impossible not impossible.

If you can't be bothered reading the posts properly then please don't respond

_Kaiser_

MugMugs wrote: »

One could argue that perhaps, this mentality is the overall problem

Perhaps But in the absence of motorway training for learners and an unwillingness of AGS to enforce anything beyond "speeding" and tax checks, you sometimes have to decide yourself what's best to keep you, your passengers, car, and by extension these other drivers safe.

Personally I leave about a car length when on the M50 in heavy-ish traffic (which is usually slower and when the chancing happens) but not enough for someone to dive into it. By watching the traffic around you you can usually tell when someone is "thinking about it" and either reduce the gap or lengthen it accordingly (depending on what the guy behind you is at!)

I also tend to sit out towards the middle-right edge of the lane so I can see what's happening 3/4 cars ahead. I also alternate between the 2nd/3rd lane in traffic and will usually sit out in the 3rd lane between Ballymount and Blanch as that's probably the busiest stretch on the M50 anyway which allows means I can maintain a steady speed and avoid the "ducking and diving" that goes on along this stretch at the N4 and N7 exits/merges.

Drive the M50 myself a fair bit and can't say I have any problems by following the above.

ardmacha

Bio Mech wrote: »

Yes but traffic is so heavy (but moving) that when you back off someone fills the space, when you back off again someone fills the space again and you would end up going backwards (in the line of cars not literally) or driving at 50 kph all the time with everyone else whizzing past.

Its a case of the theory not really working in practice due to everyones driving habits.

The solution for this is a dynamic speed limit at rush hour, so that less of a gap is needed and traffic smooths out rather than whizzing and then grinding to halt.

_Kaiser_

ardmacha wrote: »

The solution for this is a dynamic speed limit at rush hour, so that less of a gap is needed and traffic smooths out rather than whizzing and then grinding to halt.

+ visible (and unmarked) AGS presence. Really there should be 3/4 Traffic cars dedicated to just cruising up and down it all day or at least at peak times
+ some sort of penalties against "rubber-necking"
+ enforcing the ban on L-drivers
+ doing something about the Ballymount merge/N7 exit which is FAR FAR too close together!

livEwirE

It's happening far too often these days alright! Emergency services at the scene of an upended collision on the M50 last night. Keep yer distance!

Atlantic Dawn

livEwirE wrote: »

It's happening far too often these days alright! Emergency services at the scene of an upended collision on the M50 last night. Keep yer distance!

Amazing the force that knocked the Evoque up on the bonnet of the Focus.