Liability in rear ending accident?

mahoganygas · 01-07-2015 03:10PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My instructor said the same.
A 'safe' distance is when you can see the road beneath the rear tyres of the car in front (i.e. not obscured by your dash/bonnet). A bit arbitrary.

I wonder what the law says...

AlanG · 01-07-2015 03:11PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Driving instructors 25 years ago didn't need any qualifications so be careful what you believe. If a car is moving and hits a stationary car in this situation it is at fault. I have recently gone through almost exactly this scenario and 100% of liability lay with the moving car.

Chemical Byrne · 01-07-2015 03:13PM

mahoganygas wrote: »

My instructor said the same.
A 'safe' distance is when you can see the road beneath the rear tyres of the car in front (i.e. not obscured by your dash/bonnet). A bit arbitrary.

I wonder what the law says...

+1 to this. My instructor told me this too. It's arbritrary, true, but it results in a reasonable gap being left and is also easy to gauge by eye. It's just a rule of thumb. I'd imagine a lot of RTA stuff is pretty arbitrary without any hard and fast rules, ie due care and attention etc. A lot of it is down to the opinion of a Guard or whoever.

ghogie91 · 01-07-2015 03:21PM

Driver 2 is totally in the wrong with his presumption, he should have anticipated this event and left enough space between himself and driver 1 to prevent this

hullaballoo · 01-07-2015 03:22PM

It's the opposite of arbitrary. There would be a fixed distance between you and the car in front following that rule.

There is no way that maintaining a fixed distance between you and the car in front of you could be regarded as "the" safe distance.

The rule is that there should be at least two seconds between your cars passing a fixed point. Four when it's wet. Ten when it's icy.

In the UK, the highway code has stopping distances, which somehow also includes the amount of time it supposedly takes to think about stopping. It's wildly inaccurate but it's a better-safe-than-sorry approach. See here.

xabi · 01-07-2015 03:24PM

I think people are getting mixed up with the 2 scenarios in this thread.

coylemj · 01-07-2015 05:24PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not the same at all as rear ending. In those days anyone with a full licence could slap a driving school sign on their car and give lessons. If the rolling back rule applies as you claim, what is the limit? Think about it - the guy in front can't have unlimited latitude to roll back so how much of a gap do I have to leave him?

If I stop at lights on an uphill slope and leave a gap and it's my fault if the car in front rolls back and hits me, there would have to be a specified legal minimum gap I would be required to maintain, above that limit and blame shifts from me to him. Otherwise I could leave 2/3/4 car lengths of a gap and if he rolled back and hit me it would still be my fault.

There is no such limit and neither is there any such rule. If you're doing the driving test, how much are you allowed to roll back? Answer: not an inch!

_Brian · 01-07-2015 05:29PM

I think judges might change their opinion when known accident staters are up in front of the bench regularly.

However, in the normal course of road usage driver 2 is liable as they were unable to stop. Irrelevant of the colour of the lights driver 2 is responsible to be capable of stopping without hitting driver 1.

Victor · 01-07-2015 08:03PM

The only time I've specifically hear of driver 1 being responsible was a UK case in the last year, where they 'threw out the anchor' on a motorway during rush hour - dropping from something like 60 to 20mph - because they were about to miss their exist.

Another case would be where driver 1 stops, driver 2 stops at a safe distance and driver 2 is then hit by a truck that doesn't intend stopping..

Little CuChulainn · 02-07-2015 10:26AM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You were told wrong. The only reason you would be rolling back on a hill start is if you are not a competent driver or if your vehicle is faulty.

Fred Swanson · 02-07-2015 01:26PM

This post has been deleted.

Victor · 02-07-2015 07:13PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The test then paid undue attention to people being good technical drivers (hill starts, 3-point turns, parallel parking, etc.), instead of being safe drivers.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly · 03-07-2015 12:24PM

Victor wrote: »

The only time I've specifically hear of driver 1 being responsible was a UK case in the last year, where they 'threw out the anchor' on a motorway during rush hour - dropping from something like 60 to 20mph - because they were about to miss their exist...

Surely the rules about leaving a safe distance also apply on motorways ...particularly when approaching entry/exit junctions on the first lane ?

foggy_lad · 03-07-2015 02:52PM

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

But how would a judge weigh this up? Of course if someone slammed on the breaks driving along a realtively clear stretch of read I can see how the rear driver could mount a credible defence but in the case of a traffic light rear-ending it would seem to go more in favour of 1, in my uneducated opinion anyway.

In the traffic light instance, really all 1 can argue is that they approached a light on amber which, decided they should stop and that they considered their stop to be safely executed and 2 just failed to stop in time.

What level of evidence would the defence have to present to convince a judge that 1's stop was dangerous and that they should be held liable?

There is no real level of evidence because driver 2 is 100% at fault.

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Would Driver 2 having a dashcam or a bystander witness to hand affected the chances of success of Driver 1's claim? Or is it just a matter of 2 should have been slowing for the lights and should have been able to stop regardless of whatever 1 might have been doing.

I'd imagine the same would be largely true of the same type of incident at a roundabout?

Regrdless of where it happens driver 2 is at fault if they drive into the rear of a moving or stationary vehicle or object.

You are spending too much time thinking about what driver 1 is/was doing when that does not matter at all! worry about driver 2 and how they need to keep back from the vehicle in front and stop trying to invent scenarios where bad driving becomes good practice.

Victor · 03-07-2015 11:52PM

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

Surely the rules about leaving a safe distance also apply on motorways ...particularly when approaching entry/exit junctions on the first lane ?

Sure, but you can't control the space that the 20 vehicles behind you leave.

Dropping from 60 to 20 mph on a motorway is somewhere between driving without due care and attention and dangerous driving.

RustyNut · 04-07-2015 07:10AM

Victor wrote: »

Sure, but you can't control the space that the 20 vehicles behind you leave.

Dropping from 60 to 30 mph on a motorway is somewhere between driving without due care and attention and dangerous driving.

Would that not depend on the reason they slowed from 60 to 30? and whatever the reason it would still be no excuse for the driver behind rear ending the panic breaker.

Victor · 04-07-2015 10:22AM

RustyNut wrote: »

Would that not depend on the reason they slowed from 60 to 30?

Sorry, my typo - it was 20 mph. The driver in front wasn't paying attention, was about to miss their exit and slammed on.

cannotcope · 05-07-2015 08:38PM

Driver 2 wrong. You should drive at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly · 05-07-2015 11:28PM

Victor wrote: »

The driver in front wasn't paying attention, was about to miss their exit and slammed on.

And the driver behind was
1) Driving too close or
2) Not paying attention or
3) Both of the above

Victor · 06-07-2015 12:03AM

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

And the driver behind was
1) Driving too close or
2) Not paying attention or
3) Both of the above

It's f*cking motorway at rush hour. Which part of there being thousands of vehicles per hour don't you get? Even if a driver is paying attention, driving with plenty of empty space in front of them, they can't control what is behind them.

Someone, somewhere wasn't paying attention. Maybe it was a truck driver who rear ended an entire line of cars that had stopped safely behind the errant driver.

Liability in rear ending accident?

Comments