Rear End Accidents

[smyth]

Hi All,

Can anyone tell me if there are any exceptions to the rules in NSW around rear to tail accidents when the trailing car is at fault?

[minux]

I would of thought the trailing car was always at fault?

[smyth]

Yeah I'm not completely sure, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that there were some exceptions. For example if the lead car deliberately locks up or "break tests" the trailing car etc. Not really sure though I couldn't find anything one way or the other on the rta website.

[Christina]

Keep that 5 second distance... nothing worse than tail-gaters, I put my hazzards on if you're getting up my behind... good party trick.

[sircruisealotVS]

nup, always the car at the backs fault - no matter what the circumstance.
the bloke infront could diliberately chuck on the handbrake at 100k's/hr and if you run up the back of him its your fault.

[Troy711]

a bloke i worked with was at a set of traffic lights on a hill one time and the driver of the car in front couldnt do a hill start properly and rolled back into his car. naturally they got out and exchanged insurance details. a few weeks later he got a bill in the mail for damages to her car because she said that he ran into the back fo her.

he called her up and told her where to go and to check the police report he made the afternoon it happened. of course, he didnt end up paying

[vlv8vic]

nup, always the car at the backs fault - no matter what the circumstance.
the bloke infront could diliberately chuck on the handbrake at 100k's/hr and if you run up the back of him its your fault.

this is a terrible misconception (in vic at least).
the driver in front CAN and at times HAS been found to be at fault. It is to do with driving safely. slamming the brakes unnecessarily is not considered safe driving.

no matter how many people say "the car at the back is 100% to blame" don't listen to them. Very common misconception.

[pow3rslave]

a bloke i worked with was at a set of traffic lights on a hill one time and the driver of the car in front couldnt do a hill start properly and rolled back into his car. naturally they got out and exchanged insurance details. a few weeks later he got a bill in the mail for damages to her car because she said that he ran into the back fo her.

he called her up and told her where to go and to check the police report he made the afternoon it happened. of course, he didnt end up paying

i heard that you could still be at fault if someone rolls back into you, cos you didn't leave enough room ahead of you. i suppose it depends on how much space there is, but i've seen some seriously retarded hillstart attempts.

anyone else heard anything about this?

[minux]

this is a terrible misconception (in vic at least).
the driver in front CAN and at times HAS been found to be at fault. It is to do with driving safely. slamming the brakes unnecessarily is not considered safe driving.

no matter how many people say "the car at the back is 100% to blame" don't listen to them. Very common misconception.

How can you prove without video evidence that there WASNT a danger to brake hmm?

[sircruisealotVS]

How can you prove without video evidence that there WASNT a danger to brake hmm?

exactly - thus, if you run up the back of someone YOUR at fault....doesnt matter what the circumstance is. if two cars are travelling the same direction its always the person behind at fault in a rear end collision.

[1991_Vn2nV]

If you keep a SAFE following difference it shouldnt matter whether the people in front slam on the brakes for no reason. They just say there was a dog on the road and you're at fault

[vlv8vic]

exactly - thus, if you run up the back of someone YOUR at fault....doesnt matter what the circumstance is. if two cars are travelling the same direction its always the person behind at fault in a rear end collision.

did you see my post? you are wrong.

Im not sure how it is proved, but i know of 2 locals who were screwed by it and have since heard similar stories.

i shared your view beforehand.

i know it sounds strange, and most people actually do believe that it'll always be the rear cars fault, but it isn't and you are telling people the wrong thing.

[ssmate]

what if person in fronts taillights are not working? then it wouldbt be 100% person behind

[vlv8vic]

like i said i cant remember the particulars but ive no doubt that would be one way out of it.

its like anything though, how can you prove it? this is why most of the time it is the rear vehicle at fault, but not always.

[Troy711]

what if person in fronts taillights are not working? then it wouldbt be 100% person behind

i see your point, but the owner of the front car can say that they were working and have since been damaged in the accident

[gopher]

what if person in fronts taillights are not working? then it wouldbt be 100% person behind

if you were travelling at a safe distance you would realise they were slowing down

[sircruisealotVS]

did you see my post? you are wrong.

Im not sure how it is proved, but i know of 2 locals who were screwed by it and have since heard similar stories.

i shared your view beforehand.

i know it sounds strange, and most people actually do believe that it'll always be the rear cars fault, but it isn't and you are telling people the wrong thing.

i read your post man. did you read mine?
you have no proof - you mention you know of two cases of this to back you up, yet you dont even know the details about it???? how does that work?
like i said, before - in a normal situation, meaning there are no excuses like the driver was drunk etc... the person who runs up the back of the car is going to be found at fault for the accident.....think of it this way, if they werent there, then there wouldnt have been any accident, would there. so by them being in the position they were, they caused the crash to occur by making contact with another vehicle. thus at fault.

[vlv8vic]

yes, what you said is right. im glad you now realise that in 100% of cases the trailing driver is not always at fault.

Its like any accident. it isn't always possible to prove something hence the reason the rear car is usually to blame. (and i have no doubt they are!)

[vlv8vic]

i see your point, but the owner of the front car can say that they were working and have since been damaged in the accident

it is terribly easy to pick a globe that was lit when it was damaged to one that wasn't let when it was damaged. I'd be amazed if this wasn't taken into account if someone suggested that situation occurred.

[vlv8vic]

if you were travelling at a safe distance you would realise they were slowing down

i followed a car through geelong during peak hour... it had no brake lights at all (VP commodore, chick driver, clear tails, stockies on the back loser)
If i were to leave the 2 car 'safe' gap other cars would have continued to get in front of me, hell even one car length and cars start to push on in. In which case i would have never got anywhere.

Not sure if you know geelong at all but traffic through there is a bitch, you need to be half watching the car in front, half watching the traffic lights ahead, making sure the truck beside you in the stupidly tight lanes doesnt crush you, while you operate your own car.
It is as nasty as it sounds.
Just saying, there are always other situations to consider.


and no, i don't yet know how to multiquote.

[gopher]

i followed a car through geelong during peak hour... it had no brake lights at all (VP commodore, chick driver, clear tails, stockies on the back loser)
If i were to leave the 2 car 'safe' gap other cars would have continued to get in front of me, hell even one car length and cars start to push on in. In which case i would have never got anywhere.

i was talking about normal driving not peak hour driving

if i'm following a car in peak with no brake lights in peak hour stop/start then i sit back and let several cars in front of me to act as a buffer


and no i don't know Geelong at all but i regularly travel on the Ipswich motorway and Centenary highway in Brisbane in peak hour

[mattman]

ok, 2 cars travelling at normal speeds safe distance.

Car pulls into the road (illegally, whatever) and 1st car bones it and stops in a shorter space than the 2nd car possibly could with just brakes, 2nd car hits 1st car. Who's at fault? Neither, the guy who pulled out.

There's always an exception to the rule, and also the driver in front may have done something stupid causing you to hit them, and may accept fault with the ins companies etc.

Always an exception

[Stupa]

The guy that pulled out and the second guy are at fault. Sucks but thats how it works

[1991_Vn2nV]

yes, what you said is right. im glad you now realise that in 100% of cases the trailing driver is not always at fault.

Its like any accident. it isn't always possible to prove something hence the reason the rear car is usually to blame. (and i have no doubt they are!)

He hasnt changed is opinion I dont think. Under normal circumstances as he said and as most of us interpreted the entire argument as, the driver behind is 100% at fault in a rear end collision.

If the car in fronts tail lights are not working, a percentage of blame will be laid on them as well as the trailing driver. If the driver in front is drunk, they will be charged with drink driving and their insurance void.. However they will not be blamed for the accident, the trailing driver will. Other than no tail lights the only other exclusion when both cars are travelling in the same direction is if a.) the car in front drastically cuts in front of the trailing car or if the car in front hits a solid object bringing it to an immediate stop (i.e. an oncoming car) and the trailing car has no time to stop and nowhere to go.

[vlv8vic]

ok I will try and say it more clearly.

There are instances where the driver in front can be found to be 100% at fault.

I can't say i know what they are, but i know they exist and on RARE occasions occur.
Like rain.