Just Commodores Forum Community

It takes just a moment to join our fantastic community

Register

Rear End Accidents

Discussion in 'General' started by smyth, Apr 23, 2007.

  1. smyth

    smyth New Member

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Members Ride:
    VY Executive
    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?
     
  2. minux

    minux Infidel Bear

    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Members Ride:
    300rwkw FG G6ET/Specialized Tarmac SL4
    I would of thought the trailing car was always at fault?
     
  3. smyth

    smyth New Member

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Members Ride:
    VY Executive
    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.
     
  4. Christina

    Christina Banned

    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Location:
    ..
    Members Ride:
    Almost genuine VT "S" + VZ "SS" Red Ute + Vk V8
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2007
  5. sircruisealotVS

    sircruisealotVS Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    South Brisbane
    Members Ride:
    VZ LS1 Calais
    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.
     
  6. Troy711

    Troy711 Retired Old Fart Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,689
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra, ACT
    Members Ride:
    2011 Mitsubishi Pajero GLS
    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 :)
     
  7. vlv8vic

    vlv8vic <---Brad Quaid = internet stalker

    Messages:
    3,774
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    Members Ride:
    M5
    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.
     
  8. pow3rslave

    pow3rslave DoNothing Member

    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Location:
    eastern subs, vic
    Members Ride:
    VP 5.0L
    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?
     
  9. minux

    minux Infidel Bear

    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Members Ride:
    300rwkw FG G6ET/Specialized Tarmac SL4
    How can you prove without video evidence that there WASNT a danger to brake hmm?
     
  10. sircruisealotVS

    sircruisealotVS Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    South Brisbane
    Members Ride:
    VZ LS1 Calais
    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.
     
  11. 1991_Vn2nV

    1991_Vn2nV New Member

    Messages:
    8,718
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Location:
    Gumeracha, Adelaide Hills
    Members Ride:
    91 VN Berlina & 03 VY Berlina
    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 :p
     
  12. vlv8vic

    vlv8vic <---Brad Quaid = internet stalker

    Messages:
    3,774
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    Members Ride:
    M5
    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.
     
  13. ssmate

    ssmate Member

    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Location:
    Melb
    Members Ride:
    ss thunder
    what if person in fronts taillights are not working? then it wouldbt be 100% person behind
     
  14. vlv8vic

    vlv8vic <---Brad Quaid = internet stalker

    Messages:
    3,774
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    Members Ride:
    M5
    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.
     
  15. Troy711

    Troy711 Retired Old Fart Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,689
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra, ACT
    Members Ride:
    2011 Mitsubishi Pajero GLS
    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
     
  16. gopher

    gopher Active Member

    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Location:
    Here
    Members Ride:
    Car
    if you were travelling at a safe distance you would realise they were slowing down
     
  17. sircruisealotVS

    sircruisealotVS Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    South Brisbane
    Members Ride:
    VZ LS1 Calais
    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.
     
  18. vlv8vic

    vlv8vic <---Brad Quaid = internet stalker

    Messages:
    3,774
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    Members Ride:
    M5
    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!)
     
  19. vlv8vic

    vlv8vic <---Brad Quaid = internet stalker

    Messages:
    3,774
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    Members Ride:
    M5
    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.
     
  20. vlv8vic

    vlv8vic <---Brad Quaid = internet stalker

    Messages:
    3,774
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    Members Ride:
    M5
    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.
     

Share This Page