Rear End Accidents

[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.