Rear End Accidents

[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.

 

[helly]

People...

There are most definately circumstances where either driver would be at fault! However there are too many different ways two people can collide with each other for me to provide a list here and now...

Onfortunately the current laws in NSW wales are very long and involved and continuously being re-interpreted through the courts by creative solicitors and the sort...

For instance... car in front ripps up the handbrake does a 180 an plows into the car behind. Yes it happenned! Car in front AT FAULT!

There are lots more but I am currently typing with one hand (no rude remarks) while nurse my 9 week old daughter!

 

[sircruisealotVS]

People...

There are most definately circumstances where either driver would be at fault! However there are too many different ways two people can collide with each other for me to provide a list here and now...

Onfortunately the current laws in NSW wales are very long and involved and continuously being re-interpreted through the courts by creative solicitors and the sort...

For instance... car in front ripps up the handbrake does a 180 an plows into the car behind. Yes it happenned! Car in front AT FAULT!

There are lots more but I am currently typing with one hand (no rude remarks) while nurse my 9 week old daughter!

with the example you mention if there was no 180, which would make the crash head on, and the crash happeded nose to tail - then the bloke at the back would be at fault - yes?
im sure there are all sorts of weird and wonderfull ways to crash and all sorts of excuses and cirumstances (like the one you mentioned) - but im sure the generic running up the back of someone, for whatever reason, is almost always the person at the backs fault if its a nose to tail crash.

 

[Shortstuff]

Someone I knew lost his licence for 3 months and got a big fine because he slammed his brakes on while someone was tailgating him, and they hit him. Lots of witnesses to say there was no good reason for him to brake so hard at that point though. The Police said he was completely at fault in that instance.

 

[vlv8vic]

oh finally some people back me up!

 

[dufus]

My grandpa has had two rear end accidents in the last 3 months, and both times the trailing car has been at fault, even though the leading driver has slammed the brakes on.