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.