VE SV6 Car accident (AAMI insured, comprehensive)

[CSP]

i cant believe your still standing by this ludicrous theory

It's not theory. It's the law. Road traffic safety regulations state that a driver must be able to stop safely if another car stops ahead of it. If the driver is unable to stop in time, then the driver was not leaving enough space between their car and the car in front.

 

[Nikk_90]

It's not theory. It's the law.

that you think would actually stand up in court

 

[UFO]

CSP is right about each car being responsible for each collision in a pile up.... but he's forgeting the UNLESS IT CAN BE PROVEN THEY ARENT AT FAULT part.
Its pretty obvious the two cars in front were stationary at the time of the accident (both drivers will attest that they were waiting at the intersection). Being that both cars arent moving, they are basically 'parked'.... and any car that hits one and causes it to move into another car, is the one at fault!
Pretty straight forward.
It's not just a matter of who collided with who.... its why.

 

[EDGE3]

Like UFO said pretty straight forward whos fault it is and that prize goes to car number 3.And csp you are totally wrong man,I was hit from behind when stationary then pushed into the car in front of me,I was a full cars length away from the car in front of me but the car that hit me hit me so hard that I hit the car in front and the car in front new what had happened,he ended up calling the police,the car that hit me was at fault and it didnt matter how far I was away from the first car at all.Its who doesnt pay attention on the road and then causes an accident that is always at fault.

 

[jasonsv6]

the car at the rear most is always liable for the damages. all prceedings cars may be considderd at fault to different degrees in some instances but the rearmost is LIABLE

 

[pjdm1980]

It's not theory. It's the law. Road traffic safety regulations state that a driver must be able to stop safely if another car stops ahead of it. If the driver is unable to stop in time, then the driver was not leaving enough space between their car and the car in front.

WRONG WRONG WRONG as usual i was the car that rear ended one car and pushed it into another car and was responsible for both and that was back in 2000!

 

[Cameron P]

the guy even said he was 2 feet away from the mazda cause he almost hit it then the celica came and pushed him.. if he had left enough room and hadnt been to close he probably wouldnt have been pushed into the mazda.

 

[jasonsv6]

it is irellivant how much room was left after he avoided hitting the mazda. because he avoided hittting it.
i have been the meat in the sandwich before and it was 100% completle irralavent how close i was to the car infront.
the car behind hit me hard enough to rip my tow bar toung off bend it in a u shape and punch a hole through the boot with it then propell me forward into the car in front propeling him in to the car infront all the last cars fault.

simple physics dictate the the energy of a moving object is incresed by and exponent of 4 every time the speed is doubled so the force behind a car moving at even 50kph is more than enough to push a stationary car well over its own lenght and easily more if the driver is not braced as the forward shunt pushes the driver back taking pressure of the brakes at the same time.

just drive your car at 50 then slam the brakes on at a set point and measure how far you travel before you actualy stop. this is an idacation of how much energy is needed to be disapated from that mass at that velocityin order for it to stop.
this is the same amount of energy that is put into your car when it is hit so why would it not move just as far the only thing stopping it is the friction of the tyres same amout of friction that stoped the car.

newtons swinging balls prove the point on energy transfer.
hit one ball at the end of a line of balls and the one on the front bounces away withe the same force that the one at the back hit the middle ones with.
physics are a constant you cant argue with them

 

[Coast_Calais]

I like candy :thumbsup:








lol, just kidding..
Ok, one thing that's coming out of this is that insurance companies seem to have applied logic and common sense in insurance claims these days. given the variety of different cases here, and the similarity in outcomes i think a trend is showing. Times have certainly changed, which is a good thing, as now it seems accidents are being looked at more fairly rather than a blanket rule.

if you're too lazy to read my whole post, before you start flaming at least read the bold bits.... :hmmm: derp derp

 

[Cameron P]

i see your point jason but if the insurance company says its his fault then that would be why...