Whose fault would it have been?

"Rainbow" (rainbeaux) 09/10/2018 at 11:24 • Filed to: None

0

19

I’m pretty positive I would have been cited for “ following too closely,” but I’m curious if I could have gotten out of it. Anyway, yesterday I was driving in the rain, just daydreaming about the Mustang in front of me,   when all of a sudden - BOOM. Luckily I was already staring at the car, because he plowed into the Accord in front of him. Went from about 45mph to a dead stop. I slammed on my brakes almost instantly, and came skidding to a stop within inches of his bumper. The driver was obviously distracted, because I never saw brake lights until after the impact. So I’m wondering whether I would have been at fault if I did hit him. Following at a safe distance hardly means anything when there’s never a warning of a sudden stop.

On a side note, this is the thing my dashcam lost when all the files got corrupted.

functionoverfashion > Rainbow 09/10/2018 at 11:36

1

I posted earlier about someone panic-stopping for freaking squirrels in a 40 zone. After the first one I gave about double the space I’d normally give, which in the first case was barely enough to stop in time as it was.

I don’t know who would be at fault in your case, but I’m sure the dashcam could help your case if you could prove how far back you really were. I’d be SOL if I’d hit the Squirrel Saver.

bob and john > Rainbow 09/10/2018 at 11:37

3

yea, you owuld be at fault for part of that. with that said, a good lawyer MIGHT have been able to get you out of it 

Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo > Rainbow 09/10/2018 at 11:38

1

From my arm chair I’d say the Mustang would still be at fault.

I’ve had good luck recovering corrupt files using the program R-Studio. It is a paid program, but there might be a free trail ?

Sidenote: I wonder why dash cams don’t have dual SD card slots like many DSLRs. Data duplication on stuff like that seems like a good idea.

farscythe - makin da cawfee! > Rainbow 09/10/2018 at 11:41

5

isnt it pretty much always your fault if you rear end someone? (getting rear ended in to the car infront of you being the exception)

thats what i always figured anyways

Echo51 > farscythe - makin da cawfee! 09/10/2018 at 11:43

3

It should be, because lack of attention and/or safe stopping distance

CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever > Rainbow 09/10/2018 at 11:45

3

If you rear ended him you’d be at fault.

regarding the citation, please keep in mind that breaking the law/getting a ticket does not indicate liability.

ttyymmnn > Rainbow 09/10/2018 at 11:47

1

It’s my understanding that both you and the Mustang driver would have been cited for failure to maintain a safe following distance.  And you insurance would have gone up precipitously. 

UnderSTeerEnthusiast - Triumph Fanboy > Rainbow 09/10/2018 at 11:52

1

I’ve been in this situation: it depends. I was the middle car, sudden braking in front, I brake, GMC Yukon hits me. I hit the car in front. The cop asked the front car if they felt two bumps (which they did).

If the car in front feels one, it usually means the third car hit the middle, causing it to hit the first, which makes you liable for both . If it feels two, then the middle will be at fault for the front, and the rear will be at fault for the middle. In some cases, like mine where it’s on the highway, even if the middle car hits twice because he speed/velocities of the relative cars cause two bumps from the third, then middle is at fault for the front. That happened to me where he Yukon hit me hard enough to hit the car in front twice. I didn’t get cited because it didn’t look like there was any damage (I just paid her $85 for what ended up being a broken clip), if I had a dashcam I could’ve probably proved my story. The Yukon was at fault for hitting me. In this case if you had hit the middle car, you’d be at fault for the rear end only damage at least to the middle. Not sure if you’d be liable for the front though.

Ash78, voting early and often > Rainbow 09/10/2018 at 11:53

1

I’ve seen cases of pileups where the successive drivers are not at the same fault as the first one to rear-end the car ahead of them . Even with a safe following distance, you can’t outbrake someone who just went from 40 to zero in 3 feet.

UnderSTeerEnthusiast - Triumph Fanboy > Rainbow 09/10/2018 at 11:57

0

.....

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > bob and john 09/10/2018 at 12:12

1

A$$$good$$$lawyer$$$dot$$$png

Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness > Ash78, voting early and often 09/10/2018 at 12:20

1

Considering safe following distance is supposed to allow room to do exactly that, if you cannot stop in time, you were following too close.

haveacarortwoorthree2 > UnderSTeerEnthusiast - Triumph Fanboy 09/10/2018 at 12:51

1

That is a crazy theory. If the person in the middle was hit, then hit the front person and the front person moved forward, there could easily be a second bump if the middle person did not immediately cover the bra ke — and often people don’t because they’ve just been rear ended! It’s much more accurate to look at the severity of the damage to each car to determine what happened.

TheRealBicycleBuck > Rainbow 09/10/2018 at 12:52

1

You would have been cited for hitting him, he would have been cited for hitting the lead vehicle. The insurance companies would have been fighting about it for years.

Ash78, voting early and often > Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness 09/10/2018 at 13:24

0

I have to differ with you a bit on that. I think of following distance in terms of time/closure rate ( seconds) . 2 seconds is okay in dry conditions when you’re alert. 4-5 seconds when wet, and maybe even 10 seconds when snowy.

The idea behind the 2 seconds is to give me up to a second to react, then another second to brake at the same rate as the car ahead of me (or better). If the car ahead of me comes to a complete and sudden stop, that 2 seconds is now 1 second — you simply won’t have time to react, let alone stop.

I do agree with the idea that maybe we should all think of following distances with the idea of a highway pileup in mind, but at that point the distance would be so great, it would become impractical (ie other cars would just keep moving in front of you and eventually you’d create as many problems as you’re trying to solve)

brianbrannon > Rainbow 09/10/2018 at 14:02

1

Assured clear distance means you have to be able to stop without hitting anything driving in front of you. If you hit it, it’s your fault.

Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness > Ash78, voting early and often 09/10/2018 at 16:01

1

I was always taught 3 seconds in perfect conditions.

Double it in wet.

Triple+ in snow.

This distance has yet to fail me even in the event of the person in front comes to a sudden stop. This distance also varies depending on which vehicle I’m driving.

Ash78, voting early and often > Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness 09/10/2018 at 16:16

1

Sure, makes sense. But sudden stop and full collision are different beasts. I’m thankful to have never come upon a rear-ender in my life, but that’s part of why I’m hypervigilant about escape routes. I’ve avoided more accidents in my life by evading rather than stopping.

Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness > Ash78, voting early and often 09/11/2018 at 06:57

0

Both ways here.

Likewise, I’ve avoided getting rear ended numerous times by leaving room to escape, both stopped and on the road.