News0 min ago
Accidents - who's to blame....
If you are going uphill and your wheels lose their grip and there is nothing you can do as you slide backwards, who is at fault when you go into the car behind you? Are you at fault, is the other driver for being too close or is it 50/50?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by osprey. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If there are other cars there and they aren't sliding about - surely the onus lies with the one that is sliding about - he shouldn't have attempted to climb a steep hill in the snow ?
I wouldnt be happy going 50/50 - like good arras says - if I am just sitting waiting for the car infront to stop piroutteing !!
I wouldnt be happy going 50/50 - like good arras says - if I am just sitting waiting for the car infront to stop piroutteing !!
the one who slides is at fault. Not quite the same but one of the vans at work was on a narrow coutry lane when an oncoming vehicle made him pull to the side to allow them through. the van had to park partially on the banks next to road and due to heavy rain and mud on the road the van slid sideways and hit the side of the car. The car owner successfully claimed against the van insurance.
Thanks for the replies.
If a car loses its grip on the road then (as has happened this past weekend) there is absolutely nothing the driver can do.
Why are the following cars so close in the first place? In poor conditions they should be further apart - in the snow up to 10 times the normal distance.
Hammer - I didn't say the car behind was stationary. How could it be if it was following the other car uphill?
good-arras & almcd007 - why assume there are other cars which aren't sliding? Why do you just sit there and wait for the other car to slide back into you? Why don't you take avoiding action? You state that he shouldn't have attempted to climb a steep hill in the snow, so why was the other car doing exactly the same?
If a car loses its grip on the road then (as has happened this past weekend) there is absolutely nothing the driver can do.
Why are the following cars so close in the first place? In poor conditions they should be further apart - in the snow up to 10 times the normal distance.
Hammer - I didn't say the car behind was stationary. How could it be if it was following the other car uphill?
good-arras & almcd007 - why assume there are other cars which aren't sliding? Why do you just sit there and wait for the other car to slide back into you? Why don't you take avoiding action? You state that he shouldn't have attempted to climb a steep hill in the snow, so why was the other car doing exactly the same?
Why ask a question if you only want answers that agree with you?
If you lose control and slide back into another car, it's your fault. "There is absolutley nothing the driver can do" is no excuse. There is something the driver can do - don't lose control in the first place. It's nobody else's fault however pedantic you want to get about who was or wasn't moving, how steep the hill was, why other cars were using the same road or whether someone should move out of your way once you've lost control.
Look at it as if the conditions were perfect. What you describe is similar to a car driving along happily them slamming it in reverse and going in to the car behind. It cannot be the car behind's fault in these circumstances.
If you lose control and slide back into another car, it's your fault. "There is absolutley nothing the driver can do" is no excuse. There is something the driver can do - don't lose control in the first place. It's nobody else's fault however pedantic you want to get about who was or wasn't moving, how steep the hill was, why other cars were using the same road or whether someone should move out of your way once you've lost control.
Look at it as if the conditions were perfect. What you describe is similar to a car driving along happily them slamming it in reverse and going in to the car behind. It cannot be the car behind's fault in these circumstances.
Hammer - I don't want answers that agree with my opinion, I'd like replies that are objective and rational.
Can I ask how far behind a car going uphill in snowy conditions you would be?
You say that what I am describing is similar to a car slamming into reverse - it is not similar at all as in that instance the driver would be completely at fault.
When a car loses traction when going uphill in the snow pray tell me what can be done to stop it sliding backwards? Applying the brakes is of no use.
Can I ask how far behind a car going uphill in snowy conditions you would be?
You say that what I am describing is similar to a car slamming into reverse - it is not similar at all as in that instance the driver would be completely at fault.
When a car loses traction when going uphill in the snow pray tell me what can be done to stop it sliding backwards? Applying the brakes is of no use.
How far behind a car going uphill in snow would I be? Given your lack of detail of the situation, it's impossible to say. I'd be far enough so that it wouldn't roll back into me, but that is neither objective nor rational.
I agree that nothing can be done *after the car has lost traction*. But the act of losing traction in the first place, and therefore not being in control of your vehicle, is your fault. End of story.
To simplify, there are three relevant variables. Your car, the road and the car behind. Nothing changes with the road or the car behind in the time it takes to have the accident (yes, the road conditions are bad, but they were bad before you lost control). The only change is your car going from being under your control to not being under your control. Therefore it's your fault. Perhaps the car behind could have been further back, but this does not make it their fault. If you slide backwards into them, it must be yours.
At what point is this argument not objective or rational?
I agree that nothing can be done *after the car has lost traction*. But the act of losing traction in the first place, and therefore not being in control of your vehicle, is your fault. End of story.
To simplify, there are three relevant variables. Your car, the road and the car behind. Nothing changes with the road or the car behind in the time it takes to have the accident (yes, the road conditions are bad, but they were bad before you lost control). The only change is your car going from being under your control to not being under your control. Therefore it's your fault. Perhaps the car behind could have been further back, but this does not make it their fault. If you slide backwards into them, it must be yours.
At what point is this argument not objective or rational?
Hammer. for arguments sake... if you were driving in a controlled and safe manner. the weather is frosty, nothing too excessive.. you are driving down a well lit and well used street. as you enter into a bend, the car fully under your control and being driven well within the limits of the car and your own ability...
you hit black ice. the car slides across the road and hits a parked car, wriritng both vehicles off.
were you in the wrong ???
:-)
you hit black ice. the car slides across the road and hits a parked car, wriritng both vehicles off.
were you in the wrong ???
:-)
In the wrong, no. At fault, yes. I would expect my insurance to cover it and wave goodbye to my no claims bonus.
There is a difference between being to blame in the everyday common-sense use of the word (eg, pulling out in front of someone or driving recklessly) and being at fault in the legal or insurance sense (eg, skidding on snow or ice and colliding).
But the question was "who is at fault?" to which the answer is still the driver who lost control and skidded backwards.
There is a difference between being to blame in the everyday common-sense use of the word (eg, pulling out in front of someone or driving recklessly) and being at fault in the legal or insurance sense (eg, skidding on snow or ice and colliding).
But the question was "who is at fault?" to which the answer is still the driver who lost control and skidded backwards.
why would you be at fault ??? i cant work your reasoning there..
in my opinion, the council should be responsable for the upkeep of the highway.
i do agree that the person in Osprey`s question would have to accept responsability for the accident in question, simply because their car hit another....
what i dont understand is why you would feel you were at fault, if you hit black ice....
in my opinion, the council should be responsable for the upkeep of the highway.
i do agree that the person in Osprey`s question would have to accept responsability for the accident in question, simply because their car hit another....
what i dont understand is why you would feel you were at fault, if you hit black ice....
My argument is that if YOU hit the ice and YOU go into a skid then YOU are at fault. You can�t blame another car for being hit. You can�t blame the road for being slippery. It�s an accident, yes, but I fail to see how anyone else can be at fault.
The council clearly do not have a legal responsibility to keep all roads clear of all ice and snow at all times (otherwise they would grit all roads, including side roads and little-used country lanes, which they don�t). If your car was parked up and someone skidded into it and wrote it off, would you not claim against the driver?
The council clearly do not have a legal responsibility to keep all roads clear of all ice and snow at all times (otherwise they would grit all roads, including side roads and little-used country lanes, which they don�t). If your car was parked up and someone skidded into it and wrote it off, would you not claim against the driver?
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Iwant To Make My Wishes About End Of My...
Law21 mins ago
Technology33 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.