Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
oops sorry!!
If you are motoring in a line of traffic and you run into the car in front causing minor damage is it always your fault?
I'm thinking of a case where you can prove the car in front's brake light are not working so no warning??or would both drivers be done.?
I'm thinking of a case where you can prove the car in front's brake light are not working so no warning??or would both drivers be done.?
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mrspask. 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.
In the situation you describe, the reason why you could not avoid a collision would be either
a) inadequate spacing between vehicles
b) inattentive driving
both of which would be the fault of the driver of the rear vehicle.
However, what if the scenario was such as this:
travelling at 70mph, a vehicle overtakes, cuts infront (clearing your vehicle by say 2 metres) and immediately applies unwarranted, full braking force.
Even with fully operational brakelights it seems ludicrous to suggest that any blame for the consequences of that act of dangerous driving should be apportioned to the rear vehicle.
a) inadequate spacing between vehicles
b) inattentive driving
both of which would be the fault of the driver of the rear vehicle.
However, what if the scenario was such as this:
travelling at 70mph, a vehicle overtakes, cuts infront (clearing your vehicle by say 2 metres) and immediately applies unwarranted, full braking force.
Even with fully operational brakelights it seems ludicrous to suggest that any blame for the consequences of that act of dangerous driving should be apportioned to the rear vehicle.
Always your fault. If a vehicle overtakes and cuts in front of your vehicle you should drop back immediately you anticipated they were going to cut in....always expect the unexpected then you will rarely get taken by surprise.If you are travelling at a safe distance from the vehicle in front you don't need their brake lights to warn you...you would know in advance by their speed whether were slowing or increasing speed. The rule is....keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front.
"...drop back immediately you anticipated they were going to cut in..."
Doesn't that require some form of premonition? Even if you anticipate something you can only react to an event as it is happening, not before. Do you always brake while being overtaken on the offchance that the vehicle may pull in before it is safe to do so?
OK, so you (Car A) immediately drop back when Car B starts pulling across into the safe gap you had been keeping; the above scenario stated Car B also immediately starts to brake. Let us say that there is actually a significant time difference between these two "immediatelys" which allows the distance between the cars to grow to 8 metres. This would be equivalent to a 2 second delay if Car B was travelling an average of 7mph faster.
Car B brakes hard at 73mph. 8 metres behind is Car A which has already slowed down to 66mph.
Car B is a Jaguar XK and can brake 73-0mph in 42 metres.
Car A is a Toyota Corolla and cannot brake 66-0mph in under 50 metres.
BANG!
What exactly did the driver of Car A do wrong (apart from driving a car with inferior brakes)?
Doesn't that require some form of premonition? Even if you anticipate something you can only react to an event as it is happening, not before. Do you always brake while being overtaken on the offchance that the vehicle may pull in before it is safe to do so?
OK, so you (Car A) immediately drop back when Car B starts pulling across into the safe gap you had been keeping; the above scenario stated Car B also immediately starts to brake. Let us say that there is actually a significant time difference between these two "immediatelys" which allows the distance between the cars to grow to 8 metres. This would be equivalent to a 2 second delay if Car B was travelling an average of 7mph faster.
Car B brakes hard at 73mph. 8 metres behind is Car A which has already slowed down to 66mph.
Car B is a Jaguar XK and can brake 73-0mph in 42 metres.
Car A is a Toyota Corolla and cannot brake 66-0mph in under 50 metres.
BANG!
What exactly did the driver of Car A do wrong (apart from driving a car with inferior brakes)?
I suspect it depends if we're talking fault from an insurance or police point of view. The brake lights scenario I've had happen to me when driving slowly through down (missed the car, just), but even with perfectly legal spacing there is a marked difference in reaction times.
Technically probably it would be, although more likely a 50/50 on insurance and them doing that would (or should) be frowned upon by the police as they are driving without regard for other road users.
As for proving the lights scenario - the easy way is if the brake lights are smashed. When the glass shatters, if the lights were on then tiny fragments of the glass embed into the red hot light filament. Ideally this needs to be collected as evidence by the police however, but it has been used to convict in the past.
Now as for the reversing one - that's quite popular as an insurance scam for claiming wiplash, but the same trick can be used with the reversing light bulbs....if you can convince the police to turn out and take the evidence.
The sudden stopping thing is used a lot in insurance cons, even with whole minibus loads of people. Preston seems to be the place where it was invented (along with pretty much every other car insurance con in the UK), and it's still popular all around there, but I did hear of a case of this on Dartmoor of all places.
Technically probably it would be, although more likely a 50/50 on insurance and them doing that would (or should) be frowned upon by the police as they are driving without regard for other road users.
As for proving the lights scenario - the easy way is if the brake lights are smashed. When the glass shatters, if the lights were on then tiny fragments of the glass embed into the red hot light filament. Ideally this needs to be collected as evidence by the police however, but it has been used to convict in the past.
Now as for the reversing one - that's quite popular as an insurance scam for claiming wiplash, but the same trick can be used with the reversing light bulbs....if you can convince the police to turn out and take the evidence.
The sudden stopping thing is used a lot in insurance cons, even with whole minibus loads of people. Preston seems to be the place where it was invented (along with pretty much every other car insurance con in the UK), and it's still popular all around there, but I did hear of a case of this on Dartmoor of all places.
1 to 7 of 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |