Rear Ended :(

kona

Paulw wrote: »

The OP never said she picked up anything, just that she removed the obstruction. This may not have required use of her hands, nor her having to look.

She could have removed the object using her feet.

To where?

You wouldnt even have to brake, to remove it.

Irish people brake for everything, a breeze, oh ill brake for a sec. Ive a itchy flange, oh brake for a sec. I farted, brake for a sec....etc.

TouchingVirus

kona wrote: »

To where?

You wouldnt even have to brake, to remove it.

Irish people brake for everything, a breeze, oh ill brake for a sec. Ive a itchy flange, oh brake for a sec. I farted, brake for a sec....etc.

And if you ever hit one of these whimsical brakers from behind you're at fault.

kona

BennyLava wrote: »

kona wrote: »

Em there is a difference between a object under a accelerator and a ****ing Child/ puppy/ wheelchair/ special needs /*insert innocent victim* jumping infront of you. cop on.
Obviously if it was under the accelerator, it wasnt having a effect on her being able to maintaing a constant speed:rolleyes:

By my logic, Id have swerved around the child. By my logic Id have pulled over and remover the object. I certainly wouldnt have braked KNOWING a car was too close to me.[/quote

The point been the car behind was too close, their fault not hers

Yes it was his fault, I said that!.

IMO the OP did something stupid that caused the accident. An example of crap driving.

kona

TouchingVirus wrote: »

And if you ever hit one of these whimsical brakers from behind you're at fault.

Oh I keep my distance from these morons. They are*usualy not of the male sex*

TouchingVirus

kona wrote: »

Oh I keep my distance from these morons. They are*usualy not of the male sex*

I prefer to keep my distance from all vehicles, moronic driver or not, female driver or not. You never know

EPM

kona wrote: »

By my logic, Id have swerved around the child. By my logic Id have pulled over and remover the object. I certainly wouldnt have braked KNOWING a car was too close to me.

You can't always swerve to avoid something - what if something was coming the other way? If you were travelling too fast to swerve around the object in time?

The other car was too close - for whatever reason she stopped the other car should have been able to do the same. He wasn't. There is a lesson here to the OP that she should be more careful with items in the cabin but the fault is on the following car.

TheColl

kona wrote: »

They are*usualy not of the male sex*

Seems like you might have the same attitude as the guy who drove into the back of the OP, grow up ffs.

Seth Brundle

Crap driving (by the OP) in this instance did not cause the accident. Had I been behind the OP I would have kept a reasonable distance and would have been able to take evasive action - it happens every day actually because of the number of crap drivers on our roads.
The person in the car behind the OP did not keep a reasonable distance and was not in a position to take evasive action (the reason for the action is irrelevant). The other driver messed up!

cgc5483

Big Nelly wrote: »

Serious, leaving this thread now, does anyone know the law on the roads! you are all living in a wonder land!

For one i never defended the OP's driving. However, lots of people here seem to get away from the simple fact that if the guy who did the rear-ended was maintaining a proper distance the accident wouldn't have happened, simple as. You can't control what other people in other cars do when driving but you sure can control how much time and distance you have to react to them

kona wrote: »

And what is your job?

Something that involves the use of logic

Neonjack

kbannon wrote: »

Crap driving (by the OP) in this instance did not cause the accident. Had I been behind the OP I would have kept a reasonable distance and would have been able to take evasive action - it happens every day actually because of the number of crap drivers on our roads.
The person in the car behind the OP did not keep a reasonable distance and was not in a position to take evasive action (the reason for the action is irrelevant). The other driver messed up!

Agreed. Anyone that drives so close to another car that they can't avoid it in case of an emergency is a tool.

kona

cgc5483 wrote: »

Something that involves the use of logic

Well, Then how have you "seen" court cases involving Rear ending accidents.?

kona

TheColl wrote: »

Seems like you might have the same attitude as the guy who drove into the back of the OP, grow up ffs.

Nope, simply a observation. Usually would imply some men do it too.

You cant hide behind being a PC parrot all the time.

Although apparantly since Im under 25, Male,Im young, so I get raped by Insurance because of this.

Thats discrimination, and it pisses me off that the OP can pull stunts like this on a daily basis, and still pay a lower premium.

But thats a argument for another day.


Common sense and good driving isnt restricted by gender, no matter what Gay Byrne says

To summarise

- driver who rear ended you was wrong
- his insurance will pay out, they have no choice

What you were doing at the time did not help the situation but the following driver was too close to you.

-maccer-

Originally Posted by cgc5483
You rear-end someone then your 100% at fault, never seen it given any other way. Basic rule is you have to maintain a safe distance be able to stop no what the car in front does (even if something that isn't ideal driving)

Big Nelly wrote: »

Serious, leaving this thread now, does anyone know the law on the roads! you are all living in a wonder land!

+1

Princess Zelda

Thanks everyone for your replies. I made an error of judgement yes, but it was instinctive, if anything I am a more careful driver when my grandmother is in the car. And there are a few presumptions being made that I am a crap driver. I am not saying that I am a fantastic driver, it was an error of judgement. The other party doesn't want to sort this out unofficially - so it is in the Insurance Companies hands. I didn't mean to open a can of worms, I was just looking for advice - so thank you everyone for your advice.

Gumbo

Princess Zelda wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your replies. I made an error of judgement yes, but it was instinctive, if anything I am a more careful driver when my grandmother is in the car. And there are a few presumptions being made that I am a crap driver. I am not saying that I am a fantastic driver, it was an error of judgement. The other party doesn't want to sort this out unofficially - so it is in the Insurance Companies hands. I didn't mean to open a can of worms, I was just looking for advice - so thank you everyone for your advice.

be sure to keep us updated on how you get on.

kona

Princess Zelda wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your replies. I made an error of judgement yes, but it was instinctive, if anything I am a more careful driver when my grandmother is in the car.

Random Braking isnt careful.

.

Princess Zelda wrote: »

And there are a few presumptions being made that I am a crap driver. I am not saying that I am a fantastic driver, it was an error of judgement. The other party doesn't want to sort this out unofficially - so it is in the Insurance Companies hands. I didn't mean to open a can of worms, I was just looking for advice - so thank you everyone for your advice.

Hope you get sorted! He sounds like he could be a bit dodgey.

TouchingVirus

kona wrote: »

Random Braking isnt careful.

You're starting to sound like a broken record :rolleyes: The OP has acknowledged she didn't help the situation, braking instinctively was an error in judgement on her part. Yet you seem to be content to drive this point home over and over again, let it go and see somebody about that chip on your shoulder while you're at it.

kona

TouchingVirus wrote: »

You're starting to sound like a broken record :rolleyes: The OP has acknowledged she didn't help the situation, braking instinctively was an error in judgement on her part. Yet you seem to be content to drive this point home over and over again, let it go and see somebody about that chip on your shoulder while you're at it.

God forbid, going against the "Experts" here;). Your argument is as much as a broken record as mine.

There would have been no accident If she didnt randomly brake because she was in "careful" mode and a object fell under the accelerator causing 100% no effect on her ability to control the car.

There would have been no accident if the 3rd party kept their distance.

OP caused the first **** up, which caused the inevitable, in fact she knew he was too close, how the fact that she could get rear ended didnt cross her mind is odd.
If it did why did she brake anyways?

Either way, shes getting it sorted, and the guy is at fault according to the "experts" here.

Personally I think its insane that he gets the whole blame. but apparantley thats the way.

Paulw

langdang wrote: »

Well sorry pedantic paul, you are correct, she may have been driving barefoot and have an opposable big toe.

OP only said she removed the obstruction. She didn't say any more. Removing it might only mean moving it from behind the pedal to under the drivers seat. It doesn't require any great skill to do that. I'm not making assumptions, just a possibility.

Either way, looks like the insurance companies will sort it out now, and the offending guy will end up paying for not leaving enough distance to stop.

_Kaiser_

Well having read though this now I'd say that the other driver is at fault by not leaving enough room between his car and the OP's to take evasive action/slow/stop himself.

That said, there ARE instances on the roads where "the driver that rear-ended the other car is always at fault" does not (or should not) apply - for example: about 2 weeks ago some tool decided at the last second that he was turning right into a side road and jammed on his brakes.

Now lucky for me I had left enough room and there was a hard shoulder for me to move into, and I'd watched this guy driving erratically for the previous 5 mins so had allowed myself extra manoeuvering space, but the point is that I would have been at fault had I (in the current weather for example) skidded into him when it was him who would have caused the incident by driving without due care.

The above scenario is very common, as are the idiots who decide at the last second to cut accross 2/3 lanes of traffic to take a motorway exit. These people are the ones who should be held accountable if an incident occurs.

I see ridiculous carry on every day.. like the guy who decided that he'd rather turn right at the lights, but from the left most lane and almost ran into the side of my car when he cut across, or the guy who decided to stop dead from 100 km/h in busy traffic , just to let someone out from a side road! :rolleyes:

Regardless of the "prepare for the unexpected" ideal, we ARE all only human and thus will make mistakes but that doesn't mean we should be held responsible for the outright idiocy and dangerous behaviour of others.

Kaiser2000

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

That said, there ARE instances on the roads where "the driver that rear-ended the other car is always at fault" does not (or should not) apply - for example: about 2 weeks ago some tool decided at the last second that he was turning right into a side road and jammed on his brakes.

You could argue the "should not " but "does not apply" is incorrect, if you had hit him you would have been liable.

_Kaiser_

RoverJames wrote: »

You could argue the "should not " but "does not apply" is incorrect, if you had hit him you would have been liable.

That's my point - even though that other driver would have been at fault, legally the blame would have landed on me.

[subrant] What else to expect from this country though... we can't get anything right! [/subrant]

GreeBo

kbannon wrote: »

FWIW the driver behind wasn't travelling "too fast" unless the OP was also going "too fast".

Thats totally wrong.
The driver behind was driving too fast for the gap they had left between themselves and the OP. If they were not they would have been able to stop in time. We dont know what gap the OP had left.

Also, how can you say that if one was going too fast the other must also have been? I can be driving at 60 and you rear end me doing 100, whats my speed got to do with it Tina?

sesna

kona wrote: »

God forbid, going against the "Experts" here;). Your argument is as much as a broken record as mine.

Either way, shes getting it sorted, and the guy is at fault according to the "experts" here.

Personally I think its insane that he gets the whole blame. but apparantley thats the way.

Nothing expert about leaving a safe braking distance. Its one of the most basic principles of driving. The lady is perfectly entitled to brake for whatever reason, in this case it was a very valid one. You wouldn't happen to have recently rear ended somebody from driving too close?

kona

sesna wrote: »

Nothing expert about leaving a safe braking distance. Its one of the most basic principles of driving. The lady is perfectly entitled to brake for whatever reason, in this case it was a very valid one. You wouldn't happen to have recently rear ended somebody from driving too close?

Nope.

Because I treat every other road user as if they are total idiots. Works too.

JimmyCrackCorn!

Princess Zelda wrote: »

Thanks guys. Looks like the blame is being split on this forum. I never said that I was totally innocent, but I don't think that I am wholly to blame either. I did not slam on the brakes, and I didn't want to leave the item there obstructing the accelerator. I just was peeved with his attitude and failure to share details.

Legally your fine he should have been far enough behind you to be able to stop, motoring fact 101. It doesn't matter if you were smoking crack while driving that doesn't change the liability.

Report it to the guards immediately and your insurance company and ignore the motors keyboard warriors.

Let them sort it from there thats what you pay insurance for, the guy who hit you is legally in some hot water for leaving the scene.

I have both rear ended and been rear ended (motoring context)

Best of luck go make a cup of tea.

beachlife

Has any one ever tried to brake while leaning down to pick up some thing of the floor of the car? I think you would be quite surprised at the results!!!
If you are going to try ,I would suggest wear seat belt ,find closed road and make sure nothing is behind you!!!

TouchingVirus

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats totally wrong.
The driver behind was driving too fast for the gap they had left between themselves and the OP. If they were not they would have been able to stop in time. We dont know what gap the OP had left.

Also, how can you say that if one was going too fast the other must also have been? I can be driving at 60 and you rear end me doing 100, whats my speed got to do with it Tina?

You can be driving at 60 and I can be doing 100 and slam into the back of you. You were not speeding but you wouldn't be right to give the impression that I was following 2ft behind you because if I was following you at 100mph you can't have been doing 60mph. That was kbannon's point.

The only way somebody who is tailgating a car can be speeding is if the car they are tailgating is speeding too.

sesna

TouchingVirus wrote: »

You can be driving at 60 and I can be doing 100 and slam into the back of you. You were not speeding but you wouldn't be right to give the impression that I was following 2ft behind you because if I was following you at 100mph you can't have been doing 60mph. That was kbannon's point.

The only way somebody who is tailgating a car can be speeding is if the car they are tailgating is speeding too.

Maybe he was just slip streaming her vehicle to save money on fuel

TouchingVirus

sesna wrote: »

Maybe he was just slip streaming her vehicle to save money on fuel

Well it is the recession and all

Seth Brundle

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats totally wrong.
The driver behind was driving too fast for the gap they had left between themselves and the OP. If they were not they would have been able to stop in time. We dont know what gap the OP had left.

Also, how can you say that if one was going too fast the other must also have been? I can be driving at 60 and you rear end me doing 100, whats my speed got to do with it Tina?

If the other driver was travelling about 2 foot behind her, then how could he have been doing any other speed other than the same speed as the OP!
Think before you post please!

TouchingVirus wrote: »

You can be driving at 60 and I can be doing 100 and slam into the back of you. You were not speeding but you wouldn't be right to give the impression that I was following 2ft behind you because if I was following you at 100mph you can't have been doing 60mph. That was kbannon's point.

The only way somebody who is tailgating a car can be speeding is if the car they are tailgating is speeding too.

Exactly!

chasm

Big Nelly wrote: »

Brother works in insurance and there was so much damage and 3 witnesses I could have claimed for personal injury

No offence, but as your brother works in insurance surely he would know that no matter if your car was left in a million pieces and there were 100 witnesses, to claim for Personal injury you would actually need to be injured;)

chasm

chasm wrote: »

No offence, but as your brother works in insurance surely he would know that no matter if your car was left in a million pieces and there were 100 witnesses, to claim for Personal injury you would actually need to be injured;)

Easy to claim you have whiplash, on a recent evening out in the company of a doctor and an insurance accessor the talk turned to fraudulent claims, the doctor claimed the insurance companies paid out too easily, the insurance accessor made the point that doctors cannot conclusively say if someone had whiplash or not thus the insurance folks often have no choice.

x in the city

the op picked something from under her footwell and slowed down - does that not constitute dangerous driving..?


wreckless if you ask me.

dont know what all the sympathy is for.

driving behind a car xxxx distance is well and good but no one bar god can legistlate for the driver in front slamming on brakes in the middle of the road to pick up items that dropped.

Neonjack

x in the city wrote: »

no one bar god can legistlate for the driver in front slamming on brakes in the middle of the road to pick up items that dropped.

You're supposed to allow for it if you're driving behind her. As someone pointed out already, what if a child ran out in front of her and she had to slam on the brakes?

x in the city

Neonjack wrote: »

You're supposed to allow for it if you're driving behind her. As someone pointed out already, what if a child ran out in front of her and she had to slam on the brakes?

she wasnt fully in control of her mechanically propelled vehicle or whatever way they say these things.

she was arse ways picking up something that fell off the dash.

its an absurd law that says that someone who drives into some else is 100000000% at fault

100000000000000000000000000% of the time tbh.

and no, I didnt drive into anyone ever, and have been driving eons, I am also on the opinion that every driver is an idiot and take nothing for granted.


(I have been rear ended on the n7 naas dual carriage way tho)

Simon201

OP - the fella that hit you is 100% in the wrong but you'd be as well not to mention things falling about your car and removing them etc to the Gardai or insurance people!

.......You sneezed, yeah...good!

Neonjack

x in the city wrote: »

she wasnt fully in control of her mechanically propelled vehicle or whatever way they say these things.

she was arse ways picking up something that fell off the dash.

its an absurd law that says that someone who drives into some else is 100000000% at fault

I agree with you as it happens, but that's the way things are.

Stevie Dakota

The chap behind did not leave enough distance to stop safely. End of story. It does not matter if the the OP braked to move the obstruction, for a cat running across the road or a child stepping out. Things happen, that is why you keep your distance. The tailgater was causing the danger, not the OP.

Princess Zelda

<update> His insurance company rang me today ton say that he is accepting all responsibility. I know that this is going to irritate some people here, and for that I apologise. My initial post was to get peoples advice here on what to do outlining the facts as I recalled them. I never stated that he was 100% at fault - was just seeking peoples advice for my course of action. So thank you everyone for your advice (and opinions), and hopefully this was a lesson learned by both of us.

JimmyCrackCorn!

Princess Zelda wrote: »

<update> His insurance company rang me today ton say that he is accepting all responsibility. I know that this is going to irritate some people here, and for that I apologise. My initial post was to get peoples advice here on what to do outlining the facts as I recalled them. I never stated that he was 100% at fault - was just seeking peoples advice for my course of action. So thank you everyone for your advice (and opinions), and hopefully this was a lesson learned by both of us.

Glad your sorted and I wouldn't worry about it once you learn from it.

We all cant be perfect like the motors high horse brigade.

Princess Zelda

Princess Zelda wrote: »

<update> His insurance company rang me today ton say that he is accepting all responsibility. .................. So thank you everyone for your advice (and opinions), and hopefully this was a lesson learned by both of us.

Top class I do hope that both yourself and your Gran are ok after it.

Tea drinker

beachlife wrote: »

Has any one ever tried to brake while leaning down to pick up some thing of the floor of the car? I think you would be quite surprised at the results!!!
If you are going to try ,I would suggest wear seat belt ,find closed road and make sure nothing is behind you!!!

indeed - I know exactly what you mean

iamskippy

Armando Lazy Memento wrote: »

EDIT: Just thinking, I've seen cars from time to time (on a motorway on a couple of occasions) breaking, without any break lights being activated.... what happens in that situation? Anybody know who is at fault if you are rear-ended; but you're break lights weren't working at the time?

I would guess the car behind should still be driving at a speed and distance to allow them to stop in time. Could be wrong

iamskippy

x in the city wrote: »

she wasnt fully in control of her mechanically propelled vehicle or whatever way they say these things.

she was arse ways picking up something that fell off the dash.

True
That does not change the fact the other guy was too close behind

iamskippy

kona wrote: »

Forgive the drama but how about a she hit a pedestrian or cyclist while she did this? We'd be blaming her..

and rightly so cos it was a careless or dangerous thing to do

Heroditas

I got rear-ended this morning.
Had the hand brake on and the car didn't budge an inch.
The other driver's car appeared to be a write-off - bonnet punched back and the radiator spewing water everywhere. Whole front of the other car buckled.

Went to the Gardai and gave a statement, rang my insurance, rang the other driver's insurance and they said they'd sort everything out .

Currently my car is up in the dealership's repair centre being assessed and I have already been given a replacement car (not happy with it and am in a debate over that now).

Had to book a trip to the doctor though because my back is quite stiff now. Oh well....

nogoodnamesleft

Heroditas wrote: »

I got rear-ended this morning.
Had the hand brake on and the car didn't budge an inch.
The other driver's car appeared to be a write-off - bonnet punched back and the radiator spewing water everywhere. Whole front of the other car buckled.

Went to the Gardai and gave a statement, rang my insurance, rang the other driver's insurance and they said they'd sort everything out .

Currently my car is up in the dealership's repair centre being assessed and I have already been given a replacement car (not happy with it and am in a debate over that now).

Had to book a trip to the doctor though because my back is quite stiff now. Oh well....

I was in your position 2.5 years ago.....car got sorted in the week following for just the car as it was decalred a write off. Do not be quick to sign for personal injury as the Claims manager will be encouraging you to do (they get a percentage cut of what the potential claim is worth so their looking out of their own interests instead of yours). I had to go for shoulder surgery in feb to sort the injury and am slowly finally beginning to recover now. Still have the bad day thou.

KamiKazi

Heroditas wrote: »

Had to book a trip to the doctor though because my back is quite stiff now. Oh well....

Make sure to get fully checked out and treated, last thing you want is to have back pains a year from now when the case has already been settled.