Rear ending crashes

BrianD3

I was just thinking about the causes of rear ending crashes. I see an awful lot of these in Dublin and they usually result in traffic chaos.

Obviously if the driver behind is following too close or not paying attention that is a major factor in hitting the car in front. But I also think that the driving "style" of the guy in front plays a part. If the car in front is tailgating the car in front of him then he's going to be braking harder and more often and is more likely to be rear ended himself. These drivers are generally very aggressive with the controls eg when coming to a stop they have their foot hard on the throttle till the very last second then they slam on the brakes. Terrible driving IMO - shows really bad anticipation and awareness.

I know a few people who are like that. They are involved in lots of rear ending crashes - both where they rear end somebody or get rear ended themselves.

Then there's the morons that hit the car in front as the traffic lights turn red because they expect him to break the red light. I'd say the culture of red light breaking in this country causes of a lot of crashes as law abiding motorists who actually stop at red signals when they're supposed to get hit up the arse.

Bloody Irish drivers :rolleyes:

css

So what's your point? It's only one in a long list of stupid things a lot of Irish drivers get up to...

Trampas

The person in the car behind is at fault 100% no matter what happends.

landser

Trampas wrote:

The person in the car behind is at fault 100% no matter what happends.

this is wrong. Generally, the driver behind will be in the wrong unless he can show that the driver in front created some sort of unforeseeable emergency. in such circumstances there may be an apportionment of liability between the drivers, or in certain cases, the driver infront will be fully liable e.g.

a car moves away from traffic light which has turned green. the car behind him moves off. because of the nature of moving off from lights, the cars are very close together. suddenly, the first car brakes unnecessarily and is rear ended by the car behind. the car behind in all likelihood would not be held liable and the car in front could be liable to the driver behind for creating an emergancy

prospect

Trampas wrote:

The person in the car behind is at fault 100% no matter what happends.

What if the vehicle in front had no working breaklights?

I have been behing two vehicles in the last 6 months(ish) that had no break lights. An absoloute disgrace.

seamus

I nearly got killed by a guy in a Saab the other day. I'm on a bike, which will explain the relevance of the near death thing.

I'm driving along, and come up to a set of lights, doing around 55kph. The lights go orange. The guy in front of me has enough time to get through, I hmm and haw about going for it (probably about .5secs more than it would normally take me to decide), and decide, nah, won't make it. So I brake. A little heavy on the braking, but not super heavy. As I begin braking, I look in my mirror, and there's a Saab, literally right behind me, and he's braking heavily now I've braked, but he's still getting closer to me, perhaps two feet behind me at most. ****, I'm gonna be creamed. So I release my brake and give a little throttle (not enough for anyone to notice that I'm accelerating) to give him more space/time to stop. What does he do? Thinks I'm actually going for it (the lights are red at this point), and hits the pedal. So when I stop, he has to brake *again*. Then I can see the f-ing and blinding in the rear view mirror. :rolleyes:

I'll concede that I hesitated a little, but I couldn't belive it when I saw him prepare to go through what were blatantly red lights.

seamus

prospect wrote:

What if the vehicle in front had no working breaklights?

I have been behing two vehicles in the last 6 months(ish) that had no break lights. An absoloute disgrace.

That would depend on the circumstances I guess. If the other driver braked for no reason, then perhaps you'd have a case. But if he slowed down gradually, you'd still be at fault for failing to realise he was slowing down - what if you hit the back of someone who wasn't braking, but was slowing down due to not having their foot on the accelerator?

Alun

Most of these accidents occur in slow moving town traffic. Whilst it's realtively easy to estimate stopping distances at 'normal' driving speeds (although you wouldn't know it, seeing how most people drive here), I think it's much harder to do this when the traffic is only moving at 10-20mph. At these kinds of speeds, people tend, rightly or wrongly, to rely much more on expectations of what the car(s) in front is (are) going to do.

My favourite pet hate is when you're in a line of traffic slowing to a halt and the person in front decides, for reason best known to himself, to stop, leaving 1-2 car lengths between him and the car in front. It destroys the whole 'rhythm' of the line of traffic causing people to stop more sharply than they would otherwise have done. Of course, when the lights go green, this same car will wait until the car in front of him has already moved off, before thinking about doing so himself.

Seth Brundle

Proving that the driver in front was at fault is extremely difficult. How do you prove that they had ineffective brake lights? They would just retort that the bulbs were damaged in the inpact.
The driver behind should always be driving with sufficient time and space to stop in an emergency!

beer enigma

prospect wrote:

What if the vehicle in front had no working breaklights?

Doesn't matter - brake lights are classed as advisory signals - i.e they are there to assist other drivers by notifying them of your intentions. Whilst its an offence not to have them working, if you could prove that the guy in front had no lights, you'd still be liable...just that he could end up being prosecuted for not having the lights working.

The law states that you must be fully in control of your vehicle and be driving at such a speed and distance that you are able to safely stop in the event of the car in front braking (trust me - settling accidents is my job !). If you rear end someone - even if he is making an emergency stop, you're 100% liable.

The ONLY instance where liability is passed on or shared is where you are rear ended yourself and pushed into a third party & normally the whole bill goes to the very last guy in that case.

alias no.9

Alun wrote:

My favourite pet hate is when you're in a line of traffic slowing to a halt and the person in front decides, for reason best known to himself, to stop, leaving 1-2 car lengths between him and the car in front. It destroys the whole 'rhythm' of the line of traffic causing people to stop more sharply than they would otherwise have done. Of course, when the lights go green, this same car will wait until the car in front of him has already moved off, before thinking about doing so himself.

I usually leave about 1 to 2 carlengths distance between me and the car in front except where this may lead to traffic getting backed up across a junction. I don't brake suddenly or anything like that and anybody who has trouble with it needs to examine thier own driving style. The reason I do this is to allow me room to begin to move off at the same time as the car in front without creating an unnecessary risk of rear ending them should they not move off as expected. Another reason I do this is to ensure I don't end up being pushed into the car in front should somebody rear end me.
In slow moving traffic, I try to keep a constant speed, allowing the gap between me and the car in front to open up as the traffic gets it's short burst of speed and close right down as they all slam on the breaks with the accordian effect kicking in. This avoids all the usual stopping and starting which is the real thing that disturbs the 'rythm' of the line of traffic, keeps the cars moving at a steady speed rather than all the speed up, slow down, speed up, slow down. It results in less wear on my clutch and breaks, less toxic emissions, and less stress all round. When the traffic finally does come to stop, guess what, everybody's still in the same place they would have been anyway.

ambro25

Andip wrote:

The ONLY instance where liability is passed on or shared is where you are rear ended yourself and pushed into a third party & normally the whole bill goes to the very last guy in that case.

Which is why some people (me included):

Alun wrote:

My favourite pet hate is when you're in a line of traffic slowing to a halt and the person in front decides, for reason best known to himself, to stop, leaving 1-2 car lengths between him and the car in front.

until that's happened to you, Alun... (which I certainly do not wish to you, of course).

Happened to me on wet cobbles, car in front had ABS and decided to out of the blue to emergency stop to let a lorry out of a side road (go f*cking figure :rolleyes: ).

Me behind, in a Citroen BX, no ABS but a reasonable distance away (however tad too short considering it's wet cobbles - put it down to young driver's gaining experience). Lass behind me in a Golf Mk2, trying to mate my BX :rolleyes:

I stepped on, managed to come to a standstill about 2 feet from the guy in front (had eyes closed and sphincter shut tight by then). Open eyes as I hear the "peculiar sound of locked wheels gliding on wet cobbles" (something like fzzzzzzeeeeach - but don't hold me to it), and the green-as-a-ghost face of the woman filling my rear view mirror...

Bang, now for the "peculiar sound of two cars impacting" (something like big bag full of empty Coke cans dropped from 6ft high - but don't hold me to it) - and shunted the whole 2 feet into the guy in front, enough to destroy his lights, bend his (hatch) boot and drop his bumper (me not a trace :eek: ). That's with me standing on my -hydropneumatic- brakes at the time of impact.

Golf Mk2 of the girl behind? Front end of Golf a write off, all lights gone, bumper on floor and crusged, bonnet bent a good inch/inch and a half out of flat, one wing bent as well. (me, bumper hanging off, everything else intact :eek: - I then look at my bumper, then just "clip" it back onto the plastic holders :eek: :eek:)

CrowdedHouse

seamus wrote:

The lights go orange. The guy in front of me has enough time to get through, I hmm and haw about going for it (probably about .5secs more than it would normally take me to decide), and decide, nah, won't make it.

Orange/amber means Stop

Praetorian

Back when I had a golf I was driving along on the M1, 2 heavy streams of traffic in both lanes. There was a Mercedes CL AMG ahead of me, I thought I was a safe distance behind him. He hit the breaks as hard as possible, as did I and I ended up no more than a couple of inches from the back of him. Lesson: Beware of cars with superior breaks!

Rodney Trotter

prospect wrote:

What if the vehicle in front had no working breaklights?

I have been behing two vehicles in the last 6 months(ish) that had no break lights. An absoloute disgrace.

What's a breaklight?

Would it be the BRAKE light?

seamus

CrowdedHouse wrote:

Orange/amber means Stop

Thanks for the lesson.

Dades

CrowdedHouse wrote:

Orange/amber means Stop

Isn't it stop as long as it's safe? Unlike a stop sign which means just, well, stop...

There is a difference.

Rodney Trotter

Andip wrote:

Doesn't matter - brake lights are classed as advisory signals - i.e they are there to assist other drivers by notifying them of your intentions. Whilst its an offence not to have them working, if you could prove that the guy in front had no lights, you'd still be liable...just that he could end up being prosecuted for not having the lights working.

The law states that you must be fully in control of your vehicle and be driving at such a speed and distance that you are able to safely stop in the event of the car in front braking (trust me - settling accidents is my job !). If you rear end someone - even if he is making an emergency stop, you're 100% liable.

The ONLY instance where liability is passed on or shared is where you are rear ended yourself and pushed into a third party & normally the whole bill goes to the very last guy in that case.

Andip, please think before posting such garbage. Brake lights are only advisory? Yeah , right.

As regards "settling" accidents? In an Insurance company? Settling does not mean deciding right and wrong. It's a contest where there is usually a loser and a winner.

If someone deliberately brakes, to cause and accident, they are liable. Anything else is an Insurance cop-out.

seamus

Rodney Trotter wrote:

Andip, please think before posting such garbage. Brake lights are only advisory? Yeah , right.

Yep. What are they, if not advisory? Exactly like indicators. If you see an oncoming car indicating right and you turn right and collide with him (i.e. he was misindicating), you are still at fault.

prospect

Rodney Trotter wrote:

Andip, please think before posting such garbage.

And what do you call this?

Rodney Trotter wrote:

What's a breaklight?

Would it be the BRAKE light?

I thought this was the motoring forum, not the Queens English forum.

Seth Brundle

Rodney Trotter wrote:

If someone deliberately brakes, to cause and accident, they are liable. Anything else is an Insurance cop-out.

How? The driver behind should still be a reasonable distance behind to stop in an emergency! Whether or not the person in front presses the middle pedal because of a valid emergency, a brake test, to stop or whatever is irrelevant. The person behind should not be too close to stop without incident.

landser

Andip wrote:

.

The law states that you must be fully in control of your vehicle and be driving at such a speed and distance that you are able to safely stop in the event of the car in front braking (trust me - settling accidents is my job !). If you rear end someone - even if he is making an emergency stop, you're 100% liable.

The ONLY instance where liability is passed on or shared is where you are rear ended yourself and pushed into a third party & normally the whole bill goes to the very last guy in that case.

this is wrong also. see my post above. there is no such thing a dead (excuse the unfortunate wording) cert regarding liability in an accident. In the vast majority of cases, the vehicle that rear ends is in the wrong, but not in all cases.

Alun

alias no.9 wrote:

In slow moving traffic, I try to keep a constant speed, allowing the gap between me and the car in front to open up as the traffic gets it's short burst of speed and close right down as they all slam on the breaks with the accordian effect kicking in. This avoids all the usual stopping and starting which is the real thing that disturbs the 'rythm' of the line of traffic, keeps the cars moving at a steady speed rather than all the speed up, slow down, speed up, slow down. It results in less wear on my clutch and breaks, less toxic emissions, and less stress all round.

Agree 100%, and I try and do the same in slow moving traffic but that wasn't what I was complaining about.

I mean, once you're stopped, you're stopped. It doesn't take any more braking effort to stop 4-5 feet behind a car than to stop 1-2 car lengths behind it does it? And when moving off you can quite easily leave a suitable gap between you and the car in front without having it there all the time while you're stopped. So, to me it's still by and large unexpected behaviour which disturbs the steady rhythm of cars slowing down in a row. If you're aware, and have left enough stopping distance it shoudn't be problem and shouldn't cause an accident, but it's still a minor irritation, the usefulness of which I remain to be convinced of.

css

Alun wrote:

My favourite pet hate is when you're in a line of traffic slowing to a halt and the person in front decides, for reason best known to himself, to stop, leaving 1-2 car lengths between him and the car in front.

If you've ever been rear ended you'd appreciate this. I was hit, and thankfully didn't run into the guy in front. I was stationary at the time and had left enough space that i didn't hit the car in front of me. I don't give a fiddlers about liability and compo, but it's the hassle of having to get the car fixed. The back was just panel damage, the front could be a whole lot fcukin messier.

alias no.9

Alun wrote:

Agree 100%, and I try and do the same in slow moving traffic but that wasn't what I was complaining about.

I mean, once you're stopped, you're stopped. It doesn't take any more braking effort to stop 4-5 feet behind a car than to stop 1-2 car lengths behind it does it? And when moving off you can quite easily leave a suitable gap between you and the car in front without having it there all the time while you're stopped. So, to me it's still by and large unexpected behaviour which disturbs the steady rhythm of cars slowing down in a row. If you're aware, and have left enough stopping distance it shoudn't be problem and shouldn't cause an accident, but it's still a minor irritation, the usefulness of which I remain to be convinced of.

If a car coming to a full stop gradually with its breaklights on is unexpected, then there's something seriously wrong. When moving off, it's not about leaving a gap because thats a given, it's that you can move off at the same time as the car in front, rather than waiting for them to move off first, because you've given yourself a safety margin. It's the real rythm of the traffic.

el tel

Alun - you mentioned annoying people leaving a big space ahead of them in a traffic queue. After an being rear ended last year, I always leave a decent gap, inversely proportional to the number of potential impact-absorbing vehicles behind me.

I was stopped at a set of lights in my ex car (Passat)with both handbrake and footbrake on (to illuminate the brake lights). Next thing a Megane comes from nowhere and into the back of me. He was doing about 30mph and had been distracted by his kids and was wasn't watching the road.
His car was demolished and mine was in bad shape. Most astonishing was the fact that he had shunted me about 20 feet up the road. This was despite me having all the anchors on. If anyone had been in front of me I'd have liable for damage to their car - and their whiplash - under UK law. Hardly fair, but it's the rules!

BrianD3

One scenario I've wondered about is: lets say you are overtaken by another vehicle which cuts in close in front of you and immediately/simultaneously slams on his brakes for whatever reason. It happens so quickly that you haven't time to pull back and get your braking distance back. So you hit the back of him. Who's at fault there? Might be hard to prove exactly what happened.

But yeah - in the vast majority of rear endings the driver behind is completely in the wrong from a liability POV. I wasn't denying this in the original post. I was just pointing out that bad drivers tend to be involved in more rear ending crashes, even ones where the insurance says that they are not at fault. So next time someone tells you that they've been rear ended 5 times in the last year maybe think twice about getting into the car with them as they are probably just as rubbish a driver as the 5 drivers that ran into them.

landser

el tel wrote:

. This was despite me having all the anchors on. If anyone had been in front of me I'd have liable for damage to their car - and their whiplash - under UK law. Hardly fair, but it's the rules!

you would have been liable, but would have passed any such liability onto the driver of the megane, thereby not affecting your NCB and not liable to pay for any damage or injury arising out of you rear ending of the car in front. this principle is the same under English, Scottish or Irish law

landser

BrianD3 wrote:

One scenario I've wondered about is: lets say you are overtaken by another vehicle which cuts in close in front of you and immediately/simultaneously slams on his brakes for whatever reason. It happens so quickly that you haven't time to pull back and get your braking distance back. So you hit the back of him. Who's at fault there? Might be hard to prove exactly what happened.

.

i'd be certain it would be the car that overtook you. it's called cutting up and creating an emergency

beer enigma

Rodney Trotter wrote:

Andip, please think before posting such garbage. Brake lights are only advisory? Yeah , right.

As regards "settling" accidents? In an Insurance company? Settling does not mean deciding right and wrong. It's a contest where there is usually a loser and a winner.

If someone deliberately brakes, to cause and accident, they are liable. Anything else is an Insurance cop-out.

Nice to have such intelligent posts on the forum.

Of course if it can be proved that a driver deliberately brakes to cause an accident then there there can be mitigating circumstances for the driver following. This is an issue in certain areas, but I thought we were talking about a standard rear end accident here, not an attempt to defraud !

All I'm saying is that as far as the law is concerned, the brake lights are there to indicate to other drivers that the car is about to slow or stop. It is the legal responsibility of the person in charge of the car to ensure that their lights are fully functional.

They are classed as advisory (not my wording) because:


"The person in charge of a motor vehicle has a direct duty to drive in such a way that they have time to stop safely in any situation. Lack of functional lighting on the rear of a vehicle of any description are no defence in a TP rear end accident claim and are classed as purely advisory for any TP driver following another vehicle" - Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland (MIBI)

I settle these claims for a living - try to give an insight & you always get someone who shoots you down..

css

BrianD3 wrote:

So next time someone tells you that they've been rear ended 5 times in the last year maybe think twice about getting into the car with them as they are probably just as rubbish a driver as the 5 drivers that ran into them.

Now stop talking complete bollix.. How can being rear ended while stopped equate to you being a bad driver? ffs... :rolleyes: