View Full Version : Who's at fault in a 3 car motorway pile up?
OK, I know in a normal situation of running into the back of someone, the person behind is at fault for failing to stop in time.
Now the 2 second rule is sufficient for you to react to someone stopping in front of you, but not sufficient if they stop dead because they've hit someone. So my question is, "Does that make the person in front at fault for their rear end collision for failing to avoid the first accident"
Is that clear? :-?
Bluepete
14-10-09, 08:00 PM
Yes, because you should be looking further down the road than the bumper of the car in front.
the_lone_wolf
14-10-09, 08:02 PM
If the person in front of you, or behind you, isn't leaving an adequate gap you should leave additional space to account for it IMO, on the motorway you should be aware of what's going on in front of the car in front of you and spot a situation developing long before the car in front simply stops dead...
7755matt
14-10-09, 08:02 PM
Surely the two rear drivers are both responsible, as neither kept the appropriate distance?
Yes, because you should be looking further down the road than the bumper of the car in front.
Thanks, but your justification doesn't fit your answer. :confused:
Again, is the 2nd car, i.e. the one in the middle responsible for the 3rd car hitting it up the ar*e because the 2nd car was involved in an accident.
You can't always see in front of the vehicle in front of you, what if it was a van?
7755matt
14-10-09, 08:11 PM
I think the 2nd car is responsible for hitting the 1st; and the 3rd is responsible for hitting the 2nd.
If you cant see in front of the vehicle in front of you then always better to be that much further behind
Bluepete
14-10-09, 08:16 PM
If it's a van, you should be further back then, sufficient to see past it.
as neither kept the appropriate distance?
The HC recommends 2 seconds distance, yet the HC stopping distance at 70 is 6.5 seconds.
So it is clearly intended that you don't have to allow for the car in front to stop dead in an accident.
You can't always see in front of the vehicle in front of you, what if it was a van?
Then you change your road positioning to enhance you view, ie. increase the gap! If you cant see ahead, anticipate the hazard!
7755matt
14-10-09, 08:24 PM
HC
On the motorway
260
When you can see well ahead and the road conditions are good, you should drive at a steady cruising speed which you and your vehicle can handle safely and is within the speed limit (see Rule 124)
keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front and increase the gap on wet or icy roads, or in fog (see Rules 126 and 235)
126
Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances PDF below)
allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads
remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance to stop. If driving a large vehicle in a tunnel, you should allow a four-second gap between you and the vehicle in front
I think the 2nd car is responsible for hitting the 1st; and the 3rd is responsible for hitting the 2nd.
And thats the way the insurance will see it as well :rolleyes:
Then you change your road positioning to enhance you view, ie. increase the gap! If you cant see ahead, anticipate the hazard!
Cars don't have a lot of option to change their road position.
Sorry, I know this is a bike forum, just hoping for a little car advice.
Also accidents tend to happen in the blink of an eye - not always a chance to perfect everything before they happen, so just trying to get to the bottom of basic rules
7755matt
14-10-09, 08:32 PM
The basic rule seems to be the same for anything, always make sure you can safely stop in teh distance in front of you: if not, leave a bigger gap
The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance - ICALCULATE THAT TO BE 6.5 SECONDS...
allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front
So is no one going to help me out with an argument to blame the person in front? :(
You all drive leaving a 6.5 second gap? :smt102
The basic rule seems to be the same for anything, always make sure you can safely stop in teh distance in front of you: if not, leave a bigger gap
No one drives at a speed capable of stopping in time if something drops out of the sky 10 feet in front of you. :smt102
Spiderman
14-10-09, 08:35 PM
I have heard that for insurance purposes tho they blame the last car to hit as being the most at fault and let the insurance domino from that point forward with each vehicle having to justify why they hit the one in front.
-Ralph-
14-10-09, 08:38 PM
I think the 2nd car is responsible for hitting the 1st; and the 3rd is responsible for hitting the 2nd.
+1
The second car can't be held responsible for the speed and distance of the third. When the first car stopped, the third car may have been travelling at a such speed and distance, it would have hit the first, even if the second hadn't been in the middle.
From an insurance perspective, you can't prove if the second car stopped in time and was shunted into the first, buy the third, so the guy at the back picks up the bill for the lot! So don't be at the back of a 30 car pile up, if you are and the guy behind you stops in time, reverse into him quick. :rolleyes:
The HC recommends 2 seconds distance, yet the HC stopping distance at 70 is 6.5 seconds.
So it is clearly intended that you don't have to allow for the car in front to stop dead in an accident.
I reckon the 6.5 seconds is a bit long, and probably doesn't account for modern rubber. It's also pretty unlikely that the car in front would ever stop dead from 70mph - if it hit something stationary and immovable at that speed, there wouldn't be much left for the following car to crash into.
I think everyone is missing the point somewhat.
Why did the first car suddenly stop? Could it be argued that you (the 3rd car) should of seen the hazard & been able to avoid it?
If you could reasonably be expected to avoid the hazard (eg, it wasn't a 747 that fell out of the sky), then you're going to have to take a portion of the blame, probably more than 50% of the 2nd & 3rd car "interface."
The 2nd car out of all of this will probably take more than 50% blame for the 1st & 2nd car "interface."
If you assume that the 2nd car takes 51% blame for their accident, and you take 51% of your accident with the 3rd car, you'll be looking at expensive premiums next year - as you'll effectively be paying for the majority of the repairs to the front car.
Make sense? :lol:
I have heard that for insurance purposes tho they blame the last car to hit as being the most at fault and let the insurance domino from that point forward with each vehicle having to justify why they hit the one in front.
That doesn't make any sense.
Surely the first accident is most at fault. If it wasn't for the first accident, none of the others would have taken place :???:
Cars have every option to increase the gap between them & the vehicle in front (which is road positioning). The bigger the gap, the better the visibility past the vehicle in front!
Cars don't have a lot of option to change their road position.
Sorry, I know this is a bike forum, just hoping for a little car advice.
Also accidents tend to happen in the blink of an eye - not always a chance to perfect everything before they happen, so just trying to get to the bottom of basic rules
From an insurance perspective, you can't prove if the second car stopped in time and was shunted into the first, buy the third, so the guy at the back picks up the bill for the lot! So don't be at the back of a 30 car pile up, if you are and the guy behind you stops in time, reverse into him quick. :rolleyes:
I've done exactly this - been the last car in a multi-car motorway shunt. I was evidently too close to the car in front and i didn't contest fault on this - however the van in front of me did try it on with the insurers, claiming i'd pushed him into the car in front of him, even though my account clearly stated that i'd seen bits fly off his van before my impact.
It came down to the account of the car in front of the van, and whether he felt 1 bang or 2. He said 2, so I was off the hook for that.
Of course the van driver also suffered "terrible whiplash" and couldn't play football any more because of the "awful pain", and it was one of his "favourite hobbies". I really don't know how I live with the guilt :rolleyes:
That doesn't make any sense.
Surely the first accident is most at fault. If it wasn't for the first accident, none of the others would have taken place :???:
It's insurance! It's not meant to make sense!
Only today I was advised that on my fully comp policy for the car, should I have a non-fault accident, I'd need legal expenses to claim my excess fees back.
Erm, if I have a non-fault accident, I'll be claiming on the other parties third party cover. My excess shouldn't come into it!
+1you can't prove if the second car stopped in time and was shunted into the first, buy the third, so the guy at the back picks up the bill for the lot! So don't be at the back of a 30 car pile up, if you are and the guy behind you stops in time, reverse into him quick. :rolleyes:
If a collision occurred between the 1st & 2nd cars prior tot he involvement of the 3rd, then the occupants of the 1st var would have felt 2 impacts. If the 2nd car was shunted into the 1st by the 3rd car, they would only have felt 1 impact!. So with the evidence of the 1st car occupants it could be proven!
-Ralph-
14-10-09, 08:48 PM
That doesn't make any sense
It's what I wrote about the driver at the back, and it doesn't make sense, but what that's the only way they can work it, every driver would just claim that they left enough distance and stopped in time, then were just unfortunate and got caught in the middle, in an attempt to keep their no claims bonuses. And can you imagine having 10 different insurance companies involved in settling a claim for a 10 car pile up?
The only guy who you can prove has done anything wrong is the guy at the back who definitely hasn't stopped in time.
That doesn't make any sense.
Surely the first accident is most at fault. If it wasn't for the first accident, none of the others would have taken place :???:
The insurance works on the principle that you have to be allowed to hit the brakes - as you might need to, for a vast number of reasons. The vehicle following has to take into account that you might do this, and allow enough time to stop safely. Hence if you run into the back of someone, its always your fault - regardless of why they hit the brakes.
-Ralph-
14-10-09, 08:55 PM
If a collision occurred between the 1st & 2nd cars prior tot he involvement of the 3rd, then the occupants of the 1st var would have felt 2 impacts. If the 2nd car was shunted into the 1st by the 3rd car, they would only have felt 1 impact!. So with the evidence of the 1st car occupants it could be proven!
But it's reliant on driver testimony, so if the driver at the front says "I don't know" or if the second driver makes a counter claim and swears that he was shunted, as an investigator who do you believe? They can form an opinion on it sometimes based upon a number of factors and driver testimony, but it's just not always possible.
The insurance works on the principle that you have to be allowed to hit the brakes - as you might need to, for a vast number of reasons. The vehicle following has to take into account that you might do this, and allow enough time to stop safely. Hence if you run into the back of someone, its always your fault - regardless of why they hit the brakes.
Agreed, but the car in front didn't hit his brakes, he hit an immovable object and stopped dead. That could not have reasonably been expected to happen wheras braking could have been.
Agreed, but the car in front didn't hit his brakes, he hit an immovable object and stopped dead. That could not have reasonably been expected to happen wheras braking could have been.
Then he'd be vaporized and dead, and unlikely to claim against you.
But it's reliant on driver testimony, so if the driver at the front says "I don't know" or if the second driver makes a counter claim and swears that he was shunted, as an investigator who do you believe? They can form an opinion on it sometimes based upon a number of factors and driver testimony, but it's just not always possible.
Exactly, disputes are always dependant on evidence, if the evidence is there you use it, if not you cant. Was simply responding to you saying it couldnt be proven, when in certain cases it can!
-Ralph-
14-10-09, 09:06 PM
Agreed, but the car in front didn't hit his brakes, he hit an immovable object and stopped dead. That could not have reasonably been expected to happen wheras braking could have been.
Why could that not reasonably have been expected to happen? You're expected to be able to stop in time, regardless of how quickly the vehicle in front stops.
Why could that not reasonably have been expected to happen? You're expected to be able to stop in time, regardless of how quickly the vehicle in front stops.
So why does the HC promote the 2 second rule? OK it has since been pointed out to me that ideally you should allow the full stopping distance.
Why do the Police not stop everyone for tailgating unless they have at least 96 meters gap at 70? THat would be like one car per lane for the distance between count down markers :shock:
-Ralph-
14-10-09, 09:13 PM
Exactly, disputes are always dependant on evidence, if the evidence is there you use it, if not you cant. Was simply responding to you saying it couldnt be proven, when in certain cases it can!
OK, don't want to get mega pedantic about it, so lets just say my original statement needs rephrased. It can be impossible to prove, so the guy at the back sometimes carries the can.
Even if the investigator concludes it wasn't a shunt, it's still not proven, as such it's only his opinion/conclusion based upon who he has chosen to believe and the evidence his is presented with. You'd need to have CCTV footage or something to prove it irrefutably.
-Ralph-
14-10-09, 09:18 PM
So why does the HC promote the 2 second rule? OK it has since been pointed out to me that ideally you should allow the full stopping distance.
Why do the Police not stop everyone for tailgating unless they have at least 96 meters gap at 70? THat would be like one car per lane for the distance between count down markers :shock:
The 2 second rule is only a guideline as to how much distance you should leave to the car in front, but as Bluepete said, you should be looking further forward than one car and 2 seconds. You are responsible for your stopping distances, not the highway code, and if 2 seconds isn't enough it's up to you to extend it. You can't say, the HC says 2 seconds, and I left 2 seconds, therefore I can't be at fault.
Have you had an accident or something? What's prompting the questions?
OK, don't want to get mega pedantic about it, so lets just say my original statement needs rephrased. It can be impossible to prove, so the guy at the back sometimes carries the can.
Even if the investigator concludes it wasn't a shunt, it's still not proven, as such it's only his opinion/conclusion based upon who he has chosen to believe and the evidence his is presented with. You'd need to have CCTV footage or something to prove it irrefutably.
As I said, its all about the evidence, whether that be witness or whatever. Witness evidence is generally what is used to determine liability re. RTC's and yes, the credability/reliability/independance of a witness has to be factored. You have to take a view based on the information/evidence available as to how the outcome is likely to be decided at a trial.
Generaly tho, the evidence re. the number of collisions is more than likely going to be more relaiable coming from car 1 rather than car 3???
btw. I am an accident investigator.
-Ralph-
14-10-09, 09:37 PM
Generaly tho, the evidence re. the number of collisions is more than likely going to be more relaiable coming from car 1 rather than car 3???
btw. I am an accident investigator.
Interesting job then! :cool:
Too complicated to discuss on a forum, maybe have a chat about it at the weekend, but what you say about evidence from car 1 rather than car 3 is interesting. You'd think it was obvious that the driver of car 3 has a hidden agenda in his testimony, but it'd be interesting to hear some of your stories on this and how people react immediately following the shock of an accident, and how their account of events varies as the shock wears off and they digest the accident and it's implications.
Your right, the whole thing is subjective and very difficult to comment upon unless youve got a precise set of circumstances. Event multi vehicle shunts vary considerably. The only evidence gethered immediatly following such an accident is usually by the Police, Insurance investigations generally dont occur until much later and whilst not always, witness evidence can change over time, hence my comments about reliability and credability.
Re. the evidence between car 1 & 3. Cars 1 & 2 are best placed to know the exact chain of event, but car 1 has no agenda as they have nothing to loose. Whereas car 3 could not possibly know exactly what has happened ahead of him.
Im not involved in motor accidents these days, but have previous experience.
Interesting job then! :cool:
Too complicated to discuss on a forum, maybe have a chat about it at the weekend, but what you say about evidence from car 1 rather than car 3 is interesting. You'd think it was obvious that the driver of car 3 has a hidden agenda in his testimony, but it'd be interesting to hear some of your stories on this and how people react immediately following the shock of an accident, and how their account of events varies as the shock wears off and they digest the accident and it's implications.
Specialone
14-10-09, 10:05 PM
Your right, the whole thing is subjective and very difficult to comment upon unless youve got a precise set of circumstances. Event multi vehicle shunts vary considerably. The only evidence gethered immediatly following such an accident is usually by the Police, Insurance investigations generally dont occur until much later and whilst not always, witness evidence can change over time, hence my comments about reliability and credability.
Re. the evidence between car 1 & 3. Cars 1 & 2 are best placed to know the exact chain of event, but car 1 has no agenda as they have nothing to loose. Whereas car 3 could not possibly know exactly what has happened ahead of him.
Im not involved in motor accidents these days, but have previous experience.
We seen a good one sunday dave, 5-6 cars on the m5, i wouldnt have liked to sort that one out, at least 3 of the cars were women drivers :rolleyes:
-Ralph-
14-10-09, 10:06 PM
at least 3 of the cars were women drivers :rolleyes:
No problem deciding who was to blame there then :D
Kilted Ginger
15-10-09, 09:28 AM
To quote a mate (police accident investigator) except in very rare and exceptional circumstances a vehicle strinking another vehicle from behind is always at fault. It is up to you to be able to bring your vehicle to a safe and complete stop in the clear distance you can see ahead of you.
If you leave a 2 second gap at 70mph and the car in front stops imediately you will hit it, but how can the car in front stop imediately, it cant (unless hitting an imovable object which you both should have seen earlier), it can do an emergency stop and the 2 second buffer gives you the time to see and react to his stop and do your own.
Dicky Ticker
15-10-09, 09:34 AM
Why did the first car stop so suddenly? what is the immovable object that they didn't see?
I will state that as an ex commercial driver covering 80-100K per year, if you leave the 6.5sec spacing you will get some **** coming into the space forcing you even further back and slowing you down even more.Try it for yourself be it on a bike or car.
The system is inoperable and you can contest it and win-----I have,by declaring that the driver in front of me[V2]did not brake in sufficient time to avoid colliding with [V1] thereby reducing the braking distance suggested. Had he stopped without colliding with {V1] the distance allowed for me to stop would have been adequate for me to stop without making contact with his/her vehicle
Let me add that this was contended by a barrister and accident specialist based on the length of skid marks and stopping distances for vehicles plus damage inflicted.The reason for the contention being that I barely touched the second vehicle[paint scuff the size of a tennis ball on my plastic bumper]and only because V2 bounced backwards after contact with V1 but both V1 and V2 claimed I ploughed into the back of them seriously injuring them and causing extensive damage to both vehicles-------Joys of a lorry driver
Erm, if I have a non-fault accident, I'll be claiming on the other parties third party cover. My excess shouldn't come into it!
Sorry mate - but it will.
Your insurance company will pay the bill for repair to the repairer less the amount of your excess. You pay the excess when you collect the vehicle. It's then up to you to claim it back from the third party's insurer. Daft, but that's how it works.
As to the main question, my view is that all involved are in the wrong as they didn't leave a big-enough gap. The only mitigating circumstances would be if one vehicle managed to stop and was then shunted into the vehicle in font.
Trouble is that in the real world if you leave a big enough gap then some **** in a BMW will fill it.
-Ralph-
15-10-09, 09:49 AM
but how can the car in front stop imediately, it cant (unless hitting an imovable object which you both should have seen earlier).
It's a bit of a unrealistic scenario on a motorway, but I didn't want to get into trying to argue that on a forum, it's just too complicated. At 70mph a car will never stop dead unless somebody made a two lane wide, 3 ft high block of concrete magically appear in the middle of the carriageway, there's too much inertia, even if a truck crosses the central reservation your going to bounce off in one direction or the other and travel a bit further. That scenario would be such a mess who actually cares who is at fault, there would be funerals to arrange.
Sir Trev
15-10-09, 11:50 AM
Trouble is that in the real world if you leave a big enough gap then some **** in a BMW will fill it.
Perfectly true around here! That's why m-way pile-ups are often so horrific. People do not leave enough of a gap to the car in front as they're determined to stop someone pulling in to the gap making them 0.58 seconds later for work. Trouble is it happens so infrequently (in reality) that everyone gets complacent and the gaps shorten, so when the innevitable happens it is carnage.
Personally I'd blame neither 2nd or 3rd. There is a combination of fault between the first vehicle managing to hit a stationary object, and the DVLA for letting someone so incompetent be behind the wheel of a car.
Personally I'd blame neither 2nd or 3rd. There is a combination of fault between the first vehicle managing to hit a stationary object, and the DVLA for letting someone so incompetent be behind the wheel of a car.
but then the 2nd and 3rd cars are also hitting a stationary object.
Bris-Rob
15-10-09, 02:50 PM
I have heard that for insurance purposes tho they blame the last car to hit as being the most at fault and let the insurance domino from that point forward with each vehicle having to justify why they hit the one in front.
I think this is the case as the other half has been in this situation recently. She stoped to allow a fire engine past, and was hit up the bum by two cars. The insurance company told her that it was the fault of the driver at the rear of the collision. We thought its was the second driver and only got there detials to begin with.
I think the 2nd car is responsible for hitting the 1st; and the 3rd is responsible for hitting the 2nd.
If you cant see in front of the vehicle in front of you then always better to be that much further behind
Agreed ......... no, if, buts or maybes ... and we all probably get ourselves too close or too fast from time to time ........ we're all too impatient ....
If you can't stop before any obstruction in the road you are travelling too fast for your vision, or the conditions ...
yorkie_chris
15-10-09, 07:35 PM
Another thing to consider;
Even if the car in front rolls/spins out/locks wheels etc etc then you can still brake quicker than them. The coefficient of friction for a rolling tyre is more than a locked one, and lots more than something metal.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.