View Full Version : Rear-end collision fault?
I know the rule of thumb is that it is almost always the vehicle that crashes into the rear's fault with these but I want to know if anyone has any (sensible ;)) thoughts on this.
Dual carriageway, no street lighting and no hard shoulder. A car has broken down in the slow lane and has no lights or hazard lights on. Two vehicles are traveling in the fast lane when a car in the slow lane suddenly realises the broken down car is in front of them so they pull out in the path of the two vehicles in the fast lane. The first vehicle brakes heavily to avoid collision and the motorcycle behind does the same but cannot slow down as fast as the car and so hits it.
Would the broken down car be party to contributory negligence here?
Milky Bar Kid
06-01-11, 08:02 PM
Right, in my opinion, I would probably, assuming the electrics weren't dead and the broken down car had use of its hazards, I would probably book them with causing an obstruction, I would probably book vehicle 1, which pulled out into the path of another vehicle, with a Section 3, careless driving, and probably book the biker with a Section 3 as well...as you should never travel so close to a vehicle that you can't stop in time in an emergency braking situation.
I would then let the court decide!!
DISCLAIMER - I am only basing my opinion on the "hypothetical" situation described and cannot account for road layout and/or any other possible circumstances
Layman's opinion but I think not. What happened to keeping a safe distance?
MisterTommyH
06-01-11, 08:05 PM
I think it would probably be seen as the bikers fault fortravelling too close to the car that they couldn't stop in time. Broken down car might get in trouble, especially if it's a clear way, but don;t think that would take anything away from the fact they were too close.
Edit: Actually, thinking about it you'd probably be better if you were the driver in front of you rather than where you were. If some-one pulls out in front of you then you weren't expecting them to move suddenly into your lane. If you're already behind someone you should always be expecting them to brake.
Dicky Ticker
06-01-11, 08:08 PM
**** creek--no paddle
fizzwheel
06-01-11, 08:13 PM
Would the broken down car be party to contributory negligence here?
No idea. Report it to your insurance company and get the process underway and then take it from there. But be prepared for somebody to point out that if you couldnt stop in time, then you were travelling to fast or to close.
I hit the back of a car once that pulled out in front of me and I was deemed not be at fault. But the cirumstances are very different. So I'm not sure its relevant. Basically car was waiting to turn right in a hatched out area of road / lane for turning right, driver then changed mind, and pulled out in front of me and I shunted the car up the rear.
Driver admited fault / liability at scene and also admited to me that she hadnt looked in the mirrors and I also remember her right indicator being on even as she pulled left.
I guess you are in a similar circumstance i.e. reacting to a car reacting to an unforseen obstacle. But none of us will really know as we dont work in insurance industry. Personally I'd get a claim underway and then make sure you sure have decent legal representation to argue your case for you.
if i was vehicle 1 id be pretty ****ed off getting done for careless driving due to taking evasive action to avoid a crash, maybe you should just crash into the back of the stopped vehicle in the eyes of the law.
id say bikers fault as they must of been to close altho some action may be able to be taken against the car driver stopped. not sure?
If the first vehicle managed to avoid collision via emergency braking, then the broken down car's insurers would say what excuse do you have for not leaving a big enough distance with the car in front to not hit it?
The car the bike was following should expect to be able to emergency brake and not get hit from behind. It may be a toughie pinning some of that blame on the broken down car. Just my opinion anyways, but who knows.
the_lone_wolf
06-01-11, 08:29 PM
If the first vehicle in lane two had actually hit the car that pulled out then maybe you could argue that you couldn't stop in time to avoid a collision, but apparently all he did was brake hard?
You were too close to stop in time should he brake hard, we've all done it, you just got caught out like a few people do...
Pretty much a case of hard luck, you'll learn from it and hopefully next time you'll be able to avoid the situation...
TLW, this could be a hypothetical situation, Saul's yet to claim a part in the story.
Milky Bar Kid
06-01-11, 08:36 PM
if i was vehicle 1 id be pretty ****ed off getting done for careless driving due to taking evasive action to avoid a crash, maybe you should just crash into the back of the stopped vehicle in the eyes of the law.
id say bikers fault as they must of been to close altho some action may be able to be taken against the car driver stopped. not sure?
As we discussed the other day AT LENGTH, always drive at speed that you are able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::r olleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Biker Biggles
06-01-11, 08:41 PM
Assumption being the mother of all --ck ups.
Everyone travelling assumed the road to be clear beyond what they could see in their headlights,so car one had to make an emergency lane change.Car two had to hit the brakes unexpectedly and bike was too close.
Did everyone involved actually stop or did car one carry on?
the_lone_wolf
06-01-11, 08:44 PM
TLW, this could be a hypothetical situation, Saul's yet to claim a part in the story.
Ah... Yes... Of course :-dd
;)
As we discussed the other day AT LENGTH, always drive at speed that you are able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::r olleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
just throwing this in there,
but if you're driving on a road in pitch dark with no lighting whatsoever, how far ahead do you think you can see with your own vehicles lighting, both normal and full light lets say.
I'd bet probably even emergency vehicles in pitch dark empty roads will be driving faster than they should if we take the distance that you can see to be clear as how much visibility your headlamps give you.
A big fat dead cow or example like the op gave in a pitch dark road, I'd say most people would get caught out wouldn't they, or am I missing something here?
Biker Biggles
06-01-11, 08:51 PM
just throwing this in there,
but if you're driving on a road in pitch dark with no lighting whatsoever, how far ahead do you think you can see with your own vehicles lighting, both normal and full light lets say.
I'd bet probably even emergency vehicles in pitch dark empty roads will be driving faster than they should if we take the distance that you can see to be clear as how much visibility your headlamps give you.
A big fat dead cow or example like the op gave in a pitch dark road, I'd say most people would get caught out wouldn't they, or am I missing something here?
All true but its still your responsibility to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.If that means slowing down because your lights cant shine further than a few yards so be it.
And as for emergency vehicles going faster than they ought to,plenty of them crash too.:D
Milky Bar Kid
06-01-11, 08:53 PM
All true but its still your responsibility to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.If that means slowing down because your lights cant shine further than a few yards so be it.
And as for emergency vehicles going faster than they ought to,plenty of them crash too.:D
Exactly...and they would get booked too! And the likes of a cow is a bit different from the rear of car...a car has reflectors on and reflective number plate...a cow doesn't...............
As we discussed the other day AT LENGTH, always drive at speed that you are able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::r olleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
so on a unlit road you could never do the 50 or 70 mph speed limit as lets be honest headlights dont allow you a great view.
not saying its right or wrong was just saying id be pretty ****ed off.
now i know why i see people doing 35mph on an unlit motorway :rolleyes:
id be pretty sure as long as your travelling within the speed limit any court would chuck that out anyhow.
a cow is a bit different from the rear of car...a car has reflectors on and reflective number plate...a cow doesn't...............
ya but distance you can see to be clear and all that, reflectors aint part of the deal!
Milky Bar Kid
06-01-11, 09:03 PM
so on a unlit road you could never do the 50 or 70 mph speed limit as lets be honest headlights dont allow you a great view.
not saying its right or wrong was just saying id be pretty ****ed off.
now i know why i see people doing 35mph on an unlit motorway :rolleyes:
id be pretty sure as long as your travelling within the speed limit any court would chuck that out anyhow.
Quite possibly they would throw it out, which is why I stated at the bottom, "and let the court decide". Thing is though, if you were vehicle one, and you just randomly pulled into lane 2 to avoid the broken down motor, into the path of another vehicle, getting a section 3 would be the least of your worries........
Would the broken down car be party to contributory negligence here?
I've dealt with a few claims like this and you would have a hard time pinning anything on the broken down driver even if you hit him, lights or no it's your job to see him.
Let the insurers deal with it but if I was representing the driver of the damaged car I'd be nailing it 100% on the biker I'm afraid.
Right, in my opinion, I would probably, assuming the electrics weren't dead and the broken down car had use of its hazards, I would probably book them with causing an obstruction, I would probably book vehicle 1, which pulled out into the path of another vehicle, with a Section 3, careless driving, and probably book the biker with a Section 3 as well...as you should never travel so close to a vehicle that you can't stop in time in an emergency braking situation.
I would then let the court decide!!
DISCLAIMER - I am only basing my opinion on the "hypothetical" situation described and cannot account for road layout and/or any other possible circumstances
You can't be serious MBK. One car broken down - bad luck surely? Another car successfully avoids a collision and gets points? And everyone who hits the back of someone else is guilty of Careless Driving?
You must be looking for work down there. At an RTA with no injuries, your average Strathclyde Polis wouldn't be able to wave you all on your way quick enough. ;)
Milky Bar Kid
06-01-11, 09:04 PM
ya but distance you can see to be clear and all that, reflectors aint part of the deal!
And how are they not? You will see them from further away so you will have a longer time to brake, you will see at an earlier stage that the distance isn't clear...???
Milky Bar Kid
06-01-11, 09:09 PM
You can't be serious MBK. One car broken down - bad luck surely? Another car successfully avoids a collision and gets points? And everyone who hits the back of someone else is guilty of Careless Driving?
You must be looking for work down there. At an RTA with no injuries, your average Strathclyde Polis wouldn't be able to wave you all on your way quick enough. ;)
To be fair, I probably wouldn't book anyone if I could get away with it!
No such thing as an RTA now as the Govt decided someone is ALWAYS to blame, no such thing as an accident and as such, it is a Road Traffic Collision or Crash, because there is always fault.:rolleyes:
And how are they not? You will see them from further away so you will have a longer time to brake, you will see at an earlier stage that the distance isn't clear...???
^ well duhhh lol! I meant you can't say
'drive at a speed that you are able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear' but then also use reflectors as an excuse to differentiate that law between a car and a dead cow on pitch dark country road at night.
basically that's what I was getting at
Milky Bar Kid
06-01-11, 09:11 PM
Meh, I don't make the rules. I'm bored now. Byee!
Biker Biggles
06-01-11, 09:12 PM
so on a unlit road you could never do the 50 or 70 mph speed limit as lets be honest headlights dont allow you a great view.
not saying its right or wrong was just saying id be pretty ****ed off.
now i know why i see people doing 35mph on an unlit motorway :rolleyes:
id be pretty sure as long as your travelling within the speed limit any court would chuck that out anyhow.
As you wrote,the expression is speed "limit".Its not a target,its a maximum,and you cannot claim its OK to hit obstuctions just because you were not breaking the speed limit.
I talked to a mate who did an advanced driving course,and the thing that impressed him most was just how much slower they went than he expected most of the time.Entirely because they had to be able to stop in that visibility distance.
yorkie_chris
06-01-11, 09:22 PM
And how are they not? You will see them from further away so you will have a longer time to brake, you will see at an earlier stage that the distance isn't clear...???
Was it our esteemed Mr Herring who said that on traffic duty one of the most common call outs he had was debris on the motorway. I've had to avoid a brick, a plank of wood, and various ratchet straps, by far the most dangerous was a page of a broadsheet newspaper which hit me square on the head on the M56 in high winds and obscured my view!
Where is the fish scented one these days anyway?
yorkie_chris
06-01-11, 09:26 PM
Another car successfully avoids a collision and gets points?
Avoiding one collision is fair enough, but it's definitely a bit careless to cause another one or 2 in the process!
Fact is driver 2 should be paying attention and not swerve into people's way.
Then again, panic situation.
Similar one I had was in a bout of very sudden fog on Scammonden moor, as tends to happen up there. Fog warnings on the gantry sign, clear night and then it's like you've hit a wall, can't see the streetlights above you just an orange glow :smt103 There was some f***in idiot in a grey volvo with no lights on doing 35mph in the fast lane!
As you wrote,the expression is speed "limit".Its not a target,its a maximum,and you cannot claim its OK to hit obstuctions just because you were not breaking the speed limit.
I talked to a mate who did an advanced driving course,and the thing that impressed him most was just how much slower they went than he expected most of the time.Entirely because they had to be able to stop in that visibility distance.
haha thanks for that, and there was me thinking if the limit was 70 you had to do 70 and could crash into anything :rolleyes:
Avoiding one collision is fair enough, but it's definitely a bit careless to cause another one or 2 in the process!
Fact is driver 2 should be paying attention and not swerve into people's way.
Then again, panic situation.
Similar one I had was in a bout of very sudden fog on Scammonden moor, as tends to happen up there. Fog warnings on the gantry sign, clear night and then it's like you've hit a wall, can't see the streetlights above you just an orange glow :smt103 There was some f***in idiot in a grey volvo with no lights on doing 35mph in the fast lane!
he didnt cause another accident tho, the biker did by being to close to the car in front
Biker Biggles
06-01-11, 09:31 PM
haha thanks for that, and there was me thinking if the limit was 70 you had to do 70 and could crash into anything :rolleyes:
Well you did state that a court would chuck it out if you were travelling within the speed limit,and I can assure you thats wrong.:rolleyes:
Well you did state that a court would chuck it out if you were travelling within the speed limit,and I can assure you thats wrong.:rolleyes:
i said id be sure a court would chuck it out and i still think that. Driver did not hit anyone, avoided the broken down car and the car in lane 2.
doing 70 on a motorway at night when your way is clear as far as you can clearly say is not careless driving. if it was traffic would have a field day on any motorway
Milky Bar Kid
06-01-11, 10:13 PM
i said id be sure a court would chuck it out and i still think that. Driver did not hit anyone, avoided the broken down car and the car in lane 2.
doing 70 on a motorway at night when your way is clear as far as you can clearly say is not careless driving. if it was traffic would have a field day on any motorway
But to then also pull out INTO THE PATH of another vehicle is.
yorkie_chris
06-01-11, 10:21 PM
he didnt cause another accident tho, the biker did by being to close to the car in front
You don't have to cause an accident to commit careless driving, I was on about that rather than the OP's case about the bike.
I also disagree about your above point, if you were doing 70 in conditions of limited visibility (which the court would consider darkness being one) and swerved violently around an obstacle which you should have seen, causing "distress or alarm" to another road user (or however they word it)... given CCTV or what have you I'm sure they'd do you for it.
You could also argue that the overtaking vehicle that was forced to brake had a responsibility to ensure the road ahead was clear for his overtake - if nearside lane should have seen the obstruction then surely offside lane should have seen it too?
But to then also pull out INTO THE PATH of another vehicle is.
yep agreed, i would just think that a court would consider that a broken down car with no lights or other warning is actually the careless driver in this case. the other is just out of instinct trying to avoid a crash,
he was not pulling out into the path of another vehicle just for the hell of it...that is careless
21QUEST
06-01-11, 10:41 PM
IMO, the bike is solely at fault for the accident.
A case of following the car infront too close and frankly not paying attention. target fixation?...the car infront being the target ;)
From reading the OP, there would have been no issue of trying to apportion blame/shift blame, if the rider hadn't gone into the back of the car.
You don't have to cause an accident to commit careless driving, I was on about that rather than the OP's case about the bike.
I also disagree about your above point, if you were doing 70 in conditions of limited visibility (which the court would consider darkness being one) and swerved violently around an obstacle which you should have seen, causing "distress or alarm" to another road user (or however they word it)... given CCTV or what have you I'm sure they'd do you for it.
at 70/50 on an unlit motorway/dual carriageway would you consider a broken down car with no lights or other warning as an obstacle that "should have been seen" in time to stop. To stop within your headlights distance you have to travel at around 35/40 mph
dont know, id just be abit ****ed off if i got done for it in the case mentioned that's all
21QUEST
06-01-11, 10:46 PM
You could also argue that the overtaking vehicle that was forced to brake had a responsibility to ensure the road ahead was clear for his overtake - if nearside lane should have seen the obstruction then surely offside lane should have seen it too?
I have to disagree with that. The road ahead(his lane) was clear.
-Ralph-
06-01-11, 10:49 PM
Interesting. If you travelled at 35mph on a motorway in clear weather conditions at night, you are causing a danger, simply 'cos no-one else is doing that speed, or expecting you to be doing that speed. So would you get pulled for it? And if you did get pulled and said to the copper, my headlights have x range, therefore I can only do 35mph, what would the answer be?
Interesting. If you travelled at 35mph on a motorway in clear weather conditions at night, you are causing a danger, simply 'cos no-one else is doing that speed, or expecting you to be doing that speed. So would you get pulled for it? And if you did get pulled and said to the copper, my headlights have x range, therefore I can only do 35mph, what would the answer be?
i think you can get done for going to slow on a motorway cant you? sure ive heard this. as you say its actually causing danger
Bluefish
06-01-11, 10:52 PM
it's obviouse, the biker should have seen the car move over and been anticipating the car/s in front slowing down, and been ready to do the same, bikers fault, hyperthetically of course. ;)
Bluefish
06-01-11, 10:53 PM
i think you can get done for going to slow on a motorway cant you? sure ive heard this. as you say its actually causing danger
yes you can, this law is not applied enough.
I have to disagree with that. The road ahead(his lane) was clear.
Fair enough, but how many times have you had to delay an overtake because you saw something the other guy hadn't? Just because your lane's clear doesn't give you a get out of jail card.
It's not a point I'd labour to be honest, I was just making the point that it is possible to argue some degree of lack of attention for all the parties involved in the near miss. The actual accident required the biker to be too close to the vehicle in front so he's going to be the only one at fault for that.
hardhat_harry
06-01-11, 11:05 PM
30mph is the minimum speed on a motorway unless police escourted.
21QUEST
06-01-11, 11:05 PM
Fair enough, but how many times have you had to delay an overtake because you saw something the other guy hadn't? Just because your lane's clear doesn't give you a get out of jail card.
It's not a point I'd labour to be honest, I was just making the point that it is possible to argue some degree of lack of attention for all the parties involved in the near miss. The actual accident required the biker to be too close to the vehicle in front so he's going to be the only one at fault for that.
This post made me smile ...as I was just about to quote your post again and say "...but I see where you are coming from" .
You are absolutely right with your post above....and I agree whole heartedly.
Infact, the car in front/what's taking place directly in front of me is somewhat the least important of all the information I'm taking in and analysing whilst I'm on the road :)
30mph is the minimum speed on a motorway unless police escourted.
just checked this out and this is what i found
"At present in the UK, there is no legislation for minimum speeds on UK motorways. Although there has been calls for years to set a minimum speed limit, the practicalities of doing so means that at present there is still no specific minimum speed. In general, road works, variable speed control and flow of traffic can all affect the minimum speed on a motorway so setting a minimum speed can be problematic. In some countries they do set a minimum speed however and it seems to work effectively. The Republic of Ireland has a minimum speed of 30 mph on motorways, but generally in the UK, minimum speeds are temporary and are usually highlighted by circular road signs."
but if your causing danger to other road users by how slow your going you can receive a fine, altho very rare
Found this all very interesting and quite relevant to myself.
Just the other night i was coming down the m2 when i narrowly avoided a few huge sheets of plasterboard sliding across the lanes. Even though they are grey i couldnt see them from such a distance to stop in time. And as for no such thing as an accident i crashed on my old 125 after hitting a fox through a lane. I couldnt get his details though as he was all over the place.
Milky Bar Kid
13-01-11, 08:45 PM
Found this all very interesting and quite relevant to myself.
Just the other night i was coming down the m2 when i narrowly avoided a few huge sheets of plasterboard sliding across the lanes. Even though they are grey i couldnt see them from such a distance to stop in time. And as for no such thing as an accident i crashed on my old 125 after hitting a fox through a lane. I couldnt get his details though as he was all over the place.
The fault of that accident was the fox. It's stupid.
EssexDave
13-01-11, 10:05 PM
This is slightly different, but there was a case where a car went to over another car, the car being overtaken sped up + didn't allow the overtaking car back in, and was given 50% liability (50% with overtaking car) for not letting them in. Now, I know the highway code explicitly states, if you're being overtaken, remain a constant speed if it is safe to do so, and clearly this didn't happen.
In terms of insurance for the case above;
For ease we shall name them Car A - broken down car, Car B - slow lane, Car C - fast lane and bike.
If Car A had not been there, there would have been no accident. However, Car B also needs to make sure their path is clear before changing lane. So in this accident, Car A is an idiot, but I doubt insurance will care, Car B had to make sure their path was clear.
Therefore, when Car B hits Car C, it is Car B's fault.
Lastly, the motorbike has hit the car - now I'd assume this meant the bike was too close and the insurance would blame the bike for this impact. However, you could, if you are the biker, contest 100% liability and try and get a split, based on the apparent negligence of Car A, and Car B causing the accident in the first place.
Furthermore, depending on the impact between B and C could also make a huge difference. Yes - you should left ample braking distance at all times.
What if Car C slams on brakes, but still hits Car B, and this acts as an even bigger braking force now, one most cars wouldn't normally exert. Eg. When you hit a brake wall you stop = huge braking force. Hitting a slower moving car would be a similiar situation.
Depending on the circumstances, it may be worth instructing a decent no win no fee solicitor to argue the case. Make sure they are motor experts, and give them a good brief of the case. If it's straight cut, bike went into back of car because he didn't leave enough room, then sorry biker.
Biker Biggles
13-01-11, 10:23 PM
Car A isnt negligent if it is broken down.It could be if it just parked there.Cars B and C didnt collide if I understand the story correctly.Car B should have had enough forward vision and shouldnt have had to pull out,but probably didnt stop.
SVFreak
14-01-11, 07:09 PM
No excuse for not keeping a safe stopping distance. It's basic stuff...
Biker Biggles
14-01-11, 07:17 PM
IMHO:
All coppers/judges are important people of questionable parentage.
The honest working man/woman will always end up worse off than the blue badge holding, bigot of a copper or civil servant.
The country is ran by a shower of apparantly educated fools who don't understand real life.
Interesting opinion but little relevance to this thread.:confused:
Biker Biggles
14-01-11, 07:28 PM
That time of the month again?;)
SVFreak
14-01-11, 07:31 PM
Highway code, a good read.
EssexDave
14-01-11, 07:34 PM
Car A isnt negligent if it is broken down.It could be if it just parked there.Cars B and C didnt collide if I understand the story correctly.Car B should have had enough forward vision and shouldnt have had to pull out,but probably didnt stop.
Highway code rule 274 (breakdowns)
If your vehicle breaks down, think of all other road users first.
warn other traffic by using your hazard warning lights if your vehicle is causing an obstruction.
If possible, keep your sidelights on if it is dark or visibility is poor.
Rule 275 (additional rules for the motorway)
Pull onto the hard shoulder as far left as possible
Rule 277:
If you cannot get onto the hard shoulder:
switch on your hazard warning lights
So okay lets say, that it was an electrical problem, and the lights were all dead, in which case, the momentum you had, would have been enough to carry you onto the hard shoulder, and well out of harms way.
I fail to see any probable situation, on a normal 3 lane motorway, with a hardshoulder, that you would breakdown and be unable to pull over.
At least, when I realise something is wrong at 70 on a motorway, one of my first thoughts is where shall I stop? Not, oh I'll keep going and see how far I can get.
Biker Biggles
14-01-11, 07:39 PM
"Dual carriageway,no hard shoulder"
No idea why it was there or how long it had been there or if it had any lights,but it would be hard to pin blame on a stationary vehicle I think.
EssexDave
14-01-11, 08:05 PM
"Dual carriageway,no hard shoulder"
No idea why it was there or how long it had been there or if it had any lights,but it would be hard to pin blame on a stationary vehicle I think.
Indeed, the blame has to be with the motorcycle for his accident for not allowing enough distance to stop (unless it can be proved he did allow the distance, and it was the combined stopping force of the slow moving vehicle + braking force of no doubt the car infront of the bike braking) as per my other post.
However, I was refering more to the contributory negligence of not acting in an appropriate manner. If that car had not been there, the accident would not have taken place, therefore, some of the blame, in my opinion, needs to be apportioned on the stationary car.
EssexDave
14-01-11, 08:09 PM
I missed the bit about no hard shoulder by the way, I thought we were on a motorway... (serves me right for not re-reading the post)
Regardless, if I was in the car that was braking down, as I lost power/cut out etc I would roll myself up a curb, out of the way somewhere if possible. Obviously, we do not know where it is, so could be hard to say for certain whether I'd pin some level or negligence on the stationary vehicle, but in a lot of situations, you can see how the stationary car can be apportioned a level of blame.
Harry_Mc
14-01-11, 08:34 PM
you should never be close enough to the car infront not to be able to react fast enough should their be an issue. It would be the car behinds fault... its a bit like in multi car pile ups... last one in foots the bill so i hear...
Thats why in driving lessons and highway code etc theres a 2 - 5 second rule.
With the swerving bit it would depend totally on witness's i think. Dont really think you can attribute any blame to the broken down car, as you dont know why its there.. could have been abandoned by theives etc.
Maybe driving without due care and attention.
husky03
15-01-11, 12:52 AM
IMHO:
All coppers/judges are important people of questionable parentage.
The honest working man/woman will always end up worse off than the blue badge holding, bigot of a copper or civil servant.
The country is ran by a shower of apparantly educated fools who don't understand real life.
This country is retarded. One big population of p r i c k s.
Coppers are as previously stated impotent b a s t a r d s with small d i c k s and a false sense of authority the f u c k i n g puppets.
f a s c i s t copper b a s t a r d s
very interesting freak-i take it your mrs dumped you for one of us big coppers with a very good sized dong eh?or your maw was a good time girl who liked to play with the bobbies boabys-you ever have the pleasure of meeting me please please please please makesure you repeat your comments to me in person, to my face and not behind a computer screen-your the typical keyboard warrior -all talk and no feckin action when it comes to it-well i'm calling you out chap-you talk big but i bet your just a limp wristed wee bia-tch-run along, shut the door behind you, don't look back.
SVFreak
15-01-11, 09:47 AM
LOL
Indeed, the blame has to be with the motorcycle for his accident for not allowing enough distance to stop (unless it can be proved he did allow the distance, and it was the combined stopping force of the slow moving vehicle + braking force of no doubt the car infront of the bike braking) as per my other post.
However, I was refering more to the contributory negligence of not acting in an appropriate manner. If that car had not been there, the accident would not have taken place, therefore, some of the blame, in my opinion, needs to be apportioned on the stationary car.
But the accident was caused by the bikers close following distance of the car in front. Others avoided a crash. Is it the car drivers fault that the biker was travelling too close to the car in front? As I can't see how that would be possible, I would attribute full blame on the biker.
EssexDave
16-01-11, 12:27 PM
But the accident was caused by the bikers close following distance of the car in front. Others avoided a crash. Is it the car drivers fault that the biker was travelling too close to the car in front? As I can't see how that would be possible, I would attribute full blame on the biker.
Indeed, but you could also argue that if:
Car 1 stopped in road with no lights on was not there, accident would not have happened.
If Car 2 hadn't pulled out infront of Car 3, biker may not have hit car.
As I've said, blame lies with the biker for following too closely, I'm looking at ways he could try and wiggle out of it if he tried.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.