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?

Re: Rear-end collisions
 

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

Re: Rear-end collisions
 

Layman's opinion but I think not. What happened to keeping a safe distance?

Re: Rear-end collisions
 

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.

Re: Rear-end collisions
 

**** creek--no paddle

Re: Rear-end collisions
 

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.

Re: Rear-end collisions
 

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?

Re: Rear-end collisions
 

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.

Re: Rear-end collisions
 

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...

Re: Rear-end collisions
 

TLW, this could be a hypothetical situation, Saul's yet to claim a part in the story.