Who's at fault in a 3 car motorway pile up?

Originally Posted by Stu

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.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

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

Originally Posted by DMC

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.

Originally Posted by Stu

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

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?

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

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.

Originally Posted by DMC

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!

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.

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Interesting job then!

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.

Originally Posted by DMC

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

Originally Posted by specialone

at least 3 of the cars were women drivers

No problem deciding who was to blame there then

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.