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

[TEC]

Originally Posted by 7755matt

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

[Stu]

Originally Posted by DMC

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

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

[Stu]

Originally Posted by 7755matt

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?

[Stu]

Originally Posted by 7755matt

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.

[Spiderman]

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.

Originally Posted by 7755matt

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.

[ophic]

Originally Posted by Stu

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?

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Spiderman

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