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

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

Originally Posted by Baph

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.

Originally Posted by Kilted Ginger

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]

Originally Posted by Jabba

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.

[ophic]

Originally Posted by boot

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 7755matt

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]

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.