Fined for Failure to Keep a Safe Distance after Accident

Lflopsy on 19/07/2018 - 18:11
Last edited 19/07/2018 - 18:31 by 1 other user

Last weekend I was driving on an expressway when a kangaroo jumped out from behind a safety barrier, into the Median Strip. I was traveling in the far lane and saw it from a good distance back. Naturally, traffic was slowing, but as we got closer to the roo I realized (too late) the X5 in front of me had slammed his brakes. I put on full brakes straight away, skidded for a while but still managed to hit him (just) and put a crack in his rear bumper.

He apologized profusely, saying that he only saw the kangaroo when it was "right in front of him" (in the median strip with a whole lane between, but I digress). He even explained this to police at the scene.

The officers responding to the crash told me that, for insurance purposes, the driver behind is always at fault, which I knew and completely accepted. I protested that I was at a safe distance which the other driver concurred and they said it didn't matter. I totally agreed and accepted this and have no problem with him claiming on my insurance for it.

Today, I received an expiation notice for "Failure to Keep Safe Distance from Vehicle In-front". There is no evidence provided and I wasn't informed at the scene this would happen.

So here are my questions:

  • Is this standard after a rear end accident? I feel like I'm being prosecuted for something I didn't do without evidence or prior warning.

  • What constitutes safe distance?

I had always gone by two seconds but I can't find one clear official definition. The cars were traveling about 80km/h, slowing from 100km/h and I am sure I was at least 2 seconds from him when I realised he had actually slammed his brakes on from just slowing down. He was in a new BMW X5 and I was in an old Ford Fiesta with 100+kg of equipment in it, not to mention I slowed down enough from 80km/h to just crack his bumper.

  • Right and wrong aside, do I have any real chance of getting this waived or at least reduced? Ideally with less/no demerits.

TL;DR:
Charged with "Failure to Keep Safe Distance" days after incident, with no evidence or mention of it at the time. Believe I was absolutely at a safe distance. Should I appeal?

Happy to hear the truth no matter how hard. Thanks in advance.

Automotive

Comments

  • kerfuffle on 19/07/2018 - 18:18
    +45

    You're actually supposed to maintain a three-second difference between yourself and the car in front.

      • pegaxs on 19/07/2018 - 21:17
        +43

        No, the guideline is 3 seconds. As a truck driver, it is drilled into us constantly by police and media and road pirates and any other government agency that wants to harass truck drivers…

        There is no way that the guideline for safe distance at 100km/h is 2 seconds. Please provide the police/government/legislation that says that 2 seconds is a safe distance at those speeds…

        Edit: Good lord… had a look at where @notabargain is from and in Qld, it’s 2 seconds… I’m going to do some maths and some further investigation on this, because that is just the dumbest shit I have ever read from a government website… WTF Qld?

        Too put it into a bit of perspective, 2 seconds @ 100km/h would have a car cover 54m. At 3 seconds, that moves out to 80m.

        So, working on the average reaction time of seeing, thinking, doing for about 3/4 of a second, the average driver is left with about 33m of stopping distance if using the 2 second rule. From 100km/h, the average stopping distance, in good weather and good road conditions is about 50 to 55m for the average car. A shortfall of about 20m at 2 seconds.

        Let’s apply that to 3 seconds rule. 3/4 of a second spent reacting leaves us with a stopping distance gap of 60m. So, that’s a benefit of 10m extra for being just 1 more second behind.

        So, while Qld says it’s ok to be 2 seconds behind, maths says its “stupid” to be that close.

        For the record, OP is from SA by the looks of it, and their “guidelines” seems to say a 3 seconds gap…

        • Gandalf the Thrifty on 19/07/2018 - 21:49
          +1

          Maybe its because our roads are so crap, unlikely to be actually doing 100 most of the time.

        • knobbs on 19/07/2018 - 22:11
          +13

          Not arguing about the timing of what is right or not but in your calculation of the 2s rule. You are assuming the object in front comes to a complete stop instantly from 100km/h to 0. The object infront which you are following is also travelling at 100km/h and would take on average 50 to 55m to stop.

          You could never keep a safe distance from something stationary unless you are stationary too.

          Assuming the cars will be braking at the same speed the 2s is the reaction time for the driver to apply the brake. Speed shouldn't be that much of a factor as long as you are allowing the 2s relative to the speed you are travelling.

        • havebeerbelywillsumo on 20/07/2018 - 01:58
          +4

          @knobbs:

          You are assuming the object in front comes to a complete stop instantly from 100km/h to 0………can happen - collision.

        • pegaxs on 20/07/2018 - 06:48
          +2

          @knobbs:

          It is correct. While I agree that some times the car in front is slowing down and providing your car and their car are slowing down at the same rate, you may well keep that distance gap.

          The problem is that most people brake that hard because they are about to smash into something else, an oncoming car, a stationary car or something moving a lot slower that will wash off almost all of their speed in an instant. As soon as that happens, your 30m gap will disappear real quick.

          With a 3 second gap, they can hit that immovable object and wash off all of their speed in an instant, ie: worst case scenario, and you would still be left with 10m of space to avoid anything.

          So no, 2 seconds is not enough of a buffer when it comes to travelling at high speeds.

        • knobbs on 20/07/2018 - 07:45
          +2

          @pegaxs: I'd hate to think what happens to the human body at 100kmh to 0 almost instantly. I would say in those scenarios or at almost any speed 99% of the cars on the road I see following a vehicle would plow straight into them with a X kmh to stationary instantly.

          2s, 3s, 5s gap I'm not sure what would be the best or commenting on it. I think the major factor in not rear ending someone is the drivers reaction and awareness of the situation.

          Also as you say the car in front will be braking that hard if they are going to hit a car head on or smash into something stationary giving more distance and time for the driver behind to react/brake.

          If we are only looking at worst case scenarios (100 km/h to 0) then we also have to look at worst case driver reaction which could be up to infinite, not just .75s. There is only so far you can go otherwise they would recommend do not follow another car. A medium ground has to be taken for a majority or 90th percentile or similar. I think in these cases they do not look at 100 to 0 instantly.

        • RibaldGadfly on 20/07/2018 - 08:29
          +1

          This is one example of where Australian road rules are so anal.
          If one was to keep three seconds behind the car in front, you'd constantly have to fall back because other motorists would drive into the gap.
          By some measures the safest country on the roads is the UK. By other measures it's second to Sweden. The following distance there is 2 seconds.
          Perhaps our authorities could learn something.
          And no, there's nothing so special about Australian conditions that we need to increase our following distances by a second as compared to roads that are a lot busier.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 09:15
          +1

          So this is why all Qlders tailgate!! It all makes sense now.

        • jhmtaylor on 20/07/2018 - 11:50
          -3

          @pegaxs: Using seconds is not a good metric to use whilst driving. Allowing 1 vehicle length per 10 kph is easier to use and more relevant. From a 100 kph, a car should be able to come to a stop within 10 car lengths (50 metres) whereas a 50 metre long fully laden road train takes well over 400 metres to stop, which is why you should never change lanes in front a heavy vehicles when they are trying to stop.
          Years ago a car driver was killed when they changed lanes in front of a road train trying to stop for traffic lights on the outskirts of Darwin. Although the road train hit the back of the car ( drove over the top of it) the accident investigation and coronial inquiry found that the car driver was the one at fault. Now in the Territory you will see lights start flashing 800 metres before traffic lights to warn that they are about to turn red in 25 seconds.

        • macrocephalic on 20/07/2018 - 13:11

          @Gandalf the Thrifty: Maybe it's because people are going to ignore any figure over 2 seconds anyway.

        • thord on 20/07/2018 - 13:15

          You're calculations assume that the stopping distance is to a stationary object. This isn't applicable to the topic. The topic is a braking car ahead. The car ahead doesn't brake instantaneously.

          Different cars brake at different speeds and within different distances.

          If you're behind a truck for example, the truck is going to take a long time to slow down to a stop. You could be literally the reaction time distance behind it and stop perfectly safely (i.e. if reaction time is 3/4 of a second, 3/4 a second would be a safe distance because you could stop faster than the truck could brake).

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 13:27

          @RibaldGadfly: The 3 second rule is a guide. If you're a good driver, and practice defensive driving techniques like looking through the windscreen of the car in front (so you have more time to react), it's not even essential.

          But in cases where you're in the following car and have hit the car in front - obviously you're not a great driver and the 3 second rule then becomes much more applicable.

        • pegaxs on 20/07/2018 - 16:51
          +4

          @jhmtaylor:

          Using seconds is not a good metric to use whilst driving.

          It is a perfect metric to use. You do realise that km/h is a distance over time variable, yeah? I can either "guess" X car lengths over a distance, or, you know, just count, cause at speed, distance can be measured in time… ;)

          ie: (Worked out with average car length of 4.5m.)

          60km/h = 16.7m/s, or 3.7 car lengths per second. A 3 second gap would give you an 11 car length gap (or about 49.5m)
          80km/h = 22.2m/s, or 5 car lengths per second. A 3 second gap would give you an 14.8 car length gap (or about 66.6m)
          100km/h = 27.8m/s, or 6.1 car lengths per second. A 3 second gap would give you an 18.5 car length gap (or about 83m)

          See how counting is WAY more accurate than guessing distance by looking?? And it auto adjusts to your speed. The faster you go, the gap gets bigger even though you are still only counting to "3".

          Allowing 1 vehicle length per 10 kph is easier to use and more relevant.

          What's easier, trying to judge car lengths, or just counting to 3?

          From a 100 kph, a car should be able to come to a stop within 10 car lengths (50 metres)

          What you are forgetting here is the almost 1 second of reaction time. Yes, the average car, in ideal conditions, "should" be able to stop in 50m. But that 1 second reaction time adds another 25+ metres to the total stopping distance. So, now you are up to 75m at 100km/h. The 3 second guideline gives you 80+ metres.

          I put it to you that there is no way you or anyone else can accurately visually measure out 80m in front of them while travelling at 100km/h with any reliability. Your method of "adjusting for car lengths" through the speed range is flawed. IE: at 40 I need 4, at 60 I need 6, etc. I put it to you that counting to 3 is way more accurate and a shit load easier than trying to guess how many car lengths there are at any given speed. 3 seconds is self adjusting for speed. It is always 3 seconds no matter what the speed and even most idiots can count to 3…

          As for the rest about trucks, I agree with…

          @thord:

          Really? So, what you're saying is, if I know they are going to come to a braking stop over time, I can travel at 2 seconds, but if they are going to hit a parked truck and come to an instant stop, I should travel at 3 seconds??

          Always assume that the car in front is going to come to an abrupt stop. The reason they are braking hard is because they are about to hit something that "could" bring them to a complete stop very abruptly. A parked car/truck. A head on collision. A fallen tree. A lost load. Any number of things could bring a car to a dead stop or significantly reduce their braking time/distance. THAT is why it is always worked out as if the other car comes to an instant stop (ie: worst case scenario). Because, it may just actually happen. Ok, in this case it didn't, but the car in front could have been braking to avoid a stopped car, not just a kangaroo…

        • ozkiwi75 on 21/07/2018 - 11:10
          +1

          @pegaxs: I don't know how road authorities decided to come up with their 2-3 sec rules of thumb. But you are absolutely correct about the reaction time also being needed to be part of the calc.

          For your/everyone's knowledge, under 'normal conditions' (ie. driver not highly alert at the time), road designers in Aus are required to use a reaction time of 2.5 seconds in their design calculations (this can generally be reduced to a minimum of 2.0 seconds if the road authority allows it in tight situations). These values assume that the longitudinal deceleration that then follows after the reaction time is also under comfortable conditions (ie. not slamming on the brakes).

          There are various other factors which the general public forget to account in the deceleration rate, such as:
          - Eye height (depending on vehicle) can make a notable difference in sight distance to the hazard
          - Type of vehicle (a truck will take longer to stop than a small hatch back)
          - Friction factors (when was the road last resurfaced?)
          - Grade of the road (is the section of road on a steep down/up hill slope?)
          - Environmental conditions (in the road in wet conditions regularly? and how heavy? eg. North Qld can get short, but extremely heavy rain)
          - Geometry of the road itself (was it on a straight/curve? did the road surface have enough crossfall to account for the centripetal forces?)

          These are the typical factors taken into account by engineers when designing the stopping sight distance for roads under 'normal conditions'. For disclosure, the information I have provided is a layman's regurgitation of that written in the 'AustRoads Guide to Road Design - Part 3: Geometric Design'.

          Although my comments aren't directly relevant to an emergency stopping situation, I hope this dis-spells some myths around the topic and that the general public recognise things aren't always as simple as they seem.

      • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 19/07/2018 - 23:35
        +5

        My names Brad, I'm the roo that caused the accident. Me and Lance were sinking a few and he finally convinced me to play with the traffic. Don't get me wrong, Lance gets his greens and looks after the family, having said that, when he gets on the juice all breaks loose. Gambling, drinking, sleeping around, you name it. I'm thinking of deleting him from Facebook.

        Sorry OP.

      • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 22/07/2018 - 00:01
        +1

        "not a bargain on 19/07/2018 - 19:24
        No. The guideline is two seconds, but it is only a guideline. The driver still needs to determine the distance based on the conditions."

        With 26 up-votes and 26 down-votes I propose we compromise on 2.5 seconds.

  • my mum on 19/07/2018 - 18:19
    +89

    "What constitutes safe distance?"
    A safe distance means that if the car in front suddenly stops then you should be able to stop without hitting them or causing an accident/injury to others. The fact you hit the car proves the point you were not at a safe distance for the conditions.

    Unfortunately you have been hit with a double-whammy which is crap, so sympathies with you and praise-JV you have insurance.

    The problem with keeping a safe distance is that it can't realistically be 100% followed all the time otherwise traffic would be at a standstill.

    • whooah1979 on 19/07/2018 - 18:41
      +2

      Well said.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 20/07/2018 - 00:43
        +8

        Indeed, the fact that OP collided with the car in front is evidence of failure to keep a safe distance.

        OP could still elect to bring the matter before the court and ask that extenuating circumstances be heard, with a view to have it dealt with under Section 10 (guilty but no conviction recorded). The extenuating circumstances being that despite the roadworthiness of OP's vehicle, its braking performance was vastly superceded by a much newer, much more expensive vehicle.

        Mention if OP has a good driving record and state that the penalty is too harsh given that OP has already admitted fault and is covering the damage of both parties via insurance, excess, increased premiums, loss of no claim bonus, etc.

        • stumo on 20/07/2018 - 14:47
          +1

          Also if everyone was already slowing down, like OP said, then OP wouldnt have had the benefit of seeing the brake lights come on. Because they would have already been on.

          Theres a big difference between eveyones brake lights being on already due to a natural slowing down of all the traffic, and someone suddenly slamming the brake pedal fully down during that situation.

    • Godric on 19/07/2018 - 19:19
      +2

      i too praise-jv

    • poohduck on 19/07/2018 - 20:27
      +1

      I always keep a safe distance - it's easy. In slow traffic a safe distance is a lot less of course. I live where there are lots of wallabies - I've never hit one.

      • Scab on 29/08/2018 - 10:03

        I also keep a safe distance from JV.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/07/2018 - 18:30
    -1

    Without a dashcam, tough.

    Some cars have very short braking distance so safe distance doesn't just depend on your vehicle.

    Dashcam up and move on.

    • whats up skip on 19/07/2018 - 19:09
      +10

      How is a dashcam going to help? All it is going to show is the OP's car hitting the car in front.

      You seem to ignore the fact that the car in front is legally entitled and may be legally required to conduct a full emergency brake. You can't see what the driver in front (or their vehicle's systems) can see, so you can't assume they won't do a full emergency break.

      You have to drive at a distance behind the car in front such that you will be able to stop without hitting the car in front. This distance needs to take account of all factors including the road conditions, your vehicle, your response time and how quickly the car in front can stop if it did a full emergency brake.

        • whats up skip on 19/07/2018 - 19:21
          +20

          Clearly you don't understand the rule.

          The OP hit the car in front, then clearly they weren't traveling at a safe distance. It wouldn't matter how far back they were if they hit the car in front. Of course, it could be they were so far back that it then becomes a case of failure to pay due attention.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 20/07/2018 - 00:47
          -4

          @not a bargain:

          A dashcam could reveal adverse road conditions such as a stream, puddle, oil spill, debris, pot hole, etc — extenuating circumstances.

        • theguru1 on 20/07/2018 - 07:31
          +7

          @Scrooge McDuck: Which then would require greater distance to allow for the conditions. A safe distance isn't fixed. It depends on the conditions.

        • jacross on 20/07/2018 - 08:50
          +3

          @Scrooge McDuck: you have to take all of those elements into consideration when determining the appropriate distance.

          The fact that he collided is by definition proof that he did not leave sufficient distance under the road rules.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 20/07/2018 - 11:11

          @theguru1:

          Which then would require greater distance to allow for the conditions. A safe distance isn't fixed. It depends on the conditions.

          You can allow for systemic conditions such as a wet, icy or dirt road.

          But all the conditions I listed above are likely to be a one off and unforeseeable, that's the point.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 11:53

          @Scrooge McDuck: You're supposed to drive according to the road conditions. If you were driving at 100km/h on an 100km/h despite heavy rain or fog or debris strewn across the road and got into an accident, you'd still be at fault.

        • CLoSeR on 20/07/2018 - 11:56

          Ahhaha.. if he hit him then it wasn't a safe distance. So many other factors too such as the stopping distance of vehicle in front so if you have an old car and the car in front can pull up quick you might need to allow extra distance.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 20/07/2018 - 12:03

          @HighAndDry:

          despite heavy rain or fog or debris strewn across the road

          That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to one off unforeseeable conditions.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 12:15

          @CLoSeR:
          So if there is an oil slick on the road, then even 10s wouldn't be a safe distance.

          Malfunctioning brakes. 1 minute wouldn't be a safe distance.

          Stroke while driving. Never a safe distance.

          Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because something happened doesn't proove a specific cause.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 12:17
          +2

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Yes, including unforeseeable conditions. A safe distance is basically - a distance that you can come to a stop from without hitting the car in front even if they braked as hard as possible.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 12:23

          @Scrooge McDuck: Wait, I think I answered someone else already, but there's a difference your speed (which depends on these conditions), and your safe following distance, which is basically defined as: The distance at which you can stop safely in without hitting the car in front. It doesn't matter what conditions exist, it basically assumes the car in front will, for whatever reason, brake at 100% suddenly.

          A safe distance is one that, if that happens, you can stop without hitting them in.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 20/07/2018 - 12:36

          @HighAndDry:

          Yes, including unforeseeable conditions.

          Consider this hypothetical situation:

          A car has a catastrophic powertrain failure and dumps most of its oil or transmission fluid on the road. The driver instinctively brakes hard in reaction to the noise.

          A car following 5 s behind brakes soon after but its tires dramatically lose traction when they hit the spill. Consequently the car behind collides with the one in front.

          Would you say that the driver behind failed to keep a safe distance?

          This is a clear example of when an unforeseeable adverse road condition is an extenuating circumstance.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 13:18

          @tshow: Actually the way that "safe following distance" is defined, post hoc ergo propter hoc is not a fallacy.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 13:29

          @Scrooge McDuck: I'll give you that one, but you have to admit - that's pretty bloody specific.

        • SydStrand on 20/07/2018 - 15:28

          @Scrooge McDuck: but now you're shifting goalposts because initially it was:

          A dashcam could reveal adverse road conditions such as a stream, puddle, oil spill, debris, pot hole, etc

          A dashcam will not cover you in adverse road conditions. I once rear-ended someone driving a company van that was fully-loaded, on a downhill in heavy rain. I left what I thought was plenty of stopping distance but when the car in front slammed the brakes, it wasn't quite enough. It was my fault and I probably should have left another 1-2m.

          Now, if you're asking whether a dashcam will cover you in freak accidents? Pretty sure the lead car blowing up and leaving a long oil slick on the road will be enough evidence to obviate a dashcam.

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 11:54
      +3

      Dashcam would just show OP was tailgating, it wouldn't help at all.

      • CLoSeR on 20/07/2018 - 11:56

        Yeh, or poor braking ability of his car.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 11:57
          +2

          Yup. Which would also be OP's responsibility. Either way, OP loses.

  • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 19/07/2018 - 18:31
    +26

    I hope you don't end up in a kangaroo court.

    • CocaKoala on 20/07/2018 - 10:15
      +1

      If he does end up in one, he'd have to be boxing his way out of it.

    • Lockieasy on 20/07/2018 - 20:29
      +2

      Yeah, or he'll be roo-ined.

  • kahn on 19/07/2018 - 18:42
    +40

    Your explanation is all well and good, but there is no picture to accompany the story. Please refer to the posting guidelines about car collisions. Use of MS Paint or superimposed images will be sufficient. Thanks for your cooperation, OZB Community, Traffic Division.

    • whats up skip on 19/07/2018 - 19:14
      +9

      It is an open and shut case.

      Car in front braked and OP hit them. Thus OP was not following at a safe distance. If the OP wasn't behind the car that braked hard there wouldn't have been an accident.

      Have a look at the legislation and how a "safe distance" is defined. It is this definition that makes it very difficult for police to prosecute people for "tailgating".

      • poohduck on 19/07/2018 - 20:23
        +5

        And tailgating is just unnecessarily dangerous and arrogant. It is meant to intimidate.

    • jacross on 20/07/2018 - 08:52

      Please familiarise yourself with the road rules. Particularly if you are yourself a driver (and god i hope you aren't).

      (http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/conso…)

  • SPCTRE on 19/07/2018 - 18:48
    +5

    When police attend an accident scene they have to fine someone because someone is at fault for causing it.
    In your case you rear ended someone therefore you will get a fine.
    Best to avoid getting police involved in minor accident when it’s just cosmetic damages and no injuries.

    • EightImmortals on 19/07/2018 - 18:57
      -3

      Actually the kangaroo caused it, but I guess they can't gauge the roo so the driver is the next mug on the block. And can you show me the legislation that says 'police HAVE to fine someone'? What happened to 'serve and protect', they should have made sure everyone was OK, recorded the details for insurance purposes and then left. NO need to add insult to injury.

      • Gandalf the Thrifty on 19/07/2018 - 21:55
        +4

        You watch too much US tv as that is the LAPD motto. Qld is With honour we serve

        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 19/07/2018 - 23:16
          -2

          Perhaps they should honour and serve then, in would be refreshing instead of having to blame someone under the guise of collecting taxes and controlling us like pawns in a chess game, wake up mate.

        • whooah1979 on 20/07/2018 - 06:15

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead:

          Perhaps they should honour and serve then

          Enforcing road rules by issuing penalty notices for driving offences is the hwp jop. Op received a penalty notices because op has allegedly committed an offence. Op now have right to have it reviewed or heard in court.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 12:48
          +1

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead:

          Found the sovereign citizen!

        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 20/07/2018 - 17:42

          @whooah1979: What about Brad the kangaroo?

      • jacross on 20/07/2018 - 08:54
        +1

        The kangaroo caused the car in front to have to engage in an emergency braking procedure.

        This has no bearing on OPs responsibility to leave a safe distance between the car in front and OP.

        A concept helpfully defined in the legislation by the way.

        (http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/conso…)

        • pegaxs on 20/07/2018 - 12:32

          @jacross

          The accident has everything to do with OP's responsibility. You even quoted the relevant legislation that says that OP must leave sufficient distance to the car in front to avoid and accident.

          The kangaroo had nothing to do with it. The car in front of OP had nothing to do with this. It was solely the responsibility of OP to maintain a safe distance.

          The fact that OP hit the car in front says that they did not leave sufficient space to avoid an accident, as per road rules legislation, hence the infringement notice being issued.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 13:30
          +1

          @pegaxs: I think you and jacross are in agreement.

        • poohduck on 20/07/2018 - 17:00
          +1

          @HighAndDry: :)

        • jacross on 20/07/2018 - 19:22
          +1

          @pegaxs:

          Umm well whether I was clear in my word choice or not, im quite sire we're actually in furious agreement.

        • pegaxs on 20/07/2018 - 20:44
          +1

          @jacross:

          I may have misread it. Too many early mornings and too many late nights this week. :D

        • HighAndDry on 24/07/2018 - 17:23
          +1

          @jacross: @pegaxs:

          now kith

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 11:52
      +1

      In this case, OP is actually in the wrong.

    • macrocephalic on 20/07/2018 - 13:22

      This is the real answer here. Why were the police called to a fender bender? You and the driver agreed that you were at fault. Exchange details, pay the insurance excess when they come for it, and move on.

  • chumlee on 19/07/2018 - 19:01
    +9

    These posts become more stupid by the day.

    You couldn't stop in time and crashed into the back of another vehicle. You didn't keep a safe distance. If you did there wouldn't be a crash. Skid marks prove you are in the wrong.

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 19/07/2018 - 19:06

      How do you know OP has skid marks?

      • chumlee on 19/07/2018 - 19:10
        +2

        I read his post and says skiddies on the road and his pants

    • jacross on 20/07/2018 - 08:57

      You went one sentence too far.

      Engaging in an emergency braking procedure (and leaving skidmarks while doing so) is not in any way an infringement.

      Its the cars bumper that is the proof of infringement. OP collided with the car in front.

  • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 19/07/2018 - 19:05
    -2

    "Actually the kangaroo caused it"

    Exactly, and they cause so many accidents in Australia. I propose a mass cull in the millions (Kangaroos, not bad drivers).

    • Scrooge McDuck on 20/07/2018 - 00:56
      +6

      I propose a mass cull of bad drivers. The carcasses could be sold as Forbidden City Meat to cover the lost revenue.

      • AlexF on 21/07/2018 - 12:12

        I propose a mass cull of bad drivers.

        err… who’ll pay for roads/registration, car insurance, GST (on fuel, servicing and insurance), traffic & speeding fines, council fines (parking), etc? Bad idea.

    • poohduck on 20/07/2018 - 22:49

      I hope this is your beered up humour :) I prefer kangaroos to arrogant drivers.

  • Mike88 on 19/07/2018 - 19:05
    +4

    Obviously did not keep a safe distance since you hit the other car… jeez how hard is this too interpret

  • p1 ama on 19/07/2018 - 19:07
    +21

    Today, I received an expiation notice for "Failure to Keep Safe Distance from Vehicle In-front". There is no evidence provided and I wasn't informed at the scene this would happen.

    Personally, I think this is great - I'm on the road for at least two hours every day in various conditions. Almost always, I find that people following too closely, not paying attention to the car in front and simply not taking care to be the biggest causes of accidents and delays, not people going < 10km/h over the speed limit (as much as the state government wishes you to believe this were the case).

    As stupid as it is, roads are a public use property and when an accident is caused due to someone's negligence, it means that other people are highly inconvenienced. Maybe it doesn't occur to people as they drive about their business every day, but a crash during peak hour on a major freeway means that people won't get to work on time, a kid might be late to school, someone might miss their medical appointment…etc.

    Is this standard after a rear end accident? I feel like I'm being prosecuted for something I didn't do without evidence or prior warning.

    What do you mean by something you didn't do? You hit the guy in front right?

    What constitutes safe distance?

    A distance where if the guy in front of you slams his breaks, you have enough time and braking distance as to not slam into him.

    I had always gone by two seconds but I can't find one clear official definition. The cars were traveling about 80km/h, slowing from 100km/h and I am sure I was at least 2 seconds from him when I realised he had actually slammed his brakes on from just slowing down. He was in a new BMW X5 and I was in an old Ford Fiesta with 100+kg of equipment in it, not to mention I slowed down enough from 80km/h to just crack his bumper.

    The fact that you know you're in an old Ford Fiesta with 100kg+ of equipment in it doesn't validate your point, it actually negates your point - if you know that your car is less safe than others on the road, whether that be due to a larger load, worn tires or whatever, it is your responsibility to put more distance between you and others around you so this doesn't happen.

    Right and wrong aside, do I have any real chance of getting this waived or at least reduced? Ideally with less/no demerits.

    You could try, no harm in writing a letter.

    Believe I was absolutely at a safe distance. Should I appeal?

    How can you say that you believe you were "absolutely at a safe distance"? You (quite literally) hit the guy in front of you, which is by definition not a safe distance. If you were travelling at a safe distance, you would not have hit the guy in front of you.

    Happy to hear the truth no matter how hard. Thanks in advance.

    The truth is, cars do not drive themselves, people drive cars. Collisions do not happen by themselves, people cause collisions, whether it be through an action or inaction. Ultimately, you are in control of your own car, it is your responsibility to make sure that you do not hit things around you. Whether you believed you were travelling at a safe distance or not is irrelevant. It is clearly not his fault that you hit him whilst he was stationary, so therefore, the responsibility is with you.

  • spackbace on 19/07/2018 - 19:13
    +1

    In the far lane? So you were overtaking? Or hogging the right lane? In a 100kph zone too…

  • PissLUR on 19/07/2018 - 19:16
    +3

    I am suprised that police attended the accident scene.

    • Tnetennba on 20/07/2018 - 09:55

      Yep, what a waste of resources. They didn't even attend a massive rear ender I witnessed recently because no one was injured, the cars managed to get off the road, and no one was denying liability etc.

      They only really need to attend if one of those isn't the case. Minor bumper crack? Seriously grow up like adults and don't call the police for such a minor thing.

      • macrocephalic on 20/07/2018 - 13:25
        +2

        And while you're at it, move your damn cars off the road while you have a conversation. So often I see cars broken down or with minor damage on the road who have made no effort to clear the lane. I often see cars broken down ON A HILL! All you have to do is keep rolling and move off the road FFS!

        • quog on 20/07/2018 - 17:01

          Yep - Toorak Rd - All the freaking time. Pull into a side street dipsticks.

  • whats up skip on 19/07/2018 - 19:29
    -4

    The officers responding to the crash told me that, for insurance purposes, the driver behind is always at fault, which I knew and completely accepted.

    You should never admit fault at the scene of a crash. For one you won't know the whole situation, you may be suffering shock, you are not a suitable lawyer and it is normally a breach of conditions of your insurance policy. You could void your insurance by admitting you were at fault.

    • jhmtaylor on 20/07/2018 - 11:20

      You do not breach your policy by admitting fault but you do by admitting liability. There is a difference.

      • whats up skip on 20/07/2018 - 11:29

        I understand the difference. As I said most policies require that you do not admit fault or liability. This is part of the terms and condition of the policy.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 11:50

          Other than to police or other law enforcement. That's also a standard part of the normal terms and conditions.

      • R-Man on 20/07/2018 - 14:51
        +1

        when i was younger i was at fault of a minor rear end accident (i had comprehensive insurance). the other party's insurer (RACV) sent me a letter asking me to sign an agreement that I "accept liability". Was this a trap? would i lose my own insurance cover if i signed this?

        I just threw the letter out as I had already submitted a claim with my insurer (AAMI), paid my excess, and told AAMI the other party's insurer was RACV. This was a few years back and all went smoothly after that.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 15:03
          +1

          I just threw the letter out as I had already submitted a claim with my insurer (AAMI), paid my excess, and told AAMI the other party's insurer was RACV.

          Perfect response. And yeah - signing that letter admitting liability would've been breached your insurance policy's T&Cs.

        • R-Man on 20/07/2018 - 16:01

          @HighAndDry: thanks! shit that's sneaky as

  • Randxyz123 on 19/07/2018 - 19:51
    -1

    I was in an old Ford Fiesta with 100+kg of equipment in it,

    I'll keep my full comment about this aside, except for the fact that it is the WRONG type of car to transport stuff in.

    as we got closer to the roo I realized (too late) the X5 in front of me had slammed his brakes.

    Where exactly were you looking?

    I'm curious why the police attended? Did the BMW hit the roo hard and the road have to be closed? Or were they just driving by?

    Right and wrong aside, do I have any real chance of getting this waived or at least reduced? Ideally with less/no demerits.

    No, I'd say not and that the fine is probably justified.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join