Friend Brake Checked A Car and Was Rear Ended - Who is at Fault?

sharka on 23/11/2020 - 10:17
Last edited 23/11/2020 - 12:14 by 1 other user

Hi All
I've always laughed when I have seen these posted but first time knowing someone that's been involved in one.
A colleague at work brake checked a van in peak hour traffic and ended up being rear ended.
I've reviewed the front and rear dash footage and I would think my colleague is at fault.

UPDATE: Play by play below

There were 3 lanes of traffic.
Van was in right lane, friend in the middle.
Broken down car was up ahead in the right lane ahead of the van.
Van tried to get into middle lane and almost pushed friend into path of truck in the left lane.
Friend didn't allow Van in and passed van whilst staying in middle line.
Friend proceeded to brake check the van several times before being rear ended.

Curious to know your thoughts?

Poll Options

  • 385
    Colleague is at fault
  • 250
    Van that caused the rear end should be more careful
  • 65
    Just here with my popcorn waiting for the next episode
  • 58
    Need a link to footage or it didn't happen
  • 9
    Just leave it to insurance
  • 2
    Do they have insurance
Automotive

Comments

        • studentl0an on 23/11/2020 - 14:19
          +6

          If OPs colleague was driving safely, didn't brake check and was rear ended then of course the gap wasn't safe and it was the tailgater in the wrong. But OPs colleague went out of their way to brake check multiple times before the one that caused the accident. He went out of his way to cause a crash while the van tried twice to avoid it. The car in front has a responsibility to not drive dangerously as much as the car in the back. Two wrongs don't make a right but if it's the wrong that actually causes the crash, i.e. dangerous brake checking, that is at fault. There is nuance in determining at fault drivers and the actions before hand will be taken into consideration.

          There is no such blanket rule for if you are rear ended you are not at fault, this is a common misconception. Every single driver in every single state has a responsibility to not be a dangerous driver, and especially not do something dangerous to cause a crash.

          People who think they can brake check legally get a rude awakening when it's proven in court (or before that to the insurer) that they were dangerous driving by brake checking. There's many posts about it all over the web.

          https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2653655
          "The insurance company has determined that since I stopped for no reason it's my fault. We're both with the same insurance company too. "

          • brendanm on 23/11/2020 - 14:39
            -7

            @studentl0an: The point stands that if you aren't too close, you won't hit the car in front. You are meant to be able to stop without hitting the car in front of they have to do a sudden stop.

            I don't know exactly what happened in this case, so can't really comment. I do know that when people tailgate me, they get an application of the brakes.

            • studentl0an on 23/11/2020 - 14:40
              +3

              @brendanm: Please have a look at the link I provided.

              If you brake check and are found to have done so dangerously then you are at fault, not the tailgator. If the tailgator rear ended you because you had to brake for a hazard then of course it's the fault of the tialgator. In this case the van may have been able to see directly over the Mazda sedan and saw there was no hazard ahead.

              The brake checked went out of their way to cause a crash, and that's very important to realise.

              • brendanm on 23/11/2020 - 14:44
                -5

                @studentl0an: Have you actually read that thread? That guy chased him down, cut in front, and slammed on his brakes. Of course he is at fault. Someone sitting in the same lane, driving the speed limit, minding their own business is a completely different scenario.

                • studentl0an on 23/11/2020 - 14:47
                  +3

                  @brendanm: Yeah, he brake checked the other car causing a crash. This was after he perceived a slight against him by the other motorist, just like what happened here. He could have sat in his car and called the police to let them know about the other dangerous driver, but he decided to take matters into his own hands, illegally. He could have decided to not cause a crash, but he brake checked, caused a crash, and got done by his insurance for it.

                  Just like it will most likely be found here.

                  • brendanm on 23/11/2020 - 15:30
                    -2

                    @studentl0an: Not sure about that. We don't know the story, and the guy didn't chase him down to cut him off.

                    • studentl0an on 23/11/2020 - 15:36
                      +2

                      @brendanm: We know the story it's in the post, it's very similar. Someone did a slight against the driver and the driver decided to get retribution by brake checking. As a result he was found at fault for the reason he stated, that the brake checking was dangerous and the cause of the accident, not the guy driving behind not leaving enough of a gap.

                      If you think you can play policeman by brake checking someone that results in a crash and not be found at fault then you will be in for a rude awakening if you ever try doing it to someone. You have a responsibility to be a safe driver and not instigate crashes, like it's like the first lesson taught and unfortunately it seems like one of the first lessons also forgotten.

                      • brendanm on 23/11/2020 - 17:08
                        -2

                        @studentl0an: I hope you don't routinely believe third party anecdotes to be accurate.

                        • studentl0an on 23/11/2020 - 17:16
                          +3

                          @brendanm: I think you're just being argumentative for the sake of it now so whatever.. I give up, I don't care about you, you win the argument.

                          • brendanm on 23/11/2020 - 17:43
                            -1

                            @studentl0an: Not at all. We simply don't know everything that happened. Could vary from nothing, to a nut job like that whirlpool post.

            • Vote for Pedro on 23/11/2020 - 18:11
              +1

              @brendanm: An application of the brakes can be different to brake checking.

              Of course I release the throttle progressively but ever so slightly for anyone tailgating but I would never brake check. Who needs the hassle if the moron actually hits you (oh and it’s bloody dangerous)

              • brendanm on 23/11/2020 - 18:13

                @Vote for Pedro: Yes, I don't suggest going full abs intervention. I normally do the same as you, off the throttle to 20 or so under the limit, then back up to limit. If they don't get the hint, then the brakes.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2020 - 12:34

          Someone deliberately trying to cause a collision will usually succeed.

          One driver need not be blameless for the other to be culpable. In this case, the van indeed did not leave sufficient room and that is a fault. There is no dispute.

          Someone braking suddenly, erratically and for no apparent reason isn't faultless either.

          Off course, we don't know what happened but if indeed the driver was aggressively braking out of spite, would you be defending that behaviour just to uphold the technicality of "sufficient braking distance"?

          • brendanm on 25/11/2020 - 12:45

            @[Deactivated]: No, I would not. As I said, we don't know what actually happened. If op posts the video it would be a lot easier to decide.

            My point is simply that it isn't all one person. Most likely is that it is two idiots. Van assumes (like most) that somehow whacking on his indicator at the last second means he can just cut people off. Ops mate had taken offence to this. Van has then pulled in behind the friend. Perhaps he's aggressively tailgating, perhaps not. Ops friend is still upset and brake checks him. Crash.

            Van shouldnt have cut him off. Friend shouldn't have harboured the grudge. Van shouldn't have been tailgating. Friend shouldn't be brake checking multiple times. Everything could have been avoided if just one of them had decided to chill out.

            • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2020 - 13:56

              @brendanm: Fair enough.

              Ps. Some of the comments did come as unambigiously defending the brake checker.

              • brendanm on 25/11/2020 - 14:18

                @[Deactivated]: Same as comments from others unambiguously defending the van driver.

  • pharkurnell on 23/11/2020 - 10:58
    +14

    Your friend is a fawktard.

  • coin saver on 23/11/2020 - 11:03
    +6

    i don't believe in brake checking as the brake lights come on and warn the car behind far better to drive a manual and drop it back a couple of gears..

  • SBOB on 23/11/2020 - 11:07
    +4

    You need better friends……

    • sharka on 23/11/2020 - 11:12
      +2

      Agreed.. shame you cant pick your colleagues

      • cashless on 23/11/2020 - 11:43

        Whereas you can choose your family?

        • sharka on 23/11/2020 - 12:19

          Sometimes…
          You can choose your SO

  • tsunamisurfer on 23/11/2020 - 11:09

    Brake checking whilst amusing to some may have consequences.

    There was one case where Car A brake checked Car B, behind Car B was a Truck who did not have the same braking ability as the Cars. Occupants of Car B were seriously injured.

    As tempting as it is to teach people a lesson, it is best to let it slide and move on.

    • sharka on 23/11/2020 - 11:15

      Agreed

  • Munki on 23/11/2020 - 11:15
    +3

    I can only visualise when there is an MS-Paint image.

  • lint on 23/11/2020 - 11:16
    +4

    So the van was trying to merge into the middle lane and possibly didn't do so safely (or your friend deliberately didn't let them in, causing the dangerous situation), then your friend continuously brake checked even though the van they weren't tailgating?

    What a freaking arsehole. The van is automatically at fault with the absence or further info but if there was, say, footage showing your friend deliberately braking hard several times with no apparent need I suppose they could be found at fault for dangerous driving.

    • bohn on 23/11/2020 - 11:17

      Van had a dashcam.

      • sharka on 23/11/2020 - 11:18
        +1

        Friend had rear dash cam as well… that imho shows them at fault

        • bohn on 23/11/2020 - 11:20

          yeah but friend might not supply that to insurance ;)
          Van will.

          • sharka on 23/11/2020 - 11:21
            +3

            @bohn: Friend might not, but i can…

            • bohn on 23/11/2020 - 11:21
              +5

              @sharka: daymnnnn

              plot twist: van driver is also your friend, and you like him more.

              • sharka on 23/11/2020 - 11:30
                +1

                @bohn: LOL
                Just prefer road safety…

            • snackerjoe on 23/11/2020 - 22:52
              +1

              @sharka: "I don't know how they got the video, maybe your dashcam got hacked!"

            • Whisper Quiet on 24/11/2020 - 07:53

              @sharka: Got a friend who is a dangerous driver and is about to lose his licence. He had another crash recently and I would turn over evidence against him. Even though he's a friend he doesn't deserve to be on the road. Probably will end up seriously injuring or even killing someone eventually. So taking people's licence away or making sure they have consequences is a good thing!

        • whooah1979 on 23/11/2020 - 11:21

          The dashcams will show two swords crossing paths.

  • Cluster on 23/11/2020 - 11:43
    +5

    What is the point of 'brake checking' (otherwise known as trying to cause an accident) other drivers? If someone does something wrong on the road be all chill and let it go.

    Scenario 1: Van driver does something to annoy you. You let it go and move on with life. Best outcome.

    Scenatio 2: You decide to try and cause an accident. Van has a dashcam and hands over their video to police. You get the fine. Winning?

    Scenario 3: You decide to try and cause an accident. Other driver evades you but is now even more furious with you. You run the risk of them catching up at the next set of lights and drastically escalating the situation. People get killed over things like this. Awesome?

    Scenario 4: You decide to try and cause an accident but the other driver actually hits you. Now you have a damaged car and need to fill out insurance forms, get your vehicle repaired, possibly pay excess, speak to police, etc etc. Way to go?

    • sharka on 23/11/2020 - 11:53

      Scenario 4 is what's happened in this instance

    • AnneThrope on 23/11/2020 - 15:27
      +3

      Scenario 4b : you cause a collision but the tailgater doesn't hit square and shunts your brake-checking ass into the path of an oncoming LPG tanker. You are crushed into your car which is then engulfed by the fireball from the tanker. Dozens killed, many more lives ruined, millions in damage.
      But hey, you showed that reckless tailgater who's boss, right?

      The number of drivers on here who would willingly cause a crash for some puerile, petty retaliation is very disturbing.

      The responsible driver would avoid the reckless clown who cut them off, not seek further close interaction with them.
      They've already demonstrated poor skills and/or decision making, why would you try to to test those limits?

    • gromit on 23/11/2020 - 18:43
      +1

      My idiot younger brother had scenario 3. He responded to a dangerous driver by cutting in front of him and brake checking. At the next traffic lights the guy got out (was high on meth) and broke his window and smacked him one. I doubt he learnt his lesson, but one can hope. Escalating the situation is stupid and dangerous, especially as you can never be sure if the other driver is even more unhinged than yourself.

  • pegaxs on 23/11/2020 - 11:52
    +3

    Your friend wasn't driving an old shitbox 1997 Honda CRV by any chance? Was it hit by a BMW??

    • sharka on 23/11/2020 - 11:54

      Nope. Mazda 2019 model

      • pegaxs on 23/11/2020 - 11:56
        +3

        Oh well, in that case "play stupid games, win stupid prizes…"

        Also, post the dash cam footage so we can all have a laugh. Has to be more to this than how you explained it.

      • pharkurnell on 23/11/2020 - 11:57
        +1

        Sounds more like a camry driver.

        • sharka on 23/11/2020 - 12:01
          +1

          I thought Camry drivers were more sensible drivers… I used to be one

    • bobbified on 23/11/2020 - 14:09

      Was it hit by a BMW??

      I don't think I've ever seen a BMW van before! :p~

  • studentl0an on 23/11/2020 - 12:11
    +2

    Brake checking is dangerous driving and illegal. Like it doesn't matter what happened before it, it's your responsibility to be a safe driver which means not getting retribution by putting other motorists lives at risk for a perceived slight against you.

    If the van has a dashcam, your friend will be in trouble. By the sounds of it I would think the insurance companies will agree to joint liability if both drivers were being dangerous prior to the accident.

    • whooah1979 on 23/11/2020 - 12:15
      +3

      Tailgating is also an offence under road rule 126 NSW.

      • studentl0an on 23/11/2020 - 12:19
        +3

        Yes, but that didn't cause the crash. There wasn't a hazard up ahead that required emergency braking. It was rage at the tailgator that caused the driver to be reckless and brake check. You are a dangerous/reckless driver if you brake check a tailgator, and don't belong on the roads. Brake checking can cause car crashes and other people who had nothing to do with the road rage from either party can be seriously hurt or worse as a result of the brake checking.

        I would ague that the brake checker has more of a responsibility here as that's what caused the crash though and not the tailgaiting, and you can bet insurance lawyers will be arguing the same. I'd bet brake checker gets found 100% fault, but it's possible that it will be found 50/50 or other split.

        No one likes being tailgated, but brake checking can kill and it takes a real fool to do this thinking it's just retribution.

        • whooah1979 on 23/11/2020 - 12:31

          It's a shame that nobody called the police. They would have sorted this out on the spot.

          • studentl0an on 23/11/2020 - 12:40
            +1

            @whooah1979: It sounds like it was within a minute of the van merging in so unless there was a police car directly behind them that's not possible.

            It's situations like this that I hope people would read and think to not brake check the tailgator that's pissing them off in the future. I'm guilty of it in the past, but I'll never do it again in. I'll always rather to be a few seconds late and get out of a dangerous drivers way than possibly never arrive at all.

            EDIT: OP confirmed above that the van wasn't actually tailgaiting on the first few brake checks. That just makes OP colleague look really bad. The Van's dashcam will probably end up costing OPs colleague their license in addition to being 100% at fault now that information has come to light.

            I have no idea how the majority of people were voting the van at fault in the poll, is ozb full of dangerous drivers who think brake checking is OK and not illegal?

      • trapper on 23/11/2020 - 12:48
        +6

        Tailgating is an offense yes - the tailgater could be fined and lose points.

        But intentionally causing a crash is an actual crime - the friend could get a criminal record, and even be jailed.

        • whooah1979 on 23/11/2020 - 12:50
          +1

          Good. Everyone get what they deserve.

        • studentl0an on 23/11/2020 - 12:54

          Yeah that's my thinking too, but now go and read OPs later comments where he states

          "From the footage, it didnt appear the van was tailgating… Until the 2nd time he was brake checked."

          To me that sounds like the van gets off the hook, he started to accelerate again after OPs colleague did after brake checking. It sounds like OPs colleague did everything possible to ensure the accident occurred while the van appears to at least once tried to avoid it.

  • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 12:31
    +3

    Hope the guy who crashed challenges it
    Hope it gets investigated
    Hope your friend loses his licence for dangerous driving and causing an accident

  • holdenmg on 23/11/2020 - 12:31

    Traffic report:
    "Watch out for Blue Rectangles"

  • Austaurean on 23/11/2020 - 12:32
    +1

    So was it tailgating, or did the van just slide in behind directly after the Mazda went passed due to the broken down vehicle in the right hand lane, causing a momentary tailgating effect that the Mazda driver took offence to… along with the vans original poor attempt at changing lanes..

  • trapper on 23/11/2020 - 12:43

    Not only is your friend at fault for the 'accident' but he has committed a crime.

    • whooah1979 on 23/11/2020 - 12:51

      Allegedly.

      • AustriaBargain on 23/11/2020 - 13:46
        +2

        If he's admitted it to OP, then it's admittedly not allegedly.

  • burningrage on 23/11/2020 - 13:26

    I just learned the new English word "Brake Check". Never heard of that before.

  • holdenmg on 23/11/2020 - 13:28

    While driving, hitting your brakes really hard to scare the crap out of the jerk driving two inches from your rear bumper.
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brake%20chec…

  • Seraphin7 on 23/11/2020 - 13:33

    A colleague at work brake checked a van in peak hour traffic
    Friend proceeded to brake check the van several times

    Why?

    • sharka on 23/11/2020 - 13:55

      Van apparently swerved towards him and almost put him under a truck

      • Seraphin7 on 23/11/2020 - 14:56
        +1

        So in response to narrowly avoiding an accident, your mate decided to cause one?

        Doesn't sound like the brightest bulb in the box.

  • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 23/11/2020 - 13:38

    Assuming you're meaning what I think you're meaning with brake checking, your colleague is at fault. Doesn't matter how stupid the other driver was driving if you're actively trying to cause an accident by braking suddenly.

    • sharka on 23/11/2020 - 13:54
      +2

      Yeah my thoughts exactly too - will leave it for insurance to decide

      • BreezyPalms on 23/11/2020 - 19:01

        If your friend doesn't admit to brake checking (and there is no dash cam footage) then I believe the van will be at fault for rear ending your friend based on road rules.

        Sounds like there is more to the story… Was the van tailgating? Unless someone is riding your ass it would seem pointless to brake check. Not saying it justifies the response necessarily but if the van was a safe distance back it should be able to stop in time.

  • studentl0an on 23/11/2020 - 13:57
    +1

    I can't wait for self driving cars to be the norm. There will be a massive reduction in idiots on the road thinking they have to teach others a lesson and causing crashes. Rather than worry about the actions of others, we can kick back and just be surfing the net, reading a book, playing a game or staring up at the sky. Will be nice to de-stress rather than stress on the daily commute to work.

    As much as I love my car and my bike and used to be against the notion of having a self driving myself, my hatred for traffic and absent minded drivers not obeying road laws is just too much these days. I really look forward to the massive reduction in stress levels across the nation when we can choose to not have liability on the roads anymore.

    • Vote for Pedro on 23/11/2020 - 18:16

      I can't wait for self driving cars to be the norm.

      BuT mY FReEdOmS. I hAvE RiGhtS

      • studentl0an on 24/11/2020 - 09:50

        Totalitarian minded?

        I meant norm as in as ubiquitious as non self driving cars. I want one myself for most travel to not have to deal with traffic or absent drivers on the road and others can have what ever they choose. Choice is a good thing.

    • tubbawubbadubba on 24/11/2020 - 10:25

      Probs won't happen as we don't have the mobile network needed for it.
      And we aren't implementing it, or even trying to implement it either. :'(

  • bobbified on 23/11/2020 - 13:59
    +1

    Friend didn't allow Van in and passed van whilst staying in middle line.

    why not?

    And, your "friend" is an absolute d*head for brake-checking. Wtf do people get out of doing that? But the van driver will be found to be at fault for not keeping a safe distance.
    Now he's just inconvenienced himself and the van driver. Your "friend" deserves every bit of it. I'm secretly hoping that he has no insurance himself and the van driver pays him $5/week for the next 10 years! LOL

  • Pluto88 on 23/11/2020 - 14:52

    This accident could of been avoided completely but the term accident doesn't really apply here a better word would be malicious, your "friend" put his own life as well as others around him in danger because he couldn't keep his head in pretty every day situation. He should not be able to drive IMO if that's all that takes to anger him, hes a danger to other road users.

  • CocaKoala on 23/11/2020 - 17:33

    If there was an 18 wheeler instead of a van, emergency workers would be scraping bits of what was once your colleague off the car and the road. This is no fun for anyone - the emergency workers, other road users, the guy who crashed into your colleague, and most importantly the family and friends of your colleague. Reading some of the previous messages I trust you've had a talk with your colleague about safe driving, which is a good thing.

    Having said all of that, the van is 100% at fault unless they prove otherwise because they failed to maintain a safe distance (essentially tailgating).

  • Freezies on 23/11/2020 - 17:44
    +3

    A decent driver would have just initially slowed down to let the van in as we find ourselves in that position time to time and rely on others to do the same for us.

    Brake checking is reckless and illegal. Nobody likes tailgaters but it's incredibly stupid to breakcheck when you know you're being tailgated. Accidents aren't everyone elses responsibility, they often happen when people do stupid $#!t like this.

    You admit they weren't tailgaiting until your friend start playing silly buggers. Even if the van was tailgaiting, your friend would be the one at fault if they then break checked and were hit.

  • AnophthalmiaCervidae on 23/11/2020 - 17:55

    Your friend should delete his dash cam footage and not show it to anyone.
    Normally if you run into the back of someone you are 100% at fault.
    If your friends dash cam footage shows him intentionally being a dick which contributed to the accident it could go against him.

  • Viper8 on 23/11/2020 - 17:58
    +2

    Break checking is illegal. Simple.

    • BreezyPalms on 23/11/2020 - 18:55

      What road rule?

      • Viper8 on 23/11/2020 - 19:09
        +1

        Dangerous/reckless driving. I've seen police pull people over for it plenty of times on TV and Youtube.

        • CalmLemons on 23/11/2020 - 23:50

          Not sure why people are negging you. Probably the guys who "brake check".

          Just FYI, there is no such thing as a legal brake check in the middle of a public road.

          Brake checking is the morons label for stopping suddenly on your breaks in front of another car for no good reason putting your life and the lives of the person behind you and around you in danger. Just because something has a benign label does not make it legal or right.

          • BreezyPalms on 24/11/2020 - 06:08
            +1

            @CalmLemons: I just asked what specific Road Rule Viper8 is referring to. I didn't say they were right or wrong.

            • gromit on 24/11/2020 - 07:36
              +3

              @BreezyPalms: It falls under negligent/dangerous driving or a road rage incident. Once you are intentionally trying to cause a collision it is no longer an accident, it doesn't matter how much of a dick the other driver was.

              • studentl0an on 24/11/2020 - 09:52

                @gromit: People think because there isn't a specific law against the dangerous driving they do that it's OK and legal to do.

                They don't seem to realise that any driving that is dangerous, is exactly that, and falls under a pretty bad offense. Accelerating too fast at a set of lights, even if you don't break the speed limit, is dangerous driving:
                https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2553253

  • beezlebub9 on 23/11/2020 - 20:30
    +3

    This is why I drive assuming everyone else is an idiot and leave plenty of space between me and the next car

  • conza on 23/11/2020 - 20:38
    +1

    So your friend caused the accident, the rear vehicle is responsible.

    Does that make sense? Both of them did the wrong thing, but since the car in the rear was sitting too close and wasn't able to not hit the car in front of them, they are at fault and are liable to pay. Think of it this way, if a person ran in front of your friend and they braked the same way, it's the same action by them, everything is the same except the motivation, the motivation here was to cause fear.

  • RolandWaites on 23/11/2020 - 22:23
    +3

    Tell your colleague I reckon he's a (profanity) and I hope he ends up having to pay out for behaving so stupidly.

    OP you'd be doing the world a favour by snitching to the insurance company about what he was doing.

  • sarahlump on 23/11/2020 - 22:41

    If you drive dangerously and 'break check' people(reckless) you're being a butt head.

  • Herbse on 23/11/2020 - 23:14

    If the van has footage to prove he brake checked. Then he's at fault.

  • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 23:19
    +1

    Idiocy. Manual downshifting is much more effective.

  • BreezyPalms on 24/11/2020 - 06:04

    Anyone know which law (NSW Road Rule or equivalent) specifically applies in this case?

    https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/ind…

    • whitelie on 24/11/2020 - 07:11
      +1

      In the case of the Van driver, it would be Rule 126 - "Drive behind other vehicle too closely to stop safely" which carries 3 demerit points and $457 but if he can prove he was brake checked (especially multiple times), then the colleague would likely be looking at Section 117 Negligent driving which has the same penalty listed but can go up to $1100 and will usually involve a license suspension.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join