Rear Ending = Always Rear Driver Fault?

minty on 15/02/2022 - 02:42
Last edited 15/02/2022 - 10:48 by 1 other user

Came across this whilst scrolling through Reddit

(apparently) "The driver of the first car was over 80 y.o. and he told the police he wanted to ask the random dude for directions. That why he stopped in no stopping zone… Without any warning, turning signal or anything else. It took an ambulance, helicopter, fire fighters, two police units and 2 hours to deal with and during this time, he didn't even get out of the car. Not even when we were saving the rider's life."

Regardless of the truth to that let's assume it's true, the consensus is driver in the rear must maintain safe distance blah blah, let's assume 1) you have this dash cam footage, and, 2) the rear-endee have it on record with the police report that he stopped for the aforementioned reason, and 3) both have insurance. Is the rear driver at fault no matter what?

Automotive

Comments

  • Gervais fanboy on 15/02/2022 - 02:47
    +19

    Yes, as cruel as it might sound.
    The biker should have kept a safe braking distance…

    • AustriaBargain on 15/02/2022 - 02:59
      +5

      The biker organ donor should have kept a safe braking distance…

      There, that's a bit crueler.

    • minty on 15/02/2022 - 03:06

      Huh, I hadn't thought about the biker, I was actually just referring to the car driver that bonked the fella in front.

    • studentl0an on 15/02/2022 - 07:58
      +2

      No, the rear ender is not always at fault. There are reasons, such as slamming on breaks without a reason to do so (brake checking) that make the car in front liable.

      • GrueHunter on 15/02/2022 - 09:37
        +5

        [citation required]

        • studentl0an on 15/02/2022 - 13:48
          +21

          You have a legal responsibility to not be a dangerous driver while behind the wheel and break checking is by definition dangerous driving. See sources below.

          Here's some citations.
          "In most jurisdictions of the world, brake checking is often considered a crime and falls under laws pertaining to reckless driving"
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_check

          "Brake checking is an illegal action. The person in front of you, in a brake checking situation, suddenly slams on their brakes. They do this to surprise you, and sometimes it’s to intentionally cause a collision."
          https://www.jeffjoneslawoffice.com/blog/2018/11/brake-checki…

          The link below is a Law office in Australia giving 10 reasons as to why the car behind may not be found at fault in the case of a rear-end crash:
          https://mcwlegal.com.au/rear-end-collision-why-you-might-not…

          The panel beating website has multiple other reasons why the driver behind may not be found at fault:
          https://www.ginos.com.au/are-you-at-fault-if-someone-in-fron…

          This is all really basic level driving knowledge and everyone should already know all of this if you have a drivers license. I think it's really sad state of how ozbargainers drive considering so many people downvoted my post for giving correct information without anyone actually looking into it. You guys shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, let alone a downvote button, if you think brake checking someone isn't dangerous or that you won't be found at fault in the event of a crash if you do so.

          • trapper on 15/02/2022 - 18:42
            +1

            @studentl0an: An intentionally caused accident is not an accident, so yeah this is a criminal act.

          • doctordv8 on 15/02/2022 - 18:43
            +1

            @studentl0an: I gave an up vote because you are 100% correct and you also speak plain common sense.
            Many here only think of them selves, of the dollar, or what they think is correct as per their own driving bad habits and disagree with many rules… classic being so many think speeding fines are revenue raising instead of punishment and deterrent to not drive badly again.
            There is no such thing as a traffic accident. Someone somewhere is always at fault in some regard.

            • trapper on 15/02/2022 - 19:01

              @doctordv8: 'Accident' just means there there was no intent to crash, there is still fault obviously.

              • doctordv8 on 15/02/2022 - 19:35

                @trapper: Thanks Trapper. Driving too close for eg, is an at fault with no intent…where it is a crash and not an accident, as the road rules were broken. That is the intent of my comment, I should have made that point of broken rules being a major deciding factor. Incorrect vehicle mods, or unmaintained vehicle etc are all also a crash - no intent, but road rules were broken.

              • Euphemistic on 16/02/2022 - 19:10
                +2

                @trapper: Accident is one of those words that should be removed from driving terminology. It’s a crash. Someone caused it the majority of the time by failing to drive correctly. Doesn’t mean it’s intentional just remove the ‘oopsie’ mentality from driving.

                It’s a bit like the different between ‘obligation to give way’ and ‘right of way’. Subtle but important difference.

                • trapper on 16/02/2022 - 22:26

                  @Euphemistic: There is a big difference between ramming someone on purpose, or by accident… one of those will put you in jail.

                  • Euphemistic on 17/02/2022 - 05:10

                    @trapper: You missed the point. It’s a subtle difference in phrasing to say accident eg something that happened without a real cause and a crash which had a cause, but probably didn’t have intent.

                    • trapper on 17/02/2022 - 11:54

                      @Euphemistic: Word have meaning though.

                      An accident is an unfortunate incident that happened unintentionally.

                      Something happening without cause would be an act of God.

      • antojamo on 15/02/2022 - 13:43

        The only exception I see is that if someone was to cut in front of you and then slam on their brakes.

      • Drakesy on 15/02/2022 - 16:22

        Brake checking would require a dash cam to prove but yes you're correct happens a fair bit with trucks, there are instances where the rear ender isn't at fault.

        Also i've seen people pop it into reverse at traffic lights and drive straight into the guy behind them. That would be a tough one if the guy in front decided to tell porkies.

  • Brian McGee on 15/02/2022 - 07:02
    +1

    This is the reason the authorities say to keep a distance in front and stay aware of your surroundings. You are not responsible for anyone behind you driving too close, fast or not paying attention.

    • studentl0an on 15/02/2022 - 08:01
      +13

      You have a legal responsibility to be a safe driver. If you do anything unsafe to cause an accident, such as brake checking a car following too closely behind - you will be liable.

      I think it's terrible the amount of people who don't know this, and tell others that the car behind is always liable.

        • apsilon on 15/02/2022 - 08:44
          +7

          Actually you can only emergency brake (or swerve etc) to avoid an animal if it's safe to do so. If your action causes a collision you'll be considered at least partially at fault. Of course in those instances you rarely have time to check and almost everyone will just react but it highlights why it's important to constantly be aware of what's around you and maintain a safe distance from any vehicle in front.

        • Drakesy on 15/02/2022 - 16:25
          -2

          There was this instance where a girl emergency braked for a bunch of ducks on the freeway and caused an accident. She ended up in jail.

          There is a precedent now where you are liable if you perform an emergency stop on the road.
          Unfortunately you're meant to go through and run over any animal that may get in the way.

          • trapper on 15/02/2022 - 18:47
            +2

            @Drakesy: Things that happen in Canada do not set any precedent in Australia.

            • Drakesy on 15/02/2022 - 18:47

              @trapper: But it is a precedent nonetheless.

              • trapper on 15/02/2022 - 18:54
                +1

                @Drakesy: Not in any legal sense…

                • Drakesy on 15/02/2022 - 18:58

                  @trapper: It does show that a jury can be swayed though.
                  If it's happened once it can happen again.

                  • trapper on 15/02/2022 - 19:07

                    @Drakesy: It is illegal to stop on a freeway or motorway for any reason other than an emergency.

                    So she would be going to jail here too. No need to sway any juries.

                    • abb on 17/02/2022 - 09:41

                      @trapper:

                      It is illegal to stop on a freeway or motorway for any reason other than an emergency.

                      I've stopped on the M1 countless times, with no emergency in sight. In fact, there were many hundreds of people around me also stopping due to no emergency. (A traffic jam is certainly not an emergency)

                      Anyway, you are allowed, actually legally obligated, to avoid colliding with wildlife if safe to do so. Coming to a controlled stop on a motorway is safe, as evidenced by myself and my thousands of fellow traffic jammers.

                      http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104…

                      It is a defence to the prosecution of a driver for an offence against a provision of this Part if— […]
                      the driver stops at a particular place, or in a particular way, to comply with another provision of these Rules or a provision of another law,

                      (emphasis added)

                      With few exceptions, native species are protected under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

                      These links are for NSW but no doubt every state would have likewise.

                      • trapper on 17/02/2022 - 12:07

                        @abb: If you stop on the motorway to let some ducks pass and that causes a collision which kills a few people… well good luck with your defense, I think you will be going to jail.

                        • abb on 18/02/2022 - 09:34
                          -1

                          @trapper:

                          I think you will be going to jail.

                          There are no "jails" in Australia, I really doubt I'd be extradited for saving a migratory bird's life.

                          I wouldn't slam on brakes and lock up the wheels or anything, just a regular controlled deceleration which any non-tailgaters behind are more than capable of dealing with. I've stopped for a koala before, and gasp the cars behind me did too.

                          • trapper on 18/02/2022 - 10:32
                            -1

                            @abb: If you don't cause an accident and kill anyone then you might just get away with it. lol

                            But that's not what we are discussing here. So maybe read the thread… ?

      • Brian McGee on 15/02/2022 - 09:13
        -4

        So in an emergency stop situation (kid runs after a ball onto the road) I slam on my brakes and manage to stop but the car behind hits me because they were too close, not paying attention, or both. You would claim I was "brake testing/checking"?

        • AngusD on 15/02/2022 - 10:41
          +8

          No, emergency stop situation is not the same as brake checking. Emergency stop (eg kid in the road) is a good reason to slam on the brakes. Brake checking is if you slammed on the brakes for no good reason ie if there was no kid running onto the road but you slammed on the brakes anyway just because you "wanted to see if they worked" or you wanted to annoy the guy behind you who you thought was following too close etc.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2022 - 12:00
        +2

        You have a legal responsibility to be a safe driver

        True.

        If you do anything unsafe to cause an accident, such as brake checking a car following too closely behind - you will be liable.

        Not true. From a civil perspective (for example insurance claim), in those cases liability would be apportioned across all parties based on their contribution to the incident. What would likely happen in this case would be that both insurers would charge an excess to their customer and cover their customer's damages. Both parties would be held equally at fault as both of them had an easily available method by which to avoid the incident - the car behind by following at a safe and legal distance, the car in front by not inappropriately braking. From a regulatory perspective, all parties are liable to receive a fine as both parties committed an offence, but in practice the police will exercise discretion and typically not issue an infringement to the rear vehicle.

        • studentl0an on 15/02/2022 - 13:37
          +2

          I don't understand how you can say it's not true - yet then write in depth as to why it is actually true.

          If you break check someone (which is dangerous driving), then expect to be found liable in the crash.

          • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2022 - 16:21
            +1

            @studentl0an: You imply that only the person driving dangerously would be found at fault. This is not the case.

            • studentl0an on 15/02/2022 - 16:58
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: In the case of the car in front brake checking (driving dangerously) - it is the case and I've sourced it with multiple citations in other posts. You are free to cite sources saying otherwise.

              I wrote very clearly that the driver infront will be liable if they were found to be dangerously driving which caused the car behind to rear end them. I am not talking about a case where the car infront is not driving dangerously or failed to give way (another reason for liability for the car in front as my sources state). The whole topic is "is the car in the rear always at fault".

              If you have dashcam footage showing you kept a safe distance, yet the car ahead was dangerously driving forcing you to take evasive measures to avoid hitting their rear but still hit them - you won't be found liable. You did everything possible while the dangerous driver sought to cause a crash by brake checking.

              • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2022 - 17:02
                +1

                @studentl0an:

                If you have dashcam footage showing you kept a safe distance, yet the car ahead was dangerously driving forcing you to take evasive measures to avoid hitting their rear but still hit them - you won't be found liable

                Yes you will, because if a vehicle stops, and you are unable to stop without hitting them, you were following too closely. Whether they stopped for no reason or because a child ran out into the road is irrelevant, because you will have the same amount of advance warning of their action either way - none.

                So, is the car in the rear always at fault? At least partially, yes.

                • studentl0an on 15/02/2022 - 17:05

                  @[Deactivated]: If a child runs infront of a car then it's not dangerous driving to slam on your breaks to avoid hitting a pedestrian.

                  If you slam on your breaks not to avoid a hazard but to control the behavior of the car behind you - that is dangerous driving and it doesn't matter if the car behind didn't leave a perfectly safe gap because you were the one who caused the crash by dangerous driving.

                  This is all well known and a part of driving tests.

        • trapper on 15/02/2022 - 18:49

          If you cause an accident intentionally there will likely be a criminal charge. There is no way the other guy will be paying for anything.

  • Quantumcat on 15/02/2022 - 07:09
    +2

    Keep a safe distance in front. The reason for stopping suddenly doesn't matter, if it had been a legitimate reason the outcome would have been the same (though that being said the driver who was in front of the rider did stop for a legitimate reason and had enough space to). The rider should now go back to P plate training as this is drilled into you.

  • Caped Baldy on 15/02/2022 - 07:16
    +1

    Should be keeping a safe stopping distance. Obviously though someone could check it in reverse for an insurance scam or roll back in a manual.

  • Euphemistic on 15/02/2022 - 07:28
    +3

    Rear ending is a presumed liability situation. There may be circumstances where the driver stopping suddenly might be at fault, but it’s not common. Something like a road rage event where someone cuts in front and brakes enough to cause an accident. Hard to prove without video or witnesses.

    Pretty sure if you could show you had a legitimate reason to stop, then the driver at the rear is at fault.

  • Hithere on 15/02/2022 - 07:34
    +21

    Always assume that every other driver on the road is an idiot and is going to do something totally unexpected at any time.

    Drive accordingly.

    • Caped Baldy on 15/02/2022 - 07:54
      +2

      So I'll tailgate them

      90% of Sydney drivers.

      • GrueHunter on 15/02/2022 - 09:38
        +3

        laughs in Canberran

        The only thing higher than our vax rate is our tailgate rate

  • pegaxs on 15/02/2022 - 07:39
    +13

    There was literally a thread on here a few days ago where a guy was reversed into.

    Just because two cars hit nose to tail does not automatically mean the car at the back is at fault.

    In the case of your link, the motorcycle rider must have been off with the fairies to not see that coming, but would still have a good case to claim that the other driver just stopped for no reason.

    The other thing to be said here is that motorcycles do not pull up as fast a cars and are not as stable under brakes as cars. He was also riding with another motorcycle and was possibly riding in a staggered formation offset from each other, so the first bike had the ability to miss the car, but the second bike had to come across from the right side of the lane. He may have had enough time to go down the right and then noticed a person walking there and had reduced time due to having to reassess his decision of what to do.

    • Quantumcat on 15/02/2022 - 08:14
      +9

      are not as stable under brakes as cars

      Yeah I learned this when I had my own crash with a car stopping suddenly in front at about 90km/hr, the bike slid out from under me like in the video. I had enough room not to crash into them but forgot how to emergency brake properly in the heat of the moment. The person in the video probably had the right skills but didn't leave enough room to employ them / had too much to think about trying to avoid their friend. A good reminder not to ride doubled up in a lane or too close to your friends.

      At the end of the day with riding a bike, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong if you are dead

      • djkelly69 on 15/02/2022 - 09:12
        +6

        it doesn't matter who is right or wrong if you are dead

        Pretty good rule for life in general IMO

  • rektrading on 15/02/2022 - 07:40
    +3

    The 🏍️ was going too fast, to close and got rekt.

    📕 of the day. Don't tailgate.

  • popsiee on 15/02/2022 - 08:11

    You would have warning but if during road rage the driver hits the breaks , panel beater would have nice work .
    Hit the brakes during normal times they would have work going through the roof .

    • Poor Ass on 15/02/2022 - 15:56

      lets not lose our temper and say bad stuff to popsiee or we'll get penalty box again

      Poor Ass on 15/02/2022 - 15:56 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  • Muzeeb on 15/02/2022 - 08:55
    +13

    Just a friendly reminders that it's brake.

    • popsiee on 15/02/2022 - 08:57
      +1

      Got it on 2nd line :)

      • Muzeeb on 15/02/2022 - 08:58
        +2

        This wasn't targetted at you specifically. There are several instances above that use break and brake in the same post, even in the same sentence 🙂

        Exhibit A:

        slamming on breaks without a reason to do so (brake checking)

  • Archi on 15/02/2022 - 09:26
    +1

    i have many years ago been in an accident, where both parties were claiming that it was the other drivers fault for the accident.

    and based on evidence given both parties were deemed at fault and if they wanted to continue the claim that the excess would be payable by both parties.

    some time later through discussion with other people that had a similar experience, that it was common for insurers to do that especially if both parties belong to the same insurer.

    • dtc on 15/02/2022 - 09:34
      +1

      Most of the time a car accident isn't 100% the fault of one person (outside of the obvious eg going through a red light). Even when people go through stop signs etc, often the other driver has the chance to observe and avoid.

      I highlight that this isnt criminal or traffic offence liability. Go through a stop sign and you are 100% ticketed and responsible. But for civil law/negligence, if you had (say) the opportunity to see a car approaching a stop sign clearly not intending to stop but you just kept driving at full speed, the court might say you were maybe 15% or 20% responsible (contributory negligence). Obviously depends on the specifics of each particular case

      Rear enders, however, is one of the few situations where 100% liability is often found against the following driver as there isnt much the front car can do to avoid the accident

  • Snake 4 on 15/02/2022 - 09:45
    +1

    But for civil law/negligence, if you had (say) the opportunity to see a car approaching a stop sign clearly not intending to stop but you just kept driving at full speed, the court might say you were maybe 15% or 20% responsible

    Oh dear. Define clearly not intending to stop

    • macfudd on 15/02/2022 - 20:07

      The driver has a leg out each window

    • dtc on 16/02/2022 - 12:17

      oh dear? If a car is 5m away from a stop sign and is travelling at 70km/h, you probably have a fair idea that you should be hitting the brakes because it isnt going to stop, now is it?

      Clear enough?

      Just have a look through O'Neill v Liddle [2012] NSWCA 267 for some discussions (this was running through a give way sign and the driver who didnt run through the sign ie was travelling along the road - was found 55% to be at fault because she had time to spot the other driver, realise the other driver wasnt stopping and brake and avoid the accident)

      Its obviously a question of judgment in all the circumstances of each particular case, but 'oh dear'?

  • jv on 15/02/2022 - 09:46
    +1

    Rear ending = always rear driver fault?

    Yep.

    Unless you hire a very, very good lawyer…

    • knasty on 15/02/2022 - 19:08
      +2

      Lionel Hutz on speed dial.

  • terlalu on 15/02/2022 - 10:03
    +1

    I didn't read the reddit post, but NO, not always the rear driver's fault.

    Front driver's fault if:
    1) if the car's brake lights are not working
    2) the front car is reversing

    • Snake 4 on 15/02/2022 - 10:31
      -2

      Wrong. No brake lights mean bugger all. You MUST keep a safe distance.

      Throwing reversing in is a different situation.

      • ProlapsedHeinous on 15/02/2022 - 21:41
        +2

        Wrong. Safe distances mean nothing if you aren't aware the driver in front is braking, especially heavily and at night time.

        • surg3on on 16/02/2022 - 10:05

          And how are you going to prove the brake lights werent working? Their rear end is all smashed. You better have dashcam.

  • Ducksnuts on 15/02/2022 - 10:17

    Its not always the fault of the person behind. This driver was jailed for causing an accident behind him.

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/driver-jailed-for-stoppi…

    • rektrading on 15/02/2022 - 10:24
      -1

      for driving his car in a dangerous manner and failing to stop and give assistance after the crash, when he should have reasonably known someone died.

      Not the same as the vid in OP.

    • Snake 4 on 15/02/2022 - 10:43
      +1

      A red herring. Totally different situation.

      This from your link. His actions caused crashes from multiple cars behind him who were following too closely and could not stop in time.

  • vinaricee on 15/02/2022 - 10:42
    +2

    Srsly its stupid thesedays not to invest in a dashcam. This happened to me a week ago, a lady reversed into my car and accused me of the at fault driver to her insurance and her son. Guess what, i blocked their numbers and showed my insurance the dashcam footage and thats it. Didnot have to pay excess and repair + hire car cost at the other driver expense. Though she called me hundreds of times and even used her sons number to call me after.

    • geek001 on 15/02/2022 - 11:21

      Totally agree. Been in the same situation at an intersection. The car in front was too far out and decided to reverse without looking behind, crashed into my car. Lucky for me, the driver admitted fault, otherwise it would be really hard for me to prove otherwise. Needless to say, dashcam in all the cars in the house after that.

    • ProlapsedHeinous on 15/02/2022 - 21:43

      Yep, 100 percent agree. all you need is one time you need that evidence and don't have it, to be paying easily double or more of the value of a dashcam in excess. just get one, you can get a half decent one for like 120 bucks nowadays, they are worth their weight in gold and your insurer will love you too.

  • Baysew on 15/02/2022 - 10:43

    Previous Rear Ended Posts

  • Snake 4 on 15/02/2022 - 11:16

    Regularly see 8 cars nose tail crashes on the M4 in Sydney. Idiots drive at 110k two car lengths apart. Not a hope in hell of stopping.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2022 - 11:55
    +1

    he didn't even get out of the car. Not even when we were saving the rider's life.

    This is hilarious. What difference would it make? He kept out of the way. Good.

    I had a bike follow me closely as we both overtook slow cars. I approached a pedestrian crossing, and a large van was stopped in the other lane, so I stopped. The bike stopped too, in the back of my car, and the rider flew over the top of it. A woman pushing a pram was hidden by the van, but if you can't see, assume something is there. 100% the rider's fault. No major injuries. Minor damage to both bike and car.

    The only time it's not the rear driver's fault is when someone changes lanes in front of you and cuts you off, or reverses. If you hit someone in any other situation, you're following too closely and going too fast. Don't do that. Keep in mind the road conditions like rain or gravel. The vehicle can be a factor too, like extra weight from passengers, cargo, or towing.

    • dtc on 16/02/2022 - 12:18

      Minor damage to both bike and car.

      and the rider?

      • [Deactivated] on 16/02/2022 - 18:27

        No major injuries.

        He seemed to land on his shoulder, but just bruising. Nothing broken. He picked up the bike and walked it to the side of the road. He later rode off on it. We had no communication beyond the exchange of details and confirming he wasn't hurt or required medical help.

  • Dack Smith on 15/02/2022 - 12:57
    -3

    He is a biker

    He didn’t keep a safe distance.

    He died a good death, and hopefully his organs went to people that needed and deserved a good life.

    When people start realising the bikes should not be on roads and will not win a collision contest against cars, that is when Pax Australiana will begin.

    • studentl0an on 15/02/2022 - 14:40
      +2

      I know you meant to be funny but it actually comes across as quite callous and evil.

      You don't need that bad karma - do something good to balance it out.

  • Poor Ass on 15/02/2022 - 15:02

    I rear ended someone's car and I was not at fault

    Car in front pulled out of a slip lane and didn't give way

    • Blitzfx on 15/02/2022 - 15:10

      Did other driver admit fault?
      I can't imagine how annoying it would be if they lied, because the evidence wouldn't be obvious

      • Poor Ass on 15/02/2022 - 15:19
        +9

        of course they didn't admit fault, they actually thought I was at fault which I can actually understand why

        they were turning into a main road from a slip lane and when they looked on the right they saw bunch of cars turning already and assumed no cars were coming down the main road where I was

        wouldn't give me their detail and cops came and witnesses pointed the finger at me saying they saw me rear ended them (which is true because they didn't give way)

        when it came to insurance, they were ruled at fault

        they went to the police station and lodged a compliant saying I lied

        but then I gave the cops the dash cam footage and never heard from them again

        ALWAYS HAVE A DASH CAM!!!

        • Ryanek on 15/02/2022 - 20:47
          +1

          TLDR - dashcam

  • gimli on 15/02/2022 - 16:34

    Should have had insurance mate.

  • smartazz104 on 15/02/2022 - 17:05
    +2

    I rear-ended someone after he deiced to pull across a lane of traffic and stop right in front of me on a wet road. Insurance paid me out, not sure what happened with him and frankly I don't care.

    • ProlapsedHeinous on 15/02/2022 - 21:47
      +1

      Car insurance is a real life saver. there's too many knobheads out there waiting to cause you untold misery through their shit driving. fill in the report and wash your hand of it. leave the chasing up and other snot to the insurance experts to deal with.

    • innov on 16/02/2022 - 10:38
      +1

      The exact same thing happened to my friend. Taxi driver merged infront of my mate and suddenly braked causing him to rear end the car. Went to his insurance company and explained the situation but said he was liable unless he had proof. Lightbulb moment came and provided footage which the insurance company sided with him

  • kaleidoscope on 15/02/2022 - 17:37

    Is the rear driver at fault no matter what?

    Depends on situation. If someone cuts into your lane without giving way or signalling and brakes abruptly.
    Or if someone reverse into your car or if driver at front rolls back an unreasonable distance failing to brake etc …

    But on most occasions rear driver is at fault.

  • trapper on 15/02/2022 - 19:30

    No not always at fault.

    In most cases the rear driver is though.

  • Alexxx on 15/02/2022 - 20:47
    +2

    Not always at fault.

    While it's all well and good to say leave a safe gap if you have a 3 second gap and the car in front decides to go from 0-60 by slamming on their brakes then chances are you are going to see their lights, put your brakes on like normal then realise you're going to hit them anyway.

    I would recommend everyone try driving along at 60 and hitting their brakes as hard as they can (if you have ABS and it doesn't activate then you didn't try hard enough) it's violent. In fact go out driving now and on a quiet road with no one around try it then come back and let us know how it went, most people have no idea what it feels like.

    • ProlapsedHeinous on 15/02/2022 - 21:48
      +1

      Also do this when it is wet. somewhere there is nobody else around, get a feel for how your vehicle feels in an emergency situation.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 15/02/2022 - 21:53
    +1

    Not if someone cuts in front of you too closely and slams on their brakes, because they didn't safely change lane with sufficient clearance. Which is why you need a dash cam.
    There was also a video on YouTube of a car at the lights reversing into a motorbike then claiming the bike hit him. Fortunately the biker had a camera.

  • Herbse on 16/02/2022 - 08:57

    Afaik the following reasons are when the person in front would be at fault:

    • Changing lanes and brake hard without giving enough room to the driver behind
    • Intentionally braking for no reason for the purpose of creating an accident (brake check)

    The above is hard/impossible to prove without video footage. So the first car has usually gotten away with this in the past. More people using dashcams has stopped this.

    There should also be another rule which I've always wondered about;
    What if you were behind a car at a safe distance, but someone pulled out of a driveway carelessly and T Boned the car in front of you.. They would come to a stop at an "unnatural" rate. Meaning your otherwise "safe distance" is now not enough to slow you down to avoid an accident.

    Would that still be your fault? 🤔

  • lint on 16/02/2022 - 09:56

    Looks like the bike rider is at fault from the video footage.

    The car in front may be partially at fault for doing a stupid thing, who knows.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join