I Rear Ended an Unroadworthy Ute. Liability Discussion

Hi OzBargain team,

Another new user with a traffic question! I’ve been lurking for years and keep meaning to make an account. This has pushed me to do it.

I’ll preface this question by saying I’m in no way trying to get out of liability for this traffic collision. If my insurer says I’m liable then I’ll go with it. It’s only a $1000 excess and I’ve been driving for over 15 years without any accidents or traffic infringements, including parking fines. I’m trying to gauge whether or not the community sees the lack of care for the road worthiness of their vehicle as a liability issue. You’ll see what I mean below.

Background:

I was driving along the freeway in Perth and traffic was flowing pretty smoothly. There had just been a slower patch but things were speeding back up. All of a sudden the ute in front of me starts to slow down without warning. The key thing here is there was absolutely no warning apart from the vehicle slowing down. The ute’s brake lights were not working. Neither of them. And a canopy fitted meant there was no high mounted brake light either.

I noticed the braking too late and went into the back of the ute. No damage to their vehicle at all but mine sustained a fair amount to various panels and to some items under the bonnet.

Maybe I could have braked harder, maybe not. Looking back I was indecisive because of the lack of warning and didn’t realise how hard they were going to brake. As you’ll see in the dash cam video, the ute in front of the vehicle I hit swerved to avoid the car in front of it. I was also trying to avoid the Mini Cooper behind me from going into me by not jamming on my brakes if possible.

I believe that had the brake lights on the ute been working I would have had at least 1-2 extra seconds to process the scene and come to a stop without hitting anything.

My insurer is going to assess the footage and get back to me but the bloke I spoke to said it will probably still be my fault technically due to safe stopping distances etc. He isn’t in the assessment department though. My argument is that I was at a safe distance had the brake lights been working.

I also question why I should be liable for another persons lack of care and maintenance of their vehicle letting it get to the point of being unroadworthy.

Dash cam video here

Note I have blurred the license plate of the ute but nothing else has been altered. It might look like I got a shove from behind but my best explanation for this is the ute stopped suddenly and I kept going so it seems like an optical illusion on camera. Being there in the drivers seat that is how I remember it.

My question for the community given the background info and after watching the video is should I be liable for the traffic collision (yes 100%, no not at all or yes, partly liable)? In true OzB fashion I’ll add a poll to the post.

Again, I’m not trying to get out of it and this is the wrong place to do that. I’m genuinely curious what the community thinks about the situation.

Have you been in a similar situation? How did your insurer assess your liability? Did you challenge their decision if they did find you liable? I’m curious about this as I’m sure it’s more common than I’d believe with the number of old bombs and lack of vehicle maintenance oversight in most jurisdictions of Australia. I know NSW have yearly inspections for certain vehicles but most other states don’t. In the UK and NZ I believe they have mandatory periodic inspections in order for the vehicle to be registered/licenced. Is this something we should look at across all of Australia too?

TL DR

I was in a traffic collision where I rear ended someone with faulty brake lights that weren’t working. Discussing liability issues around vehicle road worthiness or lack of when in a TC.

Poll Options expired

  • 401
    Yes 100% liable
  • 31
    No not liable at all
  • 59
    Yes, partly liable

Comments

  • +92

    You failed to not hit the car in front.

    You can see the vehicle was slowing.

    You failed to keep a reasonable distance.

    You're at fault

    • +44

      Fair enough.

      • +39

        Well you're not going to get very far in life being all calm and reasonable like that

        • +45

          I’d like to think that being calm and reasonable will reduce my stress levels and extend my life haha

          There are other situations I’ve had and will have in my life where I should make a fuss but this isn’t one of them!

          • +1

            @cuethebush: I like your attitude dood, went into this discussion open to being agreed with or shown why not and got a real understanding from it.

            Can't tell you the number of posters on here that expected unanimous agreement on their obvious (profanity) up and got caked before deactivating accounts in shame.

            Also mega updoots for uploading cam footage, reminds me of that previous infamous post where they complained about being in the right but refused to show any and all dash footage

      • Id still argue the point, you never know.

        Its like they almost stopped then let foot of brake then stopped like they were trying to have an accident

      • +28

        The fact they weren't able to stop in time.

      • +7

        whose to say otherwise

        The fact that they rear ended someone?

        • -7

          He could still say he panicked when the brake lights didn’t turn on.

    • +8

      OP could report the brake light issue to the police, they could fine the driver but probably wouldn't change anything you already mentioned.

      • +2

        Nah I’m not in it to get anyone in trouble. If anything I’ll probably text the young bloke who was driving and let him know as a courtesy that he needs new bulbs! I’ll do that now!

        • +14

          You should not communicate with the other party other than exchanging details. Your insurance should have told you that.

        • +3

          You should probably let your insurer decide what to do actually.

          • +1

            @AustriaBargain: This 100%. Report it to your insurer and do nothing else unless advised.

        • Highly likely the young bloke would have known his brake light not working prior to this incident, your just reminding him again.

    • -4

      In short as Op said
      I rear ended a vehicle

      Isn’t that an obvious admission of guilt?

      • +2

        No. You aren't always in the wrong if you rear end a vehicle.

        Examples:

        • multi-car pileup where the car in front of you hit into someone else first
        • a car was reversing out of their driveway and didn't give way
        • are you really not liable if you hit a car in front of you that's hit someone else first? that one sounds a bit suss to me.

          • +2

            @merriweather: Can confirm. I got rear ended after slamming on the brakes when the car in front of me lost control and spun around on the freeway. It was one of those weird situations where it wasn't my fault and I didn't get charged excess and the car behind me their insurance was able to argue that it wasn't their fault for hitting me. Basically both our insurance companies ended up wearing the excess. Win win!

        • Well you are not very smart Mr Duck
          Taking the matter out of context gets you nowhere!

          In OP's word which obviously you didnt read…
          "I rear ended a vehicle"

          OP's issue was that the vehicle unroadworthly but that makes no difference.

  • +7

    This might be a case where there's a nuanced difference in liability appropriation between insurance rules and legal determination.

    My understanding is rear ending anyone is almost always your own fault, which is what insurance is likely to say.

    However, you may have a case to take the other driver to court for unroadworthy vehicle, and may get some of your excess assigned back. I imagine it's not worth the time, effort and stress for most people though. Maybe speak to a lawyer? Tons around.

      • +62

        Hence the… Oh wait it's you

      • This has happened to me before where the driver in front reversed hard into me while I was stationary at a red light. She didn’t check I was there before attempting to quickly leap frog into another lane.

        I didn’t have dashcam footage and she claimed I rear ended her, but fortunately she texted me and apologised for the incident shortly after it happened. Once her friends and family got involved, they convinced her to lie to the insurance company so don’t think it can’t happen, as people will try to weasel out of taking responsibility for their actions.

        • +1

          110% this is why you need a dashcam. Dashcams aren't to record licence plates like a lot of people think. They're to prove things like "they reversed into me" like your situation.

      • Thats clearly not "rear ending" jv

    • +2

      you may have a case to take the other driver to court for unroadworthy vehicle

      On what basis?

      • That’ll be for a lawyer to formulate a claim for damages. They have 6 years to figure it out.

        • +12

          I think the only winner if I engaged a lawyer would be the lawyer haha. I'll just pay the $1000 excess and move on. This is what insurance is for and why I pay the bucks for comprehensive cover.

          • +1

            @cuethebush: Exactly mate. This is what insurance is for so the consequence if it turns out it was your error is minor. Just give your insurance the facts, they will (if they haven't already) definitely decide that the fault is yours, move on.

            I know we're Ozbargain so we focus on saving money, but the quicker you move on, the less time you will lose also. You have a great attitude, so I'm sure you already have.

            I've only been in one crash previously. Luckily, like you, I was insurance and the excess was only $1,000. It sucks, but think of it as the cost of driving and split it amongst the years you've driven. For me, it was about 20 years after I began driving, for you it's only a little bit less. It's only $66 / year, that's like one tank of petrol or a small fraction of your insurance payment. It happens.

            Be kind to yourself and take it as a lesson for future.

        • -3

          That’ll be for a lawyer to formulate a claim for damages

          What evidence is there that the vehicle was unroadworthy? Only the OP's word. The other driver, I suspect, would say otherwise.

          • +2

            @pjetson: Dash cam footage is linked above showing lack of rear lights when braking and stopping suddenly middle of high speed road.

            • -2

              @Hybroid: Is that the same dashcam footage that also shows the OP failing to keep a safe distance?

      • -1

        Its like saying I rear ended an unroadworthy parked car.

        Pretty obvious who is at fault

  • +4

    Doesn't matter if you rear ended a camel that shouldn't have been on the road, if you rear end someone you're generally at fault for not keeping enough distance and not being cautious enough.

    • +1

      Yeah, I understand that. Was just curious if others had been in a similar position and what happened. As I said I’m sure it’s common for most people to not check their vehicle over once a month for small things like this.

      I need to check my work ute over for this sort of stuff once a month minimum and submit a form to record it.

      I’m sure I’ll be up for the excess so not worried about that now!

      • The outcome might be split between the person you hit and the driver.

        Brake lights exist for a reason, and are a road worthy requirement. I'd think this falls into the contributory negligence, where the event might not have been fully avoided but could have been mitigated if the vehicle did have working brake lights.

        Either way, insurance will deal with it and work it out.

    • +3

      This attitude sort of discounts the fact society expects people to have brake lights on vehicles to the point that there's a penalty involved in not doing so…

      Rear ending someone and being fully at fault in this case discounts the fact that all road users owe a duty of care to one another..

      The question the courts would ask (and thus the insurance lawyers) is essentially…

      Is the risk of your brake lights being out causing or contributing to an accident of any kind not remote and unforeseeable?

      And for you they'd look at your footage and ask, well, is the risk of an accident occuring from driving so close not remote and unforeseeable?

      If yes.. begin apportioning liability between the parties.

      That said, there is a "but for" test in civil liability. If you could argue successfully (not easy) that even if your behaviour was a little risky (which given the only accident you've ever had is this one where brake lights of the car were out, probably isn't that risky…), you wouldn't have had this accident [[but for]] the ute drivers negligent maintence of their vehicle, i.e. it's all their fault including the damages to your car.

      Honestly, would appreciate this going to court just to see the ruling but this is ozbargain not ozjustice.

      • So basically, if you rear end someone you're generally at fault for not keeping enough distance and not being cautious enough.

        It's almost like I already said that.

        • +1

          Generally at fault except for when you're not, yes, exactly what you said

  • +2

    What is the magnetic antenna for on your bonnet bonut?

    Maybe it's a Perth thing and I'm unfamiliar with the road but why was everyone in the right lane? I assume it's a 100 zone.

    • I read:
      https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/road-safety-commission/mo…

      Keeping Left

      On multi-lane roads if the speed limit is 90km/h or more you must drive in the left lane. This same rule applies to any road where there is a ‘keep left unless overtaking’ sign.

      On these roads you can only drive in the right hand lane where:

      you’re turning right or making a U-turn;
      you’re overtaking;
      the left lane is a special purpose lane, e.g. bus lane, bicycle lane;
      the left lane is a turning lane and you are going straight ahead;
      you’re avoiding an obstruction; or
      the other lanes are congested with traffic.

      Am I missing something?

      • It looks like the cars in the left lane are all at a safe stopping distance from each other. I'd say that constitutes other lanes congested with traffic.

    • +2

      It’s an antenna connected to a Cel-Fi mobile booster. I have recently moved back from the sticks about 1000km from Perth and believe me it’s come in handy more than once. Was second on scene to a rollover where a woman was pinned under her car and was able to call 000 thanks to it. And it’s not far out of Perth that signal gets very dodgy so this helps fill the gaps!

      The right lane thing might be a Perth thing. Traffic had banked up not long before this and the right lane was moving better so everyone might have piled over?

      • -1

        That makes sense. Cheers.

        I thought the insurance company might ask about it in case you were using your privately insured vehicle for business/commercial purposes and void your claim.

      • Call 112 instead of 000.

        Calling Triple 0 tries to connect with your carrier, calling 112 uses any carriers networks to connect you.

        106 if you have a hearing or speech impairment and your life or property is in danger, and is given priority over other NRS calls.

        https://www.triplezero.gov.au/triple-zero/other-emergency-nu…

        • What a silly way of doing this.. by default 000 should have that option rather than trying to remember 112.
          Australian health department need to work out their crap

          • @maverickjohn: Important note is that 112 works with international carriers as well, so if you were in the UK and you dialed 112, vodafone UK for example, would redirect your call to AU anyway.

            Always good for 1 person to call the local emergency services while another could let Australian 000 services know what's going on.

            • @jerjergege:

              so if you were in the UK and you dialed 112, vodafone UK for example, would redirect your call to AU anyway.

              If you were in the UK , 112 would be redirected to 999 (their local emergency services number).. what makes you think it would redirect back to 000 in au if you are currently located and connected to UK mobile infrastructure?

              • @SBOB: You're right, I interpreted the explanation wrong, and I have never needed to use it overseas before.

                112 ss an "international standard" emergency number, but for only some parts of the world, meaning check what emergency services numer is internatioinally anyway.

                112—International standard emergency number
                Triple Zero (000) is Australia's primary telephone number to call for assistance in life threatening or time critical emergency situations. Dialling 112 directs you to the same Triple Zero (000) call service and does not give your call priority over Triple Zero (000).

                112 is an international standard emergency number which can only be dialled on a digital mobile phone. It is accepted as a secondary international emergency number in some parts of the world, including Australia, and can be dialled in areas of GSM network coverage with the call automatically translated to that country’s emergency number. It does not require a simcard or pin number to make the call, however phone coverage must be available (any carrier) for the call to proceed.

                There is no advantage to dialling 112 over Triple Zero (000). Calls to 112 do not go to the head of the queue for emergency services, and it is not true that it is the only number that will work on a mobile phone.

                Dialling 112 from a fixed line telephone in Australia (including payphones) will not connect you to the emergency call service as it is only available from digital mobile phones.

        • Calling Triple 0 tries to connect with your carrier, calling 112 uses any carriers networks to connect you.

          Not sure that's accurate. That link also doesn't infer that. 000 from any mobile with any background service should result in the same as 112.
          112 is just the (somewhat) international backup number for emergency services, and will therefore also work as an emergency services number in some other countries also.

          • @SBOB: Thats what i thought would have been the case.

        • Calling 112 or 000 or any number won’t help if there isn’t any cell signal to connect to. Where I was between Mt Magnet and Cue in WA there is no hope of signal from any provider. And Telstra is the only provider that has service in those towns. Which is why I have/had the Cell-Fi. Eventually when I was promoted to a senior position I was given a work satellite phone but I’d still try to use a cellular service instead as the delay when using the sat phone was quite pronounced.

          Obviously newer iPhones have the emergency texting feature over satellite service now as well. It’s amazing the recent advances in tech for people living in the bush.

    • +5

      In WA the right hand lane is the everything lane and only the far left is for overtaking (well, undertaking)

      • -1

        the far left is for overtaking (well, undertaking)

        Yeah, that's dangerous

  • -6

    In various scenarios you can slow down quite quickly just by going down a few gears rapidly. This would not illuminate the brake lights at all.

    Pay more attention next time, dash cams aren't an excuse to switch off your brain and you should be looking a few cars ahead, not just at the car directly in front. If you were even watching at all.

    • +3

      Yeah I get that. Fair enough. I was alert but in hindsight may have been a bit close especially not being able to see through the canopy of the ute. I still reckon had there been brake lights I could have stopped in time but I fully get that does not absolve me from liability. I’ve learned a lesson for next time.

  • +31

    Keeping a safe distance from the car in front is NOT reliant on brake lights …

    Given the wide angle of the dashcam, I doubt there was any safe distance being kept :/

    (You are doing 93km/h with less than one dashed white line gap between you and the ute - frame 46 or at time 11:52:22 or 1.52s into your clip)

  • -7

    Buy a Tesla

  • +7

    Who cares what a bunch internet strangers think.

    The only option that matters is your insurers.

    In saying that, was probably avoidable if you had just braked harder and backed right off as soon as you saw he had no brake lights.

    And an extra 2c, if you can’t see past the vehicle in front of you clearly, leave a bigger gap.

  • +2

    I don't see safe distance being kept. So it is your fault unfortunately.

    Though maybe with argument with no break light, you'll either get less % of liability if you lucky, or you'll get some sort of compensate from the other driver if you take him to court.

    I ain't no professional, above is just my random guess, and good luck.

  • That sucks man, You'll probably be liable but rough AF.

  • -1

    IMO Only way youd get put of it is if your footage showed conclusively the ute stopped for no reason. I only watched ot once, but the canopy obscured what the ute might have been stopping for.

    If it was clear cut there was nothing in front of the ute to cause it to stop there might be a case that theyd deliberately stopped to cause a crash.

  • +2

    I don’t understand why you think the outcome would have been different with the tail lights working. To be honest, it sounds like you are looking for excuses. You misjudged the situation. Simple.

    • +9

      Not excusing myself at all. But I do think that if brake lights would have come on I wouldn’t be second guessing the ute’s intentions. Maybe I would have still gone into them but it would have given me a slight amount of extra time which could have made a difference. I guess we will never know! As I said above in hindsight I was probably too close for the situation especially given the lack of vision through and around the ute with the canopy. A lesson learned!

  • +5

    The most likely scenario is the insurance company will take your excess and then might try to use the footage to get some money off the guy in the Ute. They will try and sting both of you.At least you have insurance.

  • Weird the right brake light turns on in the last frame 😂

    • +5

      That's the indicator
      Would have been impressive though if the op had nudged the brake light back to life

  • +6

    It might look like I got a shove from behind but my best explanation for this is the ute stopped suddenly and I kept going so it seems like an optical illusion on camera. Being there in the drivers seat that is how I remember it.

    Based on your relative speed against the white line , it more looks like you were almost stopped and then came off the breaks ..

    Either way, agree with consensus, driving too close.

    • +2

      Yeah I can see that given the speed and lack of vision ahead because of the ute canopy I probably should have been a bit further back. Fair enough and I’ll move on with a lesson having been learned for next time!

    • To me it sounds/looks like the AEBS intervened (the beeping sound), then released its braking force @5s while the driver wasn't applying enough brake to stop the car from rolling. On AEBS safety tests by Euro NCAP and the like, some cars keep rolling at a slow speed.

  • You managed to stop, then it looks like you got rear ended and pushed into the ute.

    • +1

      It might look like I got a shove from behind but my best explanation for this is the ute stopped suddenly and I kept going so it seems like an optical illusion on camera

      • +4

        I missed that part in the wall of text. Still looks like they stopped then let off the brake again. Watching the bonut you can see the front lift up after it appears they stopped.

  • +1

    I think that you’ll find that you will have liability for the accident, but that it is shared with the Ute driver. That would likely be the police’s aspect. I assume that you have reported the accident and they will be following up the Ute driver I guess.
    What your insurance company works out is another matter entirely as they do all sorts of inter company deals - they may even be under a common re-insurer…

  • +3

    That is not an optical illusion. Your slowing rate decreased before the impact. You can see the front of your car lift. Even if you take out the ute, you can still see the slowing rate suddenly decrease. Otherwise, I think you would have made the stop if you had of meant into the brakes more or the Anti-lock brake system may have detected a locked wheel and unlocked the system, especially if it is an older car with a simple abs and not a modern and faster 4 channel system.

  • -7

    Gotta say, I'm absolutely flummoxed at the poll results here. There's no way in the world I'd accept liability for this and I'd fight tooth and nail to hold the other party with an egregiously unroadworthy vehicle responsible.

    You should have contacted the police and have them attend the crash - the clown with no brake lights should have been fined and the vehicle immediately defected and towed for the safety of other motorists. Everyone has a responsibility to ensure that their vehicle is roadworthy for the safety of themselves, their passengers and other road users.

    • +7

      I suspect OP discovered the brake light issue when reviewing the footage, not at the actual time.

      Without the footage the cops could assume the lights failed from the impact which isn't unusual. The bulb filaments are hot and fragile and the impact breaks the filaments. Common accident scenario.

      I doubt the cops would turn up (in Vic anyway). They only turn up if a person is injured, driver appears drunk, severe road congestion etc.

    • +1

      I'd fight tooth and nail to hold the other party with an egregiously unroadworthy vehicle responsible.

      Who would you pick a fight with?

      • +2

        The insurance company (if they're claiming there's no liability on the part of the clown with no brake lights) as well as the clown driving around with no brake lights.

    • -3

      Brake lights are not the only warning that a car is slowing down in front of you, the CAR PHYSICALLY SLOWING DOWN ON FRONT OF YOU is the warning it's slowing down. If you can't drive in a safe manner without other people's brake lights as your sole warning that a vehicle is slowing down then you should not be behind the wheel of a vehicle, and for the safety of everyone else on the road you should cancel and hand in your own licence immediately.

  • -5

    Jesus Christ.

    OP starts off with a preface accepting all liability.

    Then proceeds to write War and Peace about how the car in front didn't give him enough warning.

    The car getting closer IS the warning. The need to break out the slide rule is embarrassing.

    PSA, Perth people are normally not like this we are mostly accountable for our actions.

    • +10

      Rightio that's your opinion. Why are brake lights a mandatory piece of equipment on a vehicle and part of roadworthiness then? It threw me off and made me uncertain of the ute drivers intentions at the time because of the lack of brake lights that almost every other vehicle on the road has. Yes I could have put more distance between me and them I accept that. But I maintain that I most likely could have stopped if the ute was functioning correctly.

      If my insurer finds me liable that's fine but I don't see the harm in questioning things.

      • If you had just straight up plowed into the back of him, you'd probably have a slim chance because it would be somewhat demonstrable that you had no warning because his vehicle is defective. You'd probably still lose though simply because it looks like he didn't brake that hard and you were too close.

        However, you clearly braked in the video when you saw him slowing down and then appear to have assumed that he'd finished braking at that point and let off the brake when you were too close. The lack of brake lights should have been warning to keep your distance, as what was going to happen next was unpredictable (as you found out). Being technically correct here isn't likely to help you.

      • +1

        I'm with you on this. I'd absolutely challenge it. The whole purpose of brake lights is to indicate in a red warning message that this car is slowing down or stopping. If there were no brake lights on cars there would be rear end collisions happening all the time. That's why they are mandatory and police would put any car off the road if they aren't working. It's this guys responsibility to have his brake lights functioning properly and because they are not, they have significantly contributed towards an accident.

  • +3

    Your distance to that other car seems to be only about 1 second by looking at nearest street pole. Should be 3 seconds or more.

  • +7

    You probably are legally at fault but I honestly have no idea. I just wanted to add that you were driving way too close to the ute before it started slowing down. Most people drive way too close, it’s not just you. 3 second gap!

    • +2

      Yeah I accept that. But as you point out most people on the road are driving way too close to each other. I must say, it is a good lesson to me and I will make sure to keep a bigger gap from now on. Complacency can kill on the road.

      • We've all been too close at various points in our lives. Its important to constantly reevaluate our situation as we are driving and adjust as necessary. Complacency kills in all kinds of industries.

  • +1

    15 years ago, I ran up the back of an SUV at 7:30pm because they decided to stop and turn into a side street last minute.I did not see them. They had no lights on at all. No brake lights. No headlights. Nothing. I still got the Neg Drive ticket.

  • +1

    Know that it's hard, but not supposed to discuss liability with the driver, may use that against you. Was on OP's side, but read this on Whirlpool: https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/9rp4m8v9 there are instances where a car can slow down with using brakes eg. gearing down, so it's up to the driver to keep the right distance. Insurance does have the final say.

  • The lack of brake lights and inability to see around the car in front (should have been factored into your driving) definitely contributed to the accident. If it had been a little getz you could have seen the bank of cars ahead braking and braked appropriately as well as having a visual braking indicator but it wasn't so more caution was required.

    So while there were other contributing causes for the accident (not just a clear cut zoned out/texting/sleepy and couldn't stop in time), in terms of liability, I think you'd still get hit with at fault as a larger gap would have been enough to avoid it which is the main thing.

    That being said, sounds like you learnt something from the experience and sounds like you have comprehensive - which means everything will be tidied up for you apart from physically bringing the car down to the panel beater.

    In terms of similar experiences, it might be similar to an accident that occurs when a car puts on their indicator but instead drives straight ahead causing a collision. The blinkers (lack of brake light) put out the wrong message but in that scenario the one turning into the intersection/path would still be at fault.

  • +2

    Over the last 30 years, it has happened to me three times that a car has rear ended my vehicle, whilst actually stopped at the red traffic lights,
    most times the people involved do not want to accept accountability or responsibility, then most add "fuel to the fire"
    by not making a financial payment to cover my repair costs. I have no sympathy at all for the OP,
    I think that the OP is completely at fault here

  • +20

    Kudos to the OP for the following -

    1: Legible, articulate description of the scenario
    2: Inclusion of a TLDR (whew!)
    3: Admission of liability
    4: Handling the almost-obligatory abuse that comes with such queries with grace.

    • +2

      Completely agree! He's handled it very well. Asked an honest question, backed it up with a short edited video, and has taken it all on the chin like a champ.
      Many others can learn from him!

      • +2

        I think it probably shows I’ve been lurking way too long and been able to learn from others mistakes. I’d like to think I’m a reasonable person… although some people in my life may disagree with that sometimes lol

  • -2

    I have no real opinion about legalities or even insurance policies but I would assume there is some protection to you in the law regarding not roadworthy vehicles in an accident.

    But then again, someone breaking and entering a home and the home owners defending themselves have lost cases when the burglar sued…..

Login or Join to leave a comment