In what situations can a following vehicle not be at fault for striking a vehicle ahead? Backing wrong direction, stopped no flashers or light at night, road rage braking come to mind.
|
In what situations can a following vehicle not be at fault for striking a vehicle ahead? Backing wrong direction, stopped no flashers or light at night, road rage braking come to mind.
I don't think there is an absolvence for following too closely. There are clear guidelines that you are to be one car length for every 10 km travelling speed. So if it's a 50km zone, then you are to be 5 car lengths safely driving behind another car. Road rage breaking is another situation entirely. That is someone slamming on their brakes to intentionally get rear ended, or to stop another vehicle.
As for stopped no flashers, then you are supposed to be aware enough to see this going on and make adjustments to your speed and location; backing wrong direction (do you mean someone backing up and a person doesn't see them backing up and rear ends). There again, you are supposed to be aware enough.
Tick
The only thing I know of is if the preceding car lost control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
If the car in front of you lost control, say on slippery roads, then if you are adhering to the proper speed limit and the proper distance, you have time to recover, and take evasive action. Its called 'driving defensively' or in other words, driving-to-save-your-own-skin(and car)should the driver in front of you be driving bad enough not to know how to handle his own car.
Tick
Sorry, but the law in most states is that a driver is required to maintain control of their vehicle. If they lose control they are contributing to the accident. Even though the other driver should have been driving prudently.Quote:
Originally Posted by tickle
This exact scenario happened to my daughter. She was negotiating a snow covered on ramp and spun out ending up on the side partially sticking out on the ramp. Another car came along and hit her. The carriers settled for 75/25 liability (75 for my dtr) because of the maintain control law in NYS.
I think that is basically what I said. We say here, 'driving defensively' all young drivers learn to drive that way. You are supposed to be in control of your car at all times.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
The only exceptions being of course, careless driving and DWI,
Tick
No, what you said is that the following driver is primarily responsible since they have to be driving defensively. What I'm saying is that the preceding driver can be held primarily responsible if they lost control of their vehicle.
Even a careful driver, following at a safe distance, may not be able to avoid a driver that lost control in front of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
No, you misunderstood, and heck Scott, where am I coming from. I drive in the same, maybe worse conditions then you do. You live in New York State, correct, I live across the lake and drive on 8 lane highways most days. Some in weather where I get out before the snowplows do.
I did not say the 'following driver is primarily responsible' I said, the following driver has to follow driving defensively, and picking up on my other posts in the same thread, following at safe distance, safe enough so that you won't get caught up in any situation from the preceding driver. I have honestly been in those situations and if I see what is coming, I can at least land in the ditch instead of in somebody's rear end, and at the same time, getting out of the way of the guy behind me ! In bad weather, or in any weather, I cruise in the slow lane and only pass on the left.
Why don't we agree to disagree. :)
Hello A:Quote:
Originally Posted by AnchorageMikey
Those are reasons collisions happen. They are not excuses. In every one of your examples, IF the driver had control of his car, he wouldn't have hit anybody.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 AM. |