[CuriousK]

Is it possible to determine if a vehicle came to a complete stop, by looking at its skid marks?

[carcrashexpert]

Sort of, sometimes - but generally no. If you're examining the mark very shortly after an event, you might pick up little rubber nubs (I've heard them called "tire boogers") at the ends of the mark that indicate the tire stopped sliding at that point. If there was a significant collision, fluid deposition (typically coolant from a ruptured radiator) will often be a better indicator of the point(s) of rest of the vehicle(s).

From a law enforcement perspective, it generally gives the benefit of the doubt to an accused to assume that the vehicle DID come to a halt at the end of the tire mark (since that minimizes speed) and so they will make that assumption barring clear evidence to the contrary. In fact, even if there's clear evidence that the vehicle did come to rest beyond the end of the tire marks, they will generally only assume braking for the distance indicated by the visible tire marks.

Your question is very general, so it's hard to be more specific than that. If you want to provide more details, I'm happy to evaluate them further.

[CuriousK]

Thank you for your reply. I was involved in a car accident where I (car #2) came to a fairly sudden stop, but it it was complete. There was a distance of about 2 feet between the car in front of me (car #1) and mine. A large construction van (car #3) that was driving behind me rear-ended me and then I hit the car in front of me. I recall that it seemed like there were more cars that hit the van and that impacted my car... Anyway, car #1 said that they felt 2 bumps from behind. I somewhat recall getting bounced around, but it's not clear in my mind. All I know is that I was at a complete stop before the van hit me. The insurance company said that usually if car #1 feels 2 bumps it's because car #2 hit car #1 first, and then car #3 hit car #2 which then hit car #1 again. They did say, however, that if car #3 was going fast enough, then car #2 could have bounced back and forth. However, I have a feeling that that's harder to prove, that's why I was asking about the skid marks... Something that might work to my benefit is to show pictures of the skid marks, where mine are straight, but the van's skid marks actually veered to the right to try to move out of the way. Well, the damage that was done to my vehicle is most obvious on the right side of my car... I don't know, though...

Thanks for all of your information so far.

[carcrashexpert]

Actually, the best evidence in evaluating these "who hit who first" scenarios is vehicle damage. This is a type of investigation we've done many times.

The short answer is, the damages to the vehicles will often (but not always) allow a fairly conclusive determination of the circumstances. Usually, when a vehicle stops and is then driven forwards to collide with the lead vehicle, the impact with the front end is only about 60-70% as severe as the initial impact at the rear end, and the damages reflect that (although it may not be apparent to the naked eye).

Even witness evidence regarding the post-impact spacing of the vehicles - e.g. Were the bumpers touching? Could you examine your bumper without moving the vehicles? Could you walk between the vehicles? - can be useful in evaluating the circumstances.

Your insurer should investigate on your behalf, and they should retain an expert who is capable of doing just this sort of investigation. Our typical bill for this type of investigation runs about $1500, depending on how hard the vehicles are to track down, how far away from our offices they are, and how detailed a bumper examination is necessary (i.e. do they need to go into a shop for a complete teardown).

[Fr_Chuck]

If of course this had only been a two car accident, and if the officers at the scene were doing this in detail, the POI ( point of impact) and then looking at or for the skid to a stop, then a different type of skid where your car with brakes applied, or in park would have been pushed.

But I doubt if this sort of indept investigation was done at the scene of a multi car accident, they are in a hurry to clear traffic jam normally.
And I doubt they even took complete photos.

I was a investigator in GA and did 100's of accidents but normally as apolice officer we never were given the time to properly do the investigation, since just taking the statements of the people involved took more time than they wanted us to take. But on serious accidents or on hit and runs ( yes we actually investigated them but many departmetns dont)
And to be honest carcrash is fairly cheap for private investigation, I did little private practice, but our bills were much higher when we did.

But honestly this is why we have car insurance, and I would just let them take care of it. ( not sure whose car insurance is telling you this) but trun it into your insurance company and don't worry about it, would be my opinioin.

As for any criminal, if you got a ticket, tell your story, the officer has no proof that you did not, you should ( and I said should) get off from that.
But again, many traffic courts are stacked against the person. I have had to testify against police officers in other cities on several occasions and sometimes even "proof" did not win the case.

[CuriousK]

Actually, most of the damage was done to the front of my vehicle, not from behind. What's interesting, is my mother was involved in a similar accident about 2 months ago. She was also driving a Volvo 850. She was at a stop light and a car rear-ended her and then she hit the car in front of her. The driver who hit her vehicle did not stop, so it was a hit and run. There was only a little dent on her back bumper, but the front of her car was severely damaged... Additionally, she got hit a lot harder than I did, and yet there was little damage done to the back of her car...

[carcrashexpert]

Actually, most of the damage was done to the front of my vehicle, not from behind. What's interesting, is my mother was involved in a similar accident about 2 months ago. She was also driving a Volvo 850. She was at a stop light and a car rear-ended her and then she hit the car in front of her. The driver who hit her vehicle did not stop, so it was a hit and run. There was only a little dent on her back bumper, but the front of her car was severely damaged... Additionally, she got hit a lot harder than I did, and yet there was little damage done to the back of her car...

I should have been more specific - you didn't get my drift. I said:

the impact with the front end is only about 60-70% as severe as the initial impact at the rear end, and the damages reflect that (although it may not be apparent to the naked eye)

That doesn't mean dollar damage, or even the apparent degree of damage, but rather the severity of the impact indicated by the damage. There are lots of relatively high priced, relatively fragile bits at the front of a car, but the rear tends to be much simpler and in some cases can resist a given collision force more easily than the front. This is why expertise is required - you need to be able to quantify the collision force based upon the damage for that particular car - which requires broad-based familiarity and access to some fairly hard-to-find crash testing. I'm familiar with the curriculum produced by the two major North American police training institutions (and used by most forces for their internal training): the police are not trained to do this type of investigation.

And Fr_Chuck, you may be missing the point slightly here - many insurers will investigate on behalf of their insureds. If the matter settles out such that it's agreed that their insured was not at fault, then the matter doesn't count as a strike against their record. This can make a big difference in premiums to some folks, and could even make the difference in being able to continue to drive. Insured drivers should always make sure their insurer is doing a thorough investigation, instead of simply accepting liability and seeing their rates go up.

[obssession13]

Is it possible to determine if a vehicle came to a complete stop, by looking at its skid marks?

Yes

[rocketboy]

Just speaking as a novice,common sense says,a car might have rolled an extra amount of feet after locking up there brakes,so it's hard to tell unless the other car impacted to a dead stop.If that's the case ,then if it stopped ,it's stopped period.Hope it helps?