Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:22 pm Post subject: Who Is At Fault?
Car #1 at stoplight traveling Eastbound.
Car #2 at stoplight traveling Northbound.
Car #3 behind car #2.
Light turns green for Car #2 and he accelerates into intersection.
At the exact same time Car #1 runs red light through intersection.
Car #2 slams on brakes to avoid collision with car #1.
Car #3 rear ends Car#2
Car #1 is a Police Cruiser. Turns on lights and siren as he is rapidly accelerating through intersection . If Car#2 wasn't alert he would have T-Boned him.
Who is at fault? I just gave my info to the drivers of Car #2 & #3 as a witness. Does insurance just say to heck with it and split blame evenly between Car#2 & Car #3? Or do they go after the city for the officer failing to hit his lights and sirens before he started accelerating through the intersection? _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Car #3 caused the accident by driving too close behind car #2, not allowing enough time and distance behind Car #2 to avoid the accident.
The reason Car #2 had to brake is immaterial to the accident.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:49 pm Post subject:
JerryMagicKobe wrote:
Car #3 caused the accident by driving too close behind car #2, not allowing enough time and distance behind Car #2 to avoid the accident.
The reason Car #2 had to brake is immaterial to the accident.
Bingo. Proper following distance implies that you can brake if the vehicle in front of you does, at any moment.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 2:12 pm Post subject:
JerryMagicKobe wrote:
Car #3 caused the accident by driving too close behind car #2, not allowing enough time and distance behind Car #2 to avoid the accident.
The reason Car #2 had to brake is immaterial to the accident.
Yep. Insurance is always going to go with the person who did the re-ending as the cause.
I love riddles like these. More! More! _________________ A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts!
Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Posts: 28464 Location: LA --> Bay Area
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 2:48 pm Post subject:
JerryMagicKobe wrote:
Car #3 caused the accident by driving too close behind car #2, not allowing enough time and distance behind Car #2 to avoid the accident.
The reason Car #2 had to brake is immaterial to the accident.
This. Had an accident happen in front of me a couple weeks ago in a suburban residential area. Jackass was going 50 in a 25 mph area and tailgating a guy going the speed limit, guy in front slowed to turn onto his street, WHAM (btw real car crashes are as loud as gunshots).
A little bad that the police cruiser didn't have sirens on till the last second, but all could have been avoided if car 3 was a proper distance away.
Car #3 caused the accident by driving too close behind car #2, not allowing enough time and distance behind Car #2 to avoid the accident.
The reason Car #2 had to brake is immaterial to the accident.
Yep. Insurance is always going to go with the person who did the re-ending as the cause.
Though I will say, I rear-ended someone once and I was not considered at fault. But there's a twist.
I was rear-ended first, and a result, ended up rear-ending someone.
I think that may be the only scenario in which you can rear-end someone without it being your fault.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:14 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
JerryMagicKobe wrote:
Car #3 caused the accident by driving too close behind car #2, not allowing enough time and distance behind Car #2 to avoid the accident.
The reason Car #2 had to brake is immaterial to the accident.
Yep. Insurance is always going to go with the person who did the re-ending as the cause.
Though I will say, I rear-ended someone once and I was not considered at fault. But there's a twist.
I was rear-ended first, and a result, ended up rear-ending someone.
I think that may be the only scenario in which you can rear-end someone without it being your fault.
Yep. In the case of multiple rear-ends, the last car in line typically gets the blame for that very reason.
I was rear-ended about 6 months ago on the 405 going down the Sepulveda pass into West LA. Traffic stopped. I stopped. Lady behind me barely stopped in time.Just as I was feeling relief, BANG! There were two cars behind her that didn't and slammed her into me. My insurance agent said that in a situation like that, the last car takes the blame.
I felt bad for the lady behind me. Her car was totaled - moderate front damage to her car, but the rear end was demolished. I got a hole in my rear bumper cover where her license plate bolt punch through.
Joined: 13 Jan 2002 Posts: 7924 Location: Lake Forest
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:43 pm Post subject:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
JerryMagicKobe wrote:
Car #3 caused the accident by driving too close behind car #2, not allowing enough time and distance behind Car #2 to avoid the accident.
The reason Car #2 had to brake is immaterial to the accident.
Yep. Insurance is always going to go with the person who did the re-ending as the cause.
Though I will say, I rear-ended someone once and I was not considered at fault. But there's a twist.
I was rear-ended first, and a result, ended up rear-ending someone.
I think that may be the only scenario in which you can rear-end someone without it being your fault.
Yep. In the case of multiple rear-ends, the last car in line typically gets the blame for that very reason.
I was rear-ended about 6 months ago on the 405 going down the Sepulveda pass into West LA. Traffic stopped. I stopped. Lady behind me barely stopped in time.Just as I was feeling relief, BANG! There were two cars behind her that didn't and slammed her into me. My insurance agent said that in a situation like that, the last car takes the blame.
I felt bad for the lady behind me. Her car was totaled - moderate front damage to her car, but the rear end was demolished. I got a hole in my rear bumper cover where her license plate bolt punch through.
Depends on the speed of the crash. I know someone that was "partially" at fault for stopping to close to the car in front in the same scenario.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:39 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
JerryMagicKobe wrote:
Car #3 caused the accident by driving too close behind car #2, not allowing enough time and distance behind Car #2 to avoid the accident.
The reason Car #2 had to brake is immaterial to the accident.
Yep. Insurance is always going to go with the person who did the re-ending as the cause.
Though I will say, I rear-ended someone once and I was not considered at fault. But there's a twist.
I was rear-ended first, and a result, ended up rear-ending someone.
so it was a consensual, group kind of conga line thing?
Car #3 caused the accident by driving too close behind car #2, not allowing enough time and distance behind Car #2 to avoid the accident.
The reason Car #2 had to brake is immaterial to the accident.
It's worth noting, Car #2 was a late model Chevy Impala. Car#3 Was a 90's Full size Dodge Ram Pickup loaded down with construction equipment. Car# 1 was a Ford Explorer Police Cruiser.
Car #1 was just before the midpoint of the intersection before he lit his lights and sirens. He immediately took an evasive maneuver as soon as he saw Car #2, swerving left, then full on the accelerator. After Car #2 slammed the brakes, Car #1 tapped the brakes, paused a split second, then fully accelerated to his call.
Driver of Car #2 get's out and shrugs to driver of car #3 and apologises, saying it was nothing he could do. Driver of Car #3 returns the apology and says there was nothing he could do either since his vehicle was just too heavy. Both cars had traveled a distance of about 5 feet from a dead stop at the change of the light. Driver #3's truck dove when hitting the brakes pretty much at the same time as Car #2 Did, but the laws of physics just couldn't stop all that mass in time.
Here is a pic of the rear of Car #2 still in the crosswalk with a buckled rear end. Car #3 is out of the picture to the right since his car stopped where it was, but the collision pushed Car #2 fwd to the position you see in the photo.
Collision _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Car #3 caused the accident by driving too close behind car #2, not allowing enough time and distance behind Car #2 to avoid the accident.
The reason Car #2 had to brake is immaterial to the accident.
Yep. Insurance is always going to go with the person who did the re-ending as the cause.
Though I will say, I rear-ended someone once and I was not considered at fault. But there's a twist.
I was rear-ended first, and a result, ended up rear-ending someone.
so it was a consensual, group kind of conga line thing?
A small 3way conga kind of thing. A real pain in the ass.
_________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Obviously the person at fault is the criminal that is causing the police to have to hurry to the scene and run a red light
This was about 3:15pm & Larsen's Danish Bakery afternoon run of warm Wienerbrod Staenger goes on sale @ 3:30pm like clockwork. But the lineup starts @ about 3:20pm daily. He had just enough time to make it. Coincidence ? _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Obviously the person at fault is the criminal that is causing the police to have to hurry to the scene and run a red light
This was about 3:15pm & Larsen's Danish Bakery afternoon run of warm Wienerbrod Staenger goes on sale @ 3:30pm like clockwork. But the lineup starts @ about 3:20pm daily. He had just enough time to make it. Coincidence ?
I think not. _________________ A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts!
Have you ever seen a person at a yellow, caution speed up as if to beat the light then suddenly stop? The person behind them anticipating them going through the light speeds up to beat the light with them and can't stop, rear ending them?
It's very old ruse used by those who do it to bilk insurance companies. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts!
