Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending.
That's not even close to be accurate, and is the most illogical thing I've read non this forum in a long time.
Sadly this varies a lot from state to state. In NY you would be responsible, insurance will have to pay. A couple of years ago a cop read a woman the riot act for suddenly stopping in the middle of an intersection and then getting rear ended. By any rational measure she caused the accident but under NY state law the guy that rear ended her is held responsible.
Note that this is NY State law and is not universal across all states. In any event the concept supposedly is that you are responsible for keeping your car under control at all times. However it does lead to people getting screwed over from time to time.
Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending.
That's not even close to be accurate, and is the most illogical thing I've read non this forum in a long time.
"Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending."
Unfortunately, it is often pretty accurate. Not from an ethical standpoint, but a legal & insurance standpoint: If you rear end somebody the assumption will be that it is your fault until and unless you can prove it was the fault of the car you hit. And, that burdon of proof would be pretty high.
I remember having this discussion since middle school. I know you're not 12yo so you can be so daft as to make a blanket statement that if your front end is damage and their back end is damaged it's your fault from a "legal & insurance standpoint"?
I've even personally encountered such an incidence a couple decades ago where I was in a parking lot with plenty of room between me and the car in front (may 20 feet), but he decided he wanted to get to a parking spot he missed or wanted to let another car out so he could then take their spot. He backed up, and despite my honking he backed up way to fast without looking and rammed his back bumper into mine. I couldn't back up to counter his movement because I looked in my review mirror and saw that there was a car behind me. Guess who was at fault? Hint: It wasn't mine.
Another one hat I witnessed is a semi-tractor driver going 55 MPH (he couldn't go faster because of the governor) with a sufficient amount of room between him and the car in front of him. Some dickwad in tricked out Honda Civic, as I recall, decided to change lanes into the space between. For some reason the car in front tapped their brakes and the dickwad overcompensated (I'm assuming) so even those the semi driver saw the braking ahead of time since he's up higher the dickwad braked far too fast for the road conditions and the semi hit and demolished the car. I stopped because I witnessed most of it. The semi driver was not ticketed.
There are countless scenarios where your clam is legally false because society is a little more sophisticated than "who was in front?".
It really depends upon the state in question. In some states you are automatically at fault for rear ending somebody. It is nearly impossible to get out of that liability too.
Too put it mildly the law varies a lot from state to stare.
Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending.
That's not even close to be accurate, and is the most illogical thing I've read non this forum in a long time.
"Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending."
Unfortunately, it is often pretty accurate. Not from an ethical standpoint, but a legal & insurance standpoint: If you rear end somebody the assumption will be that it is your fault until and unless you can prove it was the fault of the car you hit. And, that burdon of proof would be pretty high.
I remember having this discussion since middle school. I know you're not 12yo so you can be so daft as to make a blanket statement that if your front end is damage and their back end is damaged it's your fault from a "legal & insurance standpoint"?
I've even personally encountered such an incidence a couple decades ago where I was in a parking lot with plenty of room between me and the car in front (may 20 feet), but he decided he wanted to get to a parking spot he missed or wanted to let another car out so he could then take their spot. He backed up, and despite my honking he backed up way to fast without looking and rammed his back bumper into mine. I couldn't back up to counter his movement because I looked in my review mirror and saw that there was a car behind me. Guess who was at fault? Hint: It wasn't mine.
Another one hat I witnessed is a semi-tractor driver going 55 MPH (he couldn't go faster because of the governor) with a sufficient amount of room between him and the car in front of him. Some dickwad in tricked out Honda Civic, as I recall, decided to change lanes into the space between. For some reason the car in front tapped their brakes and the dickwad overcompensated (I'm assuming) so even those the semi driver saw the braking ahead of time since he's up higher the dickwad braked far too fast for the road conditions and the semi hit and demolished the car. I stopped because I witnessed most of it. The semi driver was not ticketed.
There are countless scenarios where your clam is legally false because society is a little more sophisticated than "who was in front?".
It really depends upon the state in question. In some states you are automatically at fault for rear ending somebody. It is nearly impossible to get out of that liability too.
Too put it mildly the law varies a lot from state to stare.
So you’re saying that if I was in NYC driving in reverse on a road with legal traffic heading my way that they would be at fault if they couldn’t avoid the back of my car ramming into them? I know there are a lot of hilariously stupid laws on the books for all states, counties, cities, and towns, but I can’t imagie that your blanket statement would apply to any of the scenarios I presented.
There’s a difference between a statistical average and an absolute. Kind of like how when there’s a murder the spouse usually becomes the primary suspect, but that doesn’t mean that they say “the spouse did it. Case closed.”
Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending.
That's not even close to be accurate, and is the most illogical thing I've read non this forum in a long time.
Sadly this varies a lot from state to state. In NY you would be responsible, insurance will have to pay. A couple of years ago a cop read a woman the riot act for suddenly stopping in the middle of an intersection and then getting rear ended. By any rational measure she caused the accident but under NY state law the guy that rear ended her is held responsible.
Note that this is NY State law and is not universal across all states. In any event the concept supposedly is that you are responsible for keeping your car under control at all times. However it does lead to people getting screwed over from time to time.
You’re suppose to keep a certain distance between you and the vehicles in front of you; this includes when stopped at a light (the general rule I learned is that if you can’t see their bumper/wheels on the ground then you’re too close.
Depending on on the circumstances, either, both, or neither parties could be at fault. Was there a reason she stopped in the intersection? Was the second driver going too fast, traveling too closely or not paying close enough attention?
Not long after I obtained my DL I caused an accident (my first and only one). The cops came out because the driver and passenger feigned neck injuries. I felt like there were a dozen emergency vehicles of all types there.
This was Florida where it can be bright and sunny out and start raining hard. The rain lasted no more than 30 seconds, but enough (I assume) to cause road oil to rise up on the now wet roads.
The car in front of me stopped at a red light in an oddly dead downtown (we were the only cares around). I wasn’t speeding and slowed down to stop but right before coming to a complete stop probably a full car length behind the car in front my car hydroplaned and we hit bumpers.
The speed of the hydroplane was slow that it was like that scene in Austin’s powers where the guy is scared hs going to get run over by a slow moving steamroller.
The cops asked me what happened and I took responsibility for it. Weather conditions and a crappy car aside (brakes and tires were fine) it was my fault. Now, there was no dent in the bumper, no chipped or cracked paint. Nothing. The impact was as forceful as if you put you hands on a car and try to push it. I didn’t even get a ticket.
The cops didn’t really believe the other passengers could’ve been hurt with zero damage to either vehicles even though I did technically hit their car, but did say that neck injuries can be tricky. They had been put in neck braces were ready to get on the ambulances but one of the officers explained something to them about FL being a no fault state and that the medical bills come from their own insurance. They thought about it for a second and the. Decided not to go to the hospital.i guess they realized that under the circumstances a 16yo who caused no damage to their car wasn’t going to result in a big payout.
(not relevant to this topic, but I thought it was an enjoyable story.)
So you’re saying that if I was in NYC driving in reverse on a road with legal traffic heading my way that they would be at fault if they couldn’t avoid the back of my car ramming into them? I know there are a lot of hilariously stupid laws on the books for all states, counties, cities, and towns, but I can’t imagie that your blanket statement would apply to any of the scenarios I presented.
Wouldn't say it's automatic. It really depends on the circumstances, but in most cases the reason that blanket statement is there is because it's difficult to prove without cameras and witnesses that the driver that got rear ended was at fault.
In your example, the driver going against traffic in reverse would be at fault here if it can be proven. Otherwise, it's just going to be your word vs theirs, and you'll have to let the insurance companies duke it out.
Keep in mind also that NY and CA insurance claims for driving are much more strict compared to other states. In CA, car insurance companies will almost always assume you are at fault if you rear ended someone unless you can definitively prove that you weren't.
In your example, the driver going against traffic in reverse would be at fault here if it can be proven. Otherwise, it's just going to be your word vs theirs, and you'll have to let the insurance companies duke it out.
Even if there's clear evidence of a not-at-fault driver breaking, swerving, and backing up to avoid a collision from a driver going the wrong way on an interstate as noted in my example you still believe that the driver who did the right thing would still be at fault despite all forensic data that tells a very different story? You know this is 21st century, not 10,000 BCE, right?
edit: Here's a real world example where they determined it was intentional—despite no cameras or living witnesses around—because of a lack of skid marks, what I assume was other lack of evidence showing the car never tried to brake, and probably countless other metrics they use to analyze crashes.
Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending.
That's not even close to be accurate, and is the most illogical thing I've read non this forum in a long time.
"Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending."
Unfortunately, it is often pretty accurate. Not from an ethical standpoint, but a legal & insurance standpoint: If you rear end somebody the assumption will be that it is your fault until and unless you can prove it was the fault of the car you hit. And, that burdon of proof would be pretty high.
I remember having this discussion since middle school. I know you're not 12yo so you can be so daft as to make a blanket statement that if your front end is damage and their back end is damaged it's your fault from a "legal & insurance standpoint"?
I've even personally encountered such an incidence a couple decades ago where I was in a parking lot with plenty of room between me and the car in front (may 20 feet), but he decided he wanted to get to a parking spot he missed or wanted to let another car out so he could then take their spot. He backed up, and despite my honking he backed up way to fast without looking and rammed his back bumper into mine. I couldn't back up to counter his movement because I looked in my review mirror and saw that there was a car behind me. Guess who was at fault? Hint: It wasn't mine.
Another one hat I witnessed is a semi-tractor driver going 55 MPH (he couldn't go faster because of the governor) with a sufficient amount of room between him and the car in front of him. Some dickwad in tricked out Honda Civic, as I recall, decided to change lanes into the space between. For some reason the car in front tapped their brakes and the dickwad overcompensated (I'm assuming) so even those the semi driver saw the braking ahead of time since he's up higher the dickwad braked far too fast for the road conditions and the semi hit and demolished the car. I stopped because I witnessed most of it. The semi driver was not ticketed.
There are countless scenarios where your clam is legally false because society is a little more sophisticated than "who was in front?".
You missed the main point: If you hit the guy in front of you, the responsibility is yours until you prove otherwise. And, unless you the guy admits it was his fault, you have witnesses or video, that's pretty hard to prove. It's just how the system works.
Every blip, every incident, every close call, every crash, anything to do with demonizing self-driving technology will be used to turn the general public against it, just like nuclear energy. Personal injury lawyers are salivating over the deep pocket possibilities. Heck, the news media is already working to turn people against smartphones as dangerous to your personal mental health. Technology is under attack from all directions. All I hear in my social circles is how proud someone is that they don’t have a smartphone and how they wouldn’t drive on the same road with one of those “computer” cars.
Well the news media has taken an extreme turn to the left so it is no surprise that ....
ROFL... It's always fun to hear this kind of nonsense from the brainwashed right...
Every blip, every incident, every close call, every crash, anything to do with demonizing self-driving technology will be used to turn the general public against it, just like nuclear energy. Personal injury lawyers are salivating over the deep pocket possibilities. Heck, the news media is already working to turn people against smartphones as dangerous to your personal mental health. Technology is under attack from all directions. All I hear in my social circles is how proud someone is that they don’t have a smartphone and how they wouldn’t drive on the same road with one of those “computer” cars.
All technology has some problems.
Apple is after all trying to reduce phone dependency with iOS 12. And as for self driving cars, they really can't afford to have any bugs. If you are waiting for version 2.0 for stability its a failure.
One of the things that bug me is you see too many people with the Silicon Valley mentality to software development in these projects. What would impress me is if they hired engineers with avionics experience or from some other high reliability software environment. We would then start to see more realistic timelines for systems maturity.
That's a very good point: Silicon Valley, etc. is used to developing consumer grade products. Good ones. But not "cannot ever fail, no bugs allowed" products.
Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending.
That's not even close to be accurate, and is the most illogical thing I've read non this forum in a long time.
"Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending."
Unfortunately, it is often pretty accurate. Not from an ethical standpoint, but a legal & insurance standpoint: If you rear end somebody the assumption will be that it is your fault until and unless you can prove it was the fault of the car you hit. And, that burdon of proof would be pretty high.
I remember having this discussion since middle school. I know you're not 12yo so you can be so daft as to make a blanket statement that if your front end is damage and their back end is damaged it's your fault from a "legal & insurance standpoint"?
I've even personally encountered such an incidence a couple decades ago where I was in a parking lot with plenty of room between me and the car in front (may 20 feet), but he decided he wanted to get to a parking spot he missed or wanted to let another car out so he could then take their spot. He backed up, and despite my honking he backed up way to fast without looking and rammed his back bumper into mine. I couldn't back up to counter his movement because I looked in my review mirror and saw that there was a car behind me. Guess who was at fault? Hint: It wasn't mine.
Another one hat I witnessed is a semi-tractor driver going 55 MPH (he couldn't go faster because of the governor) with a sufficient amount of room between him and the car in front of him. Some dickwad in tricked out Honda Civic, as I recall, decided to change lanes into the space between. For some reason the car in front tapped their brakes and the dickwad overcompensated (I'm assuming) so even those the semi driver saw the braking ahead of time since he's up higher the dickwad braked far too fast for the road conditions and the semi hit and demolished the car. I stopped because I witnessed most of it. The semi driver was not ticketed.
There are countless scenarios where your clam is legally false because society is a little more sophisticated than "who was in front?".
You missed the main point: If you hit the guy in front of you, the responsibility is yours until you prove otherwise. And, unless you the guy admits it was his fault, you have witnesses or video, that's pretty hard to prove. It's just how the system works.
You're the one that not only missed the point, but missed a lot of other stuff to think that even with clear evidence showing that someone backed into you that you're at fault until the guy says he did it. From a manual gear car at light on a hill that lets its foot off the brake and rolls back into you from being in a parking lot space without even being in the car and a car backs into your car you keep saying it's the fault of the person whose front bumper was hit. It's really starting to sound like you've made these mistakes many times and have been busted for it and are now using this forum to justify your own inept driving abilities.
Where to begin?... first and foremost - this "fascination" and possibly "obsession" with getting a computer, GPS and sensors to "drive" a vehicle is just amazing and troubling. Yes, it's a science project that certain forces\companies insist on proving that it can be done. Who is going to cover insurance for such vehicles "IF" they ever become useable? The companies that make such vehicles? As somebody who loves to drive, I hope i am never to lazy to drive my own car and want such a robot vehicle. I also do not want an "Apple car" whether it drives itself or not. I really love the iPhones and Mac computers I've had, Final Cut Pro and OS X in general. I love Apple for what it is and should be - Apple is a computer company, they have no business being in the automotive industry, no matter how many $$ billions they want to throw around. Sorry, I don't want to drive an Apple computer on wheels, or worse yet, have an Apple computer on wheels drive me around. If "autonomous" vehicles become mainstream, we risk people losing the joy of driving. We have seen GPS replace people knowing how to read a map and now we risk having vehicles replace people knowing how to drive. A future where people don't know how to do anything, a scary future.
There’s not much to reading a map, and in the need arises it’s easily done. But you’re conviently ignoring the benefit gained of GPS - not needing to carry and maintain and read maps while driving or needing to ask directions. Anyone can get anywhere.
I drive to get places. I do other things for “joy”. Most people are likely in the same boat.
Where to begin?... first and foremost - this "fascination" and possibly "obsession" with getting a computer, GPS and sensors to "drive" a vehicle is just amazing and troubling. Yes, it's a science project that certain forces\companies insist on proving that it can be done. Who is going to cover insurance for such vehicles "IF" they ever become useable? The companies that make such vehicles? As somebody who loves to drive, I hope i am never to lazy to drive my own car and want such a robot vehicle. I also do not want an "Apple car" whether it drives itself or not. I really love the iPhones and Mac computers I've had, Final Cut Pro and OS X in general. I love Apple for what it is and should be - Apple is a computer company, they have no business being in the automotive industry, no matter how many $$ billions they want to throw around. Sorry, I don't want to drive an Apple computer on wheels, or worse yet, have an Apple computer on wheels drive me around. If "autonomous" vehicles become mainstream, we risk people losing the joy of driving. We have seen GPS replace people knowing how to read a map and now we risk having vehicles replace people knowing how to drive. A future where people don't know how to do anything, a scary future.
I hate driving, always have. I manage to avoid it quite a lot, but occasionally the avoidance is too inconvenient so I have to. I can't wait for that not to be a problem any more, Nothing to do with laziness, hell I'd much rather cycle if it's feasible. Call me up when we're getting machines to cycle for us, but until then I'm absolutely fine with this development.
Could the Apple Car honk the horn if it sees someone approaching too fast in the rear camera? There are videos online of Tesla cars predicting accidents several seconds before they happen.
Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending.
That's not even close to be accurate, and is the most illogical thing I've read non this forum in a long time.
"Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending."
Unfortunately, it is often pretty accurate. Not from an ethical standpoint, but a legal & insurance standpoint: If you rear end somebody the assumption will be that it is your fault until and unless you can prove it was the fault of the car you hit. And, that burdon of proof would be pretty high.
I remember having this discussion since middle school. I know you're not 12yo so you can be so daft as to make a blanket statement that if your front end is damage and their back end is damaged it's your fault from a "legal & insurance standpoint"?
I've even personally encountered such an incidence a couple decades ago where I was in a parking lot with plenty of room between me and the car in front (may 20 feet), but he decided he wanted to get to a parking spot he missed or wanted to let another car out so he could then take their spot. He backed up, and despite my honking he backed up way to fast without looking and rammed his back bumper into mine. I couldn't back up to counter his movement because I looked in my review mirror and saw that there was a car behind me. Guess who was at fault? Hint: It wasn't mine.
Another one hat I witnessed is a semi-tractor driver going 55 MPH (he couldn't go faster because of the governor) with a sufficient amount of room between him and the car in front of him. Some dickwad in tricked out Honda Civic, as I recall, decided to change lanes into the space between. For some reason the car in front tapped their brakes and the dickwad overcompensated (I'm assuming) so even those the semi driver saw the braking ahead of time since he's up higher the dickwad braked far too fast for the road conditions and the semi hit and demolished the car. I stopped because I witnessed most of it. The semi driver was not ticketed.
There are countless scenarios where your clam is legally false because society is a little more sophisticated than "who was in front?".
You missed the main point: If you hit the guy in front of you, the responsibility is yours until you prove otherwise. And, unless you the guy admits it was his fault, you have witnesses or video, that's pretty hard to prove. It's just how the system works.
You're the one that not only missed the point, but missed a lot of other stuff to think that even with clear evidence showing that someone backed into you that you're at fault until the guy says he did it. From a manual gear car at light on a hill that lets its foot off the brake and rolls back into you from being in a parking lot space without even being in the car and a car backs into your car you keep saying it's the fault of the person whose front bumper was hit. It's really starting to sound like you've made these mistakes many times and have been busted for it and are now using this forum to justify your own inept driving abilities.
ROFL.... You accuse me of missing the point, then repeat the point I made, which was:
"If you hit the guy in front of you, the responsibility is yours until you prove otherwise"
And you respond with: "... even with clear evidence showing that..."
So yes, like I said, if you can prove it was his fault you can get out of it. Otherwise, the assumption will be it is your fault.
Your rather ridiculous examples (somebody backing into a parked car) don't change that.
Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending.
That's not even close to be accurate, and is the most illogical thing I've read non this forum in a long time.
"Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending."
Unfortunately, it is often pretty accurate. Not from an ethical standpoint, but a legal & insurance standpoint: If you rear end somebody the assumption will be that it is your fault until and unless you can prove it was the fault of the car you hit. And, that burdon of proof would be pretty high.
I remember having this discussion since middle school. I know you're not 12yo so you can be so daft as to make a blanket statement that if your front end is damage and their back end is damaged it's your fault from a "legal & insurance standpoint"?
I've even personally encountered such an incidence a couple decades ago where I was in a parking lot with plenty of room between me and the car in front (may 20 feet), but he decided he wanted to get to a parking spot he missed or wanted to let another car out so he could then take their spot. He backed up, and despite my honking he backed up way to fast without looking and rammed his back bumper into mine. I couldn't back up to counter his movement because I looked in my review mirror and saw that there was a car behind me. Guess who was at fault? Hint: It wasn't mine.
Another one hat I witnessed is a semi-tractor driver going 55 MPH (he couldn't go faster because of the governor) with a sufficient amount of room between him and the car in front of him. Some dickwad in tricked out Honda Civic, as I recall, decided to change lanes into the space between. For some reason the car in front tapped their brakes and the dickwad overcompensated (I'm assuming) so even those the semi driver saw the braking ahead of time since he's up higher the dickwad braked far too fast for the road conditions and the semi hit and demolished the car. I stopped because I witnessed most of it. The semi driver was not ticketed.
There are countless scenarios where your clam is legally false because society is a little more sophisticated than "who was in front?".
You missed the main point: If you hit the guy in front of you, the responsibility is yours until you prove otherwise. And, unless you the guy admits it was his fault, you have witnesses or video, that's pretty hard to prove. It's just how the system works.
You're the one that not only missed the point, but missed a lot of other stuff to think that even with clear evidence showing that someone backed into you that you're at fault until the guy says he did it. From a manual gear car at light on a hill that lets its foot off the brake and rolls back into you from being in a parking lot space without even being in the car and a car backs into your car you keep saying it's the fault of the person whose front bumper was hit. It's really starting to sound like you've made these mistakes many times and have been busted for it and are now using this forum to justify your own inept driving abilities.
ROFL.... You accuse me of missing the point, then repeat the point I made, which was:
"If you hit the guy in front of you, the responsibility is yours until you prove otherwise"
And you respond with: "... even with clear evidence showing that..."
So yes, like I said, if you can prove it was his fault you can get out of it. Otherwise, the assumption will be it is your fault.
Your rather ridiculous examples (somebody backing into a parked car) don't change that.
Take your medicine and calm down…
You wrote, "you are always at fault for rear ending."
Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending.
That's not even close to be accurate, and is the most illogical thing I've read non this forum in a long time.
"Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending."
Unfortunately, it is often pretty accurate. Not from an ethical standpoint, but a legal & insurance standpoint: If you rear end somebody the assumption will be that it is your fault until and unless you can prove it was the fault of the car you hit. And, that burdon of proof would be pretty high.
This is why dash cams are so popular. Then you can prove the person in front of you caused the accident with a video.
Yes! To be accurate, you are not always at fault by merely being the driver who rear-ends another car. But without proof, you are found libel for damages. Not from an actual standpoint, but from a legal and financial standpoint.
But even when there's no fraudulent intent, most drivers follow much too closely, almost always closer than is safe in the event of an emergency. Of course, in commute traffic, if you follow at a safe braking distance (most simply defined as being able to stop without hitting the guy in front of you) someone will jump into the gap, reducing your safe braking distance.
So, basically, it was a Nissan Leaf that rear-ended Apple Car. Nothing to see then.
Still I find it interesting to see how a self driving system would react to detecting other vehicles that are likely to cause a collision. This crash was probably very easy for the self driving system to predict. Should the self driving system act fast and launch "anti whip lash injury measures" for its passengers? Should cars be able to communicate with each other. Should it have "stepped on it" and quickly moved out of the way, into the right side, as a way to avoid injuries?
From how it is written, sounds to me like the Leaf driver was not looking ahead of themselves in the merge lane and ran into the Apple car. The Apple car was not merging into traffic (in my opinion) if it was moving at 1mph. Is was drifting waiting for an opening that the computer was processing for it to merge into.
Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending.
That's not even close to be accurate, and is the most illogical thing I've read non this forum in a long time.
"Even if the person cuts you off, you are at always at fault for rear ending."
Unfortunately, it is often pretty accurate. Not from an ethical standpoint, but a legal & insurance standpoint: If you rear end somebody the assumption will be that it is your fault until and unless you can prove it was the fault of the car you hit. And, that burdon of proof would be pretty high.
I remember having this discussion since middle school. I know you're not 12yo so you can be so daft as to make a blanket statement that if your front end is damage and their back end is damaged it's your fault from a "legal & insurance standpoint"?
I've even personally encountered such an incidence a couple decades ago where I was in a parking lot with plenty of room between me and the car in front (may 20 feet), but he decided he wanted to get to a parking spot he missed or wanted to let another car out so he could then take their spot. He backed up, and despite my honking he backed up way to fast without looking and rammed his back bumper into mine. I couldn't back up to counter his movement because I looked in my review mirror and saw that there was a car behind me. Guess who was at fault? Hint: It wasn't mine.
Another one hat I witnessed is a semi-tractor driver going 55 MPH (he couldn't go faster because of the governor) with a sufficient amount of room between him and the car in front of him. Some dickwad in tricked out Honda Civic, as I recall, decided to change lanes into the space between. For some reason the car in front tapped their brakes and the dickwad overcompensated (I'm assuming) so even those the semi driver saw the braking ahead of time since he's up higher the dickwad braked far too fast for the road conditions and the semi hit and demolished the car. I stopped because I witnessed most of it. The semi driver was not ticketed.
There are countless scenarios where your clam is legally false because society is a little more sophisticated than "who was in front?".
You missed the main point: If you hit the guy in front of you, the responsibility is yours until you prove otherwise. And, unless you the guy admits it was his fault, you have witnesses or video, that's pretty hard to prove. It's just how the system works.
You're the one that not only missed the point, but missed a lot of other stuff to think that even with clear evidence showing that someone backed into you that you're at fault until the guy says he did it. From a manual gear car at light on a hill that lets its foot off the brake and rolls back into you from being in a parking lot space without even being in the car and a car backs into your car you keep saying it's the fault of the person whose front bumper was hit. It's really starting to sound like you've made these mistakes many times and have been busted for it and are now using this forum to justify your own inept driving abilities.
ROFL.... You accuse me of missing the point, then repeat the point I made, which was:
"If you hit the guy in front of you, the responsibility is yours until you prove otherwise"
And you respond with: "... even with clear evidence showing that..."
So yes, like I said, if you can prove it was his fault you can get out of it. Otherwise, the assumption will be it is your fault.
Your rather ridiculous examples (somebody backing into a parked car) don't change that.
Take your medicine and calm down…
You wrote, "you are always at fault for rear ending."
ROFL... You need to work on your reading skills. I quoted somebody else. You're arguing with the wrong person if that's your only grip!
Comments
Note that this is NY State law and is not universal across all states. In any event the concept supposedly is that you are responsible for keeping your car under control at all times. However it does lead to people getting screwed over from time to time.
Too put it mildly the law varies a lot from state to stare.
There’s a difference between a statistical average and an absolute. Kind of like how when there’s a murder the spouse usually becomes the primary suspect, but that doesn’t mean that they say “the spouse did it. Case closed.”
Depending on on the circumstances, either, both, or neither parties could be at fault. Was there a reason she stopped in the intersection? Was the second driver going too fast, traveling too closely or not paying close enough attention?
Not long after I obtained my DL I caused an accident (my first and only one). The cops came out because the driver and passenger feigned neck injuries. I felt like there were a dozen emergency vehicles of all types there.
This was Florida where it can be bright and sunny out and start raining hard. The rain lasted no more than 30 seconds, but enough (I assume) to cause road oil to rise up on the now wet roads.
The car in front of me stopped at a red light in an oddly dead downtown (we were the only cares around). I wasn’t speeding and slowed down to stop but right before coming to a complete stop probably a full car length behind the car in front my car hydroplaned and we hit bumpers.
The speed of the hydroplane was slow that it was like that scene in Austin’s powers where the guy is scared hs going to get run over by a slow moving steamroller.
The cops asked me what happened and I took responsibility for it. Weather conditions and a crappy car aside (brakes and tires were fine) it was my fault. Now, there was no dent in the bumper, no chipped or cracked paint. Nothing. The impact was as forceful as if you put you hands on a car and try to push it. I didn’t even get a ticket.
The cops didn’t really believe the other passengers could’ve been hurt with zero damage to either vehicles even though I did technically hit their car, but did say that neck injuries can be tricky. They had been put in neck braces were ready to get on the ambulances but one of the officers explained something to them about FL being a no fault state and that the medical bills come from their own insurance. They thought about it for a second and the. Decided not to go to the hospital.i guess they realized that under the circumstances a 16yo who caused no damage to their car wasn’t going to result in a big payout.
(not relevant to this topic, but I thought it was an enjoyable story.)
Wouldn't say it's automatic. It really depends on the circumstances, but in most cases the reason that blanket statement is there is because it's difficult to prove without cameras and witnesses that the driver that got rear ended was at fault.
In your example, the driver going against traffic in reverse would be at fault here if it can be proven. Otherwise, it's just going to be your word vs theirs, and you'll have to let the insurance companies duke it out.
Keep in mind also that NY and CA insurance claims for driving are much more strict compared to other states. In CA, car insurance companies will almost always assume you are at fault if you rear ended someone unless you can definitively prove that you weren't.
edit: Here's a real world example where they determined it was intentional—despite no cameras or living witnesses around—because of a lack of skid marks, what I assume was other lack of evidence showing the car never tried to brake, and probably countless other metrics they use to analyze crashes.
I drive to get places. I do other things for “joy”. Most people are likely in the same boat.
But even when there's no fraudulent intent, most drivers follow much too closely, almost always closer than is safe in the event of an emergency. Of course, in commute traffic, if you follow at a safe braking distance (most simply defined as being able to stop without hitting the guy in front of you) someone will jump into the gap, reducing your safe braking distance.