|
Got into a car accident...Bimmer is totalled (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by legendary_waz
getting rear ended means you are NEVER at fault... |
That isn't 100% true. If you are backing up and someone rear ends you then you are both 50% at fault for the accident. |
|
|
| jchung52 |
| i thought he was trying to make a joke |
|
|
| love_child |
| quote: | Originally posted by legendary_waz
getting rear ended means you are NEVER at fault... |
Unless you slam on your brakes for no reason...because then it is your fault |
|
|
| Pett |
| quote: | Originally posted by love_child
Unless you slam on your brakes for no reason...because then it is your fault |
as far as i know its still not your fault.
the person behind has to leave a safe following distance no matter what.
back me up chem /moral? |
|
|
| Cosmic Fur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Getting upset doesn't help anything... just call your insurer (when you're not at fault we're the good guys). |
Yep. If I got rear ended and I know it's not my fault, what's the point of losing your cool over it? The car'll get fixed, it won't cost me anything, and life will go on. |
|
|
| loca |
| quote: | Originally posted by love_child
Unless you slam on your brakes for no reason...because then it is your fault |
No it's not LOL
Wow that is the exact same excuse the kid who rear-ended my mom's car gave. "You slammed on your brakes... waaah" Wtf ever. As Pett said, you're supposed to leave a certain distance between your car and the one in front of you. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by love_child
Unless you slam on your brakes for no reason...because then it is your fault |
incorrect.......even then the fault charts state the person who rear ended you is at fault. the person behind you should have been far enough behind you to have time to react and not rear end you. |
|
|
| love_child |
| So if Im driving and there is nobody in front of me or any reason why I should slam on my brakes and I do it out of nowhere and the person was 1-2 car lengths in behind me but still managed to hit my bumber its still there fault...that doesnt make any sense thats just driving recklessly or negligently...circumstances are always considered. |
|
|
| Pett |
| quote: | Originally posted by love_child
1-2 car lengths |
is not safe following distance, its pretty straight forward
something like 4 or 5 seconds behind is more like it. |
|
|
| love_child |
For simplicity sake let’s call the vehicle in front Vehicle 1, and the
vehicle in the rear Vehicle 2:
Vehicle 1 is struck in the rear due to the reckless behavior of the
driver of Vehicle 1 (example: Vehicle 1 slams on the brakes because
someone is tailgating the court may find that both drivers are equally
at fault.)
Vehicle 1 is struck in the rear due to negligence of the driver of
Vehicle 1 (example: Vehicle 1 suddenly swerves into the lane of
Vehicle 2 without looking and Vehicle 2 cannot avoid the rear-end
collision.)
Vehicle 1 is backing up. (example: What appears to be rear-end
collision was actually caused when Vehicle 1, moving in reverse,
whether under it’s own power or simply rolling, strikes the front of
vehicle 2) |
|
|
| Pett |
situation 1: car 2 is at fault duh. how many times do we have to go over this?
situation 2: I'm assuming that vehicle 2 is in a different lane trying to pass? if so car one left his lane (made an unsafe lane change) and vehicle 2 is at fault. but this is not a rear ending.
Situation 3: already covered by the experts on page 2. 50/50 if both vehicles are moving. but in your situation vehicle 1 would be at fault but once again not a rear ending |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by love_child
Unless you slam on your brakes for no reason...because then it is your fault |
Not in Ontario... Alberta, maybe, but not always. |
|
|
|
|
