accident

GreenMachine39 · 28-09-2007, 12:08 AM

Was out tonight doin a few laps , then everyone breaks hard and i run up the *** of some clown who brakes hard , Not making excuses i hit him , and yea , lets see what the insurance mob have to say , pictures to follow

V3RSAC3 · 28-09-2007, 12:10 AM

sorry to hear man ... how bad is the damage?

DoreSlamR · 28-09-2007, 12:11 AM

Insurance mob will say you're at fault almost everytime when you run up someones rear end...

GreenMachine39 · 28-09-2007, 12:11 AM

shouldnt be too bad , front bar grill is smashed , im no expert but how hard i hit him its gotta be more then just the grill and front bar

GreenMachine39 · 28-09-2007, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoreSlamR

Insurance mob will say you're at fault almost everytime when you run up someones rear end...

i was at fault i shouldnt have been so close , ill take the hit , but the cops are making the person i hit pay for the ss he hit , thank god

TwistedEL · 28-09-2007, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenMachine39

i was at fault i shouldnt have been so close , ill take the hit , but the cops are making the person i hit pay for the ss he hit , thank god

Yeah that's how it normally works, the only person not at fault is the peson at the front of the pile up. Everyone else is responsible for hitting the person in front.

But I wouldn't go implying that you pushed him into the car in front. That could change things.

fmc351 · 28-09-2007, 12:38 AM

Thats how it works. Each is responsible for the car they rear end. Each is supposed to maintain their gap.

Ninjas.

Yaw · 28-09-2007, 05:19 AM

Actually multi car pile ups are a nightmare to work out whos at fault for what damage.
The only one not at fault is at the very front, from there you have to work backwards.
You need to ask each car how many impacts they felt.
For instance a 3 car pile up. The front car says they felt one single impact is a pretty good indicator the guy at the back pushed the guy in front of him into the front car.
However if the car at the front says they felt 2 impacts it would indicate that the guy directly behind him has hit the rear of the car in front and then the car behind him has then hit the rear of the middle car, hence being 2 seperate accidents.
If person in the middle had called me to lodge a claim I would lodge 2 seperate claims, 1 at fault being for hitting the car in front of them and 1 not at fault for the car that hit his rear.

GT-E · 28-09-2007, 02:10 PM

just make sure you say you sneezed or you could be up for Neglegent Driving

GreenMachine39 · 28-09-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZapXR6T

just make sure you say you sneezed or you could be up for Neglegent Driving

it was settled with no cops involved , just dealing with the insurance companies now

GreenMachine39 · 28-09-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwistedEL

Yeah that's how it normally works, the only person not at fault is the peson at the front of the pile up. Everyone else is responsible for hitting the person in front.

But I wouldn't go implying that you pushed him into the car in front. That could change things.

i did push him into the car infront , he had no option he pulled up like 3 cm from the ss as it was

Yaw · 28-09-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenMachine39

i did push him into the car infront , he had no option he pulled up like 3 cm from the ss as it was

that being the case and your insured, its a single claim with what ever your excess is and will cover both cars. I am sure though the insurance company will still check as to how many impacts the front driver felt becuase a lot of the time the last person does not know for fact they did push the car in front into the car in front of them.

GreenMachine39 · 28-09-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaw

that being the case and your insured, its a single claim with what ever your excess is and will cover both cars. I am sure though the insurance company will still check as to how many impacts the front driver felt becuase a lot of the time the last person does not know for fact they did push the car in front into the car in front of them.

he has to fix the ss , as he did not leave himself enough room incase a car hit him in the *** , which is the rules , so the coppers told us all , i cover the front of mine and back of his , he deals with front of his and the back of the ss

Yaw · 28-09-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenMachine39

he has to fix the ss , as he did not leave himself enough room incase a car hit him in the *** , which is the rules , so the coppers told us all , i cover the front of mine and back of his , he deals with front of his and the back of the ss

Not so, I work in Motor claims.
If the person in front of him is pushed into the car in front the back car is liable for damage to all the cars. The police deal with traffic infringments not liabilty, the two are not always the same outcome.

EDIT see post #8

GreenMachine39 · 28-09-2007, 04:23 PM

Im not gonna enter a debate anyway , this is what we sorted out , so thats how it goes either way its still going to cost me the same amount

Rodp · 28-09-2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenMachine39

he has to fix the ss , as he did not leave himself enough room incase a car hit him in the *** , which is the rules , so the coppers told us all , i cover the front of mine and back of his , he deals with front of his and the back of the ss

That's a hard argument to make. Would the car infront of you hit the car infront of him had you not hit him up the ? Don't think so.

fmc351 · 28-09-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodp

That's a hard argument to make. Would the car infront of you hit the car infront of him had you not hit him up the ? Don't think so.

It isnt the point. If the car in front maintained the safe gap (2 second gap so it varies with speed), he wouldnt hit the car in front when shunted. Effectively the contact with the lead vehicle is a result of failing to maintain the correct gap. At the very least, if the gap is maintained, and they still hit the front car, the damage would be much less so failing to keep the gap is a contributing factor to the costs.

Now if the rear car is doing 140 and coming up on traffic doing 90, the gap wont keep them apart. In that case things would be different.

Yaw · 28-09-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

It isnt the point. If the car in front maintained the safe gap (2 second gap so it varies with speed), he wouldnt hit the car in front when shunted. Effectively the contact with the lead vehicle is a result of failing to maintain the correct gap. At the very least, if the gap is maintained, and they still hit the front car, the damage would be much less so failing to keep the gap is a contributing factor to the costs.

Now if the rear car is doing 140 and coming up on traffic doing 90, the gap wont keep them apart. In that case things would be different.

If and only if it actually went to a court you would be lucky to get a 10% reduction for contributing negligence. But in majority of cases that would not happen because you have no way to prove that the cars ahead had not had to stop for an obsticle you could not see. Or for that matter any reason at all.

fmc351 · 28-09-2007, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaw

If and only if it actually went to a court you would be lucky to get a 10% reduction for contributing negligence. But in majority of cases that would not happen because you have no way to prove that the cars ahead had not had to stop for an obsticle you could not see. Or for that matter any reason at all.

It shouldnt matter why the vehicle at front stopped. As a following vehicle, if you drive according to conditions, with an appropriate gap, you should stop in time. If youre the middle car and there is a car up your ar5e, that alters the conditions, you should increase your gap to the lead car to make allowance for that.

Im not saying they necessarily were hootin, just likely to be driving too close to each other.

Yaw · 28-09-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

It shouldnt matter why the vehicle at front stopped. As a following vehicle, if you drive according to conditions, with an appropriate gap, you should stop in time. If youre the middle car and there is a car up your ar5e, that alters the conditions, you should increase your gap to the lead car to make allowance for that.

Im not saying they necessarily were hootin, just likely to be driving too close to each other.

If your the middle car and you have pulled up 1 mm behind the other car without touching it you have done what the law requires, you have travelled a safe distance to stop in time without causing an accident. If the car behind you then pushes you into that car they are liable for all 3 cars.

If however the middle car has hit the car in front and then after that the car behind the middle car has hit his rear, then that is treated as a second accident.

fmc351 · 28-09-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaw

If your the middle car and you have pulled up 1 mm behind the other car without touching it you have done what the law requires, you have travelled a safe distance to stop in time without causing an accident. If the car behind you then pushes you into that car they are liable for all 3 cars.

If however the middle car has hit the car in front and then after that the car behind the middle car has hit his rear, then that is treated as a second accident.

If? If my auntie had nuts she'd be my uncle. How can you tell the middle car was going to stop in time if its hit by the rear car before stopping? Its a minefield, which is why they make the car immediately behind responsible for the vehicle in front of it. He said she said, without independent witnesses, its impossible to prove. Evidence like skidmarks might not exist with ABS.

As the OP said, the law is reading it that way. Ive seen the same stuff before, every time the same result. Everyone pays for the car in front. But anecdotal evidence is hardly proof.

rag top · 28-09-2007, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaw

If your the middle car and you have pulled up 1 mm behind the other car without touching it you have done what the law requires, you have travelled a safe distance to stop in time without causing an accident. If the car behind you then pushes you into that car they are liable for all 3 cars.

If however the middle car has hit the car in front and then after that the car behind the middle car has hit his rear, then that is treated as a second accident.

Spot on, but only in some states.
It happened to me, and the person who hit me and pushed me into the car in front was liable for all the damage to my car, as well as the car in front.
I was initially told that because of "not enough gap to allow for the off chance of someone running up the rear of my car", I was also liable and would lose my no claim bonus. But the rules vary from state to state, and in my case, it worked out in my favour.

GreenMachine39 · 28-09-2007, 10:16 PM

why dont u all just read the qld road rules about the distance you need between the car infront of you , the copper said to the fella ur paying for the rear end of the ss because you didnt allow yourself enough room incase a car hit u in the rear end , he is the one who clarified this so thats how we went ,

GreenMachine39 · 28-09-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

. Evidence like skidmarks might not exist with ABS.

I locked up with abs , guess it depends how hard u chomp the brake

Yaw · 29-09-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

If? If my auntie had nuts she'd be my uncle. How can you tell the middle car was going to stop in time if its hit by the rear car before stopping? Its a minefield, which is why they make the car immediately behind responsible for the vehicle in front of it. He said she said, without independent witnesses, its impossible to prove. Evidence like skidmarks might not exist with ABS.

As the OP said, the law is reading it that way. Ive seen the same stuff before, every time the same result. Everyone pays for the car in front. But anecdotal evidence is hardly proof.

Thats why pile ups are a nightmare to work out liability, but as already mentioned what you do is start with the front car and then work back, With a 3 car pile up for instance if the person in the first car says they felt 2 impacts and not just 1 it means that the car behind them (car 2) has hit them prior to car 3 hitting car 2. which means they had an accident prior to car 3 hitting car 2.
If the person in the front car says they only felt 1 impact it is then clear that car 3 pushed car 2 into car 1 which is then car 3 liable for all of them.

This is taken from the QLD TORUM

165 Stopping in an emergency etc. or to comply with another
provision
It is a defence to the prosecution of a driver for an offence
against a provision of this part if—
(a) the driver stops at a particular place, or in a particular
way, to avoid a collision, and the driver stops for no
longer than is necessary to avoid the collision; or

Source:http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...ntOpRURR99.pdf

Keepleft · 29-09-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenMachine39

Was out tonight doin a few laps.

A few laps, on a racetrack or?

GreenMachine39 · 29-09-2007, 03:17 PM

people go out show off there stupid jap cars etc , they call it lappin ,

GreenMachine39 · 29-09-2007, 03:21 PM

and update on the damage , i have oil leaking , bent chassis , power steering rack front guard and grill needs replacing

NOS 247 · 29-09-2007, 03:42 PM

not the best news mate..

XBCoupeGuy · 30-09-2007, 12:10 AM

A friend of mine ran up the back of a car he was following through a round about when it suddenly slammed on the brakes.

The woman got out and explained that she had accidentally gone to change gears in the car (borrowed from a friend) and forgot it was an automatic (normally drives a manual) and had slammed the brake pedal to the floor thinking it was the clutch.

My mate had no chance and slammed in to the rear of her. He was found to be at fault and she was found to not be at fault.

Personally I think she should have been charged with negligent driving.