Car crash - Who is to blame for this then?

[JPreston]

This is a stupid thread. We've given our opinions as originally requested and are now expected to argue the toss ad nauseum.

At least we've learned that if we come across the scene of an accident, it's best not to stop to assist or warn approaching road users about it in case they crash into your car and then attempt to weasel out of taking responsibility for their excessive speed and inability to control their vehicle.

If Mr Wavy-Arms did in fact have a warning triangle in the boot of his car then I know exactly where he should have put it, and it's not 150m up the road from the scene of the accident...

[blueball]

My 2p

A driver is meant to drive at such a speed that he can stop in the road that he can see is clear - You wouldn't do 60 into a setting sun would you? Most people would slow down to give themselves a chance to see. In the dark it's the same thing, if a driver cannot stop in the distance ahead that he can see is clear then the driver is going too fast.

[Saracen]

....

Anyway,

Things happen no matter what speed you are going there is no such thing as a safe speed. If the road had caved in (if you live in bath) you wouldn't see it till you were in it.

A man wearing dark clothing will be very hard as to see in the dark he shouldn't have been in the road where he was, it says it explicitly in the highway code.

Do you really think you would definitely spot a man wearing black in the middle of your path and would be able to stop at 60 miles an hour?

It also says in the highway code, quite explicitly, that the speed limit signs are maximums, and that you should ALWAYS be travelling at a speed where you can stop in the limit of your visibility.

Rule 105 - "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."

This chap wasn't. That requirement isn't dependent on the nature of an obstruction being either lit or wearing hi-vis clothing, and there are countless possible situations (some of which I mentioned earlier) where they wouldn't be.

Your workmate was going to fast, period. Sure, it could have been any of us, but it happened to him.

JPreston is right. We're going round and round. For me, it's simple. If you can't stop in the distance you can see, you're going too fast. He couldn't. He has a duty to drive at a safe speed, and as evidenced clearly by events, didn't honour that duty. That's all there is to it. What other people did might also be wrong, but that no bearing at all on that simple fact.

[Kumagoro]

If its going round and round why feel the need to keep replying I say something you don't agree with, You say something I don't agree with.

It's not like I'm saying he had no fault in the crash, I made the point that the man standing in the road by breaking the law and being a complete tard, played a large part in the what happened and as such I thought could potentially be liable in some way, you don't

If you were behind someone and their brake lights didn't work are you to blame if you went into the
back of them if they done an emergency stop? I wouldn't think so but from what you say it would
seem you would. But now I'm not sure either way. To me that's a very similar situation

you may roll your eyes JP, but suggesting that what Mr Wavy did was OK, is just plain dumb. He put his own life in danger as well as others. Its all very well getting out of your car and trying to signal people but when you do so recklessly, you could leave yourself open to prosecution.

Who here carries a triangle? I know I don't but I do have a bright yellow jacket for situations like that.

[this_is_gav]

Put it this way. 'Wavy arm guy' has 1 part of blame (not having hazards on his stationary car - be it illegal or not). Your mate has 3 (too fast in low visibility, heading into a known problem area with 1 side of the road entirely blocked and carrying what is probably the weight of the car again in passengers).

It's a no hoper. Wavy arm guy, while going about it the wrong way (possibly without any means of going about it the right way), was trying to help people avoid an accident, while your mate was reckless, driving dangerously, putting his passengers at risk and disrespecting the safety of his fellow road users.

As has been said many times already (repeating story for 4 pages really), he doesn't have a foot to stand on.

[Kumagoro]

Except that we go over the case of him driving illegally on page one and down to whether or not having your lights on when you should can make you potentially liable in a similar circumstance.

[teachmech]

Having read all the posts it comes down to the fact that he hit a stationary car so from an insurance companies point of view it is his liability.

To them nothing else matters.

[JPreston]

....

If you were behind someone and their brake lights didn't work are you to blame....

According to insurance companies, yes you are 100% to blame.

It's really very simple. Your mate is 100% liable because he drove into a stationery car, because he lost control of his car, because he was driving too fast for the conditions.

You won't get nearly as much discussion from the insurance company so you may as well enjoy it here.

[Butcher]

Well you should be able to see a car slowing down regardless of brake lights.

[JPreston]

Well you should be able to see a car slowing down regardless of brake lights.

Ah but a driver only has any responsibility to be aware of an object in the road in front of him, when that object has electric lights shining from it.

[Saracen]

If its going round and round why feel the need to keep replying I say something you don't agree with, You say something I don't agree with.

Because that what forums are for???

Or am I only supposed to reply when you say something I do agree with?

It's not like I'm saying he had no fault in the crash, I made the point that the man standing in the road by breaking the law and being a complete tard, played a large part in the what happened and as such I thought could potentially be liable in some way, you don't

No, I don't. Is he guilty of not displaying lights? Maybe. Would you find me stranding in the middle of the road, waving my arms? Not a chance. And my lights (including hazards) would be on. And I keep a hi-vis jacket in the boot, because you can get a slip-over jobbie for about £2, and that strikes me as a very reasonable price to pay to protect my ass. But, from the description, what he was trying to do was warn oncoming traffic .... just as advised by the highway code. He may not have gone about it the right way, but he sounds like he was trying to do the right thing.

Your workmate, on the other hand, has no such excuse. As I keep saying, he should have been driving in a manner and at a speed that allowed him to stop and he wasn't. And by the nature of the description of the swerve and subsequent impact, it sounds like he wasn't only going to fast, but FAR too fast. That, obviously, is only an impression based on what's been said on here, but that is, after all, all we have to go on.

If you were behind someone and their brake lights didn't work are you to blame if you went into the back of them if they done an emergency stop? I wouldn't think so but from what you say it would
seem you would. But now I'm not sure either way. To me that's a very similar situation

Again, I'm not saying I wouldn't get caught in a situation like that, just as I've said I may have been caught like your mate was, but yes. I would indeed say that. You should be travelling at a speed and distance where you can stop, even in such circumstances.

It is, to me, blindingly clear that most of us are too close, too fast, or both, a good percentage of the time. You only have to drive on most roads to see that. We are ALL making the mistake your mate made, when we do that. The only difference is that circumstances conspired, and he came unstuck.

So as I said right at the start, I don't seek to judge your mate, because I'm fully aware that 'there, but for the Grace of the Gods, go I'.

But, the difference is, if it had been me, I wouldn't be trying to suggest that the bloke trying to warn oncoming traffic was to blame for an accident which would not have happened at all if I'd been doing a speed that was safe for the visibility, as I should have been.

Accidents happen. If everybody drove how they were supposed to, very, very few indeed would. But your mate is trying to blame someone else for his own actions. That's my take on the situation as described.

[MaddAussie]

Ah but a driver only has any responsibility to be aware of an object in the road in front of him, when that object has electric lights shining from it.

Sorry mate that makes no sense, IF you hit a stationary object its your fault regardless of it its lit or not. If you hit a car from the read while you are traveling forwards its your fault. The highway code states you are too leave enough room to stop safely if the car infront does something unexpected. tis bloke didnt end of tbh.

[Saracen]

Sorry mate that makes no sense, IF you hit a stationary object its your fault regardless of it its lit or not. If you hit a car from the read while you are traveling forwards its your fault. The highway code states you are too leave enough room to stop safely if the car infront does something unexpected. tis bloke didnt end of tbh.

I think you'll find, judging by earlier comments, that JPreston was being a bit satirical with that post.

[Kumagoro]

Unfortunately there isn't a lot of obvious examples either way on the internet, all I have been able to find either way so far is this from roadsidelawyer.

A rear end impact on a vehicle which has no frontal damage is a very good indicator in any accident that the person responsible behind was at fault as all drivers are supposed to allow a sufficient distance to stop should the vehicle in front pull up in an emergency stop.

Circumstances where this would not be the case might include if the brake lights on the leading vehicle did not work (a ploy used in scam collisions). There may also be mitigating circumstances were the brakes jammed on gratuitously.

[MaddAussie]

I think you'll find, judging by earlier comments, that JPreston was being a bit satirical with that post.

My bad

[Saracen]

Unfortunately there isn't a lot of obvious examples either way on the internet, all I have been able to find either way so far is this from roadsidelawyer.

A rear end impact on a vehicle which has no frontal damage is a very good indicator in any accident that the person responsible behind was at fault as all drivers are supposed to allow a sufficient distance to stop should the vehicle in front pull up in an emergency stop.

Circumstances where this would not be the case might include if the brake lights on the leading vehicle did not work (a ploy used in scam collisions). There may also be mitigating circumstances were the brakes jammed on gratuitously.

I'm not going to get involved in legal ramifications of hypothetical cases, but note the use of "might" and "may also" in the quote you gave. There's a difference in situation between rear-ending a car with duff brake lights that did a genuine emergency stop, and being caught by a deliberate collision scam. Very little in the law is totally absolute. I still say your mate had no justification for not stopping.