In a rear-end collision....

[DizBelle]

So my question is this: What were you doing during the time that this person was moving into your lane? They didn't just appear there. They had to have merged. When you saw them merging into your lane, you should have already begun to slow down. The aggressive driver in me would probably be more inclined to try to maintain my speed and ride his bumper to prove to him what a bonehead he is. But technically, I should slow down AS SOON as I see him merging into my lane. That way, when he gets completely into my lane, I am already hitting my brakes. So it's not as big of a deal when he slams on his.

Someone can swiftly move into another lane in less than 1 second. Not a nice gentle merge but a "zip" into an adjacent lane. My car consumes 134 feet to come to a stop from 60 mph (that's nearly half a football field). If I'm going 60mph, and someone going 30 mph swiftly moves in front of me leaving only 15 feet or so and slams on their brakes, do you really think I'm going to be able to come to a stop before I hit them? They are only going 30 mph. They are going to come to a stop a lot sooner than I am. I can't move into another lane because they are occupied. What could I do differently to NOT hit them?

 

[Squirlz]

Someone can swiftly move into another lane in less than 1 second. Not a nice gentle merge but a "zip" into an adjacent lane. My car consumes 134 feet to come to a stop from 60 mph (that's nearly half a football field). If I'm going 60mph, and someone going 30 mph swiftly moves in front of me leaving only 15 feet or so and slams on their brakes, do you really think I'm going to be able to come to a stop before I hit them? They are only going 30 mph. They are going to come to a stop a lot sooner than I am. I can't move into another lane because they are occupied. What could I do differently to NOT hit them?

It might not be possible. But the best chance you have is to always be aware, expect the worst from other drivers, and always leave yourself a way out.

 

[bookgirl]

In a rear-end collision, the person that did the rear-ending is ALWAYS at fault.

A co-worker of mine that was recently in an accident says this is the case in our state but I can think of at least half-a-dozen ways someone can rear-end someone else and not really be at fault.

In a different state, many years ago, I was in an accident where I rear-ended someone. I was not at fault - logically or legally. We were on a 3 lane one way street. I was traveling in the center lane. They were in the right lane. They decided that they wanted to turn onto a side street on the left. They decided to do this right in front of me. They turned left from the right hand lane on a one way street onto a side street. They turned across my path and I hit them. I hit them in left rear corner of their vehicle. My front end was smashed and my car totaled (of course it was a POS and not worth much anyway). There was abolutely no way I could stop in time. Apparently, if this happened in my current state, I would be at fault. I just don't see how that is logical.

That's not a rear end collision. Rear end collision is when the majority of thier rear end is hit ie they were in front of you completly traveling forward and you hit them with the majority of your front end.

The actual law that most rear end collisions get charged with is failure to maintain proper distance. If the car in the next lane pulls into your lane and is going forward and you do not slow down to maintain distance and they suddenly stop you will hit them and you will be at fault. If a car pulls into your lane and does so in a manner that does not allow you to give distance and you hit them at an angle as the go across the lane because the manner that they entered your lane and the direction they were traveling, diagonal not forward, did not give you time to adjust your position, then you are not at fault they are for improper lane change.

 

[bookgirl]

Mostly various scenarios like what I describe above where someone pulls in front of you not giving you enough space or time to avoid them.

What if they had changed lanes into my lane going much slower than I was without giving me enough space or time to avoid them? It would have been a straight-on bumper-on-bumper hit. Would I be at fault here?

If they were fully in your lane traveling forward then yes you should have slowed down.

 

[DizBelle]

If they were fully in your lane traveling forward then yes you should have slowed down.

Even if I slammed on my brakes, it would take me 134 ft to stop. If they pull into that 134 ft and stop, there's no way I can avoid them. I was maintaining the appropriate distance between me and the vehicle in front of me up until this point.

 

[ChrizJen]

It might not be possible. But the best chance you have is to always be aware, expect the worst from other drivers, and always leave yourself a way out.

Exactly! It's the best rule of the road, and it's gotten me out of quite a few sticky situations. It's all a matter of making sure that you always know what's going on around you and eliminating distractions enough that you can react in most any situation. Sure, there will be exceptions. But good defensive driving means ALWAYS knowing as much as you can know about what's going on around you, and anticipating what COULD happen at any second.

 

[Imzadi]

It is also my understand that when a car is rear-ended, it is always the back car's fault UNLESS they are pushed into the car in front by another car behind them.

From what I know, as I was in a pile up at a stop light, the back car still has to pay for the car in front's damage, even if he's pushed from behind. He, in turn can get damages from the person's insurance company who pushed him.

 

[ChrizJen]

I was involved in a rear-end collision that involved 2 other cars. I was the one in front. The last person in the line was the one whose insurance paid the damage to my vehicle (and the vehicle behind mine I would guess). But it was determined that both my car and the one behind me were completely stopped when the collision happened. So the third car essentially hit the second one and pushed it into mine. But in an instance where all of the cars are moving, I don't know how that works.

 

[Schmeck]

From what I know, as I was in a pile up at a stop light, the back car still has to pay for the car in front's damage, even if he's pushed from behind. He, in turn can get damages from the person's insurance company who pushed him.

I was the last car in a 5 car collision in stopped traffic on a 3 lane highway. When I stop in highway traffic, I always leave at least a car length between me and the car stopped in front of me. Car #1 (that started the whole 5 car chain reaction) was totalled, people taken off by ambulance. Car #2,3,4 - in various states of damage, none drivable. My car didn't hit the one in front of me, as I had that space. Minimum damage to the rear (spare tire took the brunt of it) and I drove off after the state troopers said I could. They also gave me the name/insurance of car #1, and said he was at fault for any damage done to my car.

 

[sorul82?]

This is totally correct. It doesn't matter what irresponsible thing another driver did in front of you. You should have had enough clearance that you could stop in time to avoid hitting them. I know it doesn't sound logical. But it is the law.

No, not logical at all.

I came up with some others for the OP:

1. person in front of you has no lights on at night
2. you are driving 55 mph and someone pulls out in front of you then immediately turns.
3. come out of a curve and there is a car stopped in the road
4. come out of a curve and there is a car going very very slow

 

[wdwfan16]

In a rear-end collision, the person that did the rear-ending is ALWAYS at fault.

A co-worker of mine that was recently in an accident says this is the case in our state but I can think of at least half-a-dozen ways someone can rear-end someone else and not really be at fault.

In a different state, many years ago, I was in an accident where I rear-ended someone. I was not at fault - logically or legally. We were on a 3 lane one way street. I was traveling in the center lane. They were in the right lane. They decided that they wanted to turn onto a side street on the left. They decided to do this right in front of me. They turned left from the right hand lane on a one way street onto a side street. They turned across my path and I hit them. I hit them in left rear corner of their vehicle. My front end was smashed and my car totaled (of course it was a POS and not worth much anyway). There was abolutely no way I could stop in time. Apparently, if this happened in my current state, I would be at fault. I just don't see how that is logical.

The rule is - The first vehicle that could have avoided the accident but did not is at fault.

In your case the car you hit could have avoided the accident so they were at fault.

If a car is at a stop sign an another car hits them from behind, they are at fault.

If car 1 plows into car 2 that then hits car 3, car 1 is at fault and pays for cars 2 and 3.

 

[JR6ooo4]

and then there is the intance where the officer just does not like the people in the front car and they get the ticket.

Mikeeee

 

[golfgal]

The rule is - The first vehicle that could have avoided the accident but did not is at fault.

In your case the car you hit could have avoided the accident so they were at fault.

If a car is at a stop sign an another car hits them from behind, they are at fault.

If car 1 plows into car 2 that then hits car 3, car 1 is at fault and pays for cars 2 and 3.

Actually, your 1, 2, 3 example is not totally correct. If car 2 is stopped too close to car 3, car 2 could be held responsible for the damage to car 3 for not leaving an appropriate stopping distance, which is why you should leave a car length between you and the car in front of you when stopped at a light/sign .

Keep in mind that there are NO absolutes. The rearender is USUALLY at fault but not always which is why you ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS want to get a police report even if it looks minor or if the police don't want to give you one--ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS get one--oh and it is BS if they say they can't give you a report on private property (like a parking lot).

 

[wdwfan16]

Actually, your 1, 2, 3 example is not totally correct. If car 2 is stopped too close to car 3, car 2 could be held responsible for the damage to car 3 for not leaving an appropriate stopping distance, which is why you should leave a car length between you and the car in front of you when stopped at a light/sign .

Keep in mind that there are NO absolutes. The rearender is USUALLY at fault but not always which is why you ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS want to get a police report even if it looks minor or if the police don't want to give you one--ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS get one--oh and it is BS if they say they can't give you a report on private property (like a parking lot).

I agree about the get a police report.

I was in a four car collision and I was car #2. The State trooper said that car 4 was responsible for the entire accident.

Car 4's insurance asked the order that it happened. It was screeching tires, a crash and then I felt a crash before I was pushed into the car in front of me. As a result Car 4 paid the entire bill.

If I heard screeching tires, felt a crash and then felt another crash Car 3 would have paid for my car.

BTW I had about a 1/2 car lenght in front of me and my brakes fully engaged when I was pushed into Car 1. I was 100% exonerated. Car 1 even testified that I wa completely stopped. The car distance did not matter.

 

[golfgal]

I agree about the get a police report.

I was in a four car collision and I was car #2. The State trooper said that car 4 was responsible for the entire accident.

Car 4's insurance asked the order that it happened. It was screeching tires, a crash and then I felt a crash before I was pushed into the car in front of me. As a result Car 4 paid the entire bill.

If I heard screeching tires, felt a crash and then felt another crash Car 3 would have paid for my car.

BTW I had about a 1/2 car lenght in front of me and my brakes fully engaged when I was pushed into Car 1. I was 100% exonerated. Car 1 even testified that I wa completely stopped. The car distance did not matter.

There are a lot of variables in an accident like this and the speed in which the last driver hit the line is very important. Like I said, there are no absolutes. If in your situation, car 4 was only going 10 MPH and bumped into car 3, which was parked too close to car 2, parked too close to car 1, each car probably would have been assigned some fault. If you had left enough distance between your car and the car in front of you and someone slammed into the line going 50 MPH, there is nothing you could have done to avoid hitting the car in front of you, thus no fault on your part. Car distance DOES matter, but then again, so does speed.

 

[RachelEllen]

I was actually in a serious accident a few years ago where we rear ended a car on the highway. The other car was found to be 100% at fault.

The other car was stopped in a lane on the highway. Two cars in front of us managed to swerve out the way. The last thing we saw was a car in front of us swerve violently and then we hit.

Although we were driving with plenty of room to stop if the car in front of us stopped, it wasn't nearly enough room to stop when a stationary obtsticle appeared right in front of us. I thought we might still be at fault, but the other driver was ticketed. (The driver who swerved stopped and gave us his info. He was called as a witness and verified that the car we hit was completely stationary.)

 

[sorul82?]

I was actually in a serious accident a few years ago where we rear ended a car on the highway. The other car was found to be 100% at fault.

The other car was stopped in a lane on the highway. Two cars in front of us managed to swerve out the way. The last thing we saw was a car in front of us swerve violently and then we hit.

Although we were driving with plenty of room to stop if the car in front of us stopped, it wasn't nearly enough room to stop when a stationary obtsticle appeared right in front of us. I thought we might still be at fault, but the other driver was ticketed. (The driver who swerved stopped and gave us his info. He was called as a witness and verified that the car we hit was completely stationary.)

I hope you are doing ok now.

This reminds me of when people swerve so they don't have to slow down if someone in front of them is turning. The problem is that the next person doesn't know that two cars up someone is slowing to turn and the same thing that happened to you could happen. It almost seems that the swerver should be charged (I don't mean in your case, but someone who moves over because they don't want to be slowed down by someone who is making a turn). Did that make any sense?

 

[snykymom]

OK, the rule is pretty simple.

In a rear-end collision, the rear-ender is PRESUMED to be at fault. That, however, is a REBUTTABLE presumption. That means that the individual facts of the accident can change the finding of fault. So all these scenarios mentioned could, and sometimes did, rebut the presumption and find some other car at fault.

So the short answer is: You are all correct, depending on the particular facts.

 

[christineann]

If a vehicle in front of yours reverses and strikes the front of your vehicle, request that the officer and insurance company have the front vehicle's reverse and brake lights tested (of course, this only works if the reverse and/or brake lights are broken in the collision). The condition of the filaments in the bulbs will indicate if the reverse and/or brake lights were activated at the time of the collision.

 

[IDoDis]

In a rear-end collision, the person that did the rear-ending is ALWAYS at fault.

A co-worker of mine that was recently in an accident says this is the case in our state but I can think of at least half-a-dozen ways someone can rear-end someone else and not really be at fault.

In a different state, many years ago, I was in an accident where I rear-ended someone. I was not at fault - logically or legally. We were on a 3 lane one way street. I was traveling in the center lane. They were in the right lane. They decided that they wanted to turn onto a side street on the left. They decided to do this right in front of me. They turned left from the right hand lane on a one way street onto a side street. They turned across my path and I hit them. I hit them in left rear corner of their vehicle. My front end was smashed and my car totaled (of course it was a POS and not worth much anyway). There was abolutely no way I could stop in time. Apparently, if this happened in my current state, I would be at fault. I just don't see how that is logical.

Oh, sorry! That was me! If it happened back in 1979 I'd say maybe it was me because that's how I totaled my mom's car just three weeks after getting my driver's license. I was driving downtown on a one way street taking my sister to the library. I was not familiar with downtown and driving on one-way streets. When my sister yelled out, "Turn here!" I turned left right in front of a driver coming up that lane a little behind us. Both vehicles were totaled and I was competely at fault.