Chain Collision Rear Ended

[vipervin]

The car stopped safely behind you. What is the problem?

How is being inches away safe? Were you taught to stop inches away from the vehicle in front of you? You would have been immediately failed during your driver's license test if you did that.

 

[Zigner]

How is being inches away safe? Were you taught to stop inches away from the vehicle in front of you? You would have been immediately failed during your driver's license test if you did that.

He would not have hit you had he not been hit by another vehicle. How far is far enough? Let's say he was 12" behind you and hit a little harder. Perhaps 24" and hit just a bit harder. Perhaps 60"? I suppose the only truly safe distance to stop behind someone else is, what, 1/4 mile? 1/2 mile?

"Inches" is safe because he did not hit you due to being inches behind you and stopped. He hit you due to the force of a collision caused by someone else...

 

[Zigner]

And, one other point. You can also fail your driver's test if you forget to shift from one gear to another (ie: reverse to drive) and then let your vehicle move 1/4"...that has no bearing on this matter.

 

[ecmst12]

The fact that you weren't pushed into the car in front of you is irrelevent. It may only mean that you weren't hit as hard as the guy behind you. The law does not say that drivers must leave any amount of space in front of them when stopped, only that they must leave enough space when IN MOTION such that they will be able to stop safely in case the car in front makes a sudden stop. The car behind you did that. It is not his fault that he was hit.

The point about full coverage is that even if you're not at fault, you can't be sure that you will always be able to collect from the at fault party. A stolen car, an uninsured motorist, a hit and run. Not to mention stuff covered by Comprehensive coverage - weather, theft, falling objects, vandalism. For that stuff, there's usually no at fault party (or they're not identified) to collect from at all. If your car is worth more then you can afford to lose if damaged, you should have full coverage. Life isn't always fair, so you have to protect yourself. Now if your car is a 10 year old beater that's worth very little, then I agree that full coverage isn't worth it - the car would likely be totalled out even if the damage was only cosmetic, and you'd only end up with a couple hundred bucks after your deductible. You'd end up just as well off selling it off for scrap yourself. My calculation is that if the car is worth at least $1000-1500 more then your annual premiums for full coverage would be, then it's probably worth it to carry. And of course if you have a loan, full coverage will be REQUIRED.

 

[vipervin]

As expected, Farmers denied all liability saying the third, unknown vehicle, caused the accident. I am awaiting pictures of the mini-van that was behind me for his rear-bumper "damages."

He would not have hit you had he not been hit by another vehicle. How far is far enough? Let's say he was 12" behind you and hit a little harder. Perhaps 24" and hit just a bit harder. Perhaps 60"? I suppose the only truly safe distance to stop behind someone else is, what, 1/4 mile? 1/2 mile?

"Inches" is safe because he did not hit you due to being inches behind you and stopped. He hit you due to the force of a collision caused by someone else...

The fact that you weren't pushed into the car in front of you is irrelevent. It may only mean that you weren't hit as hard as the guy behind you.

Inches is not safe because he hit me for being inches behind me AND due to the force of the collision. I clearly maintained a safe distance behind the vehicle in front of me. My vehicle lurched forward when I was impacted, but I still did not hit the car in front of me because I was not "inches" away.

You have to admit that the probability of impact is much higher if a vehicle is inches to another vehicle versus feet between the vehicle. If the mini-van behind me was at least 24" away like how normal drivers stop, then he would not have hit me.

And, one other point. You can also fail your driver's test if you forget to shift from one gear to another (ie: reverse to drive) and then let your vehicle move 1/4"...that has no bearing on this matter.

How can that have no bearing? If he forgot to shift to the correct position, lurked forward a 1/4", but hit my vehicle by doing so... then he is still at fault. We are taught by driving schools around the nation to be able to clearly see the rear tires of the vehicle when stopping. Motor vehicle examiners during a test would either deduct points or immediately fail you for stopping to close to the vehicle in front of you. Are you saying the same rules that we must follow during a driver's license test does not apply in the real world?


- - - - - - - - - -

The ambiguity in driving law is very very frustrating!

 

[Zigner]

Oh brother. HE DID NOT CAUSE THE COLLISION!

Now that your claim has been denied, you can proceed to sue him. It's very simple. All you have to do is prove that there was no other vehicle.

 

[Zigner]

Motor vehicle examiners during a test would either deduct points or immediately fail you for stopping to close to the vehicle in front of you.

I'll play along...

Give me a cite or code section saying that your contention is true.

 

[vipervin]

Oh brother. HE DID NOT CAUSE THE COLLISION!

Now that your claim has been denied, you can proceed to sue him. It's very simple. All you have to do is prove that there was no other vehicle.

He is partially at fault for my collision. On any standard in the world, he was too close to my vehicle. I will be looking into a laywer, but how the hell would I prove there was no other vehicle... that is a lost cause. But he was still stopped too close...

Give me a cite or code section saying that your contention is true.

Working on this still. What do examiners at DMV base their judgments on? There is a handbook out there providing some outline of how to score an examinee.

 

[Zigner]

He is partially at fault for my collision. On any standard in the world, he was too close to my vehicle. I will be looking into a laywer, but how the hell would I prove there was no other vehicle... that is a lost cause. But he was still stopped too close...

No, he is not. I'm sorry you cannot see it and this will be the last time I will bang my head against the wall you have put up.

Working on this still. What do examiners at DMV base their judgments on? There is a handbook out there providing some outline of how to score an examinee.

Oh, I thought you already knew this for a fact.
Keep researching if you'd like, but you won't find anything.

 

[ecmst12]

The fact that he stopped very close to you may have contributed to you being hit. But it still doesn't make him at fault. HE stopped without hitting you, therefore he did not violate the law and was not negligent. The third vehicle is responsible for the damage to his car and yours. Period end of sentence. Suing the minivan driver will be a waste of time and money - he is not at fault.

 

[Zigner]

Suing the minivan driver will be a waste of time and money - he is not at fault.

Yeah but then at least the OP will have someone "official" to explain it to him

 

[JustAPal00]

Are you kidding me??? You think 24" would have made a difference. How much damage was done? You need to learn a little about physics and the laws of motion. But none of that matters anyway! HE WAS HIT INTO YOU! He did not hit you, his van was hit by another driver which nocked him into you. You chose to buy cheaper insurance, now you have to pay!

 

[vipervin]

This is such a ridiculous loop hole. Now I know.. if I accidentally hit someone in the future, I can just say I was pushed into him from someone behind me and get off for free.

 

[Zigner]

This is such a ridiculous loop hole. Now I know.. if I accidentally hit someone in the future, I can just say I was pushed into him from someone behind me and get off for free.

IF you can prove it is more likely than not that your story is true.
It's unfortunate that the lesson you learned from this is that it's ok to lie, as opposed to the lesson most reasonable people would learn (namely, one should make sure they maintain adequate insurance for their needs).

 

[ecmst12]

Only if you can prove it by showing damage to the rear of your vehicle, or if a witness confirms it. If you just SAY you were hit by someone else but have no proof, that's called phantom vehicle and you will still be liable.