logically thats absurd, otherwise no one would be able to overtake just in case someone pulls out right in front of you.OP - I've been following this thread with interest, glad it's all sorted!
The person who drove into the back of the guy from lane one I'm afraid.
He/she didn't anticipate what was likely to happen, didn't have enough distance between them and the vehicles in front and ultimately wasn't driving defensively.
Harsh perhaps, but that's the way of it.
Car rear ended me. He claims i reversed into him
- Thread starter Lethagized
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
It's not 'absurd' at all, and overtaking is generally carried out at your own risk for exactly this reason.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 12,810
- Location
- Leicestershire
Congrats on standing your ground!
Making me think about getting F/R cameras now. Only problem is they'd be worth more than the car.... Lol
[TW]Fox;25763277 said:
While this makes sense to me on a single carriageway road, how I interpreted Scania's post is to say that if you're driving along a motorway at 70mph overtaking someone in lane 1 doing 55mph and at the last second with metres to spare they pull out in front of you and then brake hard, you will be held responsible for rear-ending them, despite video evidence showing what happened.
Also of consideration would be driving along a single carriageway road and someone turns onto it without looking properly giving you no chance of slowing down.
Neither of these situations to me seem like a fault claim for the person behind.
OP - I've been following this thread with interest, glad it's all sorted!
The person who drove into the back of the guy from lane one I'm afraid.
He/she didn't anticipate what was likely to happen, didn't have enough distance between them and the vehicles in front and ultimately wasn't driving defensively.
Harsh perhaps, but that's the way of it.
So if I cut you up in your HGV and slam the brakes on as I need to take a left turn and you ram me thats your fault.
Believe it or not, I would imagine yes, I'd be deemed to not be driving defensively!
We discussed this at length recently on my driver CPC course, there are very few situations where a professional driver ramming a regular joe would go in his favour.
In other words, were expected to allow for cutting in drivers etcetera.
Complete balls in the real world of course, but since when do insurers live there anyway?!?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 4,554
- Location
- Wales
I'd dare say (maybe not in a HGV) if you had a dashcam you could prove you was cut up and shouldn't be liable..right?
Out of interest, what's the best "affordable" dashcam to get these days, not that i've had a bump or anything (though get the occasional moron driving like a ***) probably would be a good idea to get one just in case.
Out of interest, what's the best "affordable" dashcam to get these days, not that i've had a bump or anything (though get the occasional moron driving like a ***) probably would be a good idea to get one just in case.
Last edited:
I think if there is no solid evidence to the contrary, they would always go with "person who hits the rear is responsible".
If there were dashcams etc proving without doubt that dangerous driving by the person hit caused the accident, then I would hope logic would prevail and they would be responsible.
Problem is most people wouldn't have evidence to prove it, so the person hitting the rear is held responsible.
Edit: Damn, just seen the post below about having evidence exactly like that and stil being held responsible! Like Scania said, logic and insurers...
If there were dashcams etc proving without doubt that dangerous driving by the person hit caused the accident, then I would hope logic would prevail and they would be responsible.
Problem is most people wouldn't have evidence to prove it, so the person hitting the rear is held responsible.
Edit: Damn, just seen the post below about having evidence exactly like that and stil being held responsible! Like Scania said, logic and insurers...
Last edited:
You'd think so in a dash cam equipped car, but, as per one of my earlier posts, I've been in just such a situation with a cam equipped car, my mate who was driving was found liable by his insurers despite being cut up so much he couldn't even hit the brakes prior to rear ending the cutting up car! :/
As we all know, logic and insurers are poor bed fellows!