Just been in a minor RTA. Who's fault is it?

[Havana_UK]

I also don't see it.

Yes, a slightly delayed reaction. Yes, some fairly firm braking, however the OP had left more than enough space for this not to cause himself an issue and the driver behind clearly hadn't, or (worse IMHO) wasn't paying adequate attention.

Simply put, the OP didn't crash because he was driving appropriately, and the driver behind wasn't. 100% the other guy's fault.

 

[Orionaut]

I also don't see it.

Yes, a slightly delayed reaction. Yes, some fairly firm braking, however the OP had left more than enough space for this not to cause himself an issue and the driver behind clearly hadn't, or (worse IMHO) wasn't paying adequate attention.

Simply put, the OP didn't crash because he was driving appropriately, and the driver behind wasn't. 100% the other guy's fault.

Well, what do I know.

I am only a "White Van Man" with over 500,000 miles/40 years urban driving with no accidents!

It is perfectly possible to avoid accidents!

Rule #1 is do not create situations where they are likely to happen!

 

[Diagro]

I am rather unforgiving about this sort of situation.

Way I see the situation is...

Driver "A" (the Merc) brakes to a halt (For whatever reason, Drivers do sometimes need to do this, it is not any business of any following drivers to question why, it just isn't! Following drivers have an obligation to allow for this possibility at any time!)

Driver "B" (The OP) initially either didn't notice or didn't believe it, or both, and as a result waited far to long before engaging brakes and then ended up having to brake really quite hard at the last seconds to avoid his own collision.

Driver "C" was also inattentive, he also wasn't on a the ball and, as a consequence, ended up braking late, hard, and as it happens, insufficiently to prevent a collision with driver "B".

Arguing that this makes driver "C" 100% responsible is nonsense.

All crunches are 50/50 unless you can make a very good case for otherwise! (Which IMO, does not apply here!)

Well insurance companies don't agree

 

[Orionaut]

Well insurance companies don't agree

Actually I thought most of the grumbling was that they did.

IE Non-Fault accidents result in higher premiums.

Spoiler

Because people who drive into accident scenarios with eyes wide shut are actually greater risks.

 

[Howard]

Driver "A" (the Merc) brakes to a halt (For whatever reason, Drivers do sometimes need to do this, it is not any business of any following drivers to question why, it just isn't! Following drivers have an obligation to allow for this possibility at any time!)

Driver "B" (The OP) initially either didn't notice or didn't believe it, or both, and as a result waited far to long before engaging brakes and then ended up having to brake really quite hard at the last seconds to avoid his own collision.

Driver "C" was also inattentive, he also wasn't on a the ball and, as a consequence, ended up braking late, hard, and as it happens, insufficiently to prevent a collision with driver "B".

Arguing that this makes driver "C" 100% responsible is nonsense.

All crunches are 50/50 unless you can make a very good case for otherwise! (Which IMO, does not apply here!)

The Mercedes driver braked hard, unexpectedly/unnecessarily. The OP perhaps at first thought he was feathering his brakes to slow down rather than braking hard, and so it took him a brief second to realise. The OP still, IMHO, slowed down in good time. Had the person behind been driving properly, he wouldn't have hit the OP.

Arguing that the OP is in any way responsible for this is nonsense.

 

[grudas]

The Mercedes driver braked hard, unexpectedly/unnecessarily. The OP perhaps at first thought he was feathering his brakes to slow down rather than braking hard, and so it took him a brief second to realise. The OP still, IMHO, slowed down in good time. Had the person behind been driving properly, he wouldn't have hit the OP.

Arguing that the OP is in any way responsible for this is nonsense.

Agreed! OP can't be responsible for someone's driving, person behind should've kept the safe breaking distance and not be sleeping at the wheel.

 

[robj20]

You should always leave a gap such that if the person in front does an emergency stop you to can stop. Simple as that.

 

[Skillmister]

Driver "B" (The OP) initially either didn't notice or didn't believe it, or both, and as a result waited far to long before engaging brakes and then ended up having to brake really quite hard at the last seconds to avoid his own collision.

BS.

Don't see how anyone can fault OPs braking. When you're driving behind a car which has no traffic ahead if you see them brake you're going to firstly assume its just light braking (maybe to stop them drifting over the speed limit downhill) not to a complete standstill.

Very easy to criticise OP after watching the video 20 times though isn't it...

I had a very similar situation earlier in the year where I was joining the motorway, car in front braked, I thought he was just slowing gently to let a car pass before merging, he had actually slammed on and came to complete stop on the slip road I had to brake very heavily and luckily whoever was behind me was paying attention too.

 

[Semple]

@OP, Don't think you've mentioned, but did the Honda driver admit liability when you swapped details?

Also pretty hard to see damage with the unclean car, have you managed to see if there's any damage? Looks like the front of his car took a bit of a bump, so wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some damage.

 

[Meridian]

The Mercedes driver braked hard, unexpectedly/unnecessarily.

NOOOOOOOO. Again, the traffic ahead was stationary. That's why he/she slowed stopped. The OP was slow catching on, and the person behind was as good at forward observation as some of the people on this thread. Seriously, you can see all the brake lights for several seconds before the accident, and you can see the other lane has stopped. The camera angle isn't perfect, but it's still obviously stopped ahead as well.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

It is perfectly possible to avoid accidents!

I'm struggling to think of anything you could say that is more wrong than the above. If you've managed to avoid being involved in an accident you may be a good driver but you are definitely a lucky one.
The only way you can guarantee that you won't be involved in an RTA is by never getting in another vehicle as some accidents are impossible to forsee

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

BS.

Don't see how anyone can fault OPs braking. When you're driving behind a car which has no traffic ahead if you see them brake you're going to firstly assume its just light braking (maybe to stop them drifting over the speed limit downhill) not to a complete standstill.

Very easy to criticise OP after watching the video 20 times though isn't it...

I had a very similar situation earlier in the year where I was joining the motorway, car in front braked, I thought he was just slowing gently to let a car pass before merging, he had actually slammed on and came to complete stop on the slip road I had to brake very heavily and luckily whoever was behind me was paying attention too.

Similar myself on the way home tonight. In a 40 limit car in front started braking with nothing in front of him. He had been doing some "extra braking" for a few miles so I assumed it was this again. Then he completely stopped. Almost caught me out. Then he set off again, when I realised he had stopped because 2 people were standing half in a hedge as no pavement there as they were trying to cross the road to a bus stop. Its outside a prison so I assume the had been visting and didn't know the road well so has set off walking as though they would cross easily.

Its very difficult when the car in front seems to stop for no reason. Particularly if they are one of them people that keep touching the brakes entering corners, at the first possible sign of a hazard etc

You can leave enough room for an emergency stop but if the person in front takes unexpected action that you would not expect a competent driver to take sometimes you have no time to react.

 

[Haggisman]

NOOOOOOOO. Again, the traffic ahead was stationary. That's why he/she slowed stopped. The OP was slow catching on, and the person behind was as good at forward observation as some of the people on this thread. Seriously, you can see all the brake lights for several seconds before the accident, and you can see the other lane has stopped. The camera angle isn't perfect, but it's still obviously stopped ahead as well.

You're missing the part where the right lane (that the Merc is aiming for) is free of traffic.

He could have fitted through, he chose to be ultra cautious and stopped. Fair enough, as you put in your previous post, drivers do that and it's the person behind's responsibility to make sure they can stop in time.

However when someone unexpectedly slams on their brakes in a situation where most people would slow gradually, you can hardly blame the driver behind for not realising instantaneously - this is exactly the reason WHY you leave a big enough gap (as the OP did), so you have time/space to react to the unexpected. If everyone did an emergency stop every time the car in front brakes "just in case", there would be far more accidents!

 

[asim18]

Don't even try. Some people just can't grasp statistics.

Sounds like you work for an insurers and cant grasp actual probability.

Statistics are wrongly used as probability assessment because it allows them to make more money, not because simple statistics somehow allude to an actual probability assessment. Statistics have no direct correlation with probability.

If someone whacks into you purely because they're a crap driver, it's got nothing to do with the person that got hit, and the probability of the person who got hit getting hit again by a imbecile who cannot drive does NOT increase simply because he got hit once.

It is. Anyone who understands probability knows this.

The chances of someone running in to you (assuming you do nothing to cause confusion yourself) remains the same. Only the one at fault is more of a risk.

Yep^

I don't expect most people to be able to understand the difference between statistics and probability, if most people understood what's going on, then insurance would never be based on pointless stats.

 

[Howard]

NOOOOOOOO. Again, the traffic ahead was stationary. That's why he/she slowed stopped. The OP was slow catching on, and the person behind was as good at forward observation as some of the people on this thread. Seriously, you can see all the brake lights for several seconds before the accident, and you can see the other lane has stopped. The camera angle isn't perfect, but it's still obviously stopped ahead as well.

Well, yes actually. Watch the video again. Carefully. From about 1m11s in.

You're missing the part where the right lane (that the Merc is aiming for) is free of traffic.

He could have fitted through, he chose to be ultra cautious and stopped. Fair enough, as you put in your previous post, drivers do that and it's the person behind's responsibility to make sure they can stop in time.

However when someone unexpectedly slams on their brakes in a situation where most people would slow gradually, you can hardly blame the driver behind for not realising instantaneously - this is exactly the reason WHY you leave a big enough gap (as the OP did), so you have time/space to react to the unexpected. If everyone did an emergency stop every time the car in front brakes "just in case", there would be far more accidents!

Quite.

 

[Haggisman]

Sounds like you work for an insurers and cant grasp actual probability.

Statistics are wrongly used as probability assessment because it allows them to make more money, not because simple statistics somehow allude to an actual probability assessment. Statistics have no direct correlation with probability.

Wrong.

The result of rolling a dice is not influenced by your "rolling technique" in any meaningful or controllable way.

Whether you are in a non-fault accident which could have been avoided if you drove in a different manner is.

As [TW]Fox has already posted, there are plenty of scenarios where an accident could have been avoided by the "not at fault" driver.

Even in this case of the OP for example, if the OP had left a bigger gap, he wouldn't have had to brake so hard, and the car behind may not have hit him. (Not a criticism of the OP as he left a perfectly adequate gap, merely just an example of how the "not at fault" driver's behaviour affects the probability of an accident)

If someone whacks into you purely because they're a crap driver, it's got nothing to do with the person that got hit, and the probability of the person who got hit getting hit again by a imbecile who cannot drive does NOT increase simply because he got hit once.

Very true, however I would imagine the cost of the resources required by insurance companies to fully assess every single incident on whether it was at all influenced by the "not at fault" driver's behaviour would increase premiums for everyone far in excess of any weighting due to "non-fault" accidents.

 

[robj20]

If someone whacks into you purely because they're a crap driver, it's got nothing to do with the person that got hit, and the probability of the person who got hit getting hit again by a imbecile who cannot drive does NOT increase simply because he got hit once.

Of course it does, just because your not at fault doesn't mean your action don't contribute to accidents. For instance people stopping at roundabouts get rear ended more often. What about a little old lady that always drives at 40mph on the motorway and people keep crashing into them, i would so they statistically are higher risk, even though there not doing anything wrong.

Car insurance is based on statistics not probability so why are you even bringing it into the discussion.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Sounds like you work for an insurers and cant grasp actual probability.

Statistics are wrongly used as probability assessment because it allows them to make more money, not because simple statistics somehow allude to an actual probability assessment. Statistics have no direct correlation with probability.

If someone whacks into you purely because they're a crap driver, it's got nothing to do with the person that got hit, and the probability of the person who got hit getting hit again by a imbecile who cannot drive does NOT increase simply because he got hit once.


Yep^

I don't expect most people to be able to understand the difference between statistics and probability, if most people understood what's going on, then insurance would never be based on pointless stats.

I used to work with the MI and actuaries for one of the top insurers in the UK so can say for sure what you post is jibberish.
For starters, they spend significant money analysing claims for patterns. This isn't to put up premiums as would be the favourite myth, but in fact to look for commercial advantage.
You have to look at the commercial and competitive market that is consumer insurance to understand that if someone was price gouging they would lose a lot of custom. Anyway ignoring that myth.

The reason someone is more likely to be involved in another no claims accident is that is very rare that an accident (in fact they avoid using this term now and use incident) is that as fox pointed out there are a vast list of things you can do as a driver that increase your risk of being in an accident that many people get away with day after day after day, but sooner or later the chances are you will be in a no fault accident that someone else caused, but another driver with different skills or driving style would have avoided.
So statistically you ARE more likely to be involved in a no fault accident if you have already been in one purely because people do not recognise when they are not driving well and do not adapt to accidents by thinking what they could do better.

I actually know a real example that pretty much backs this up. I used to have a girlfriend that parents lived alongside a very steep hill right at the bottom. A bloke would always park his car directly opposite this hill outside his house. Well because it was his house. Probably once every 2 years someone would be caught out by some ice and not stop in time and hit his car. Despite his car being hit more than once he did not change his behaviour and move his car. Wasn't his fault his car was being hit, he was inside eating his dinner so couldn't be at fault, but by his actions he was increasing the chances of being hit. My girlfriends parents car was parked only 20 feet or so away, but would not be hit. Would you be happy for all drivers to share equally the cost of this bloke being a pillock and not learning, or should that guys insurance reflect the fact he insisted on parking his car in a dodgy place. (Even ignoring the fact technically it shouldn't have been parked there as technically its on a junction)

 

[asim18]

I actually know a real example that pretty much backs this up. I used to have a girlfriend that parents lived alongside a very steep hill right at the bottom. A bloke would always park his car directly opposite this hill outside his house. Well because it was his house. Probably once every 2 years someone would be caught out by some ice and not stop in time and hit his car. Despite his car being hit more than once he did not change his behaviour and move his car. Wasn't his fault his car was being hit, he was inside eating his dinner so couldn't be at fault, but by his actions he was increasing the chances of being hit. My girlfriends parents car was parked only 20 feet or so away, but would not be hit. Would you be happy for all drivers to share equally the cost of this bloke being a pillock and not learning, or should that guys insurance reflect the fact he insisted on parking his car in a dodgy place. (Even ignoring the fact technically it shouldn't have been parked there as technically its on a junction)

Erm, thanks for agreeing with me I guess. What you're describing here is a probability assessment, not a simple statistic. As I said, not many people understand the difference between probability and statistics so thanks for confirming. A statistic doesn't define the icy road and bottom of a hill, a probability assessment does.

Logic dictates cars at the bottom of an icy hill will probably get hit, not a statistic lmao, it's got nothing to do with stats lol.

Once you start looking at things with a deeper insight to actually find out why a parked car is prone to getting hit at the bottom of an icy hill it becomes a probability assessment, not a statistic.

Thanks I guess.

So statistically you ARE more likely to be involved in a no fault accident if you have already been in one purely because people do not recognise when they are not driving well and do not adapt to accidents by thinking what they could do better.

There you go interchanging stats and probability even though you carry on to admit that it's because someone is "not driving well", what a contradiction. You just assume the person who gets hit is "not driving well"?? hahaha what about the pillock who crashed into them then?

What if the person is driving absolutely perfectly and gets hit by some random person? Not surprised you simply refuse to acknowledge this as an occur-able potentiality, it's apparent you've been brainwashed/fed wrong information about stats vs probability by your previous employer.

An insurance company is the wrong place to be assuming you're learning about statistics and probability.

 

[tom_e]

Surely we're now just arguing semantics between the meaning of statistic and probability, either way there is evidence that a persons actions can have an effect on whether they are involved in a non fault event or not.