Was this collision 'my fault'?

kiddy_guy

chris-j wrote: »

Great, lets just leave another crap driver on the road who cannot read the road ahead properly and at the end of the day, is responsible for this accident happening. Yes the car at the back should have been able to stop but having probably seen no danger looming continued driving. The OP does not indicate how abruptly they stopped and this is a factor here.

If I walk out of the road in front of you from behind a large lorry and you hit me, is it my fault or yours?

"Yes the car at the back should have been able to stop."

"Another crap driver on the road who cannot read the road ahead properly."

I think inadvertantly you've proven exactly why the OP might feel guilty, but is 100% not responsible for the accident. You might have attributed those comments to the OP's driving, but it applies more than readily to the last driver.

abbas5001

Ok thanks guys, i appreciate all the help. Reported it to the insurance so they shall deal with it now. Haven't admitted liability to anyone so all should be ok.

chris-j

kiddy_guy wrote: »

"Yes the car at the back should have been able to stop."

"Another crap driver on the road who cannot read the road ahead properly."

I think inadvertantly you've proven exactly why the OP might feel guilty, but is 100% not responsible for the accident. You might have attributed those comments to the OP's driving, but it applies more than readily to the last driver.

Read it however you want, but I am quite clear in where I think responsibility lies and while the OP will not get blamed because of how the insurance industry works in this country, he is not blame free as you suggest and while the no claim bonus might not get affected the premium next year will be higher - unfortunately for the middle driver, theirs will be as well.

The policies of the insurance industry, the government and local authorities does nothing to improve driving - proper reading of the road, proper indication, appropriate speed, etc.
From this experience looks likes the OP might take what he has learned from this incident and improve their driving skills - but this is no thanks to how the insurance company will deal with the claim.

Markyt

chris-j wrote: »

If I walk out of the road in front of you from behind a large lorry and you hit me, is it my fault or yours?

Yours, obviously. Not sure what it has to with this case though.

davetrousers

As with all Crashes/accidents, the parties involved provide their accounts. The INSURANCE COMPANIES THEN DECIDE WHO IS AT FAULT. Simple as that.

photome

chris-j wrote: »

Great, lets just leave another crap driver on the road who cannot read the road ahead properly and at the end of the day, is responsible for this accident happening. Yes the car at the back should have been able to stop but having probably seen no danger looming continued driving. The OP does not indicate how abruptly they stopped and this is a factor here.

If I walk out of the road in front of you from behind a large lorry and you hit me, is it my fault or yours?

There is no comparison between a car that you are following at a safe distance (if you are not, YOU shouldnt be on the road) and a pedestrian stepping in to the road, although even then, if you are passing a lorry you should be prepared for anything that might come out from behind it.

mattymoo

chris-j wrote: »

The policies of the insurance industry, the government and local authorities does nothing to improve driving - proper reading of the road, proper indication, appropriate speed, etc.
From this experience looks likes the OP might take what he has learned from this incident and improve their driving skills - but this is no thanks to how the insurance company will deal with the claim.

Chris - it's not the insurance companies that have decided how this works, it is the English legal system. When cases are argued in a higher court (High, Appeal, House of Lords) a precedent is set that lower courts then have to follow.

The courts decided that in a rear end shunt, the car at the back is to blame. The insurers simply follow this ruling as to do otherwise leaves the case wide open to litigation with someone quoting the precedents to prove their case.

Have a look at page 195 (including the footnotes) in this Google book - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uJkwId8zvS0C&pg=PR8&dq=motoring+law+uk&lr=#PPA195,M1

chris-j

photome wrote: »

There is no comparison between a car that you are following at a safe distance (if you are not, YOU shouldnt be on the road) and a pedestrian stepping in to the road, although even then, if you are passing a lorry you should be prepared for anything that might come out from behind it.

Exactly, the probability is that nobody will just walk out from behind the lorry but if someone does then your chances of having an accident are raised even if you slow down. Short of never passing the lorry you have a raised risk. In the case of this accident cars further behind reading the road ahead can reasonably have an expectation that other road users are going to similarly read the road ahead. The OP braked sharply to stop for no reason. Yes the other drivers are partly responsible as well but the OP is not 100% blameless.
The second car, the Eos also got hit and only hit the OP because the thrid car hit him, but in this accident it is easily possible that the OP could have braked sharply for no reason, the Eos brakes and avoids him then the third car hits the Eos and the OP is not hit at all and drives away oblivious to the carnage left behind them.

I accept the insurance industry (or UK legal system) impose this principle of person at back responsible, but it is a flawed system which does nothing to improve driving.

CFC

chris-j wrote: »

Exactly, the probability is that nobody will just walk out from behind the lorry but if someone does then your chances of having an accident are raised even if you slow down. Short of never passing the lorry you have a raised risk. In the case of this accident cars further behind reading the road ahead can reasonably have an expectation that other road users are going to similarly read the road ahead. The OP braked sharply to stop for no reason. Yes the other drivers are partly responsible as well but the OP is not 100% blameless.
The second car, the Eos also got hit and only hit the OP because the thrid car hit him, but in this accident it is easily possible that the OP could have braked sharply for no reason, the Eos brakes and avoids him then the third car hits the Eos and the OP is not hit at all and drives away oblivious to the carnage left behind them.

I accept the insurance industry (or UK legal system) impose this principle of person at back responsible, but it is a flawed system which does nothing to improve driving.

The way to improve driving is to ram home the message that you should ALWAYS remain an appropriate stopping distance behind the car in front.

Your reasoning is utterly flawed. The reason that a driver stops suddenly and unexpectedly can be one from a very long list. Reading the road ahead also includes acting on the expectation that there will always be a driver who stops unexpectedly for whatever reason.

Straight from the Highway Code:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should

• leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances PDF below)
• allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads

Or perhaps you are implying that the Highway Code is responsible for failing to improve driving?

photome

chris-j wrote: »

Exactly, the probability is that nobody will just walk out from behind the lorry but if someone does then your chances of having an accident are raised even if you slow down. Short of never passing the lorry you have a raised risk. In the case of this accident cars further behind reading the road ahead can reasonably have an expectation that other road users are going to similarly read the road ahead. The OP braked sharply to stop for no reason. Yes the other drivers are partly responsible as well but the OP is not 100% blameless.
The second car, the Eos also got hit and only hit the OP because the thrid car hit him, but in this accident it is easily possible that the OP could have braked sharply for no reason, the Eos brakes and avoids him then the third car hits the Eos and the OP is not hit at all and drives away oblivious to the carnage left behind them.

I accept the insurance industry (or UK legal system) impose this principle of person at back responsible, but it is a flawed system which does nothing to improve driving.

You really dont get it do you?

As myself and others have said YOU should always stay a safe distance behind so that you can stop safely.

If you do that, it wouldnt matter how fast or unecxpectedly the car in front stopped you could stop as well.

IF you hit the car in front, you are to close and it is you that is driving dangerously