Advice needed - collision...

CDC2011

I was driving home from work and as I came along the road a large delivery van had parked very badly and partially obstructed my side of the road. he also obscured the clear view of the cars coming in the opposite direction.

I thought I could safely pass but then a vehicle came from the opposite direction so I braked and slowed.

Unfortunately the car behind me was a little close as was the car behind him. He slammed on his brakes to avoid hitting me and the car behind him did the same...however they did collide.

No injuries, just a dented bumper and a broken light or two, and my car was not involved in the collision.

I provided my name and number and offered to be a witness if they required someone to corroborate the account as it didn't feel right to just drive off.

Am I at any fault here?

ROY47

Your vehicle wasn't involved in the accident so you can't be at fault

it's the one who hit the rear of the car behind you is at fault for driving too close

lisyloo

Am I at any fault here?

No - and that's a very clear no.
The 3rd car is at fault for driving too close to the 2nd car.
They should all be driving so they can stop within the distance that they can see to be clear.

alistair.long

From what you are saying you must have slammed on your brakes and the cars slamed on thier brakes however the one behind him didnt hit his brakes in time.

It is hard to say if it is your fault, but the fact is that you caused a hazard and should have slowed down gradually.

I dont know how this will go, but would love to know the outcome.

ROY47

alistair.long wrote: »

It is hard to say if it is your fault, but the fact is that you caused a hazard and should have slowed down gradually.

you are joking with that statement I assume ?

lisyloo

It is hard to say if it is your fault

No it isn't at all.

but the fact is that you caused a hazard and should have slowed down gradually.

Rubbish, motorists are entitled to do an emergency stop if necessary (perhaps to save a life).
It's not always possible to slow down gradually for example if there is a crash in front.
It's not their fault if others are driving too close.
I have no doubt about how it will go. The 3rd car is 100% liable.

CDC2011

Thank you for your comments and for the reassurance.

I certainly didn't do an emergency stop but I shall stop there and not bite...

InsideInsurance

There have been rare cases where the leading party has been found partially liable for a rear end shunt when the trailing car has proved it was unreasonable for them to have braked as harshly as they did. The trailing party was still partially to blame as ultimately it could have been a justifiable reason for such harsh braking and there was still insufficient braking distance being left.

That said, as a lead vehicle that was not even directly involved in the impact I think they would have a massive uphill struggle to pin any liability on you.

alistair.long

lisyloo wrote: »

Rubbish, motorists are entitled to do an emergency stop if necessary (perhaps to save a life).
It's not always possible to slow down gradually for example if there is a crash in front.
It's not their fault if others are driving too close.
I have no doubt about how it will go. The 3rd car is 100% liable.

You state a emergency stop is needed if necessary (perhaps to save a life).
And there was no crash infront but a parked lorry.
Do you think it would be fair to do a emergency brake in this senario.

using "but for test" but for the driver infront not stoped the driver behind would not have stopped suddenly also.

I do see it hard to be blamed on the driver infront as the person behind should be keeping a safe distance. Hence why I would like to know the outcome.

thenudeone

ROY47 wrote: »

Your vehicle wasn't involved in the accident so you can't be at fault

You don't need to have made physical contact in order to be at fault for an accident, and you can be prosecuted for failing to stop after an accident even if you haven't touched another vehicle.

The definition is "owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170/enacted
So, for example, if you come round a bend too fast and veer into oncoming traffic, forcing a vehicle off the road (which causes damage), but without your vehicle coming into contact with any other vehicle, you must still comply with the requirements laid down after an accident (i.e. stop, exchange details, report if injury involved).

However in this example I can't see how the OP could be seen as at fault.

TAF

I cant see how they can pin this on you... your responsible for driving your car, not the 3rd car behind you!!! and in any case... you just say fault lies with the lorry parked badly on your side of the road! lol