minor accident - i am being stiched up

artbaron

Bravehearted wrote: »

At such a slow speed, you only hit the car in front if you are not paying attention or tailing the car.

That's the most likely explanation but I see it being claimed as the only explanation, which is not true.

First, the guideline stopping distance for 20mph is 12 metres, which is around 40 feet or over 3 car lengths. There is no way this can be maintained in urban traffic. Leave that amount of space and it'll be filled within 10 seconds, so if you plan on getting anywhere you need to get closer.

Accepting that urban motorists have no choice but to drive at less than guideline safe distances from the car in front then crashing into the car in front if they emergency brake can either be a result of inattention or it can be unavoidable. 95% of times admittedly it's the former but it doesn't have to be so. I have 4-pots on my car and if I slam on the brakes at 20mph then the person 25 feet behind in the bog-standard saloon will be in the back of me even if they reacted faster than Usain Bolt. I doubt that was the case in this instance but I'm just saying that the insurance mantra of the driver who runs into the back of someone always being at fault is simple false. If fault is to be apportioned then it should be done so reasonably. Slamming on the brakes for no clear reason in heavy traffic should attract more blame than driving with less than optimal spacing.

Avoriaz

savingsp wrote: »

Who are you to keep critisizing he hasnt had an accident or fine in 12 years of driving....

That is irrelevant.

Every single driver that has his or her first ever accident has had a period of accident free motoring. It takes some longer than others to have their first and 12 years is not a record. Some drivers go for 30, 40 or 50 years before their first accident. Some never have one.

There is nothing magical about driving accident free for 12 years that makes your husband immune from causing one, as he appears to have done in this case. He rear ended another car at 17 mph. He must take the blame for that no matter how suddenly or unexpectedly the driver in front braked.

My advice is to accept the situation, be grateful that nobody was badly hurt, that your husband is unhurt and leave it to the insurance company to sort out the aftermath.

flashnazia

she suffered whiplash, she has neck and back pain, headaches and dizziness , also an anxiety to drive.

Classic scam terminology.

flashnazia

Op, if you are sure this is a set up (think about this carefully) than fight this via your insurance company.

My aunt experienced a child open a door in her car's path. Luckily she stopped but grazed the door slightly. She was so nice about it, visiting child at home etc but noticed the parents acting a bit 'off'.

Sure enough a letter arrives a few days later alleging that the child was hit.

They even got a fake witness. Luckily she 'couldn't remember' the colours of the cars involved (yeah, because she wasn't there!) so the judge saw sense; I dread to think it could have gone the other way had the 'witness' been a bit more on the ball.

More should be done to protect motorists from this.

dodders

I think it will all depend on your witness and there explanation to the insurance company.

z1a

dodders wrote: »

I think it will all depend on your witness and there explanation to the insurance company.

Very much doubt it, He was driving too close for his driving ability, 100% at fault IMO.

mountainofdebt

Just be thankful that a passenger hasn't materalised and put in a claim as well

Bravehearted_2

artbaron wrote: »

That's the most likely explanation but I see it being claimed as the only explanation, which is not true.

First, the guideline stopping distance for 20mph is 12 metres, which is around 40 feet or over 3 car lengths. There is no way this can be maintained in urban traffic. Leave that amount of space and it'll be filled within 10 seconds, so if you plan on getting anywhere you need to get closer.

Accepting that urban motorists have no choice but to drive at less than guideline safe distances from the car in front then crashing into the car in front if they emergency brake can either be a result of inattention or it can be unavoidable. 95% of times admittedly it's the former but it doesn't have to be so. I have 4-pots on my car and if I slam on the brakes at 20mph then the person 25 feet behind in the bog-standard saloon will be in the back of me even if they reacted faster than Usain Bolt. I doubt that was the case in this instance but I'm just saying that the insurance mantra of the driver who runs into the back of someone always being at fault is simple false. If fault is to be apportioned then it should be done so reasonably. Slamming on the brakes for no clear reason in heavy traffic should attract more blame than driving with less than optimal spacing.

The explanation you've given isn't a reason to be tailing someone.

So what if you're driving 40 feet behind and it gets filled? The cars aren't going to simply remain there - they will keep moving and so will you. That excuse is holds no water.

3 car lengths can absolutely and should be maintained. I drive on super urban roads and see this maintained so cannot accept the exception you describe above.

artbaron

Bravehearted wrote: »

The explanation you've given isn't a reason to be tailing someone.

So what if you're driving 40 feet behind and it gets filled? The cars aren't going to simply remain there - they will keep moving and so will you. That excuse is holds no water.

3 car lengths can absolutely and should be maintained. I drive on super urban roads and see this maintained so cannot accept the exception you describe above.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Strider590

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

It's you husbands fault if he ran into the back of her, end of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NqXGtvI9MQ

Not always.......