Car hit me from behind. He said it was my fault

BOWFER

Supersonos said:

But the person behind should have left enough space for them to be able to stop in time if the driver did something like slam their brakes on.

Or, at least, that's how I drive - assuming every other person on the road is an idiot.

You don't 'know' you're leaving enough room, you're only assuming you are because you've not run into someone.
Your idea of enough room might not be enough if you're behind a car with greater braking power and grip than you.
As I said before, we need to get rid of this mindset that it's always the person behind's fault, or the scammers will continue to prosper.

Herzlos

neilmcl said:

AdrianC said:

neilmcl said:

Even though you contributed to the accident by your own poor observation and late braking

Eh?

Green - prepare to stop.
Amber - stop, unless it's not safe to do so.

The OP did exactly what they should have done - stopped when the lights went from green to amber.

It's not their fault the driver behind wasn't looking where they were going.

The OP had to slam the anchors on as the lights changed which suggests they weren't prepared to stop nor was it safe to do so. They may have not been fully at fault but it doesn't take away from the fact that it was pretty poor driving.

Even so, the lights were changing so the following car should have been stopping anyway. More likely is they were planning on jumping the light and thus missed that the OP was stopping.

GeordieGeorge

neilmcl said:

AdrianC said:

neilmcl said:

Even though you contributed to the accident by your own poor observation and late braking

Eh?

Green - prepare to stop.
Amber - stop, unless it's not safe to do so.

The OP did exactly what they should have done - stopped when the lights went from green to amber.

It's not their fault the driver behind wasn't looking where they were going.

The OP had to slam the anchors on as the lights changed which suggests they weren't prepared to stop nor was it safe to do so. They may have not been fully at fault but it doesn't take away from the fact that it was pretty poor driving.

You are inventing things now to try to support what was a nonsensical view. There is noting wrong with braking hard when on a derestricted road and the lights change. The alternative, slowing down on approach to every green light, would be silly and annoying.

[Deleted User]

neilmcl said:

AdrianC said:

neilmcl said:

Even though you contributed to the accident by your own poor observation and late braking

Eh?

Green - prepare to stop.
Amber - stop, unless it's not safe to do so.

The OP did exactly what they should have done - stopped when the lights went from green to amber.

It's not their fault the driver behind wasn't looking where they were going.

The OP had to slam the anchors on as the lights changed which suggests they weren't prepared to stop nor was it safe to do so. They may have not been fully at fault but it doesn't take away from the fact that it was pretty poor driving.

OP did not say anything about "slamming the anchors", they said they saw the lights change and braked and "stopped a bit quickly". If he crossed the line then perhaps it would have been better to go through yes (but remember only the other driver claimed that and probably has no evidence to support it - OP didn't say either way) but the driver behind was clearly intending on going through regardless of the lights hence didn't brake so is at fault for not leaving a safe stopping distance.

On a different point, I am not sure why people think it's good driving to pull up to say a roundabout, stop and then look to see if they can go. If there is a car in front, yes, observe them for sure, but on approaching any junction or roundabout at the front, it is better driving to check if you can proceed, while being prepared to brake to stop safely as needed.

neilmcl

Herzlos said:

neilmcl said:

AdrianC said:

neilmcl said:

Even though you contributed to the accident by your own poor observation and late braking

Eh?

Green - prepare to stop.
Amber - stop, unless it's not safe to do so.

The OP did exactly what they should have done - stopped when the lights went from green to amber.

It's not their fault the driver behind wasn't looking where they were going.

The OP had to slam the anchors on as the lights changed which suggests they weren't prepared to stop nor was it safe to do so. They may have not been fully at fault but it doesn't take away from the fact that it was pretty poor driving.

Even so, the lights were changing so the following car should have been stopping anyway. More likely is they were planning on jumping the light and thus missed that the OP was stopping.

I'm not disputing that.

neilmcl

Deleted_User said:

neilmcl said:

AdrianC said:

neilmcl said:

Even though you contributed to the accident by your own poor observation and late braking

Eh?

Green - prepare to stop.
Amber - stop, unless it's not safe to do so.

The OP did exactly what they should have done - stopped when the lights went from green to amber.

It's not their fault the driver behind wasn't looking where they were going.

The OP had to slam the anchors on as the lights changed which suggests they weren't prepared to stop nor was it safe to do so. They may have not been fully at fault but it doesn't take away from the fact that it was pretty poor driving.

OP did not say anything about "slamming the anchors", they said they saw the lights change and braked and "stopped a bit quickly". If he crossed the line then perhaps it would have been better to go through yes (but remember only the other driver claimed that and probably has no evidence to support it - OP didn't say either way) but the driver behind was clearly intending on going through regardless of the lights hence didn't brake so is at fault for not leaving a safe stopping distance.

On a different point, I am not sure why people think it's good driving to pull up to say a roundabout, stop and then look to see if they can go. If there is a car in front, yes, observe them for sure, but on approaching any junction or roundabout at the front, it is better driving to check if you can proceed, while being prepared to brake to stop safely as needed.

Again, as I've quite clearly stated, I'm not disputing that the other driver is at fault, and yes the OP didn't say either way that that they had already crossed the line, the fact that they didn't deny it suggests more that they had done so, which led me to the opinion that they did brake late and inappropriately.

Grumpy_chap

Supersonos said:

I think watching 20mins of dashcam videos should be part of the driving test.  It'll teach you that a) anything can happen, b) when something does happen it happens very suddenly and c) it's amazing how badly some people drive.

I think that is now in the theory test - a video for perception etc.

BOWFER said:

You don't 'know' you're leaving enough room, you're only assuming you are because you've not run into someone.
Your idea of enough room might not be enough if you're behind a car with greater braking power and grip than you.
As I said before, we need to get rid of this mindset that it's always the person behind's fault, or the scammers will continue to prosper.

You 'know' you are leaving enough room if you do so based upon the stopping distance of your own car - if the car in front can stop quicker that is then irrelevant.
Regarding the mindset, a driver owes a duty of care to those in front and not those behind.

neilmcl

Grumpy_chap said:

Supersonos said:

I think watching 20mins of dashcam videos should be part of the driving test.  It'll teach you that a) anything can happen, b) when something does happen it happens very suddenly and c) it's amazing how badly some people drive.

I think that is now in the theory test - a video for perception etc.

BOWFER said:

You don't 'know' you're leaving enough room, you're only assuming you are because you've not run into someone.
Your idea of enough room might not be enough if you're behind a car with greater braking power and grip than you.
As I said before, we need to get rid of this mindset that it's always the person behind's fault, or the scammers will continue to prosper.

You 'know' you are leaving enough room if you do so based upon the stopping distance of your own car - if the car in front can stop quicker that is then irrelevant.
Regarding the mindset, a driver owes a duty of care to those in front and not those behind.

A driver also has to be aware of all vehicles, whether in front or behind and not brake in a manner that is inappropriate, dangerous and which could lead to an accident.

Car_54

BOWFER said:

Supersonos said:

But the person behind should have left enough space for them to be able to stop in time if the driver did something like slam their brakes on.

Or, at least, that's how I drive - assuming every other person on the road is an idiot.

You don't 'know' you're leaving enough room, you're only assuming you are because you've not run into someone.
Your idea of enough room might not be enough if you're behind a car with greater braking power and grip than you.

If you leave the space you were taught when learning, then the stopping power of the car in front will be irrelevant. See Highway Code Rule 126.

oldagetraveller1

"To make it worse it was a Vicar's car."

Was it classed as an act of God?

"There is a natural tendency to look right as you approach a roundabout to see if it is clear."

To my embarrasment, I did that years ago and ran into the back of the car in front!