6 ms·

I haven't read statute, but my understanding has always been that if you run into the car in front of you, it is your fault, period. If you didn't have time to

I haven't read statute, but my understanding has always been that if you run into the car in front of you, it is your fault, period. If you didn't have time to stop, you are "Following too close for conditions", regardless of what those conditions are. I agree that culturally a lot of people in such situations say "It's not my fault, they stopped right in front of me!", but as you correctly point out, there are legitimate reasons for someone to come to a sudden stop, and as a driver it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you are ready for that possibility.

cjbgkagh 4y ago
You get situations of people backing into you which looks like you ran into them. I think it's on the absence of other evidence the car with front damage is presumed guilty but if you have additional evidence like a dashcam you can challenge that presumption.
- candiodari 4y ago
  You can easily tell this situation from the tire marks.
- dylan604 4y ago
  In that situation, the person did not get hit from the rear. They hit someone with their rear.
  - cjbgkagh 4y ago
    Good luck proving that without evidence. You can see a number of youtube videos of people trying to perpetuate break checks as an insurance scam. Sometimes break checking alone doesn't work so they reverse into you. Relying too hard on simple heuristics creates these problems and additional evidence such as dash cams can help.
- sorum 4y ago
  It's one of the reasons we have dashcams in both our cars. Added bonus is that if you witness an incident, the police is very happy when you can send them the video file to prove how it all happened.
tshaddox 4y ago
There’s no way that can be true if a car changes lanes or pulls out of an intersection in front of you.
- techdmn 4y ago
  This is fair, I should have been more specific. "Following too close" implies "following", doesn't include people unexpectedly pulling into a stream of traffic. In this instance the Tesla changing lanes would mitigate "Following too close" and it would likely be "Unsafe lane change". That's only true for the first vehicle though, not the rest of the pile up.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"Unsafe lane change" Well "unsafe lane change" can be totally legit as well. I for once had to do no think abrupt lane change when I saw some largish object appear seemingly out of nowhere and it was flying towards my front window. Still do not know what it was. Abrupt lane change did not cause any problem in this case but in theory it could have.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      While you may have had a legit reason, there's no way you can expect a driver in the lane you abruptly changed into to anticipate this behavior. If you hit another car in your abrupt change, you are still at fault even if you have a legit reason. Of no fault of their own, the car you hit trying to avoid something means you didn't avoid them. The car you hit did nothing wrong, but you did. Insurance will place you at fault at a minimum of partial fault. You will not be blameless in your example if you do hit someone/something
      - FpUser 4y ago
        >"there's no way you can expect a driver in the lane you abruptly changed into to anticipate this behavior" I am not expecting anything. Just trying to save my life.
danabrams 4y ago
In some states (perhaps even most or all) this is true. It is your legal responsibility to drive a safe enough distance to the car in front so you can avoid collision always if they stop short for any reason.
godelski 4y ago
I had a driver brake randomly and I rear ended them. They ended up admitting it and my insurance went from being mad at me to covering everything. Granted I barely tapped them but still, I think the law is a bit fuzzier than that.
- Fatnino 4y ago
  Same exact thing happened to me. But my car is over 20 years old so the handshake on the side of the road was the end of it.
hef19898 4y ago
That is exactly how it is handled in Germany. Actually not keeping enough distance on the Autobahn is one of things with serious fines overhere. I know both, the "your fault to hit car in front of you" and the "please pay 200 bucls and hand over your liscense for month as you were to close and we have video" aspects of it.
ncr100 4y ago
Insurance scams attempts to exploit this interpretation of the statues.

cjbgkagh 4y ago

You get situations of people backing into you which looks like you ran into them. I think it's on the absence of other evidence the car with front damage is presumed guilty but if you have additional evidence like a dashcam you can challenge that presumption.

candiodari 4y ago
You can easily tell this situation from the tire marks.
dylan604 4y ago
In that situation, the person did not get hit from the rear. They hit someone with their rear.
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  Good luck proving that without evidence. You can see a number of youtube videos of people trying to perpetuate break checks as an insurance scam. Sometimes break checking alone doesn't work so they reverse into you. Relying too hard on simple heuristics creates these problems and additional evidence such as dash cams can help.
sorum 4y ago
It's one of the reasons we have dashcams in both our cars. Added bonus is that if you witness an incident, the police is very happy when you can send them the video file to prove how it all happened.

tshaddox 4y ago

There’s no way that can be true if a car changes lanes or pulls out of an intersection in front of you.

techdmn 4y ago
This is fair, I should have been more specific. "Following too close" implies "following", doesn't include people unexpectedly pulling into a stream of traffic. In this instance the Tesla changing lanes would mitigate "Following too close" and it would likely be "Unsafe lane change". That's only true for the first vehicle though, not the rest of the pile up.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"Unsafe lane change" Well "unsafe lane change" can be totally legit as well. I for once had to do no think abrupt lane change when I saw some largish object appear seemingly out of nowhere and it was flying towards my front window. Still do not know what it was. Abrupt lane change did not cause any problem in this case but in theory it could have.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    While you may have had a legit reason, there's no way you can expect a driver in the lane you abruptly changed into to anticipate this behavior. If you hit another car in your abrupt change, you are still at fault even if you have a legit reason. Of no fault of their own, the car you hit trying to avoid something means you didn't avoid them. The car you hit did nothing wrong, but you did. Insurance will place you at fault at a minimum of partial fault. You will not be blameless in your example if you do hit someone/something
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"there's no way you can expect a driver in the lane you abruptly changed into to anticipate this behavior" I am not expecting anything. Just trying to save my life.

danabrams 4y ago

In some states (perhaps even most or all) this is true. It is your legal responsibility to drive a safe enough distance to the car in front so you can avoid collision always if they stop short for any reason.

godelski 4y ago

I had a driver brake randomly and I rear ended them. They ended up admitting it and my insurance went from being mad at me to covering everything. Granted I barely tapped them but still, I think the law is a bit fuzzier than that.

Fatnino 4y ago
Same exact thing happened to me. But my car is over 20 years old so the handshake on the side of the road was the end of it.

hef19898 4y ago

That is exactly how it is handled in Germany. Actually not keeping enough distance on the Autobahn is one of things with serious fines overhere. I know both, the "your fault to hit car in front of you" and the "please pay 200 bucls and hand over your liscense for month as you were to close and we have video" aspects of it.

ncr100 4y ago

Insurance scams attempts to exploit this interpretation of the statues.