4 ms·

> is 100% the fault of the drivers behind not keeping enough distance Bullshit. You are ~50% at fault. You're just 0% financially liable in the absence of ot

> is 100% the fault of the drivers behind not keeping enough distance Bullshit. You are ~50% at fault. You're just 0% financially liable in the absence of other facts. That is the default case we've concocted over the years to make financial liability easy to pin down. If you become a road obstruction for no good reason whatever happens after after that is half or more your fault. If you manage to dodge financial liability then you are simply exploiting an edge case of the system to the detriment of everyone else. The rules of the road are built around redundant obligations so that things don't go south whenever there's a momentary failure by one party. If you obstruct the road for no good reason you are just as at fault for the ensuing accident as someone who wasn't prepared for that obstruction. Thank god for dashcams....

naikrovek 4y ago
please get a "Rules of the Road" booklet, and learn it. what other things are you wrong about? obstructing the road is an offense if it is not done for a good reason, but even when it does happen, it will cause zero collisions if no one is impaired and everyone is following at safe distances. the fault of a single-lane rear-end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. always.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  > please get a "Rules of the Road" booklet, and learn it. No you. Literally. You need to do that. >obstructing the road is an offense if it is not done for a good reason, Exactly my point. >it will cause zero collisions if no one is impaired and everyone is following at safe distances. Hence by bit about redundant obligation and the difference between responsibility and financial liability. >the fault of a single-lane rear-end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. always. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Go anywhere people talk about dashcams and you'll find plenty of testimony to the tune of "had I not had video I'd have been paying for that dumb mfers poor decisions". The financial liability defaults to the following vehicle. It can always change if there are hard facts that amount to the other guy being more responsible.
  - naikrovek 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > the fault of a single-lane rear end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. Always. Courts have found that drivers that suddenly stop are sometimes liable instead of the car behind that was not able to stop. In California, we have CVC 22109, which prohibits coming to an unnecessary stop. Usually CVC 21703 -- which imposes a duty to not follow another driver when prudent, wins. But 22109 came about, and courts often choose to weigh it heavily in fault determinations because of a couple primary circumstances: * Cases where the leading driver deliberately instigated an accident because of road rage or to attempt insurance fraud. * Cases where the leading driver's car had inoperable brake lights, which impaired reaction time in the trailing vehicle. In these cases, the leading driver has been given the majority or even all of the fault of the accident. You seem particularly passionate about this topic having popped up on multiple threads about it, and you're just not correct. The things you're saying about rear-end collisions are usually true, but not the type of things that are always-true absolutes.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      >the fault of a single-lane rear end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. You are just plain wrong. Tons of people who thought they were "right" like you have gotten rear ended by doing things like putting on a blinker, slowing for a turn and then at the last second getting back into the travel lane in time to get hit by whoever was behind them. Or they stopped in the travel lane on a blind for some dumb reason and some trucker traveling at/below the speed limit (and with the data logging to prove it, because that's how commercial trucks are these days) comes along and can't stop in time. Or they pulled out in front of other traffic and didn't accelerate appropriately (I hit someone that did this once, they paid). > Always. if they were following at a safe distance, they would necessarily have had time to stop. that is what it means to follow at a safe distance. The world doesn't run based on this circular logic. Insurers are quite reasonable about this sort of thing. They all know that they all win if the more deviant driver pays and winds up with the black mark on their record. Moreover, while you may very well dodge financial liability because the other guy can't prove it was your fault, the responding officer may very well read between the lines and issue you some sorts of moving violations that you can't dodge with court and will have the same effective net financial result. >“refrain from personal attacks” no. they earned what i said. Well since we're going there... It is really a shame that drivers of your bent don't more often cross paths with someone prone to violent road rage. Society as a whole will benefit if two bad actors wind up off the roads in a "papa loved mamma" sort of way.
powerbroker 4y ago
Let's not forget the 'third party' (or is the 9th party?), a corporate maker of q software with implied and express warranties. Moreover, there are many, many, representations of safety for the alleged "advanced driver assistance system(s)'. I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt could get some modest litigation started. To the extent state attorney's are pre-empted by federal law, I'm sure that the NHTSA could pick up some of the slack.

naikrovek 4y ago

please get a "Rules of the Road" booklet, and learn it. what other things are you wrong about? obstructing the road is an offense if it is not done for a good reason, but even when it does happen, it will cause zero collisions if no one is impaired and everyone is following at safe distances. the fault of a single-lane rear-end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. always.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
> please get a "Rules of the Road" booklet, and learn it. No you. Literally. You need to do that. >obstructing the road is an offense if it is not done for a good reason, Exactly my point. >it will cause zero collisions if no one is impaired and everyone is following at safe distances. Hence by bit about redundant obligation and the difference between responsibility and financial liability. >the fault of a single-lane rear-end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. always. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Go anywhere people talk about dashcams and you'll find plenty of testimony to the tune of "had I not had video I'd have been paying for that dumb mfers poor decisions". The financial liability defaults to the following vehicle. It can always change if there are hard facts that amount to the other guy being more responsible.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > the fault of a single-lane rear end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. Always. Courts have found that drivers that suddenly stop are sometimes liable instead of the car behind that was not able to stop. In California, we have CVC 22109, which prohibits coming to an unnecessary stop. Usually CVC 21703 -- which imposes a duty to not follow another driver when prudent, wins. But 22109 came about, and courts often choose to weigh it heavily in fault determinations because of a couple primary circumstances: * Cases where the leading driver deliberately instigated an accident because of road rage or to attempt insurance fraud. * Cases where the leading driver's car had inoperable brake lights, which impaired reaction time in the trailing vehicle. In these cases, the leading driver has been given the majority or even all of the fault of the accident. You seem particularly passionate about this topic having popped up on multiple threads about it, and you're just not correct. The things you're saying about rear-end collisions are usually true, but not the type of things that are always-true absolutes.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >the fault of a single-lane rear end collision is always the fault of the following vehicle. You are just plain wrong. Tons of people who thought they were "right" like you have gotten rear ended by doing things like putting on a blinker, slowing for a turn and then at the last second getting back into the travel lane in time to get hit by whoever was behind them. Or they stopped in the travel lane on a blind for some dumb reason and some trucker traveling at/below the speed limit (and with the data logging to prove it, because that's how commercial trucks are these days) comes along and can't stop in time. Or they pulled out in front of other traffic and didn't accelerate appropriately (I hit someone that did this once, they paid). > Always. if they were following at a safe distance, they would necessarily have had time to stop. that is what it means to follow at a safe distance. The world doesn't run based on this circular logic. Insurers are quite reasonable about this sort of thing. They all know that they all win if the more deviant driver pays and winds up with the black mark on their record. Moreover, while you may very well dodge financial liability because the other guy can't prove it was your fault, the responding officer may very well read between the lines and issue you some sorts of moving violations that you can't dodge with court and will have the same effective net financial result. >“refrain from personal attacks” no. they earned what i said. Well since we're going there... It is really a shame that drivers of your bent don't more often cross paths with someone prone to violent road rage. Society as a whole will benefit if two bad actors wind up off the roads in a "papa loved mamma" sort of way.

powerbroker 4y ago

Let's not forget the 'third party' (or is the 9th party?), a corporate maker of q software with implied and express warranties. Moreover, there are many, many, representations of safety for the alleged "advanced driver assistance system(s)'. I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt could get some modest litigation started. To the extent state attorney's are pre-empted by federal law, I'm sure that the NHTSA could pick up some of the slack.