5 ms·

That's not true. If I'm a motorist, moving at speed, and I slam my brakes to grab that nifty parking spot, I am liable. Not the person who rear-ends me.

ArbitraryCrow 13y ago
Not in my jurisdiction. You're responsible for maintaining a safe distance to the vehicle in front of you, to allow for unexpected stops. It doesn't matter if they stop for a cat, a toddler, or hallucinated giant killer marmosets from outer space. As far as I know, this is standard in driving laws across the U.S. Is there somewhere this doesn't apply?
aroch 13y ago
If you're a motorist at speed (and I'll take "at speed" to mean normal street speed); you're almost probably not looking for a parking spot. Further, if you're going "at speed" --25-35mph -- the person behind you should be, at minimum, 2-3 car lengths behind you. If they aren't, they're failing to maintain a safe distance. You're not liable if the person behind you, driving unsafely, rear-ends you.
- oinksoft 13y ago
  Clearly you've never driven in the DC area. Seeing cars slam their brakes at 25-30mph to grab a spot on a busy street is laughably commonplace.
discostrings 13y ago
In every U.S. jurisdiction I'm familiar with, the person doing the rear-ending is liable, not the person who brakes unexpectedly. The idea is that everyone should leave stopping distance. In heavy traffic, people generally don't leave this distance, but it's still the law.
- oinksoft 13y ago
  I was wrong about liability (the rear-ender is liable, unless you can prove negligence or recklessness on the part of the driver ahead), but I run a serious hazard of stopping short myself as a cyclist that the motorist does not (except for motorcyclists). There is a good chance I will be killed by the car or truck behind me. This is why, while I have always been able to stop my bicycle in time, it is a frightening experience in traffic.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  Not in every jurisdiction. PA for example is no-fault. The idea is that while you shouldn't be driving so close behind, you also should slam on the breaks. Both are equally reckless.
digismack 13y ago
What jurisdiction do you live? Everywhere I have ever lived if a vehicle hits you from behind, it's their fault, period.
- danielweber 13y ago
  Yeah, it's extremely hard to set up a circumstance where the person in behind is not at fault. If you get hit and get propelled into the car in front of you, it's your fault you hit the car in front of you (although this may vary by state). If the manual transmission car in front of you shifts into neutral on a hill and slides back into you, it's your fault. The person behind is usually in control of the space between cars and they are held to be responsible for it. You can possibly make it not their fault if you shift directly into someone's lane at speed right in front of them and then hit the brakes.

ArbitraryCrow 13y ago

Not in my jurisdiction. You're responsible for maintaining a safe distance to the vehicle in front of you, to allow for unexpected stops. It doesn't matter if they stop for a cat, a toddler, or hallucinated giant killer marmosets from outer space. As far as I know, this is standard in driving laws across the U.S. Is there somewhere this doesn't apply?

aroch 13y ago

If you're a motorist at speed (and I'll take "at speed" to mean normal street speed); you're almost probably not looking for a parking spot. Further, if you're going "at speed" --25-35mph -- the person behind you should be, at minimum, 2-3 car lengths behind you. If they aren't, they're failing to maintain a safe distance. You're not liable if the person behind you, driving unsafely, rear-ends you.

oinksoft 13y ago
Clearly you've never driven in the DC area. Seeing cars slam their brakes at 25-30mph to grab a spot on a busy street is laughably commonplace.

discostrings 13y ago

In every U.S. jurisdiction I'm familiar with, the person doing the rear-ending is liable, not the person who brakes unexpectedly. The idea is that everyone should leave stopping distance. In heavy traffic, people generally don't leave this distance, but it's still the law.

oinksoft 13y ago
I was wrong about liability (the rear-ender is liable, unless you can prove negligence or recklessness on the part of the driver ahead), but I run a serious hazard of stopping short myself as a cyclist that the motorist does not (except for motorcyclists). There is a good chance I will be killed by the car or truck behind me. This is why, while I have always been able to stop my bicycle in time, it is a frightening experience in traffic.
jasonlotito 13y ago
Not in every jurisdiction. PA for example is no-fault. The idea is that while you shouldn't be driving so close behind, you also should slam on the breaks. Both are equally reckless.

digismack 13y ago

What jurisdiction do you live? Everywhere I have ever lived if a vehicle hits you from behind, it's their fault, period.

danielweber 13y ago
Yeah, it's extremely hard to set up a circumstance where the person in behind is not at fault. If you get hit and get propelled into the car in front of you, it's your fault you hit the car in front of you (although this may vary by state). If the manual transmission car in front of you shifts into neutral on a hill and slides back into you, it's your fault. The person behind is usually in control of the space between cars and they are held to be responsible for it. You can possibly make it not their fault if you shift directly into someone's lane at speed right in front of them and then hit the brakes.