Potentially the longest thread in history...

[kmote]

Re: Today I have...

Why are you going to sue him? The crash was your friends fault. That's why you can't get any money from your insurance company, right?

 

[Jayce]

Re: Today I have...

Hate to say it, but at least in PA, if you rear end somebody there is *zero* winning it. It's just automatically assumed that you couldn't stop in time and as a result, you are at fault. Doesn't matter if it's ice, a dog, a moose, an airplane, etc. That's just PA's rules at least, not sure what it's like wherever you live.

Regardless, the SUV driver shouldn't have left, and that might be a charge.

 

[Luke]

Re: Today I have...

if a car in front of you braked, and u hit them, then it is 100% your fault.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Re: Today I have...

I know here whenever a car rear ends another one the driver of the rear car is automatically at fault for the accident regardless of how quickly the front car stopped.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

Re: Today I have...

Same as here. I believe that's why they say something about a '3 second rule' not 'a car length' traveling at 40mph.

 

[toxicity_27]

Re: Today I have...

Today I woke up with a really bad pain in my stomach. Went to work and we called it early as most of us felt like crap and it was raining. (I work outdoors). Came home and took a couple hour nap because I felt drained. Watched a little tv, had some supper even though my stomach hurt so much I didn't want to eat. Just finished reading for an hour. Now I'm just going to lounge around, read some forums and take it easy.

 

[PP Mguire]

Re: Today I have...

Why are you going to sue him? The crash was your friends fault. That's why you can't get any money from your insurance company, right?

Regardless of what insurance companies "think" is the fault, if one person in front could have avoided not stopping that is automatically their fault and I had the cop to back me up on my opinion of the situation.

Hate to say it, but at least in PA, if you rear end somebody there is *zero* winning it. It's just automatically assumed that you couldn't stop in time and as a result, you are at fault. Doesn't matter if it's ice, a dog, a moose, an airplane, etc. That's just PA's rules at least, not sure what it's like wherever you live.

Regardless, the SUV driver shouldn't have left, and that might be a charge.

You missed the point. Way to go.

if a car in front of you braked, and u hit them, then it is 100% your fault.

To the insurance companies yes, but the person stopped for an inadequate reason so there for it is his fault.

Everyone needs to take a reality check here and realize just because the insurance companies think the rear ender is at fault doesn't mean it is literally their fault. The fact that even though I was doing 15 under the speed limit at a car length behind should be proof enough that the ******* in the very front (remember, it was 3 cars, SUV, my friends car, me) stopped way to quickly for a reason that I could care less for. When you have plenty of room on either side to go either way to avoid hitting a stupid dog and instead slam on the brakes causing a 3 car pile up is enough reason for me that this guy is going to pay one way or another.

Oh yea, inb4 over reacting, because our lives have just been ****ed in case anybody hadn't realized this.

 

[Luke]

Re: Today I have...

^i agree, it is not your fault, but im pretty **** sure that even if the guy slammed on his breaks for a rolling bag of dog ****, i have always know, for some reason or another, that it is ur responsibility to be following at a safe distance and be aware enough to brake safely in time. If you guys are able to sue please let me know that i am wrong because i would very much like to know and sorry about the situation you have been put in, that really sucks.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Re: Today I have...

Regardless of what insurance companies "think" is the fault, if one person in front could have avoided not stopping that is automatically their fault and I had the cop to back me up on my opinion of the situation.

You missed the point. Way to go.

To the insurance companies yes, but the person stopped for an inadequate reason so there for it is his fault.

Everyone needs to take a reality check here and realize just because the insurance companies think the rear ender is at fault doesn't mean it is literally their fault. The fact that even though I was doing 15 under the speed limit at a car length behind should be proof enough that the ******* in the very front (remember, it was 3 cars, SUV, my friends car, me) stopped way to quickly for a reason that I could care less for. When you have plenty of room on either side to go either way to avoid hitting a stupid dog and instead slam on the brakes causing a 3 car pile up is enough reason for me that this guy is going to pay one way or another.

Oh yea, inb4 over reacting, because our lives have just been ****ed in case anybody hadn't realized this.

When one of my neighbors was rear ended the driver that hit him complained that he stopped to quickly and the cop told him he didn't give a **** if my neighbor was going 75mph and stomped on the brakes, it is still the second drivers resolvability to follow at a safe distance that allows them plenty of time to stop. This doesn't have anything to do with the insurance company either, I'm 99% sure it is state law although I can't find the specific law atm.

 

[PP Mguire]

Re: Today I have...

Well as I already told my friend, I doubt we will be able to but the thought is nice.

The speed limit is 55, we where slowing for an S curve that is uphill, I was doing 40 and was a car length away from my friend who slammed into the SUV. People brake when you see brake lights, except there where none and if there where it was a split second because the guy stopped that fast. I was at a complete safe distance because I drive like a grandma when I have passengers (which I did). The whole point of the matter though is he could have either ran over the dog because it wouldn't have done any damage or went into the other lane to dodge it instead of causing a 3 car pile up. THAT is the final point of the matter. No, instead the idiot slammed on the brakes.

To puddle, yea I don't give a rats *** what they think. With how fast it happened not even a professional race car driver could have stopped in time with a tuned auto. That is the whole point of saying the guy stopped way to fast for no ****in reason. The whole point of me reiterating a million times that I was far enough away and still clipped the driver side front enough to do serious damage. If I was being like any other normal idiot driver my whole front end would be totaled like my best friends car because no he wasn't at a safe distance.

Edit:

Let me give you a photographic example of what I'm talking about here. If I was tailgating like every other moron driver my car would look like this.

But no, because I'm a **** good driver and was at a safe distance my car only looks like this.

The guy still stopped way to fast for anyone to really react which is my point of he shoulda went around instead of causing a **** storm.

In different situations where the ol "stay at a good distance and you will avoid" comes into play I have avoided many wrecks because of this and was able to keep driving. Doing 65 on a highway you still have to be a good driver even at a good distance to still miss somebody who has made a complete dead stop in less than 5 seconds. Insurance companies for some dumb reason assume everyone is a perfect race car driver when no in all reality 90% of drivers on the road are ****ty and don't pay attention. With this particular time there simply wasn't enough time to do anything.