On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 06:44:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 23, 9:26Â*am, Art Todesco wrote:
On 6/23/2011 8:58 AM, jamesgangnc wrote: On Jun 23, 8:46 am, Smitty Â*wrote:
In article
,

Â* Â*wrote:
And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

That's the case everywhere I have lived. Â*If you can't stop in time
then you were to close to begin with.

Agree, assuming you are already following someone and you
are in control of the seperation, And that's certainly the vast
majority of cases. However, consider the case where you
have two lanes, someone passes you quickly, cuts into the
lane in front of you, then slams on the brakes. You can't
stop in time and hit him. In that case, it's the other person's
fault.

He gets charged with failing to yeild or unsafe lane change - and
occaisionally dangerous or careless driving. Assuming there are
witnesses. You, as the rearmost driver, will often also be CHARGED -
but often not convicted. - for following too close.

That's where credible witnesses come in.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:09:19 -0700 (PDT), Gz
wrote:

On Jun 23, 9:27Â*am, Tegger wrote:
Thomas wrote in news:3700a77b-2c84-4597-b072-
:

So the ABS shuts itself off at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

That's my experience. I back out onto a steep alley. When there is
snow or ice I must go as slow as possible. The ABS will not work and
at times have slid the entire length.

This is a common complaint with ABS of all makes, especially once the tires Â*
get a bit worn.

--
Tegger

My complaint, when going very slow my anti lock will come on, on bumpy
roads, and when you get wheel hop, and the anti lock feature is a
hazard in this case. Especially on one downhill slope onto an artery.

Greg
"premature engagement" - usually caused by a weak sensor or rusted
reluctor wheel.

dpb wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
....


Nope. You might think it's his fault, but the law doesn't.

I doubt _very_ much that there's any of the US states which have the law
of presumption ... such that it is not rebuttable--...


In short, the difficulty is probably in the interpretation of
"presumuption". Whereas we're used to the "innocent until proved
guilty", in this specific instance the _presumption_ is the fault is
with the person who hit the rear of the other. In this case, to be
exonerated, the onus is upon that individual to present sufficient
evidence to counter the presumption. It's not that it is inevitably so
but the burden of proof is shifted 180 degrees from the normal.

--

In article , dpb wrote:

dpb wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
...


Nope. You might think it's his fault, but the law doesn't.

I doubt _very_ much that there's any of the US states which have the law
of presumption ... such that it is not rebuttable--...


In short, the difficulty is probably in the interpretation of
"presumuption". Whereas we're used to the "innocent until proved
guilty", in this specific instance the _presumption_ is the fault is
with the person who hit the rear of the other. In this case, to be
exonerated, the onus is upon that individual to present sufficient
evidence to counter the presumption. It's not that it is inevitably so
but the burden of proof is shifted 180 degrees from the normal.

--

A cop witnesses a murder; the murderer is a *suspect* until proven
guilty. Is he likely to be convicted? Yes.

A car is found smashed into the back of another car. The driver is a
*suspect* until proven guilty. Is he likely to be convicted? Yes.

Same thing. Not a 180 degree shift in my book. Murder is illegal. So is
slamming into the back of another driver's car.

In article ,
mm wrote:


There are exceptiosn to everything. What if the driver in front
stopped as quickly as possible with the intention of making the guy
behind him hit her?

Commonly done by insurance fraud rackets. They know the driver in back
will be found guilty. Usually involves a bunch of phony medical
treatment, which quickly adds up to a lot more than the cost of bent
metal.

In article
,
Evan wrote:

On Jun 23, 9:57*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
Agree, assuming you are already following someone and you
are in control of the seperation, *And that's certainly the vast
majority of cases. * However, consider the case where you
have two lanes, someone passes you quickly, cuts into the
lane in front of you, then slams on the brakes. *You can't
stop in time and hit him. *In that case, it's the other person's
*fault.

Nope. You might think it's his fault, but the law doesn't.

That depends on where you are located and how many
witnesses stick around... If you rear end a vehicle whose
driver just committed traffic offenses to get into the lane
ahead of you then the "you hit the back of my car so you
are at fault" line of logic does not always apply -- anyway
in a two car accident most places these days will apply
50:50 at fault so both operators can take the insurance
points increase... The only way to not have 50:50 at fault
is to be involved in an car accident with three or more
vehicles damaged...

~~ Evan

No fault insurance, where it is practiced, is an entirely different
matter than traffic offenses.

In article
,
" wrote:



Does that law in your state say that it's
always the fault of the person in the rear, "unless the cop
witnessed an unsafe lane change?" Somehow I doubt that
and I also doubt there is any law in your state that actually
says it's always the fault of the driver that's behind. Nor
could you possibly know the motor vehicle laws in all
50 states.

It's pretty much against the law to run into another car, in all 50
states. This is a lot simpler than you're trying to make it:

When two cars collide at an uncontrolled intersection, if they hit left
front corner to right front corner, it's going to be hard to determine
who hit whom. If, on the other hand, the front end of one car is found
smashed into the side of the other car, the guy who did the broadsiding
is most likely to be found guilty.

On the road, when one car hits another car from behind, the guy behind
did the hitting, unless the guy in front was backing up. The law may or
may not list a whole bunch of specific what-ifs, but if car A hits car
B, car A's driver is at fault.




Nice way to behave on the roads. Hope I'm not anywhere near you.

Tailgating is rude, and dangerous, and causes accidents, and people who
practice it should not be permitted to drive. If you're a tailgater, I
hope you're no where near me, either.

"N8N" wrote

I thought the bottom-end cutoff for ABS was around 10 or 15 mph.

It depends on the particular system and how it is programmed, but
below 5 MPH I would suspect that nearly all will be inactive at that
point.

nate

My Buick ABS will kick in at a walking pace, much less than 5 mph. Only on
slippery road, I've never tried stomping them on dry at that speed.

"Smitty Two" wrote
I slammed on my brakes for a tailgater once, then immediately stomped on
the gas. The woman behind him creamed him. Both cars heavily damaged.
The guy behind me was fuming. Absolutely furious with me. It was his
girlfriend's car, she was in the passenger seat, it was their first day
of vacation. Cop declared me uninvolved and free to go, no questions
asked.

A guy at work did a similar thing a few months ago. He got $3100 in damages
on a year old car. He got some satisfaction from it, but still had a
damaged car. Not worth the risk, IMO.

On Jun 23, 6:49*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,





*Evan wrote:
On Jun 23, 9:57*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
Agree, assuming you are already following someone and you
are in control of the seperation, *And that's certainly the vast
majority of cases. * However, consider the case where you
have two lanes, someone passes you quickly, cuts into the
lane in front of you, then slams on the brakes. *You can't
stop in time and hit him. *In that case, it's the other person's
*fault.

Nope. You might think it's his fault, but the law doesn't.

That depends on where you are located and how many
witnesses stick around... *If you rear end a vehicle whose
driver just committed traffic offenses to get into the lane
ahead of you then the "you hit the back of my car so you
are at fault" line of logic does not always apply -- anyway
in a two car accident most places these days will apply
50:50 at fault so both operators can take the insurance
points increase... *The only way to not have 50:50 at fault
is to be involved in an car accident with three or more
vehicles damaged...

~~ Evan

No fault insurance, where it is practiced, is an entirely different
matter than traffic offenses.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right. Even in 'no-fault' states, you will still get a ticket for
being the cause of an accident.

Harry K

"Smitty Two" wrote in message newsrestwhich-
In article
" wrote:

And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

Yeah, but . . .

An unsafe lane change, IF IT CAN BE PROVED, will shift the blame to the
party making the unsafe change. It happens all the time on the DC Capital
Beltway (people cutting in front of other people, reducing their "safe
stopping distance.") If you're unlucky enough to do it in front of a cop,
(on or off-duty) you'll get a ticket. If you do it in front of a vehicle
with a camera (more and more commercials vehicles have dashcams) you'll be
blamed. Any truck driver on the Beltway can tell you how often cars will
zip in front of them never giving a thought how much they've shortened the
trucker's "safe following distance" or how much more room a truck needs to
stop quickly. So if you look at the cabs of newer trucks you'll see more
and more cameras because of people who make unsafe lane changes. Here in
the DC area people also cross solid lines to make lane changes, driving on
the shoulders or in other areas where lane changes are not allowed.

A rear-ending of someone who has just gotten on the highway from the
shoulder is NOT considered the fault of the driver hitting the merging car
in the rear. When rejoining moving traffic from the shoulder, almost
anything "bad" that happens as a result of that merge is the fault of the
driver who is NOT on the main roadway. The problem most people have is that
it's often impossible without witnesses or video to prove that the other
driver is at fault. That's because of the strong presumption, as you've
noted, of everyone to believe if you're struck from behind, it's the
striking driver's fault

That's one of the reasons I picked up a very nice electronic color dashcam
from Ebay that records up to several hours in ten minute segments, erasing
the oldest stuff first when the memory card is full. I installed mine
because I "T-boned" a car full of students who had run a red light. I
remember being bathed in the green of the traffic light at the moment of
impact, thinking "I'm going to die now and I had the green light!!!" It was
a serious impact - I was travelling at about 50MPH and there were extensive
injuries to the front seat passenger where my car hit.

Both cars were totaled and those sonovabitch students lied about what
happened - I even HEARD the driver saying "this is my third accident -
you've GOT to say it wasn't my fault or my folks will take the car away from
me." I still fume thinking about it. Anyway, that's when I decided I
needed a dashcam, just like the cops. Not only would it have shown who was
in the right in that crash, despite four people conspiring to lie, it would
show when someone did an unsafe lane change into the space in front of my
car. If it showed me in the wrong, well, those SD cards are SO tiny it
might just disappear!

So far, I've captured some pretty amazing "cut ins" on "film" (SD card,
actually) but I have not been in any accidents while driving with the cams
in place. On the DC Beltway during rush hour it is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain a
safe following distance. When bozos see that huge, empty space they rush to
get to it. If I am traveling in the inner two of four lanes, sometimes
people from both adjoining lanes will dive for the same spot.

The camera I got was under $100 from Ebay. It records in an endless loop,
plugs into the auxiliary lighter socket, comes on when the car is started
and records for 1 minute after the car is turned off via a built in
rechargeable lithium cell. Takes a standard SD card - I use a 1GB card
because in reality, in a crash you'll only need about 30 seconds of the
pre-impact video to prove who was at fault. The only real negative about
the cam is that the date is GOD AWFUL difficult to set and if it sits too
long without being driven, the internal battery dies and the unit needs to
be hooked up to a PC to set the clock with a special batch file that's not
correctly specified in the manual.

I moved that camera to my 20 year old Honda and installed a four-camera
system in my van because it's got $25K worth of handicapped equipment and a
single dash cam is not enough for "full protection." That takes a front,
rear and two side view cams and a solid state quad recorder. Instead of
using a "not likely to survive a hard impact hard disk, I got a 16GB CF card
with an IDE adapter so there are no delicate moving parts to fail in a
crash. That rig cost $300 for everything but I figure that's still less
than my deductible.

Most importantly, if something like the "T-bone" crash ever happens again,
I'll let those muthafu&kers lie their asses off to the cops before I reveal
I have video of the crash so I can totally discredit them. It was a bitter
pill to swallow to learn that if witnesses conspire to lie against the lone
driver of the other car, judges and adjusters will believe them in a
heartbeat. Never again! I ended up with a surcharge for three years
because I was considered "at fault" by the insurance company. Sometimes,
when I think about it, it makes me angry enough to wish I had killed the
whole carload of lying little *******s. If there's anything I hate it's
being "lied on" and blamed for something someone else did.

If you have any doubts about unsafe lane changes "trumping" the *almost*
universal assumption that if you hit a car from behind then you're at fault,
call your local State Troopers. They are usually well-informed about
highway traffic rules.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...accidents.html

points out a few other exceptions to the "hit from behind - the other
driver's fault" rule"

Exceptions to Rear-End Auto Accidents
There may be times when the driver who rear-ended you is not at fault or at
least is not completely at fault. It is possible that you were partly a
fault for the accident. Examples of where you could be partially at fault
include the following:

a.. Your brake or tail lights don't work, especially if it is dark out
b.. Your car has mechanical problems but you fail to move it off the road

--
Bobby G.

On 6/23/2011 3:53 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 6/23/2011 5:02 AM, mm wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

Regardless of what you read, the facts are that a non-antilock car will
stop shorter than one WITH antilock. One report I read it was 50-60 FEET
shorter in a 60 to 0 test.

My GMC truck has antilock brakes, and they have periodically
malfunctioned to the point I had to pull the fuse on them. If you ever
had anti-lock brakes activate on dry pavement when you are trying to
stop at 40mph, you ain't lived yet. They work about 50% as good as w/o
them. Personally, I think they should be banned.



--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On 6/23/2011 6:45 AM, Hank wrote:
On Jun 23, 6:02 am, wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

IF they go off on dry pavement when they are not supposed to, you will
quickly see they take 50% longer to stop than w/o them. Normally they go
on and off quickly, but that means when they are off, you are not
breaking. If you are in a slide that may or may not help but If you own
a GMC Government Motors truck, like mine, you WILL pull the fuse after
one close call.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:47:37 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:


There are exceptiosn to everything. What if the driver in front
stopped as quickly as possible with the intention of making the guy
behind him hit her?

Commonly done by insurance fraud rackets. They know the driver in back
will be found guilty.

Because he can't prove what happened. But if somehow he could, by an
admission, an admission by an accomplice**, or maybe notes in the car,
or that there was a string of such "accidents", he woudln't be guilty
or liable.

**The driver who stopped short on purpose can't be found guilty on the
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, but accomplice testimony is
still evidence. The driver who hit her probably woudn't even be
charged, and would win a lawsuit.

Usually involves a bunch of phony medical
treatment, which quickly adds up to a lot more than the cost of bent
metal.

Yeah, you remind me that I've heard of that.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:45:38 -0500, dpb wrote:

dpb wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
...


Nope. You might think it's his fault, but the law doesn't.

I doubt _very_ much that there's any of the US states which have the law
of presumption ... such that it is not rebuttable--...


In short, the difficulty is probably in the interpretation of
"presumuption". Whereas we're used to the "innocent until proved
guilty",

The guy behind is still innocent until proven guilty, but, subject to
possible defenses the defendant will present after the prosecution
rests, that only means proving he hit the car in front of him. That
usually isn't even disputed, but in a trial, they still have to put
someone on the stand to say it, to prove it, the driver of the hit
car, a witness, a cop who looked at both cars, maybe even insurance
company reports. Doing at least one of these is usually easy. It
will usually include testimony that the car in front wasn't backing
up, etc.

in this specific instance the _presumption_ is the fault is
with the person who hit the rear of the other. In this case, to be
exonerated, the onus is upon that individual to present sufficient
evidence to counter the presumption. It's not that it is inevitably so
but the burden of proof is shifted 180 degrees from the normal.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:45:31 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article , dpb wrote:

dpb wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
...


Nope. You might think it's his fault, but the law doesn't.

I doubt _very_ much that there's any of the US states which have the law
of presumption ... such that it is not rebuttable--...


In short, the difficulty is probably in the interpretation of
"presumuption". Whereas we're used to the "innocent until proved
guilty", in this specific instance the _presumption_ is the fault is
with the person who hit the rear of the other. In this case, to be
exonerated, the onus is upon that individual to present sufficient
evidence to counter the presumption. It's not that it is inevitably so
but the burden of proof is shifted 180 degrees from the normal.

--

A cop witnesses a murder; the murderer is a *suspect* until proven
guilty. Is he likely to be convicted? Yes.

They have to prove both that the suspect did it, and that it was
murder. For example, the autopsy is supposed to say if he died
because of whatever the accused did, or if maybe he died of a stroke
or heart attack 2 seconds earlier.

Similarly they have to prove more than one thing when trying someone
for hitting a car from behind. I guess, I'm almost sure, that the
prosecution doesn't have to address in advance possible excuses**,
like "She stopped short on purpose", but if it doesn't, then after the
defendant raises the defense, the prosecution can put on rebuttal
evidence to disprove it.

**Otherwise trials would be longer than neceesaray, if the prosecution
had to rebut in advance every possible defense the accused could
raise.

A car is found smashed into the back of another car. The driver is a
*suspect* until proven guilty. Is he likely to be convicted? Yes.

Same thing. Not a 180 degree shift in my book. Murder is illegal. So is
slamming into the back of another driver's car.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:35:01 -0400, wrote:


The guy at the back of the chain is ALWAYS at fault. Occaisionally in
that kind of a situation, when it can be proved beyond reasonable
doubt that a car farthur up the line had also collided with a car in
front of him BEFORE being rear-ended, the other driver can also be
charged and convicted.

As to the other driver, to find him guilty of something, yes you need
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

But defenses, like for the driver in back, don't have to be proved
beyond a reasonsable doubt, only to a preponderance of the evidence
iirc. Because if the preponderance of evidence is that his defense
is true, then by logic, he can't be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
If his defense is likely true, there must be reasonable doubt. And
there is a statute in most states that codifies this.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:36:12 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message newsrestwhich-
In article
" wrote:

And clearly anyone who hits someone from behind
under the circumstances cited, is at fault.

I've always heard it as: you hit someone from behind, anywhere, anytime,
anyhow, under any conditions, it's your fault, period. No exceptions, no
debate, no yabbuts.

Yeah, but . . .

An unsafe lane change, IF IT CAN BE PROVED, will shift the blame to the
party making the unsafe change. It happens all the time on the DC Capital
Beltway (people cutting in front of other people, reducing their "safe
stopping distance.") If you're unlucky enough to do it in front of a cop,
(on or off-duty) you'll get a ticket. If you do it in front of a vehicle
with a camera (more and more commercials vehicles have dashcams) you'll be
blamed. Any truck driver on the Beltway can tell you how often cars will
zip in front of them never giving a thought how much they've shortened the
trucker's "safe following distance" or how much more room a truck needs to
stop quickly.

I believe it 100%. Much of this is, I think, because on the DC
Beltway, drivers don't let other drivers in. When I first got to
Baltimore from NYC, after a couple years of occasionsl drives on
i495, I noticed this.

In NYC they always let you in for 2 reasons. A) there is a social
contract that almost everyone obeys, because if people weren't nice to
each other, traffic would be far worse. B) they know that even if
they don't let you in, you're coming in anyhow, even if there are only
4 inches in front of your car and behind it. I've done that many
times. And I'll do it in DC too if I need to be in a particular lane
for an exit or something. It doesn't even scare me anymore.

Yes, A and B sort of contradict each other, but maybe not.

I'm no longer sure about Baltimore, but drivers here aren't that good.
At a four-way stop, they are always waiting for the other guy, slowing
things down. And when they do move at a 4-way stop, they go, N, W, S
then E. Not N and S at the same time, then W and E. They're so
nice, but it slows things down and drives me crazy.

So if you look at the cabs of newer trucks you'll see more
and more cameras because of people who make unsafe lane changes. Here in
the DC area people also cross solid lines to make lane changes, driving on
the shoulders or in other areas where lane changes are not allowed.

A rear-ending of someone who has just gotten on the highway from the
shoulder is NOT considered the fault of the driver hitting the merging car
in the rear. When rejoining moving traffic from the shoulder, almost
anything "bad" that happens as a result of that merge is the fault of the
driver who is NOT on the main roadway.

At first I didn't understand or believe you, but since your first
paragraph was good, I read this two more times. Yes, I may have even
known this. "Failure to yield" it's called when someone merges from a
shoulder or ramp such that he causes or could cause an accident. (or
such that he causes another driver to change speed, maybe it says.)
"Could cause", that is, the other driver might brake quickly enough to
avoid the accident, but the driver who fails to yield can still get a
ticket.

The problem most people have is that
it's often impossible without witnesses or video to prove that the other
driver is at fault. That's because of the strong presumption, as you've
noted, of everyone to believe if you're struck from behind, it's the
striking driver's fault

That's one of the reasons I picked up a very nice electronic color dashcam
from Ebay that records up to several hours in ten minute segments, erasing
the oldest stuff first when the memory card is full. I installed mine
because I "T-boned" a car full of students who had run a red light. I
remember being bathed in the green of the traffic light at the moment of
impact, thinking "I'm going to die now and I had the green light!!!" It was
a serious impact - I was travelling at about 50MPH and there were extensive
injuries to the front seat passenger where my car hit.

Both cars were totaled and those sonovabitch students lied about what
happened - I even HEARD the driver saying "this is my third accident -
you've GOT to say it wasn't my fault or my folks will take the car away from
me." I still fume thinking about it.

So what happened? I guess they won. Did your insurance pay
everythign?

Anyway, that's when I decided I
needed a dashcam, just like the cops. Not only would it have shown who was
in the right in that crash, despite four people conspiring to lie, it would
show when someone did an unsafe lane change into the space in front of my
car. If it showed me in the wrong, well, those SD cards are SO tiny it
might just disappear!

Wouldn't this make you as bad as they were if you actually did this?

(I"m not one who thinks considering it makes you as bad as they are.
It might only make you normal.)

So far, I've captured some pretty amazing "cut ins" on "film" (SD card,
actually) but I have not been in any accidents while driving with the cams
in place. On the DC Beltway during rush hour it is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain a
safe following distance. When bozos see that huge, empty space they rush to
get to it. If I am traveling in the inner two of four lanes, sometimes
people from both adjoining lanes will dive for the same spot.

The camera I got was under $100 from Ebay. It records in an endless loop,
plugs into the auxiliary lighter socket, comes on when the car is started
and records for 1 minute after the car is turned off via a built in
rechargeable lithium cell. Takes a standard SD card - I use a 1GB card
because in reality, in a crash you'll only need about 30 seconds of the
pre-impact video to prove who was at fault. The only real negative about
the cam is that the date is GOD AWFUL difficult to set and if it sits too
long without being driven, the internal battery dies and the unit needs to
be hooked up to a PC to set the clock with a special batch file that's not
correctly specified in the manual.

What brand is it? It's problems are bad, but it's cheap and one can't
expect everything for cheap. And maybe they'll make it easiser to
set the time. Plus the correct date and time might not be essential
if it's identifiable as the crash under discussion. (But you should
still set the time when it's wrong. The simpler your evidence the
better.)

I moved that camera to my 20 year old Honda and installed a four-camera
system in my van because it's got $25K worth of handicapped equipment and a
single dash cam is not enough for "full protection." That takes a front,
rear and two side view cams and a solid state quad recorder. Instead of
using a "not likely to survive a hard impact hard disk, I got a 16GB CF card
with an IDE adapter so there are no delicate moving parts to fail in a
crash. That rig cost $300 for everything but I figure that's still less
than my deductible.

Most importantly, if something like the "T-bone" crash ever happens again,
I'll let those muthafu&kers lie their asses off to the cops before I reveal
I have video of the crash so I can totally discredit them. It was a bitter
pill to swallow to learn that if witnesses conspire to lie against the lone
driver of the other car, judges and adjusters will believe them in a
heartbeat. Never again! I ended up with a surcharge for three years
because I was considered "at fault" by the insurance company. Sometimes,
when I think about it, it makes me angry enough to wish I had killed the
whole carload of lying little *******s. If there's anything I hate it's
being "lied on" and blamed for something someone else did.

If you have any doubts about unsafe lane changes "trumping" the *almost*
universal assumption that if you hit a car from behind then you're at fault,
call your local State Troopers. They are usually well-informed about
highway traffic rules.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...accidents.html

points out a few other exceptions to the "hit from behind - the other
driver's fault" rule"

Exceptions to Rear-End Auto Accidents
There may be times when the driver who rear-ended you is not at fault or at
least is not completely at fault. It is possible that you were partly a
fault for the accident. Examples of where you could be partially at fault
include the following:

a.. Your brake or tail lights don't work, especially if it is dark out

I thought about brake lights yesterday, but I forgot about when it's
dark out!!

b.. Your car has mechanical problems but you fail to move it off the road

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:21:15 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:45:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank
wrote:

On Jun 23, 6:02*am, mm wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

Hank
ABS just guarantees that you will hit what you hit SQUARE.
There are MANY situations where I can stop much quicker without ABS
than with - particularly in sloppy wet snow conditions. I have had the
brakes virtually "go away" under those conditions - while without ABS
you can slide the tires enough to let them "dig through" the slop -
giving you a fighting chance at getting stopped - sideways -
whatever..

I don't have ABS, but I've had that feeling when I thought about it,
that it woudl do what you say.

I've actually driven very well on ice and snow, except that one time
there was no ice most places and black ice where the road bent to the
right and I slid to the outside lane and hit the car coming the other
way. Totalled his car, 3000 for mine, bumped my knee but no one hurt.

Happend at 6PM. The next day, when I tried to get out of bed, my leg
wouldn't work. I told it to straighten so I could stand on it and it
didnt' do anything. I had to use my hands to straighten it, to go to
the bathroom. Spent the day in bed. All day, leg didnt' work. Next
day, leg is fine. Works fine, jab it everywhere and nothing hurts at
all. My body was like the doctor saying, Give it a rest for a day.

I was on exit ramp, one time. Fellow behind me was far too
close. I tried a couple taps on the brake lights, but still
too close. I then slowed down a LOT, and sped up. This time,
I got some more space behind me.

Off the ramp, and onto the freeway. The other driver pulled
out and passed me, gee why is that not a surprise. I let him
go, and followed at my usual safe following distance.

About a mile down the road, he tromped on the brake good and
hard. Since I was a good safe distance back, I let off the
gas for a moment, waited till he accelerated again, and
continued to follow at a safe distance.

We two different drivers (one safe, one unsafe) handled the
matter differently. I suspect that if the tail slam guy on
Peoples Court had a safe following distance and was alert,
they would not be in court.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"mm" wrote in message
news
There are exceptiosn to everything. What if the driver in
front
stopped as quickly as possible with the intention of making
the guy
behind him hit her?

On Jun 24, 12:08*am, Jack Stein wrote:
On 6/23/2011 6:45 AM, Hank wrote:





On Jun 23, 6:02 am, *wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.

I saw that too. Going as slow as both litigants stated and agreed to
(about 5 mph), ABS had no part in the cause of the accident. He wasn't
paying attention, plain and simple. Even if ABS takes a millisecond
longer to stop, he was following too close for the vehicle he was
driving, not paying attention, or bad brakes. None of the excuses hold
water.

I am under the impression that ABS keeps the tires from sliding which
will in fact stop quicker in ALL circumstances by not letting the tire
lose traction and control. Once a tire locks up, there is no traction,
or at least very little.

If you ever get the chance, try driving on ice without ABS. You will
then see how good ABS is.

IF they go off on dry pavement when they are not supposed to, you will
quickly see they take 50% longer to stop than w/o them. Normally they go
on and off quickly, but that means when they are off, you are not
breaking. *If you are in a slide that may or may not help but If you own
a GMC Government Motors truck, like mine, you WILL pull the fuse after
one close call.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!http://jbstein.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I remember reading a story a few years ago about how studies that
analyzed accident statistics couldn't find much, if any difference, in
serious accidents, fatalities, etc that could be attributed to cars
that had ABS vs those that do not.
One theory as to why was that many people don't know how to
react to them and when they start pulsing, they may release the brakes.

On Jun 23, 10:00*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:

Does that law in your state say that it's
always the fault of the person in the rear, "unless the cop
witnessed an unsafe lane change?" *Somehow I doubt that
and I also doubt there is any law in your state that actually
says it's always the fault of the driver that's behind. Nor
could you possibly know the motor vehicle laws in all
50 states.

It's pretty much against the law to run into another car, in all 50
states. This is a lot simpler than you're trying to make it:

You're the one claiming it's simple and the law says the person
who runs into you from behind is ALWAYS at fault. First, you
could not possibly know the MV laws in all 50 states. Second,
I'd like to see the law from ANY one state that actually says that.



When two cars collide at an uncontrolled intersection, if they hit left
front corner to right front corner, it's going to be hard to determine
who hit whom. If, on the other hand, the front end of one car is found
smashed into the side of the other car, the guy who did the broadsiding
is most likely to be found guilty.

That's exactly the whole point. It;'s the totality of all the
evidence
available that has to be weighed to determine who is at fault.




On the road, when one car hits another car from behind, the guy behind
did the hitting, unless the guy in front was backing up. The law may or
may not list a whole bunch of specific what-ifs, but if car A hits car
B, car A's driver is at fault.

Simply not true. Kurt gave you a good example of a guy who
passed him on a multi-lane road, then cut in front of him and
slammed on the brakes. A cop saw it and gave the OTHER
GUY THE TICKET. You yourself said you had done similar,
by deliberately slamming on the brakes when someone was
following closely behind you. So, let's say the guy who hit
you sues you for damages. Are you telling us you think you
could go to court, tell the judge "Yeah, I deliberately slammed
on the brakes to mess with him, but the law says it's always
his fault" and you'd prevail? As I said before, I'd like to see
that law.

You're confusing two different things. The law and who USUALLY
loses. Under the law, the loser is the guy who is proven to
be negligent and thereby caused the accident. In the case
of what you did, or in the case of what happened to Kurt, that
person would be the person in front, who wound up getting
hit. In the vast majority of rear end collisions, you don't have
that happening. It's usually a case of following too close or
failing to pay attention. However, if you have good credible
evidence that it was in fact the person ahead of you who
was negligent, then you clearly can win in court. An example
would be a driver in another car or someone walking on
the street that witnessed what happened and can state
that the other driver cut you off then slammed on the brakes.


Still don't believe me? Here's an attorney's opinion:

http://www.caraccidentattorneys.com/...-end-fault.htm

"Rear end accidents are amongst the most common types of car accidents
that occur, and generally speaking, the driver of the car that rear
ends someone is placed at fault and liable for all property damage and
injury. However, liability and negligence in a rear end accident is
not always as clear as that. We will discuss some issues of fault,
negligence, and liable injuries for rear end accidents."

And a state trooper:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911...whos-at-fault/

"Q: I have heard that no matter what, if a vehicle rear-ends someone,
regardless of the nature of the accident, t is always said drivers
fault. Is there any truth to this?

A: From State Patrol Trooper Keith Trowbridge:

No, that is not always the case in a rear-end collision. Many
circumstances affect the decision to cite a driver in a collision.

The State Patrol looks at the totality of the circumstances when
deciding to cite drivers. That being said, generally most people who
rear-end other vehicles are found to be at fault and cited.

Here are a couple of examples of collisions where drivers probably
would not be cited:


•When someone makes an unsafe lane change in front of your vehicle and
brakes at the same time, causing you to rear-end the vehicle that cut
you off.


•When your vehicle is stopped for traffic and rear-ended by another
vehicle, causing your vehicle to strike the vehicle in front of you."




Nice way to behave on the roads. *Hope I'm not anywhere near you.

Tailgating is rude, and dangerous, and causes accidents, and people who
practice it should not be permitted to drive. If you're a tailgater, I
hope you're no where near me, either.

I agree that tailgating is rude, dangerous and illegal. What you
did in response, deliberately slamming on the brakes, is also
dangerous, illegal and even worse.

On Jun 24, 4:03*am, mm wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:45:38 -0500, dpb wrote:
dpb wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
...

Nope. You might think it's his fault, but the law doesn't.

I doubt _very_ much that there's any of the US states which have the law
of presumption ... such that it is not rebuttable--...

In short, the difficulty is probably in the interpretation of
"presumuption". *Whereas we're used to the "innocent until proved
guilty",

The guy behind is still innocent until proven guilty, but, subject to
possible defenses the defendant will present after the prosecution
rests, that only means proving he hit the car in front of him. *That
usually isn't even disputed, but in a trial, they still have to put
someone on the stand to say it, to prove it, the driver of the hit
car, a witness, a cop who looked at both cars, maybe even insurance
company reports. *Doing at least one of these is usually easy. * It
will usually include testimony that the car in front wasn't backing
up, etc.


And conversely, if you have proof that the person who you rear-ended
is at fault, then you will win the case. I'm still waiting to see
the law
that says it is always and automatically the fault of the driver who
hits the other car.

Another good example of where the person in back would not be
responsible. Let's say Mr. Smitty is travelling on a two lane rural
road.
There is a T intersection ahead on his right and that street has
a stop sign, Mr. Smitty does not. There is oncoming traffic. The
speed limit is 50 and that is what Smitty is doing. When
Mr. Smitty is within 100 ft of the intersection, a clunking, smoking,
car on it's last legs driven by a
little old lady rolls through the stop sign making a right hand turn.
Then, the little old lady can't or won't accelerate. Mr. Smitty
slams
on the brakes but winds up rear-ending the little old lady.

I think you and I would agree that the little old lady, not Mr. Smitty
is at fault. And I'd say the physical evidence would be fairly
strong to support that and that depending on what other evidence
there was, Mr. Smitty would probably not get a ticket, the lady
would, and he'd prevail in court for damages, depending on
whatever other evidence there was.

According to Mr. Smitty, some law that is universal in all
50 states says it is actually his fault and he is
responsible for damages to the little old lady's car.

On 6/23/2011 10:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote
I slammed on my brakes for a tailgater once, then immediately stomped on
the gas. The woman behind him creamed him. Both cars heavily damaged.
The guy behind me was fuming. Absolutely furious with me. It was his
girlfriend's car, she was in the passenger seat, it was their first day
of vacation. Cop declared me uninvolved and free to go, no questions
asked.

A guy at work did a similar thing a few months ago. He got $3100 in
damages on a year old car. He got some satisfaction from it, but still
had a damaged car. Not worth the risk, IMO.

The thought has run through my mind more than once but it is just stupid
to do it.

Like earlier this week when I was in the left lane on the Schuylkill
expressway at night and there was an accident or something so the
average speed was 3 MPH (the highway was a slow moving parking lot) and
a single occupant fluffed up truck stayed 6 inches behind me and to the
left to make sure their headlight was annoying as possible for almost an
hour.

Thats why I think it should be allowable to have a rear firing missile
system (or at least a high powered laser) like might be found on a Bond
car...

mm wrote:

....


The guy behind is still innocent until proven guilty, but, subject to
possible defenses the defendant will present after the prosecution
rests, ...


No, the question at hand is those locales w/ the _presumption_ of fault
law...in those cases the guilt/cause is assigned and only if that is
able to be rebutted successfully will the charge be cleared.

The only point I was really making is that as opposed to the earlier
poster's claim that that was true irregardless of circumstances that
afaik every presumptive law has the possibility that rebuttal is
possible. The other poster was claiming there wasn't even that possibility.

--

On Jun 24, 7:03*am, dpb wrote:
mm wrote:

...

The guy behind is still innocent until proven guilty, but, subject to
possible defenses the defendant will present after the prosecution
rests, ...

No, the question at hand is those locales w/ the _presumption_ of fault
law...in those cases the guilt/cause is assigned and only if that is
able to be rebutted successfully will the charge be cleared.

The only point I was really making is that as opposed to the earlier
poster's claim that that was true irregardless of circumstances that
afaik every presumptive law has the possibility that rebuttal is
possible. *The other poster was claiming there wasn't even that possibility.

--

You do realize that you are claiming the law says "guilty until proven
innocent"?

Harry K

On 6/23/2011 6:02 AM, mm wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.


Anti-lock if for the anti-brained person. I never had trouble in winter
slippery conditions with REGULAR brakes.

In article , dpb wrote:

mm wrote:

...


The guy behind is still innocent until proven guilty, but, subject to
possible defenses the defendant will present after the prosecution
rests, ...


No, the question at hand is those locales w/ the _presumption_ of fault
law...in those cases the guilt/cause is assigned and only if that is
able to be rebutted successfully will the charge be cleared.

The only point I was really making is that as opposed to the earlier
poster's claim that that was true irregardless of circumstances that
afaik every presumptive law has the possibility that rebuttal is
possible. The other poster was claiming there wasn't even that possibility.

--

I'll retract my "absolutely positively" claim and allow that there might
be extenuating circumstances that would lead a court to find
differently, but I'll stand by my claim that being the guy in the back
in a rear end collision is a smoking gun. You're still innocent until
proven guilty, but in 99.99% of the cases, the fact that the front end
of your car and the back end of the other guy's car are damaged is all
the proof the cop needs to write the ticket, and all the proof the court
needs to convict you.

In article
,
" wrote:

And conversely, if you have proof that the person who you rear-ended
is at fault, then you will win the case. I'm still waiting to see
the law
that says it is always and automatically the fault of the driver who
hits the other car.

See my further comments this morning elsewhere on the thread, if you
like.

In article
,
" wrote:

I agree that tailgating is rude, dangerous and illegal. What you
did in response, deliberately slamming on the brakes, is also
dangerous, illegal and even worse.

I'm granting you and others the extenuating circumstances clause,
retracting my "absolute" claim, and standing corrected.

However, as I said elsewhe

1. The crumpled cars tell a story of who hit whom, and serve as an
irrefutable smoking gun.

2. I know damn well that it is illegal to run into another car in all 50
states, whether from the front, back, side, or down from the sky onto
the roof.

3. I claim extenuating circumstances in the incident I cited, which
happened about 20 years ago. It is the only time I've done that, but I
would do it again if it happened again in that way. I'm tailgated every
day, multiple times, and don't sweat it too much.

It's sometimes said that given sufficient provocation, most people would
kill another person. I'll add that given sufficient provocation, many
people would slam on their brakes for a tailgater.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:07:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



I remember reading a story a few years ago about how studies that
analyzed accident statistics couldn't find much, if any difference, in
serious accidents, fatalities, etc that could be attributed to cars
that had ABS vs those that do not.
One theory as to why was that many people don't know how to
react to them and when they start pulsing, they may release the brakes.

Of course. It's like putting your foot on a dead groundhog only to
find that it's still moving. You have to get your foot off right
away.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:33:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Tailgating is rude, and dangerous, and causes accidents, and people who
practice it should not be permitted to drive. If you're a tailgater, I
hope you're no where near me, either.

I agree that tailgating is rude, dangerous and illegal. What you
did in response, deliberately slamming on the brakes, is also
dangerous, illegal and even worse.

Absolutely. If somone had been killed, the person who stopped short
on purpose would be only a half-step from murder.

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:33:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Tailgating is rude, and dangerous, and causes accidents, and people who
practice it should not be permitted to drive. If you're a tailgater, I
hope you're no where near me, either.

I agree that tailgating is rude, dangerous and illegal. What you
did in response, deliberately slamming on the brakes, is also
dangerous, illegal and even worse.

Absolutely. If somone had been killed, the person who stopped short
on purpose would be only a half-step from murder.

Nope. A half-step from justifiable homicide, in this case.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:58:17 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:33:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Tailgating is rude, and dangerous, and causes accidents, and people who
practice it should not be permitted to drive. If you're a tailgater, I
hope you're no where near me, either.

I agree that tailgating is rude, dangerous and illegal. What you
did in response, deliberately slamming on the brakes, is also
dangerous, illegal and even worse.

Absolutely. If somone had been killed, the person who stopped short
on purpose would be only a half-step from murder.

Nope. A half-step from justifiable homicide, in this case.

If you were joking about something you hadn't done, that would be
morbid but okay. But you say you did it. You're just lucky.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:25:32 -0400, Dbdlocker
wrote:

On 6/23/2011 6:02 AM, mm wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her from behind
when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars, anti-lock
braking prevents the wheels from locking up so one stops slowly."

I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock braking had no
effect.

Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the driver in
front.


Anti-lock if for the anti-brained person. I never had trouble in winter
slippery conditions with REGULAR brakes.

I must admit, I havent' either. Even that accident I think I
mentioned, on the black ice, I *did* go straight ahead. I think all
four wheels lost traction equally so ABS wouldn't have helped anyhow.

I have a '95 now, without it. This car is lasting longer than most,
but the next car will be about a 2005 or 6 and I guess they all have
it. More expensive parts to break.

mm wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:33:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Tailgating is rude, and dangerous, and causes accidents, and people who
practice it should not be permitted to drive. If you're a tailgater, I
hope you're no where near me, either.
I agree that tailgating is rude, dangerous and illegal. What you
did in response, deliberately slamming on the brakes, is also
dangerous, illegal and even worse.

Absolutely. If somone had been killed, the person who stopped short
on purpose would be only a half-step from murder.


Sometimes a half-step is enough...

-Bob

In .com,
Dbdlocker typed:
On 6/23/2011 6:02 AM, mm wrote:
On the People's Court, woman turning left, many hits her
from behind when she stops because of cross traffic.

Man drivign SUV says roughly that "on the newer cars,
anti-lock braking prevents the wheels from locking up so
one stops slowly."

As opposed to NOT stopping! Once a wheel locks up, nearly all
traction/stopping power is lost from that tire. Boy, there are some stupid
allegations beng made in this thread.


I thought on dry, non-gravel-covered roads, anti-lock
braking had no effect.

IF you do not brake hard enough to lock up a tire, absolutely nothing is any
different than not having anti-lock. If one does lock up a tire, the brake
quickly releases to let the tire start turning again and then braking is
reapplied (wthin milliseconds), adding back the lost traction from the
lockup. The actiion repeats until the car either stops or the brake pedal is
released. So rather than a locked up, low-traction tire/s, you have the
added traction replaced and one of the by products of that is by not being
locked up momentarily, some semblence of steering ability is returned if
it's a front tire, less if it's a back tire.
Usually the back tires will lock up first, because in a hard stop, the
vehicle's weight is thrown forward, with mass placing more weight on the
front tires while the back tires tend to lift, losing traction compared to
the front tires.


Even after he lost, he thought it was the fault of the
driver in front.

One thing about the court system anywhe Regardless of who's really right
or wrong, if it's a law, it's a law; there's very seldom any way around it
but to prove there were extenuating circumstances that skews the law so it
can't be directly applied. But often there's another that can, depending on
the type of court.



Anti-lock if for the anti-brained person. I never had
trouble in winter slippery conditions with REGULAR brakes.

Neither did my Gram; but then again, she never drove a car or even had a
license.

You appear to be anti-brained, in the context of your usage IMO. I never had
any trouble in winter driving either because I learned to drive on ice &
snow early & knew how to pump the brakes and recover direction of travel if
I needed it. And I knew what speeds hills & curves could be negotiated.
Fortunately I knew how to drive and how to perform on ice & snow as a
result. But that does NOT mean in any way that anti-lock brakes didn't
improve the situatons considerably.
However, the appearance of ant-lock brakes has always been "fun" to have
for me. And it certainly stops me a LOT faster than any physical
pedal-pumping can do on ice, is never noticeable on clean, dry roads, and a
superb addition to any vehicle that can use anti-lock brakes. No way is the
pedal-return/rest to braking manually going to outperform the incredibly
fast pumping anti-lock brakes can provide.
Anyone that says differenty is guessing, has listened to a few of the
posters here, or misread something because they are wrong and have very
likely never actually had any actual comparative experiences.

Let's hope if there are more people going to post here, that they are either
already knowledgeable OR at least take the time to research the subject a
bit.

HTH,

Twayne`

In ,
N8N typed:
On Jun 23, 9:26 am, Tegger wrote:
N8N wrote in
news:e65c9d14-290c-40ff-b376-
:

snip

and 5 MPH ABS is not a factor as often the
wheel speed sensors don't have the resolution to
distinguish between very slow wheel rotation and a
stopped or locked wheel. So the ABS shuts itself off
at very low speeds in most (all?) cases.

I thought the bottom-end cutoff for ABS was around 10 or
15 mph.

My current vehicle seems to shut them off at about 12 mph last I tested it.

It depends on the particular system and how it is
programmed, but below 5 MPH I would suspect that nearly
all will be inactive at that point.

nate

In ,
mm typed:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:33:05 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On Jun 23, 9:57 am, Smitty Two
wrote:
In article
,

stop in time and hit him. In that case, it's the
other person's fault.

Exactly
....

I don't believe there is any state where a law says "one
who hits another in the rear is at fault".

But, that IS the spirit of the law because it's common sense.

....


Such challenges are rare not because they are impossible
to make, but because they are very very hard to make.
Once the guy in front, or the cop, shows that the car was
hit from behind, the burdern of proof is now on the guy
who hit him to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that's it's not his fault.

"Preponderance of the evidence" only applies in small claims courts when
asking for damages. Most small claims courts don't allow large enough
settlements to make using them of any advantage.
These cases will go to courts, depending on their size and the insurance
companies, where the old evidence rules apply. They are quite clear, by the
way.

He can do that by saying
that the guy in front changed lanes suddenly (and left no
space, just as all the traffic stopped), but if that's
not so, the guy in front will deny it, and the guy in
back will lose (unless maybe the guy in front was drunk).

That depends on where you are located and how many
witnesses stick around... If you rear end a vehicle
whose driver just committed traffic offenses to get into
the lane ahead of you then the "you hit the back of my
car so you
are at fault" line of logic does not always apply --
anyway
in a two car accident most places these days will apply
50:50 at fault so both operators can take the insurance
points increase...


I've never heard of this. There are cases of comparitive
negligence where where both are at fault and they'll
estimate fault at 20/80, or 30/70, or 50:50.

Never heard of that! What state is this and what country?


Or are you sure you're not thinking of no-fault, rather
than 50:50 fault? With no fault, each car is repaired
by its own insureance company if the driver has collision
insurance.

If one car has no collision and wasn't actually at fault
and someone else was, I'm not sure, although Bryan's
example shows that even in his no-fault state, no fault
isn't absolute.

But if someone is killed, for example, the no-fault
provisions only go up to a certain dollar amount, or I
think it's only to property damage, and we're right back
to traditional liability determination before there was
no-fault.

I don't believe there is any state where points are given
to someone who was not at fault, just because he was in
an accident, especially if they can also affect insurance
premiums. No-fault only extends to which insurance
company pays for property damage, up to a dollar liimit.


The only way to not have 50:50 at fault
is to be involved in an car accident with three or more
vehicles damaged...

Not at all; boy, let's bring some reality in here!

HTH,

Twayne`

~~ Evan

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:58:17 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:33:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Tailgating is rude, and dangerous, and causes accidents, and people who
practice it should not be permitted to drive. If you're a tailgater, I
hope you're no where near me, either.

I agree that tailgating is rude, dangerous and illegal. What you
did in response, deliberately slamming on the brakes, is also
dangerous, illegal and even worse.

Absolutely. If somone had been killed, the person who stopped short
on purpose would be only a half-step from murder.

Nope. A half-step from justifiable homicide, in this case.

If you were joking about something you hadn't done, that would be
morbid but okay. But you say you did it. You're just lucky.

I slammed on the brakes for a tailgater once in 40 years of driving. I
accepted the risk vs. reward odds. Other people tailgate every single
time they get in a car. Am I luckier for taking a risk once, than the
people who take risks every time they get behind the wheel?