Why oh Why ?

If he cut you off, and immediately slammed the brakes then you are indeed correct. You could not have avoided it.
But if he cuts you off and out of anger you drive up his arse, he brakes and you go diving into his bum, it is unfortunately your fault.

Yes it would be, but this was not the case at all.

I was cut off, so I flashed him.

He then sped up and slammed on brakes - had I not been keeping a decent following distance, I would have hit him. He did this three times, as I said before..... I could not move right or left because of other traffic - in each case I was able to avoid hitting him, because I had a decent following distance and decent brakes - the third time, I had to brake so hard that my ABS kicked in.

Now if you can condone that, you either have a bigger chip on your shoulder with regard to me, than you would admit to a psychiatrist, or you are a bigger twit than he is.
 
Actually it's not that black and white and in many cases especially with witnesses present the person who did the braking walks away as the guilty party.

Even with perfect following distance there is a reasonable ability to stop required which if someone is doing 120 and then slams on the brakes with nothing in front of them simply doesn't apply.

And if someone has a dash cam and gets brake check...well that's the end of that for the checker.

The person that brakes can use a multitude of reasons why. They don't even have to be real. For instance "I thought there was something running across the road". Even if nothing did run across, you have the right to brake. It's the responsibility of the person behind you to keep a big enough distance between your vehicles that *no matter* what the vehicle in front does, you can avoid hitting it. That's why it's extremely difficult to win these cases if you went into the back of someone.

One of the few ways of winning for sure is if they dangerously swerved into your lane and immediately hit the brakes, and you have witnesses.

Otherwise, 9/10 you are going to lose.
 
Did you (or your insurance) fight this??

Was a company car, I was young and not overly bothered to be honest. Today I would fight to get my excess back.
I assume the company did try to fight it though.
 
Which part?
OK - if he drove through a Yield intersection without stopping, where were you?

If you were behind him, then you shouldn't have hit him, if it was because he jumped in front of you, then it had to be his fault -??
 
Yes it would be, but this was not the case at all.

I was cut off, so I flashed him.

He then sped up and slammed on brakes - had I not been keeping a decent following distance, I would have hit him. He did this three times, as I said before..... I could not move right or left because of other traffic - in each case I was able to avoid hitting him, because I had a decent following distance and decent brakes - the third time, I had to brake so hard that my ABS kicked in.

Now if you can condone that, you either have a bigger chip on your shoulder with regard to me, than you would admit to a psychiatrist, or you are a bigger twit than he is.

I'm not saying who is right or wrong, I'm saying according to the law you'll be judged at fault.
Though if I had to guess, I'd say you are wrong. Because you tend to be wrong.

>_<
 
OK - if he drove through a Yield intersection without stopping, where were you?

If you were behind him, then you shouldn't have hit him, if it was because he jumped in front of you, then it had to be his fault -??

Who knows. Basically it was found that I drove into the back of him so it was my fault... I guess if it happened today I would have seen him coming and braked in time and so avoided the accident - but I was young and inexperienced.
 
Who knows. Basically it was found that I drove into the back of him so it was my fault... I guess if it happened today I would have seen him coming and braked in time and so avoided the accident - but I was young and inexperienced.
If he stopped at the Yield sign and you hit him, then yes, it would be your fault.
 
If he stopped at the Yield sign and you hit him, then yes, it would be your fault.

No, I was going straight through an intersection (green traffic light for me).
He was turning left into the road that I was travelling on - from a slip road that's part of the intersection - ie, yield. He didn't yield, road was wet, I skidded into him.
 
No, I was going straight through an intersection (green traffic light for me).
He was turning left into the road that I was travelling on - from a slip road - ie, yield. He didn't yield, road was wet, I skidded into him.

Ahhh that makes more sense.....
 
I would have still thought the truck driver at fault. But the law works in mysterious ways.

Depends on the size of the truck, etc etc etc...

Yes I would generally class it as the truck drivers fault, but I've seen companies bulldoze young and naive people before.... If the same thing happened to me now, I would fight the hell out of it personally.
 
Weird - all that I can imagine is that you were too close to him for the conditions that day...if I understand ....you were behind him, both going through the green, but he was turning left...slowed down rapidly and you clobbered him?? Is that right?
 
Weird - all that I can imagine is that you were too close to him for the conditions that day...if I understand ....you were behind him, both going through the green, but he was turning left...slowed down rapidly and you clobbered him?? Is that right?
No.
He was turning left INTO the road in front of me, from the side road at the intersection.
Can only assume that they claimed he was well through the intersection when I hit him, or something.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X