A Question on fault

[Cycling Dan]

Another one of my thoughts where I cant seem to find an answer myself.

So say you are on a 60mph road single lane A road. Its one of them A roads with side turn offs.
You are following a car in front were both of you are doing 60mph and you are keeping a 3 second gap.
A truck pulls out one of the side roads and the car in front hits it coming to a complete stop due to the truck being fully loaded. The truck now blocks the entire road so there is no going around.
You brake as hard as you can but hit the car in front.
Do you hold any blame?
From what I can tell at 60mph it takes around 65m to come to a complete stop depending on car. So the only way not to hit the car is to travel 65m back to be able to stop in time.
So do you hold any blame for going into the back of the car

 

[swee'pea99]

Yes.

 

[green1]

Yep if you can't stop in time your at fault.

 

[Cycling Dan]

Yep if you can't stop in time your at fault.

If the car came to a complete stop once it hit the truck give or take the few meters that it may push the truck but depending on the load of the truck. Would it not be taken into account it would be by the law of physics impossible not to hit that car if you were not traveling 65meters behind it.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Why is it relevant that you are keeping a 3 second gap?

 

[Deleted member 26715]

No, you hit the car in front, it's your fault, there is no discussion further to be add, you were too close.

Alan..

 

[TheDoctor]

I have actually come across a similar case - heard from someone who specialized in personal injury law.
A car came across the central reservation, and hit another head-on. Two cars, both doing similar speeds but in the opposite direction, so they both stopped dead. Another car then hit the resulting crumpled heap.
The successful argument in court was essentially that it's reasonable to be able to stop if the car in front does an emergency stop, but you wouldn't expect it to stop instantly.

 

[vernon]

Why is it relevant that you are keeping a 3 second gap?

The three second gap is irrelevant to the scenario. The three second rule does not accommodate instantaneous halts. Nor does it accommodate drivers who think that the three second rule absolves them of all blame irrespective of the circumstances of them rear ending the vehicle in front.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

I have actually come across a similar case - heard from someone who specialized in personal injury law.
A car came across the central reservation, and hit another head-on. Two cars, both doing similar speeds but in the opposite direction, so they both stopped dead. Another car then hit the resulting crumpled heap.
The successful argument in court was essentially that it's reasonable to be able to stop if the car in front does an emergency stop, but you wouldn't expect it to stop instantly.

Neither of the the cars would have stopped immediately even head-on, there would have been an amount of skew, but it doesn't alter the fact that if a car had then hot either/both of them, it would still be the driver of the 3rd car's fault for hitting the other 2.

Dan, don't tell me you have become a statistic, new young male driver having an accident in the first 12 months of driving.

Alan...

 

[TheDoctor]

Neither of the the cars would have stopped immediately even head-on, there would have been an amount of skew, but it doesn't alter the fact that if a car had then hot either/both of them, it would still be the driver of the 3rd car's fault for hitting the other 2.
Alan...

That's apparently not how the court saw it.
Sadly I can't quote the case - there may have been more to it than met the eye. But on motorways, the recommended time gap is two seconds - double the thinking distance, but nowhere near the stopping distance.

 

[TVC]

Given that this is hypothetical, if the first car came to an instant stop from 60mph, the driver is most likely dead, so your blame in a secondary collision may not be high on the investigators list of priorities. Besides, if you have ABS you will have put your car in a ditch anyway.

 

[Cycling Dan]

Neither of the the cars would have stopped immediately even head-on, there would have been an amount of skew, but it doesn't alter the fact that if a car had then hot either/both of them, it would still be the driver of the 3rd car's fault for hitting the other 2.

Dan, don't tell me you have become a statistic, new young male driver having an accident in the first 12 months of driving.

Alan...

No, Just had a thought and wondered. Then I couldnt think of an answer as while the car behind should allow room to stop it would be impossible to do so without leave an insane amount of room. So I just wondered as to what the answer was. I think reasonable space should be the answer rather than dead yes or no. As I said before it would be in this case impossible to stop unless you left the stopping distance which at 60mph is like 65m or so.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Yep, that's the distance you should be travelling behind then; it's insane not to!

 

[surfdude]

my father a lorry driver had something fall off his lorry . a car hit the object and came to a stop .(no one hurt). 2 other cars stopped with no damage . a 3rd car hit the other 2 cars and pushed them into the 1st car . my father was only responsible for the damage to the front of the 1st car . he got fined for a unsafe load and the 3rd driver for driving without due care and attention

 

[Cycling Dan]

Yep, that's the distance you should be travelling behind then; it's insane not to!

So if you are going 70mph on a motorway you are a football pitch length away from the car in front?