Ain't Nobody Here Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I'm asking this on behalf of a friend whose insurance company has said she's at fault but we think it's really unfair . She was behind a car which had stopped at a busy (quite small) roundabout. The car moved off but once on the roundabout it stalled so my friend went into the back of her. The driver's son (in his 20s) admitted that his mother had stalled. My friend had noticed slightly erratic driving on the way to the roundabout. No damage to my friend's car apart from the numberplate becoming attached to the car in front. They just bought a new one. There was some damage to the bumper of the car in front but nothing major, I gather. The insurance company are saying it's her fault. Now, I know that you're deemed to be at fault if you hit the car in front as you've not left enough room but is it still the same when both cars are moving as they should but the car in front stops unexpectedly and without any brake light warning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinnamon Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Goodness,that is difficult. All I can say is that if I were in the car that was hit from behind,I wouldn't think it was my fault,but the driver who hit me. If a car stalls,don't the brake lights come on??? Or at the very least,the driver of the stalling car would brake to either stop themself jerking forward into a car in front of them or into traffic? I know if I stall,I automatically brake immediately I think that may be the insurers argument too.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ain't Nobody Here Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 I do see your point. However, no brake lights went on (there wasn't a car in front of the other driver) and my friend says this woman was clearly either an inexperienced or a very nervous driver. Her son did all the talking. I think if I stalled on a roundabout I would kind of think it was my fault if I was hit . I suspect she'll not manage to argue the case - just wondered if any insurance experts out there might have any comments! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 It seems very unafir I agree but I always thought that if you hit the car in front then its always cut and dried as your fault I was stationary once and was hit by a car going 70mph, it went clear under the back of my car which was pushed in to the stationary car in front the driver of which sued me for whiplash and won. Also a friend was hit by a reversing car and was also to blame - both cases where the fault didnt lie with the person who ended up paying out but because the damage was to the rear of the other car in both cases we were at fault Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willow Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 If the insurance company has decided your friend is at fault there's not a lot they can do anyway. OH was hit once in a carpark by a car backing out of a space into the side of our car as he was driving out. SInce car wheels can't turn 90degrees from the type of damage to both cars it was physically impossible for him to have driven into her and she admitted responsibility at the time. However she later denied that and it ended up being knock for knock which really annoyed us even though we'd sent a detailed report to the insurers showing how the laws of physics proved it couldn't possibly be his fault. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjp Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 in a rear end shunt the driver of the car at the rear is to blame I've rear ended cars twice in the same way with the company van not long after I started to drive (30 years ago) first claimed 2nd didn't both at the same island to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickendoodle Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Sorry, the driver at the rear is always at fault - the reasoning is that there should always be the statutory stopping distance between your car and the one in front. It doesn't matter how stupid the driver at the front has been. I know I know that this is unfair but that is how it has always been in insurance law. In a multi car shunt the first person to go into the rear of a car is to blame -if the person at the back of a 4 car shunt hit the 3rd car and then they all went into the back of the next car then the 4th car is totally at fault. If the second car hit the first, 3rd hit the 2nd and 4th hit the 3rd then each rear end shunter is to blame for the individual accidents and the claim is shared. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ain't Nobody Here Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Ah well, it was worth asking! Thanks for your input, everyone! Just shows you need to leave loads of space even when you're driving at a snail's pace as you never know what a numpty in front of you might do . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I didn't realise that, even when stationary, you should be able to see tarmac between yourself and the car in front. How many people leave space then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ain't Nobody Here Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Someone once told me (when I was a teenager!) that when you pull up behind someone in traffic, you should be able to see their tyres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_H Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Someone once told me (when I was a teenager!) that when you pull up behind someone in traffic, you should be able to see their tyres. That was what I was taught when learning with a professional teacher. I think its what you do to pass the test. With experience, I don't think you need to leave this much space when, eg. stopping behind someone at traffic lights. I agree with others re. fault. Anything could cause car ahead to stop suddenly eg. child running out, so should always leave enough room to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickric Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Someone once told me (when I was a teenager!) that when you pull up behind someone in traffic, you should be able to see their tyres. That was what I was taught when learning with a professional teacher. I think its what you do to pass the test. With experience, I don't think you need to leave this much space when, eg. stopping behind someone at traffic lights. I was told that you should leave a gap like that so you would have room to maneuver around the car in front if it broke down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_H Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I was told that you should leave a gap like that so you would have room to maneuver around the car in front if it broke down. Yes - but that happens so infrequently these days, I think its more considerate to leave less space with so many cars on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickric Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I was told that you should leave a gap like that so you would have room to maneuver around the car in front if it broke down. Yes - but that happens so infrequently these days, I think its more considerate to leave less space with so many cars on the road. Well yes, it was quite a long time ago when I was a learner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
