Question: Traffic Laws IL

[Waterdust]

I'm trying to find a law if it exists that I can quote regarding the 2 second rule or improper lane usage relating to that rule.

Reason: I need to prove in a 3 car scenario, the first car is not liable for the 3rd cars damages because car 2 had broken a
distance law of sorts (the space that would've allowed prevention of him hitting 3) prior to impact from car 1.

I've noticed there are a few cops hanging around here, maybe a few laywers just chilling.

Your help is appreciated!

PS: If someone has a clever ideas/angles I'll hear those out too.

-----------

Due to serious confusion beyond my control by people whose minds I cannot convince. I add the following info.

This situation is at a red light, cars 2 & 3 have stopped, set their distance at their own choosing.
The proof is an attempt to argue with "claims" on behalf of another about liability to the 3rd car.

The original driver has already gone to court (I was able to come but couldn't do anything more than sit
because only the driver is allowed before the judge), it was determined that the argument was to be taken
to claims, that the incident was as though it'd never happened. No other fee's or charges.

The fact no one other than the driver & the cop who wrote the report showed up aided on this decision.

The argument in this thread is purely trying to find a law or equivalent measure to prove car 2 is to blame for 3.
Many people are dismissing the concept (IMO) just because it's more convenient to live with how the rules are
generally accepted than attempting to challenge them.

 

[Slew Foot]

You havent been here long enough to know that any traffic discussion requires a poorly drawn MS paint diagram.



And where my damn ipod?

 

[FoBoT]

You havent been here long enough to know that any traffic discussion requires a poorly drawn MS paint diagram.

it is a tradition
examples

 

[cubby1223]

Maybe you should spend your time searching google instead of spending the time to find a spiffy avatar image for your brand spanking new Anandtech forum account?

 

[kranky]

What is "the 2 second rule"?

 

[FoBoT]

What is "the 2 second rule"?

my guess he means how far you should be behind the car in front, good drivers use the '1 car length per 10 mph' rule, whereas the psycho ticket getting car crashing drivers use 2 sec no matter what speed they are traveling

this says 3 sec rule
http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffi...afe-following-distance-the-3-second-rule.html

 

[wischeez]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=IL+traffic+laws

 

[Waterdust]

The fact I mentioned improper lane usage should hint that I left out the codes I was reading thru from google.

2 second rule is the concept of distance between 2 cars (at least 1 cars avg length).
Anyways.. hang on.. I'll go whip ya'll up your traditional pic thingy.

PS: I've had that avatar forever.

Once more, car 1 should not be liable for 3 because car 2 had been too close to car 3
is the idea here.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, car 1 was following too close to car 2 if car 1 could not stop in time when car 2 stopped suddenly at impact.

However, I have seen judges let the other cars off and only charge the first car that ran into the back of another car in a chain collision.

 

[FoBoT]

well done new guy

 

[Newbian]

Needs more poorly drawn images before thread gets locked and op banned probably again.

 

[Lithium381]

The fact I mentioned improper lane usage should hint that I left out the codes I was reading thru from google.

2 second rule is the concept of distance between 2 cars (at least 1 cars avg length).
Anyways.. hang on.. I'll go whip ya'll up your traditional pic thingy.

PS: I've had that avatar forever.

Once more, car 1 should not be liable for 3 because car 2 had been too close to car 3
is the idea here.

in IL? I can tell you who's at fault without knowing any details. IT'S THE REPUBLICANS@@@@!!#!%!$

 

[tailes151]

<---- Auto adjuster here. If you find a law along those lines I would love to see it.

Generally what happens in this case is if vehicle 1 rear-ends 2, and pushes it into 3 vehicle one is responsible for damages to vehicles 2 and 3.

It can get a little more confusing however;

If vehicle 2 rear-ends vehicle 3, which results in vehicle 1 rear-ending vehicle 2, which in turn pushes vehicle 2 back into vehicle 3, then vehicle 1 is responsible for damages to rear of vehicle two, and a percentage based amount of the damages to vehicle 3 (tbd by the adjuster) ---- Also, holy run-on sentence.

 

[Waterdust]

Don't see why I'd be banned, this is off topic. >.>

From my point of view this should be somewhere in the law, it is a road rule
that is IN the state published "guide lines" for driving.

In a court room law is "interpreted" thus all one has to do is state the obvious no?

Thus shouldn't it be as simple as interpreting the situation as a violation of improper
lane usage which falls under a minor offense, which can be defined as an offense
period; which means its LAW; an therefor a broken law which should be enforced.

Which could then be proven scientifically thru the speed & damage
calculations observed straight from the incident facts that the law being
broken prior to the moment of impact puts the 2nd car at fault because had he not
put himself in that position so close to the other car, then car 3 would never have
been damaged otherwise.

Is this even viable as a defense?

As far as I'm getting it seems that the dispute keeps coming back to the concept
that someone will always argue "well duuuur!! none of this would've ever happened
had YOU not caused the whole thing!" which to me (an I'm sure MANY others) sounds
more like a case of strong fact denial.

Additionally car 2 can't keep saying that he didn't put himself in that position near car 3.
No one caused him to be that close to the other car (prior to that moment) other than himself.
That is dangerous driving conditions set forth by himself thus should pay car 3's damages himself.

Just because car 1's actions sparked the chain, the chain didn't have to go THAT far, he played a
part in helping that chain continue further than it should have been, as advised in the STATE BOOK
to prevent just this predicament.

Also to the adjuster, you would know best on how to gauge speed, distance, & level of impact just by
looking at the cars involved. Thus proving this "angle" as a lawyer might call it (since I can't find a direct
law on it atm).

 

[sactoking]

<---- Auto adjuster here. If you find a law along those lines I would love to see it.

Generally what happens in this case is if vehicle 1 rear-ends 2, and pushes it into 3 vehicle one is responsible for damages to vehicles 2 and 3.

It can get a little more confusing however;

If vehicle 2 rear-ends vehicle 3, which results in vehicle 1 rear-ending vehicle 2, which in turn pushes vehicle 2 back into vehicle 3, then vehicle 1 is responsible for damages to rear of vehicle two, and a percentage based amount of the damages to vehicle 3 (tbd by the adjuster) ---- Also, holy run-on sentence.

The best is when #2 hits #3 and totals it then #1 hits #2 back into #3 so that #1 is responsible for damage to #3's salvage.

 

[waffleironhead]

I have no idea about the law, but...
If you hit the car in front of you, you were following too close.

 

[Newbian]

Don't see why I'd be banned, this is off topic. >.>

A lot of banned / multi accounts people are making new accounts and getting them banned also so...

 

[Waterdust]

Ok so check my IP? I'm not a multi.

waffle - situation was car 1 hits car 2 due to late brake timing, this is when car 1 hadn't been (possibly?)
paying attention to the road (because god knows what reason??) while in steady motion an failed to stop in time.

Furthermore people are seeming to get confused, this was a normal street incident, NOT a highway major speed thing.

 

[waffleironhead]

Ok so check my IP? I'm not a multi.

waffle - situation was car 1 hits car 2 due to late brake timing, this is when car 1 hadn't been (possibly?)
paying attention to the road (because god knows what reason??) while in steady motion an failed to stop in time.

Furthermore people are seeming to get confused, this was a normal street incident, NOT a highway major speed thing.

Completly car 1's fault for not planning ahead and not paying attention. It is car 1's responsibility to be prepared for actions of cars ahead of it.
Good luck in court.

 

[Waterdust]

That totally ignores the concept of the broken law prior to the fact!

He broke the law before car 1 did.

 

[FoBoT]

somebody else breaking a law just before you do doesn't absolve you of your own mistake

 

[Waterdust]

Car 1's mistake was just this "hitting car 2" which as I said would've never hit car 3
had car 2 not created the situation prior to the event.

Saying it the way you did fobot, tries to improperly place blame on 1.

2 is responsible for his own actions, his action was to create a potential situation for
someone else (the concept of making things worse than they needed to be). By which
is no fault or mistake of 1. That was purely 2's fault. Thus he should own up to it.

Another way of expressing my point is just because 1 stands in the shadow of 2 doesn't
mean 1 is accountable for 2's actions.

If anything it makes 2 an accomplice to the events, still proving he had a part to play in it
that never had to be, but was purely because he caused it to be.

 

[FoBoT]

well lucky for you, i am a supreme court justice, so i can just get this changed over to your way of thinking, i'll call up Justice Roberts and Ginsberg and we'll handle it

 

[waffleironhead]

The car you need to remove from the situation is car 3. Car 2 sill behaves the same way.(stopping quickly to avoid some danger) Car 1 is at fault for hitting car 2.
Car 2 action of hitting car 3 is immaterial to car 1 hitting car 2.

 

[waffleironhead]

well lucky for you, i am a supreme court justice, so i can just get this changed over to your way of thinking, i'll call up Justice Roberts and Ginsberg and we'll handle it

What do you guys wear under your robes?