Question: Traffic Laws IL

[Mike Gayner]

Can anyone else figure out WTF this guy is ranting about? Dude, you ran into the back of someone's car, meaning you were following too closely. Number 2's actions prior to this are entirely irrelevant, because you should never be following at a distance in which you cant stop safely in an emergency.

You're using some bizarre rationalising and circular justifications for your screw up, but none of it changes the fact that you were following closely enough that you couldn't stop from ramming someone in an emergency stop. If this action caused damage to more than one vehicle, it's still your fault, period.

 

[Waterdust]

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.

When you say this you sound almost as though you agree with me, but then
it feels like your not. So I checked the definition of "immaterial" for 100%
clarification.

I'll go with my impression of the meaning an say, you cannot just dismiss
the fact that car 2 created a situation that did NOT need to exist.

A situation that car 1 never created; played a part OF but was not the
originator of it's availability or circumstance. Thus not at fault.

Furthermore while you dismiss the fact car 1 pays for 2's "initial" mistake.
An as far as I can recall in any court room, the "order of events" are quite
important if not life changing.

Why would this or should this be any different here?

 

[Waterdust]

Again this isn't ME driving, also car 1 wasn't following close, it never stopped in time.

This was at a red light, cars 2 & 3 had already stopped fully. Their distance was set by
themselves prior to car 1's actions.

@ mike - excuse you? bizarre thinking? you mean logic? I'm going to stop talking to you after this post but
if the order of events is so meaningless to you, lets see about that when the day comes an your on trial for
a murder you didn't commit just because a bunch of people "think the same way unchanged forever an ever"
an go with whats comfortable to them an the order they consider "normal" vs your life being ok again.

 

[Mike Gayner]

You're not going to find anyone who agrees with you here. You caused an accident that ultimately lead to two cars being damaged. Pay the cost, stop being a deadbeat.

Why does it matter anyway? Just get your insurance to cover the whole thing and move on with life.

 

[waffleironhead]

blah,blah,blah look at me while I try to avoid taking responsibility for my own actions

All I see is you admitting to rear ending someone because you were not paying attention and following too close.

 

[Zenmervolt]

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

EDIT: Now that you've said it was at a stop light you're effed. Car 1 is paying for everything. There's no "2 second rule" when cars 2 and 3 are stopped.

ZV

 

[Waterdust]

@ zen - I'm not trying to say car 1 is not at fault for 2's damages. Just that it should only pay as FAR as up to 2's. An 2 should pay for 3 because he created the situations
availability prior to the event taking place.

If car 2 had done his part as a good driver, car 1's actions would never have reached 3.

I also don't like the way people point fingers "At me" as if I had driven this car.
I'm doing this on behalf of another. Don't believe me for all I care now but >.>

Meaning all this "you did" stuff, I did nothing. Rather no one here fights for their family? friends? those they love? what a cold set of people if so.

Also the end of your statement zen seems to suggest that I was right?

Added: lol @ 10min an the "jersey shore" line of arguments against me ends.

 

[Waterdust]

@ zen - a stop light doesn't erase the distance rule. Safe driving applies wither in motion,
parked, or temporarily on the side of a road. Distance IS stated in all of these areas and
are not subject to whimsical convenience removal.

If a judge tells me that "because there is no law stating this" as a "solid law" pointing
directly at my argument, I might accept that (given I have no other choice). Though
I would then press for it to be added asap. I would imagine.. I'd have support there but
that's not the topic.

 

[LTC8K6]

2 & 3 are stopped at a traffic light?

Why is this a question?

Car 1 is entirely at fault for whatever happens after 1 hits 2...

Suppose 3 is shoved into the intersection and T-boned? Is that 2's fault too?

Ridiculous question, imo.

1 is at fault for everything resulting from crashing into 2.

 

[Zenmervolt]

@ zen - a stop light doesn't erase the distance rule. Safe driving applies wither in motion, parked, or temporarily on the side of a road. Distance IS stated in all of these areas and are not subject to whimsical convenience removal.

Yeah. Go ahead and see how that works out for you in court.

ZV

 

[Waterdust]

Not a stupid question, yes car 2 is liable for T-Boning car 3, he pushed him out there
which wouldn't have happened had HE not put HIMSELF that close to ALLOW it.

The stage of traffic is set daily when people wake up, you don't have to ADD to it
an make it worse. Car 2 did just that, I'm arguing sequence of events here.

Car 1 is wrong for ever hitting 2, but hitting 2 didn't have to cause injury to 3. It was only so because 2 "added to it".

To clarify why I say 2 is liable for 3 an your tbone concept. 3 didn't create the availability for the Tbone, he had been at the light according to "proper distance".

Added: @ zen - I would if I was allowed to talk to a judge! It's written on state paper guides "rules of the road" & enforced during a driving test!
You can get bad marks for not following this then, so I fail to see how I wouldn't be able to argue it with a judge.

INFACT: If it's not a law, why the hell is it enforced on a driving test?! <<<<<<<<<<<

 

[Number1]

Car 1 pushed car 2 into car 3. Case closed, car 1 IS responsible.

And define "safe distance between stopped cars at a red light", a rather ridiculous concept considering all the variable that would have to be considered including speed limit, mass of the car, type of vehicle, number of axles, etc.

 

[Waterdust]

Not a stupid concept. Level of damage with an "adjuster" can determine just how fast
someone was going at the time of impact, allowing them to do the rest of the calculations.

There is a safe distance for set levels of speed, on highways & city roads. Your supposed to follow this to help prevent accidents while in motion or not (also taught IN high school nowadays).

The 2 second rule applies while in motion, while a "variation" of it exists for parking, an
even further there is a rule for how far road flares should be placed an even "where" when on the side of a road along with the cars "resting position", not to mention the fact flowing traffic has to give space or even slow down for them.

Any of which should they show up on the written test of a driving exam, or verbally can count against your test! (I personally was verbally quizzed at the end of my driving test in CA)

 

[LTC8K6]

Not a stupid question, yes car 2 is liable for T-Boning car 3, he pushed him out there
which wouldn't have happened had HE not put HIMSELF that close to ALLOW it.

The stage of traffic is set daily when people wake up, you don't have to ADD to it
an make it worse. Car 2 did just that, I'm arguing sequence of events here.

Car 1 is wrong for ever hitting 2, but hitting 2 didn't have to cause injury to 3. It was only so because 2 "added to it".

To clarify why I say 2 is liable for 3 an your tbone concept. 3 didn't create the availability for the Tbone, he had been at the light according to "proper distance".

Added: @ zen - I would if I was allowed to talk to a judge! It's written on state paper guides "rules of the road" & enforced during a driving test!
You can get bad marks for not following this then, so I fail to see how I wouldn't be able to argue it with a judge.

INFACT: If it's not a law, why the hell is it enforced on a driving test?! <<<<<<<<<<<

You are crazy. That's your problem.

Car 1 is at fault for all damage to all vehicles, 1, 2, & 3. Case closed.

If #3 is pushed into the intersection, and car #4 T-bones #3, #1 is also at fault for that accident.

 

[Mike Gayner]

I don't see how the 2 second rule can apply when cars are stopped, considering the distance between them, measured by time, is literally infinite. Until you rammed them.

 

[Waterdust]

LTC - Your the crazy one. You must like insurance hikes when things to bad for ya.

You don't wanna be part of the topic walk away, don't accuse me of being crazy because you lack the ability to say we're arguing "semantics" an it frustrates you
beyond your ability to handle the topic.

Just walk away? hell agree to disagree with me even? be a bit more mature yeah?



@ mike - since you point out that, no time is not infinite at a stopped point. When considering the speed of a 10mph impact it can be
easily determined that if the hit car had been say 10 feet away from the car infront of it, it would've never impacted that car from the
actions of car 1 hitting 2. At most it'd of skidded an stopped, a small bump isn't going to cause someone to let go of their brake, hit
the gas, ram car 3 an total it unless more circumstances making car 2 even MORE negligent are the case. All of which can be proven
in a court.

 

[LTC8K6]

LTC - Your the crazy one. You must like insurance hikes when things to bad for ya.

You don't wanna be part of the topic walk away, don't accuse me of being crazy because you lack the ability to say we're arguing "semantics" an it frustrates you
beyond your ability to handle the topic.

Just walk away? hell agree to disagree with me even? be a bit more mature yeah?

I didn't ask for any advice from ATG...

 

[Number1]

How do you measure a 2 or 3 second interval between 2 parked cars?

As far as I am concerned, if I stopped my car before hitting the car in front of me, I am good. I can't do anything about another car rear ending me and pushing me into another car.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't see how the 2 second rule can apply when cars are stopped, considering the distance between them, measured by time, is literally infinite. Until you rammed them.

How would anyone know what the distance was between cars 2 & 3, prior to the idiot in car #1's arrival in #2's trunk?

 

[Waterdust]

Simple by having the adjuster look at the level of damage which is always consistent to impact speed (an before someone argues this is NOT the case, go on youtube an have a look at some "crash tests"). Adjusters are trained to do this regularly allowing variables to be explained even that you an I would scratch our heads at.

Tests are done (or can be arranged if a situation needs it) to explain how people get injuries, not just ones where a car is crashed into a wall for demonstration but to prove "safety ratings" vs head on collisions an side impacts using other vehicles among other things.

The evidence is consistent enough to show that a 10mph impact from the rear will have x-amount damages here-here-an here. Anything beyond this is how (as someone else sorta mentioned, but I will complete the concept) a judge will toss out damages beyond a point.

Or for those jersey shore types who can't stand long disussions, go watch fight club? =p

 

[heymrdj]

Car 1 did all the damage, regardless of distance. Distance laws are not applied to stopped cars, you nose up, typically 1 cars length away, and stay there.

Take it one step farther. Car 1 is a semi on a winter road. Car 2 and 3 are passenger cars stopped at a stop light 5 car lengths apart (unrealistic but hey I guess it ain't bad to be 70ft from another car). "car" 1 skids into car 2 as it hits a patch of black ice, unable to bring it's 80,000lbs to a stop, but the mass of car 2 is enough to make car 1 stop when it hits car 2. Car 2 is hit hard enough that on the ice its tires cannot grip against the mass of 80,000lbs and hits Car 3. Is Car 2 at fault because of this? Even at beyond safe distances, car 2 stood no chance of not hitting car 3 unless grossly separated from car 3 (250ft plus). In your world should it be law that car 2 should be built with brakes and tires powerful enough to also abruptly stop a vehicle 20x it's mass?

 

[Waterdust]

Thats not the dispute here, give me a bit an I'll give you my view on that though.

=====

Lets look at what you just said mrdj - "you nose up, typically 1 cars length away, and stay there."

This sounds alot like what I've been saying.. your car must be stopped at least 1 cars length away from the car infront of yours. Of which a low speed
impact would then not cause a chain reaction as the topic describes. Car 2 would've stayed on its brakes an prevented damage to car 3.

I don't like your tone with the "in my world" but I'll humor your concept anyways.

As I understand your concept, same scenario only during winter (an using a semi?), not a dry season like the topic with no water/ice.
Given the situation YOU describe an as I seem to understand it.. Car hits semi which (somehow?) hits a car unable to hold the weight of
the semi even though a HUGE distance was given an that road conditions have gone unfavorable an pandemonium occurs.

The semi is supposed to have brakes capable of holding its load under normal conditions, that being said I'm no adjuster to say how
one calculates damages under severe weather. -- However under normal conditions like that of my topic, the semi under a low speed impact
should've NEVER hit car 3 an if it did the semi would be liable if somehow "car 1" at such a low speed managed to push 80k into car 3.

I suspect your story is not well understood by me?, I might have made changes to reflect what I think you meant to say?

========

I was unable to reply faster due to "site maintenance" & sleep.

 

[alfa147x]

What happens when 1 hits 3 then 2 hits 1 then 3 hits 1 then 2?

Who is responsible? Can some draw this for me?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Thats not the dispute here, give me a bit an I'll give you my view on that though.

So far you have quoted no laws........
You cannot quote the drivers handbook....dude you need quote the law!!

Not some supposed 2 second rule that is in the drivers handbook but is not the law....

 

[Meghan54]

My take.....I've been Car 2 at a stoplight once and was hit in the rear by Car 1 and was pushed into Car 3. We were all stopped and Car 1 just plowed into my rear end, pushing me into the car in front of me, despite me almost standing on my brakes....I saw him coming but couldn't move due to us being all stopped at a red light with nowhere to move.

In court, Car 1 was hung out to dry. Car 1's driver had to pay for both Car 2 and 3's damages, was found guilty of sheer stupidity for not paying attention to his driving and surroundings, for not stopping in time and causing the entire accident, and then, to top it off, Car 1's driver was subsequently fired from his job because Car 1 was a work vehicle he totaled in the accident.

Oh, and Car 1's driver was cited at the accident and neither Car 2 or 3's drivers received any ticket or citation.