Question: Traffic Laws IL

[olds]

I can't understand what the OP is saying and I am not interested enough to try and figure out that gibberish. I am going to assume that English is not his/her first language.

99.999999/100, if someone rears someone else, the person doing the rear ending will be at fault for "following too closely".
http://law.onecle.com/illinois/625ilcs5/11-710.html

3 seconds should be the minimum following distance. You should also use a "visual lead" of 20-30 seconds. In other words, be looking 20-30 seconds down the road.

<--- Defensive driving instructor.

 

[dmcowen674]

Question: Traffic Laws IL

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 they had broken that law 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 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.

Traffic laws are Revenue Laws

This has nothing to do with any one particular state.

Just Pay up and move on

 

[sactoking]

So, if I understand correctly, OP has changed the scenario to where cars 2 and 3 are stopped at a light. Car 1 hits car 2 and pushes 2 into 3. OP is claiming that 1 should not be responsible for 3 because 2 was stopped too closely.

Won't work. Car 1 is the proximate cause of both collisions (If not for car 1 nothing would have been damaged...). The fact that 2 was allegedly stopped too closely behind 3 is irrelevant; at the time of the collision they were both stopped indicating that the driver of 2 had already shown the proper care on the road. Car 2 was not voluntarily accelerated into 3 so 2 has no fault.

I've seen people try to make this claim before and it has never worked.

Also, if the crash results in 3 being pushed into the intersection and 3 is t-boned by 4, 1 is at fault for that as the proximate cause as well, though 4 may share some fault depending on the circumstances. In no scenario would 4 be more at-fault than 1.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So, if I understand correctly, OP has changed the scenario to where cars 2 and 3 are stopped at a light. Car 1 hits car 2 and pushes 2 into 3. OP is claiming that 1 should not be responsible for 3 because 2 was stopped too closely.

Won't work. Car 1 is the proximate cause of both collisions (If not for car 1 nothing would have been damaged...). The fact that 2 was allegedly stopped too closely behind 3 is irrelevant; at the time of the collision they were both stopped indicating that the driver of 2 had already shown the proper care on the road. Car 2 was not voluntarily accelerated into 3 so 2 has no fault.

I've seen people try to make this claim before and it has never worked.

Also, if the crash results in 3 being pushed into the intersection and 3 is t-boned by 4, 1 is at fault for that as the proximate cause as well, though 4 may share some fault depending on the circumstances. In no scenario would 4 be more at-fault than 1.

I have been Car #3. Stopped at a light and did not proceed because an emergency vehicle was in the intersection.

Car #2 as stopped behind me.

Car #1 paid attention to the green light and not the red brake lights.

Rammed into #2 which pushed #2 into #3 (me).

Car #1 was held completely responsible by insurance and LEO.

Once #2 is stopped; their is no liability on them caused by anything happening behind them or in front of them.

 

[dmcowen674]

I have been Car #3. Stopped at a light and did not proceed because an emergency vehicle was in the intersection.

Car #2 as stopped behind me.

Car #1 paid attention to the green light and not the red brake lights.

Rammed into #2 which pushed #2 into #3 (me).

Car #1 was held completely responsible by insurance and LEO.

Once #2 is stopped; their is no liability on them caused by anything happening behind them or in front of them.

Many states simply write it up as following too close

/thread

 

[bruceb]

I was in a similar wreck in NJ about 3 years ago. Fortunately, I left plenty of room to the car in front of me. He stopped for light, I stopped, Lexus SUV stopped ok behind me, some idiot in a Mazda mini van did not stop and plowed into SUV, which then hit my bumper and trunk. Luckily for me, quarter panels were ok. Did not cost me one cent. It all came from insurance of SUV and guy that hit him. As to any 2 second rule, if there is one, it would apply only while in motion. Around here, NJ police can say you are following too close, if you can not see the tires of the car ahead of you.
When I stop for a light, I try to leave enough space to see the tires of car ahead of me. That is usually about 6-10 feet, so if someone does hit you, you don't hit the car in front. And keep your foot solid on the brake.

 

[Waterdust]

My replies below with original quotes:

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

@ JEDIYoda - You've ignored most of the topic, you don't understand my views or points, go back, reread.
-------

@ Meghan54 (regarding ur experience u posted) - I hear you, but in your case the person hitting you was going
incredibly fast, this was not a low speed impact as my topic describes (I feel many people are ignoring the topic
an changing it into whatever to suit their arguements), also your distance from car 3 in your case would've made
no difference as the speed was going to cause you to go very far forward no matter what based on your description an what I'm getting from it.
-------

@ oldsmoboat - I'm going to assume your a stupid troll who's looking for a reaction, I'm going to ignore your rude
an if not racist statement, infact theres a rule I read just yesterday stating the mods don't tolerate such "cloaked"
comments no matter how small.. I think I'll report you.
------

@ dmcowen674 - I see your comfortable with just whatever is thrown your way, thats not me, it's not how I live my life.
You are however entitled to your opinion, so be it thats YOU an I'm fine if thats what your comfortable with for "yourself".
-------

@ EagleKeeper - Your comment includes an ambulance, my original topic does not. I would like people to stop
changing the original topic to suit their arguements.
-------

@ bruceb - I think you've got my point there, when I read the end of your statement your describing exactly what
I've been trying to argue here only to add that in my topics case the situation is car 2 stopped at the light an didn't
give a proper distance buffer to PREVENT himself from hitting car 3 in such a scenario. THUS creating the problem
for HIMSELF.

I guess now only you an me are "crazy enough to understand this" according to someone earlier, they had the nerve
to say my way of "thinking" was nuts, just because they're too frustrated with me to walk away.
------

I did reply & edit my statement from last nite, where this site went down for maintence. Incase anyone wants my view
on that other guys "scenario".


On a side note:

Please stop changing the topic to suit your arguements! My topic doesn't contain any
snow, ice, bad weather conditions, semi trucks, or other variations of YOUR choosing.

My english is at college level, it is my first language, I admit I may not follow "proper grammar" techniques like "anyone else" but none of you are in a position to challenge me on grammar. Also before someone argues grammar is the issue as to why no one can understand me, I'll say that I did start this thread without some of the details some of you appear to require for a more "full" understanding.

As such reread the first post, take time to use a dictionary if you feel words are being used in another manner as I have done with many who've posted here in an attempt to TRY to understand YOUR logic when I felt applicable.

That includes the rude guy who appeared racist earlier an still does after 30min of consideration.

 

[FoBoT]

...dude you need quote the law!!

yes, this being a court of law, quotes of the laws are required

 

[mugs]

My english is at college level, it is my first language

Could you please tell us what college you attend(ed)? I need to write a letter. You are a terrible communicator. I'm not talking about grammar, I'm talking about the way you present information. It's really terrible. Re-read your first post. You never even stated that car 1 struck car 2. You never described the accident. How do you expect people to make informed comments about liability in an accident that you never described?

 

[Newbian]

@ oldsmoboat - I'm going to assume your a stupid troll who's looking for a reaction, I'm going to ignore your rude
an if not racist statement, infact theres a rule I read just yesterday stating the mods don't tolerate such "cloaked"
comments no matter how small.. I think I'll report you.
------

Olds says he is sorry and wants to give you a gift he has in his basement, head down there and pick it up as it's worth it.

 

[Meghan54]

My replies below with original quotes:

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



@ Meghan54 (regarding ur experience u posted) - I hear you, but in your case the person hitting you was going
incredibly fast, this was not a low speed impact as my topic describes (I feel many people are ignoring the topic
an changing it into whatever to suit their arguements), also your distance from car 3 in your case would've made
no difference as the speed was going to cause you to go very far forward no matter what based on your description an what I'm getting from it.
-------

First, you make an incorrect assumption that the driver of Car 1 was going "incredibly fast", as you put it.

In fact, he hit me doing under 25 mph....he did try to brake but only managed 10 ft. of braking. So, your assumption is wrong.

Second, there is no specific law regarding rear end collisions. Instead, a collision such as I had and you describe would be cited under whatever driving regulation that the police person who cited the driver felt was broken.....reckless driving, failure to yield, etc. Each case is handled individually due to too many variables in the accident.....raining or not, day or night, etc., etc.

So, your need for a law is just not going to happen. It was up to the officer on the scene to adjudicate fault and why......

 

[olds]

Olds says he is sorry and wants to give you a gift he has in his basement, head down there and pick it up as it's worth it.

I
:thumbsup:

I'd also like to know how the whole "report" thing is working for him.
Seems pretty familiar with the rules for a n00b. IP check, stat.

 

[Waterdust]

Once more quoting people to reply to them below:


yes, this being a court of law, quotes of the laws are required

@ Fobot - Reread my first post, I came here originally asking for someone to help me
find the law itself I'm discussing or something equivalent to it.

The fact the discussion has gone otherwise is because as I previously complained.. too many people are
changing the topic into other variations to support their arguements possibly in an attempt of their own to
try an make me look stupid.
-----------

@ mugs - I'm not giving you my college, I infact consider you very rude. It's not my job to present information
in a truely "universal manner" compatible for everyone. This isn't customer service. You can take the time to read
an think for yourself what I'm talking about.
--------

@ Meghan54 - I see your point but mine still stands from earlier, if the rules we're taught in high school, on the actual driving tests being
written, verbal or driven aren't any form of law what the hell then?? why force us to learn the crap? prevention? isn't that what laws are
geared on? -> preventing things.

It must be in some variant of the actual laws, to be interpreted or otherwise or why print it in all the books for driving tests & exams?
or make it a point deductible issue when getting your license? This is why I came here was to find this out.

Your far more reasonable to work with than some others around here, I can agree with your facts but I still want to see if there's "anything"
as I said.

Added: My topic is regarding 15mph or less. 15 being the max. This might not get you to reconsider the argument but even so when you say
"It was up to the officer on the scene to adjudicate fault and why...... " I have tried to point out that the cop who wrote the report has later
agreed with me. I should be able to get him to claim over sight on the initial report an get the law I'm seeking to "apply" there.

-------
@ Newbian - Sure you both can lead the way in-front of those stairs =) I'll be right behind ya!

PS @ Newbian: This isn't my first forum, your not my first batch of rude people, nor will you be the last,
an I'm sure the matter is already being reviewed =)

 

[FoBoT]

 

[tailes151]

I'm not aware of any laws or court rulings to help support your argument. Liability in auto claims is generally determined by the proximate cause of the loss.

It's similar to an argument I have on a near daily basis in that if you (or anyone) were to strike an illegally parked and unattended vehicle, your carrier is going to make a payment on the claim - most likely payment in full. There are always exception to this obviously, such as if they state is a pure contributory liability state.

Also...

....And keep your foot solid on the brake.

This is not a good idea as it will likely increase the odds of you being injured.

 

[Newbian]

-------
@ Newbian - Sure you both can lead the way in-front of those stairs =) I'll be right behind ya!

PS @ Newbian: This isn't my first forum, your not my first batch of rude people, nor will you be the last,
an I'm sure the matter is already being reviewed =)

 

[olds]

OP, did you ask this question to any co-workers at Martin?

 

[3chordcharlie]

*snip*

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

*snip*.

If car 1 had done his part as a good driver, no one's car would be damaged.

So your "friend" is responsible for all the damage. Period.

 

[JEDIYoda]

In before the lock.......dude......the village idiot position has been filled by somebody from P&N........so just go away....

 

[Waterdust]

@ tailes151 - You said.. "Liability in auto claims is generally determined by the proximate cause of the loss. "

Therefor since the judge told them to take it up with claims it shouldn't need a "law"? I should be able to just prove
that the order of events IS what I say an win the dispute?

-----------
@ 3chord - the concept is "order of events" his actions are first in line to car 1's actions.

------
@ Newbian - See pic below =)

 

[3chordcharlie]

@ 3chord - the concept is "order of events" his actions are first in line to car 1's actions.
------

I get that - the trouble is car 2 stopped, without hitting car 3. Why was he relatively close? Perhaps car 3 changed their braking rate to avoid crossing the stop line, or for some other reason. It doesn't matter much though - when car 2 came to a stop, everyone was safe, and only car 1 had any remaining responsibility to stop safely.

 

[Waterdust]

I get that - the trouble is car 2 stopped, without hitting car 3. Why was he relatively close? Perhaps car 3 changed their braking rate to avoid crossing the stop line, or for some other reason. It doesn't matter much though - when car 2 came to a stop, everyone was safe, and only car 1 had any remaining responsibility to stop safely.

Everyone was not as safe as they could've been because car 2 had chosen
to stop at an unsafe distance from car 3 in the event he was rear ended.

Refer to safe driving practices to best understand the "distance" concept for those who're challenged.

 

[LTC8K6]

The safest thing for car 2 to have done, if they knew the idiot in car 1 was going to hit them, would probably have been to get right up against car 3.

Other than completely getting out of the way, I mean.

 

[Waterdust]

The safest thing for car 2 to have done, if they knew the idiot in car 1 was going to hit them, would probably have been to get right up against car 3.

Other than completely getting out of the way, I mean.

The safest thing for car 2 to have done was follow driving practices as
was intended for the over all maximum prevention effort for all of society.

Alot of people want to continue arguing car 1 is an idiot, which to an
extent yes they are, up to a point. However that point ends when someone
else made it WORSE than it needed to be.

The idea is "you could've helped, but instead you just sat there an
watched it all happen" thus we socially use this line of argument daily
but no one thinks to apply it to a car accident for liability purposes.

Also I'm sure the local street cam recording traffic would backup my
claim to "prove" the distance between car 2 & 3. After all the original
cop DID agree with me after the report had been submitted.

I don't see why I can't win this, one reason or another. I HAVE the cop
on my side, he would know the "law" better than me.

 

[LTC8K6]

You have nothing and no one on your side, imo.

I see your fictional cop with a fictional judge, throwing the book at car 1's driver...