Question: Traffic Laws IL

[PlasmaBomb]

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.

You do realise that if cars 2 and 3 have stopped there is an infinity +1 second gap between them... and Car 1 running into the back of car 2 and shunting it into car 3 is all car 1's fault... don't you?

 

[3chordcharlie]

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.

So car 2 would have been hit harder, assuming car 1 ever even attempted to brake. Braking distance from 'under 15mph' is not very far, so unless the travel speed was much higher, and you are only talking about impact speed, then not only was car 1 following too closely, they probably deserve a careless driving charge, too.

How far back should he stop? What if he gets rear-ended by a pickup twice his weight? What if it's pulling a 5 ton trailer? Then how far back should he stop?

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes...

If car 1 is still accelerating, then car 2 would want to be closer to car 1, so the impact is at a lower speed. That is, farther from car 3.

If car 1 is decelerating, then car 2 would want to be farther away from car 1, so the impact is at a lower speed. That is, closer to car 3.

Presumably, car 1 is at least trying to stop, so car 2 would want to be closer to car 3, to give car 1 the max distance to reduce it's speed before impact.

How car 2 is supposed to calculate this beforehand, I have no idea...

 

[Meghan54]

Yes...

How car 2 is supposed to calculate this beforehand, I have no idea...

The simple answer is Car 2 doesn't have to calculate anything, as we well know. All Car 2 has to do is stop at the light without hitting the car ahead of it.

What still confuses me is how the OP wants Car 2 to implement the "2 second rule" when the car is stopped at a light, behind another car. And the OP seems to think the "2 second rule" is an actual law or something, which it isn't. If the OP ever bothered to read the operator's manual for his state, which it seems he obviously hasn't, he'd read that safe distances are determined by a host of variables, including speed, lighting (day or night), weather conditions (snow, ice, rain, dry), etc.

I believe that's covered in the maintaining a safe distance according to driving conditions, and that means the driver has to actually use judgement to determine safe following distances to the car ahead.

What I don't understand is how anyone can actually consider his pictured Car #2 responsible for anything that happens when Car #2 is completely stopped for a red signal, gets hit in the rear and pushed into the car ahead of him. And what is supposed to be a safe distance from the car ahead of him? 2 ft? 20 ft? 200 ft? Since the "2 second rule" can only apply when moving......stationary objects don't move.....how would it be put into use for a stopped car?

 

[FoBoT]

so....

i think we can all agree that the airplane takes off

 

[olds]

so....

i think we can all agree that the airplane takes off

WRONG!
It will hit those upright bars holding up the handles!

 

[3chordcharlie]

WRONG!
It will hit those upright bars holding up the handles!

you're assuming it is going to take off in a conventional forward direction?

 

[olds]

you're assuming it is going to take off in a conventional forward direction?

Yes. Even straight up looks close.

 

[KK]

someone ban this tard already.

 

[Turin39789]

What happens when Car 1 hits Car 2 at 160 mph? Why didn't car 2 take this into consideration and stop 1/4 mile from Car 1?

 

[LTC8K6]

The simple answer is Car 2 doesn't have to calculate anything, as we well know. All Car 2 has to do is stop at the light without hitting the car ahead of it.

What still confuses me is how the OP wants Car 2 to implement the "2 second rule" when the car is stopped at a light, behind another car. And the OP seems to think the "2 second rule" is an actual law or something, which it isn't. If the OP ever bothered to read the operator's manual for his state, which it seems he obviously hasn't, he'd read that safe distances are determined by a host of variables, including speed, lighting (day or night), weather conditions (snow, ice, rain, dry), etc.

I believe that's covered in the maintaining a safe distance according to driving conditions, and that means the driver has to actually use judgement to determine safe following distances to the car ahead.

What I don't understand is how anyone can actually consider his pictured Car #2 responsible for anything that happens when Car #2 is completely stopped for a red signal, gets hit in the rear and pushed into the car ahead of him. And what is supposed to be a safe distance from the car ahead of him? 2 ft? 20 ft? 200 ft? Since the "2 second rule" can only apply when moving......stationary objects don't move.....how would it be put into use for a stopped car?

As far as I know, the OP is the only one who considers car 2 responsible for any part of the accident. Everyone has told him he's nuts.

 

[Zenmervolt]

@ zen - I would if I was allowed to talk to a judge!

For your sake and for the sake of your "friend," you should be happy that you're not. You'd get benchslapped so hard your mother would feel it. As much fun as it would be to see a judge hand you your ass in court, your friend is better off without your "help."

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

The idea is "you could've helped, but instead you just sat there and 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.

Actually, no, we don't use this daily. At least, not in the law. There is no duty to help in US law. The most anyone is obligated to is phoning the police/paramedics after the fact.

ZV

 

[FallenHero]

As far as I know, the OP is the only one who considers car 2 responsible for any part of the accident. Everyone has told him he's nuts.

Because he is. There is nothing in the law regarding distance required at a red light, or at any stop for that matter. The ONLY thing I can think of off the top of my head is following distance, and that only applies to moving vehicles and specifically references safe and proper stopping distance. Which basically means if you cause a rear end accident when both vehicles are moving because you couldn't stop in time, its following too closely. OP is grasping at straws.

<----Cop in IL.

 

[LTC8K6]

Car 2 should have gone into reverse and backed up at max speed into car 1 to protect car 3. It was clearly car 2's duty.

 

[FallenHero]

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.

Just because a cop agrees with you doesn't mean its law and it doesn't mean its enforceable. I've told plenty of people on 3 and 4 car accidents that they should try to maintain a safer distance when in traffic or stopped...that does NOT mean that there is any law stating they have to or that I can write them any ticket for stopped 10 feet or 1 foot behind the car in front of them.

I know the law and I challenge you to find anything that is legally enforceable regarding distance between cars while stopped.

 

[Zargon]

lol.

that is all

 

[BurnItDwn]

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.

In that picture, car "1" is 100% at fault for the damages to car 2 and car 3. Even if Car 2 was 1 or 2 inches away from car 3, the fact is, car 2 most likely wouldn't have made contact with car 3 on it's own had it not been hit.

 

[tedrodai]

Good luck dude. I see it as everyone else does except for you--Car 1 is responsible. I've never heard of some law stating you have to stop a certain distance from the car in front of you at a red light, nor would I ever support such a law if I was asked to.

 

[ntrthamatrix]

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.

Both car 3 and 2 have already stopped the liability is with car 1 for causing the collision. Car 2 did nothing wrong.

 

[Waterdust]

Actually your all wrong, by the time of my last post an this post I've taken the time
to go find the original cop (again) who wrote the report an another entirely unrelated
to the matter.

LEGALLY SPEAKING (As worded by both cops) - Car 2 had been following & stopped
too close to car 3, it falls under "following too closely" which in your case is an
over sight.

The original cop apologized for not including it in the report, which at this point due
to the fact the court date has already come & gone, cannot be modified/updated/
or changed.

The other cop said simply "it sucks but next time it happens try to point it out so
it doesn't get left out of the report"

So to those who argued against me, while there is no law precisely against this matter
it does fall under another traffic rule "following too closely" which CAN have a citation
an prevent this issue from falling onto car 1's liability.

An to those who labeled, made fun of me, an etc. Go find a field & stand in it!
An if ya don't know what that means.. your the one who's ignorant as hell.

PS: Even a lawyer has agreed with ME. So Hah!

 

[Born2bwire]

Actually your all wrong, by the time of my last post an this post I've taken the time
to go find the original cop (again) who wrote the report an another entirely unrelated
to the matter.

LEGALLY SPEAKING (As worded by both cops) - Car 2 had been following & stopped
too close to car 3, it falls under "following too closely" which in your case is an
over sight.

The original cop apologized for not including it in the report, which at this point due
to the fact the court date has already come & gone, cannot be modified/updated/
or changed.

The other cop said simply "it sucks but next time it happens try to point it out so
it doesn't get left out of the report"

So to those who argued against me, while there is no law precisely against this matter
it does fall under another traffic rule "following too closely" which CAN have a citation
an prevent this issue from falling onto car 1's liability.

An to those who labeled, made fun of me, an etc. Go find a field & stand in it!
An if ya don't know what that means.. your the one who's ignorant as hell.

PS: Even a lawyer has agreed with ME. So Hah!

So you rear end a car, lost the court case and can't do anything about it, spent countless hours arguing with strangers on the internet but at least you have your moral victory. Yes, you sure showed us.

 

[allisolm]

Your original quest:
"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."

Our answer: There is no such law.

Your rejoinder:
"Your[sic] all wrong... there is no law precisely against this matter"


I think we can all still make fun of you with a clear conscience.

 

[Zenmervolt]

LEGALLY SPEAKING (As worded by both cops) - Car 2 had been following & stopped too close to car 3, it falls under "following too closely" which in your case is an over sight.

If you're relying on police officers to know the law, you're dumber than we thought. While some officers are solid in many areas of law, the simple fact is that the police really don't need to know much more than the laws around what constitutes probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

PS: Even a lawyer has agreed with ME. So Hah!

Lawyers vary greatly in quality and capability. Finding some ambulance-chasing personal injury lawyer to agree with you in a situation where they won't be going to court and don't have any professional risk isn't exactly a major coup. Come back when you find a judge who agrees with you.

ZV

 

[ViviTheMage]

In that picture, car "1" is 100&#37; at fault for the damages to car 2 and car 3. Even if Car 2 was 1 or 2 inches away from car 3, the fact is, car 2 most likely wouldn't have made contact with car 3 on it's own had it not been hit.

/thread

This is what happens, every time.