I got into a car accident once. It was raining and I was on a windy road. There were also wet leaves on the ground. A lady on the other side of the road started sliding, panicked, stepped on the gas instead of the break and crashed headlight to headlight into me. We both ended up being fine, although my jeep was totaled.

MrWednesday wrote

jackson1191 wrote

MrWednesday wrote

jackson1191 wrote

MrWednesday wrote Your dad was probably in the wrong.
Drivers are expected to keep to a safe distance because sudden stops do happen.
The onus to keep a safe distance usually outweighs the onus to not stop suddenly as well.

It wasn't my dad's fault. He was keeping a safe distance and wasn't expecting someone to stop at a green light so there was nothing he could do...

That doesn't make sense.

If he was keeping a safe enough distance but didn't stop in time then he wasn't paying enough attention.
If he was paying enough attention but didn't have time to stop then he wasn't keeping a safe enough distance.

I'm not saying this is right (to be honest I think it is), but this is how insurance companies and courts usually view this kind of accident.

What I'm saying is that since they stopped for no reason my dad had no chance to stop. If a car had pulled out in front of them for instance my dad would have seen that and been able to stop, but since they stopped unsafely he couldn't.

The reason for the persons sudden stop is irrelevant.
It is much easier to expect people to keep a safe enough distance to stop for any reason than for them to be omniscient about every possible problem that could arise with a car in front of them.

So even though they stopped at a green light my dad's the one who has to pay?

jackson1191 wrote

MrWednesday wrote

jackson1191 wrote

MrWednesday wrote

jackson1191 wrote

MrWednesday wrote Your dad was probably in the wrong.
Drivers are expected to keep to a safe distance because sudden stops do happen.
The onus to keep a safe distance usually outweighs the onus to not stop suddenly as well.

It wasn't my dad's fault. He was keeping a safe distance and wasn't expecting someone to stop at a green light so there was nothing he could do...

That doesn't make sense.

If he was keeping a safe enough distance but didn't stop in time then he wasn't paying enough attention.
If he was paying enough attention but didn't have time to stop then he wasn't keeping a safe enough distance.

I'm not saying this is right (to be honest I think it is), but this is how insurance companies and courts usually view this kind of accident.

What I'm saying is that since they stopped for no reason my dad had no chance to stop. If a car had pulled out in front of them for instance my dad would have seen that and been able to stop, but since they stopped unsafely he couldn't.

The reason for the persons sudden stop is irrelevant.
It is much easier to expect people to keep a safe enough distance to stop for any reason than for them to be omniscient about every possible problem that could arise with a car in front of them.

So even though they stopped at a green light my dad's the one who has to pay?

It depends. I only said probably.

You have said that she stopped for no reason which could count as a traffic law violation which might mean that the court would consider her at fault, assuming this is going to court of course.
If she did have a reason for stopping suddenly, and it would be very strange if she didn't, then yes. Your dad would probably be considered at fault.

I did some digging into the laws and found this page, it's pretty informative.
I would also put the following in a quotation but I'm on my phone and don't know how to do that.

"Insurance and police usually fault the driver in the rear for not leaving an adequate amount of stopping distance between the vehicles traveling on the road. The main reason the driver in the rear is at fault in a rear-end collision is because motorists are expected to adhere to the assured clear distance ahead rule in order to avoid a rear-end wreck. When the driver in the rear applies the brakes, but is still unable to avoid the vehicle in-front, or one around a sharp corner, the motorist in the rear is in violation of the assured clear distance ahead rule.

Drivers in front who fail to properly use traffic signals or violate traffic laws may be at-fault if they end up causing a rear-end collision."

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I'm not saying that your dad is a bad person for not stopping but I think you should be aware of how strange and weird the laws are surrounding this kind of thing if this is going to lead you into legal issues down the line.

Everything I am reading from both the US and UK, from anecdotal accounts to claims websites and lawmakers, are saying that the majority of the time the person in the rear is at fault in the eyes of the law and insurance companies, but your situation could be an exception.

Your dad SHOULD have to pay, you said he kept a safe distance but you also said he had no room to react. those two statements cannot coexist. People are allowed to stop whenever they please, if you ever hit someone in the back it is almost always your fault

Xaldin wrote Your dad SHOULD have to pay, you said he kept a safe distance but you also said he had no room to react. those two statements cannot coexist. People are allowed to stop whenever they please, if you ever hit someone in the back it is almost always your fault

He was at a safe distance but didn't expect her to stop at a green light... I still don't see how she can stop at a green light and my dad has to deal with the consequences :/

jackson1191 wrote

MrWednesday wrote Your dad was probably in the wrong.
Drivers are expected to keep to a safe distance because sudden stops do happen.
The onus to keep a safe distance usually outweighs the onus to not stop suddenly as well.

It wasn't my dad's fault. He was keeping a safe distance and wasn't expecting someone to stop at a green light so there was nothing he could do...

But it still is his fault, you must keep control of your vehicle at all times, regardless of what the other person is doing. From an insurance/legal stand point he is at fault. He should of been anticipating the event and stopped, end of discussion

jackson1191 wrote

Xaldin wrote Your dad SHOULD have to pay, you said he kept a safe distance but you also said he had no room to react. those two statements cannot coexist. People are allowed to stop whenever they please, if you ever hit someone in the back it is almost always your fault

He was at a safe distance but didn't expect her to stop at a green light... I still don't see how she can stop at a green light and my dad has to deal with the consequences :/

I don't think you understand law, or how things work. He wasn't being cautious and didn't anticpate anything going on. He is at fault and always will be

jackson1191 wrote

MrWednesday wrote

jackson1191 wrote

MrWednesday wrote

jackson1191 wrote

MrWednesday wrote Your dad was probably in the wrong.
Drivers are expected to keep to a safe distance because sudden stops do happen.
The onus to keep a safe distance usually outweighs the onus to not stop suddenly as well.

It wasn't my dad's fault. He was keeping a safe distance and wasn't expecting someone to stop at a green light so there was nothing he could do...

That doesn't make sense.

If he was keeping a safe enough distance but didn't stop in time then he wasn't paying enough attention.
If he was paying enough attention but didn't have time to stop then he wasn't keeping a safe enough distance.

I'm not saying this is right (to be honest I think it is), but this is how insurance companies and courts usually view this kind of accident.

What I'm saying is that since they stopped for no reason my dad had no chance to stop. If a car had pulled out in front of them for instance my dad would have seen that and been able to stop, but since they stopped unsafely he couldn't.

The reason for the persons sudden stop is irrelevant.
It is much easier to expect people to keep a safe enough distance to stop for any reason than for them to be omniscient about every possible problem that could arise with a car in front of them.

So even though they stopped at a green light my dad's the one who has to pay?

Yes

Kisses wrote hope your okay bro

Be safe. Me and my friend ran from the police one night about a month ago and wrecked his car trying to get off the E way . went through the guard rail at about 120 mph and ripped his car in 2

then got arrested at gunpoint..

Lesson learned. Dont run from the police
Drive like a decent human being!
Unless you have a Supra, then you always drive it like you stole it

I find this hard to believe

I've never gotten in an accident when I was behind the wheel. The only accident I remember being in was in the 6th grade, my dad picked us up from school and we are sitting at a red light and a lady pulls out from a parking lot and hits us.

As far as who's at fault in your dads situation, he's at fault. Reasoning would be following too closely for conditions. The reason for the stop by the other driver does not matter, their car might've broke down and they couldn't go, there might've been a kid in the road, a police officer coming from a side street, etc. They also could be following a GPS and wandering if that's the street they need to turn on, but what ever the reason may be the driver behind them needs to have enough following distance to stop safely and paying attention to use the brakes. If you're direction of travel is forwards, you look forwards unless an emerging threat is in a different direction and you need to keep eyes on it. In this case with the information given, your dad is 100% at fault. Now if there were provable road rage and they brake checked your dad, it would be 50/50 at fault, unless someone has some good lawyers. The reason it would be 50/50 in that case is because you can't slam on your brakes for no reasons intending to cause an accident, and the other person would be following too closely. This is a hard one to prove without witnesses or a dash cam.