FTO AUSTRALIA

Even following at the correct distance it is almost impossible that the person in the rear could have avoided the accident. Fto_gurl should, and hopefully will, be liable for all the damage. I didn't bring this up in my first post because I didn't think it was appropriate to discuss following her accident, which would be a terrible ordeal for her, but since some of you have decided that the person behind her should be liable I could no longer bite my tounge.

If I was driving behind someone and without warning (ie. brake lights) or cause (ie. someone running across the road, or a similar emergency manouver) their car came to a screeching immeadiate hault then make no mistake, i'd end up right up their ass and they would be paying to fix my car.

It sucks for fto_gurl, because, well, now she's out of pocket and will probably lose points off her license, if the police were involved, for negligent driving, or if she can prove that it was the cars fault, then sadly they'll probably pin a different fine and demerit to her... unless of course she's a nice looking, full busted, young lass.

Yes, it's true that she *may* not have been able to do anything to stop this happening, but lifes unfair sometimes, and it would be much more unfair for the poor sucker that ran into her if he had to pay to fix both his car, and hers.

Thats not how it works though. Its the person who is behind that is at fault. Even if the tail lights dont come on, the person behind should be paying enough attention and be far enough away to avoid the accident.

Ive suffered from this ruling in the past. About 15 years ago I was on my way into Uni and was in the right lane of traffic on a 3 lane road (in the wet). I had a galant with biscuit cutter retreads on (=not stop quick) and was the correct distance behind a monaro with quite wide tyres. The monaro lost control in the wet (still not sure why - wasnt speeding) and slid sideways - blocking part of the middle lane and all of the right lane. I had trees on my right, cars on my left and nowhere to go. Plowed into the side. Because he had more/better rubber on the road he stopped quicker. The accident was my fault and I had to pay (even though he was the one that lost control).

The simple fact is that if you dont stop, you will be the one at fault. If you dont think you would stop under those circumstances, then you shouldnt be that close. You run the risk, you suffer the consequences......

This is correct. That is why tailgating is so bad. If you have some rear end work that needs doing on your car just wait till someone tailgates ya (happens everyday) and slam on the brakes lol. Tell em a cat ran out on the road and voala new rear end job on your car hehe. This is completely dishonest and morally wrong btw. But that is the law.

If both cars were following the road laws then the person behind will have had plenty of time to brake, end of story.

I got hit in my XF Ghia from behind a few years back which pushed me into the car in front of me. I was stationary and so was the car in front so the girl that rammed me paid for both my car and the car in front of me. Had I of been moving at the time I would have had to pay for the car in front of me even though the girl behind me pushed me into him.

Spud wrote:If both cars were following the road laws then the person behind will have had plenty of time to brake, end of story.

But do you class how the FTO came to a hault as legal? Because that's where I have my problem, as a driver you have a duty of care to other drivers, in that you must not create dangerous situations. But for the sudden and without reason breaking of FTO_gurl's car then the poor fellow behind her would not have been in an accident.

I think it's unreasonable to expect him to be liable for all the damage (if he had to pay for his, an FTO_gurl for hers then I'd take that as acceptable, but only just) when - to realise that the car he was following was undertaking emergency breaking would have taken at minimum one to two seconds, making the decision to jump on the brakes yourself is proven to take a second or more (advanced driver courses anyone? full of helpful information and demonstrations) and then to come to a complete halt and stop clear of her car would also of taken time.

Now had she seen a cat run in front of the road and slammed on the brakes then he would also of had the chance to see the cat and may have anticipated her reaction, secondly he would of seen brakelights which would account for 80 - 90% of our perception of someones initial move to brake and would have reacted in such a way that would of allowed him to safely come to a stop, or manouvre around her.

Because neither of these two conditions existed then FTO_gurl is more at fault then the other driver, and should therefore be liable for all damages. In the case that she were to inscrupulously say that she say a cat or something like that, then because her brakelights were out its highly likely that she would still be more at fault because of poor maintanence/driving an unroadworthy vehicle etc.

it still comes down to the basic fact.....

if you give enough distance to the car in front ..... there wont be an issue....

its like at the traffic lights (advanced driving course) my instructor said, never park too close... avoids teh possibility of being pushed into the car in front if someone hits you...

The cat story was merely an example of how this law can be abused.

All I am stating is that according to law no matter what circumstance if you rear-end someone while both cars are in motion it is your fault.

I understand your point and I somewhat agree but according to law the guy behind, provided he was the proper distance behind the vehicle, would have had sufficient time to stop the car even under emergency circumstances.

Because we are so used to sitting two car lengths behind (more like one) we all find it impossible to brake with such short notice. But I'm pretty sure even two car lengths back from the car in front is still way too close to abide by the law.

EURO wrote:its like at the traffic lights (advanced driving course) my instructor said, never park too close... avoids teh possibility of being pushed into the car in front if someone hits you...

Yes if you are at the lights and you cannot see the tyres on the ground of the car in front then you are way too close. Sitting up in your seat and leaning over the dash to see the tyre on the ground doesn't count either. You have to sitting in your normal drive position.

dstocks wrote:Thats not how it works though. Its the person who is behind that is at fault. Even if the tail lights dont come on, the person behind should be paying enough attention and be far enough away to avoid the accident.

Ive suffered from this ruling in the past. About 15 years ago I was on my way into Uni and was in the right lane of traffic on a 3 lane road (in the wet). I had a galant with biscuit cutter retreads on (=not stop quick) and was the correct distance behind a monaro with quite wide tyres. The monaro lost control in the wet (still not sure why - wasnt speeding) and slid sideways - blocking part of the middle lane and all of the right lane. I had trees on my right, cars on my left and nowhere to go. Plowed into the side. Because he had more/better rubber on the road he stopped quicker. The accident was my fault and I had to pay (even though he was the one that lost control).

The simple fact is that if you dont stop, you will be the one at fault. If you dont think you would stop under those circumstances, then you shouldnt be that close. You run the risk, you suffer the consequences......

Chur, exactly

you hit, you pay

Hello All,

Wow I see I have created quite the kaffuffel with this one. Scarecrow I know you will not like this but he is at fault because he hit me. His insurance is going to pay for my car and his, due to the fact that I HAVE
recently had my car serviced and no machanical faults were seen. I look after my car and to be honest with you I think it was the person driving my car at the time. I know my car was the one that stopped but it is the same scenario as if I had seen a cat or even a child on the road. He was travelling way too closely and he hit me. I know it sounds wrong and unjust but that is the way it is, but anyways it has been rechecked and is going in for a diagnostics test tomorrow to see if there are any transmission faults with it.

And by the way it is rude of you to say that!! Geez my poor FTO is damamged and all you can tell me is that I am liable for EVERYTHING? Where's the love??

Faye.

yep thats right,
the law is if your travelling at 80kmph you should be 8 car legnths behind the car in front.

simple, you hit from behind.... you were too close, if you have to make an emergency stop, the car behind should be able to avoid you, if not, its their fault.

now if he brake lights werent going, ie, she hits the brakes and they dont light up, then the car is not fit to be on the road and if she was hit then, it would be her fault.

the fact that it was a mechanical error, reguardless of what stopped the wheels rotating means squat! if you have to stop in a hurry and hit the "emergency (hand) brake) then there will be no brake lights, and if you are hit then then it is the person who hit you fault

you leave 3 seconds gap, 6 seconds in the rain... according to scarecrow you take 1 second to stop.. wheres the other 2 seconds? so its the guy behind you that is at fault!

All of this becomes irrelevant.

If you hit a vehicle from behind in traffic it is your fault no matter why the vehicle stopped including mechanical failure.

This is not a moral discussion this is a discussion based on road rules.

About the car, even if the gearbox locked up, I am reasonably confident that her car does not have CIG LSD so only one wheel would lock at worst.
So the reason it locked was not because of the gearbox but becasue either hub failure or brake malfunction that caused the brakes to come on for no reason?

Any news from your repairer why it happened?

BobZ

Really sorry to hear the bad news fto_gurl
Freaky as, I'm sure everyone is eager to find out why that happened to your car....especially tip drivers if it is indeed 2 gears engaging simultaneously (scared!!!)

Agreed, no argument who was liable in the accident, and I'm glad insurance issue is the least of your problems, and sorted - hope the repairs are quick, easy, and your back on the roads soon

Btw, I remember reading a thread where a white FTO hit a side rail doing 40kph/low speed on a gentle turn, and couldn't for the life of him figure out why he lost control (had pictures of his car being loaded onto a tow truck, and the tow truck guy ripped him off afterwards....anyone remember that one (~ Sep 2005 when I joined)...???same problem

Well the results are in are there is nothing wrong with my car.. diagnositcs tests and the mechnic checking EVERYTHING and they could not find a thing wrong with it, no grab marks on the brakes, no wear and tear marks... no error codes.. So my explanation is the guy who was driving my car at the time. So just so you all know the car is fine and now it just has to be fixed!! Anyone know where i can get 2 new tail lights.. (possibly chrome) a new back bumber and various other bits. I will post up some pics so you can see what I will need and possibly give me some ideas.

Thanks again for all the support you have been great..

Pics up soon..

Faye..

OMG! I cannot believe that has sparked such a debate on the liability for the accident, but it is an interesting case though.

If the car had suffered a mechanical fault due to lack of maintenance, and this could be proven, then the driver in front may be found to have some contributory negligence.

However, as everyone has said, you run into the back of someone, nearly always your fault. There are some circumstances where this may not be the case, such as if you pulled quickly out of a side street or something without due care, but in this case, there will be no issue.

Having said that, I do feel sorry for the person following in a way. But, when the brakes locked up, there would have been lots of smoke from the tyres. Now, I don't need brake lights to tell me the car is stopping!

However, with regards to a personal injury claim (CTP) in South Australia (and other states where there is an "at fault" system) if you have a vehicle that suffers a mechanical failure which causes an accident, and the car is in good mechanical repair with regular servicing, and the fault is something that would not reasonably have been picked up in servicing, then there may NOT be a claim, as there is no negligent party. Typical example of this is a tyre failure from a basically new set of tyres.

Anyhow, enough of that. I just hope that Faye and the other driver are OK. The cars can always be repaired or replaced.