[ale] OT: Court tomorrow

[Scott Castaline]

Of course OTOH, you could be driving 50 MPH and keeping 5 car lengths 
from the car in front, when along comes some hockey puck that squeezes 
in just as the 1st car is making a sudden stop. U R the 3rd car in a 3 
car accident.

Geoffrey wrote:

> Jeff Hubbs wrote:
>
>> Having not seen what actually happened, all I can offer is this: 
>> "Following too closely" is indeed a catch-all and is typically tossed at
>> anyone who rear-ends anyone else.  However, the logic behind that is
>> that you should be able to get your car stopped without hitting anyone
>> even if the car in front of you pulls the worst-case scenario, i.e, the
>> car comes to an immediate dead stop right in front of you.  You can
>> deflect the charge only if you can show - or at least persuasively
>> assert - that something about the circumstances would have worked
>> against a reasonable person with a fast foot *and* a sufficient stopping
>> distance.  For instance, if the car didn't have working brake lights,
>> costing you some time to react,
>
>
> Generally, you will lose this as well, since the argument can well be 
> made that the impact disloged, damaged or destroyed the brake lights.
>
> I've known two folks who rear ended vehicles, both claimed the vehicle 
> they hit had no functioning brake lights and they both lost.  In both 
> cases the judges (different judges, different states) told them that 
> when following a vehicle, you should stay a reasonable distance away 
> such that you could stop safely without the need for brake lights.  
> This is where they come up with the 1 car length per 10 mph distance 
> measure.  It's made based on the assumption this will give you enough 
> space to stop based on recognizing the vehicle in front of you is 
> stopping without the use of brake light notification.
>
> 9 times out of 10, the vehicle that hits another from behind is found 
> at fault.
>