Interesting. The good thing is that you don't seem to have been hurt. I think next time I'm on the roads I'll try to drive as if the guy in front could come to a complete dead stop at any time.

Glad you're alright.

Definately sounds like the other party neglected her duty of care. Good luck proving it though.

I presume it's not one of those insurance jobbies, where the driver in front deliberately creates the accident then claims for whiplash etc.

"I'll try to drive as if the guy in front could come to a complete dead stop at any time."

Unfortunately Patrick, that doesn't help: you'll have any number of nutcases desperately overtaking you at inopportune moments as they try to fill your stopping distance in front of you.

"Definately sounds like the other party neglected her duty of care."

Indeed. I had a feeling the 'automatic assumption' of wrongdoing by the hittee should the impact be a rear end shunt wasn't totally solid, if your insurance company thought they could prove lack of care on the other side?

Might be worth a try - find out what their legal department has to say.

> I'll try to drive as if the guy in front could come to a complete dead stop at any time.

Well, yeah, that is kind of how you're supposed to drive, yes. And I generally do. Thing is, had the woman done an emergency stop, I reckon I'd've been fine, 'cause that sort of sudden change in speed is extremely obvious. It was the deceptively gradual stop that threw me.


> I had a feeling the 'automatic assumption' of wrongdoing by the hittee should the impact be a rear end shunt wasn't totally solid, if your insurance company thought they could prove lack of care on the other side?

Yeah, but proving it requires witnesses, and none stopped. Grr.

>>What annoys me is that, as the law stands, absent witnesses to say otherwise, the person behind in a tail-ender is 100% to blame, no matter what.

I don't think that it is as simple as that any more. Not only due to the fake whiplash claims but also due to the common practice of getting someone to ram into you if you have a scratch on your bumper that was your fault.

The problem is that the person did not do an emergency stop so, in theory, there was no reason why you shouldn't have been able to maintain a constant distance from the car in front, even if they were stopping for no apparent reason. The person in front being thick isn't an excuse unfortunately.

As far as you're concerned I don't think it really matters. You are partially at fault in any case, so have to declare it as a fault claim when you next get insurance. You're not fully comp so your car won't get fixed anyway. Your insurance company will fight any claim that you are entirely at fault, just to lower their liability and they are likely to claim that the other driver was driving dangerously or something, but I don't think that that will change anything for you. Chances are that, even if this woman claims for whiplash or whatever, you will not hear anything else about this. I've been sued for whiplash and the insurance company told me it was happening but that they were dealing with it.

I take it that there are no traffic cameras nearby?

> in theory, there was no reason why you shouldn't have been able to maintain a constant distance from the car in front

Oh, absolutely, which is why I said I'm partly to blame for this one.


> The person in front being thick isn't an excuse unfortunately.

Surely which person was driving more thickly is the crux of any liability dispute.


> You're not fully comp so your car won't get fixed anyway.

No, it the other party admits liability, then my car gets fixed at their expense. If they admit 50/50 liability, they pay for half.


> I take it that there are no traffic cameras nearby?

Never around when you need them.

>>Surely which person was driving more thickly is the crux of any liability dispute.

I was meaning from an insurance point of view rather than an ethical one. :-)

If it helps, you've added to the statistics to the prove that women are safer drivers than men. You caused the accident by not managing to miss her randomly parked vehicle, so you are therefore less safe. Sorry.

I've spoken (very off the record) to someone in the claims department in a big car insurance company. They reckon that in this circumstance it is almost entirely your fault, (from an insurer's point of view) as the highway code maintains that you should always be at a distance where you should be able to stop even if someone hits a brick wall and that their stupidity is irrelevant, however, depending on whether your insurance company wanted to pursue it, there is a precident in insurance law (Cant vs Western Scottish Omnibuses (1998)) where the court found a the bus driver could not have possibly been expected to anticipate that the driver in front would stop abruptly in such a dangerous place and found for the bus driver. The person I spoke to has not heard of this judgement being upheld in other cases but reckoned that it might be worth mentioning it to your insurer, just in case they're mad enough to try.

If your lucky, she'll turn up on MIAFTR as a fraudster when they process it.

> it is almost entirely your fault, (from an insurer's point of view)

Yeah, I know that. That's why I'm annoyed.

It does seem tough, but you're out of luck, mate.

Hit a stationary vehicle, and it's your fault, whatever.

Traffic cameras would only prove that the other vehicle was stationary, thus showing that it was even more definitely certainly your fault.

Just be thankful you weren't badly hurt.

> Hit a stationary vehicle, and it's your fault, whatever.

There are many, many cases where that is not true. Including, as mentioned just a couple of comments up, a legal precedent.