Judges ruling on rear end collisions..

[sussex2]

Many moons ago I was in possessions of a newspaper cutting of a judges ruling.
The ruling exploded the myth that whenever there is a rear end collision the vehicle at fault was the one doing the ramming.
It's not that I need it to prove a case more that I am annoyed to have mislaid it.
Does any member know of this ruling or have a copy of the judgement.
I'd be mightily obliged for any assistance.

[TripleS]

Many moons ago I was in possessions of a newspaper cutting of a judges ruling.
The ruling exploded the myth that whenever there is a rear end collision the vehicle at fault was the one doing the ramming.
It's not that I need it to prove a case more that I am annoyed to have mislaid it.
Does any member know of this ruling or have a copy of the judgement.
I'd be mightily obliged for any assistance.

Sorry, I can't help you regarding the report of the judge's ruling, but my understanding is that in almost all cases of nose/tail shunts, the rearmost driver will generally be deemed to bear responsibility. Possible exceptions to this principle are where the leading driver suddenly performs an emergency stop, or applies very heavy braking for no apparent reason, and in these cases the following driver might not be held to be solely responsible. We are expected to maintain a safe following distances that will enable us to cope with whatever the guy in front does.

That's my understanding of the situation.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[sussex2]

Many moons ago I was in possessions of a newspaper cutting of a judges ruling.
The ruling exploded the myth that whenever there is a rear end collision the vehicle at fault was the one doing the ramming.
It's not that I need it to prove a case more that I am annoyed to have mislaid it.
Does any member know of this ruling or have a copy of the judgement.
I'd be mightily obliged for any assistance.

Sorry, I can't help you regarding the report of the judge's ruling, but my understanding is that in almost all cases of nose/tail shunts, the rearmost driver will generally be deemed to bear responsibility. Possible exceptions to this principle are where the leading driver suddenly performs an emergency stop, or applies very heavy braking for no apparent reason, and in these cases the following driver might not be held to be solely responsible. We are expected to maintain a safe following distances that will enable us to cope with whatever the guy in front does.

That's my understanding of the situation.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Which is pretty much what the judges ruling said.
However given that there is a general opinion that it is always the following drivers fault it is handy to have the reference.
An example of this may be deliberate cutting in to force a collision and make a fraudulent claim.
I keep a file of such things as you never know when they may be handy but trust me I take every precaution not to need it

[MGF]

...
However given that there is a general opinion that it is always the following drivers fault it is handy to have the reference.
An example of this may be deliberate cutting in to force a collision and make a fraudulent claim.
I keep a file of such things as you never know when they may be handy but trust me I take every precaution not to need it

In that example you are better served by witness evidence than newspaper cuttings. Dave's summary is, broadly, an accurate summary of the law.

[PeterE]

In this case, a motorist was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving by abruptly slowing to 10 mph on the M65 and causing a following motorcyclist to collide with his car.

[fungus]

Some of the comments at the foot of the Mail on lines article beggar belief. If the car driver had moved into the nearside lane in front of the motorcyclist to exit the motorway and then braked suddenly, he is guilty of dangerous driving. IMO it should not be presumed that the driver who rear ends the vehicle in front is always guilty. A candidate on a driving test would be failed if they just braked when the traffic lights in front changed to amber without taking effective rear observation before braking.

[sussex2]

Action and reaction which is particularly pertinent in any form of transport.

[sussex2]

Some of the comments at the foot of the Mail on lines article beggar belief. If the car driver had moved into the nearside lane in front of the motorcyclist to exit the motorway and then braked suddenly, he is guilty of dangerous driving. IMO it should not be presumed that the driver who rear ends the vehicle in front is always guilty. A candidate on a driving test would be failed if they just braked when the traffic lights in front changed to amber without taking effective rear observation before braking.

I agree.
The decision about what do do if the lights change is made before they change.

[Lingo]

Hi,

I've put a link below to an article which refers to a case in the Court of Appeal in 2011 determining liability following a rear-end shunt. (There are some other driving-related cases too.)

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/driving ... 72.article

Of course, every case depends on its own set of circumstances but hope that is of interest.

[trashbat]

Sorry, I can't help you regarding the report of the judge's ruling, but my understanding is that in almost all cases of nose/tail shunts, the rearmost driver will generally be deemed to bear responsibility.

Presumably this applies only to 'continuous follow' driving. Otherwise, what happens if someone pulls out of a junction, turns 90 degrees and makes it only far enough to bare their arse before being hit in it?

[TripleS]

Sorry, I can't help you regarding the report of the judge's ruling, but my understanding is that in almost all cases of nose/tail shunts, the rearmost driver will generally be deemed to bear responsibility.

Presumably this applies only to 'continuous follow' driving. Otherwise, what happens if someone pulls out of a junction, turns 90 degrees and makes it only far enough to bare their arse before being hit in it?

In that case I expect the one who emerged from the junction would be judged to bear a considerable part of the responsibility.

[sussex2]

Hi,

I've put a link below to an article which refers to a case in the Court of Appeal in 2011 determining liability following a rear-end shunt. (There are some other driving-related cases too.)

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/driving ... 72.article

Of course, every case depends on its own set of circumstances but hope that is of interest.

That is pretty much what my lost cutting said and yes it does depend on circumstance.
If I track it down I'll post the contents.
Many thanks

[Silk]

Some of the comments at the foot of the Mail on lines article beggar belief.

Which ones are you referring to? The ones that state that the motorcyclist should have left a larger gap?

Although I agree that the car driver should have been aware of the potential consequences of doing something unexpected, he seems to have fallen foul of a kind of political correctness that, for some unexplained reason, puts bikers ahead of car drivers when it comes to claiming the moral high-ground.

[fungus]

Which ones are you referring to? The ones that state that the motorcyclist should have left a larger gap?

Yes. My understanding is that the car driver cut into the motorcyclists gap and then braked suddenly. If that's the case, then the motorcyclist had very little chance.

[Silk]

Which ones are you referring to? The ones that state that the motorcyclist should have left a larger gap?

Yes. My understanding is that the car driver cut into the motorcyclists gap and then braked suddenly. If that's the case, then the motorcyclist had very little chance.

If that's the case, then it's not really a rear-end collision. At least, not in the way most people would understand it.