OT anti-lock brakes.

Page 4 of 6  
mm wrote:
...

No, the question at hand is those locales w/ the _presumption_ of fault law...in those cases the guilt/cause is assigned and only if that is able to be rebutted successfully will the charge be cleared.
The only point I was really making is that as opposed to the earlier poster's claim that that was true irregardless of circumstances that afaik every presumptive law has the possibility that rebuttal is possible. The other poster was claiming there wasn't even that possibility.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You do realize that you are claiming the law says "guilty until proven innocent"?
Harry K
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:03:53 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

In the US of A that IS the way it is in many cases. Try fighting homeland security, or the DEA
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jun 24, 2:59 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

It mayi be the "assumption" from which people work but it is _not_ written into the law as such.
Harry K
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:45:31 -0700, Smitty Two

They have to prove both that the suspect did it, and that it was murder. For example, the autopsy is supposed to say if he died because of whatever the accused did, or if maybe he died of a stroke or heart attack 2 seconds earlier.
Similarly they have to prove more than one thing when trying someone for hitting a car from behind. I guess, I'm almost sure, that the prosecution doesn't have to address in advance possible excuses**, like "She stopped short on purpose", but if it doesn't, then after the defendant raises the defense, the prosecution can put on rebuttal evidence to disprove it.
**Otherwise trials would be longer than neceesaray, if the prosecution had to rebut in advance every possible defense the accused could raise.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If you can convince the cop, court, whatever that that _is_ what happened. Good luck.
Harry K
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 06:44:56 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

He gets charged with failing to yeild or unsafe lane change - and occaisionally dangerous or careless driving. Assuming there are witnesses. You, as the rearmost driver, will often also be CHARGED - but often not convicted. - for following too close.
That's where credible witnesses come in.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Having learned to drive in NYC (where as a young, aggressive driver we used to screw with the cabbies in Manhattan - that'll teach you some cool maneuvers!) I still employ this technique:
If I am forced to brake hard to avoid hitting a car in front of me, I glance up at the rearview mirror to see what's going on behind me. If need be, and *if possible* I release the brake momentarily to try and extend the distance between me and the car behind me - as long as I can still avoid hitting the car in front. Sometimes it's possible and sometimes I just hope the driver behind me can stop.
It's not that big a deal where I live now, but I can say without question that I avoided getting rear-end in NYC more than once by using this technique. One time the driver behind me still wasn't going to be able to stop in time, but I gave him just enough room to swerve to the left and go by me. That "foot or 2" you left between you and the car in front of you was probably all the guy behind me needed to get by.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The controlling variable was that you had already stopped.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The guy at the back of the chain is ALWAYS at fault. Occaisionally in that kind of a situation, when it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that a car farthur up the line had also collided with a car in front of him BEFORE being rear-ended, the other driver can also be charged and convicted.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:35:01 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

As to the other driver, to find him guilty of something, yes you need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
But defenses, like for the driver in back, don't have to be proved beyond a reasonsable doubt, only to a preponderance of the evidence iirc. Because if the preponderance of evidence is that his defense is true, then by logic, he can't be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If his defense is likely true, there must be reasonable doubt. And there is a statute in most states that codifies this.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Minnesota is a no-fault state, so fault is rarely assigned in most traffic accidents. It's that way because of all the icy weather collisions.
I was rear-ended by a cell-phoner and learned about this then. My insurance did recover all costs from the other company, including my deductible.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:46:50 -0700, Smitty Two

There are exceptiosn to everything. What if the driver in front stopped as quickly as possible with the intention of making the guy behind him hit her?
Trader gives another example.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:47:37 -0700, Smitty Two

Because he can't prove what happened. But if somehow he could, by an admission, an admission by an accomplice**, or maybe notes in the car, or that there was a string of such "accidents", he woudln't be guilty or liable.
**The driver who stopped short on purpose can't be found guilty on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, but accomplice testimony is still evidence. The driver who hit her probably woudn't even be charged, and would win a lawsuit.

Yeah, you remind me that I've heard of that.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:47:14 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

On dry pavement in anything other than a panic stop, ABS has virtually (and litterally) no effect. All 4 wheels get full pressure - immediately - when the brakes are applied and unless one wheel locks, no pressure reduction occurs.
HOWEVER - A LOT of cars over the last 15 or so years, since ABS has become standard, also have substandard brakes. The thinking appears to be: "why make brakes that CAN skid the wheels if we then need to add complexity to make sure they CAN NOT". In reality, it has more to do with making everything as light as possible - which means less brake.
The last couple of years, bigger brakes - to go along with, and look mean when installed in -the 18 and 20 inch rims, are coming back.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, but . . .
An unsafe lane change, IF IT CAN BE PROVED, will shift the blame to the party making the unsafe change. It happens all the time on the DC Capital Beltway (people cutting in front of other people, reducing their "safe stopping distance.") If you're unlucky enough to do it in front of a cop, (on or off-duty) you'll get a ticket. If you do it in front of a vehicle with a camera (more and more commercials vehicles have dashcams) you'll be blamed. Any truck driver on the Beltway can tell you how often cars will zip in front of them never giving a thought how much they've shortened the trucker's "safe following distance" or how much more room a truck needs to stop quickly. So if you look at the cabs of newer trucks you'll see more and more cameras because of people who make unsafe lane changes. Here in the DC area people also cross solid lines to make lane changes, driving on the shoulders or in other areas where lane changes are not allowed.
A rear-ending of someone who has just gotten on the highway from the shoulder is NOT considered the fault of the driver hitting the merging car in the rear. When rejoining moving traffic from the shoulder, almost anything "bad" that happens as a result of that merge is the fault of the driver who is NOT on the main roadway. The problem most people have is that it's often impossible without witnesses or video to prove that the other driver is at fault. That's because of the strong presumption, as you've noted, of everyone to believe if you're struck from behind, it's the striking driver's fault
That's one of the reasons I picked up a very nice electronic color dashcam from Ebay that records up to several hours in ten minute segments, erasing the oldest stuff first when the memory card is full. I installed mine because I "T-boned" a car full of students who had run a red light. I remember being bathed in the green of the traffic light at the moment of impact, thinking "I'm going to die now and I had the green light!!!" It was a serious impact - I was travelling at about 50MPH and there were extensive injuries to the front seat passenger where my car hit.
Both cars were totaled and those sonovabitch students lied about what happened - I even HEARD the driver saying "this is my third accident - you've GOT to say it wasn't my fault or my folks will take the car away from me." I still fume thinking about it. Anyway, that's when I decided I needed a dashcam, just like the cops. Not only would it have shown who was in the right in that crash, despite four people conspiring to lie, it would show when someone did an unsafe lane change into the space in front of my car. If it showed me in the wrong, well, those SD cards are SO tiny it might just disappear!
So far, I've captured some pretty amazing "cut ins" on "film" (SD card, actually) but I have not been in any accidents while driving with the cams in place. On the DC Beltway during rush hour it is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain a safe following distance. When bozos see that huge, empty space they rush to get to it. If I am traveling in the inner two of four lanes, sometimes people from both adjoining lanes will dive for the same spot.
The camera I got was under $100 from Ebay. It records in an endless loop, plugs into the auxiliary lighter socket, comes on when the car is started and records for 1 minute after the car is turned off via a built in rechargeable lithium cell. Takes a standard SD card - I use a 1GB card because in reality, in a crash you'll only need about 30 seconds of the pre-impact video to prove who was at fault. The only real negative about the cam is that the date is GOD AWFUL difficult to set and if it sits too long without being driven, the internal battery dies and the unit needs to be hooked up to a PC to set the clock with a special batch file that's not correctly specified in the manual.
I moved that camera to my 20 year old Honda and installed a four-camera system in my van because it's got $25K worth of handicapped equipment and a single dash cam is not enough for "full protection." That takes a front, rear and two side view cams and a solid state quad recorder. Instead of using a "not likely to survive a hard impact hard disk, I got a 16GB CF card with an IDE adapter so there are no delicate moving parts to fail in a crash. That rig cost $300 for everything but I figure that's still less than my deductible.
Most importantly, if something like the "T-bone" crash ever happens again, I'll let those muthafu&kers lie their asses off to the cops before I reveal I have video of the crash so I can totally discredit them. It was a bitter pill to swallow to learn that if witnesses conspire to lie against the lone driver of the other car, judges and adjusters will believe them in a heartbeat. Never again! I ended up with a surcharge for three years because I was considered "at fault" by the insurance company. Sometimes, when I think about it, it makes me angry enough to wish I had killed the whole carload of lying little bastards. If there's anything I hate it's being "lied on" and blamed for something someone else did.
If you have any doubts about unsafe lane changes "trumping" the *almost* universal assumption that if you hit a car from behind then you're at fault, call your local State Troopers. They are usually well-informed about highway traffic rules.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/liability-for-rear-end-and-left-turn-auto-accidents.html
points out a few other exceptions to the "hit from behind - the other driver's fault" rule"
Exceptions to Rear-End Auto Accidents There may be times when the driver who rear-ended you is not at fault or at least is not completely at fault. It is possible that you were partly a fault for the accident. Examples of where you could be partially at fault include the following:
a.. Your brake or tail lights don't work, especially if it is dark out b.. Your car has mechanical problems but you fail to move it off the road
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:36:12 -0400, "Robert Green"

I believe it 100%. Much of this is, I think, because on the DC Beltway, drivers don't let other drivers in. When I first got to Baltimore from NYC, after a couple years of occasionsl drives on i495, I noticed this.
In NYC they always let you in for 2 reasons. A) there is a social contract that almost everyone obeys, because if people weren't nice to each other, traffic would be far worse. B) they know that even if they don't let you in, you're coming in anyhow, even if there are only 4 inches in front of your car and behind it. I've done that many times. And I'll do it in DC too if I need to be in a particular lane for an exit or something. It doesn't even scare me anymore.
Yes, A and B sort of contradict each other, but maybe not.
I'm no longer sure about Baltimore, but drivers here aren't that good. At a four-way stop, they are always waiting for the other guy, slowing things down. And when they do move at a 4-way stop, they go, N, W, S then E. Not N and S at the same time, then W and E. They're so nice, but it slows things down and drives me crazy.

At first I didn't understand or believe you, but since your first paragraph was good, I read this two more times. Yes, I may have even known this. "Failure to yield" it's called when someone merges from a shoulder or ramp such that he causes or could cause an accident. (or such that he causes another driver to change speed, maybe it says.) "Could cause", that is, the other driver might brake quickly enough to avoid the accident, but the driver who fails to yield can still get a ticket.

So what happened? I guess they won. Did your insurance pay everythign?

Wouldn't this make you as bad as they were if you actually did this?
(I"m not one who thinks considering it makes you as bad as they are. It might only make you normal.)

What brand is it? It's problems are bad, but it's cheap and one can't expect everything for cheap. And maybe they'll make it easiser to set the time. Plus the correct date and time might not be essential if it's identifiable as the crash under discussion. (But you should still set the time when it's wrong. The simpler your evidence the better.)

I thought about brake lights yesterday, but I forgot about when it's dark out!!

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/23/2011 5:02 AM, mm wrote:

Regardless of what you read, the facts are that a non-antilock car will stop shorter than one WITH antilock. One report I read it was 50-60 FEET shorter in a 60 to 0 test.
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Barker wrote:

I disable the ABS on my truck in the winter because on icy roads it prevents you from stopping *at all*. (not just in a truck, they all do that) When I step on the brakes, I want to stop dammit, keeping the truck going in a straight line is of much less importance.
-Bob
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:53:33 -0500, Steve Barker

The defendant was well dressed (turtleneck and jacket), well spoken, good-looking, mature but not old-looking, but still an idiot.
They showed an aerial photgraph and the oncoming road had a bend just 30 feet from the intersection, so she said she had to stop IN the intersection when she saw a car coming. He puffed that he had an SUV high up with a good view and he could see everything, but didn't seem to notice that her car was shorter.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.