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.
This is one we pulled up on. IIRC, and it has been a couple of years, the damage profile was what made it look to him (anyway) like a bad lane change. Either way, not something I would like to depend on.
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.
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
I doubt _very_ much that there's any of the US states which have the law of presumption (and while a fair fraction do, it is certainly also true that some don't) that it is written such that it is not rebuttable--iow, while there is a presumption that the striker is likely to be the guilty party, there is an escape clause if it can be shown that the strikee did something either negligent or illegal or had defective equipment (such as inoperable brakelights) and thereby was a causative factor in the incident.
I'd very much like to see the actual law or the State in which this is claimed to not be a part of such a law; frankly I just don't believe there is any place that would have such a law w/o the "escape clause" in it; just wouldn't get passed in that form.
Not sure where to post this: She indeed said she was going 5MPH, but I was more curious about ABS at all speeds.
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.
If you can convince the cop, court, whatever that that _is_ what happened. Good luck.
Harry K
Exactly.
I don't believe there is any state where a law says "one who hits another in the rear is at fault". I doubt there is even a law that says that is the presumption. Or a regulation. It's more likely it's the rebuttable presumption, not even written down maybe, because it makes sense and it's always the starting point people want to use when determining who is at fault.
There are people who hit someone in the rear who challenge the fault attributed to them in court, and afaik when they lose it's always because the judge' believes they were at fault, not because of some rule that they *are* by definition at fault.
Such challenges are rare not because they are impossible to make, but because they are very very hard to make. Once the guy in front, or the cop, shows that the car was hit from behind, the burdern of proof is now on the guy who hit him to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that's it's not his fault. He can do that by saying that the guy in front changed lanes suddenly (and left no space, just as all the traffic stopped), but if that's not so, the guy in front will deny it, and the guy in back will lose (unless maybe the guy in front was drunk).
I've never heard of this. There are cases of comparitive negligence where where both are at fault and they'll estimate fault at 20/80, or
30/70, or 50:50.Or are you sure you're not thinking of no-fault, rather than 50:50 fault? With no fault, each car is repaired by its own insureance company if the driver has collision insurance.
If one car has no collision and wasn't actually at fault and someone else was, I'm not sure, although Bryan's example shows that even in his no-fault state, no fault isn't absolute.
But if someone is killed, for example, the no-fault provisions only go up to a certain dollar amount, or I think it's only to property damage, and we're right back to traditional liability determination before there was no-fault.
I don't believe there is any state where points are given to someone who was not at fault, just because he was in an accident, especially if they can also affect insurance premiums. No-fault only extends to which insurance company pays for property damage, up to a dollar liimit.
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.
ABS just guarantees that you will hit what you hit SQUARE. There are MANY situations where I can stop much quicker without ABS than with - particularly in sloppy wet snow conditions. I have had the brakes virtually "go away" under those conditions - while without ABS you can slide the tires enough to let them "dig through" the slop - giving you a fighting chance at getting stopped - sideways - whatever..
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.
The VAST majority are variable reluctance - not Hall Effect - and are basically AC generators - so YES, speed IS an issue. If they were Hall Effect they would, generally, be 3 wire active devices - and all I've seen and worked on are only 2 wire.
Also, check the manual re: how to check ABS sensors. AC voltmeter - turn the wheel and note voltage. Compare wheel to wheel to determine if one is weak. That means they are pulse generators, not interupters. The faster they turn, the higher the amplitude of the pulse (or highe voltage).
And if the ABS HAD worked, you'd have simply ROLLED the entire length.
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.
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.
"premature engagement" - usually caused by a weak sensor or rusted reluctor wheel.
...
In short, the difficulty is probably in the interpretation of "presumuption". Whereas we're used to the "innocent until proved guilty", in this specific instance the _presumption_ is the fault is with the person who hit the rear of the other. In this case, to be exonerated, the onus is upon that individual to present sufficient evidence to counter the presumption. It's not that it is inevitably so but the burden of proof is shifted 180 degrees from the normal.
"N8N" wrote
My Buick ABS will kick in at a walking pace, much less than 5 mph. Only on slippery road, I've never tried stomping them on dry at that speed.
Right. Even in 'no-fault' states, you will still get a ticket for being the cause of an accident.
Harry K
HomeOwnersHub website 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.