OT anti-lock brakes.

[Robert Green]

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.

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.

[Jack Stein]

My GMC truck has antilock brakes, and they have periodically malfunctioned to the point I had to pull the fuse on them. If you ever had anti-lock brakes activate on dry pavement when you are trying to stop at 40mph, you ain't lived yet. They work about 50% as good as w/o them. Personally, I think they should be banned.

[Jack Stein]

IF they go off on dry pavement when they are not supposed to, you will quickly see they take 50% longer to stop than w/o them. Normally they go on and off quickly, but that means when they are off, you are not breaking. If you are in a slide that may or may not help but If you own a GMC Government Motors truck, like mine, you WILL pull the fuse after one close call.

[mm]

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.

[mm]

The guy behind is still innocent until proven guilty, but, subject to possible defenses the defendant will present after the prosecution rests, that only means proving he hit the car in front of him. That usually isn't even disputed, but in a trial, they still have to put someone on the stand to say it, to prove it, the driver of the hit car, a witness, a cop who looked at both cars, maybe even insurance company reports. Doing at least one of these is usually easy. It will usually include testimony that the car in front wasn't backing up, etc.

[mm]

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.

[mm]

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.

[mm]

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!!

[mm]

I don't have ABS, but I've had that feeling when I thought about it, that it woudl do what you say.

I've actually driven very well on ice and snow, except that one time there was no ice most places and black ice where the road bent to the right and I slid to the outside lane and hit the car coming the other way. Totalled his car, 3000 for mine, bumped my knee but no one hurt.

Happend at 6PM. The next day, when I tried to get out of bed, my leg wouldn't work. I told it to straighten so I could stand on it and it didnt' do anything. I had to use my hands to straighten it, to go to the bathroom. Spent the day in bed. All day, leg didnt' work. Next day, leg is fine. Works fine, jab it everywhere and nothing hurts at all. My body was like the doctor saying, Give it a rest for a day.

[trader4]

I remember reading a story a few years ago about how studies that analyzed accident statistics couldn't find much, if any difference, in serious accidents, fatalities, etc that could be attributed to cars that had ABS vs those that do not. One theory as to why was that many people don't know how to react to them and when they start pulsing, they may release the brakes.

[trader4]

You're the one claiming it's simple and the law says the person who runs into you from behind is ALWAYS at fault. First, you could not possibly know the MV laws in all 50 states. Second, I'd like to see the law from ANY one state that actually says that.

That's exactly the whole point. It;'s the totality of all the evidence available that has to be weighed to determine who is at fault.

Simply not true. Kurt gave you a good example of a guy who passed him on a multi-lane road, then cut in front of him and slammed on the brakes. A cop saw it and gave the OTHER GUY THE TICKET. You yourself said you had done similar, by deliberately slamming on the brakes when someone was following closely behind you. So, let's say the guy who hit you sues you for damages. Are you telling us you think you could go to court, tell the judge "Yeah, I deliberately slammed on the brakes to mess with him, but the law says it's always his fault" and you'd prevail? As I said before, I'd like to see that law.

You're confusing two different things. The law and who USUALLY loses. Under the law, the loser is the guy who is proven to be negligent and thereby caused the accident. In the case of what you did, or in the case of what happened to Kurt, that person would be the person in front, who wound up getting hit. In the vast majority of rear end collisions, you don't have that happening. It's usually a case of following too close or failing to pay attention. However, if you have good credible evidence that it was in fact the person ahead of you who was negligent, then you clearly can win in court. An example would be a driver in another car or someone walking on the street that witnessed what happened and can state that the other driver cut you off then slammed on the brakes.

Still don't believe me? Here's an attorney's opinion:

"Rear end accidents are amongst the most common types of car accidents that occur, and generally speaking, the driver of the car that rear ends someone is placed at fault and liable for all property damage and injury. However, liability and negligence in a rear end accident is not always as clear as that. We will discuss some issues of fault, negligence, and liable injuries for rear end accidents."

And a state trooper:

"Q: I have heard that no matter what, if a vehicle rear-ends someone, regardless of the nature of the accident, t is always said drivers fault. Is there any truth to this?

A: From State Patrol Trooper Keith Trowbridge:

No, that is not always the case in a rear-end collision. Many circumstances affect the decision to cite a driver in a collision.

The State Patrol looks at the totality of the circumstances when deciding to cite drivers. That being said, generally most people who rear-end other vehicles are found to be at fault and cited.

Here are a couple of examples of collisions where drivers probably would not be cited:

=95When someone makes an unsafe lane change in front of your vehicle and brakes at the same time, causing you to rear-end the vehicle that cut you off.

=95When your vehicle is stopped for traffic and rear-ended by another vehicle, causing your vehicle to strike the vehicle in front of you."

I agree that tailgating is rude, dangerous and illegal. What you did in response, deliberately slamming on the brakes, is also dangerous, illegal and even worse.

[trader4]

And conversely, if you have proof that the person who you rear-ended is at fault, then you will win the case. I'm still waiting to see the law that says it is always and automatically the fault of the driver who hits the other car.

Another good example of where the person in back would not be responsible. Let's say Mr. Smitty is travelling on a two lane rural road. There is a T intersection ahead on his right and that street has a stop sign, Mr. Smitty does not. There is oncoming traffic. The speed limit is 50 and that is what Smitty is doing. When Mr. Smitty is within 100 ft of the intersection, a clunking, smoking, car on it's last legs driven by a little old lady rolls through the stop sign making a right hand turn. Then, the little old lady can't or won't accelerate. Mr. Smitty slams on the brakes but winds up rear-ending the little old lady.

I think you and I would agree that the little old lady, not Mr. Smitty is at fault. And I'd say the physical evidence would be fairly strong to support that and that depending on what other evidence there was, Mr. Smitty would probably not get a ticket, the lady would, and he'd prevail in court for damages, depending on whatever other evidence there was.

According to Mr. Smitty, some law that is universal in all

50 states says it is actually his fault and he is responsible for damages to the little old lady's car.

[dpb]

...

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.

[Harry K]

You do realize that you are claiming the law says "guilty until proven innocent"?

Harry K

[Dbdlocker]

Anti-lock if for the anti-brained person. I never had trouble in winter slippery conditions with REGULAR brakes.

[mm]

Of course. It's like putting your foot on a dead groundhog only to find that it's still moving. You have to get your foot off right away.

[mm]

Absolutely. If somone had been killed, the person who stopped short on purpose would be only a half-step from murder.

[mm]

If you were joking about something you hadn't done, that would be morbid but okay. But you say you did it. You're just lucky.

[mm]

I must admit, I havent' either. Even that accident I think I mentioned, on the black ice, I *did* go straight ahead. I think all four wheels lost traction equally so ABS wouldn't have helped anyhow.

I have a '95 now, without it. This car is lasting longer than most, but the next car will be about a 2005 or 6 and I guess they all have it. More expensive parts to break.

[zxcvbob]

Sometimes a half-step is enough...

-Bob