You know that you are going to get arse ended.
Do you keep your foot on the brakes so that you don't get pushed into the car in front or do keep your foot off the brake and have two bumps but of less severity?
Why do you need to ask?
Yes, so that there's no doubt it's all the idiot behind's fault.
Because today I decided to keep my foot on the brake so that I would not hit the car in front.
I am just wondering if I would be a little less sore had I let my foot off the brake.
I'd say you'd be more sore, as your vehicle would have accelerated faster and then decellerated rapidly when it hit the vehicle in front. With the brakes on, you'll have accelerated slower and decellerated slower so less force acting on you.
SteveW
Well I have no intention of going out and trying it again with my brakes off:-)
Note at the very end of the video what pulls up. Driver jumps out and give me a card with his details and says that was on my dashcam. I'll get it tommorow.
But here is my dashcam footage.
So how far were you from the car in front, and what was your speed?
I withdraw the question after seeing your video!
That's nice of him, further proof that he was liable.
It used to be the case that insurance companies warned you to never admit liability, even when it's obvious it was your fault, is that no longer the case?
jeeze, you weren't even slowing down when he hit you
he must have been a right idiot
tim
He was too busy checking your ladders were properly secured to the roof. Multitasking failure.
Foot on the brake is surely the right answer? Foot off and you're going to get an even more sore neck from the uncontrolled acceleration of your car. Foot on and the friction between the tyres and road is going to reduce it.
Hope you're OK.
Didn't we have a discussion about this not that long ago?
Ouch, he gave you quite a whack, the groan doesn't sound like a "oh WTF is the damage" but a "ow, that wasn't very comfortable".
As has been mentioned if you are pushed into the one in front you get a double whammy, one when you're hit and one when you hit the one in front.
F explained :
Plus, your brake lights will be on, giving the following vehicle a bit more warning.
Many years ago, driving a Transit truck, the vehicles ahead came to a stop, so I stopped at the back with the handbrake (rear wheels) on no footbrake around 5 foot from a BT van. Steaming in the back came a brand new car with a low sloping front. It was obvious looking in my mirror, they driver wasn't paying much attention, maybe distracted by the new cars 'toys'. He seemed not to notice I had stopped until the last second, I heard the squeal of his brakes, then the back end of the truck lifted as he went under it. He pushed me into the BT van. He likely would not have been able to do that, had I not been lifted off the road and pushed that last few feet.
I now always habitually keep the foot brake on, until at least one vehicle has stopped behind me.
Right at the end when I got out of the van?
It was a bit uncomfortable.
In article , ARW writes
If you don't hit the car in front you are at no fault. If you do hit the car in front then they claim against you as to them you are at fault. BICBW
You keep your foot on the brake so you minimise your chances of injury. If you don't have your foot on the brake you will be accelerated forwards faster and hence suffer more injury. The van might be more crumpled but who cares. The one hitting you might suffer more damage too.
Well I don't know what you where doing, can only see straight ahead... The van had been stationary for a second or so and the white car in front was driving off, completely unaware of what was going on behind them.
I am pretty sure that that was changed years ago and now both the drivers hit can claim directly against the rear driver.
SteveW
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.