Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Is rear driver always at fault in an accident?

44 replies

Canshopwillshop · 03/04/2019 14:04

Please be nice as I’m a bit shaken up and didn’t want to post in AIBU as couldn’t face any backlash!
So this morning I was driving to meet some friends. I was on a main road and came to a roundabout where I turned right. I was busy negotiating the roundabout and was aware of the car in front who had just also turned right. However, the front driver decided to suddenly stop immediately after the roundabout to let a pedestrian cross the road! It wasn’t a crossing or anything and I was not expecting the driver to suddenly stop. I slammed on the brakes but hit the back of her car. I need to talk to my insurers and I know I’m likely to get the blame but I feel she contributed towards the accident by stopping the way she did. Luckily no injuries but I am quite shaken. Never had to claim on insurance before.

OP posts:

Hoosey · 03/04/2019 14:07

Yes unfortunately in your instance you are at fault, you need to leave an adequate stopping distance. The only difference would be if you had any real reason to think it might have been cash for crash i.e. brake lights didn’t come on or something. I’m sorry you had a horrible experience, sounds unlikely to be something like that. It’s hard managing a roundabout and then having someone stop unexpectedly, I hope you feel better about it soon.

TheQueef · 03/04/2019 14:08

Yeah it's you.
You should always have enough room to stop for the speed you are travelling.
I've rear ended someone at a roundabout too, busy looking for traffic to the right and didn't realise the fella in front had stopped.
It happens, drink tea and lament your ncd going down

Onceuponacheesecake · 03/04/2019 14:10

It's your responsibility to ensure there is reasonable stopping distance. If you hit them you were going too fast/too close/not paying enough attention. It's obviously not always that straight forward but this does sound like your fault.

DGRossetti · 03/04/2019 14:11

The only difference would be if you had any real reason to think it might have been cash for crash i.e. brake lights didn’t come on or something.

Which is what dashcams were invented for ...

purpleboy · 03/04/2019 14:13

No actual legal advice, but I don't think it's fair you would be completely in the wrong, if it was me I'd be pissed off too, but I think (and I may be wrong) that you are supposed to expect the unexpected when driving and I guess that is the point of the 2 second rule. Similar to if a child had run out in the road, car in front would stop, you wouldn't be expecting it and so a similar situation occurs.
Annoying though as the driver in front knew she was going to stop, you had no warning. This is one of the reasons I don't stop for pedestrians or even sometimes to let other cars out, I know I'm doing it but the people behind don't.
I guess it's a lesson learnt the hard way. I hope your ok and glad no one was hurt.

museumum · 03/04/2019 14:16

yes, i'm afraid so.
we did similar to the front car once but it was because a pram had rolled into the road in front of us! we had to emergency stop, car behind hit us. Insurance ruled her fault.

It's not a huge deal though, your premium will go up a little but shop around and you can probably get it back to the same, if not this next year, the year after.

Margot33 · 03/04/2019 14:23

Yes its always the rear car at fault. You should always leave a gap just in case the car in front stops. Happened to me this morning! Close miss because I left a big enough gap, thankfully. Still dont know why he/she stopped! Hope you're okay and not too shaken up. Please dont feel too bad. We all make mistakes.

JenniferJareau · 03/04/2019 14:28

As pp have said it is the rear drivers fault as they are supposed to leave enough space for whatever the car in front does.

Hope you feel better soon

havingtochangeusernameagain · 03/04/2019 14:29

Received wisdom is yes, but I am sure there must be occasions where the front driver is contributorily negligent and so the insurance companies divide up the liability. Not sure a driver should slam their brakes on to let someone cross the road when it isn't a crossing, but maybe they were already in the road and the alternative would have been to hit them.

But even if you are not at fault in an accident, your premium will go up, even if you have a no claims bonus.

So it's immaterial really.

Original poster

Canshopwillshop · 03/04/2019 14:37

Thanks everyone for being nice. Yes, will just suck it up and chalk it down to experience. Most important thing is no one was hurt.

OP posts:

DGRossetti · 03/04/2019 14:37

Not sure a driver should slam their brakes on to let someone cross the road when it isn't a crossing, but maybe they were already in the road and the alternative would have been to hit them

Doesn't really matter - the car behind should always be able to stop in time.

The only exception would be if the car in front was deliberately trying to engineer an accident (as the cash-for-crash scammers did). However, without the sort of proof a dashcam can provide, you're a bit stuck.

Nicknacky · 03/04/2019 14:39

No one likes to think they have caused an accident but yes, the fault is on you. What else could the other motorist have done? Kept going and ran over a pedestrian?

Palominoo · 03/04/2019 14:41

They stopped to let a pedestrian cross but equally could have stoppws if the pedestrian had walked out in front of them.

Either way you must always be able to allow enough distance to stop short of the vehicle in front or be aware of the car in fronts actions so that you can brake in time.

gauntletthrown · 03/04/2019 14:41

I've had someone roll back into me at a junction and that was still my fault! In a queue. I don't agree that should be the fault of the person behind.

Original poster

Canshopwillshop · 03/04/2019 14:42

I’d just like to point out that the pedestrian wasn’t already in the road!
When I stopped the front driver said something about it being a crossing - it wasn’t, it was just a dropped kerb.

OP posts:

Original poster

Canshopwillshop · 03/04/2019 14:43

But yes, I get that it’s my fault.

OP posts:

Original poster

Canshopwillshop · 03/04/2019 14:44

gauntletthrown - that’s crazy!

OP posts:

PeanutButterBrownie · 03/04/2019 14:45

You should always be able to stop safely

DGRossetti · 03/04/2019 14:56

I've had someone roll back into me at a junction and that was still my fault!

What did the driver of the car in front say ? The truth, or did they claim you hit them ?

mclaleli · 03/04/2019 15:01

Received wisdom is yes, but I am sure there must be occasions where the front driver is contributorily negligent and so the insurance companies divide up the liability.

Driving into the back of someone is the most clear cut of insurance claims.

georgie262 · 03/04/2019 15:04

It's not always the rear driver. My husband has just been found at fault. And someone crashed into the back of him. This was whilst changing lanes though so different situation but insurers said he was driving carelessly but speeding doesn't count as careless driving apparently.

DGRossetti · 03/04/2019 15:08

but speeding doesn't count as careless driving apparently.

In some quarters of MN it's regarded as a right, if not an obligation ....

mclaleli · 03/04/2019 15:10

its not always the rear driver My husband has just been found at fault. And someone crashed into the back of him. This was whilst changing lanes though so different situation but insurers said he was driving carelessly

Like you say, different situation, not comparable.

MyPatronusIsAnOrca · 03/04/2019 15:36

As others have said the liability lies nearly always with the rear driver.

I believe there was a test case a few years ago involving a bus and a car where the rear driver suffered injuries as the bus had braked suddenly and car driver was disputing liability. However, the judge ruled the driver in front is responsible for paying attention to what’s going on in front of them and not what’s behind them so when braking suddenly they would do so on the basis of what’s going on ahead of them and not the impact it will have on anyone behind them.

Hope you’re ok x

DGRossetti · 03/04/2019 15:41

However, the judge ruled the driver in front is responsible for paying attention to what’s going on in front of them and not what’s behind them so when braking suddenly they would do so on the basis of what’s going on ahead of them and not the impact it will have on anyone behind them.

Sounds like an awful lot of hassle ... rather than simply saying a driver is responsible for keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front ?

Flip

1 2