[Gunnerzz]

The highway is clear.
Person A is driving a Neo at the highway at well below the speed limit.
In front of him is a van belong to a company being driven by person B.

Person A follow person B to overtake a slower lorry.
Right after overtaking, the van change to left lane.
All of a sudden the van loses control, spin 360 degree to the right and as a result,the van is facing the opposite direction and now facing the car being driven by person A.
Person A hav limiter time to react but still managed to avoid head on collision and he hit the van at an angle.

When making police report,person A was summon due to negligence.
Is this the right outcome?

[rallychamp]

The highway is clear.
Person A is driving a Neo at the highway at well below the speed limit.
In front of him is a van belong to a company being driven by person B.

Person A follow person B to overtake a slower lorry.
Right after overtaking, the van change to left lane.
All of a sudden the van loses control, spin 360 degree to the right and as a result,the van is facing the opposite direction and now facing the car being driven by person A.
Person A hav limiter time to react but still managed to avoid head on collision and he hit the van at an angle.

When making police report,person A was summon due to negligence.
Is this the right outcome?

both was recieved summons rite??

but when comes to insurance claim i think person A can claim on person B insurance...because person B causing the accident rite???(and this related to the investigation officer..if he/she said person B was fault surely person A can claim)

any other opinion??

[tpl]

B should be on fault..

[Gunnerzz]

Guess what...
Rompin traffic police claimed that its person A's fault and only issue summon to person A.
I was puzzled when person A told me the story.

[vr2turbo]

Guess what...
Rompin traffic police claimed that its person A's fault and only issue summon to person A.
I was puzzled when person A told me the story.

If you follow written law, A is at fault, because they will say he followed too closely.
My friend who met accident before, scenario almost same by car cut into his lane.
He hit the car on the front driver's door when car cut into his lane. Went to make police report and police summon the car cutting into his lane, but the police explained to my friend that if he had hit the car on the back door, then he is in the wrong.
Means car already coming into your lane and you should give way.....that is the law......

[nofear1979]

If you follow written law, A is at fault, because they will say he followed too closely.
My friend who met accident before, scenario almost same by car cut into his lane.
He hit the car on the front driver's door when car cut into his lane. Went to make police report and police summon the car cutting into his lane, but the police explained to my friend that if he had hit the car on the back door, then he is in the wrong.
Means car already coming into your lane and you should give way.....that is the law......

hm....... i seee....

[r3xt0n]

Guess what...
Rompin traffic police claimed that its person A's fault and only issue summon to person A.
I was puzzled when person A told me the story.

I think the key point relies on the location of Van where Person A hit which stand to prove if Person A is following too close and resulted him unable to stop in time in an emergency situation or the Van has suddenly cut into Person A lane too close and caused the accident. Unless there is 3rd party witness that can provide clear testimony on the exact happening, otherwise the damaged spots are the only evidence to prove. Beyond that, it is Person A words against the Van Driver words.

[derrick74]

The highway is clear.
Person A is driving a Neo at the highway at well below the speed limit.
In front of him is a van belong to a company being driven by person B.

Person A follow person B to overtake a slower lorry.
Right after overtaking, the van change to left lane.
All of a sudden the van loses control, spin 360 degree to the right and as a result,the van is facing the opposite direction and now facing the car being driven by person A.
Person A hav limiter time to react but still managed to avoid head on collision and he hit the van at an angle.

When making police report,person A was summon due to negligence.
Is this the right outcome?

Thats right,
Whats wrong on person A side is..
1.He was following too closely i presume.
2.Overtaking with another car which is doing the same is wrong.
3.He kissed the van..so he pays regardless of how the van was on the road.

Its better to be safe while driving and keep your distance.
we all know tailgating is wrong.
anything can happen in front of you.

[vr2turbo]

Thats right,
Whats wrong on person A side is..
1.He was following too closely i presume.
2.Overtaking with another car which is doing the same is wrong.
3.He kissed the van..so he pays regardless of how the van was on the road.

Its better to be safe while driving and keep your distance.
we all know tailgating is wrong.
anything can happen in front of you.

Another friend who meet with accident on the federal highway, was following another car too closely.
Suddenly another car in front of car he was tailing stalled, so front car suddenly swerve, but my friend was not fast enough and whack the stalled car.......because following too closely.......

[benny1001]

Thats right,
Whats wrong on person A side is..
1.He was following too closely i presume.
2.Overtaking with another car which is doing the same is wrong.
3.He kissed the van..so he pays regardless of how the van was on the road.

Its better to be safe while driving and keep your distance.
we all know tailgating is wrong.
anything can happen in front of you.

I think anybody who involved in an accident will all get summon right? If u happen to make Police report....