The one who is in the wrong......
Accident
#11
Posted 26 September 2010 - 08:51 PM
The one who is in the wrong......
#12
Posted 28 September 2010 - 11:05 AM
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......
I think the cops do not have a better way to gauge who is right or wrong. For me the person going in the straight lane always has "right of way" and anyone cutting in from left or right should be at fault irrespective of the part of car they get hit at. Even if the gap is small, I have seen drivers accelerate like crazy to cut in...so if they get hit at the back door, they are right? Come on. The driver who wants to overtake should always make sure that the lane is clear before he cuts in.
In the 360 degree case, I think the cops made a mistake. They should fine the van driver as he is going against traffic . Person A should have been smarter to say that he was 25m away but still could not avoid the van which came into his lane suddenly.
#13
Posted 28 September 2010 - 02:05 PM
In the 360 degree case, I think the cops made a mistake. They should fine the van driver as he is going against traffic . Person A should have been smarter to say that he was 25m away but still could not avoid the van which came into his lane suddenly.
Well, how to argue with the cops?? They mention even though you are in the straight lane, have to give way because car cutting in, already in your lane, therefore hitting them in the rears is the fault of back car. This is their say, not me.....
#14
Posted 28 September 2010 - 10:44 PM
Need some revamp to the system. he culprits are getting away
#15
Posted 29 September 2010 - 12:18 AM
hm... if... i mean if... hit the rear of the car/lorry and the person die on spot... say the serious type... will the dead get summon?
like that can easily murder someone, just speed/cutting in front of the car and doing full braking...!!!
Human Resource Solutions
We provide a comprehensive range of Human Resource (HR) management solutions
#16
Posted 29 September 2010 - 09:59 AM
like that can easily murder someone, just speed/cutting in front of the car and doing full braking...!!!
Then you will have to be driving a truck.....hahahaha
Seriously, if in newer cars have air bag mah.........
#17
Posted 29 September 2010 - 06:20 PM
like that can easily murder someone, just speed/cutting in front of the car and doing full braking...!!!
Exactly what I mean ..not about the murder though
#18
Posted 30 September 2010 - 11:14 AM
like that can easily murder someone, just speed/cutting in front of the car and doing full braking...!!!
Well, if hit directly from the rears, the one behind is still at fault.....
#19
Posted 30 September 2010 - 12:24 PM
what nofear said is a bit absurd. hitting sudden brakes will definitely leave skid marks and that will point to the conclusion that an intervening factor must have taken place that would break the causal link and forensic science can really tell what the hell happened in an accident.
it is all based on the observation of facts which is why after a report, the IO will be despatched to the scene to investigate, to see the skid marks and whether there are residues on the floor which is very accurate to determine the point of impact.
after that, they try to relate with the statements of both the complainants. if one is lying, inconsistencies will definitely arise and don't try to outsmart those officers. they have been dealing with liars all their life.
is it reasonable for traffic laws to impose responsibilities for a driver to always to ensure the safety of any cars behind him? that would require the driver to apy 80% attention on his rear view mirror than right up front.
it is also an accepted truth that drivers at the back will have a better view of what is happening in front of him.
The Neo is clearly at fault of neglience with no defense available to him except for the fact maybe contributory negligence on the Van drive's side. The Neo is negligent in 2 aspects in my view;
1 - did not oblige to the 2 second rule.
2 - keeping a relatively close distance to a van in front which clearly impeaches his view.
I think there was a misquoting of fact, if the van indeed took a 360 spin on the road, its front won't be facing the front of the Neo but the rear. I think it is a 180degrees spin but it intrigues me though as to what caused the van to react that way.
#20
Posted 30 September 2010 - 01:13 PM