Automatically "at fault" if you crash into a stationary object?

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash into
anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway, and
she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite that
simple, but her arguments become academic if there's automatic blame to be
had.

The rule is that a driver has to drive within the limits of what they can
see. If it really was a blind bend then she should have slowed down.

Peter Crosland

Maurice

2009-09-03 17:05:44 UTC

Post by Peter Crosland

The rule is that a driver has to drive within the limits of what they can
see. If it really was a blind bend then she should have slowed down.

I'd generally agree but I believe that there are rules about not
parking in a dangerous position which might be mitigating.

--
Maurice

Adrian

2009-09-04 07:05:18 UTC

Post by Maurice

Post by Peter Crosland
The rule is that a driver has to drive within the limits of what they
can see. If it really was a blind bend then she should have slowed
down.

I'd generally agree

There's no "generally" about it. If you're driving too fast to stop
within the distance you can see to be clear, then you are driving too
fast for the conditions.

Post by Maurice
but I believe that there are rules about not parking in a dangerous
position

There are, but...

Post by Maurice
which might be mitigating.

No. She drove into a stationary car.

b***@googlemail.com

2009-09-04 07:35:09 UTC

Post by Maurice

Post by Peter Crosland
The rule is that a driver has to drive within the limits of what they
can see. If it really was a blind bend then she should have slowed
down.

I'd generally agree

There's no "generally" about it. If you're driving too fast to stop
within the distance you can see to be clear, then you are driving too
fast for the conditions.

Post by Maurice
but I believe that there are rules about not parking in a dangerous
position

There are, but...

Post by Maurice
which might be mitigating.

No. She drove into a stationary car.

There is no 'automatic' decision in a court. If the matter comes to
court charged with Without Due Care (and not all of those get to court
these days) the bench will have to consider if your driving fell below
the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent and careful
driver. There are potentially many circumstances in which a reasonable
driver can hit a stationary object, and the court will hear the facts
and make its decision. It's what courts are for.

Percy Picacity

2009-09-04 07:50:16 UTC

Post by b***@googlemail.com

"***@googlemail.com" <***@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:c710b34a-97e0-458f-be78-53c48be249e1
@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.co

Post by Maurice

Post by Peter Crosland
The rule is that a driver has to drive within the limits of
what they can see. If it really was a blind bend then she
should have slowed down.

I'd generally agree

There's no "generally" about it. If you're driving too fast to
stop within the distance you can see to be clear, then you are
driving too fast for the conditions.

Post by Maurice
but I believe that there are rules about not parking in a
dangerous position

There are, but...

Post by Maurice
which might be mitigating.

No. She drove into a stationary car.

There is no 'automatic' decision in a court. If the matter comes
to court charged with Without Due Care (and not all of those get
to court these days) the bench will have to consider if your
driving fell below the standard to be expected of a reasonably
competent and careful driver. There are potentially many
circumstances in which a reasonable driver can hit a stationary
object, and the court will hear the facts and make its decision.
It's what courts are for.

Yes, the OP did not make it clear whether his daughter was concerned
with civil liability for the damage to both cars, possible criminal
prosecution, or just moral "blameworthiness". The answers would
potentially be different for each case.

--
Percy Picacity

GP Hardy

2009-09-04 09:35:23 UTC

Post by Percy Picacity
Yes, the OP did not make it clear whether his daughter was concerned
with civil liability for the damage to both cars, possible criminal
prosecution, or just moral "blameworthiness". The answers would
potentially be different for each case.

Insurance blameworthiness, which I later realised may well fall outside the
remit for this group. My apologies to all. I just didn't want to waste
everyone's time if there's a blanket rule.

She hit the car in front of her after it crashed into a stationary car
(without braking) on a 60mph clearway. The front car was turning off the
road and was waiting for traffic on the other carriageway. The attention of
the driver of the mid car (allegedly) appeared to be distracted by their
passenger (baby on back seat) so there were no brake lights. As it was on a
blind bend, my stepdaughter was only aware of the stationary car after the
other car was embedded in it.

She seems to think that if the middle car hadn't been there, she'd have had
to do some pretty hard braking, but she thinks she wouldn't have hit the
front car. Ever the cynic, I'm not convinced...

There are other issues, such as the middle driver retracting her "It was all
my fault" statement to be replaced by "I stopped in time and was pushed into
the front car" once her partner had arrived, but they aren't really what I'm
asking about.

Everyone was OK, front and rear car are almost certainly total writeoffs.
The middle car appears undamaged, however it has sustained damage front and
back so it may still be a level C or D writeoff.

It seems to me that the rule of the road is that you need to slow down to
walking pace at (for example) a blind summit or bend on the offchance that
someone is stationary on the other side. The practicalities and expense of
doing this make it a calculated risk each time you encounter such an
obstacle because you may end up getting rear-ended yourself by someone who's
no idea why you are slowing down.

Thanks to everyone for your replies.

Neil Williams

2009-09-04 12:25:09 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
She seems to think that if the middle car hadn't been there, she'd have had
to do some pretty hard braking, but she thinks she wouldn't have hit the
front car.

Probably isn't relevant, as both may have been quite validly waiting
to turn - though it is unusual to have a right turn on a dual
carriageway (which is what it sounds like - am I reading it wrong?)
without any sort of refuge.

Neil

GP Hardy

2009-09-06 09:25:15 UTC

"Neil Williams" wrote...

Post by GP Hardy
She seems to think that if the middle car hadn't been there, she'd have
had to do some pretty hard braking, but she thinks she wouldn't have hit
the front car.

Probably isn't relevant, as both may have been quite validly waiting to
turn - though it is unusual to have a right turn on a dual carriageway
(which is what it sounds like - am I reading it wrong?) without any sort
of refuge.

No, it was a single carriageway. My mistake for referring to "the other
carriageway" instead of "oncoming traffic"

Adrian

2009-09-04 12:02:05 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
She hit the car in front of her after it crashed into a stationary car
(without braking) on a 60mph clearway.

Oh, this IS going to give some insurance fun...

Post by GP Hardy
The front car was turning off the road and was waiting for traffic on
the other carriageway.

So wasn't even parked illegally or obstructively.

They're the only one of the three who's going to come out of this with
their NCB intact.

Post by GP Hardy
The attention of the driver of the mid car (allegedly) appeared to be
distracted by their passenger (baby on back seat) so there were no
brake lights.

FFS...

Post by GP Hardy
As it was on a blind bend, my stepdaughter was only aware of the
stationary car after the other car was embedded in it.

Poor observation, following too close.

Post by GP Hardy
She seems to think that if the middle car hadn't been there, she'd have
had to do some pretty hard braking, but she thinks she wouldn't have hit
the front car. Ever the cynic, I'm not convinced...

I'm with you.

Post by GP Hardy
There are other issues, such as the middle driver retracting her "It was
all my fault" statement to be replaced by "I stopped in time and was
pushed into the front car" once her partner had arrived, but they aren't
really what I'm asking about.

This, though, is where the insurance is going to get very entertaining.

If the sightlines are poor enough, yes.

Post by GP Hardy
The practicalities and expense of doing this make it a calculated risk
each time you encounter such an obstacle because you may end up getting
rear-ended yourself by someone who's no idea why you are slowing down.

Yep, blind people driving certainly can cause problems to others.
However, a driver who is observing properly is not just looking at the
back of the car directly in front, so should have no problems whatsoever.

Your daughter has just been handed a very large and clearly labelled
clue. She needs to take it. Next time, she might not be so lucky.

Steve Walker

2009-09-04 22:16:09 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
She hit the car in front of her after it crashed into a stationary car
(without braking) on a 60mph clearway. The front car was turning off the
road and was waiting for traffic on the other carriageway. The attention
of the driver of the mid car (allegedly) appeared to be distracted by
their passenger (baby on back seat) so there were no brake lights. As it
was on a blind bend, my stepdaughter was only aware of the stationary
car after the other car was embedded in it.

Thanks for the extra details. I find it hard to imagine a 60mph clearway
having a blind corner that would reduce visibility to such an extent. That
seems to be a poor design, eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_sight_distance

Post by GP Hardy
It seems to me that the rule of the road is that you need to slow down to
walking pace at (for example) a blind summit or bend on the offchance
that someone is stationary on the other side. The practicalities and
expense of doing this make it a calculated risk each time you encounter
such an obstacle because you may end up getting rear-ended yourself by
someone who's no idea why you are slowing down.

Yes, I think you're right. Anyone who 'takes a chance' on a blind corner
has the risk of a broken down car, a slow tractor or a child on bicycle
being just out of sight. I don't mean to sound censorious, it's something
we all do to some degree.

Despite Ste's valiant contrarianism, I think there's little realistic
defence available for the middle driver or for your daughter. They drove
into stationary vehicles, which means that they were either not paying
attention or they were driving at a higher speed than was absolutely safe.
I think their insurer(s) will simply pay up, regardless of whether the
drivers think that's right or fair.

Sorry to hear that middle car is trying "I was pushed into front car" -
nasty tactic. Hopefully the driver of the front car will plainly describe
two impacts, a few seconds apart.

Stuart A. Bronstein

2009-09-04 22:25:15 UTC

Post by Steve Walker
Despite Ste's valiant contrarianism, I think there's little
realistic defence available for the middle driver or for your
daughter. They drove into stationary vehicles, which means that
they were either not paying attention or they were driving at a
higher speed than was absolutely safe. I think their insurer(s)
will simply pay up, regardless of whether the drivers think
that's right or fair.

Seems to me the second car stopped a whole lot sooner than it would
have (or should have) if it hadn't run into one that was stopped.
It's not unreasonable to say that if the second car had stopped
normally then the third car would have been able to stop.

That doesn't let her off the hook, but it could mitigate her
culpability.

--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com

Adrian

2009-09-05 08:15:26 UTC

Seems to me the second car stopped a whole lot sooner than it would have
(or should have) if it hadn't run into one that was stopped. It's not
unreasonable to say that if the second car had stopped normally then the
third car would have been able to stop.
That doesn't let her off the hook, but it could mitigate her
culpability.

No, it really doesn't. It merely suggests that two people were driving
badly, not just one.

numpty

2009-09-05 08:25:08 UTC

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein
Seems to me the second car stopped a whole lot sooner than it would
have (or should have) if it hadn't run into one that was stopped.
It's not unreasonable to say that if the second car had stopped
normally then the third car would have been able to stop.
That doesn't let her off the hook, but it could mitigate her
culpability.

All drivers have a responsibility to look a little further ahead than
the boot (trunk) of the car in front. You cannot plan ahead if you let
the person in front of you dictate your speed and road position.
(driving too close to them) The OP's daughter should thank the deities
that she was not seriously hurt and that no-one was killed. Twisted
metal can be repaired or replaced... twisted people, not so much.
Driving within the distance you can see to be clear is a far more
complex issue than dealing with the question of how much clear space do
I have in front of my moving car. It also involves travelling at the
ideal road speed for the weather conditions, the available lighting and
the awareness of all possible potential hazards, whether they are fixed
and pre-existing or mobile and created by other drivers.

I think that your point about reasonable mitigation, while potentially
credible, is seeking to provide that mitigation might be based upon one
ideal future possible act. That sort of approach to the application of
the law (what would have been ideal even though it did not happen)
would create a nightmare scenario. It would have the law attempting to
guess at the future intent of a driver, in seeking to apportion blame
in a driving accident dispute, before they knew themselves what they
had intended to do or how they would react to a given set of
circumstances, being based upon their own skills and their perception
of the scene before them. Isn't it a basic tenet of any code of law
that the miscreant should know, with reasonable certainty, what to
expect in any given set of circumstances?

While driving into someone else's car may not be a criminal act, it can
be deemed to be a crime, depending on the circumstances. Generally
speaking, it appears to be reasonably settled ground that the driver
who drives into a car in front of them, would normally have been in
control of their own vehicle and so that type of 'accident' is usually
considered to have been avoidable. It implies a degree of
inattentiveness and lack of skill (on the driver's part) if they run
into an obstacle that was either stationary or they had failed to read
the road ahead and collided with another moving vehicle, that was
travelling in the same direction as their own car and was immediately
in front of them.

summarised: It is reasonable to suppose that the driver of a vehicle
will take care to drive safely, despite the constantly changing vista
of road conditions and traffic which they will encounter. To blame the
changing nature of the scene before the driver is tantamount to
saying... 'I cannot drive safely (I don't respond well to changing road
conditions) therefore my conduct should be excused/mitigated because the
driver in front of me did not cope with the situation they had faced'.
That would be a perverse application of the law, in my view. IANAL

--
numpty

Cynic

2009-09-07 19:35:10 UTC

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:25:15 +0100, "Stuart A. Bronstein"

If the second car was stationary *before* the OP's daughter first saw
it, then it makes no difference at all. It could have stopped quite
normally many minutes before the daughter rounded the bend and she
would still have hit it (and in fact that is what the other driver is
claiming happened IIUC).

If OTOH the daughter had the car in sight all the time, and was
following at a distance that would *normally* be considered safe
(which does not account for a collision), you point has some merit.

--
Cynic

Ste

2009-09-08 18:45:18 UTC

Post by Cynic
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:25:15 +0100, "Stuart A. Bronstein"

If the second car was stationary *before* the OP's daughter first saw
it, then it makes no difference at all. It could have stopped quite
normally many minutes before the daughter rounded the bend and she
would still have hit it (and in fact that is what the other driver is
claiming happened IIUC).
If OTOH the daughter had the car in sight all the time, and was
following at a distance that would *normally* be considered safe
(which does not account for a collision), you point has some merit.

I agree with this, in that the "safe distance" a person must leave is
generally regarded as that distance which would allow you to stop
safely if the car in front stopped normally under maximum braking, not
that distance which would allow you to stop safely if the car in front
negligently ploughed into another stationary vehicle without showing
brake lights at all. Otherwise you'd have a situation where every
driver was expected to leave at least their full baking distance
between them and the car in front (which at 60mph could be as much as
200yds), or else suffer strict liability (with no allowance made for
the expectation that the driver in front would drive competently and
correctly).

In certain circumstances, then, it may be possible to argue
contributory negligence of the car in front. However, since everybody
involved here will probably going to lose at least their excess, it's
not worth arguing over.

Adrian

2009-09-05 08:10:18 UTC

Post by Steve Walker
Thanks for the extra details. I find it hard to imagine a 60mph
clearway having a blind corner that would reduce visibility to such an
extent.

Do you? Really? Do I presume that you rarely drive outside towns other
than on primary trunk routes?

Remember that 60mph - aka NSL - is the default extra-urban speed limit.

Humbug

2009-09-05 20:55:15 UTC

Post by Steve Walker
Thanks for the extra details. I find it hard to imagine a 60mph
clearway having a blind corner that would reduce visibility to such an
extent.

Do you? Really? Do I presume that you rarely drive outside towns other
than on primary trunk routes?
Remember that 60mph - aka NSL - is the default extra-urban speed limit.

It's a limit, not a target.

--
HUmbug

Mark Goodge

2009-09-05 22:00:34 UTC

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:55:15 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and

Post by Humbug

Post by Steve Walker
Thanks for the extra details. I find it hard to imagine a 60mph
clearway having a blind corner that would reduce visibility to such an
extent.

Do you? Really? Do I presume that you rarely drive outside towns other
than on primary trunk routes?
Remember that 60mph - aka NSL - is the default extra-urban speed limit.

It's a limit, not a target.

But that's precisely the point. Just because the limit is Xmph, that's
no indicator that it's safe to travel at Xmph. You have to take
account of the road, the traffic and the conditions before you can
decide on the safe maximum speed. The posted limit is merely a
statement of the law, it has very little direct relevence to safety
and the safe limit may well be considerably below the legal limit.

Unfortunately, that's a concept which is being undermined by
anti-speeding publicity which presents speed in excess of the posted
limit as automatically unsafe. Linking the limit with safety in this
way encourages the attitude that if you stay under the limit you must
be driving safely; a misbelief which is a common cause of accidents
such as that described by the OP at the head of this thread.

Mark

--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Humbug

2009-09-05 22:45:22 UTC

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:00:34 +0100, Mark Goodge

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:55:15 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and

Post by Humbug

Post by Steve Walker
Thanks for the extra details. I find it hard to imagine a 60mph
clearway having a blind corner that would reduce visibility to such an
extent.

Do you? Really? Do I presume that you rarely drive outside towns other
than on primary trunk routes?
Remember that 60mph - aka NSL - is the default extra-urban speed limit.

It's a limit, not a target.

Exactly so.

Post by Mark Goodge
Unfortunately, that's a concept which is being undermined by
anti-speeding publicity which presents speed in excess of the posted
limit as automatically unsafe. Linking the limit with safety in this
way encourages the attitude that if you stay under the limit you must
be driving safely;

Unfortunately, exactly so.

Post by Mark Goodge
a misbelief which is a common cause of accidents
such as that described by the OP at the head of this thread.

Maybe, but I don't think that the OP described this as the cause.

--
Humbug

unknown

2009-09-04 22:45:38 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
She seems to think that if the middle car hadn't been there, she'd have had
to do some pretty hard braking, but she thinks she wouldn't have hit the
front car. Ever the cynic, I'm not convinced...

She hasn't got a chance of succeeding with this argument. She needs to
find a mirror, stare into it and realise that the person she is staring
at was responsible for colliding with the middle car. There are no
mitigating facts in the story she has told, she was driving too fast,
too close to the car in front and was not appropriately observant. One
should not just be looking at the back of the car in front, but also as
far as possible down the road to be prepared for the need to brake or
take avoiding action if the need arises.

D.M. Procida

2009-09-04 23:15:27 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
She hit the car in front of her after it crashed into a stationary car
(without braking) on a 60mph clearway.
Everyone was OK,

Wow, I'm glad to hear it. I assume this wasn't an actual 60mph
collision, but even so, this could well be the luckiest of escapes for
everyone concerned.

Anyway, it doesn't sound as though the drivers of either of the two cars
that crashed into the one in front are going to escape blame for this.

Is it just the insurance companies who are concerned with blame at the
moment, or do the law look interested too?

Daniele

GP Hardy

2009-09-06 09:25:13 UTC

"D.M. Procida" wrote...

Post by D.M. Procida

Post by GP Hardy
She hit the car in front of her after it crashed into a stationary car
(without braking) on a 60mph clearway.
Everyone was OK,

Wow, I'm glad to hear it. I assume this wasn't an actual 60mph
collision, but even so, this could well be the luckiest of escapes for
everyone concerned.

I think the speeds were well down on what they could have been, but I only
have one side of the story (and the fact that everyone's OK) on which to
base that assumption.

Post by D.M. Procida
Anyway, it doesn't sound as though the drivers of either of the two cars
that crashed into the one in front are going to escape blame for this.
Is it just the insurance companies who are concerned with blame at the
moment, or do the law look interested too?

No. The law may take more of an interest because the middle driver had told
the other two drivers and the attending policeman that she'd driven into the
lead car. Then she changed her story when her partner arrived. Hopefully, it
made it to his notebook.

I'm beginning to regret sending my wife to help out rather than going
myself. I'd have been a bit more practical about it rather than emotive, but
I'd been to a Macmillan Nurse benefit and had my face painted like a panda.

a***@b.invalid

2009-09-03 21:40:11 UTC

Post by Peter Crosland
The rule is that a driver has to drive within the limits of what they can
see. If it really was a blind bend then she should have slowed down.

I'm fairly sure the courts have ruled that this is not the case, but I
don't remember enough of the details to find a reference.

In a fatal RTA that I was personally involved with, the driver that
drove into the wreckage of a previous collision on a blind bend was
found to be blameless.

Percy Picacity

2009-09-04 07:30:41 UTC

Post by a***@b.invalid

Post by Peter Crosland
The rule is that a driver has to drive within the limits of what
they can see. If it really was a blind bend then she should have
slowed down.

I'm fairly sure the courts have ruled that this is not the case,
but I don't remember enough of the details to find a reference.
In a fatal RTA that I was personally involved with, the driver
that drove into the wreckage of a previous collision on a blind
bend was found to be blameless.

Do you mean he was not prosecuted, or was found not guilty on the basis
of reasonable doubt? I very much doubt if he was found blameless in
the sense that he had no liability for any of the damage to his own car
and was able to successfully obtain recompense from whoever caused the
original accident. Not being prosecuted does not exclude contributory
negligence.

--
Percy Picacity

a***@b.invalid

2009-09-04 09:25:09 UTC

Post by Percy Picacity
Do you mean he was not prosecuted, or was found not guilty on the basis
of reasonable doubt? I very much doubt if he was found blameless in
the sense that he had no liability for any of the damage to his own car
and was able to successfully obtain recompense from whoever caused the
original accident. Not being prosecuted does not exclude contributory
negligence.

Blameless according to the coroner, who recorded a narrative verdict.

Neil Williams

2009-09-04 08:31:41 UTC

Post by a***@b.invalid
In a fatal RTA that I was personally involved with, the driver that
drove into the wreckage of a previous collision on a blind bend was
found to be blameless.

Interesting - I would have said they would be to blame because they
were driving such that they could not stop in the distance they could
see to be clear. There are many genuine reasons (another accident
being one, I guess) that a clearway or motorway may be obstructed.

Neil

Ste

2009-09-04 09:31:55 UTC

Post by Neil Williams

Post by a***@b.invalid
In a fatal RTA that I was personally involved with, the driver that
drove into the wreckage of a previous collision on a blind bend was
found to be blameless.

It is a common misapprehension to say that drivers are always expected
to drive in a manner that they can stop within the distance that they
can see, and that if they don't, and they crash, then the crash is
entirely their fault. On the contrary, it is quite possible to crash
into a parked car, and for that parked car to suffer some or all of
the blame for the crash.

Even if a car has broken down, it would be reasonable to expect the
driver to leave dipped headlamps and flashing hazard lights on if
possible, and also attempt to slow oncoming traffic if the situation
warrants it (for example, on a blind bend), and to immediately call
the police if the car cannot be moved from that place. If a driver
fails to take any of these measures without reasonable excuse, then it
is highly likely that he will shoulder some of the blame, and in
extreme cases he could suffer all of the blame (especially if, for
example, he had no lights on at all at night, and had simply left his
car with the intent to recover it the following day).

Paul Rudin

2009-09-04 11:31:55 UTC

Post by Ste
It is a common misapprehension to say that drivers are always expected
to drive in a manner that they can stop within the distance that they
can see

This misaprehension is apparently shared by the authors of the Highway
Code - Rule 126 starts:

"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear."

Dave

2009-09-04 14:03:44 UTC

Post by Ste
It is a common misapprehension to say that drivers are always expected
to drive in a manner that they can stop within the distance that they
can see

This misaprehension is apparently shared by the authors of the Highway
"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear."

It's good practice but there is no law which stipulates it. There is
another common misapprehension that the Highway Code constitutes the law
of the road. It does not, although in many instances it echoes it.

Paul Rudin

2009-09-04 14:16:38 UTC

Post by Ste
It is a common misapprehension to say that drivers are always expected
to drive in a manner that they can stop within the distance that they
can see

This misaprehension is apparently shared by the authors of the Highway
"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear."

It's good practice but there is no law which stipulates it. There is
another common misapprehension that the Highway Code constitutes the
law of the road. It does not, although in many instances it echoes
it.

Yes, but if you're contemplating a situation where a court has to take a
view on your actions then failure to follow the rules of the HC will
count against you. As the HC itself explains:

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you
disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may
be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified
from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to
prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words
‘MUST/MUST NOT’...."

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will
not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code
may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic
Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish
liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as
‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

Dave

2009-09-04 16:20:24 UTC

Post by Ste
It is a common misapprehension to say that drivers are always expected
to drive in a manner that they can stop within the distance that they
can see

This misaprehension is apparently shared by the authors of the Highway
"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear."

It's good practice but there is no law which stipulates it. There is
another common misapprehension that the Highway Code constitutes the
law of the road. It does not, although in many instances it echoes
it.

Yes, but if you're contemplating a situation where a court has to take a
view on your actions then failure to follow the rules of the HC will
"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you
disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may
be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified
from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to
prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words
‘MUST/MUST NOT’...."
"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will
not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code
may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic
Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish
liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as
‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

It depends which Court it is. They can't simply find you guilty of
doing something that the Highway Code claims you shouldn't because that
isn't an offence. They may find that your actions contribute towards
the standards required to prove one of the named offences but it is in
itself no guarantee of that by any means.

The weakest cases are probably those where insurance claims are being
made because the balance of proof is so much lower but that again is not
guaranteed. The argument that you did something that was against the
Highway Code and most people think you shouldn't (and they incorrectly
think that it is the law) so the balance of proof level is almost reached.

Paul Rudin

2009-09-04 16:35:09 UTC

Post by Dave
It depends which Court it is. They can't simply find you guilty of
doing something that the Highway Code claims you shouldn't because
that isn't an offence.

The point is that the court is required to count into account the fact
that you failed to observe the HC. It doesn't mean you'll necessarily
lose, but it *will* count against you.

We're kind of going in circles here - the exert from the HC explains the
situation...

Dr Zoidberg

2009-09-04 16:15:23 UTC

Post by Ste
It is a common misapprehension to say that drivers are always expected
to drive in a manner that they can stop within the distance that they
can see

This misaprehension is apparently shared by the authors of the Highway
"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear."

That depends on how the sections are worded.
"You Must" is a legal requirement and anything else isn't , but failing to
do what the highway code says is typically used by the Police as evidence of
driving without due care and attention , or by insurance companies to
apportion blame.

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

Stuart A. Bronstein

2009-09-04 17:02:40 UTC

Post by Dr Zoidberg
"You Must" is a legal requirement and anything else isn't , but
failing to do what the highway code says is typically used by
the Police as evidence of driving without due care and attention
, or by insurance companies to apportion blame.

And by courts to find negligence?

--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com

Norman Wells

2009-09-04 14:20:24 UTC

Post by Ste
It is a common misapprehension to say that drivers are always
expected to drive in a manner that they can stop within the
distance that they can see

This misaprehension is apparently shared by the authors of the
"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the
distance you can see to be clear."

It's good practice but there is no law which stipulates it.

Yes there is. It's the law of negligence. You owe other road users a duty
of care, and that does not allow you to run into things you don't like or
think shouldn't be there.

Post by Dave
There is
another common misapprehension that the Highway Code constitutes the
law of the road. It does not, although in many instances it echoes
it.

The Highway Code embodies most of the rules that you must exercise on the
road. If you do not abide by them and cause damage to someone else or their
property as a result, you will almost certainly be found not to have
fulfilled your duty of care, and will be found liable for negligence.

Dave

2009-09-04 17:10:47 UTC

Post by Ste
It is a common misapprehension to say that drivers are always
expected to drive in a manner that they can stop within the
distance that they can see

This misaprehension is apparently shared by the authors of the
"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the
distance you can see to be clear."

It's good practice but there is no law which stipulates it.

Yes there is. It's the law of negligence. You owe other road users a
duty of care, and that does not allow you to run into things you don't
like or think shouldn't be there.

What a silly extreme example. There are lots of examples of behaviour
which violate the Highway Code and which don't constitute negligence or
criminal offences or running into things.

Post by Dave
There is
another common misapprehension that the Highway Code constitutes the
law of the road. It does not, although in many instances it echoes
it.

The Highway Code embodies most of the rules that you must exercise on
the road. If you do not abide by them and cause damage to someone else
or their property as a result, you will almost certainly be found not to
have fulfilled your duty of care, and will be found liable for negligence.

That depends on what they do. Another silly absolutist example.

Steve Walker

2009-09-04 22:00:42 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
The Highway Code embodies most of the rules that you must exercise on
the road. If you do not abide by them and cause damage to someone else
or their property as a result, you will almost certainly be found not to
have fulfilled your duty of care, and will be found liable for negligence.

That depends on what they do. Another silly absolutist example.

No, it was a reasonable comment.
Please disagree courteously or not at all.

m***@privacy.net

2009-09-04 16:31:16 UTC

On 4 Sep,

Post by Dave
It's good practice but there is no law which stipulates it.

Driving without due care and attention. Perhaps dangerous driving.

--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

Dave

2009-09-04 17:20:22 UTC

Post by m***@privacy.net
On 4 Sep,

Post by Dave
It's good practice but there is no law which stipulates it.

Driving without due care and attention. Perhaps dangerous driving.

It could be that failure to adhere to the Highway Code constitutes
either of those offences however there is nothing in the description of
those offences which states in the simplistic terms being used here that
failure to adhere the Highway Code is a sufficient test for a conviction.

Roland Perry

2009-09-04 18:46:13 UTC

Post by Ste
It is a common misapprehension to say that drivers are always expected
to drive in a manner that they can stop within the distance that they
can see

This misaprehension is apparently shared by the authors of the Highway
"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear."

The Highway Code probably also says you should drive 2-chevrons apart on
those Motorways with such chevrons painted on them and accompanying
signs. That's not enough distance to stop.

(Things do fall off the back of lorries from time to time, and I have
more than once encountered the vehicle ahead of me on the motorway stop
unpredictably suddenly, including one time where their front suspension
collapsed and another where a van span 180 degrees in the middle lane
for no apparent reason.)

--
Roland Perry

Ste

2009-09-04 21:25:15 UTC

Post by Ste
It is a common misapprehension to say that drivers are always expected
to drive in a manner that they can stop within the distance that they
can see

This misaprehension is apparently shared by the authors of the Highway
"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear."

Please re-read my sentence in its entirety - if I remember correctly
there were a number of "and" clauses, qualifications which you have
ignored.

Adrian

2009-09-04 11:35:09 UTC

Post by Ste
It is a common misapprehension to say that drivers are always expected
to drive in a manner that they can stop within the distance that they
can see, and that if they don't, and they crash, then the crash is
entirely their fault. On the contrary, it is quite possible to crash
into a parked car, and for that parked car to suffer some or all of the
blame for the crash.
Even if a car has broken down, it would be reasonable to expect the
driver to leave dipped headlamps and flashing hazard lights on if
possible, and also attempt to slow oncoming traffic if the situation
warrants it (for example, on a blind bend), and to immediately call the
police if the car cannot be moved from that place. If a driver fails to
take any of these measures without reasonable excuse, then it is highly
likely that he will shoulder some of the blame, and in extreme cases he
could suffer all of the blame (especially if, for example, he had no
lights on at all at night, and had simply left his car with the intent
to recover it the following day).

If they can't see the car, what use are lights on it?

What if it isn't a parked car, but some inanimate object such as a sack
of anvils, a loose cow, a broken manhole cover, or a flood?

Sorry, but the rights and wrongs of whether the car ought to be there do
not overcome the responsibility of the driver to avoid it.

I notice that you posted this prior to the OP expanding their answer to
include that the stationary car was not parked or broken down but waiting
to turn right when hit. How does that nugget affect your view?

Ste

2009-09-04 21:40:16 UTC

I'm afraid you are wrong. There will be *many* circumstances where the
parked car will suffer some degree of liability, and as I said it is
not unheard of for the parked car (or a person responsible for a
stationery obstacle) to suffer 100% liability (although in these
latter cases a person's conduct would probably have to be
reprehensible).

Post by Adrian
I notice that you posted this prior to the OP expanding their answer to
include that the stationary car was not parked or broken down but waiting
to turn right when hit. How does that nugget affect your view?

As a result of the further information, I would say the the "middle
car" is entirely to blame for the initial crash (unless the car
turning had stopped in an unecessarily dangerous position, ect), and
the OP's daughter is probably wholly to blame for the second crash
(again, assuming that the middle car's lights were functional, etc).

Stuart A. Bronstein

2009-09-04 22:15:54 UTC

Post by Adrian
Sorry, but the rights and wrongs of whether the car ought to be
there do not overcome the responsibility of the driver to avoid
it.

I'm afraid you are wrong. There will be *many* circumstances
where the parked car will suffer some degree of liability, and
as I said it is not unheard of for the parked car (or a person
responsible for a stationery obstacle) to suffer 100% liability
(although in these latter cases a person's conduct would
probably have to be reprehensible).

I remember seeing a case where someone smashed into a parked car.
His defence was that the car was parked illegally: the meter where it
was parked had run out of time.

You can imagine what the court did with that.

--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com

Ste

2009-09-05 15:40:12 UTC

Post by Adrian
Sorry, but the rights and wrongs of whether the car ought to be
there do not overcome the responsibility of the driver to avoid
it.

I'm afraid you are wrong. There will be *many* circumstances
where the parked car will suffer some degree of liability, and
as I said it is not unheard of for the parked car (or a person
responsible for a stationery obstacle) to suffer 100% liability
(although in these latter cases a person's conduct would
probably have to be reprehensible).

The court would be entitled to ask "could the crash have been avoided
if the driver of the parked car had paid for extra parking time"? If
the answer is no, then the time (if any) remaining on the meter is a
irrelevant factor in the crash.

On the other hand, if the car had been parked at night, in a situation
where there was a requirement to leave side lights on, and the driver
of the parked car had not left his side lights on, then the court may
well have asked "could the crash have been avoided if the parked car
had it's lights on"? If the answer is yes, then it's quite likely that
the driver of the parked car will share in liability for the crash.

unknown

2009-09-04 22:45:27 UTC

Post by Adrian
Sorry, but the rights and wrongs of whether the car ought to be there do
not overcome the responsibility of the driver to avoid it.

I'm afraid you are wrong.

He's not.

Post by Ste
There will be *many* circumstances where the parked car will suffer some
degree of liability,

I've never encountered such an argument succeeding.

Post by Ste
and as I said it is not unheard of for the parked car (or a person
responsible for a stationery obstacle) to suffer 100% liability (although
in these latter cases a person's conduct would probably have to be
reprehensible).

You've said it, but that doesn't make the statement accurate or correct.

Ste

2009-09-05 15:55:13 UTC

Post by Adrian
Sorry, but the rights and wrongs of whether the car ought to be there do
not overcome the responsibility of the driver to avoid it.

I'm afraid you are wrong.

He's not.

I'm afraid he is. No one disputes the requirement for drivers to avoid
collisions, but that responsibility falls as much on the parked car as
on the moving car. If both drivers can be said to have acted
negligently in failing to prevent or avoid the collision, then both
will share in liability.

Post by Ste
There will be *many* circumstances where the parked car will suffer some
degree of liability,

I've never encountered such an argument succeeding.

As I've said, one situation is where a parked car has failed to leave
their lights on at night when required to do so. Another situation is
where there is some protrusion from a vehicle that is not properly
marked, and the moving car collides with the protrusion (again, more
likely to occur at night). I accept that the circumstances will be
relatively rare, but it is false to say that a parked car can never
share in liability for a crash.

unknown

2009-09-05 22:15:21 UTC

Post by Adrian
Sorry, but the rights and wrongs of whether the car ought to be there do
not overcome the responsibility of the driver to avoid it.

I'm afraid you are wrong.

He's not.

I'm afraid he is.

No, he's not. But I don't intend to indulge in sterile negation, so that
will be my last word in this part of the thread.

Ste

2009-09-05 23:45:33 UTC

Post by Adrian
Sorry, but the rights and wrongs of whether the car ought to be there do
not overcome the responsibility of the driver to avoid it.

I'm afraid you are wrong.

He's not.

I'm afraid he is.

No, he's not. But I don't intend to indulge in sterile negation, so that
will be my last word in this part of the thread.

If you are determined to have an authority I would simply refer you
then to paragraph 4-12 of the Law of Motor Insurance (Sweet &
Maxwell), which I've typed out here verbatim for your consideration:

"It is a breach of the standard of reasonable care to park a vehicle
on a road in a manner which causes an obstruction or a danger (e.g. if
it is parked on a bend), and if the obstruction or danger is the
proximate cause of the claimant's loss then he has an action for
damages.
"[...] In many cases involving accidents with parked vehicles, both
the person leaving the vehicle on the highway and the person colliding
with it will be to blame for any collision.
"Parking may be unsafe for reasons other than positioning: a vehicle
which is parked in a manner in which it is not easily seen and unlit,
or with its engine running, or in a fashion that may cause it to roll
downhill may be negligently parked."

For the avoidance of doubt here, the "unseen and unlit" case (Hannam v
Mann [1984]) involved a rider driving carelessly who collided with a
parked car, the "engine running" case (Hambrook v Stokes [1925])
involved a mother who suffered psychiatric injury when she saw a
runaway lorry go past the window which she was later told had injured
her children.

Also consider Billington v Maguire [2001] (driver of a works vehicle
pulled up in a cycle lane and then without haste exited his vehicle,
cyclist riding with head down then ran into the back of the vehicle,
driver of the works vehicle held to be 30% to blame).

Percy Picacity

2009-09-06 09:15:21 UTC

Ste <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:06ae3998-bc0a-4fba-aebc-7710b4ef3f97
@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.co

Post by Adrian
Sorry, but the rights and wrongs of whether the car ought
to be there do not overcome the responsibility of the
driver to avoid it.

I'm afraid you are wrong.

He's not.

I'm afraid he is.

No, he's not. But I don't intend to indulge in sterile negation,
so that will be my last word in this part of the thread.

If you are determined to have an authority I would simply refer
you then to paragraph 4-12 of the Law of Motor Insurance (Sweet &
Maxwell), which I've typed out here verbatim for your
"It is a breach of the standard of reasonable care to park a
vehicle on a road in a manner which causes an obstruction or a
danger (e.g. if it is parked on a bend), and if the obstruction or
danger is the proximate cause of the claimant's loss then he has
an action for damages.
"[...] In many cases involving accidents with parked vehicles,
both the person leaving the vehicle on the highway and the person
colliding with it will be to blame for any collision.
"Parking may be unsafe for reasons other than positioning: a
vehicle which is parked in a manner in which it is not easily seen
and unlit, or with its engine running, or in a fashion that may
cause it to roll downhill may be negligently parked."
For the avoidance of doubt here, the "unseen and unlit" case
(Hannam v Mann [1984]) involved a rider driving carelessly who
collided with a parked car, the "engine running" case (Hambrook v
Stokes [1925]) involved a mother who suffered psychiatric injury
when she saw a runaway lorry go past the window which she was
later told had injured her children.
Also consider Billington v Maguire [2001] (driver of a works
vehicle pulled up in a cycle lane and then without haste exited
his vehicle, cyclist riding with head down then ran into the back
of the vehicle, driver of the works vehicle held to be 30% to
blame).

The original statement was that any negligence by the stationary
car's driver does not negate the duty of a driver to avoid a
stationary car. Although some of your cases show that contributory
negligence can exist, none of them negate that duty totally. The
original statement was true, and you do not appear to argue with it,
only with what it didn't say. You have presented no case either
legal or practical where the stationary car is 100% to blame, nor is
one likely, except perhaps involving deliberate camouflage or
teleportation.[1]

[1] I doubt if there is any precedent as to whether an object
teleported suddenly into existence can be said to be stationary or
not.

--
Percy Picacity

Ste

2009-09-06 14:35:07 UTC

Post by Percy Picacity
news:06ae3998-bc0a-4fba-aebc-7710b4ef3f97
@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.co

Post by Adrian
Sorry, but the rights and wrongs of whether the car ought
to be there do not overcome the responsibility of the
driver to avoid it.

I'm afraid you are wrong.

He's not.

I'm afraid he is.

No, he's not. But I don't intend to indulge in sterile negation,
so that will be my last word in this part of the thread.

If you are determined to have an authority I would simply refer
you then to paragraph 4-12 of the Law of Motor Insurance (Sweet &
Maxwell), which I've typed out here verbatim for your
"It is a breach of the standard of reasonable care to park a
vehicle on a road in a manner which causes an obstruction or a
danger (e.g. if it is parked on a bend), and if the obstruction or
danger is the proximate cause of the claimant's loss then he has
an action for damages.
"[...] In many cases involving accidents with parked vehicles,
both the person leaving the vehicle on the highway and the person
colliding with it will be to blame for any collision.
"Parking may be unsafe for reasons other than positioning: a
vehicle which is parked in a manner in which it is not easily seen
and unlit, or with its engine running, or in a fashion that may
cause it to roll downhill may be negligently parked."
For the avoidance of doubt here, the "unseen and unlit" case
(Hannam v Mann [1984]) involved a rider driving carelessly who
collided with a parked car, the "engine running" case (Hambrook v
Stokes [1925]) involved a mother who suffered psychiatric injury
when she saw a runaway lorry go past the window which she was
later told had injured her children.
Also consider Billington v Maguire [2001] (driver of a works
vehicle pulled up in a cycle lane and then without haste exited
his vehicle, cyclist riding with head down then ran into the back
of the vehicle, driver of the works vehicle held to be 30% to
blame).

On the contrary Percy. Some posters here appeared quite emphatic that
a parked car could not share in liability for a collision, and I may
be mistaken but what posters appeared to be saying was that the duty
of a driver to avoid stationary obstacles was total.

I disagreed with that proposition, and I gave examples of situations
where the driver of a parked car could share in liability, and I also
suggested that a person responsible for a fixed obstacle could be 100%
liable if their conduct was "reprehensible". I have now provided
authorities for my proposition that a driver of a parked car can share
in liability, and you agree with this as well as agreeing with the
proposition that a parked vehicle could be 100% liable in certain
circumstances (and my preferred example of this is the "protrusion
without visible markings or reflectors").

This has been my position from the outset.

Percy Picacity

2009-09-06 16:20:15 UTC

Post by Ste
This has been my position from the outset.

And the "yes he is", "no he isn't" conversation started following a
statement entirely consistent with your current position.

However, you have previously stated that the stationary vehicle might
be 100% to blame, from which it follows that the driver of the moving
vehicle would be entirely blameless. Do you now repudiate that
position?

--
Percy Picacity

Ste

2009-09-07 17:10:09 UTC

Post by Percy Picacity

Post by Ste
This has been my position from the outset.

And the "yes he is", "no he isn't" conversation started following a
statement entirely consistent with your current position.

Post by Adrian
Sorry, but the rights and wrongs of whether the car ought to be there do
not overcome the responsibility of the driver to avoid it.

I'm afraid you are wrong.

He's not.

Post by Ste
There will be *many* circumstances where the parked car will suffer some
degree of liability,

I've never encountered such an argument succeeding.

Unless I've misunderstood, Steve is clearly of the view that it is not
possible for a parked car to "suffer some degree of liability".

Many other posters seemed to take a similar tack, apparently arguing
from the position that if a moving car crashes into a parked car or
stationary object, then the driver of the moving car is wholly to
blame, and I'm afraid that argument is simply not correct.

In the Billington case remember, the driver parked a works van in
broad daylight, and had pulled up, turned the engine off, and exited
his vehicle by time a cyclist crashed into the back of the van, and
yet he still suffered 30% contributory negligence for parking where he
did.

Post by Percy Picacity
However, you have previously stated that the stationary vehicle might
be 100% to blame, from which it follows that the driver of the moving
vehicle would be entirely blameless. Do you now repudiate that
position?

No, what I have said is that some responsible for a parked car, or for
a stationary object, *may* be 100% to blame, and that is a correct
statement of law. The fact that the circumstances wold be very unusual
does not make that statement incorrect.

One good example I think is where a flatbed lorry is parked at night
with, say, unmarked pipework overhanging into the road, a road which
is narrow and windy, and as the driver approaches another car comes
into view with main beam on, and the dazzle effect combined with the
fact that the pipework is already very hard to see means the driver
cannot see the pipework and as a result collides with the pipework
(even though he thought he'd left plenty of gap between himself and
the lorry). In my opinion, that would be a situation where the flatbed
driver would probably suffer 100% blame.

Steve Walker

2009-09-06 11:01:43 UTC

Post by Ste
If you are determined to have an authority I would simply refer you
then to paragraph 4-12 of the Law of Motor Insurance (Sweet &

Thanks Ste, I personally find references to relevant texts & cases are very
useful

Ste

2009-09-06 15:10:51 UTC

Post by Steve Walker

Post by Ste
If you are determined to have an authority I would simply refer you
then to paragraph 4-12 of the Law of Motor Insurance (Sweet &

Thanks Ste, I personally find references to relevant texts & cases are very
useful

I would offer them more often, but for obvious reasons it is very time
consuming, especially without the resources of a large law practice.

unknown

2009-09-06 23:45:17 UTC

Post by Adrian
Sorry, but the rights and wrongs of whether the car ought to be
there do not overcome the responsibility of the driver to avoid
it.

I'm afraid you are wrong.

He's not.

I'm afraid he is.

No, he's not. But I don't intend to indulge in sterile negation, so that
will be my last word in this part of the thread.

If you are determined to have an authority I would simply refer you
then to paragraph 4-12 of the Law of Motor Insurance (Sweet &

I'm sorry you appear to have misunderstood all of the preceding
statements and the relevance of the law that you have quoted.

The Todal

2009-09-05 10:45:19 UTC

Post by Neil Williams

Post by a***@b.invalid
In a fatal RTA that I was personally involved with, the driver that
drove into the wreckage of a previous collision on a blind bend was
found to be blameless.

I agree. To put it another way: to say that if you collide with the car in
front it is inevitably your fault, is simply not an accurate statement of
the law. It is a statement of common sense but doesn't always fit with the
facts of a real life situation. It is certainly likely that *some* part of
the blame would rest upon you, but not inevitable. So the correct answer to
the original question posed by the OP is no, there is no "automatic" fault
(liability) here.

The courts have occasionally considered the point. See eg
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/56.html

"I deal first with Ms Rodway's submission that, in cases where a following
driver runs into a visible and stationary obstruction, there is a convention
that the following driver it more to blame. I accept the judge's formulation
that normally it will follow that the following driver will bear the greater
blame but I do not accept that in any sense this amounts to a convention.
Each case will turn, as in my judgment this one does, on its own individual
facts".

Google for Morris v Luton Corporation, which makes much the same point.

See also http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/1609.html

In the scenario described by the OP, his daughter's insurers will deal with
any claim against her and it is likely that they will be persuaded by the
other parties that she is at least partly liable. Even if she firmly
believes that she was without any fault at all, and even if her belief is
well-grounded, she is not likely to have the opportunity to fight this all
the way to court to prove it - not unless she is willing to take on
responsibility for the legal costs if she loses.

Peter Andrews

2009-09-03 16:55:10 UTC

AIUI you 'should' be able to stop within the distance that you can see. I
assume (always dangerous) that she came round a bend and also assumed that
as it's a clearway it should be clear - wrong! That's not to say that 90%
of us also always drive too fast but if you don't hit anything then it's OK
:-)

Peter

Anthony R. Gold

2009-09-03 18:16:08 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash into
anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there exceptions?

There are exceptions for when the accident was not the result of
negligence, for example sudden and unpredictable incapacity from illness or
unpredictable mechanical fault that develops in a vehicle that has been
maintained in a good state of roadworthiness.

Post by GP Hardy
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway, and
she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite that simple,
but her arguments become academic if there's automatic blame to be had.

It may be possible to argue that some negligence was contributed by the
illegal parking on the clearway, but as there is no mention of any criminal
complaint it would be simplest to leave it all to the insurance companies.

Tony

sparky51

2009-09-04 02:25:08 UTC

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:40:13 +0100, "GP Hardy"
-
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash into
anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there exceptions?-
There are exceptions for when the accident was not the result of
negligence, for example sudden and unpredictable incapacity from illness or
unpredictable mechanical fault that develops in a vehicle that has been
maintained in a good state of roadworthiness.
-
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway, and
she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite that simple,
but her arguments become academic if there's automatic blame to be
had. -
It may be possible to argue that some negligence was contributed by the
illegal parking on the clearway, but as there is no mention of any criminal
complaint it would be simplest to leave it all to the insurance companies.
Tony

OP Please explain what is 'not quite that simple'

--
sparky51

Neil Williams

2009-09-04 08:31:22 UTC

Post by Anthony R. Gold
It may be possible to argue that some negligence was contributed by the
illegal parking on the clearway

Alternatively, it is quite feasible that the vehicle had broken down
such that it could not be moved? Or, worse, it could have been a
pedestrian or cyclist lying in the road.

Neil

Steve Walker

2009-09-03 21:03:45 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash
into anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway, and
she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite that
simple, but her arguments become academic if there's automatic blame to
be had.

She's flogging a dead horse.... :o)

Ste

2009-09-03 16:55:11 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash into
anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway, and
she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite that simple,
but her arguments become academic if there's automatic blame to be had.

You are not automatically at fault 100%. Certainly if the bend was
"blind", and the road is a clearway, then it's quite arguable that the
driver of the other car is partly or even wholly to blame for the
crash.

What are the rest of the circumstances of the crash? (i.e. was it at
night, no lights on the other car, was your daughter speeding, etc.)

Paul Rudin

2009-09-04 06:40:33 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash into
anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway, and
she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite that simple,
but her arguments become academic if there's automatic blame to be had.

Well - the Highway Code advises you to ensure that you can always stop
within the distance that you can see clearly. If a bend is really
"blind" you need to slow down sufficiently.

That's not to say that people should leave cars parked willy-nilly in
silly places, but neverthless - imagine that there had been som kind of
hold-up requiring a perfectly careful and well-behaved driver to stop
just where the car had been left...

Percy Picacity

2009-09-04 07:20:14 UTC

Ste <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:5cf4d443-7687-4ed5-8a87-c33a8cf0fed7
@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.co

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you
crash into anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are
there exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a
clearway, and she's trying to convince me it's not her fault.
It's not quite that simple, but her arguments become academic if
there's automatic blame to be had.

We have had this one before: the other driver is certainly not
wholly to blame for the accident, any more than if he had been a
stationary horse, or old lady crossing the road with her Zimmer
frame. As far as the OP is concerned, degree of blame is academic
as far as no claims bonus is concerned, as there is clearly some
blame attached to the OP's daughter.

Post by Ste
What are the rest of the circumstances of the crash? (i.e. was it
at night, no lights on the other car, was your daughter speeding,
etc.)

--
Percy Picacity

2009-09-04 08:47:02 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash into
anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway, and
she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite that simple,
but her arguments become academic if there's automatic blame to be had.

Its always arguable, but it sounds like she has a very weak case for
her claim. Lets hope she learns to take responsibility for her actions
before she kills someone. Regrettably many drivers don't.

NT

The Todal

2009-09-05 10:20:13 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you
crash into anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there
exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway,
and she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite
that simple, but her arguments become academic if there's automatic
blame to be had.

Its always arguable, but it sounds like she has a very weak case for
her claim. Lets hope she learns to take responsibility for her actions
before she kills someone. Regrettably many drivers don't.

I can't see that this sort of remark serves any purpose. The driver
(stepdaughter) has asked for legal advice, and there is no reason at all to
assume that she is a bad or irresponsible driver.

Norman Wells

2009-09-05 10:50:30 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you
crash into anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there
exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway,
and she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite
that simple, but her arguments become academic if there's automatic
blame to be had.

Its always arguable, but it sounds like she has a very weak case for
her claim. Lets hope she learns to take responsibility for her
actions before she kills someone. Regrettably many drivers don't.

I can't see that this sort of remark serves any purpose. The driver
(stepdaughter) has asked for legal advice, and there is no reason at
all to assume that she is a bad or irresponsible driver.

Other than she hit something that had a perfect right to be where it was,
and was not moving, obviously.

The Todal

2009-09-05 11:10:17 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you
crash into anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there
exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway,
and she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite
that simple, but her arguments become academic if there's automatic
blame to be had.

Its always arguable, but it sounds like she has a very weak case for
her claim. Lets hope she learns to take responsibility for her
actions before she kills someone. Regrettably many drivers don't.

I can't see that this sort of remark serves any purpose. The driver
(stepdaughter) has asked for legal advice, and there is no reason at
all to assume that she is a bad or irresponsible driver.

Other than she hit something that had a perfect right to be where it
was, and was not moving, obviously.

The story as given is:
"She hit the car in front of her after it crashed into a stationary car
(without braking) on a 60mph clearway".

So I can only re-iterate that there is nothing in the story to suggest that
she is a bad or irresponsible driver.

Dr Zoidberg

2009-09-05 12:05:20 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you
crash into anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there
exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway,
and she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite
that simple, but her arguments become academic if there's automatic
blame to be had.

Its always arguable, but it sounds like she has a very weak case for
her claim. Lets hope she learns to take responsibility for her
actions before she kills someone. Regrettably many drivers don't.

I can't see that this sort of remark serves any purpose. The driver
(stepdaughter) has asked for legal advice, and there is no reason at
all to assume that she is a bad or irresponsible driver.

Other than she hit something that had a perfect right to be where it was,
and was not moving, obviously.

The wreckage of an accident that happened just in front of her , you mean?

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

Norman Wells

2009-09-05 12:15:21 UTC

Post by Dr Zoidberg

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you
crash into anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there
exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a
clearway, and she's trying to convince me it's not her fault.
It's not quite that simple, but her arguments become academic if
there's automatic blame to be had.

Its always arguable, but it sounds like she has a very weak case
for her claim. Lets hope she learns to take responsibility for her
actions before she kills someone. Regrettably many drivers don't.

I can't see that this sort of remark serves any purpose. The driver
(stepdaughter) has asked for legal advice, and there is no reason at
all to assume that she is a bad or irresponsible driver.

Other than she hit something that had a perfect right to be where it
was, and was not moving, obviously.

The wreckage of an accident that happened just in front of her , you mean?

I mean the two cars, very close together, that were in the correct position
for turning right off the road.

Steve Walker

2009-09-05 13:02:19 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you
crash into anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there
exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway,
and she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite
that simple, but her arguments become academic if there's automatic
blame to be had.

Its always arguable, but it sounds like she has a very weak case for
her claim. Lets hope she learns to take responsibility for her
actions before she kills someone. Regrettably many drivers don't.

I can't see that this sort of remark serves any purpose. The driver
(stepdaughter) has asked for legal advice, and there is no reason at
all to assume that she is a bad or irresponsible driver.

Other than she hit something that had a perfect right to be where it was,
and was not moving, obviously.

I think the issue is the censorious tone, Norman - "learns to take
responsibility for her actions before she kills someone" is a rather
judgemental comment in my view.

Anthony R. Gold

2009-09-05 13:35:07 UTC

Post by Steve Walker
I think the issue is the censorious tone, Norman - "learns to take
responsibility for her actions before she kills someone" is a rather
judgemental comment in my view.

But is that thought of yours one that should be posted in this newsgroup?

I regret that moderators repeatedly take the position that others must do
what they say but may not do what they do.

Tony

Stuart A. Bronstein

2009-09-05 16:25:22 UTC

Post by Anthony R. Gold

Post by Steve Walker
I think the issue is the censorious tone, Norman - "learns to
take responsibility for her actions before she kills someone"
is a rather judgemental comment in my view.

But is that thought of yours one that should be posted in this
newsgroup?
I regret that moderators repeatedly take the position that
others must do what they say but may not do what they do.

Personally I prefer the lighter moderation style evidenced by the
moderators here. They seem to err on the side of allowing debate
and discussion, and only reject posts which are clearly
inappropriate or offensive. In a group of mature adults I believe
that approach works better.

In this particular instance the comment in question was a minor
part of a longer, well thought-out post. It might have been a bit
presumptuous by assuming the driver was in the wrong (but others
here have also made the same assumption). And it was more a
personal comment than a legal one. But in context I didn't find it
so inappropriate that the entire post should be rejected as a
result.

--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com

The Todal

2009-09-05 23:45:34 UTC

Post by Anthony R. Gold

Post by Steve Walker
I think the issue is the censorious tone, Norman - "learns to take
responsibility for her actions before she kills someone" is a rather
judgemental comment in my view.

But is that thought of yours one that should be posted in this newsgroup?

Yes.

Post by Anthony R. Gold
I regret that moderators repeatedly take the position that others must do
what they say but may not do what they do.

And this post would have been rejected if it had not been autoposted.

Stuart A. Bronstein

2009-09-05 16:10:12 UTC

Post by The Todal
I can't see that this sort of remark serves any purpose. The
driver (stepdaughter) has asked for legal advice, and there is
no reason at all to assume that she is a bad or irresponsibled
driver.

Other than she hit something that had a perfect right to be
where it was, and was not moving, obviously.

The other car was where it was because it had hit a stopped car while
going 60 mph. I doubt most would say it had a perfect right to be
there.

--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com

Humbug

2009-09-05 21:15:18 UTC

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:10:12 +0100, "Stuart A. Bronstein"

Other than she hit something that had a perfect right to be
where it was, and was not moving, obviously.

The other car was where it was because it had hit a stopped car while
going 60 mph. I doubt most would say it had a perfect right to be
there.

No, it had hit a stationary car on a road where the limit is 60 mph.

Apparently the stopped car was waiting to turn right against traffic
on the opposite carriageway, which is strange.

A road feature where this is possible after a blind corner should have
warning signs on the approach, and probably a reduced speed limit.

Was the stationary car perhaps waiting to make a u-turn through a gap
in the central reservation?

--
Humbug

Dave

2009-09-05 22:15:10 UTC

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein

Post by Humbug
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:10:12 +0100, "Stuart A. Bronstein"

Other than she hit something that had a perfect right to be
where it was, and was not moving, obviously.

The other car was where it was because it had hit a stopped car while
going 60 mph. I doubt most would say it had a perfect right to be
there.

No, it had hit a stationary car on a road where the limit is 60 mph.
Apparently the stopped car was waiting to turn right against traffic
on the opposite carriageway, which is strange.

IANAL But the road has been described as a 'dual carriageway'. I once
heard someone call a road a dual carriageway if it had a lane, or two
either way and no barrier in the middle. If it was a genuine 'dual
carriageway' then there would have been a safe refuge to turn right. I
think this avenue should be investigated first. Peoples interpretation
of a dual carriageway differs from the law's.

Post by Humbug
Was the stationary car perhaps waiting to make a u-turn through a gap
in the central reservation?

OMG what can I say about that?

Dave

Anthony R. Gold

2009-09-05 22:50:25 UTC

Post by Humbug
Apparently the stopped car was waiting to turn right against traffic
on the opposite carriageway, which is strange.

IANAL But the road has been described as a 'dual carriageway'.

By whom? The OP simply said it was a clearway which I understand to be a
road where no stopping is permitted http://tinyurl.com/lnvzaw and that says
nothing about lanes or dividers.

Tony

Dave

2009-09-05 23:05:11 UTC

Post by Anthony R. Gold

Post by Humbug
Apparently the stopped car was waiting to turn right against traffic
on the opposite carriageway, which is strange.

IANAL But the road has been described as a 'dual carriageway'.

By whom? The OP simply said it was a clearway which I understand to be a
road where no stopping is permitted http://tinyurl.com/lnvzaw and that says
nothing about lanes or dividers.
Tony

OK on that Tony

Dave

Humbug

2009-09-05 22:55:08 UTC

Post by Stuart A. Bronstein

Post by Humbug
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:10:12 +0100, "Stuart A. Bronstein"

Other than she hit something that had a perfect right to be
where it was, and was not moving, obviously.

The other car was where it was because it had hit a stopped car while
going 60 mph. I doubt most would say it had a perfect right to be
there.

No, it had hit a stationary car on a road where the limit is 60 mph.
Apparently the stopped car was waiting to turn right against traffic
on the opposite carriageway, which is strange.

I've looked back at the OP's posts, and it is only described as a
clearway, not a dual carriageway.

Post by Humbug
Was the stationary car perhaps waiting to make a u-turn through a gap
in the central reservation?

OMG what can I say about that?

That may be my fault for suggesting that there was a central
reservation, which in turn suggests that it was a dual carriageway.
The OP hasn't said so.

--
Humbug

Roland Perry

2009-09-06 08:35:06 UTC

Post by Dave
IANAL But the road has been described as a 'dual carriageway'. I once
heard someone call a road a dual carriageway if it had a lane, or two
either way and no barrier in the middle. If it was a genuine 'dual
carriageway' then there would have been a safe refuge to turn right. I
think this avenue should be investigated first.

There might be a refuge, but not all of them are safe. Many unsafe ones
have been removed from major roads like the A1, but plenty remain
elsewhere.

Reasons for them being unsafe include being already occupied by another
vehicle, and not being large enough to hold a complete vehicle
(especially a tractor and trailer).

--
Roland Perry

Adrian

2009-09-06 09:20:18 UTC

Apparently the stopped car was waiting to turn right against traffic on
the opposite carriageway, which is strange.

No, not really.

A road feature where this is possible after a blind corner should have
warning signs on the approach, and probably a reduced speed limit.

Did anybody say there weren't signs warning of a junction? Was it,
indeed, an actual road junction or merely a driveway?

Was the stationary car perhaps waiting to make a u-turn through a gap in
the central reservation?

What central reservation?

2009-09-05 18:00:49 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you
crash into anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there
exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway,
and she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite
that simple, but her arguments become academic if there's automatic
blame to be had.

Its always arguable, but it sounds like she has a very weak case for
her claim. Lets hope she learns to take responsibility for her
actions before she kills someone. Regrettably many drivers don't.

I can't see that this sort of remark serves any purpose. The driver
(stepdaughter) has asked for legal advice, and there is no reason at
all to assume that she is a bad or irresponsible driver.

Other than she hit something that had a perfect right to be where it was,
and was not moving, obviously.

:)

The point I was making is that if this one were argued I can see her
being in a very weak position, ie the arguments against her would be
quite strong.

Anyone else can take a different view of course, but that doesnt
decide which pov would prove more persuasive.

NT

Toom Tabard

2009-09-04 09:17:08 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash into
anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway, and
she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite that simple,
but her arguments become academic if there's automatic blame to be had.

It seems to qualify for decision under the principle of 'res ipsa
loquitor' - 'the facts speak for themselves'. There would be an
assumption that your stepdaughter is to blame ( is 'automatically at
fault' ) unless she can provide evidence to the contrary. The best she
can probably expect, depending on the actual locality and
circumstances, and the reason, or lack of reason, the other car was
there, is some (probably small) contributory negligence by the other
party.

Toom

b***@googlemail.com

2009-09-04 21:45:24 UTC

Post by Toom Tabard

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash into
anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway, and
she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite that simple,
but her arguments become academic if there's automatic blame to be had.

"It seems to qualify for decision under the principle of 'res ipsa
loquitor' - 'the facts speak for themselves'. There would be an
assumption that your stepdaughter is to blame ( is 'automatically at
fault' ) unless she can provide evidence to the contrary. "

Under what law is that? Criminal liability (such as without due care
or whatever) must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Civil liability
must be proved on the balance of probabilities - i.e is it more likely
than not that D is at fault. How can you say that D has to provide
evidence to the contrary - that's guilty until proved innocent? It
isn't the law.

Toom Tabard

2009-09-11 15:25:18 UTC

Post by b***@googlemail.com

Post by Toom Tabard

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash into
anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway, and
she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite that simple,
but her arguments become academic if there's automatic blame to be had.

"It seems to qualify for decision under the principle of 'res ipsa
loquitor' - 'the facts speak for themselves'. There would be an
assumption that your stepdaughter is to blame ( is 'automatically at
fault' ) unless she can provide evidence to the contrary. "
Under what law is that? Criminal liability (such as without due care
or whatever) must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Civil liability
must be proved on the balance of probabilities - i.e is it more likely
than not that D is at fault. How can you say that D has to provide
evidence to the contrary - that's guilty until proved innocent? It
isn't the law.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Civil liability - look up the principle of 'res ipsa loquitor' in any
book dealing with the law of liability and negligence. I believe it is
common to both English and Scots law There are many cases/
circumstances where you will be regarded as liable unless you can
offer evidence to the contrary - the classic case is when a road
vehicle hits a pedestrian on the pavement. The pedestrian is where
they are entitled to be; the vehicle is not 'entitled' to be on the
pavement. The motorist would be regarded as at fault in terms of civil
liability/negligence unless he can provide evidence he was not at
fault - eg ,was caused to swerve by the negligence of someone else,
suffered unforeseeable mechanical failure to his vehicle, etc.

Toom

Dr Zoidberg

2009-09-04 09:51:21 UTC

It is.
You should drive at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see
to be clear.

If something had caused her to swerve into the parked car - another vehicle
doing something random or child running into the road for example - she may
have a valid excuse , though unless this can be proven to have happened and
the culprit found her insurance will still see it as a fault claim.

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

Neil Williams

2009-09-04 10:16:34 UTC

Post by Dr Zoidberg
If something had caused her to swerve into the parked car - another vehicle
doing something random or child running into the road for example - she may
have a valid excuse , though unless this can be proven to have happened and
the culprit found her insurance will still see it as a fault claim.

To be fair, insurers generally term a "fault claim" as any claim where
they have had to pay out and have been unable to recover what they
paid out in full, whoever was *actually* at fault.

Neil

The Todal

2009-09-05 10:50:18 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash
into anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there
exceptions?

It's not true. I have posted to a different part of the thread, commenting
in slightly more detail.

Post by GP Hardy
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway,
and she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite
that simple, but her arguments become academic if there's automatic
blame to be had.

Just zis Guy, you know?

2009-09-05 14:05:12 UTC

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:40:13 +0100, "GP Hardy"

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash into
anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway, and
she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite that simple,
but her arguments become academic if there's automatic blame to be had.

Civil or criminal liability? Different standards of proof apply,
obviously, and civil liability can be settled on a percentage blame
basis.

The philosophical point is a separate question again (would it still
"not have been her fault" if it was a pedestrian, for example?)

Guy

--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

Francis Davey

2009-09-11 23:11:13 UTC

Post by GP Hardy
It's my understanding that you're automatically at fault if you crash into
anything that is not moving. Is this true, or are there exceptions?
My stepdaughter hit a stationary car on a blind bend on a clearway, and
she's trying to convince me it's not her fault. It's not quite that simple,
but her arguments become academic if there's automatic blame to be had.

To add some data to an (I'm afraid) very long discussion. If you are
talking about civil liability then there are, basically, no "rules".
Lots of posters seem to think there are, there aren't so ignore them.

When I was starting out as a barrister, after my pupillage, I was set
to do these sorts of no PI small claim car collision cases. We called
them "crash and bash" cases affectionately. I might have done 6 or 7 a
week (since you could fit more than one in a day if you were speedy
and they weren't in silly places like Canterbury and Norwich). So I
have seen a fair few.

The approach of the court is to ask - whose fault was it? The answer
might be that it was more than one person's fault. In a multiple car
collision (sometimes with shunting) that could be several people. The
judge will apportion the damages as best they can.

Depending on the case, you can attack it from various angles. You
might say: what *should* she have done, or what *could* she have done?
Would that (whatever it is) have been reasonable to do and would it
have avoided the accident?

Eg, I had a driver open their car while parked, following driver hit
the door. Finding was 60:40 I think. Sure, *my* driver did what he
shouldn't have done, but the other driver *could* have driven further
out, had no reason not to do so and (importantly) the circumstances
were such (people stopping cars and getting out) where as the judge
put it you might expect people to do really silly things.

As a rule stationary things do turn up in the road and, as a driver,
you have to be prepared not to hit them, if that means slowing down
around blind corners etc, then that's probably what you should do. The
fact that what you hit has no legal right to be there may mean they
are contributorily negligent, but it won't necessarily be so.

It may depend a lot on the road layout and the exact circumstances.
The question is a very common sense one.

I twice tried to defend hitting stationary objects cases and lost on
both occasions (we were moving, other driver not) and once acted for
the claimant when my driver was stationary (the other car braked too
hard, swerved and somersaulted over and landed with its roof on the
roof of my car - pretty dramatic) and won that one. Too small a sample
to know and its all about circumstances.

Francis

Invisible Man

2009-09-13 10:25:09 UTC