Deleting content as is irrelevant now and enough has been discussed. Thanks to those that actually provided helpful tips over not reading the OG post.
Brake Checked - Car Written off
SitarBoy on 23/10/2024 - 14:26
Last edited 24/10/2024 - 18:00
Last edited 24/10/2024 - 18:00
closed Comments
Going through insurance now, it seems like for the time being they are claiming I am at fault.
Maybe get your witness to complete a stat declaration and provide it to your insurance company to sort out
Thats a great idea, will ask if they are able to do this for me. Hopefully it is enough for the insurer.
Upload the footage to your insurance company and let them decide.
dont have dashcam
uh oh
Biki.. nevermind.
Is the witness a relative or friend of yours or a third party with no affiliation?
Witness is a third part with no affiliation. They were in a car parked on the side and saw the whole ordeal occur. Witness has contacted me sand said he supports my perspective in the crash.
Make sure the witness declares that he doesn't know either party nor is getting compensation.
Have asked him to do the same, thank you for your advice. This is really helpful.
It's very unfair but unfortunately, you'll be deemed at fault.
- I maintained speed and distance
- Other driver slammed the brakes
- Could not stop in time, tram tracks made it harder to stop
"Other driver slammed the brakes" - this is no different to any other emergency stop.
If you have video evidence that he did this 2-3 times prior then it may work in your favour.
Anyway, please provide us of an update.
Not quite the analogy I'd use but ,
JV , "you've done it again".
One violent brake check with dash cam proof is enough to clear you of fault as long as its clear it was pointless/wreckless/road rage braking.
Had a few friends driving trucks “accidentally” punt brake checkers and win with dash cam.
Usually gets the brake checker a few demerits and a fine too.
doesn't really clear you of fault, it does however mean they committed a cirminal act. regardless of the reason for the driver in front slamming on the brakes you are supposed to be at a distance that you can safely stop whenever this occurs.
Well the fact that they were deemed not at fault by their insurance - and no demerits given says otherwise.
But, It’s all circumstantial.
That’s why a dash cam is 100% necessary.Many brake check nose to tail accidents are avoidable, but some aren’t.
Eg: you cut off a truck - they honk - you brake check and get hit = you are at fault.I love having a dash cam in my truck for that reason. I can be slow and gentle about getting on the brakes when brake checked 😂
@El cheepo: where did he update the insurance considers him not at fault, his previous posts says they deemed him at fault? maybe I missed something?
@gromit: There seems to be a misunderstanding here.
Im talking of others experiences, but you are talking about the OP.
Moral of the story is the same though, one clear brake check with dash cam proof is generally enough to be deemed not at fault in an accident.
Edit: its worth mentioning that there is more to being deemed not at fault than the brake check though.
Eg: was it one sudden brake check after swerving into your lane and cutting you off, or was it a person following too closely and getting brake checked?
Those factors are important when assigning fault.@El cheepo: of course, but that is not the case here, the other driver was already in his lane for some time and the OP intentionally continued to follow the driver rather than turn as he had planned, he was deemed at fault and has no proof of a brake check. Yes if someone intentionally causes an accident they are criminally responsible, that doesn't excuse him driving too close to the car in front.
@gromit: As i mentioned above, I'm talking about in general - not the OP.
To be fair, my comment location is a little left of field in hindsight.
Of course there is no excuse for following closely. Best case scenario you could hope for in that situation with dash cam is a 50/50 split - but could go either way depending on how the insurance wants to interpret the footage.
No footage = automatic at fault.
You are at fault mate, if you could not stop in time that is your fault. You may not think it but you were probably tailgating. You need to maintain enough distance to be able to safely stop, simple as that.
Yes they may have baited you into the situation, but think of it in another scenario, a pedestrian runs infront of the other car and they have to slam the brakes. You would not have been able to stop.
Reasonable distance means enough distance to stop. Yeah other person may get in trouble, but doubtful your insurance will cover you if you did not have enough following distance.
they could not have foreseen them braking suddenly
That's why you need to leave a sufficient gap.
It's very easy to know when a gap is sufficient. If you don't hit the car in front when they brake, the gap is sufficient. If you do hit the car in front when they brake, the gap was insufficient.
@jv: It is called a two second gap (more seconds if the conditions are not ideal). This is what you have to demonstrate when you pass your license test. It should be sufficient to stop safely.
Maybe there was enough distance to stop
Oh, I know the answer to this one!
There wasn't, and that's why the accident occurred.
There wasn't
If the other car did not break the law, there might have been enough distance to stop.
Hard to say without seeing the footage…
@jv: Did the car break the law by forcing the person behind to travel at too close a distance?
Which driver made the decision how close behind the second car was travelling?
Did the second car leave enough distance to stop in time, and if they did, why didn't they stop in time?
@jv: give up on this one jv, when driving, you need to allow enough space from the car infront of you, that if they brake suddenly and without notice you have enough time and room to safely stop, whether or not the reason the person is braking is because someone walks onto the road suddenly without notice or they are just being a douchebag and messing with you is irrelevant, enough space means enough space, regardless of the reason the person infront put on their brakes
@Qazxswec: The only exception I feel is relevant is when a car changes lane unsafely and simultaneously brakes abruptly then resulting in the car behind to rear end as they have not had the ability to control brake \ create sufficient stopping distance.
Maybe there was enough distance to stop, but due to someone's dangerous driving, they could not have foreseen them braking suddenly.
Lol. That's kinda the point of leaving enough space for the unpredictable.
If things can be foreseen then there wouldn't be any accidents mate.
@jv: How is this any different to than if a child had run in front of the car causing them to slam the brakes? OP is 100% at fault, did not leave a reasonable distance to car in front, end of story. You're wrong.
How is this any different to than if a child had run in front of the car causing them to slam the brakes? OP is 100% at fault, did not leave a reasonable distance to car in front, end of story. You're wrong.
Because it's illegal to brake check.
@CurlCurl: You are assuming that they did brake check. All we have to go on is OPs word. Anything could have happened.
You are assuming that they did brake check. All we have to go on is OPs word. Anything could have happened.
And the majority are assuming he didn't.
@CurlCurl: That's literally how it works in court, if there is no evidence that he did, there is no offence.
Even if he did, if OP had been following at a safe distance, there would have been no collision. If the alleged brake checked had occured as soon as the other driver had cut OP off, with no warning, it may be a different matter.
OP has no evidence, and is going off feelings only.
OP has no evidence, and is going off feelings only.
I guess you missed this. I have a witness who is willing to testify that the other driver had brake checked
@CurlCurl: Did the witness have vision of inside the other parties vehicle? Something could have rolled under their foot, they may have had something run toward them at the periphery of their vision, etc etc.
A lot of the time, peoples idea of "evidence" is actually not.
@brendanm: You may have also missed this.
Witness is a third part with no affiliation. They were in a car parked on the side and saw the whole ordeal occur. Witness has contacted me sand said he supports my perspective in the crash.
A lot of the time, peoples idea of "evidence" is actually not
And lot isd
@CurlCurl: As I asked before, did the witness have vision of inside the other vehicle? Did they know what the other driver was seeing?
People always think that they know what happened, often they do not.
As I asked before, did the witness have vision of inside the other vehicle? Did they know what the other driver was seeing?
I have no idea, and neither does anyone else here.
I think the OP should take it to court and let the Law decide.
I have no idea, and neither does anyone else here.
Correct, however given the evidence, or complete lack thereof, the other driver won't be charged with a thing.
Correct, however given the evidence, or complete lack thereof, the other driver won't be charged with a thing.
Oh dear. Again you have no idea.
A lot of the time, peoples idea of "evidence" is actually not.
Are you the arbiter as to what is evidence and what is not. I thought it was the police not a random on O.B.
@CurlCurl: Yeah, as I detailed above, the police aren't going to believe some guy on the side of the road as evidence of brake checking.
For the record, I think the other driver did brake check op, I'm also just being realistic about the (extremely poor) odds of this being able to be proven.
@brendanm: How? You're expecting the other driver to potentially perjure themselves when they get asked in court to confirm or deny the independent witness' statement?
Just because the person may be loose with the law on the road, doesn't mean they'll be loose with the truth in court…
@CurlCurl: What can a witness parked on the side of the road say about a tailgating incident that occurred several minutes and considerable distance before the actual event? They might confirm brake slamming, but ultimately, the following car is always at fault. It's their responsibility to maintain a safe distance.
What can a witness parked on the side of the road say about a tailgating incident that occurred several minutes and considerable distance before the actual event? They might confirm brake slamming, but ultimately, the following car is always at fault. It's their responsibility to maintain a safe distance.
More than anyone on here can. BTW. Where do you get the several minutes from? Oh, I know, out of your butt.
but ultimately, the following car is always at fault
That is where you are so wrong.
I see you are from the NT where there are no rules.
Because it's illegal to brake check.
Again…
How is this any different to than if a child had run in front of the car causing them to slam the brakes?
The outcome is still the same.
Maybe there was enough distance to stop
Are you suggesting OP deliberately hit the other driver?
but doubtful your insurance will cover you
They sure will if they get the other driver to pay…
Should be straight forward if the other driver broke the law…
@brendanm: Can be considered dangerous or reckless driving. Proving it in this case is not easy.
https://vitalrental.com.au/is-it-illegal-to-brake-check-a-ta….
@Caped Baldy: That would require proof that brake checking actually occured. We don't have that, so the guy will not be charged with breaking the law.
If someone has already cut you off and flipped you off, you need to adjust your understanding of safe distance for that particular driver.
Situational awareness, sadly lacking generally.
so many of your posts are just pure junk… did you go to school by chance?
did you go to school by chance?
I'm a teacher
You must be new here. Jv is just a troll that only replies to up their post count and I can count on one hand how many useful contributions they've made to a thread.
him out
Her out.
I think part of the problem is jv's recently enforced break from posting has put her average down so she has to close the gap between her shitposts to stay on track for that meaningful 200,000 target
Thank you for your reasonable take. I have learnt my lesson, from this.
The real lesson is to buy a dashcam.
Best dashcam reccos?
Dashcam would show op smashing into the other driver, not keeping distance and whatnot. Would be satisfying to watch though
Yeah it happens bro, at least you learned your lesson without further consequence and are hopefully unhurt.
I speak from experience as I too rear ended someone some years ago. They were doing the wrong thing turning right at a no right turn, but I was still at fault for hitting them. Lesson learned and I drive a lot more carefully, with a much bigger gap now. Still get to destination at the same time but a lot safer by having bigger gap.
Not sure about the exact distances and circumstances in OP's situation, but hypothetically, if I'm a safe distance from the car directly in front, but another car merges (quickly and perhaps somewhat unsafely) in front of me, would I still be at fault if they immediately brake check me and I collide into them? Their merging in seriously cut the distance I'd be able to maintain and quick braking soon after means I don't have much time to let the distance grow again.
This is where having a dash cam helps. If they cut you off and you hit them without time to adjust your gap, then you are not at fault.
However if say they cut infront of you, and you proceed to follow without increasing your gap for a bit, THEN you rear end them, you would be at fault.
If you hit someone's back, most likely you will be at fault
Not always…
It's a sucker punch
Any advice on this at all?
Give the video to police and they will most likely be charged with dangerous driving.
Dont have dashcam footage, I only have footage from a nearby business showing he merged into my lane in the middle of an intersection.
Time to get a dashcam then…
My other cars do, this one didnt :(
@Mechz: Yeah I am aware, just wondering if anyone has been through something similar and if they were able to prove reckless driving on the other drivers part.
I already know Im at fault and I am going in with that mindset anyway.
to be brake checked you basically need to be tailgating, otherwise he wouldn't have brake checked. also the fact that you decided to not turn right and follow him means you were definitely tailgating.
otherwise he wouldn't have brake checked.
not always true… lots of idiots on the roads these days.
He brake checked as he was unhappy with me honking at him at the intersection. He gave me the middle finger for doing that as well.
Definitely don't tailgate someone after you've honked at them and they flipped you off.
Wasn't tailgating and I have learnt my lesson on even being remotely close to these people. I know everyone is saying I must have been tailgating, I genuinely did try and stop and slammed my brakes too.
@SitarBoy: You were driving too close, or would have had enough stopping distance. Yes, he slammed on his brakes, but people do this for reasons unrelated to road rage.
What if the driver in front of you slammed on the brakes because they just saw a pothole, a kid jumped in front, or a ladder fell off the ute ahead of them? You were driving too close, aka tailgating.
@SitarBoy: If you genuinely did try and stop then you WERE tailgating. i.e. you were too close and unable to stop safely in an emergency
@SitarBoy: was the person behind you also tailgating, or did they leave enough space to not hit you.
There's too many unhinged people on the road that are easily aggravated, better to just let it go and note down their number plate for alternative action.
to be brake checked you basically need to be tailgating, otherwise he wouldn't have brake checked. also the fact that you decided to not turn right and follow him means you were definitely tailgating.
What a lot of rot.
You weren't there so you have NFI.
Not if someone cuts you off and slams on the brakes, that's pretty much how brake checking goes.
Brake checking occurred maybe 50-60m after the cutting off
need to be tailgating, otherwise he wouldn't have brake checked
would you really brake check a tailgater? by definition, he is so close if you brake check his gonna hit you. Why would you want someone to hit you? and go through all the hassle of insurance etc etc
So I disagree with the notion one brakes checks because someone is tailgating. One should never brake check someone who is tailgating.
Dash cam video and ms paint diagram please
Has your insurance put you at fault?