Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In a situation where 2 vehichles are stopped....

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • In a situation where 2 vehichles are stopped....

    In a situation,like a stop light,where 2 vehichles are stopped,the second a good car length behind the first,and a third driver plows into the rear of the 2nd one and pushes it into the rear of the first,would the second vehichle get a ticket for being too close?
    I'm old......that's all.

  • #2
    Only LEOs should answer questions. Please see posting guidelines.
    Last edited by Ocommod1; 03-12-2011, 04:51 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ok,I'll be more specific. Say third car is doing speed limit of 40 MPH but doesn't even attempt to slow down. No skid marks,etc. Possibly lighting a smoke or changing radio stations or such. Or drunk. That's why I said plows into not just hits. Seen the situation a few times but never knew if second driver could be ticketed.
      Last edited by Ocommod1; 03-12-2011, 04:52 AM. Reason: Removed quote of deleted post
      I'm old......that's all.

      Comment


      • #4
        My mother is in insurance and she claims that Car #2 hitting Car #1 as a result of the initial impact puts some insurance liability on the driver of Car #2. I don't understand that reasoning but who really understands the reasoning of insurance companies. For crash reporting purposes, it's one crash with the most contributing event being Car #3 striking Car #2.

        Officer discretion plays a big roll in this. I wouldn't cite, you're sitting at a stop light.

        § 3310. Following too closely.
        (a) General rule.--The driver of a motor vehicle shall not
        follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and
        prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the
        traffic upon and the condition of the highway.
        That's my statute, I'd have a hard time agreeing to anyone being cited in that circumstance. Now, the driver of Car #3, that's an entirely different story. He'd be cited for that as well as possibly other things.
        West Chester University B.S. Criminal Justice: May 2009
        Delaware County Community College Municipal Police Academy Class 126: July-Dec 2009
        Full time Patrolman in Chester County, PA.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you very much for the info! I'd been told that car 2 could be responsible for being too close to car 1 when car 3 is stupid but I wasn't sure. I imagine if there's 10 feet of skid marks from car 2 being pushed into car 1 over 10 inches between the two that being too close could be reasonable. Again,thank you for your answer.
          I'm old......that's all.

          Comment


          • #6
            Insurance companies do what insurance companies do in the interest of paying the least amount possible in settling claims. While I can't speak for the Wyoming statutes there is nothing in the PA Vehicle Code that attaches any criminal liability to a driver that is legally stopped for a traffic signal or device. In section 3310 the word following implies movement a stopped vehicle is not following. I can't imagine that in a civil trial that a jury would attach liability to a driver that safely and legally stopped for a traffic signal. I would bet that the insurance company for the "sandwiched" driver would cave very quickly if their insured threated civil action. The insurance companies get away with this because people very rarely sue their own insurance companies over rate increases following a crash.
            When Society makes war on its police, it better be prepared to make friends of its criminals.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by PABear31 View Post
              Insurance companies do what insurance companies do in the interest of paying the least amount possible in settling claims. While I can't speak for the Wyoming statutes there is nothing in the PA Vehicle Code that attaches any criminal liability to a driver that is legally stopped for a traffic signal or device. In section 3310 the word following implies movement a stopped vehicle is not following. I can't imagine that in a civil trial that a jury would attach liability to a driver that safely and legally stopped for a traffic signal. I would bet that the insurance company for the "sandwiched" driver would cave very quickly if their insured threated civil action. The insurance companies get away with this because people very rarely sue their own insurance companies over rate increases following a crash.
              That makes a lot of sense when the insurance companies do the final deciding. I didn't know about the people who pull right up on the bumper of the car in front when they stop at a light. I always stay back a good car length simply because I've seen it happen and by staying back it "helps" not being pushed into the car in front if it's a low speed "bump" over being plowed into. It could also give me room to move if possible.

              I hate "surprises" and getting rear-ended is usually a surprise when it happens but to then rear-end the car in front of me would be even worse. Guess it'd make sure your car was totalled!

              And I didn't know you could sue your own insurance company! Learn something new everyday I do! Thanks for the info.
              I'm old......that's all.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by PABear31 View Post
                Insurance companies do what insurance companies do in the interest of paying the least amount possible in settling claims. While I can't speak for the Wyoming statutes there is nothing in the PA Vehicle Code that attaches any criminal liability to a driver that is legally stopped for a traffic signal or device. In section 3310 the word following implies movement a stopped vehicle is not following. I can't imagine that in a civil trial that a jury would attach liability to a driver that safely and legally stopped for a traffic signal. I would bet that the insurance company for the "sandwiched" driver would cave very quickly if their insured threated civil action. The insurance companies get away with this because people very rarely sue their own insurance companies over rate increases following a crash.
                I wasn't stating it was right, nor was I saying I agreed with it. Just passing along the information that that is how they operate.
                West Chester University B.S. Criminal Justice: May 2009
                Delaware County Community College Municipal Police Academy Class 126: July-Dec 2009
                Full time Patrolman in Chester County, PA.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by cgravines View Post
                  My mother is in insurance and she claims that Car #2 hitting Car #1 as a result of the initial impact puts some insurance liability on the driver of Car #2. I don't understand that reasoning but who really understands the reasoning of insurance companies. For crash reporting purposes, it's one crash with the most contributing event being Car #3 striking Car #2.
                  Some states use what's called comparative negligence to determine fault. Insurance companies will say that simply being present puts you at around 10% liability as a result. In this three car example, Car#3 would have the greatest amount of negligence (like 90%) and car#2 would be the next highest (say 8%) and car #1 would have the least liability (2%). [These numbers are only for illustration.]

                  We don't, however, use such a standard when determining who gets cited. If car #2 is stopped at a reasonable distance from car#1, only #3 would be cited.

                  As a general rule, you should be able to see the back tires of the car in front of you touching the ground.
                  Originally posted by kontemplerande
                  Without Germany, you would not have won World War 2.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SRT936 View Post
                    Some states use what's called comparative negligence to determine fault. Insurance companies will say that simply being present puts you at around 10% liability as a result. In this three car example, Car#3 would have the greatest amount of negligence (like 90%) and car#2 would be the next highest (say 8%) and car #1 would have the least liability (2%). [These numbers are only for illustration.]

                    We don't, however, use such a standard when determining who gets cited. If car #2 is stopped at a reasonable distance from car#1, only #3 would be cited.

                    As a general rule, you should be able to see the back tires of the car in front of you touching the ground.
                    Good rule of thumb. I get nervous when I can't see the headlights of the car behind me in my rear view,stopped or going. I bet if I can't see his lights he can't see my tires.
                    Thanks for the answer.
                    I'm old......that's all.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      cgravines, I didn't read your post as agreeing with the way insurance companies do business. When I was on the job and was asked questions about how insurance companies would attach liability, my response was that what and how insurance companies determined that was outside of our training and experience. Your response about insurance companies assigning some liability to unit 2 was a relevation to say the least. My only problem with your post was your interpretation of the word following and the belief that an officer in our beloved Commonwealth could cite someone for 3310 while the vehicle was stopped.
                      When Society makes war on its police, it better be prepared to make friends of its criminals.

                      Comment

                      MR300x250 Tablet

                      Collapse

                      What's Going On

                      Collapse

                      There are currently 4348 users online. 237 members and 4111 guests.

                      Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                      Welcome Ad

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X