Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Break checking. Who's at fault

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • Break checking. Who's at fault

    Driving home from work, a woman in an SUV tried to merge in my lane from an expressway exit. I could not move into the right lane (occupied) and there was a car behind me. So, I had no place to go.

    She got mad that I didn't let her in. So, she sped past me, moved into my lane, then slammed on her brakes to try and get me to hit her. There were no cars in front of her when she did this, and she hit the breaks so hard, her tires screeched. I have it on my dash cam.

    If I had hit her (thankfully, I did not), would I have been at fault?

  • #2
    If I had hit her (thankfully, I did not), would I have been at fault?
    Possibly. If she had done the same thing to avoid another car, or debris or an elk in the road and you hit her who would have been at fault?

    It MAY be that we could prove she intended to cause an accident or drove recklessly... what would be easy to prove is that you hit her.

    Drive like the rest of the world is full of morons, because it is, and who hit who won't be an issue.
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

    "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

    Comment


    • #3
      Both have issues.
      Now go home and get your shine box!

      Comment


      • #4
        From my perspective you commit an offence of follow too close (if there's a collision), she potentially commits an offence of dangerous or careless driving.

        Comment


        • #5
          No collision? Forget about it and move on.
          Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan

          I don't think It'll happen in the US because we don't trust our government. We are a country of skeptics, raised by skeptics, founded by skeptics. - Amaroq

          Comment


          • #6
            ...And by the way...one of my pet peeves here...if it's the devices that slow or stop a vehicle...they are BRAKES. Therefore she BRAKE-CHECKED you, not BREAK-CHECKED

            Comment


            • #7
              If you didn't have a chance to slow up and give her space, she's at fault for unnecessary braking. If you could have created distance but didn't, you're also at fault for following too closely. But it's what can you prove.
              I yell "PIKACHU" before I tase someone.

              Comment


              • #8
                Both would be at fault to some degree. If you rear-end someone, you were following too closely and / or failed to reduce speed to avoid an accident. You are required to allow adequate spacing (for contingencies such as animals / children in the roadway, etc.) between you and the vehicle in front of you. Anyone who brake-checks another driver is a complete moron; this can actually go outside of traffic offenses and end up being a criminal (reckless driving / reckless conduct, ect.) case. If someone is injured as a result of brake-checking, the driver (and their insurance carrier) is screwed.

                “Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.”

                Miyamoto Musashi

                “Life Is Hard, But It's Harder When You're Stupid”

                George V. Higgins (from The Friends of Eddie Coyle)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ateamer View Post
                  No collision? Forget about it and move on.
                  Yep...................no need to worry about something that didn't happen
                  Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                  My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I actually had this exact scenario on a traffic crash. I cited the driver (you) for following too closely even though I would side with you on this. However, Ohio law dictates that you can't follow to closely, thus why he was cited. After citing him I told him about the court date and encouraged him to try it in court as I was curious too. Case went to court and the magistrate sided with unit2 and stated that even though their action was unsafe, you still must maintain an assured clear distance no matter what. This ruling may vary jurisdiction to jurisdiction however I would say there is a general consensus on it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by photone View Post
                      ...And by the way...one of my pet peeves here...if it's the devices that slow or stop a vehicle...they are BRAKES. Therefore she BRAKE-CHECKED you, not BREAK-CHECKED
                      Yep.

                      This is a BREAK-check:


                      This is a BRAKE-check:


                      Then again, so is this:
                      Originally posted by kontemplerande
                      Without Germany, you would not have won World War 2.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I would say it is going to be your word against the other party's and absent any independent witnesses, you are most likely going to be at fault.
                        My comments are my personal opinion and are based on my life experiences and training. They are not to be construed as legal advice in any form as I am not an attorney. Should you act on any of the information I provide in my comments, you do so at your own risk!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by OHbuck15 View Post
                          I actually had this exact scenario on a traffic crash. I cited the driver (you) for following too closely even though I would side with you on this. However, Ohio law dictates that you can't follow to closely, thus why he was cited. After citing him I told him about the court date and encouraged him to try it in court as I was curious too. Case went to court and the magistrate sided with unit2 and stated that even though their action was unsafe, you still must maintain an assured clear distance no matter what. This ruling may vary jurisdiction to jurisdiction however I would say there is a general consensus on it.
                          That is exactly how it would have played out in Iowa...........
                          Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                          My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thanks everybody!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Rotors should have less than .002" runout with a dial indicator. Seriously, I deal with lane cutters and brake checkers everyday. I just play the game nicely, and if it adds an extra two to four minute to my commute, then so be it. People who play that game are not following a recipe of success in life, and the cops have a lot of better things to do that I'd rather they focus on.
                              Chill.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5638 users online. 318 members and 5320 guests.

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

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X