[jackstrath]

yeh wouldnt use that video , yeh you can see the other driver stopped sharply , but the pug stopped fine , its going to look like your brother was trying to make it through the lights , then again as others said looks like he wasnt looking where he was going as it doesnt even look like he hit the brakes

Originally Posted by Kerr

100% his fault without any argument. If you are too close to the car in front and can't stop, it's always the driver behind at fault.

Originally Posted by Yoro35i

A good driver concentrating on the road would be able to react.

Video also shows the light turned red the moment he was crossing the light...

wouldn't use this footage to argue.

but since the family is ok thats all it matters.money can be work for again so i wouldn't make a fuss about it.

Would automatically be his fault going into the back of someone, insurance wouldn't even bother trying to argue for your sake.

my uncle was following a car with more than 2 second gap on a rainy day. a lorry went pass and make a hugh puddle over the car in front. women got scared and slammed the brakes!! Then the lorry went pass my uncle and got a puddle over him.. the wipers didn't have a chance to even react and bang!!

as for the highlighted comments above , wrong , i know of 2 cases personaly where the person that stamped on the brakes for no reason was not only done for the accedent , but in there small print on there insurance it was then void as they had delibertly caused an accedent

[Russbmw]

Yes, I'm sure if you look hard enough you will find exceptions to the norm for anything - but what everyone has said here is the case in most scenarios - you'll have to have extenuating circumstances to get away with ploughing into the back of someone who has managed to stop themselves infront of you.

However, clearly seeing the video, it shows no attempt at braking whatsoever, so without any trace of skid marks or attempt to stop either on the road or from witnesses, I highly doubt any insurance lawyer will have a leg to stand on.

[E92Dan]

Originally Posted by jackstrath

yeh wouldnt use that video , yeh you can see the other driver stopped sharply , but the pug stopped fine , its going to look like your brother was trying to make it through the lights , then again as others said looks like he wasnt looking where he was going as it doesnt even look like he hit the brakes





as for the highlighted comments above , wrong , i know of 2 cases personaly where the person that stamped on the brakes for no reason was not only done for the accedent , but in there small print on there insurance it was then void as they had delibertly caused an accedent

Yes, but the driver in front had cause to slow down, the guy behind was driving to close and crashed into the back. It was 100% his fault

[Raju88]

I was a claims handler for two years, liability will lie with the driver who has crashed into the back of someone else 100% unless there is reason to suspect fraud, otherwise the reasoning behind this will be that he did not leave enough space between cars therefore if he had kept a proper distance he would have been able to brake in time.