In cases of car accidents, is the rear driver always the party at fault?
The rear driver is not always the one who is in the wrong.
There are drivers who back into cars.
Stop at green lights.
And cut people off in lanes.
Why is it that the rear driver considered the party at fault?
Because the law assumes its the rear driver, due to the fact that in most(bumper) collisions the rear driver has been proven to be following to close to the front car's bumper.
How do the police determine who's at fault?
They determine by percentage. If a driver is 51% in the wrong they get the ticket, 49% and under are ticket free.
Should they change this law?
Yes!
Because it's not completely accurate, if one person is more in the wrong then the other they should still give the other driver a lower charge.
Here is the car I hit on December 11, 2010. They were stopped at a green light, and I didn't find a way of escape soon enough.
Here is my car. My airbag deployed, the hood is up like a tent, resolving in a none fixable or drivable car.
(It drives me crazy seeing these two pictures, seeing how little damage was done to the other car, and how much damage was done to mine.)
Not only did I have to pay the ticket (which I believe I should of received a ticket.) I paid for a class I had to take, on top of my insurance going up. And the other driver, probably only fixed his bumper. I think that he should of gotten a low price ticket, because 1 he was stopped at a green light, 2 They don't know if he was txting while driving, and if his car was stalled, as he said it was, he should of warned other drivers with his warning lights.
Solution
The government should change how they determine who's at fault in a car accident.
If both drivers are close to being at fault, then both drivers should get a ticket.
The one who has a lower percentage of fault should get a lesser charge.
And they should come up with new ways on figuring out who didn't react properly.
Hope I convinced you with my topic. :D
No comments:
Post a Comment