...because if you're following at a safe enough distance, you won't hit someone even if they slam on the brakes. That's the entire concept behind many of the tactics promoted by safe driving education.

 

Well, to give a little more detail on that, I hate people that follow "too close". It's actually my number one peeve right before people that don't use turn signals. Anyhow, she "slammed" on her brakes. This was no ordinary hard brake, this woman stopped on a dime from a 65mph roll. I had no chance. I was definitley paying attention and hit my brakes immediately which barely saved me from sticking my head up her butt and coming out her mouth. Whatever she thought she saw scared the hell out of her and she put the brake pedal through the floor. Regardless, once again, I never denied my fault. That just doesn't change the fact that I can drive in front of any one of you at a normal speed and a good distance in front of you and if my brakes are good enough, I can still "make" you hit me. (No, there was no room to change lanes)

 

I like your qualifier "if my brakes are good enough". Yes, clearly if your brakes can take your car from 60-0 in one second, most people following you will hit you. However, assuming similar brake performance, the only other factor is response time and that is completely under the control of every driver.

As I stated, the point of defensive driving - which is a core principle in pretty much any state-sponsored drivers' ed course over the last couple decades - is to prevent accidents even when idiots around you undertake stupid and unpredictable actions. Obviously there are some decisions that result in unavoidable accidents, but rear-ending someone who has been in the lane in front of you is completely avoidable; that's why it is universally your fault.

 

This is a typical situation in which on-scene photos may yet prove invaluable. There are a number of scams that include switching a lightly-damaged car for a similar total wreck, exchanging plates, and filing a claim. There is also the medical claim that could follow with an unscrupulous physician attesting to serious long-term injuries. A few pictures at the scene that clearly identify the cars involved, license plates, and the individuals involved would prove very useful should the case go to trial.

Scammers know they don't have to make much of a case. Most insurance companies find it easier and cheaper to simply pay the claim than to fight it in court where they still could lose. There are criminals who depend on this lack of diligence on the part of insurance companies and support a rather nice lifestyle while honest motorists pay ever-higher premiums to support them.

 

On-scene photos after an accident are invaluable, and I always recommend drivers carry a digital camera or leave one in their vehicle for this purpose. In fact, it's the reason I first bought a digital camera and I always have it with me when driving. I suppose a cell phone camera can serve this purpose too, but the quality may be troublesome; a dedicated digital camera will generally provide better pictures.

Yeah, it's scary how bad the insurance companies are in terms of investigating potentially fraudulent activity. One of my golf buddies is a litigating lawyer who once told me about a case he took up for the "driver at fault" (who used DMV bonds instead of insurance) who was sued by the "victim" of a rear-end accident. The driver being sued had claimed that the "victim" used a typical staged accident setup where the "victim" swerved in front of him and then slammed on the brakes.

Well, it turns out that the "victim" had records of insurance claims from rear-end accidents in something like 8 states, and in each case he claimed to have medical problems from back injuries and collected big settlements from insurance companies. It was obvious this guy was just moving from place to place, collecting a big check, and moving on to avoid fraud investigation. Upon presenting this evidence to opposing attorneys, the suit was withdrawn and the "victim" was later arrested. Sometimes, I'm honestly not sure what's worse - the fact that the guy was perpetrating insurance fraud, or that the insurance companies in at least 8 accidents (or c'mon, at least the last 5-6 of them) didn't even bother to check the guy's background before paying him off.

Obviously, it's a lot easier for the insurance companies just to jack up everyone's rates rather than hiring competent investigators and implementing effective anti-fraud policies.

 

I wasn't implying that I need to go from 60-0 in one second. Just like with these scams you a referring to, I can get in front of you travelling 60 mph and if I slam on the brakes full force to "make" you hit me. It is by no means, completely within my control to prevent myself from rear ending someone based soley on my reaction time. I guarantee you there are other factors involved. Regardless, this is not my arguement. That's not a fight I'm willing to take. If she had a valid license I wouldn't have given this a second thought.

 

Yet you still felt the need to qualify your statement by bringing brake power into consideration, which demonstrates my point. The relevance here is the vehicle and driver dynamics that are involved.

In which case, it's a scam, and not my fault. I don't see your point here; the scams do not support your original statement.

Again, as I stated previously, if you have been in the same lane as the driver in front of you, it is completely under your control. Rear-ending would not universally be the fault of the following driver if it was not. Period. If you truly believe you cannot prevent this type of collision, you are not a safe driver.

You may not have intended to make an argument, but I simply cannot comprehend your suggestion that you could drive in front of any member of the forums here, brake, and cause us to crash. It's absurd. We're not all unsafe drivers.

 

I agree....

 

I understand now, it's only fully under your control if it's not a scam. That makes more sense. If you truely believe what you're saying about having total control in the situation when someone is in the lane in front of you, then it doesn't matter if the person is trying to scam you or not...because you have control gengar, not the scammer. No point in continuing on this tangent anyway. I already admitted "fault" from the very beginning, so I appreciate you setting me straight. In the end, my insurance company can fix her car before the police impound it.

 

Wrong. If you want to bother responding, at least do the courtesy of reading what I actually post. It's not my fault if it is a scam, therefore a situation involving a scam is not relevant to my point.

 

Sure, I'll give you one more response.

It was a sarcastic statement. In one response you say that if I'm in front of you and slam on my brakes intentionally, it's not your fault for hitting me because it's a scam. Therefore, admitting that you could hit me in that situation.

Then immediately after that, you say that if you're in the same lane as I am, you are in complete control and will be able to avoid hitting me.

Why don't you have complete control in the case of someone trying to scam you? Braking hard is braking hard regardless of whether or not someone is trying to make you rear end them. The scammer wants that money bad enough to brake really hard, just as regular driver wants to protect their life when braking really hard. Either way, the cars are going to slam on the brakes and if you hit them, it's still your fault. Scam or not. That's why the scammers do it and many get away with it. Like we have all been saying from the beginning, if you rear end someone, it's your fault....scam or not.

I'll read your last response, but I'm finished because this was never the point of the post in the first place and I never once denied fault.

 

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant by a scam. As I described in a previous post, the staged accident scam involves swerving in front of another person's car and then slamming on the brakes. That's why the qualifier, which I've used from the beginning, of being in the same lane is important.

Statements sure don't seem sarcastic when you use words like "fact" and generalize, but since you are retracting said statement I no longer have a problem with it. Also, late edit here but I want to make it clear I wasn't suggesting you were denying fault. My only complaint lies with this statement you made.

 

Whats the reason for her license being obsolete?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no production cars or even any racing cars I know of that are capable of 60-0 in only one second. Even if there were, the G-force deceleration in that car would probably be high enough to fire the air bags and severely strain the shoulder belts.

 

I was being facetious to make my point about limiting it to driver input.