[Joxster]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I'm doing much more than implying that: I'm stating it. To me, it is a given fact of driving: if I hit the guy in front, my fault.

As far as I am aware, a rear-end collision is still considered to the the fault of the rear-ender, in UK, and it is still stated that one should allow ones stopping distance between vehicles.

I can confirm that it is the same in other Western European countries too. If you rear-end someone, you're at fault. Period.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Joxster

I can confirm that it is the same in other Western European countries too. If you rear-end someone, you're at fault. Period.

I think there are a few exceptions to this rule, like: "brake testing", non-functional brake lamps etc.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by binand

I think there are a few exceptions to this rule, like: "brake testing", non-functional brake lamps etc.

Nothing personal, I need official sources before I can accept that. It was drilled into me for all my 50 years of British life, that whatever the reason, or stupid action of the person in front, I am at fault if I hit them.

The reasoning is simple: if one does hit the guy in front, we were too fast or too close. Or both.

[Rohan265]

Originally Posted by binand

I think there are a few exceptions to this rule, like: "brake testing", non-functional brake lamps etc.

As others have stated, the initial narrative of the police, insurance companies, and even the courts will hold the rear-ending vehicle at fault. This rule has been accepted through a study of rear-end crash data. I agree that there may be some exceptions. But, the onus falls on the leading vehicle's driver to prove innocence. The court can discard the police's opinion if the leading vehicle's driver is able to produce relevant facts and evidence.

Of course, this is followed in western countries. In India, the police's final report and witness statements are considered absolute truth. And the narrative is skewed against the larger vehicle involved, irrespective of the rear-ending vehicle.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Nothing personal, I need official sources before I can accept that. It was drilled into me for all my 50 years of British life, that whatever the reason, or stupid action of the person in front, I am at fault if I hit them.

It was something I read a while ago. That in case of rear-ending it is usually the trailing driver's fault, but they do have the defense of proving contributory negligence of the leading driver (for obvious reasons it can't be written into the law but has to be argued in a court). In which case the onus of paying a part of compensation can be shifted to the leading driver.

Today when I search for it I see umpteen websites offering advice that is substantially similar to this (but they are all from law firms and I don't have the ability to determine who among them are reputable and who are just ambulance chasers). Also to be fair they all stress upon the high standard such a defense would be held to.

Originally Posted by Rohan265

But, the onus falls on the leading vehicle's driver to prove innocence.

I think you wanted to say "trailing vehicle" here, and I agree. Dashcam can be your ally here.

[Vasuki]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Nothing personal, I need official sources before I can accept that. It was drilled into me for all my 50 years of British life, that whatever the reason, or stupid action of the person in front, I am at fault if I hit them.

+1. The reasoning is simple: if one does hit the guy in front, we were too fast or too close. Or both.

The first thing we learn on the track is that it is our duty to brake in time to avoid rear-ending.

They tell us the guy at the front can brake/swerve any time. It is your duty to protect him i.e. not rear-end him.

And I personally believe such a thought process can lead to good anticipation and defensive riding.

[chaitanyakrish]

Originally Posted by binand

Dashcam can be your ally here.

Two parties are involved in any accident. One of them may be the cause and the other is the victim or both are the cause or neither are the cause

However, in all such cases, a dashcam helps to give us a 50% chance of proving innocence.

Also, we need to follow defensive driving like leaving 2 second gap from vehicle ahead, following speed according to situation etc , or else the same dashcam will have evidence against us

[binand]

Originally Posted by chaitanyakrish

[...] the same dashcam will have evidence against us

In such cases, do not disclose the existence of the dashcam.

[Jude300]

In a sorrowful turn of events, 4 youngsters lost their lives in this horrific accident. One of them is my sister in laws own brother. I cant just believe how life can just change within seconds.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/91606636.cms

[AdityaDeane]

Originally Posted by Jude300

In a sorrowful turn of events, 4 youngsters lost their lives in this horrific accident. One of them is my sister in laws own brother. I cant just believe how life can just change within seconds.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/91606636.cms

Feel really bad for all those who lost their lives due to the time taken for rescue. Have been to Jalori Pass couple of times in my Triber, and other official vehicles, and it really requires skills to drive your vehicle due to both the steep ascent and descent. Moreover, as written in the news, very few locals drive there in the night, because all these passes are considered dangerous at night, and especially for tourists, driving downhill with engine braking is tough, and it takes a toll on the brakes of the vehicles as well, with clutch heating and brake fails a common phenomenon.

Again, really sad for the loss! May their souls rest in peace.

[sunilch]

Originally Posted by Jude300

In a sorrowful turn of events, 4 youngsters lost their lives in this horrific accident. One of them is my sister in laws own brother. I cant just believe how life can just change within seconds.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/91606636.cms

Very sorry to hear of your loss and may the souls of those who departed, rest in peace. This steep downhill road is very tricky to come down on. It requires some prior knowledge and skills to drive down on it. Only braking isn't enough as brakes get hot and loose their ability almost completely.

I experienced this myself when I was rolling down on the same route on a motorcycle. I wasn't aware of this problem and had to stop the bike and get down 2-3 times during my descent, for the brakes to cool down. Engine braking didn't just occur to my mind at that time when I was totally surprised by the fast gravitational pull. Only later one of the locals told me that it is a common problem and engine braking is critical when you come down. Otherwise, such vehicle breakdowns are quite common.

I guess it was some bad-luck and some wrong decision (of driving at night) in this case.

[Thad E Ginathom]

This is very sad. It really does sound as if it was a wrong decision to take such a road at night, at least without knowing it very, very well. And a previous post points out that those that do know it well simply don't drive there at night.

The article mentions that one woman was thrown out of the car and caught in bushes. I guess she wasn't wearing a seat belt, and this would be one of those very rare occasions when not doing so might have saved her life.

[Jude300]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

The article mentions that one woman was thrown out of the car and caught in bushes. I guess she wasn't wearing a seat belt, and this would be one of those very rare occasions when not doing so might have saved her life.

Yes, one rare instance where it worked in one's favour. As though it was meant to be, if not for her there would have been more delays for people to even come to know about the accident. No one knew about the accident for more than 13 hours.

[Raghu M]

Originally Posted by sarathlal

[*]DONOT drive with hazard lights ON. Use it to warn others during such extreme situations alone.

I am sorry but I don't get this point. When there is heavy downpour and the visibility is just around 10 to 20 meters, isn't it a good practice to drive with hazard lights on? How are you going to warn the oncoming vehicles of your presence? The hazard lights have pretty good visibility even in fog like situations.

[Nitronium]

Well that really isn't the point of hazards and we're not free to use them based on our perception of what it will look like to others

Hazards indicate a stationary vehicle usually to show that they are parked/stranded by the side of the road

If you can't see oncoming vehicles, then its probably not a good idea to drive in the first place. Pull over and wait for conditions to improve maybe?

Originally Posted by Raghu M

I am sorry but I don't get this point. When there is heavy downpour and the visibility is just around 10 to 20 meters, isn't it a good practice to drive with hazard lights on? How are you going to warn the oncoming vehicles of your presence? The hazard lights have pretty good visibility even in fog like situations.