[WingZeroX5]

So I know in NY, the guy/gal who rear ends someone else is 100% at fault no questions asked because in NY the argument is that the rear driver should have enough space to fully stop - OK, I can agree to that

But what about NH/MA?

[JeffL]

the person who rear ends is at fault.

now if they rear end you into someone else car you are responsible for at least 50% of that persons car.

[jopa489]

Originally Posted by JeffL

the person who rear ends is at fault.

now if they rear end you into someone else car you are responsible for at least 50% of that persons car.

Same basic rule in MA/NH as NY with a simple 2-car collision.

[hmmcolor]

I believe that's fairly universal.

[lyjw88]

If you rear end a car that is at a full stop, then you are 100% at fault.
But if both cars are moving, I think there's going to be a split (i.e. 80% and 20%).

[pault]

Originally Posted by lyjw88

If you rear end a car that is at a full stop, then you are 100% at fault.
But if both cars are moving, I think there's going to be a split (i.e. 80% and 20%).

Huh? That makes no sense. If you rear end a moving car you are still at fault.

[WingZeroX5]

Originally Posted by pault

Huh? That makes no sense. If you rear end a moving car you are still at fault.

Lol so which is it? rear-ender 100% fault?

[Tiago@VRSF]

Originally Posted by pault

Huh? That makes no sense. If you rear end a moving car you are still at fault.

Dog runs out in the road, I rear ended a civic & she tells the cop that she slammed her brakes unexpectedly.

I was at fault 90% and she was 10% because she wasn't in control of her vehicle.

[issabmw]

Originally Posted by tvieira24

Dog runs out in the road, I rear ended a civic & she tells the cop that she slammed her brakes unexpectedly.

I was at fault 90% and she was 10% because she wasn't in control of her vehicle.

And that is why FL is a no fault state. I dont understand how that is your fault.

[Tiago@VRSF]

I was following a bit too close & wasn't paying attention, I wouldn't have been upset if they gave me 100% fault. In any situation the person following should be paying attention and not following so closely

[issabmw]

It does make sense

Originally Posted by pault

Huh? That makes no sense. If you rear end a moving car you are still at fault.

That is relative. If someone abruptly brakes, and you are at legal driving distance, yet your reaction and brake strength are insufficient for avoidance, you will hit the person that inevitably caused you to hit them.

[Tiago@VRSF]

On a majority of roads around here speed limit is 35-40mph. There's no way you can't stop in time if you are both a safe distance away & are paying attention.

Reaction is one thing but awareness is a different story all together.

[hmmcolor]

Originally Posted by issabmw

That is relative. If someone abruptly brakes, and you are at legal driving distance, yet your reaction and brake strength are insufficient for avoidance, you will hit the person that inevitably caused you to hit them.

I'm not positive here, but I'm pretty sure legal driving distance = enough distance to stop regardless of what the car in front of you does.

[Tiago@VRSF]

This.

[jopa489]

Originally Posted by issabmw

And that is why FL is a no fault state. I dont understand how that is your fault.

Because it's your responsibility to be going at or below the speed limit depending on conditions, and also your responsibility to be maintaining a safe distance. If he was going 35MPH, for example, and leaving 4 seconds of space between him and the car in front, he would have stopped in time.

Obviously, nobody uses the 4 second rule day-to-day. I don't necessarily agree with the rules either, but that is how it's interpreted here.