Man I got in a accident on Monday.

[metalmania31]

Here's a video of what happened.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Metalmani31,
Sorry man lets call you autometalmania31. Safe distances aside it does appear that the car ahead of the truck was cut off and had to or just panic braked. I hope you can use this video for some good but in the end you have a insurance claim and they will raise your rates. Bummer in the semi summer !

 

[metalmania31]

I sent the link to AAA I'm waiting for my claim adjusters input. I got the letter from the initial claim and they've faulted me 100% for hitting the truck. Which sucks. But it was that silver car that caused the whole thing, I'm aware of being at fault for maintaining a safe enough distance. So I know my chances of lessoning fault is probably moot.

 

[Airbot]

Do you always video yourself driving?

 

[metalmania31]

Actually no I just got a new phone and that's when I got the idea. Boy which made think damn did I bring that on myself just by doing that. I know it's a big coincidence, but I can't help but think it.

 

[smarteyeball]

Actually no I just got a new phone and that's when I got the idea. Boy which made think damn did I bring that on myself just by doing that. I know it's a big coincidence, but I can't help but think it.

Understandable thinking, but definitely just a coincidence. Pity there was no audio. I'm assuming there were was a bit of cussing involved?

Were you rear ended as well, or just the unlucky tail-end charlie?

Sucks about the 100% fault, but if US law is the same as Australian law in this situation, it's automatically deemed that the driver who rear ends someone else is at fault

Even thought the silver car was the catalyst, I think you'll still be stuck with the 100% fault.

Maintaining safe distances is a good idea in theory, but in heavy traffic like that one persons safe distance is another cars opportunity to cut in and cause a concertina (as evidenced by the silver car).

 

[Airbot]

Actually no I just got a new phone and that's when I got the idea. Boy which made think damn did I bring that on myself just by doing that. I know it's a big coincidence, but I can't help but think it.

Understandable thinking, but definitely just a coincidence.

Not if he was fiddling with or his attention was drawn away even slightly, by holding/videoing while driving.

but if US law is the same as Australian law in this situation, it's automatically deemed that the driver who rear ends someone else is at fault

It is.

 

[smarteyeball]

Not if he was fiddling with or his attention was drawn away even slightly, by holding/videoing while driving.

I assumed it was fixed because it didn't have that shaky hand held look about it. But if it was handheld - then that's a whole different story

(and not one I'd mention to the insurance company either)

It is.

Ahh, screwed then.

 

[Dwarf]

I've just had a look at the video, and it would appear that you're at fault here, sorry.

Yes, the truck in front was cut up, but that sort of thing happens everyday all round the world. When the truck braked, you didn't seem to react until it was too late (there was no apparent reduction on speed on your part using the road markings as a guide), although it should have been possible to stop as it doesn't appear that it was fast moving.

Having said that, I hope everyone is OK and that the damage is not too serious (other than your pride).

 

[Julio Cortez]

It sucks, pal...
But unfortunately also here in Italy if you hit someone from behind you're at fault as it shows that you were not keeping a proper safe distance so I don't see great chances you won't be given the fault

 

[clunkfish]

It's difficult to tell for sure, but it looks like the truck hit the silver car just before you hit the truck. I wonder if that would have any bearing on the insurance company's verdict?

 

[metalmania31]

Actually no I just got a new phone and that's when I got the idea. Boy which made think damn did I bring that on myself just by doing that. I know it's a big coincidence, but I can't help but think it.

Understandable thinking, but definitely just a coincidence.

Not if he was fiddling with or his attention was drawn away even slightly, by holding/videoing while driving.

but if US law is the same as Australian law in this situation, it's automatically deemed that the driver who rear ends someone else is at fault

It is.

No I wasn't holding or fiddling with the phone. If you watch towards the end of the video you'll see me in front of the car for brief moment. I had it mounted to window suctioned mount for phones. As for not stopping in time. I did slow. If you watch when the truck first hit the brakes I slowed, but then he suddenly slowed and stopped and that's when I braked hard. Since it's a highway I wasn't immediately expecting to come to a complete stop.

 

[metalmania31]

It's difficult to tell for sure, but it looks like the truck hit the silver car just before you hit the truck. I wonder if that would have any bearing on the insurance company's verdict?

I think it would as far as fault for hitting the car in front of the truck. I would be at fault for both car and truck if I had pushed the truck into the car. At least that's how I understand it from my google searches on the subject. Fortunately and unfortunately I only hit the truck.

 

[SIW2]

Not sure having an video has helped you with this one.

Does look as if you reacted slowly.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

If that is the insurance's logic that you reacted slowly then I would tell them you were in fear for the car behind you rear ending you as they were really close. In the end you will file a claim and it will cost you as Insurance first and foremost is a business......just like the house in Vegas......who wins and who loses normally?

 

[pparks1]

I've never heard of an instance where the driver who rear-ended the person in front of them was not at fault.

Is the rear car in a rear end collision always at fault? | AccidentAttorneys.com

 

[Fayla]

Your lucky to not have received additional fine(s) for using a phone while driving.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Newt, I believe the phone was set up in a stand and not in the drivers hand as it's way too steady.

 

[Fayla]

Yes it seemed so. But even if the phone is "saddled" so to speak, using a hands free kit can still get you stopped and warned (At least it can over here.) It happened to a friend of mine while I was with him. Anyway, I'm not well versed in international laws, so I can't say where else does this.

Newt, I believe the phone was set up in a stand and not in the drivers hand as it's way too steady.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Sorry Newt', I live in California and we believe that we always must lead the way for all things repressive. So for you to tell me that the fuzz, the man, coppers, flat foot and or Johnny law can pull you over for having a hands free device or your phone saddled in a hands free mode as in against the law then all I can say is my hats off to you for trumping CA.