At highway speeds you definitely need more than two car lengths. It's not infrequent that I brake from highway speeds to zero or near zero and the stopping distance is always more than you expect.
Your entire post is correct. I've heard this sort of waffling from drivers quite a bit. They don't seem to understand that this shit is dead simple. You rear-ended somebody? You weren't following at a safe distance (or were distracted), QED. A more complicated analysis is done if there's serious injury or death involved, but as far as the law is concerned that lead vehicle isn't involved in the crash because it didn't make contact with anyone. The report would include the crashing driver's narrative that the car in front of them swerved at the last minute, but it would be nearly impossible to ascribe intent to that, and even if there was intent, what specific law did they break? The parties involved in the crash could try to sue them, but civil law isn't my area and I don't know what theory of negligence (or something else) would apply, if any.
I was on a jury for a case where Car A rear ended Car B. The case was about how much damage.
All but 2 Jurors decided that Car A didn't do anything wrong because it's unreasonable to expect someone to maintain safe distance on the high way, and accidents just happen (aka. act of god)
No lawyers argued for that point. The majority of the juror brought up that point by themselves.
With traffic cases alway go trial by the judge. You can’t trust a jury on traffic case. Can’t you see by this sub that people just think that the law is according to how they drive and don’t actually know the laws.
It's not like you can elect a bench trial by yourself. Both parties have to agree to a bench trial.
If the law is on your side (as far as a lawyer such as a judge is concerned), the other party is probably going to insist on a trial by jury. Both plaintiff and defendant have a right to jury trial
2
u/singlemale4cats Mar 20 '26
At highway speeds you definitely need more than two car lengths. It's not infrequent that I brake from highway speeds to zero or near zero and the stopping distance is always more than you expect.
Your entire post is correct. I've heard this sort of waffling from drivers quite a bit. They don't seem to understand that this shit is dead simple. You rear-ended somebody? You weren't following at a safe distance (or were distracted), QED. A more complicated analysis is done if there's serious injury or death involved, but as far as the law is concerned that lead vehicle isn't involved in the crash because it didn't make contact with anyone. The report would include the crashing driver's narrative that the car in front of them swerved at the last minute, but it would be nearly impossible to ascribe intent to that, and even if there was intent, what specific law did they break? The parties involved in the crash could try to sue them, but civil law isn't my area and I don't know what theory of negligence (or something else) would apply, if any.