[jv004]

Originally Posted by luckyyyyyyy

Hope everything's gonna work out well for you OP.
I hate when I have to brake harshly like that when I know there's someone following me that close at such speed. I usually do mini-brakes so they get kind of a warning that there's something slowing me down close to avoid these cases.

Good luck!

Jeep wasn't even that close though, maybe 3-4 cars back. From distance jeep was coming in you usually can see the cars ahead that are stopped if paying attention and brake accordingly. In the video you can see the jeep didn't even brake, even after hitting it the jeep was still pushing forward, clear indication that jeep was not paying attention to the road ahead.

[luckyyyyyyy]

Originally Posted by jv004

Jeep wasn't even that close though, maybe 3-4 cars back. From distance jeep was coming in you usually can see the cars ahead that are stopped if paying attention and brake accordingly. In the video you can see the jeep didn't even brake, even after hitting it the jeep was still pushing forward, clear indication that jeep was not paying attention to the road ahead.

Yeah, you're right, actually both OP's son, by braking sooner than that, and the Jeep could've avoided this situation. Sometimes you're just too focused on following the car in front of you that you completely lose sight of the rest of the environment. But I agree you could see he wasn't there at all since he rammed it full speed.

[prodogs]

multiple statements on seen
Jeep driver was on her phone

This is why she didn’t brake

Originally Posted by luckyyyyyyy

Yeah, you're right, actually both OP's son, by braking sooner than that, and the Jeep could've avoided this situation. Sometimes you're just too focused on following the car in front of you that you completely lose sight of the rest of the environment. But I agree you could see he wasn't there at all since he rammed it full speed.

[aadrew]

Originally Posted by luckyyyyyyy

Yeah, you're right, actually both OP's son, by braking sooner than that, and the Jeep could've avoided this situation. Sometimes you're just too focused on following the car in front of you that you completely lose sight of the rest of the environment. But I agree you could see he wasn't there at all since he rammed it full speed.

Yeah, agreed 100%, the 435's braking was a bit abrupt. But I guess it doesn't matter cause the car behind was gonna hit him no matter what, since they weren't paying any attention.

[jgoens]

Lots of silly analysis going on here--people even saying the son had any fault. He didn't. Doesn't matter if (not that he was) he was not paying attention well and had to slam on his brakes--the car behind has to control their car. No debate about anything here.

As a sidenote, I was in an accident identical to this one when I was in high school--stopped in traffic and girl behind was not paying attention and slammed into me and then I slammed into the car in front of me. My car was totaled and it was an easy check cut a week after by an insurance adjuster.

[luckyyyyyyy]

Originally Posted by prodogs

multiple statements on seen
Jeep driver was on her phone

This is why she didn't brake

Yeah, no matter what the situation was, Jeep was still at fault

[Just a 3]

Originally Posted by prodogs

LOL - how could the person on the phone who rear ended a stopped car at 30 MPH without breaking not bet anymore at fault than my son.

Your joking right.

and by the way even if the stopped vehicle is pushed into the vehicle in front of them - this still means the vehicle that caused the accident is at fault - In addition there is something called DIMINISHED VALUE which you can sue for which accounts for the decreased value of a repaired vehicle.

sorry to be this way but your comment about my son being at fault and my insurance premiums increase Is completely DUMB!

Originally Posted by prodogs

LOL - how could the person on the phone who rear ended a stopped car at 30 MPH without breaking not bet anymore at fault than my son.

Your joking right.

and by the way even if the stopped vehicle is pushed into the vehicle in front of them - this still means the vehicle that caused the accident is at fault - In addition there is something called DIMINISHED VALUE which you can sue for which accounts for the decreased value of a repaired vehicle.

sorry to be this way but your comment about my son being at fault and my insurance premiums increase Is completely DUMB!

Exactly right

[upsidedownfunnel]

Don't worry about the people trying to place some blame on your son. There are always the self-righteous people that have to blame the victim for some stupid reason. Could your son have driven a little more defensively? Maybe, but he absolutely was not at fault for the accident at all. He did everything he was supposed to and even left plenty of space between him and the car in front. Just be glad everyone involved is OK.

[Digital_83]

It looks like he was hard-breaking and had a limited "breaking distance"
Look at the kids' reaction.
Whatever you do - DO NOT - show your insurance company the front video !!!

[Tchao]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Now, why BMW indicated that the airbags had deployed....that is a different matter.
You sure they didn't state that you had been involved in a collision, not that airbags had been deployed?

The smoke and smell the kid observed most likely came from the explosives on the pretensioner system in his and the passenger's seat belts.

The BMW tech probably misspoke, and meant the tensioners did fire off.

[prodogs]

Kids reacting because they knew the passenger not because of stop.

Even if you look at front video the car in front of the BMW is literally at least 6 feet from it.


for those of you in doubt- please learn traffic liability laws.

It makes no difference what the car in front of you is doing.

It is the responsibility of the driver in the rear to ensure you have enough distance to stop. PERIOD END OF STORY. The law is you must leave enough distance from you and the car in front of you to ensure a successful stop.

You can literally SLAM on your breaks come to a SKETCHING HALT and be 1mm from the vehicle in front of you. if the care behind you did not leave enough distance to stop in time and touches your car - the REAR car is at fault.

There are literally very few cases, maybe zero cases, where a rear end collusion is the fault of the driver in front.

Originally Posted by Digital_83

It looks like he was hard-breaking and had a limited "breaking distance"
Look at the kids' reaction.
Whatever you do - DO NOT - show your insurance company the front video !!!

[prodogs]

thanks - that was a bit confusing.

Originally Posted by Tchao

The smoke and smell the kid observed most likely came from the explosives on the pretensioner system in his and the passenger's seat belts.

The BMW tech probably misspoke, and meant the tensioners did fire off.

[kikcaffine]

Originally Posted by prodogs

Kids reacting because they knew the passenger not because of stop.

Even if you look at front video the car in front of the BMW is literally at least 6 feet from it.


for those of you in doubt- please learn traffic liability laws.

It makes no difference what the car in front of you is doing.

It is the responsibility of the driver in the rear to ensure you have enough distance to stop. PERIOD END OF STORY. The law is you must leave enough distance from you and the car in front of you to ensure a successful stop.

You can literally SLAM on your breaks come to a SKETCHING HALT and be 1mm from the vehicle in front of you. if the care behind you did not leave enough distance to stop in time and touches your car - the REAR car is at fault.

There are literally very few cases, maybe zero cases, where a rear end collusion is the fault of the driver in front.

Better say a dog jumped out if your going to pull that manuever. Ever hear of brake checking someone? Same thing. Glad your sons alright, glad the car was new enough to stop and was in good mechanical condition, had it been an older car he would have obliterated the car in front of him.

[prodogs]

thanks for your expert opinion - NOT

Originally Posted by kikcaffine

Better say a dog jumped out if your going to pull that manuever. Ever hear of brake checking someone? Same thing. Glad your sons alright, glad the car was new enough to stop and was in good mechanical condition, had it been an older car he would have obliterated the car in front of him.

[kikcaffine]

Originally Posted by prodogs

thanks for your expert opinion - NOT

Make sure to get him something like a Civic next time. He needs to learn how to drive a car that doesnt do everything for him, so he doesnt end up like the car that entered into the rear of him.....

[prodogs]

too late he's already in a 2019 Z06.

Originally Posted by kikcaffine

Make sure to get him something like a Civic next time. He needs to learn how to drive a car that doesnt do everything for him, so he doesnt end up like the car that entered into the rear of him.....

[jgoens]

Originally Posted by prodogs

too late he's already in a 2019 Z06.

Hmmm..should have got him something like a Mclaren 570 gt...good entry level supercar. Vets are a dime a dozen.

[prodogs]

That was his first choice but I had to put my foot down as the z06 had superior 70 to 0 stopping power over the 570

Originally Posted by jgoens

Hmmm..should have got him something like a Mclaren 570 gt...good entry level supercar. Vets are a dime a dozen.

[lonecitizenfour]

Originally Posted by prodogs

That was his first choice but I had to put my foot down as the z06 had superior 70 to 0 stopping power over the 570

can you get him a nicer shirt and sunglasses? congrats on the new purchase! I think vet is a nicer car.

[prodogs]

Update -

Party's insurance company admitted 100% liability and agreed to payout for total of vehicle close to Kelly Blue Book's assessment. It also appears they will be paying out in a very timely manner.

Hope this thread helps others who might find themselves in a similar situation.

[Crazybassman]

Car is no longer "square" and uni bodies don't pull out well. (Metal tends to tear) I'd total it. And, welcome to no-fault insurance. Any wreck is 1/2 your fault. One more scam foisted on the public by the insurance lobby.

[floridaorange]

Originally Posted by prodogs

too late he's already in a 2019 Z06.

I have 2 sons, so I say this with all due respect, but I've literally heard more stories about these newer vets getting wrecked, as well as seeing it happen many time in Nuerburgring videos, the new vets seems to be in wrecks the most.

Congrats on outcome with Ins co. I was in the same type of wreck about 20 yrs ago, car was totaled, the person who rear ended was 100% liable, and the scenario was very similar.