[ale] OT: Court tomorrow

[Geoffrey]

Jeff Hubbs wrote:
> Having not seen what actually happened, all I can offer is this: 
> "Following too closely" is indeed a catch-all and is typically tossed at
> anyone who rear-ends anyone else.  However, the logic behind that is
> that you should be able to get your car stopped without hitting anyone
> even if the car in front of you pulls the worst-case scenario, i.e, the
> car comes to an immediate dead stop right in front of you.  You can
> deflect the charge only if you can show - or at least persuasively
> assert - that something about the circumstances would have worked
> against a reasonable person with a fast foot *and* a sufficient stopping
> distance.  For instance, if the car didn't have working brake lights,
> costing you some time to react,

Generally, you will lose this as well, since the argument can well be 
made that the impact disloged, damaged or destroyed the brake lights.

I've known two folks who rear ended vehicles, both claimed the vehicle 
they hit had no functioning brake lights and they both lost.  In both 
cases the judges (different judges, different states) told them that 
when following a vehicle, you should stay a reasonable distance away 
such that you could stop safely without the need for brake lights.  This 
is where they come up with the 1 car length per 10 mph distance measure. 
  It's made based on the assumption this will give you enough space to 
stop based on recognizing the vehicle in front of you is stopping 
without the use of brake light notification.

9 times out of 10, the vehicle that hits another from behind is found at 
fault.

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey