Whats..."failing to provide sufficent room to manouver?"

[TheStigz]

My wife got a ticket after a 4 car pile up.
Seems the cop wrote everyone a ticket involved in the accident.
She rear ended someone and got rear ended as well. The cop wrote this on the ticket "Failure to provide sufficent room to manouver" under section 2a. $110
I know this proably means following to closley? is that where the demerit scale would be following to closley? 4 Demerits?

Anyhoo.. will be going to court for a ticket reduction.

Thank you fellas.

[CanmoreOrLess]

How does one prove or disprove she was too close to the vehicle in front? She was rear ended (this assumes she was vehicle #2 or #3), vehicle #1 is free and clear, vehicle #4 in accident chain is 100% at fault for certain. This leaves vehicles #2 and #3 as needing a witness or better yet a dash cam? Nail all who are without winter tires double the demerit points and sort it from there...

[G]

Was she stopped when she was rear ended? If so I think it has to do with stopping too close to the vehicle in front.

[TheStigz]

She was stopped and rear ended.

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by TheStigz
She was stopped and rear ended.

And then pushed into the car in front?

Or she hit the car in front, stopped, and then got hit from behind?

[Kijho]

If she was stopped, then read ended - fight the hell out of that ticket LOL fuck that.

[DeleriousZ]

I'm pretty sure even if you're stopped, get rear ended and go into the person in front of you and rear end them, you can still get some blame from it. I'm talking out of my ass tho so don't take any of it seriously.

[heavyfuel]

Should write such tickets to fucktards who close the gap the second they see a signal light

[spikerS]

Originally posted by DeleriousZ
I'm pretty sure even if you're stopped, get rear ended and go into the person in front of you and rear end them, you can still get some blame from it. I'm talking out of my ass tho so don't take any of it seriously.

When I had my bad accident in the truck a few years back, I was rear ended twice while stopped at a red light. The force of the impact pushed me into the Audi in front of me, effectively rear ending them.

The only thing my insurance paid out on was section B benefits for physio and medical bills. Everything else was covered by the insurance of the people who rear ended me.

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by DeleriousZ
I'm pretty sure even if you're stopped, get rear ended and go into the person in front of you and rear end them, you can still get some blame from it. I'm talking out of my ass tho so don't take any of it seriously.

If your completely stopped, you should be off the hook. The tough part is proving any of it.

The stupid part is if you're slowing down, they assume you are going to rear end the person in front of you anyway.

Canadian justice, guilty until proven innocent.

[TheStigz]

Originally posted by CapnCrunch


And then pushed into the car in front?

Or she hit the car in front, stopped, and then got hit from behind?

She hit the car orignally, and than was rear ended and hit the car again.

[phil98z24]

With your last reply, I would venture to say it's because she failed to leave enough space to slow down or move out of the way in the event she needed to brake/emergency brake, causing her to rear end the vehicle in front of her. This is usually given in rear enders, because in most of them someone has failed to give consideration for road conditions (traffic, road surface, speed, etc) and has then neglected to leave enough space to move out of the way, stop, or otherwise maneuver their vehicle.

Just my two cents.

[FraserB]

Have fun with insurance on this mess, a lot will hinge on the statement of the driver she hit.

She should be responsible for the front end damage to her car and the rear end damage to the car she hit. The driver behind her should be responsible for the rear end damage on your car.

[firebane]

The problem is that when you are stopped you should still have adequate distance in front of you.

Now this doesn't always mean squat especially when the roads are like they are and you should be driving with even MORE due diligence and sounds like the vehicle which hit #2 was not driving accordingly.

[TheStigz]

So the question being..

would this be a following to close ticket thats priced at $175? just worded differently and priced differently.

also the section of the ticket is not 2a (My fault I was on the phone with her and mis-heard) Its 9(a)

Questioning on the demerits..and the ticket itself.. as the google search for this ticket is not existant. The following close is.. but the prices are completly different.

Insurance.. Oh God. helping her sort through this mess is difficult enough... They have to talk to all parties involved.. They said.. her front will be 50% covered by the guy who hit her and sent her car forward again.. What a nightmare.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by TheStigz
Insurance.. Oh God. helping her sort through this mess is difficult enough... They have to talk to all parties involved.. They said.. her front will be 50% covered by the guy who hit her and sent her car forward again.. What a nightmare.

Let me guess, PLPD only? Have fun with that.

If not, just talk to your own insurance company and let them sort it out over the next year or 2.

[revelations]

dashcam ... for next time

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by TheStigz
So the question being..

would this be a following to close ticket thats priced at $175? just worded differently and priced differently.

also the section of the ticket is not 2a (My fault I was on the phone with her and mis-heard) Its 9(a)

Questioning on the demerits..and the ticket itself.. as the google search for this ticket is not existant. The following close is.. but the prices are completly different.

Insurance.. Oh God. helping her sort through this mess is difficult enough... They have to talk to all parties involved.. They said.. her front will be 50% covered by the guy who hit her and sent her car forward again.. What a nightmare.

In the end she'll be stuck with A) a minor traffic ticket and B) an at-fault loss on her insurance. A 50/50 claim does her no good as it counts the same as a full blown 100% at fault anyway. Pay the ticket, move on. If she has full coverage on her car, let the adjusters deal with it. If she only has PLPD and the car is not driveable, the start looking for something else.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by revelations
dashcam ... for next time

Why? To show that she ran into someone? If I'm reading the OP correctly, the girlfriend hit someone from behind and then was hit herself by a different vehicle. :dunno:

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by revelations
dashcam ... for next time

If someone hit you and as a result you hit someone, you are still at fault.

[max_boost]

^^^

Yea you are basically responsible for everyone in front of you.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by TheStigz
So the question being..

would this be a following to close ticket thats priced at $175? just worded differently and priced differently.

also the section of the ticket is not 2a (My fault I was on the phone with her and mis-heard) Its 9(a)

Questioning on the demerits..and the ticket itself.. as the google search for this ticket is not existant. The following close is.. but the prices are completly different.

Insurance.. Oh God. helping her sort through this mess is difficult enough... They have to talk to all parties involved.. They said.. her front will be 50% covered by the guy who hit her and sent her car forward again.. What a nightmare.

No, it's not a follow too close charge. It's different in many ways. Suffice to say, the charge is because she allegedly didn't leave enough space to complete a stop, not because she was travelling too close to the vehicle in front.

It's 9(a) of Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation. I write this when I believe I have evidence that a person didn't maintain an allowance for a safe stopping distance whether in an emergency or otherwise, and I believe that the lack of sufficient space caused them to collide with the person in front of them.

There may be a few demerits associated, but I can't remember off the top of my head, sorry.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by Xtrema


If someone hit you and as a result you hit someone, you are still at fault.

Nope, generally speaking if you are at a complete stop and then are hit (from behind) causing you to hit the car in front of you, everything gets charged back to the person at the back of a line. The key point being that you were at a complete stop before being hit.

[speedog]

Need one of CPS members to chime in before all the armchair critics get out of hand and start another virtual 'bigger penis' war.

Ninja edit - CPS can only provide what they would do, how insurance might handle is another matter.

[schocker]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
Nope, generally speaking if you are at a complete stop and then are hit (from behind) causing you to hit the car in front of you, everything gets charged back to the person at the back of a line. The key point being that you were at a complete stop before being hit.
I thought that is still stopping to close. You should leave enough room in front of you that you don't hit another car? I just remember being taught that at AMA :nut:

[max_boost]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit


Nope, generally speaking if you are at a complete stop and then are hit (from behind) causing you to hit the car in front of you, everything gets charged back to the person at the back of a line. The key point being that you were at a complete stop before being hit.

Interesting.

My ex gf was involved in a 5 car pileup a decade ago. She was the 4th person in. She was responsible for 3, 2, & 1. The 5th was responsible for all. Got a wee bit confusing lol I guess depends on the circumstances?!

[speedog]

Originally posted by schocker

I thought that is still stopping to close. You should leave enough room in front of you that you don't hit another car? I just remember being taught that at AMA :nut:

Within reason I would offer - stopping a foot or two away from the vehicle in front of you, yupp you're setting yourself up IMHO.. But if you've left 8 feet and someone rear-ends you at 60kph and pushes you into the vehicle in front of you, then the rules probably change - I suspect the police look at the conditions and make a determination of what would be a reasonable distance to stop behind the vehicle in front of you. 3-4 feet in icy conditions - unreasonable, dunno, CPS's call for one.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Xtrema


If someone hit you and as a result you hit someone, you are still at fault.

Not true at all in quite a few different scenarios.

How would you be at fault if you stopped 50 yards back from the person in front of you, yet a speed demon smacks into you at 100mph sending you 50 years ahead to smack into the other vehicle. 50 yards or 5 yards, if you are stopped, anything that forces you to move is then responsible for your car's actions after.

Another one, if you are on the highway passing another vehicle, and the vehicle behind you hits you, and you lose control (think PIT manoeuvre) and you hit another vehicle, it is still the other persons fault, and their insurance would cover it.

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by phil98z24


There may be a few demerits associated, but I can't remember off the top of my head, sorry.

Is there a place where one can look this type of info up? I have googles high and low and there seems to be no list of charges with the associated demerit points.

[btimbit]

Originally posted by Tomaz


Is there a place where one can look this type of info up? I have googles high and low and there seems to be no list of charges with the associated demerit points.

There's this but it doesn't cover everything

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/2174.htm

[phil98z24]

^^^ that's the one I'm thinking of. I'm thinking it'll be in the area of 2 points - but I'm not sure, as follow too close is 4 points and they are similar, but not the same.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by max_boost


Interesting.

My ex gf was involved in a 5 car pileup a decade ago. She was the 4th person in. She was responsible for 3, 2, & 1. The 5th was responsible for all. Got a wee bit confusing lol I guess depends on the circumstances?!

The only way I could see her being liable at all would be if she hit the pile and was then hit from behind herself, in essence creating two impacts to the pile. If she came to a complete stop first and was then smacked, she shouldn't be liable in any way. With that said though, multi-vehicle pileups can often be a mess to sort out.

[Vinman]

Originally posted by heavyfuel
Should write such tickets to fucktards who close the gap the second they see a signal light

Yup, A fucker did that to me a couple of years ago when I was pulling my work trailer. I simply continued changing lanes, last I saw of him he was sliding sideways across the boulevard and straight into a sign post. Almost guilty. Almost.

[Vinman]

Oops, double post

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by Xtrema


If someone hit you and as a result you hit someone, you are still at fault.


Baaaaad advice.


Turns out this was established several posts ago.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Xtrema


If someone hit you and as a result you hit someone, you are still at fault.

That's pretty stupid. The mass/speed of the vehicle who hits you has more to do with whether you hit someone as a result. What if you left room for a mini to hit you but happen to get rear ended by an f350 carrying a load of concrete?

[pheoxs]

Originally posted by Xtrema


If someone hit you and as a result you hit someone, you are still at fault.

I think it depends though. If I leave two full car lengths of space while driving a civic and get rear ended by a 3/4 ton. I'm fucking going into the car in front of me no doubt.

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by pheoxs


I think it depends though. If I leave two full car lengths of space while driving a civic and get rear ended by a 3/4 ton. I'm fucking going into the car in front of me no doubt.

At that point I doubt you'll be too concerned about insurance and fault

[Kaiser]

I was in a pile-up on Glenmore recently and was issued the fine of "failure to ascertain proper distance" (was in the middle of the pileup). Someone had cut off the driver at the front of the line, causing her to slam her brakes and create a chain reaction (10 cars).

Everyone in the accident who had rear-ended someone was given the same fine. I too thought that this was the same as "following too closely" and thought that I would receive 4 demerits, but I saw a crown prosecuter recently to try and reduce/nullify(lol) the ticket and he told me that the two aren't related. Following too closely is the same thing as tailgating and gets you 4 demerits and around a $400 fine. The ticket I received was a fine only (no demerits). He told me that the officer had given me the lowest possible fine for the accident, so he wasn't able to do anything to reduce it.

Since the fine was $115 and my insurance company told me that my premium wouldn't increase as a result (we'll see), I just plead guilty and paid the fine (getting downtown is a pain-in-the-ass, so it wasn't worth it for me to plead not guilty, schedule a trial and go back down there). My dash cam failed as well, leaving me with little evidence to help my case.

Hope this helps.

[FraserB]

What was your defense going to be?

[Kaiser]

My defense is that I was indeed driving safely prior to the accident.

I had increased the distance between myself and the car I eventually hit by a large margin (the camera shows that I was about 6 car lengths from the car I eventually struck, though it ceased to record about 10s before impact) as I approached the merging lane from the Crowchild ramp onto Glenmore.

The weather had been warm that weekend and the roads had dried up. I had plenty of time/space to stop, but there was some black ice that caused my tires to spin during the merge. The woman in the front had slammed on her brakes because she allegedly had been cut-off by another driver (so she said), causing the guy in front of me to hit her and then me hitting him. There were another 7 cars behind me who had piled up also.

The problem is with inconsiderate drivers who (inadvertently or otherwise) cut-off drivers who have the right-of-way. It's absurd to think that I should have to pay for someone else who caused the accident.

You may be thinking "You should have been able to ascertain the proper distance given the conditions," but what does the law consider reasonable? A 1km gap? Give me a break.

[Rat Fink]

.

[dirtsniffer]

I've always been a fan of the 2-4 second gap. Try to leave it as long as possibl, but I never had an issue at 2.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Rat Fink
OK, so 6 car lengths.....lets use the length of a Toyota Corolla (14.4 feet/car)....that's 86.4 feet of distance.

Is Crowchild 80 km/hr in that section? That would mean you are covering 72.9 ft/second which means you have given yourself 1.18 seconds to react and avoid. Yeah, that's real safe considering your response time, and time for your vehicle to react would take up at least half of that time (likely more)....which leaves you with less than half a second of maneuvering time to avoid the other cars. You should be 3 to 5 times that at the minimum especially considering the black ice you said you were driving on. Chalk it up to experience and hopefully don't follow too close next winter I know I'm just being picky, but your math assumes he was traveling towards a stationary object, which isn't true. He had an 86.4 foot sliding window that was shrinking as the vehicle in front of him began decelerating. That's going to add significant time to his reaction time window. Also, I don't believe there's a significant delay between the motion of him pushing the brake pedal down to the brakes actually engaging on the rotor, or between him turning the steering wheel and the wheels turning. I would suggest that the "vehicle reaction time" is pretty negligible, and the overwhelming majority would be in the drivers reaction time.

[Kaiser]

I was merging onto Glenmore from Crowchild, so I was only doing about 50km/h going down the ramp. I was driving a small car, so I could only see the vehicle in front of me, and since the car I hit basically stopped almost instantly, I didn't have much of a chance given the black ice. I had plenty of time to stop, but the ice made it impossible to do so. Black ice is called that, as it is invisible to a driver, and given the weather conditions, wasn't expected to be there. When I left my car to look at the ice, I couldn't believe how little there was, but it was enough to spin my tires at that particular moment.

The point is that the traffic flow was smooth and I had a reasonable distance with respect to the car in front of me, but the driver who cut-off the woman at the front of the line was at fault. The woman at the front of the pileup stated so in her police report. People cutting of others in this area is common, which is why I created more distance as I was descending the ramp in the first place. Since there were several other vehicles in the incident as well, I don't think the fine is necessarily reasonable.

Basically, I'm annoyed at the situation. There are a lot of bad drivers here who don't signal, cut people off, etc. I consider myself to be a responsible driver who was driving responsibly at that time (never had an at-fault accident before).

It's bad luck is all and it's not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, I just don't feel that I shouldn't have to pay for it.