Page 1 of Car Accident....your opinion.

Puttin this one to the masses...
This is Purely hypathetical...ahem.

0500hrs January Dark, light drizzzle, Visibility OK.
Long straight Dual Carridgeway..65 mph, just about overtaking a lorry when car hits black ice, starts to snake but held under control and lorry passes without incident.
Car still snaking but as it gets to finally stopping,..still in outside lane gently broadsides and comes to rest.
3-5 seconds later, another car slams into side of stopped car having made no attempt to get out the way or stop at all.

Car 1 Passenger badly injured, Driver minor injuries.
Car 2 Air bags protect, "claim" minor injuries.

Who is at fault for the accident ?

All budding Sherlocks welcome.

Assuming the speed of Car 1 did not increase above 60 mph, the national speed limit for dual cariageways, whilst overtaking the lorry it is purely an accident (hitting the black ice). Hypotehtically, I wouldn`t think there`d be much difference between 60 and 65 mph in terms of the reaction to the car upon hitting the black ice.

If Car 2 made no attempt to switch lanes I would suggest that owner was going to fast to do anything about it (even at 60 mph the maximum stopping distance would be...ahem, help me out here guys...) and would have encountered Car 1 too quickly to take evasive action.

No-one is at fault if the speed limit was not exceeded - purely accidental ;-)

Perhaps if "senario" had taken place on a bend.
The road is "long and straight"........and lights are ON.

What was car 2 doing that for at least a mile he SHOULD have been able to see car 1 clearly..

Is that not (a) Too close (b) Too fast or (c) Paying no/little attention.

Based on the information you have given...

I would say that Car 2`s involvement was difficult to avoid in the dark conditions as very few cars are visible at night from the side, and it clearly isn`t a position that you could reasonably expect to find a car in on a dual carridgeway.

Further more, I`d add that it is very possible that whether Car 2 attempted to get out the way or stop could be irrelevant, since there is a high likely hood that the same road conditions that led Car 1 to end up in a sideways position would equally have prevented Car 2 from slowing down or avoiding Car 1.

As for Car 1, I would be interested to know if it was equipped with a temperature guage for the outside air temp. If the answer was yes, then it should have made available to the driver the fact that black ice was a possibility in the current conditions by showing the air temp was 3C or lower.

But since there was drizzle around, I`m a tad confused as to why there was also black ice on the road. And I would suspect that there may be another factor to explain the loss of control. Shaking of the steering wheel is not something I have ever experienced when encountering snow or ice at speed in a car, the symptoms are usually a sudden lightening of the wheel if anything, and often the first you realise of it is that the car isn`t responding to the direction your asking it to drive in.

Now what does cause shaking of the steering wheel is when one or more of the tyres begin to aquaplane, on a substance such as water. I would suspect that Car 1 did in fact hit water and not black ice, of which there could have been copious quantities of in very extensive puddles from earlier heavy showers, as the drizzle already shows there was water in the atmosphere.

Either way, there is an argument that Car 1 may have been driving too fast for the road conditions. But I would say that if Car 1 was driving too fast, then so would Car 2 be, and neither could be directly to blame for the resulting collision.

And that is my two cents worth, heh.

The national speed limit for dual carrigeways and motorways is 70mph, it`s 60 for single lane roads. Trust me, it`s in the highway code.

And there is one rule of thumb, if a moving car hits a stationary car, it`s normally the moving car that`s to blame, especially in the circumstances you described.

I think the law have the opinion that if either party could avoid the accident and they didn`t then they are at fault. So the car that hit ice (presuming 2 lanes so speed limit is 70) is pretty much innocent but the car that then hit them would be at fault as they should have seen the accident and avioded by using the other lane.

The speed limit is indeed 70 MPH. Which meant that Car 1 was below the limit and had indeed been even more so before the overtaking took place.

Car 2 However was in the outside (overtake) Lane, on an empty road with exception of the Accident it failed to notice occurring in front of him.

To add to the puzzle Car 2`s driver is 70+ years old.

A bit of confusion regarding speed limits and road rules have been worrying overlooked by some......and IT IS possible to have drizzle AND have ice present on the ground...Air temp & Ground Temp are rarely the same !!

Wanna try again ?

I still say that a juddering felt through the steering column is caused by aquaplaning and not ice. :)

And cars are not designed to be clearly visible from side on, very little reflective material and lights are present on the sides.

What was the temp outside? It is generally accepted that an airtemp of 3C or below is required for the formation of black ice.

as an ex cop i would say that on what has been said car 2 could be looking at a driving without due care and attention ie driving below the standard of a safe and comprtent driver if you are going so fast you can not see a stationary object in the carriage way or cannnot react in time you are not driving with due care

No juddering was mentioned !?
In the description it reads " SNAKE ", not " SHAKE".

The car was not always side on, ONLY in the last 5 secs
(..the road is long and straight...and this "accident" occurs having travelled 3/4 of the 2 mile approximate stretch...all of which is visible and vehicles even more so through the glare of bright red lights of which disappeared approximately 5 seconds before.

Add another twist...
Car 2 not only has all lights serviceable, BUT also posesses Reflective strips which extend slightly round the side.
AND the broadside WAS NOT a full ninety degrees round......

Where are ye Morse ?
No Scooby Doo in sight either.

This item was edited on Monday, 30th December 2002, 23:47