Rear ender - always at fault???

In article >,
Timothy J. Lee > wrote:
>In article <1104008928.3f5bd656497441cf444d155d097d9800@teran ews>,
>Zipless > wrote:
>>If the speed limit is 55 and you are going 55 (I was
>>actually going about 50), you cannot expect there to be a stopped car our of
>>your sight line.
>
>You are supposed to go at a speed that is safe for the conditions.
>
>If the posted speed limit is 55, but some portions of the road have
>curves, hilltops, and other conditions that limit sight lines, then it
>may not necessarily be safe to go 55 on all parts of the road. Similarly,
>if heavy fog or other bad weather conditions limit sight lines, you
>may not be able to safely go the posted speed limit. If a stationary
>obstacle (such as a traffic jam of stopped cars) appears at the limit
>of your sight distance ahead, you need to be able to stop for or otherwise
>avoid crashing into it.

That is the law in some states, but not all. In Massachusetts there
is neither a "rear driver presumed guilty" nor an "assured clear
distance" law. As required by state regulation the insurance
companies will normally assign fault to the rear driver and to a
moving vehicle that strikes a parked vehicle. That's for insurance,
not out of pocket expenses and not tickets. If the case gets to
court it's up to the lawyers to convince the jury.

There was a blind curve on I-84 in Connecticut where the state posted
a reduced speed limit but left lane traffic still did not have adequate
sight distance.

--
John Carr )