Rear Ended on Freeway

I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn't
see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
didn't give her enough room. I don't think I should have to pay for the
extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

In article . com>, wrote:
> I was driving along the freeway with the speed limit at 70 mph, and I
> was going about that fast. The lady in front of me slammed on her
> brakes HARD. It was so hard that by the time I hit her car I couldn't
> see it because of all the smoke from her tires. I was maintaining a
> safe following distance (3 seconds), but it was still not enough time
> for me to stop my car. The officer claimed it was my fault because I
> didn't give her enough room. I don't think I should have to pay for the
> extensive damage on my car. Any thoughts from anyone?

She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
faulted you and insurance would still fault you.

Least that's my experience.....

Needless to say, you were directly behind her and couldn't stop so... yes
it's your fault. It's pretty clear that if you did maintain distance you
didn't react quickly enough or there is fault in your vehicle's breaking
system. Or you drive one of those giant SUVs that's equiped with brakes I
would consider insuffient on a civic.

Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn't stopping as quickly as
possible.

The only way I can see this being her fault is if she did it for no
reason but to cause a collision or she hit something in front of her,
which brought her to a very sudden stop.

Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>

> She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
> foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
> faulted you and insurance would still fault you.
>
> Least that's my experience.....

I would love to hear more about that.

> Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
> up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn't stopping as quickly as
> possible.

Really?! Have you read this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lo...#Effectiveness

"A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
distance from 80-0 km/h)"
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>
>
>>She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
>>foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
>>faulted you and insurance would still fault you.
>>
>>Least that's my experience.....
>
>
> I would love to hear more about that.
>
>
>>Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
>>up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn't stopping as quickly as
>>possible.
>
>
> Really?! Have you read this?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lo...#Effectiveness
>
> "A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
> with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
> distance from 80-0 km/h)"
> -----
>
> - gpsman
>

did you have a point? No, I haven't read that article before, but it
agrees with common knowledge, and Brent's assertion, that a locked wheel
stops slower than a rolling one being threshold or ABS braked, except
for loose surfaces (which one would assume wasn't the case on a freeway,
which are usually made of asphalt or concrete.) Which anyone who has
any basic knowledge of driving should know. This is why, incidentally,
that rear wheels locking prior to the fronts in heavy braking tends to
destabilize a vehicle; because the unlocked fronts are trying harder to
slow the car than the locked rears, the car acts as if it is being
pushed from the front, akin to trying to balance it on its nose. It
*can* be held stable, sometimes, without unlocking the rear brakes, but
takes reflexes, skill, and most of all flat, straight pavement as well
as a healthy dose of luck.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
>> Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>

>>>Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
>>>up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn't stopping as quickly as
>>>possible.

>> Really?! Have you read this?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lo...#Effectiveness
>>
>> "A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
>> with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
>> distance from 80-0 km/h)"

> did you have a point? No, I haven't read that article before, but it
> agrees with common knowledge, and Brent's assertion, that a locked wheel
> stops slower than a rolling one being threshold or ABS braked, except
> for loose surfaces (which one would assume wasn't the case on a freeway,
> which are usually made of asphalt or concrete.)

Well, you know the sniping troll.... I forgot the 'unless on snow or
gravel sometimes' disclaimer (which isn't needed since we are discussing
a dry expressway) he's got to make a snipe. Sad, sad, sore loser he is.

> Which anyone who has
> any basic knowledge of driving should know. This is why, incidentally,
> that rear wheels locking prior to the fronts in heavy braking tends to
> destabilize a vehicle; because the unlocked fronts are trying harder to
> slow the car than the locked rears, the car acts as if it is being
> pushed from the front, akin to trying to balance it on its nose. It
> *can* be held stable, sometimes, without unlocking the rear brakes, but
> takes reflexes, skill, and most of all flat, straight pavement as well
> as a healthy dose of luck.

I've noticed that in driving video games, that the brakes tend to lock up
the rears really easy sending the car into a spin... Really annoying in
that every one i've ever played if I drive it as were a real car it
doesn't respond correctly.

I think the programers decided to write it like it was an episode of
CHiPs.

Brent P wrote:
>
> I've noticed that in driving video games, that the brakes tend to lock up
> the rears really easy sending the car into a spin... Really annoying in
> that every one i've ever played if I drive it as were a real car it
> doesn't respond correctly.

How would you know...?!

Do you have any experience operating a real car at video game
velocities?

IME video driving simulators recreate an incredibly realistic
experience... except for the ****ty AI of the other drivers.
-----

- gpsman

Nate Nagel wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>
> >
> >>She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
> >>foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
> >>faulted you and insurance would still fault you.
> >>
> >>Least that's my experience.....
> >
> >
> > I would love to hear more about that.
> >
> >
> >>Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
> >>up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn't stopping as quickly as
> >>possible.
> >
> >
> > Really?! Have you read this?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lo...#Effectiveness
> >
> > "A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
> > with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
> > distance from 80-0 km/h)"
>
> did you have a point? No,

Not with that reference, I didn't. My bad.
-----

- gpsman

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:

> gpsman wrote:
> > Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>
> >
> >>She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
> >>foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
> >>faulted you and insurance would still fault you.
> >>
> >>Least that's my experience.....
> >
> >
> > I would love to hear more about that.
> >
> >
> >>Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
> >>up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn't stopping as quickly as
> >>possible.
> >
> >
> > Really?! Have you read this?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lo...#Effectiveness
> >
> > "A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
> > with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
> > distance from 80-0 km/h)"
> > -----
> >
> > - gpsman
> >
>
> did you have a point? No, I haven't read that article before, but it
> agrees with common knowledge, and Brent's assertion, that a locked wheel
> stops slower than a rolling one being threshold or ABS braked, except
> for loose surfaces (which one would assume wasn't the case on a freeway,
> which are usually made of asphalt or concrete.) Which anyone who has
> any basic knowledge of driving should know. This is why, incidentally,
> that rear wheels locking prior to the fronts in heavy braking tends to
> destabilize a vehicle; because the unlocked fronts are trying harder to
> slow the car than the locked rears, the car acts as if it is being
> pushed from the front, akin to trying to balance it on its nose. It
> *can* be held stable, sometimes, without unlocking the rear brakes, but
> takes reflexes, skill, and most of all flat, straight pavement as well
> as a healthy dose of luck.
>
> nate

No. Sorry. That is incorrect. The reason that a car with locked rear
brakes will become unstable is that the reduce traction of the rear
tires while sliding (as compared to the fronts while still rolling) is
exacerbated by the fact that the fronts also have some friction capacity
left over and any small yaw then becomes magnified by the fact that the
fronts running with a slight slip angle (from the yaw) produce more side
force than the rears running at precisely the same slip angle.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article >, Alan Baker wrote:

> No. Sorry. That is incorrect. The reason that a car with locked rear
> brakes will become unstable is that the reduce traction of the rear
> tires while sliding (as compared to the fronts while still rolling) is
> exacerbated by the fact that the fronts also have some friction capacity
> left over and any small yaw then becomes magnified by the fact that the
> fronts running with a slight slip angle (from the yaw) produce more side
> force than the rears running at precisely the same slip angle.

The weight transfer forward is part of the reason the rears lock up
first. Things become unstable because the rears are locked and the fronts
aren't.

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>
>>gpsman wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote: <brentivy snip>
>>>
>>>>She could have cut you off while going 30mph slower than you, with a 1
>>>>foot gap and then slammed on the brakes and the cops would have still
>>>>faulted you and insurance would still fault you.
>>>>
>>>>Least that's my experience.....
>>>
>>>
>>>I would love to hear more about that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Especially telling is the cloud of blue smoke. This means she locked them
>>>>up and was sliding. In turn, that means she wasn't stopping as quickly as
>>>>possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>Really?! Have you read this?
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lo...#Effectiveness
>>>
>>>"A Finnish car magazine, Tekniikan Maailma, tested a VW Golf V fitted
>>>with non-studded Continental ContiVikingContact 3 tires (Braking
>>>distance from 80-0 km/h)"
>>> -----
>>>
>>>- gpsman
>>>
>>
>>did you have a point? No, I haven't read that article before, but it
>>agrees with common knowledge, and Brent's assertion, that a locked wheel
>>stops slower than a rolling one being threshold or ABS braked, except
>>for loose surfaces (which one would assume wasn't the case on a freeway,
>>which are usually made of asphalt or concrete.) Which anyone who has
>>any basic knowledge of driving should know. This is why, incidentally,
>>that rear wheels locking prior to the fronts in heavy braking tends to
>>destabilize a vehicle; because the unlocked fronts are trying harder to
>>slow the car than the locked rears, the car acts as if it is being
>>pushed from the front, akin to trying to balance it on its nose. It
>>*can* be held stable, sometimes, without unlocking the rear brakes, but
>>takes reflexes, skill, and most of all flat, straight pavement as well
>>as a healthy dose of luck.
>>
>>nate
>
>
> No. Sorry. That is incorrect. The reason that a car with locked rear
> brakes will become unstable is that the reduce traction of the rear
> tires while sliding (as compared to the fronts while still rolling) is
> exacerbated by the fact that the fronts also have some friction capacity
> left over and any small yaw then becomes magnified by the fact that the
> fronts running with a slight slip angle (from the yaw) produce more side
> force than the rears running at precisely the same slip angle.
>

Um... that's what I said, except you did *this.*

nate

(oh, geez, did I just quote a lame ass commercial?)

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel