So let’s say I’m at a red light and the person in front of me (by accident, on purpose whatever) put’s their car in reverse and slams into mine. Let’s also assume that their are no witnesses. When the police arrive, the person in front of me claims I rear ended them.
My question is, is there any way for a cop or insurance company to tell what happened. That is, without dragging a forensics team out to look at the cars, are there any tell tale signs of what actually happened?
BTW this didn’t actually happen to me, it just something I’ve pondered while at stop lights.
There might be skid marks from your tires indicating you were shoved backwards, but it’d probably take a pretty good hit. Likewise, there wouldn’t be any indicating you slammed on your brakes before rear-ending the other guy, but that’s not good evidence (you might not have hit your brakes at all…). There would also not be any skid marks from the guy who backed into you, unless he burned rubber backwards in his rush to ruin your day.
Hot lightbulb filaments break easier than cold ones. If there is enough of an impact to take them out, inspection of the backup light bulbs will indicate if the car was in reverse at the moment of impact.
I once averted this situation. The (older) lady in front of me stopped well into the intersection, and backed up before I got there, leaving her car in reverse. The car behind me had me trapped, so I got out, walked up and warned her that she was still in reverse.
I’d think they’d have to be going at a decent clip to do that.
wasson when I’m on a hill, as the car behind me get’s closer I usually roll back a foot or two on purpose, not anywhere near hitting them, just to let them know that I’m driving stick and I might roll back a few inches when the light turns, so if you could kindly give me a few feet it would be very helpful.
In the real world, assuming both of you have full insurance, the police are most likley to ignore the whole thing and each person’s insurance company is likely to pay for the driver they insure.
Yea, but I don’t need to use it unless you’re RIGHT behind me.
Besides it’s always good to be a few feet away. What if my car died, you’d want to be able to get around me without backing up, what if someone was coming up to you’re car like they where going to try and steal it? Again, you’d want to be able to get away if need be.
I seem to vaguely recall that this may have been part of an actual court case. I used to work for Ford and there was a story inside the company (possibly apocryphal) about some lawsuit where a driver was rear-ended at night. The following driver said he didn’t see the car because he didn’t have his lights on. Inspection of the front car showed that a taillight bulb was broken but the filament was intact, proving that the lights couldn’t have been on.
In the situation in the OP, however, you are on the opposite side of the argument and showing that the filaments were in fact broken doesn’t prove that the backup lights were on.
Barring skid marks, eyewitnesses, and light bulb filamnents, I can think of no other physical evidence that could show which car was moving. The laws of physics say that the damage is the same no matter which car was moving.
(I was on a hill in line behind a light, and a light truck rolled backwards into me. This was not a “rolling back while I’m shifting into gear” roll, it was an “I’m falling asleep at the wheel” roll. Fortunately he never tried to claim I rear-ended him. He did try to claim, however, that his brakes failed. Brake lights didn’t come on until he hit me, however.)
Well, if it’s just an idle speed going backwards, then there ought not be damage to either car. On the other hand, if the frontward driver slams on his accelarator to slam into you, then the height of the marks on the cars can probably be used to determine who was accelerating and who was not. Or braking, for that matter.
Assuming your car is ten years old or less, if your airbag(s) deployed due to the impact of the car in reverse hitting your front-end, I believe your car’s computer stores the speed it thinks your car was moving at, at that moment, i.e. zero.
You could have been skidding with all tires locked up into a rear-end impact and still get a zero there, but I think the absence of skid marks would weigh in your favor against that argument.
In the situation given by the OP where the backer-upper lies, the holder-stiller is SOL. Conflicting reports without evidence to clear up the situation typically yield a “each to their own” liability decision. Which kinda sucks because in a low impact we’re talking scuffs that are likely to cost less to repair than the deductibles covering either car.
In the case of an impact which causes significant damage a little detective work might give some clues. If it’s a genuine rear ender wher the guy behind is striking a stationary car in front, debris (clear glass) from the rear car will advance into the roadbed occupied by the car in front. Similarly, if the car in front is backing, (red plastic) debris will continue into the zone occupied by the stationary rear car. The inertia (and brake friction) of the vehicles themselves will restrict their movement to a great enough degree that casual observation would reveal the truth of what happened. Until the cop sweeps up all the debris.
And if it’s a real humdinger where the guy in front is backing, then the front of the rear car will likely be shoved over, leaving the car somewhat diagonal on the roadbed.
Well, I doubt the police are going to be doing any CSI in depth work for a fender-bender like some are doing here.
I’ll go with Shagnasty and say both parties would be responsible for their own cars damages if no one fesses up to it. Even if you didn’t have insurance you’d have to pay for it yourself.
If you thought you had a case you could always try to sue the person but then it’s still your word against theres. And court/legal fees would probably be more expensive than just fixing your car.