In case "presumed liability" seems like a troubling innovation, here in the US we have something like it for rear-end collisions. The person driving the car in the rear, is presumed to have caused the crash.
Heh, which opens up the possibility of fraud by backing into someone. Which then of course results in more drivers deciding to get a dash cam. So now we have excellent coverage of weird things happening in Russia because a decent fraction of the population has a dash cam.
Currently many cars have automatic braking (honda, subaru, bmw, tesla, etc) I'm not aware of any that actually record it for playback. Does anyone know otherwise?
That's where "presumed liability" enters the picture. Sans dashcam, the cop can gather other kinds of traditional evidence such as witness accounts, but otherwise the person in back is presumed to be at fault.
Something that scares me. It makes no sense whatsoever to assume guilt/liability is mutually exclusive for one party or the other, and is moreover disingenuous.
Comments
In case "presumed liability" seems like a troubling innovation, here in the US we have something like it for rear-end collisions. The person driving the car in the rear, is presumed to have caused the crash.
Heh, which opens up the possibility of fraud by backing into someone. Which then of course results in more drivers deciding to get a dash cam. So now we have excellent coverage of weird things happening in Russia because a decent fraction of the population has a dash cam.
Soon every car will have a dash cam anyway, as part of the mechanism for preventing rear end collisions.
Currently many cars have automatic braking (honda, subaru, bmw, tesla, etc) I'm not aware of any that actually record it for playback. Does anyone know otherwise?
In Europe reversing car is (almost) always at fault in most countries.
Which is why they claim you're the one that ran into them. Hence the need for dash cams.
It is easy to prove otherwise. Not sure why the downvote. Calm down.
Sans dashcam how do you prove whether someone backed into a vehicle, or drove into the back of a vehicle?
I'm talking about slowish speeds here. Obviously if someone is rear ended at 50mph the culprit is obvious because no car can reverse that fast
That's where "presumed liability" enters the picture. Sans dashcam, the cop can gather other kinds of traditional evidence such as witness accounts, but otherwise the person in back is presumed to be at fault.
Sure, but I was specifically asking the poster above me, because they said "It is easy to prove otherwise. Not sure why the downvote. Calm down."
Something that scares me. It makes no sense whatsoever to assume guilt/liability is mutually exclusive for one party or the other, and is moreover disingenuous.
It scares me that so few people acknowledge that.
Also people who cut you off and then slam on their brakes.
When driving, you're supposed to leave an 'emergency stopping distance' between you and the car in front.