Comment on Cars overwhelmingly cause bike collisions, and the law should reflect thatparentComments−DavidFlint9yIn Europe reversing car is (almost) always at fault in most countries.−sparky_z9yWhich is why they claim you're the one that ran into them. Hence the need for dash cams.−DavidFlint9yIt is easy to prove otherwise. Not sure why the downvote. Calm down.−oh_sigh9ySans 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−analog319yThat'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.−oh_sigh9ySure, 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."
Comments
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."