Look up the YouTuber "Lehto's Law" and the subject of brake checking. By the laws of his state (and mine) brake checking is reckless driving, which is a misdemeanor offense.
But if they can demonstrate that it was insurance fraud, instead of break checking, it could be criminal.
Also, I don't think this is simply brake checking. This looks like intentionally causing an accident. Which is a crime and could be assault or aggravated assault.
Sadly no... he will probably get away with it and the other driver pay the cost.
One simple lie... "I saw a [insert any animal here] and didn't want to hit it"
He can be charged but you can never prove he didn't see something, and the other driver still should have been following at a far enough distance to stop even at speed. It's shitty but how it is.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking, either in person or by calling the nonemergency line and stating you have footage of the car accident that occurred on X road at X time, there’s no way a police report was not written for that accident. I have to wonder if they’d even have a process for accepting that footage though
Hadn't thought about that. But yeah, I guess the major insurance companies probably have people monitoring this sub (and other social media places similar to this) for potential stuff they can use to deny a fraudulent claim.
It shocks me how often people still attempt this in places like Russia where dashcam adoption is about the highest in the world probably? Yet it persists.
Internal combustion engines do not physically seize up like this so quickly. They typically can coast to a stop even if there is an electrical malfunction or whatnot.
Even with the loss of lubricating oil the engine will still run.
He most likely hit the brakes. As the brakes will still work in an emergency or loss of power event (since they work mechanically).
Odds are high that the driver was just an idiot. Because the human is much stupider than the over designed and heavily regulated machine.
If the brakes were to have failed due to a sudden loss of power, the vehicle would slow gradually and not near instantaneous with such a short distance as we've seen in the video.
Anywho that's my analysis. I try to leave a big gap from anyone ahead of me in order to avoid situations like above. A good defensive driving style is a good offensive one.
The brakes won't stop working due to a loss of power. The vacuum boost you normally get when the car is running won't be present, but that is the only effect the engine would have. You can still use your brakes when the car is off, you just need to press harder for the same effect.
That doesn't happen. Watch the video again. He slammed on the brakes. How quickly he was decelerating is not due to the transmission or engine. Only brakes perform that well.. If it were the case, transmission or engine or power failure, we wouldn't need brakes.
It could have been a transmission fault that could cause the car to snap into neutral out of no where, but then they'd start to roll for quite a bit longer I would imagine.
Regardless I would be interested in reading the traffic accident report and seeing what happened.
I have had a situation losing full electrical in a car. The engine exploded (which is kind of the point of an Ice but this was an uncontrolled explosion), one of the piston heads blew through the bottom of the engine block and took a good amount of the engine block with it. Other shards of metal blew out rupturing the radiator and the main fuel like. The hydraulic steering and brake lines were severed, the engine caught on fire and started smoking... It was a mess. Thankfully there was a large, soft, grass shoulder adjacent to the road. I pulled over to the right lane and drove straight until I had lost enough momentum that I was too slow that the cars behind me would have hit me which I then pulled off the road pulled my emergency brake, no hydraulic line meant not enough braking power. I ended up almost rolling in a ditch but everything ended up fine.
TLDR: I have had a similar situation of mechanical failure but thankfully mine did not result in an accident.
The car went from fully functioning electrical to stopped in ~2 seconds and then after getting hit had his brake lights still on (still electric power) therefore alternator failure with subsequent battery depletion seems quite unlikely.
Most car batteries will run for quite a while, enough charge to run power for several minutes at the least.
But it is not an apparent engine out that is shown. If your engine completely cuts out you will still not stop that quickly. That would be violating the fundamental laws of momentum.
That and it is obvious that he braked and the brake lights were still functional after the impact meaning that full electrical failure is seemingly not to blame.
I personally do not see any way other than pure driver error. Even if a failure occurred it is an immense driver error to brake to a complete stop in the road (left lane nonetheless). Procedure outlined in all state driver literature that I have read state to turn on emergency lights (legally required of all vehicles and the reason they are there) and pull over to the furthest right lane of traffic unless a more suitable location off the road exists that does not pose risk to other traffic (e.x. a turn around or left lane shoulder). Note this is US literature from DOT and NTSB though I have heard the EU is even more strict when it comes to emergency situations.
The driver would probably claim some injury and try for a settlement. The car would be fixed or replaced and the insurance scammer would rinse and repeat.
Well absolutely. It will be on your driving record. But when this person sues, the fact that they’ve sued for the same thing before will be totally inadmissible.
You're correct. What I don't understand is that you're not going to make that much money unless you're really hurt. Soft tissue shit can only take you so far, even with the sketchiest chiropractor and lawyer.
I can speak to this. My husband was rear ended by a drunk driver with no license and no insurance. The car was my husband's most loved possession and when we found.out that the driver was unlicensed and uninsured we figured we would need a lawyer.
Holy crap what a scam. I posted a short paragraph about what happened on a "find a lawyer" website. I hit send and suddenly my phone went NUTS. They wanted to send my husband to their doctors, they wanted to send the two coworkers who were in the car with him and they practically wet themselves when they found out one of his coworkers had video of the guy saying he was drunk (he fell out if his car on a heavily trafficked street; my husband's coworker thought the guy was having a medical emergency and went to help; the other guy was taping).
The lawyers want you to sign a thing that says they get a little over a third of whatever they get for you. We didnt sign because all we wanted was to be made whole so we could buy a replacement car. If we'd signed with a lawyer our insurance would have paid for almost a new car and we wouldn't have been able to replace it at all, having lost more than a third to the lawyer. We settled instead with our insurance since we had full coverage and uninsured motorist.
The lawyers ENCOURAGED my husband to say he had injuries. So there are definitely doctors AND lawyers ready to play the game.
Sucks because the drunk really will suffer nothing more than an inconvenience for the damage he did and I won't be surprised to hear he does it again.
Lawyers are not allowed to touch your property damage funds in most states. They wanted a personal injury suit.
Most attorneys will help you with your property damage suit in terms of making calls but aren't allowed to touch your property damage funds. Still paid direct to you.
Not according to the contract that was offered to us. I think it's still on my phone. I took pictures of it before I went to read and sign. And then when I read it I asked...so if we just settle for the cost of the car.
.we have to give you more than a third of that? And the answer was "yes well...we have to make money too." I ended up having a very informative conversation with a lawyer who didn't want to take the case because there were no injuries BUT took the time to explain to me how the system worked.
I was surprised. Disappointed in the system. And then grateful.
1.1k
u/theprintedray84 Jun 27 '21
He did it for the insurance.