In Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 (BCCA) the lead vehicle stopped suddenly at a green light after he became confused by a left turn signal that had turned red, and was then rear ended by a vehicle driven by the plaintiff: The trial judge found that the defendant's vehicle, which was the first of the three that I have talked about, came to a very sudden stop at the intersection. The trial judge also found that the reason why it did so was that the left turn lane signal had changed to prohibit traffic turning left and that Mr. Singh, who was not an experienced driver, reached the conclusion that the red light was for him and so he stopped. In fact, the light was still green for northbound traffic. The Chu vehicle, which was in the middle of the three vehicles, then struck the Singh vehicle.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 3 (BCCA)). The Court of Appeal quoted the following passage from the trial judgment in which the trial judge concluded that the driver of the rear-ending vehicle was not at all responsible for the accident: [T]his was a situation where drivers still on the green phase coming to the stop line certainly expected to go on through the traffic and no doubt were accelerating at that time.When they were confronted with the sudden stopping there was insufficient time for them to apply their brakes and stop in a timely manner. I am of the view that under these circumstances that certainly was an agony of the moment where it would be very difficult to stop and although I have given consideration to the application of contributory negligence, I am of the view that in these particular circumstances I would discount that factor.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 8 (BCCA), citing the trial judge). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion of the trial judge that the plaintiff, who was the driver of the vehicle that rear ended the lead vehicle, was not at all responsible for the accident.
"追尾别的车，永远后车的错" 这个我不赞同 In Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 (BCCA) the lead vehicle stopped suddenly at a green light after he became confused by a left turn signal that had turned red, and was then rear ended by a vehicle driven by the plaintiff: The trial judge found that the defendant's vehicle, which was the first of the three that I have talked about, came to a very sudden stop at the intersection. The trial judge also found that the reason why it did so was that the left turn lane signal had changed to prohibit traffic turning left and that Mr. Singh, who was not an experienced driver, reached the conclusion that the red light was for him and so he stopped. In fact, the light was still green for northbound traffic. The Chu vehicle, which was in the middle of the three vehicles, then struck the Singh vehicle.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 3 (BCCA)). The Court of Appeal quoted the following passage from the trial judgment in which the trial judge concluded that the driver of the rear-ending vehicle was not at all responsible for the accident: [T]his was a situation where drivers still on the green phase coming to the stop line certainly expected to go on through the traffic and no doubt were accelerating at that time.When they were confronted with the sudden stopping there was insufficient time for them to apply their brakes and stop in a timely manner. I am of the view that under these circumstances that certainly was an agony of the moment where it would be very difficult to stop and although I have given consideration to the application of contributory negligence, I am of the view that in these particular circumstances I would discount that factor.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 8 (BCCA), citing the trial judge). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion of the trial judge that the plaintiff, who was the driver of the vehicle that rear ended the lead vehicle, was not at all responsible for the accident.
"追尾别的车，永远后车的错" 这个我不赞同 In Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 (BCCA) the lead vehicle stopped suddenly at a green light after he became confused by a left turn signal that had turned red, and was then rear ended by a vehicle driven by the plaintiff: The trial judge found that the defendant's vehicle, which was the first of the three that I have talked about, came to a very sudden stop at the intersection. The trial judge also found that the reason why it did so was that the left turn lane signal had changed to prohibit traffic turning left and that Mr. Singh, who was not an experienced driver, reached the conclusion that the red light was for him and so he stopped. In fact, the light was still green for northbound traffic. The Chu vehicle, which was in the middle of the three vehicles, then struck the Singh vehicle.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 3 (BCCA)). The Court of Appeal quoted the following passage from the trial judgment in which the trial judge concluded that the driver of the rear-ending vehicle was not at all responsible for the accident: [T]his was a situation where drivers still on the green phase coming to the stop line certainly expected to go on through the traffic and no doubt were accelerating at that time.When they were confronted with the sudden stopping there was insufficient time for them to apply their brakes and stop in a timely manner. I am of the view that under these circumstances that certainly was an agony of the moment where it would be very difficult to stop and although I have given consideration to the application of contributory negligence, I am of the view that in these particular circumstances I would discount that factor.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 8 (BCCA), citing the trial judge). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion of the trial judge that the plaintiff, who was the driver of the vehicle that rear ended the lead vehicle, was not at all responsible for the accident.
打了我们的insurance 他们说， 我们从后门撞了别人， 不管什么情况， 都是我们的错， 然后现在担心， 对方如果车完全不能开， transmission issue，这车基本上就报销了， 但是我们擦到她， 她会不会完顺势claim我们的insurance弄个新车。 还有就是， 我现在想起来， 我下次去看对方车的时候， 她在电话上， 然后完全没有任何表情，感觉好像没事一样， 如果是我被人撞了， 一定是很不自然的状态的， 所以不厚道得想， 这是不是新一类得碰瓷？
请大家轻拍
update： 谢谢大家公正的feedback，和正面的input。经过这件事物，我认识到，车会有些极端的状况下，完全不能操控的状态，这种情况非常可怕，尤其是是在晚上，或许我会考虑自己带上三角，如果这种情况发生在我身上，除了打双闪（如果车灯工作）， 车后放上三角是对自己的保护，也保护别人。也借此提醒大家注意晚上开车可能会有想不到的情况，最后谢谢大家。
🔥 最新回帖
In Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 (BCCA) the lead vehicle stopped suddenly at a green light after he became confused by a left turn signal that had turned red, and was then rear ended by a vehicle driven by the plaintiff: The trial judge found that the defendant's vehicle, which was the first of the three that I have talked about, came to a very sudden stop at the intersection. The trial judge also found that the reason why it did so was that the left turn lane signal had changed to prohibit traffic turning left and that Mr. Singh, who was not an experienced driver, reached the conclusion that the red light was for him and so he stopped. In fact, the light was still green for northbound traffic. The Chu vehicle, which was in the middle of the three vehicles, then struck the Singh vehicle.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 3 (BCCA)).
The Court of Appeal quoted the following passage from the trial judgment in which the trial judge concluded that the driver of the rear-ending vehicle was not at all responsible for the accident: [T]his was a situation where drivers still on the green phase coming to the stop line certainly expected to go on through the traffic and no doubt were accelerating at that time.When they were confronted with the sudden stopping there was insufficient time for them to apply their brakes and stop in a timely manner. I am of the view that under these circumstances that certainly was an agony of the moment where it would be very difficult to stop and although I have given consideration to the application of contributory negligence, I am of the view that in these particular circumstances I would discount that factor.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 8 (BCCA), citing the trial judge). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion of the trial judge that the plaintiff, who was the driver of the vehicle that rear ended the lead vehicle, was not at all responsible for the accident.
如果前车没有正当理由急刹车，后车也有部分责任，因为后车没有保持安全距离
比如前车的人有没有机会把熄火的车推到路边。如果有但不这么做，而是停在路中间等待救援，那他有责任。 再如后车司机有没有刹车，没有刹车也不躲避，那他有责任。如果刹了但刹车突然失灵了，那他就没责任。
如果双方对事故责任无法达成一致意见，那只有诉诸法律了。但估计一般保险公司都能有办法妥协。如果当事人不同意自己的保险公司的决定，得看保单上是怎么写的。如果自己执意要打官司，那后果只能自负了吧。
哪怕打了双闪，我认为依然是前车的责任，除非她能证明她的车因为不可抗拒的原因停在了马路中间，楼主的保险怎么能就这么算了！
这也别多想。。是楼主自己说保险公司说她全责，但我想她是不是没有说清楚。
停在高速路上没有双闪也没有反光牌，要不要开罚单？
如果要的话就说明行为失当。这么明显的行为失当，怎么能让后车承担所有责任？
🛋️ 沙发板凳
修改了不占首位
感觉也不是lz给他造成的麻烦吧，夜里停在高速上是必然被撞的啊，是他倒霉lz也倒霉啊。
这个是所有撞车的美国人的思维方式。撞车了只有傻子才说“I am sorry”。
那样的话，你的车头岂不撞烂了？
这不是中式思维，这是你的思维。
黑咕隆咚的夜晚车横在路中间，对方又没有打双闪灯，没有放反光三角锥和施放火焰筒，其实道义上来讲对方是有责任的。。。
但可能保险还是要认定你的全责吧，当然我觉得可能撞得不严重，你只擦掉了镜子而已，对方能撞多重？让保险处理好了，省心
你算一下，在那个能见度下，在那个车速下，你从看到她的车开始刹车，你会不会撞到她？我觉得完全可以说你已经尽了物理极限了
跟你保险公司就这么说，添油加醋一点说你是多么地努力避开和刹车
千万不要跟保险公司说啥你脑子糊涂，MD 3点有脑子绝对清醒的么？那个傻逼把车停高速中间没有提醒，不是一马路杀手么
建议LZ通过保险公司去claim 她的保险，你给了她自己的保险也可以claim
不是吧，大马路车子停在路上怎么也有一定责任吧。当然这事很难argue
这这么不能argue? 3点把车停在高速上要是没有做预防措施等同于谋杀
就算做了也可以argue 做了不够
听起来好像就是车子突然出故障了，不巧发生在高速公路上。这要是碰瓷岂不是拿命做赌注
我有一次在繁忙的马路上开车，突然有几个灯都亮了。我打了双闪减速然后尝试找出口。但是很快灯就全亮了，然后在大马路中间熄火了，完全不受控制，也来不及出来。后来碰巧附近有个警察看到，拿车子把我的车推到了附近的加油站，又是一番惊险，才知道车子熄火的状况下刹车和方向盘都有点失灵。后来修车也是换了transmission
"双闪有没有打没注意"这句话不太靠谱，大概率那就是没打吧，要是正前方打了双闪大半夜看不见不太正常，除非雨雪天气
半夜三更的拿性命碰瓷，楼主你真阴暗
agree。打没打双闪可是关系到谁是主要责任人的重要因素
如果没打双闪，也没有亮红色刹车灯，对方也有责任吧？
另外，以后别买那种五六点的飞机了。
是的，最好不要买那么早且要长时间开长途去机场的飞机时间
几年前我们这边有一起交通事故，就是小留买的很早的（大概五点左右）回国机票，让朋友开一个多小时送去机场。结果倒霉，路上碰到逆行上告诉的酒驾的车（酒吧2点关门)出了严重的车祸。我们学校的一个学生据说在医院呆了很长时间，学业肯定是受到影响了。不知道后来怎么样了。
那个时间点碰到酒家或疲劳驾驶的概率会比较高
什么愚蠢逻辑。 明明是对方车停路中间 给楼主造成麻烦 楼主倒霉还要破财 幸亏大人孩子没受伤。花钱消灾了只能。楼主下次谨记要掌握各种对自己有利的证据。
打了双闪也不等于对方没有责任，谁说双闪就够了？高速上出故障停车一般要求老远就放开始提示💡的
你这是美国规定，还是中国规定？中国听说是要放三角牌，美国没有类似要求吧？
真的好恶心 这是什么心理 自己撞到人家 这是可能有生命危险的事 说人家会不会碰瓷
LZ是什么人啊😯 还好不是我朋友 可怕😨
她应该不是故意的，是车坏了动不了。但是她没开双闪也挺奇怪啊。
谢谢32楼的科普，车出问题的时候会有完全不受控制的情况，这个也是对我自己的提醒，因为这样的事情或许也会发生在自己身上。也给大家提个醒，尤其是晚上行车，非常小心，我记得几年前一对华人姐妹冬天开车回家遇上车祸当场身亡的，车祸猛于虎，车坏了是小事，人命大事。
如果是刚刚发生，没来得及打双闪也是可能的。
而且，如果对方的汽车出故障失电，所有的灯都不亮也是有可能的。当然我不知道是不是这种情况。
这些细节需要详细记录下来，和保险公司解释清楚。如果天黑没有路灯，或者路灯比较暗，而对方的车灯不亮，这个事故未必是你的责任。
大白天的就没跑，大概率是追尾车的责任。
如果前方车辆有尾灯，那么大概率还是追尾车的责任。要把全部细节提交给保险公司来裁定。
好在人没有重伤，不过还是检查一下放心。
保险方面希望有足够的coverage，一般就是支付deductible，然后会涨保险。少不了一些经济损失。
曾经有个案子，四个警察追到一个嫌犯，在高速路边停车查证件询问，结果一个大货车过来，把四个警察都撞死了。。。当然事后发现大货车嗑药以及疲劳驾驶。这个案子的嫌犯也不是省油的灯。 但要说的是，把车停在高速边真的挺危险。车后备箱还是要准备几个反光的cone之类的。
"我开始不解的是，即便车坏了，在高速上行驶的车，依靠惯性也可以行驶一段路，从而有机会pull over， 为啥停在lane的中间，pull over的话，连一米的距离都不到。" 这个assumption本身就不一定成立。有可能人家看到灯亮了，第一反应可能是打双闪然后找个合适的路口出去找维修。结果没想到车很快就趴下了
上次加拿大那个为了保护鸭子过马路，把车停在高速上，造成好几伤亡的，不是已经判有罪入狱了吗？
那楼主完全是受害者，有什么错？！
所以她打了双闪你自己没看见？？！！ 这状态还敢带着孩子开车？
看到这层我就觉得不对了，正常人不会“双闪有没有打没注意”，再往后看楼主的回复，果然不是对方的错。可恶的是还恶意揣测人家碰瓷。
楼主已经说了对方打了双闪的，而且她孩子也看见车了，是她没看见
她孩子看见车的时候，她做出规避了，但是没成功，打没打双闪我认为区别不大，对方不可能完全没有责任，至少要付一半的责任，双车道乡间高速可能没有路灯，把车停在路上哪怕打开双闪，别人又能看多远，更何况路也不是直的，后面的车很可能被建筑物和树木阻挡视线，相比较楼主，很明显对方过失更大，我认为楼主最多应该付３０％的责任，甚至更少，对方把车停在路上，有没有第一时间联系道路救援或者警察？如果没有，那对方应该付100%的责任。哪怕有，那对方也应该付至少50%的责任。我期待楼主有了保险公司的官方认定再来告诉大家。
有police report，剩下的就是保险公司的事了
她的孩子可能早就看到了前方有车，看到靠近了妈妈还没有采取规避动作，才开口提醒。而出口提醒也至少花一秒钟。通常情况下，乘客对路况的注意力没有驾驶员那么集中，但这次是乘客先注意到了，而司机却没发现。如果楼主当时能够集中注意力，应该能更早发现有车从而有足够的时间进行规避，但显然没有做到。而且对方已经打开了双闪灯，楼主的责任确实比较大
你说的这些都是“可能”，你有什么证据呢？ 而且说一千道一万，如果前面那个车没有停在路中间，整个事情就不会发生，出了事故，不去追究始作俑者，不去追究本质原因，却非要从楼主没能规避这个事故这个出发点，来找各种理由，把所有责任都归给楼主，我不明白这个论坛大部分人为什么这么想。 你说楼主注意力不集中，我还说对方司机违规操作，明明车子失去动力，却不知道在这期间把车子引导到路肩上停下，而是让车子一路降速最后完全停在了主路上，这是非常危险的行为。而且这个车子可能停下很久了，对方司机没有报警，没有请求道路救援，就停在这里，这也是违法。再次，对方司机很可能没有按时进行保养，或者check engline亮了很久了，她明知道车子有问题却不去维修，导致车子完全失去动力。这些很容易找到证据的，都是客观事实。我不信一个按时保养及时维修的车子，会毫无征兆的在高速行驶的时候熄火，这是概率极低的事情。那个人可能早就知道自己的transmission会挂掉，因为心存侥幸的不去维修，才导致车子突然失去动力的吧，这些都可以查到。 她的车子上一次保养是什么时候，有没有按时保养，她车子的check engine灯亮了多久了，她却置若罔闻，这些都可以查到，与其费尽心思证明楼主走神这种完全主观的事情，不如直接看看对方到底犯了多少错。
楼主的孩子看到车了，说明被撞的车不是全黑的。
看起来你是真没亲自遇到发电机忽然挂掉动力全无的情况。
你说的那么多不也是很多推测？你咋确定前车没有求援？你咋知道前车车主知道车子有问题不去修？ 信不信由你，transmission会忽然死亡还真算不上极低概率事件。
在高速天黑把车停在正常lane上应该被逮捕。这是谋杀后面的司机。车坏了她得打双闪，放三角牌，人离开车。如果这些都不做、咋考过的人驾照？楼主的车应该让对方修。给保险公司说明。
“如果前面那个车没有停在路中间，整个事情就不会发生，出了事故，不去追究始作俑者，不去追究本质原因，却非要从楼主没能规避这个事故这个出发点，来找各种理由，把所有责任都归给楼主，我不明白这个论坛大部分人为什么这么想。”
你知不知道如果你的车死在十字路口中央，绿灯车道的车也有责任避让你的车？
就算她娃第一时间告诉楼主有车，楼主还是比娃至少迟一秒钟。楼主只是擦掉了后视镜，如果楼主能和娃同时看到车，多出这一秒时间足够完全避免撞车。
况且楼主刚开始都说了没有注意到对方打没打双闪，如果注意力集中了的话，这么重要的事情怎么会没注意到？
为啥是中式思维？
我还是那句话，前车主观不一定存在恶意，但是过失杀人也是杀人，所以前车不可能完全没有责任 她说她车坏了，如何证明？ 是不是所有人都可以随便把车停在高速上，被别人撞了就说自己的车动不了了，别人全责？或者说自己突发眩晕低血糖心脏病之类的，没法继续驾驶，所以只能把车停在路中间？ 总有人说楼主没有竭尽全力避免事故，可跟前车的谜之操作比起来·，我觉着楼主的责任忽略不计
没错
transmission坏了，车子还是有惯性，高速上如果要完全停车，那会往前开很久，在低速时候，前车完全有足够时间把车开到路肩上，避免事故
前车没有动机杀人，算啥过失杀人？比喻不当。
前车车子突然坏了，也不是自己能控制的事。
车子驾驶永远一条规则，你看不清，就必须开得足够慢，即使距离很近看清也能轻松停下来。你这个娃都看清了，你开车的竟然没看清，显然对别人是马路杀手。要是你娃那种观察力的开车，那这种事完全就可以避免的。
追尾别的车，永远后车的错，除非前车故意brake check你。
"追尾别的车，永远后车的错" 这个我不赞同 In Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 (BCCA) the lead vehicle stopped suddenly at a green light after he became confused by a left turn signal that had turned red, and was then rear ended by a vehicle driven by the plaintiff: The trial judge found that the defendant's vehicle, which was the first of the three that I have talked about, came to a very sudden stop at the intersection. The trial judge also found that the reason why it did so was that the left turn lane signal had changed to prohibit traffic turning left and that Mr. Singh, who was not an experienced driver, reached the conclusion that the red light was for him and so he stopped. In fact, the light was still green for northbound traffic. The Chu vehicle, which was in the middle of the three vehicles, then struck the Singh vehicle.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 3 (BCCA)).
The Court of Appeal quoted the following passage from the trial judgment in which the trial judge concluded that the driver of the rear-ending vehicle was not at all responsible for the accident: [T]his was a situation where drivers still on the green phase coming to the stop line certainly expected to go on through the traffic and no doubt were accelerating at that time.When they were confronted with the sudden stopping there was insufficient time for them to apply their brakes and stop in a timely manner. I am of the view that under these circumstances that certainly was an agony of the moment where it would be very difficult to stop and although I have given consideration to the application of contributory negligence, I am of the view that in these particular circumstances I would discount that factor.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 8 (BCCA), citing the trial judge). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion of the trial judge that the plaintiff, who was the driver of the vehicle that rear ended the lead vehicle, was not at all responsible for the accident.
前车司机自己犯错，违反交通规则临时突然刹车，相当于给后车突然 brake check。你给我截取除非前面的部分，忘了brake check这种情况。
你这个case, 前车司机没有主观犯错而给你创造出类似于 brake check这种圣经病困难。 你只要稍微有点defensive driving常识，像你的娃一样专心点，根本就不是个事。
对方有没有打双闪都没有注意到，这个我真的不知道怎么个开车的!
或是一开始被教车师傅教了太多坏习惯而不自知？
应该庆幸娃提醒了你，否则你可能撞到车屁股自己在医院里要躺几天。
我开车很小心，曾躲过三次大车祸。彻头彻尾别人的错，甚至一次凌晨一两点在亚历桑腊 高速上被 DUI疯子 超车 brake check(估算对方至少120mph），躲过了，自己多活了快20年。
高速lane是用来高速开车的，不是用来停车的
我不是楼主，你是不是上次车祸撞到头了