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.
你太能意淫了。哈哈。这么急了 😂 还学会了人身攻击。也是奇葩。
被追尾过两次，都是后面开车的人，要么临时弯腰捡东西，要么临时看了一眼手机。 第一个下车一看，屁痕迹都没有。第二个，保险公司修了保险杠花了500刀的样子。开车的啥样人都有，被追车屁股你就没办法了。😂
你最近的车祸还好吗？ arbitration能掰扯回来省钱吗？ https://huaren.us/showtopic.html?topicid=3044812&postid=102125886#102125886
在这里纠缠不清，最多帮你自我感觉有理，学好defensive driving, 能救你命。你自己选吧。
这种 brake check, 如果你没有证据，对方还撒谎，你就彻底完蛋了，保险公司只能根据追尾判定你全责。
没办法，乱开车的烂人不少。别人的错，你承担结果。因为烂人碰到赔钱的事后，啥drama都会。你这个能道歉，是因为没有发生车祸，前车主说声sorry也不损失一分钱，要是被追尾了，也有可能另外一个故事。
开车一定要defensive defensive defensive， 没办法。否则别人的错，你倒霉。
说你脑子坏了是陈述事实，怎么就人身攻击了，你连“我不是楼主”这五个字都不认识了，赶紧去看看吧
如果前车有正当理由（比如路上有障碍物）刹车导致撞车，后车全责，后车跟车距离不够
如果没有正当理由呢？
是的，这种人实在是太过分了 保险认定后车全责？呵呵，那要问问保险，哪天我们想换新车了，是不是可以把车子在高速中间一停，我们跑到路边，等着后车来撞，撞废了正好可以换新车？说什么车不能开了，证据在哪里？谁知道是transmission坏了还是忘了加油没油了，莫非没油了也可以停在高速中间让后车全责？真是太扯了！黑白颠倒。楼主的保险到底是替谁说话的，这个事件的关键点在于前车停车的原因是什么，如果不能证明，那就必须是前车百分百的责任。楼主的保险应该去push对方立刻提交证据，证明自己停车是有正当理由的，而不是把楼主拦下来，根本不去找对方保险理赔，她们这样当然最省事了，楼主全责，保险cover，然后楼主保费大涨，她们自己则不用去跟对方掰扯，她们自己当然选这个了，太扯了，明显的渎职。
楼主你一定要投诉负责你这个案件的adjuster，完全没有收集到该收集的资料就妄下结论，完全置客户和公司的利益而不顾。
没有，大家都正在通过红绿灯，前面几辆车都通过了，忽然前车就停下了。我急刹车才停。幸好后面没车。骂了这二货，人家说sorry，然后慢悠悠又开起来。 这种黑灯瞎火的前车停在高速道上人坐车里的真缺德。高速路两条lane的连路肩都不能停，被罚款的。这种在lane上的真是找死还拉垫背的。
这个论坛也好，很多华人微信群也好，有很多心理阴暗的人，明明是很明显对方全责的事故，她们就为了让问问题的人不好受，就故意说是问问题的人全责 明天如果楼主发个帖子，说她车坏了，停在路中间，后车躲闪不及把她撞了，问谁的责任，这个楼里的指责楼主的人绝对会众口一词的说还是楼主的责任，她们不在乎是谁的责任，她们只在乎让别人不好过
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？
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！
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。
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
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.