How would the insurance companies view this crash?

Jackson P

It is your fault for running into the back of them.
You should always be driving in a manner that you can brake in time.

What if it had been a child not a pheasant?

sloopy

I have no idea what it's like in England but here in the states, you hit someone from behind and you're at fault. You were basically following too close to be safe in the event of just such an incident happening in the eyes of the law.

taxed till i die,

No it is your fault for hitting him.

remowlms

Actually, they will probably say that you were following too close. You should have been at least 2 seconds behind the vehicle in front, which would give you ample opportunity to perceive, react and stop before hitting the vehicle that stopped in front of you...

TSW

No... You are at fault. You were traveling to close.
you have to expect the unexpected.

sexyma

No it is not if you hit someone from behind, whether they suddenly broke or not you are at fault...you should always keep a car length distance between you and the car in front.

Bardic

Your mechanic is talking through his spanner. Does he therefore think it in order to run over a child, rather than stop?

You are required to drive at such a speed and distance that you CAN stop in the event of an emergency such as this. I'm afraid the law (and the insurance companies) will hold you responsible.

the earthquakemoonman

the insurance company will look at it that you were following to close= not enough time to stop== not tailgating, just not a safe distance behind==Look on the bright side, the pheasant got through it with just a warning. Alas you my english friend are going to have to bite the bullet on this little pheasant bender==

Michael S

In the UK, you would be at fault for not leaving sufficient distance from the vehicle in front. It can be argued that in the time available, the driver in front decided to stop. Whether rightly or wrongly, that is what he did. Had that been a dog or a child, he would be expected to stop. However, YOU WERE STILL TOO CLOSE!

Neil

The insurance companies will view it as your fault.
You should always be far enough from the car in front in order to be able to stop short if it performs an emergency stop.
If it had been a child and not a pheasant, would the garage have said the car in front shouldn't have braked? What caused the car in front to brake isn't an issue - you were too close.

Somethingtotry

It is always the fault of the person who runs into someone from behind. It does not matter why the driver in front did, if you ran into them, you were following too closely. The laws cannot differ between a pheasant, dog, cat, or a person. It was your fault and that is the way it will be seen.

WelshLad

No you are at fault, for not leaving enough gap.

ChrisL

Sorry, your insurers will view this as your fault as the highway code states you must leave a sufficient gap between you and the vehicle in front in order to stop in the event of any emergency.

The fact it was a bird doesnâ€™t make any difference, it could have been a child.

Amy H

i actually dealt with a similar case the other day. . . . technically, you are at fault, but if your insurers can prove that you wouldnt have had the accident if the car infront hadnt have slammed on ( ie witnesses), then your insurers can pursue a recovery or at least a contribution to your repairs. did you have the car infronts details?? ring your insurers and explain the situation to them - if you get someone who isnt afraid of work, then they can try to pursue the other insurers - although - there is no guarantee that they will win as most of the time your insurance company will pay the bill and cut their losses rather than risk extra costs by having to go to court

george x

Try to deal it out of pocket, otherwise insurance rates will go up much more. You can check how quotes will change here - carinsurance.yoll.net

insert name here

not good, best bet is to plea for a fifty fifty case, you should have left enough distance between the two of you to be able to stop and technically if its not safe to stop the guy in front should have run over the pheasant, (athough not the case if it was a child) but he didnt and i doubt he looked in his mirror before slamming the anchors on.

kate

Probably be 50/50. As you shouldn't have been close enough to hit him/her.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: