REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

SpeedStars · 08-22-2014, 07:55 PM

Hi everyone, not sure if this is the right area to post this but I'm wondering if you roll back (like less than 20cm) on a hill and you hit the car behind you, who would be at fault? Wondering this because I was on a really steep hill and this person behind me would not give me any room at all and I was VERY close to hitting them.

320icar · 08-22-2014, 08:23 PM

I would like to assume it would be the car behinds fault, since you need to leVe the appropriate distance between cars at stops.

Tha being said, it would be a he said she said situation and it would be deemed 50/50 unless the cars were equipped with rear facing dash cams or the car behind had a dash cam

SpeedStars · 08-22-2014, 09:11 PM

damn, so I guess that as the car in front with the dashcam, it wouldn't make a difference...

kross9 · 08-22-2014, 11:03 PM

I remember seeing something like this else where. IIRC, the vehicle behind is supposed to is recommended to leave space

Quote:

162 (1) A driver of a vehicle must not cause or permit the vehicle to follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the amount and nature of traffic on and the condition of the highway.

(2) The driver of a commercial motor vehicle or a combination of vehicles, when driving on a roadway outside a business or residence district, must not follow within 60 m of another commercial motor vehicle or a combination of vehicles, but this must not be construed to prevent one commercial motor vehicle or a combination of vehicles overtaking and passing another.
(3) The driver of a motor vehicle in a caravan or motorcade, other than a funeral procession, outside a business or residence district, must leave sufficient space between his or her vehicle and another vehicle or combination of vehicles to enable a vehicle to enter and occupy that space without danger.
Divided highways

So, as long as they are within that they are clear so most likely would be 50/50.

4444 · 08-23-2014, 12:16 AM

A 20 cm rollback is a lot of rollback

A car within 20cm of ur car is most def not leaving enough room.

Technically the butt hugged behind is wrong, morally, you're wrong for your inability to do a hill start.

There is a hand break for a reason, use it, never roll back.

H.Specter · 08-23-2014, 01:48 AM

The person rolling back would be at fault since they are in care, custody and control of their vehicle.

Fafine · 08-23-2014, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4444

A 20 cm rollback is a lot of rollback

A car within 20cm of ur car is most def not leaving enough room.

Technically the butt hugged behind is wrong, morally, you're wrong for your inability to do a hill start.

There is a hand break for a reason, use it, never roll back.

Some people can't drive standard properly.

zulutango · 08-23-2014, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kross9

I remember seeing something like this else where. IIRC, the vehicle behind is supposed to is recommended to leave space

So, as long as they are within that they are clear so most likely would be 50/50.

This above deals with vehicles while they are in motion...a stopped vehicle is not in motion. If the first vehicle slips backwards then it could be considered "reverse while unsafe"...I believe that ICBC would likely split the responsibility. A safe driver would not end up too closely behind the 1st vehicle. The road test standard says to stop between 2 and 9 metres behind. If you can just see the bottom of the tyres of the car ahead, you are about 1 car length behind and that would be the minimum distance for me to stop.

sebberry · 08-24-2014, 02:32 PM

If you feel that the car is too close to avoid rolling back into it, stick your hazards on and wait for the dolt to go around you.

XplicitLuder · 08-24-2014, 04:10 PM

^ i was gonna say just wait and signal for him to move the fk back lol

nma · 08-24-2014, 05:17 PM

If you use your e-brake, you can virtually have no roll back. It burns your clutch a tiny bit on a steep hill but it's just a few seconds and it's better than hitting someone...

Or spend 30k+ on a car that has hill assist

ancient_510 · 08-25-2014, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebberry

If you feel that the car is too close to avoid rolling back into it, stick your hazards on and wait for the dolt to go around you.

I was honked at yesterday for waiting for rail road crossing gates to go all the way up and the lights to shut off instead of crossing at the earliest possible opportunity (like the lane beside me).

I couldn't imagine having to wait with him on a hill behind me

GLOW · 08-25-2014, 08:21 AM

i just think that if they're too close to you the roll back will scare the shit out of them b/c they'll think they're going to get hit

wing_woo · 08-25-2014, 09:05 AM

If you drive a manual, you should know how to start without rolling back at all. I think you would be at fault or at least 50/50.

I remember one time leaving a car length for a car in front of me on a hill. Just wasn't comfortable with that car for some reason. They ended up rolling back half a car length and then stalling. Then he let go of the brake and tried to turn on his car while rolling back. I honked and they stopped and then turned on the car and tried again and rolled back another half car length. I'm glad there was no one behind me cause I had to let my car roll back another half a car length to not get hit.

Seriously, if you can't start a manual on a hill without rolling back, then don't drive manual. I can start on a steep hill and actually roll back less than some of my friends on an automatic rolls back on that same hill.

If someone's too close, then use your e-brake. There is no excuse for rolling into the person behind you because if you needed to, you have to know how to start without any rollback.

Soundy · 08-25-2014, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedStars

Hi everyone, not sure if this is the right area to post this but I'm wondering if you roll back (like less than 20cm) on a hill and you hit the car behind you, who would be at fault? Wondering this because I was on a really steep hill and this person behind me would not give me any room at all and I was VERY close to hitting them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zulutango

This above deals with vehicles while they are in motion...a stopped vehicle is not in motion. If the first vehicle slips backwards then it could be considered "reverse while unsafe"...I believe that ICBC would likely split the responsibility. A safe driver would not end up too closely behind the 1st vehicle. The road test standard says to stop between 2 and 9 metres behind. If you can just see the bottom of the tyres of the car ahead, you are about 1 car length behind and that would be the minimum distance for me to stop.

20cm is a helluva lot less than "two to nine meters". I've driven automatics that rolled back 20cm or more on a sufficiently steep hill. If the guy behind you stops less than 20cm back, he's WAY WAY TOO CLOSE and I'd be fighting a 50/50 decision all the way to the SCOC.

SpeedStars · 08-25-2014, 06:41 PM

IMG_20140825_184344.jpg
For reference, this is the hill I'm talking about. On the stop sign, there was a few cars so I had to stop and go, but the car behind would keep staying on my ass every single time till I gave them the finger(yes I know, so bad ass) and then made a right turn and carried on. I was probably within an inch of hitting them and they didnt even flinch

Spidey · 08-26-2014, 08:05 AM

they probably don't know why you are fingering them... people are oblivious like that. That hill doesn't even look that bad. It isn't like it is Hastings/Boundary. They probably aren't as close as you think they are either.

BoostedBB6 · 08-26-2014, 08:29 AM

I saw a lot of this when I lived in North Vancouver.
With all the hills and people in a rush it was a common thing.
After talking to a number of people who had this happen to them, ICBC said it was the car behind found at fault.

I rang up ICBC and asked about this as I lived on a large hill and was curious. The person I spoke to said that a good rule is, when you come to a top behind another vehicle you should be able to see its tires meeting the road. In most cases this would leave ample room between you and the car in front and allow for roll back of the vehicle in front of you.

A not to those who recommend using the E-brake. This is common practice in most any vehicle I have driven (until I figure out how it handles the hills and such) but one thing I have seen more and more of if the electric e-brakes. With systems like this there is no way to use the e-brake to stop the roll back. Also, any vehicle equipped with a foot operated parking brake is very hard to do this with (but can be done with some ninja moves).

cruz-in · 08-26-2014, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoostedBB6

I rang up ICBC and asked about this as I lived on a large hill and was curious. The person I spoke to said that a good rule is, when you come to a top behind another vehicle you should be able to see its tires meeting the road. In most cases this would leave ample room between you and the car in front and allow for roll back of the vehicle in front of you.

THIS.

freakshow · 08-26-2014, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedStars

damn, so I guess that as the car in front with the dashcam, it wouldn't make a difference...

Not necessarily.. I imagine that if you had footage and it looked like you rolled back a very very small amount, you could argue that they were way to close to your bumper.

wing_woo · 08-26-2014, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoostedBB6

A not to those who recommend using the E-brake. This is common practice in most any vehicle I have driven (until I figure out how it handles the hills and such) but one thing I have seen more and more of if the electric e-brakes. With systems like this there is no way to use the e-brake to stop the roll back. Also, any vehicle equipped with a foot operated parking brake is very hard to do this with (but can be done with some ninja moves).

I know, but then again, most of those higher end vehicles with electric e-brakes 'should' likely have Hill Start Assist.

I do like the manufacturers that do take manual driving situations into account. Example, an automatic Toyota Camry comes with a foot operated parking brake. However, if you get the same model Camry in manual, it comes with a hand brake instead.

The only manual I've seen that has a foot operated parking brake is the Hummer H3. Guess GM doesn't think everything through or are just too cheap to cater properly to us manual drivers.

R. Mutt · 08-26-2014, 12:13 PM

Every once in a while you encounter a dick behind you that loves to stop too close while on a hill. I let the car roll back a few inches to a foot while waiting for the light. It's a subtle was to remind them that cars do roll back as people just assume every car is automatic nowadays. After you do that they tend to leave sufficient room, but I view it as a way of reinforcing good driving one monkey at a time.

BoostedBB6 · 08-26-2014, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wing_woo

I know, but then again, most of those higher end vehicles with electric e-brakes 'should' likely have Hill Start Assist.

I do like the manufacturers that do take manual driving situations into account. Example, an automatic Toyota Camry comes with a foot operated parking brake. However, if you get the same model Camry in manual, it comes with a hand brake instead.

The only manual I've seen that has a foot operated parking brake is the Hummer H3. Guess GM doesn't think everything through or are just too cheap to cater properly to us manual drivers.

There are still large numbers of automatic vehicles out there that a brand new that will still roll back if you are not quick enough on the throttle. Auto+electric park brake and slow brake to gas transition will cause it to roll back.
ICBC will often side with the driver in front as there is no way to prove distance and if you simply give the details of the location and the incident they will know exactly what happened.
Seen it so many times in North and West Van.

underscore · 08-26-2014, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zulutango

This above deals with vehicles while they are in motion...a stopped vehicle is not in motion. If the first vehicle slips backwards then it could be considered "reverse while unsafe"...I believe that ICBC would likely split the responsibility. A safe driver would not end up too closely behind the 1st vehicle. The road test standard says to stop between 2 and 9 metres behind. If you can just see the bottom of the tyres of the car ahead, you are about 1 car length behind and that would be the minimum distance for me to stop.

How would ICBC determine the difference between a car rolling back, and a car being rear-ended?

BoostedBB6 · 08-27-2014, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by underscore

How would ICBC determine the difference between a car rolling back, and a car being rear-ended?

The drivers stories and any witness that supports the story.
If the driver rolled back and hit a car behind it and claimed they were rear-ended with no witness to say otherwise ICBC sides with the roller and not the person behind them.

Dash cams are a helpful thing in a case like this.