I can't say, typically the guy in back has cardboard plates and no insurance.

Carruthers wrote:

I don't know what brought this to mind, but I'd be interested to see if I have got this right.
Am I right in thinking that in a straightforward multiple vehicle collision where several vehicles are stationary or in a slow moving queue, when one is rear ended and a chain reaction damages several more vehicles, that the one in front (no front end damage) claims off the insurance of the one at the back and everyone else claims off their own insurance?
 

Depends which state you live in, too..... car insurance is not uniform across the entire US.

(Excess = deductible)

I remember seeing a news video, may have been on TV or in an online newspaper article, where a police person or similar was bringing order to chaos at a collision site somewhere in the Lower 48.
Having checked that no one was injured he told all the drivers to deal with insurance matters as per my opening post.
On reflection it was quite a while back, and memory does play tricks, but I thought that it might be worth asking.

My only entanglement with US insurance has been at the the Alamo/Hertz/Enterprise desks at Denver Intl Airport.
Paid through the nose for insuring me, the car and the rental company against every imaginable peril.
I have a vague recollection that the insurance and all manner of other 'extras' came to more than the cost of renting the car itself.

 

This thread reminds me of one here several years ago where I asked for everyone to post their best experience with insurance, auto or other.
There were no (or perhaps a few) responses.

Carruthers wrote:

... that the one in front (no front end damage) claims off the insurance of the one at the back and everyone else claims off their own insurance? 

No fault insurance.  Each person files a claim with his own insurance company.  Then those companies get together to decide which company's customer is responsible.  Which company jack up his insurance rates.

All that is separate from who is legally responsible.

Third consideration: better drivers never get so close to a car in front.  Must always see where that other car's tires touch the road.  Otherwise that car's occupants can suffer two crashes, not just one.
 

Last edited by tw (10/24/2022 11:18 am)

Where the tires disappear is where we were taught to stop behind the next car at a stoplight--that's definitely too close for driving at any speed.

To be fair the thread is about chain / multi car collisions which usually happen at intersections.
tw was speaking in that context about not being too close in case you're rear ended.
Therefore I think you're picking on him unjustifiably unless it's payback for his other transgressions. 

monster wrote:

 Someone pls remove tw's license if he still has one....   

  Discussion was clearly about where one stops behind another car.  Separation when moving obviously is irrelevant.

That two second rule (when moving) is a good one.  Highways experiments in some states also used diamonds.  Two diamonds appear between a car in front.  Otherwise tailgating exists.  They did not continue the experiment.  It determined proper separation when moving. But tailgaters apparently do not want to know (or admit) they are tailgating.

Numerous reasons for that much space between stopped cars.  footfootfoot provided another.

What makes carjacking and kidnapping easy?  Cars that foolishly stop too close to a vehicle in front.  Driver traps himself.  Makes an easy victim.