car accident

Original link:

△ 207|Car accident

Having been in a car accident and being rear-ended by someone else, the accident itself wasn’t much fun, but I observed a lot of interesting things in the night traffic accident handling office.

Generally speaking, when a car accident occurs, when the driver in the accident steps out of the car door, there is a subtle “race”, trying to distinguish between “right and wrong” for the accident at the beginning. ” qualitative. So who is the main person in charge of this accident means that he must be placed in the role of “ashamed and weak” in this accident. Often from the moment the driver opens the door to question the other side, they are in the race to see who has the loudest voice or whose aura can scare the other side more to show that they are not the “faulty party”.

There is a small detail here, as if there is a certain “control variable” experimental method, there will be different combinations of experimental conditions: for example, the two drivers A and B involved in the accident both require the police to deal with it, then A and B generally come It is a very common accident subject; if A requests the police, but B does not recommend calling the police, and proposes a private way, then B has a certain possibility that there is an “illegal premise” – if from the perspective of the scene, B He is the main person responsible for the accident, so the behavior he suggested not to report to the police is a bit suspicious, such as B drinking and driving; if B himself is not the main responsibility for the accident, judging from the situation at the scene, he is an obvious “victim”, but If he still insists not to call the police, then he is more likely to be “illegal” – here, I generally recommend calling the police (hee hee). If both A and B insist not to call the police, but to deal with it privately, then there is something worth pondering about this plot. However, if they don’t call the police, no matter how clear the bystanders are, the parties can pretend to be confused with each other.

It’s a pity that I have never experienced such an interesting thing. Although the driver who got behind the car got off the car at the beginning, he also showed the “aura” that he felt he had to show. At least he had to win this game from the very beginning. Change the result of the game. Seeing that I was too lazy to continue, but directly asked him if he wanted to call the police, he would not dwell too much on the accident itself. After going to the night traffic accident handling office, I did not rush to make a statement to the traffic police, because he must be the first to take out a photo to explain the accident to the traffic police (of course, he also tried to express himself very restrained and objectively) , but the way of statement is all because of how I am, which leads to such a sentence pattern). It’s just that the traffic police didn’t take this kind of accident at all, so he just asked, “Are you on the same road? If so, it’s your rear-end collision, and you’re fully responsible.”

Seeing that the traffic police didn’t explain to him affectionately, and seeing that he was almost done, I took out my dash cam again, indicating that I was avoiding a taxi that was going out of the left and wanted to change lanes. So I had to slam on the brakes, and the car behind me rear-ended without controlling my following distance. This kind of accident is very simple, but it is difficult to explain it according to the Chinese logic of “the weak is the right”.

For example, A’s parking space was maliciously robbed by B for a long time. When A failed to communicate with B and the property, he could only rush to park C’s parking space that had not been parked for a long time. Later, C bought a car and needed to park in the parking space he had purchased in advance. However, A believes that his parking space was also robbed by B, and the property did not handle the matter well, so he asked C to communicate with B and the property, because he was also a victim. At first glance, according to the Chinese logic of “the weak is the right”, A does have a lot of “reasons” and “helplessness” to do such a thing, because the ultimate “wicked person” is B and the inaction. Property, but in the process of legal practice, the law will not have too much sympathy for A because he is the so-called “weak”, his behavior is illegal, and he will not be violated by a third person have the right to defend.

The taxi changed lanes illegally and I had to slam on the brakes, which in turn caused a car that was following too closely to rear-end me. Like the “game” that grabs a parking space, there is some self-evident causal relationship in it, but it seems that there is no way to adjust it with the logic of “the weak is right”. The person who harms the taxi driver who abides by the rules will of course feel that the taxi driver should be mainly responsible for this incident. It is a pity that his illegal behavior was “legalized” by me the moment I braked suddenly. , he passed smoothly, and as a result, I became the reason for the rear-end collision of the rear car – this explanation is easy to understand.

Fuck your mother, there is no causal relationship between the car behind and the car that is too close to the car, and I slammed the brake to avoid the unruly taxi, even if there was no taxi, I suddenly stopped in the middle of the road. If you move, it is still the full responsibility of the car behind you to follow the car too close to the car – of course, this kind of behavior will be scolded by others, saying that if you can’t drive, don’t drive on the road to cause trouble – I have to admit it , after all, this kind of lip-synching, showing a momentary bliss, and defeating the other party on a moral level is the final “winner” attitude of this group of people who can’t defend against the division of legal responsibility.

Of course, in such an accident in which the responsibility for a car accident can be simply divided, even if the law has reached a conclusion with the simplest liability division standard, the accident itself will still occur due to various conditions. Happening.

  • If the car in front is an ordinary car, and the car in the rear is a luxury car, according to the theory of “the weak is right”, the responsibility must be the latter. The quality of the people who drive the luxury car is low, and they have to drive with the rear of the car. It must be their responsibility to rear-end, retribution!
  • If the car in front is a luxury car and the rear-end car is an ordinary car, according to the theory of “the weak is right”, the responsibility is not necessarily the latter, because the quality of the driver of the luxury car is definitely not very good, and the driver of the luxury car is not so good. People may have poor driving skills. If he didn’t suddenly brake suddenly in the middle of the road, causing the rear car to rear-end, he used this method to blackmail money. You should call the police and check the person driving the luxury car. Whether he is drinking and driving, see if he is afraid!
  • If the car in front is a male driver, and the rear-end car is a female driver, then it is not the “weak is right” theory, but re-discuss the matter according to the “gender theory”, and the female driver should not make trouble on the road and cause a rear-end collision. I also have to argue with others that someone else stepped on the brakes and I only hit it.
  • If the car in front is a female driver, and the rear-end car is a male driver, the “gender theory” is also given priority at this time. The female driver must have gone the wrong way and suddenly braked in the middle of the road, causing the car behind to avoid it.

There are more “conditions and factors”, you may wish to add and add to it.

This article is reproduced from:
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.