|
|
South Florida Rear End Car Accident Lawyer, Florida Rear End Car Accident AttorneysSouth Florida rear end car accident lawyer David I. Fuchs has over 17 years of experience in successfully representing rear end car accident victims, their families and friends who have suffered a death in the family or sustained serious bodily injuries, pain and suffering, lost wages and medical bills because of the carelessness or negligence of another driver which results in a rear end car accident. A rear end collision or rear end crash is an accident where a car, usually an automobile or truck impacts with the vehicle in front of it. Typical scenarios for rear end crashes are a sudden deceleration by the first car (for example to avoid someone crossing the street), and a following car that does not have the time to break and impacts the rear of the first car. In rear end car accidents, mechanical damage is usually equally shared by the two vehicles (but this can change if vehicle masses were very different). Injuries to the occupants are usually much worse for the impacted car, because occupants of the following vehicle could easily see the imminent impact and take measures against it. As a rule of thumb, impacting into another car is equivalent to impacting a rigid surface (like a wall) at half of the speed. This means that rear ending a stopped car while travelling at 30 mph is equivalent, in terms of mechanical damage and injury to passengers, to impacting a wall at 15 mph. The same is true for the impacted vehicle. This statement is true if the two vehicles have roughly the same mass. If, instead, one is much more massive than the other, the less massive car suffers most of the damage. A typical medical consequence of rear end car accidents, even in case of crashes at moderate speeds is whiplash injuries to an occupants neck and back At higher rates of speed, particularly where the occupants are not wearing seat belts much more serious injuries such as fractured or broken bones, traumas or burns to the head and face from impacting with the steering wheel or deployed airbag, severe contusions and lacerations requiring immediate suturing or stapling may occur. In Florda as in most jurisdictions the driver of the car that rear ends the other car is most always considered to be at fault and will almost always receive a police citation for reckless driving, or following too closely. In 1999, the most recent year for which data are available, more than 6 million crashes occurred on U.S. highways, killing over 41,000 people and injuring nearly 3.4 million others. Rear-end collisions accounted for almost one-third of these crashes (1.848 million) and 11.8 percent of multivehicle fatal crashes (1,923). Commercial vehicles were involved in 40 percent of these fatal rear-end collisions (770), even though commercial vehicles only comprised 3 percent of vehicles and 7 percent of miles traveled on the Nation's highways. Between 1992 and 1998, the percentage of rear-end collisions involving all vehicles increased by 19 percent. In 1999, 114 fatal crashes in work zones involved rear-end collisions, about 30 percent of the multivehicle fatal work zone crashes. Of these, 71 collisions (62 percent) involved commercial vehicles. In the past 2 years, the National Transportation Safety Board investigated nine rear-end collisions in which 20 people died and 181 were injured (three accidents involved buses and one accident involved 24 vehicles). Common to all nine accidents was the rear following vehicle driver's degraded perception of traffic conditions ahead. During its investigation of the rear-end collisions, the Safety Board examined the striking vehicles and did not find mechanical defects that would have contributed to the accidents. In each collision, the driver of the striking vehicle tested negative for alcohol or drugs. Some of these collisions occurred because atmospheric conditions, such as sun glare or fog and smoke, interfered with the driver's ability to detect slower moving or stopped traffic ahead. In other accidents, the driver did not notice that traffic had come to a halt due to congestion at work zones or to other accidents. Still others involved drivers who were distracted or fatigued. Regardless of the individual circumstances, the drivers in these accidents were unable to detect slowed or stopped traffic and to stop their vehicles in time to prevent a rear-end collision. According to a 1992 study by Daimler-Benz, if passenger car drivers have a 0.5-second additional warning time, about 60 percent of rear-end collisions can be prevented. An extra second of warning time can prevent about 90 percent of rear-end collisions. As the Safety Board reported in 1995 and further discussed at its public hearing, Advanced Safety Technologies for Commercial Vehicle Applications, held August 31 through September 2, 1999, existing technology in the form of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) can prevent rear-end collisions. ITS, capable of alerting drivers to slowed or stopped traffic ahead, have been available for several years but are not in widespread use. The technology to alert drivers to traffic ahead includes adaptive cruise control (ACC), collision warning systems (CWSs), and infrastructure-based congestion warning systems. ACC detects slower moving vehicles ahead and closes the throttle and applies the engine brake to slow the host vehicle to a comparable speed. CWSs detect slower moving vehicles ahead and warn the driver of the host vehicle about the object ahead so the driver can take appropriate action. Infrastructure-based congestion warning systems use variable message signs to give drivers detailed information about the location of traffic queues. In the nine accidents investigated by the Safety Board, one (and sometimes more) of these technologies would have helped alert the drivers to the vehicles ahead, so that they could slow their vehicles, and would have prevented or mitigated the circumstances of the collisions. The Safety Board addressed implementation of such systems for commercial vehicles in its 1995 special investigation of collision warning technology and recommended that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) sponsor fleet testing of CWSs for trucks. On August 10, 1999, the Board classified the recommendation "Closed-Unacceptable Action" due to inaction by the DOT on testing of the CWS for trucks at that time. (See the "Related Report and Consequent Recommendations" section of this report for further information.) Because of the lack of progress in deploying rear-end CWSs, the Safety Board addressed the issue at its summer 1999 public hearing focusing on advanced safety technologies for commercial vehicle applications to determine what had been done since its 1995 report. (See "Public Hearing" section of this report for further information.) At the hearing, representatives of Eaton VORAD Technologies, L.L.C. (Eaton VORAD); U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. (U.S. Xpress); Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Greyhound); and the DOT provided information regarding the CWS and the status of various tests and deployments. As became clear during the public hearing, private industry is beginning to deploy vehicle-based safety systems. The CWS and ACC developed by Eaton VORAD are available as an option on trucks produced by all major manufacturers in the United States. Automobile manufacturers in Europe and Japan have begun to offer ACC on their high-end models, and Lexus and Mercedes are doing the same on their 2001 luxury vehicles in the United States. According to a March 2000 TRW press release, industry analysts predict the market for ACC, CWSs, and headway control will grow from $11 million in 1998 to $2.4 billion in 2010. In 1999, the DOT commenced operational tests of ACC and CWSs for both cars and trucks. Several States also have projects under way to deploy infrastructure-based technology that alerts drivers to the location of the end of the queue in work zones or congested areas. The work being done by private industry and the Government is encouraging, but the pace of testing and of standards development for all vehicles and of deployment for commercial vehicles is cause for concern, given the increasing number of rear-end collisions and the number of fatalities when commercial vehicles are involved. Therefore, the Safety Board is again addressing subjects related to ITS, both vehicle- and infrastructure-based, for the prevention of rear-end collisions. The Safety Board has explored the issues involved in deploying technological solutions in this special investigation report, which focuses on some of the challenges, including implementation, consumer acceptance, public perception, and training associated with the deployment of such systems. South Florida rear end car accident lawyer David I. Fuchs will represent you for injuries that include, but are not limited to:
After a collision with another party it is imperative to call the police to the accident scene, seek immediate medical treatment. It is then important to seek legal counsel to protect your legal rights by calling Florida rear end car accident lawyer David I. Fuchs who will take your call and speak with you immediately about your motor vehicle accident. Florida rear end car accident lawyer David I. Fuchs will then stand ready to fight for you to see that you get compensation for your pain and suffering, any lost wages and medical bills. Call South Florida rear end car accident attorney David I. Fuchs Toll Free at 800-570-2858 for a free consultation to discuss your rear end car accident case. You may also write to South Florida rear end car accident attorney David I. Fuchs by filling out the form on the "Contact Us" page." If you can not come to us South Florida rear end car accident lawyer David I. Fuchs will send a representative to see you. We speak English and Spanish. Se habla ingles y espanol. Llame David Fuchs Florida abogado accidentes de caros. |