Does “stopped for” mean completely stopped?

[compiler]

The vehicle 1 approached to the traffic signal and reduced speed to be ready to stop but the other car hit it from behind. The police report indicates “vehicle 1 stopped for the traffic signal at the intersection of highway XXX.” Does “stopped for the traffic signal” mean the vehicle 1 completely stopped before the traffic signal or it might still move but ready to stop? What does “stopped for the traffic signal” mean here? Thank you for your answer.

 

[Raymott]

Yes, "stopped" means completely stopped.

 

[Rover_KE]

If the first sentence is correct, the police report is wrong.

 

[emsr2d2]

If the first sentence is correct, the police report should have said "Vehicle 1 had slowed down at the traffic lights ...".

 

[compiler]

The more details in the police report is “Vehicle 1 and vehicle 2 were travelling westbound on highway XXX. Vehicle 1 stopped for the traffic signal at the intersection of highway XXX. The front bumper of vehicle 2 struck vehicle 1 in the rear bumper.”

In fact, vehicle 1 had not stopped but approached to the traffic signal. The vehicle 2 hit the vehicle 1 from behind. The vehicle 2 driver was cited. If all you read “stop for traffic signal” means “HAD ALREADY completely stopped before the traffic signal,” I should report the officer that his report is not accurate because both of the vehicle 1 and vehicle 2 had not stopped but were reaching the traffic signal at the time of the car accident. Please help me to read and understand what “stop for” means here again. Thanks.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Tell the officer that vehicle 1 was still moving when it was rear-ended.

Not a teacher.

 

[Raymott]

I'm not sure what the point is here. If vehicle 2 rear-ended vehicle 1 at the lights, then vehicle 2 is at fault. It does not matter, legally, whether vehicle 1 was slowing down or was stopped (at least in Australian law). Perhaps your law is different.

 

[Tdol]

For indicates the reason why the car had stopped. It is not a phrasal verb. The car had stopped and the reason was because of the traffic lights. There is a difference between what you're describing and the police report. I can't see anyway of interpreting the police report as suggesting that the car was moving.

 

[emsr2d2]

The laws in the UK are the same as in Australia from what I can see from Raymott's post. In 99.9% of cases, the driver behind is at fault in a rear-ender. It is a nightmare for that driver to come up with any feasible excuse in order to maintain that the car in front was somehow at fault. It doesn't matter if the driver at the front is moving or not. The police will claim that the driver behind must have been too close to the car in front, so close that they couldn't stop.

 

[Matthew Wai]

It is a nightmare for that driver to come up with any feasible excuse in order to maintain that the car in front was somehow at fault.

If the car in front stopped suddenly, i.e. the driver slammed on the brakes, could it be an excuse?

 

[MikeNewYork]

No. The determination would likely be that the second car was too close to the first car.

 

[emsr2d2]

In the UK, there has recently been an explosion in something called "Crash for Cash". Basically, a driver does exactly what you suggested - slams the brakes on very suddenly so that the car behind crashes into them. In almost every case, it is the car behind which is blamed and their insurance company pays up a substantial amount of money to the car in front. Frequently, the car in front is an old car, not worth much, and the driver doesn't have fully comprehensive insurance (only third-party) which doesn't matter because the money will be coming from the insurance of the car behind. If the people in the car in front can also fake some injuries (faking whiplash isn't too hard!), they will get even more money in compensation.

The whole scam is based on the fact that blame for a crash almost always falls on the car behind.