When skid marks are measured, can a driver be at fault even if the marks are short?

If the at fault driver does not hit the brakes, or the car has anti-lock brakes, there may not be any skid marks, or they may be very small.

Skid marks can be used to determine speed, but are only one of many factors in determining fault.

For example, if you pull in front of me and I lock up the brakes, there would be skid marks from my vehicle, but you would be at fault for failure to yield right of way. If I did not hit the brakes or had anti-lock brakes, you would still be at fault.

Certainly. Skid marks, themselves, do not prove guilt or innocence. Here's why:

Let's say you're doing 80 mph. You lock up your wheels and release the brakes at 75 mph. You'll leave a short skid mark, but now you're doing 75 mph. Similarly, if you're doing 80 mph and do not lock up your wheels until you've slowed to 20 mph, you'll leave a short skid mark.

The skid marks only tell how fast you were going at the time the skid started if they extend to the point where the car came to a stop. The car could have been going much faster before the skid marks. Also, with ABS systems, you won't leave skid marks at all.

Damage to the car is another factor that determines speed. The faster the car hits an object, the more damage results. So, a short skid mark just before the impact point with lots of damage is not a slow speed crash.

Yes you can be seen as driving too fast since there ARE skid marks. Look at a stop light or stop sign. Do you see skid marks at them? The point is that you don't get them just by stopping. Now skid marks alone won't determine fault, but they also won't have someone saying oh look they are short this person can't be at fault.

The length of skid marks do not determine fault.

The direction of travel have more to do with fault. ie. the driver moving forward is general at fault no matter how long or short the skid marks are.

Yes they can and more so on newer vehicles...

huh

yes duh