Accident question

laissez-faire

laissez-faire

laissez-faire

Soldato
Joined
23 Oct 2002
Posts
2,562
Location
Edinburgh/Southampton
A couple of nights ago at about 11pm I pulled out of a junction only to be terrified as I saw a taxi right coming at the last minute. With some heavy gas pedal action I got out of the way in time. The taxi was black and it did not have its lights on. It was a poorly lit street. My passenger said 'christ, I certainly didn't see that either' because our eyes were drawn to the headlights of all the other cars further back so seeing a black taxi at night was almost impossible.

Anyway, we didn't crash. But if we had would it have been 'my fault'?
 
yeah, u could never prove he had no lights on, it could go to a knock for knock (u both loose ya no claims iirc
 
Nope, your fault, even if 900 people saw him with no lights on.

Other peoples traffic offences generally dont change the basic stuff, same as if you pulled out on somebody driving up a bus lane he shouldnt have been driving up, etc.
 
Been in a similar situation, I realised at night I looked for light rather than object since then I look with more focus if that makes sense, make sure you do the same. Even though they are in the wrong (imo) you have to be extra careful and even think for other drivers sometimes.
 
[TW]Fox;10283713 said:
Nope, your fault, even if 900 people saw him with no lights on.

Other peoples traffic offences generally dont change the basic stuff, same as if you pulled out on somebody driving up a bus lane he shouldnt have been driving up, etc.
Click to expand...

i had a file a few years ago where our policyholder drove out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway and then had another vehicle drive into the back of their car. the car that was already on the dual carriageway was travelling quickly at night without lights on.

despite our policyholder having driven onto a dual carriageway and not noticed the approaching car, the third party was actually prosecuted by the CPS for driving without headlights and i think they tried to go for something like 'without due care' too.

in short, it is a criminal offence from what ive seen to drive without headlights... just cannot remember rules it was against tho.

eitherway, i wouldnt say this would be as clean cut as you think
 
Looking twice helps especially if you move slightly between the two points of view.

It seems hard that it would still be your fault, I'd have thought at least 50/50


Its not impossible info like lights on is recorded on a modern ecu at least temporally
 
This is a bit like - If you hit someone up the back side that had no brake lights?

Surely - The person with no brake lights gets the blame? However, I guess the person infront could always say - The brakes lights used to work, before you hit my rear?
 
Virdi said:
This is a bit like - If you hit someone up the back side that had no brake lights?

Surely - The person with no brake lights gets the blame? However, I guess the person infront could always say - The brakes lights used to work, before you hit my rear?
Click to expand...

You still have a pair of eyes and you can still see the vehicle in front isnt moving anymore without a pair of brake lights.
 
That's a very different situation since you're approaching from the rear, your own lights (or the lights of oncoming traffic if yours are dipped) should show up the car in front, lights or no. Exiting from a junction where the approaching traffic has no lights on and there's no street lighting can make them practically invisible.
 
Virdi said:
This is a bit like - If you hit someone up the back side that had no brake lights?

Surely - The person with no brake lights gets the blame? However, I guess the person infront could always say - The brakes lights used to work, before you hit my rear?
Click to expand...
Apparently it is possible to tell if lights were on when they are smashed through microscopic examination of the broken filament. It's something to do with the fractured ends being different depending on whether they were hot or cold when they were broken. This was from an insurance companies vehicle examiner.
 
Crowze said:
That's a very different situation since you're approaching from the rear, your own lights (or the lights of oncoming traffic if yours are dipped) should show up the car in front, lights or no. Exiting from a junction where the approaching traffic has no lights on and there's no street lighting can make them practically invisible.
Click to expand...

true.... But if I see someone pulling out - or I see Headlights etc... I take precaution.....

I really don't like it - When someone tries to be a Hero and pulls out really quickly... thinking that they can make it...
 
[TW]Fox;10286877 said:
You still have a pair of eyes and you can still see the vehicle in front isnt moving anymore without a pair of brake lights.
Click to expand...

I'd normally agree but you could argue that a safe distance to keep behind someone say on a motorway is so that you can stop in time etc, but without the lights coming on that could be up to a second or two longer for you to realise that they're slowing, which on a motorway is a long distance
 
monkeygremlin said:
Apparently it is possible to tell if lights were on when they are smashed through microscopic examination of the broken filament. It's something to do with the fractured ends being different depending on whether they were hot or cold when they were broken. This was from an insurance companies vehicle examiner.
Click to expand...

I have heard this too - it is dependent on the lights being smashed though. They won't always smash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom