Witnessed an Almost Accident The Other Day, Who Would Have Been at Fault?

geek001 on 27/07/2018 - 14:15
Last edited 27/07/2018 - 14:22 by 1 other user

I was driving the other night and the car in front of me was signalled turning right, let's call this car Car A. While Car A was turning right, it almost hit another car coming in the opposite direction, let's call this car Car B. The reason why Car A did not see Car B was because Car B did not have headlights on and the road had no street lights. Fortunately, Car A was able to stop in time and narrowly missed Car B.

This got me thinking, had there been an accident, who would be at fault? Under normal circumstances, Car A would be at fault for failure to give way, but Car B did not have headlights on, so it would have been really hard to see Car B and Car B should have had headlights on.

What do you think?

Automotive

Comments

  • Nugs on 27/07/2018 - 14:17

    both

  • Godric on 27/07/2018 - 14:24

    A @ Fault, B Would likely just cop a fine if proven to have no headlights.

    • Ugly on 27/07/2018 - 14:41
      +1

      NSW Road Rule 215

      215–1 NSW rule: using lights when driving in dark
      (1) A driver must not drive during a period of darkness unless the lights required by the applicable vehicle standards law to be fitted to the vehicle are lighted. Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

      B is definitely at fault.
      I think A could successfully argue that, even though they failed to give way to an oncoming vehicle, it was B's breach which led to the accident.

      Either way a lawyers' picnic.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/07/2018 - 18:02
        +1

        Yep, in no world will B not be at fault here.

        There's a reason there's a law against driving without headlights on.

        Even if A intended to crash into car B and get insurance claims, car B is still at fault. You wouldn't leave your front door open accidentally and expect others to be able to walk in without tresspassing…

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 27/07/2018 - 15:10
      -1

      Without a shadow of doubt it's the fault of Car C.

      • coin saver on 27/07/2018 - 16:00
        +7

        No way the cyclists was 100% responsible.

        • iand on 27/07/2018 - 23:33
          +1

          Don't be ridiculous cyclists are always in the right and never responsible for any accident

  • HighAndDry on 27/07/2018 - 14:53
    +3

    Theoretically, they'd split the blame depending on other factors like how dark it actually was, how fast the cars were going, etc.

    Practically? 9 times out of 10, Car A gets screwed over unless Car B's driver somehow admits they didn't have their headlights on or you (or another witness) stayed behind to give a statement, because Car B's driver probably thinks they had their lights on, and probably wouldn't even be lying (depending on your definition of "to lie") if they insisted that they had their lights on.

    • Ugly on 27/07/2018 - 15:43
      +2

      That's why you get a dashcam

  • Blackfyre on 27/07/2018 - 15:20
    +4

    Dashcam footage to the rescue!

    • HighAndDry on 27/07/2018 - 15:41

      Yup. Though you might need wide-angle if you're being T-boned?

      • Blackfyre on 27/07/2018 - 16:30
        +1

        At least you will have footage before the collision showing Car B not having headlights.

        Might help with the insurance/argument I guess?

    • GourmetFoodie on 27/07/2018 - 18:01
      +1

      I really need to buy a dashcam

  • [Deactivated] on 27/07/2018 - 15:34
    +15

    Hard to decide without an MS Paint recreation.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/07/2018 - 15:49
    +2

    Paint! Come on. There are rules around here.

  • BertieBrown on 27/07/2018 - 16:13
    +1

    I'd have thought that probably car B would have been at fault, mainly because if car B doesn't have headlights on then car A doesn't have the ability them and thus avoid having an accident.

    The points about dash cam though are really apt here because car B, based on my experience with people in general, would unfortunately probably claim that they did have their headlights on and thus it would word of one vs tother which is likely to be a shitshow.

    • Caped Baldy on 27/07/2018 - 16:16
      -6

      Car A should be able to see Car B even if headlights are off. The lights are to make it more obvious.

      • BuyoTheCat on 27/07/2018 - 16:31

        You know this because you were driving Car B?

      • geek001 on 27/07/2018 - 16:35
        +1

        On the road that I am talking about, there are no street lights and it is semi rural, so no other sources of light on a moonless might. Pretty much you can only see as far as your headlights. When I drive on the road at night, which is quite frequently, I usually do the "turn on high beam if there is no one in front of me, and turn off high beam when I see a oncoming car" thing.

        • BertieBrown on 27/07/2018 - 17:08
          +1

          That’s why my take would be that it would be car B’s fault, if car A couldn’t see them.

          There’s a dramatisation of this in the movie Deathproof (with Kurt Russel), that although has been hollywoodised might make it a bit clearer in people’s minds, though it’s obviously a different scenario.

          If you’re interested, YouTube ‘Deathproof crash scene’; but fair warning it’s NSFW and could be a trigger for some people.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/07/2018 - 18:03

        "I wasn't speeding!!! The road was just going downhill!!!!".

  • Mike88 on 27/07/2018 - 16:34
    -1

    I suspect this was an accident and OP wants to know if they can pass the blame if they say other vehicle did not have headlights on.

    • geek001 on 27/07/2018 - 16:39
      +4

      Ummm.. no. There was no accident, and I wasn't Car A nor B. But feel free to believe anything you like, I am only asking to satisfy my curiosity. :)

  • dylo on 27/07/2018 - 17:10
    +2

    OP can you pls add an MS Paint diagram

    • geek001 on 27/07/2018 - 17:31

      Sorry, don't have that much time to kill. Here is one made using Snipping Tool as an example. https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/18689/60778/cars.png

      This is a re-enactment. Any resemblance to actual events, to persons or cars living or dead, is purely coincidental. :)

      • rompastompa on 28/07/2018 - 10:56

        Looks like day time, car A should have been able to see car B. ;)

        .. Car B / lack of headlights with you being a witness. Without you being a witness, it's up to the insurance companies to figure out.

  • quog on 27/07/2018 - 17:19

    Well I would hope that car B would burst into flames, thereby removing them from the gene pool for their utter stupidity.

  • PandaExpress on 27/07/2018 - 18:03
    +1

    I wonder how the hell was car B driving without lights if it was indeed pitch black.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/07/2018 - 18:04
      +6

      People are really, really dumb. The faster you learn this the sadder you will be.

      • pegaxs on 27/07/2018 - 22:22

        This whole forum, awash with its many, many “… but I don’t have insurance./… I’m at fault, how to I weasel out?” threads, stands as evidence of the gross stupidity of a majority of license enabled morons that patrol the road system…

        The more threads I read like that, the closer I am to handing my license in and walking…

        • smux on 28/07/2018 - 10:27
          +1

          Walking won't save you from the idiots

        • pegaxs on 28/07/2018 - 10:48

          @zaidoun:

          *sigh* I know… :(

    • garffi on 28/07/2018 - 00:19

      And how do they know how fast they were going without the dashboard lights on?

      • [Deactivated] on 28/07/2018 - 11:22

        Modern cars light up the dash but not the head lights in some instances.

  • bobbified on 28/07/2018 - 00:44
    -1

    Car A is at fault, but Car B might be slapped with a contributory negligence claim.

    Headlights-off is hard to prove without independent witnesses though.

  • DarkOz on 28/07/2018 - 09:52
    +1

    http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/ligh…

    Car B is at fault because it failed to make itself clearly visible to the driver of car A.

  • TheBilly on 28/07/2018 - 17:42

    Unless dashcam or muliple witnesses to prove headlights were off. I think A would cop it.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join