Was driving behind a Falcon today and none of the brake lights were working. I know for sure since they braked fairly hard when a light turned orange.
I didn't come near crashing into them, but it got me thinking, if I'd rear ended them, and had dashcam footage showing they had no brake lights, would I still be liable?
Car with No Brake Lights, Who Would Be at Fault?
Peter Enis on 10/10/2020 - 21:13
Comments
A driver needs to leave adequate space to stop but there is no amount of space that would be adequate for a vehicle you cannot see.
I reckon if you can prove the tail lights do not work and reasonably demonstrate that it contributed significantly to the incident, the fault would lie with the car in front.
OP's comments clearly describe that they saw a vehicle in front of them. They even came close enough to see the child in the backseat. There is no way for OP to claim that they don't see the vehicle because of the faulty lights.
The comments came after your conclusion.
I read a similar story of someone hitting a motorbike that didn't have their headlight on at a roundabout and the person who hit them were still deemed 'at fault'
What about if you hit a bicycle rider on the freeway ? Who would be at fault then ?
Both parties are at fault in QLD law.
Yes
No.
Both parties are at fault.
Just like if you're stationary behind someone and they decide to reverse into you.
Or they pull over while driving without indicating
Or they DON'T use their hazards while broken down.
Both parties are at fault.
Just like if you're stationary behind someone and they decide to reverse into you.How on Earth do you think you're even partially at fault if someone reverses into you?
If the brake lights of the vehicle in front were found to not be working there would be a potential argument to apportion at least some fault to that vehicle. That said, every accident like this has to be assessed on its own facts, e.g. was the rear driver tailgating, weather conditions, speed, etc.
Contributory negligence
The contributing factor was that they were tailgating.
Wouldn't It be the person tailgatings fault, with the contributory negligence of the Falcon?
@perhaps: No.
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104…
ROAD RULES 2014 - REG 126
Keeping a safe distance behind vehicles
126 Keeping a safe distance behind vehicles
A driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle travelling in front of the driver so the driver can, if necessary, stop safely to avoid a collision with the vehicle.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.@whooah1979: That's what I meant, the person tailgating would be at fault. But say if it was at night the at fault party could argue that because the other party did not have a roadworthy vehicle it contributed to the accident.
@whooah1979: I see people quoting the road rule to keep a safe distance behind vehicles whenever the topic of hitting from behind comes up. You keeping a safe distance depends on other vehicles keeping a safe distance.
For instance, if you have been keeping a safe distance and a vehicle cuts in front of you and brakes hard and you hit that vehicle, would you still be at fault for not keeping a safe distance? I know that if you have a dashcam, you could provide the vehicle cut in front, but what if you didn't have a dashcam? It is not as clear cut as people think it is.
But does that mean even on 110km/hr roads we should all assume that the car in front has no brake lights? So we should always be leaving a sufficient gap just in case.
If so, why have brake lights at all then?@Peter Enis: You should always maintain a safe distance and keep a cushion between the driver in front of you because anything could happen and you need time to react.
@Peter Enis: Extracting from the case I linked below, the common law test is:
[T]he reasonable care that a driver must exercise when driving a vehicle on the road requires that the driver control the speed and direction of the vehicle in such a way that the driver may know what is happening in the vicinity of the vehicle in time to take reasonable steps to react to those events.
@Peter Enis: Multi lane highway…you're in trouble if you need brake lights to alert you to a stationary vehicle..
Who's liable if you're driving into the sunlight?
Liable and guilty.
So the no brake-light driver would get off scott free if they caused an accident?
I noticed they had a young kid in the back, I was more concerned about them getting injured because they are driving around oblivious, and they have a good chance of someone running up the back of them.
I didn't get an opportunity to alert them before we went separate ways, but if I'd had a chance at a light or something I would have told them.
So the no brake-light driver would get off scott free if they caused an accident?
The driver driving behind them failed to keep a safe distance by tailgating.
I noticed they had a young kid in the back
Impressive observation skills, all the while maintaining a safe distance and practicing your defensive driving skills.
No, they won't get off scott free.
People are applying a road rule without context.
Adequate stopping distance is irrelevant when you cannot see. They'll probably apply the same law if the car in front was spraying oil to cause the collision.
I had the same thing happen a few years ago. Avoided the accident, but gave details to the police and inquired.
They repeated what’s been said here already - you’d have to prove they didn’t have brake lights. However this would only make them partially responsible.
There was an example raised of an accident on a freeway on-ramp which provided clarity. A car had been totalled by a drunk driver, and the police attended and arrested the man on the spot. They didn’t have the ability to move the car, but had called in a tow truck and placed a danger sign nearby before leaving the scene.
After leaving, the danger sign had been clipped by a driver and knocked over. The next car to enter had little light, was turning a corner onto the on ramp, and was speeding up. They hit the dangerously “parked” car. Their car was also written off, leading to a second obstacle.
Insurance argued the police should have done more to protect other drivers, but ultimately they deemed the driver of the last vehicle was at fault. That driver needed to practice adequate care entering dark or low vision areas in case an animal, person or obstacle had been present on the road without lights. Hitting those would also be your fault. And they don’t have tail lights either.
In any case, you need to show a duty of care - even if the other vehicle was not road worthy. At most, they might have to cough up 50% if you can prove it.
"So the no brake-light driver would get off scott free if they caused an accident?"
No, the brake-light driver DID NOT cause an accident.
The driver following caused the accident.Brake-lights are there merely to 'assist' other drivers with a warning that they are braking.
It is always necessary to be aware of at least 2 vehicles in front to get advanced warning of changes to traffic flow.
Both parties are at fault, it's called shared responsibility.
Not scott free - as said above, there would be arguments for contribution, but it all boils down to the facts :)
There is a reasonably short and easy to read case here (https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QSC13-335.pdf) where contribution was assessed at 50/50 for a truck driver hitting a van left on the highway.
THE point is do you have proof they had zero lights???
Unless you were driving out in the sticks there would be more than sufficient street lights and car lights around to see a car 10m away???
But pretty sure driver in the rear is usually at fault like 99% of the time regardless.
otherwise you could say oh there was a possum or a rock that got in my way……
Did you read the OP?
It says assume there is a dashcam.
Correct, I have dashcam footage but it would be so incredibly boring, just a car driving along with no brake lights, there is no point in me sharing it.
Correct, I have dashcam footage but it would be so incredibly incriminating, just a car with no brake lights being tailgated by Karen in her Corolla, there is no point in me sharing it because I'd have to edit it to enhance the distance between vehicles
*fixed…
@randomusername2017: Not sure I get your point, that it's OK to drive without functioning brake lights?
@randomusername2017: OP: So, officer Hamfist, I pose this question to you: is driving on a public road with one or more non-functional brake lights an offence?
Hamfist: Yes, certainly is.
OP: Oh, and why is that?
Hamfist: The law is written with a view to road safety. For safety reasons, such a vehicle would be deemed unroadworthy.
OP: AHAA! So it's not a cynical revenue-raising exercise! I submit to the Court, with respect to the dashcam footage and supporting evidence from Police, the Falcon I was following was unroadworthy.
I'll get my coat.
@Speckled Jim: Op acknowledged no brake lights
Does dash cam footage show continued tailgating or defensive driving,?@randomusername2017: Precisely, if only footage was uploaded and linked so the OzBargain Court of Member Depopulation could properly convene.
This is not good enough!
Not sure if this helps, but there is hand signals when brake light don’t work or not available.
This is from SA, assuming other states are the same.
https://mylicence.sa.gov.au/road-rules/the-drivers-handbook/…Don’t just rely on working brake light is my interpretation.
NSW universal hand symbol 🖕
Get a dashcam.
OK I'll get a 2nd dashcam. Or else you could just re-read the OP…
Nice. Viofo is a great brand. Highly recommended.
Yep using Viofo A119s V2 bought from a deal on this site.
An interesting scenario.
You would think that the car in front would be at fault because their car is not roadworthy/legal but if you hit a stationary car that's parked in a no stopping zone I's think you would still be liable?
/shrugs
If you need brake lights to tell you that you need to brake then you're probably not leaving enough space between you and the vehicle in front. I have never needed brake lights to tell me when to slow down.
If you report the incident to the police and have evidence then they might issue a fine to the other driver for having faulty break lights. I think you would’ve at fault for hitting the vehicle in front though. As others have said, if you hit a fallen tree or pole on the road you would still be at fault. I don’t think the other driver, although having no break lights, caused you to collide with them. I got rear ended at traffic lights and I was asked multiple times by my insurance company was I moving or stationary. If I was moving there’s a chance my break lights would have been off. However, I don’t think it would have made me at fault. Point is, if the other driver slowed their car for a reason, ie stop light then if you hit them regardless of break lights on you would be at fault. If they stopped suddenly without reason (hard to prove even with dashcam footage) the police might fine them for dangerous driving.
YOU ARE ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE for your vehicle
WHAT GOES UP MUST COME down.
And you notified the driver?
If at night, you may have a case, however, through the day, it is your responsibility to remain a safe distance behind a vehicle in order to avoid an accident.
But you informed the driver, didn't you?
I'm no lawyer but I'd argue that the person in front without functioning brake lights would bare most, if not all, of the blame. Their vehicle is defective and unroadworthy and you're not a mind reader. If you have their rego on dashcam you can report the unroadworthy car online in your state - I do it all the time.
Cyclists don't have brake lights. Do you blame them then they stop and they get rear-ended by the driver that's tailgating them?
There's a psychological expectation that cars have brake lights which function, not so with bikes and bikes can't stop as fast as cars can. I'm not sure of the legal culpability but insurance companies will and do deny claims if someone's car isn't roadworthy (bald tyres, non functioning lights, faulty brakes etc.).
Bikes can stop a lot faster than cars.
I was at fault.
The driver that rear-end the vehicle in front of them would be at fault.