I Rear Ended an Unroadworthy Ute. Liability Discussion

Hi OzBargain team,

Another new user with a traffic question! I’ve been lurking for years and keep meaning to make an account. This has pushed me to do it.

I’ll preface this question by saying I’m in no way trying to get out of liability for this traffic collision. If my insurer says I’m liable then I’ll go with it. It’s only a $1000 excess and I’ve been driving for over 15 years without any accidents or traffic infringements, including parking fines. I’m trying to gauge whether or not the community sees the lack of care for the road worthiness of their vehicle as a liability issue. You’ll see what I mean below.

Background:

I was driving along the freeway in Perth and traffic was flowing pretty smoothly. There had just been a slower patch but things were speeding back up. All of a sudden the ute in front of me starts to slow down without warning. The key thing here is there was absolutely no warning apart from the vehicle slowing down. The ute’s brake lights were not working. Neither of them. And a canopy fitted meant there was no high mounted brake light either.

I noticed the braking too late and went into the back of the ute. No damage to their vehicle at all but mine sustained a fair amount to various panels and to some items under the bonnet.

Maybe I could have braked harder, maybe not. Looking back I was indecisive because of the lack of warning and didn’t realise how hard they were going to brake. As you’ll see in the dash cam video, the ute in front of the vehicle I hit swerved to avoid the car in front of it. I was also trying to avoid the Mini Cooper behind me from going into me by not jamming on my brakes if possible.

I believe that had the brake lights on the ute been working I would have had at least 1-2 extra seconds to process the scene and come to a stop without hitting anything.

My insurer is going to assess the footage and get back to me but the bloke I spoke to said it will probably still be my fault technically due to safe stopping distances etc. He isn’t in the assessment department though. My argument is that I was at a safe distance had the brake lights been working.

I also question why I should be liable for another persons lack of care and maintenance of their vehicle letting it get to the point of being unroadworthy.

Dash cam video here

Note I have blurred the license plate of the ute but nothing else has been altered. It might look like I got a shove from behind but my best explanation for this is the ute stopped suddenly and I kept going so it seems like an optical illusion on camera. Being there in the drivers seat that is how I remember it.

My question for the community given the background info and after watching the video is should I be liable for the traffic collision (yes 100%, no not at all or yes, partly liable)? In true OzB fashion I’ll add a poll to the post.

Again, I’m not trying to get out of it and this is the wrong place to do that. I’m genuinely curious what the community thinks about the situation.

Have you been in a similar situation? How did your insurer assess your liability? Did you challenge their decision if they did find you liable? I’m curious about this as I’m sure it’s more common than I’d believe with the number of old bombs and lack of vehicle maintenance oversight in most jurisdictions of Australia. I know NSW have yearly inspections for certain vehicles but most other states don’t. In the UK and NZ I believe they have mandatory periodic inspections in order for the vehicle to be registered/licenced. Is this something we should look at across all of Australia too?

TL DR

I was in a traffic collision where I rear ended someone with faulty brake lights that weren’t working. Discussing liability issues around vehicle road worthiness or lack of when in a TC.

Poll Options expired

  • 401
    Yes 100% liable
  • 31
    No not liable at all
  • 59
    Yes, partly liable

Comments

  • +2

    Travelling way too close to stop safely… you could see the vehicle slowing down with no brake lights, and instead of backing right off- you got closer again!

    You are 150% at fault, and guaranteed that's how the insurers will see it.
    Yes front driver can be booked for faulty rear tail lights, but the simple fact is you had ample opportunity to increase braking distance but chose not too.

    Pay your excess and learn from the experience. By all means show insurer the video, they may be able to fight it on your behalf and claim back some of their costs- but they won't pass that onto you.

    Thanks for posting video though. You've opened yourself up to criticism of your driving, but you've also educated people. Well done (on the later) :).

    • We all make mistakes but it’s if/how we learn from them that makes us better. I’m happy to educate people along the way and that was one reason I made the post.

  • It's incredibly dangerous to drive a vehicle with inop brake lights. A rear ender is almost a certainty. If there had been a fatality and coroner's inquest the ute driver would be in deep doodoo. In this instance I'd apportion liability 70% shunter 30% shuntee

    • +1

      I think the way my policy works is if I have any liability then I pay the full excess.

      I haven’t had to use my insurance for the past 15 plus years so I guess at least I’ve paid that tens of thousands of dollars for a reason now
      /s

  • From what I've seen you will be liable but I think majority of other drivers will have had the same crash. No one leaves safe stopping distances these days.

    I think it's a reasonable expectation that other people should be keeping their cars to a roadworthy status, but all you can do is just try say it's not your fault to insurance and hope they rule in your favor. Eat whatever response they give.

    • +3

      No one leaves safe stopping distances these days.

      I do, but then the next scumbag behind me tailgates and sneaks in around me between the distance i’ve kept in front

  • Probably need a few seconds more prior in the video to really tell but it doesn't look like you were keeping a safe breaking distance.

  • +3

    Im just confused as to why you braked, then stopped braking and lurched forward!

    • +1

      I didn’t think I lifted off the brake at the time but I guess I may have. In the heat of the moment it’s a bit foggy those last few seconds. The car was new to me and I’ve only had it a couple of weeks so that could have affected things. Anyway, a few lessons learned.

  • +1

    Hmm yeah, you shouldn't be relying on brake lights to determine your stopping distance. You should always assume everyone around you are bad drivers.

    • Yeah I normally see myself as a pretty defensive driver. In this case I can see room for improvement. Even the most defensive of drivers may find themselves in a challenging situation occasionally whether it’s a lapse in concentration for a moment or something else. We are all human and won’t be perfect 100% of the time.

      • Even the most defensive of drivers may find themselves in a challenging situation occasionally whether it’s a lapse in concentration for a moment or something else. We are all human and won’t be perfect 100% of the time.

        Exactly, this is where basic autonomous features comes to save the day (such as autonomous cruise control, lane keep, lane departure, distance maintenance on highways etc… ). Some people frown on these stating they're only good for bad drivers and they won't do any good, but I've seen many people make silly and risky mistakes on the roads, these are a must have for any modern vehicle.

  • Everyday I'm wondering htf do people drive that there are multiple accidents (break downs fair enough) on a freaking straight freeway. Well here's one viewpoint of it.

  • OP’s fault. Driving way too close. Especially when OP admitted that they knew the car in front had faulty brake lights. If that is the case, double your distance or switch lanes so that someone else can drive behind the idiot

    • +3

      I actually didn’t realise at the time. It wasn’t until a few days later that I had this subconscious thought that there was something wrong and I reviewed the dash cam footage again to confirm that thought. I even watched the footage a number of times on the day it happened and didn’t pick it up nor did the other people I shared it with.

    • I see some vehicles with this issue every now and then, but it's not always easy to spot.

      Would be nice if we could let them know somehow, or report them so they get the memo.

  • -2

    We should just get rid of brake lights altogether

  • You know it looks like and i believe you did let the pressure off the pedal a bit the he propped.
    I think you were unlucky nut also lucky you have comprehensive insurance.

    Out of curiosity is that a Ford Escape or Kuga by the sound of the brake warning?

    • Ford Endura. Aka Ford Edge in American markets.

      • All the Ford warning sounds are the same globally whether it a Fiesta or an F350.

      • Ford Endura

        With adaptive cruise control?
        The kind of safety/assistive feature which likely, if enabled, would have stopped you read ending (and ~$1k excess)?

        • Yes with adaptive cruise control but it’s the previous generation version that only works up to a certain speed and cuts out below that. I also wouldn’t guarantee it would have saved me. It’s meant to have AEB which in theory is exactly the tech that should have stopped this but all that did was chirp at me quite late. In the end the driver is still in control and needs to take responsibility which is what I am doing.

  • -2

    After having read these comments, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this:

    I was also trying to avoid the Mini Cooper behind me from going into me by not jamming on my brakes if possible.

    Why would you be caring about them? Presumably, your brake lights were working, so if they hot you, it's on them.

    • +1

      Slamming on your brakes could cause an accident.

      Seems like the OP tried to avoid this possible scenario, but misjudged their stopping distance with their chosen braking strategy.

      • +2

        Slamming on your brakes could cause an accident.

        Seems like the OP tried to avoid this possible scenario, but misjudged their stopping distance with their chosen braking strategy…

        …causing an accident.

        • 🤣

          And then trying to blame the other car!

      • -2

        Slamming on your brakes could cause an accident.

        Indeed. And as I said, it would be the car behind at fault, just like OP is at fault for hitting the car in front!

        Seems like the OP tried to avoid this possible scenario, but misjudged their stopping distance with their chosen braking strategy.

        And now we have to hear them crying about it. The whole tone of their post is should I really have to pay? This has got to be the Ute's fault!!!!!

        • +3

          I don’t know what gives you the impression I am whinging. It’s an unusual situation and I thought it’d be interesting to see people’s thoughts. And a bit educational even if I am the joke of the day today. I’ll forgive you for being harsh.

          • -4

            @cuethebush:

            I don’t know what gives you the impression I am whinging.

            Your entire post!

            Yes, you tried your hardest to make it look otherwise, but, as I said, your entire post is a whinge that you'll have to pay because the ute driver didn't have brake lights that came on.

            bit educational

            Indeed. Leave room for muppets with no brake lights.

            How long were you behind this guy?

    • Because most people don't want to be rear ended. OP tried and unfortuntely failed to split the difference and will probably wear more than a fair cost on it.

      Good on OP for having the awareness to give it a crack.

  • +1

    "unroadworthy ute" — completely irrelevant.

    You could see they were slowing down and you slowed down also but decided to just let go of the brake for some reason within the span of a few seconds, causing a collision.

    100% at fault.

  • +5

    OP, I'm sorry to hear your from Western Australia. Hang in there, things will get better.

    • I might live here but I’m not born and bred here. A couple of eastern states had that unfortunate experience. I have been over here for the past 7 or 8 years though and I’m enjoying it. Although I have spent all that time living and working in bush towns bar maybe six months.

    • I'm sorry to hear your from Western Australia

      I too feel sorry every time I hear someone say they're from Western Australia. :-)

      • -3

        Idiot eastern stater id assume

  • +2

    Insurance will sort it.

  • Yeah look, it's your fault for being too close - sorry
    BUT
    In my ideal world, because I'm sick and tired of people having shitbox cars they don't look after - if someone rear ends you and you have absolutely no working brake lights, I'd argue a 50/50 liability

  • +2

    There is probably a significantly greater chance of the car without brake lights being held liable than this thread indicates.

    However without dashcam footage good luck proving it. "They were working before you smashed em all up!".

    -Edit - I see you have dashcam footage! It doesn't look great that you were able to stop, and then kept going. How relevant are the brake lights in that scenario? That said you may not have gotten so close if they had working lights.

    As an aside - EV's tend to decelerate rapidly without braking (engine braking) and don't imagine they show brake lights when doing so. Something to be mindful of.

    I'd leave it to the insurer to sort out.

    • +3

      I think you will find they do show brake lights…. they don't call it regenerative braking for no reason.

      • +1

        Not sure if all makes do this, the dashboard on my Nissan shows the brake lights have activated when using regen braking

  • +4

    Guy at my work had the exact same incident in Vic, unsure if road rules differ but his insurance took his favor since their brake lights weren't working and he didn't pay for the damage or repair to his vehicle. An example from this article here
    Examples where the driver in front could be held at least partially liable
    • Malfunctioning brake lights

  • Looks like you had recognised they were slowing down, and you were slowing down to and it seemed like you had virtually stopped but then you ran into them.

    Id be surprised if the Ute wasn’t somewhat responsible. Driving without any functioning rear tail lights is an accident waiting to happen.

  • -1

    When is someone rear ending the other car, ever the other cars fault

    OP, it's a brake pedal, learn how to use it. Safe travelling distances, learn how to drive.

    Ozbargain not OzWhinge or OzLawyer

  • Liability rest with the car which caused the accident to happen.

    And non-working brake lights can absolutely be the cause of an accident.

    But going by the dash cam video it doesn't appear that the break lights were a factor in this case. You clearly see the ute slowing down and start to also slow down matching him, things don't go wrong until you are almost stopped anyway.

    Just submit the video to your insurance and let them decide how to run with it, they also won't want to be liable if they can get out of it, so are on your side.

  • There's a few things going on here.

    The law does recognise partial liability and there could be an argument no brake lights would amount to that. I'm not sure if that's been tested and what proportion was allocated

    Insurance companies however are very practical and has no interest in wasting time and money pursuing such marginal claims.

    However the facts of the case are also unhelpful to you as you never left a safe braking distance between you and the vehicle in front even if they did have parking brakes. You had less than a second travels distance between you two. It should be more like three.

    It seems like a very large amount of expensive legal work in order to haggle over a comparatively small amount of repair money.

  • -3

    How the (profanity) are people brain dead enough to make a black and white call claiming it’s OPs fault?!?! I would 100% fight this, an unroadworthy vehicle was the reason you went into the back of them hence they caused the accident. Working brake lights are a LEGAL requirement for your vehicle to be roadworthy and this vehicle is not. Ozbargainers are always “your fault suck it up and pay it” until the shoe is on the other foot.

    • -2

      Irrelevant in all respects to the cause of the crash, the OP is at fault 100% .

  • Honestly mate it's a shitty situation. That guy should also be fined in all fairness but it's hard to claim against a collision.. I honestly don't think it's solely your fault.. there's a reason why brake lights exist… But I don't think insurance will side with you. That car should still be reported to the police .. honestly someone else will be in a similar situation.. it's not like only one brake light wasn't working, none of them were.

    • +1

      Agree with this…and disagree with those leaping to condemn the OP. Whether the law says it explicitly or not, automatic liability for a rear shunt is at least partly based on the following driver having sight of functioning brake lights for the vehicle ahead. Asking 'why is the law the way it is?' and 'how is the law applied?' are different questions - some commenters seem to struggle with that.

  • I had a similar situation back in the day… Ute in front slammed into the back of a car so there was no warning of sudden stop and no attempt to brake, I went underneath him in the process. Luckily he had done so much damage in the front-end impact that the ute was already written off and I didn't really crash into him, but instead went under (car was very low).

    His insurer attempted to go after me as at-fault, however they dropped their claim after admitting the ute was a writeoff already from the front-end impact and the rear impact was minimal - just a bent towhook (had a friend in the insurance game send a list of questions for them).

    End of the day regardless of the situation up front if you hit the car it front, brake lights or not you're liable but can always get lucky and avoid the claim :)

    In the end I just bought a new bonnet and I was gold.

  • I feel so sorry for you mate, you just happened to be behind a wrong Ute with no lights working, having said that you still need to keep a safe distance and keep an eye on bad drivers and no signalling drivers etc. Having seen the video, I can see why the Ute slowed down, there was another car trying to pull in from the middle ditch onto the freeway, so the Ute was trying to do the right thing slowing down and letting him in unfortunately his lights were not working.

    I would still seek advice from your insurer see if your loss can be mitigated by the facts lights not working but I don't think you have a chance.

    Lesson for everyone to check their lights on regular basis to make sure they are working, in particular the rear lights.

    Good thing is that you both got out of it without an injury and safe, that's worth more than a $1000.

  • Have you of the other driver been breathalysed or tested for drugs? The court may find intoxication was in play for a 50/50 results

  • +3

    You shouldn't worry about the car behind you, it's up to them to keep a safe distance.

  • Even if they declared the ute liable for its own damage that would still leave you paying the excess for your cars damage.
    So not any point worrying about it, expect the excess and fault history, it is a surprise gift if they give you a non-fault claim.

  • Would the insurance pay if the car in front of you was no roadworthy? 100% no.
    Maybe closer to 101%, actually.

    Such an illegal vehicle does not belong to the road.

    You're not liable at all.
    Please ignore all the background noise and the (based on what?) 50/50 liability suggestions.

  • You are driving on what appears to be a freeway. Without knowing the speed I'll (safely) assume the speed limit is a minimum of 80km/h. At that speed you should be three seconds behind the vehicle in front of you. You were nowhere close to that hence you are at fault, regardless of whether the brake lights were working on the vehicle in front of you or not.

    • You can see the speed at the bottom. It was around 90

      • Right you are, turns out I had the cookie notification in the way so I couldn't see the speed. My comment stands though.

  • Interesting, I would have thought if the vehicle was unroadworthy then they will become liable especially if in this case both brake lights werent working but not sure how insurers or cops see this.

    • Driver is liable for any frontal collisions, hence why tailgating is the dumbest thing anyone can do.

      Driving an unroadworthy vehicle is a separate matter with its own set of fines.

      • but what about if the unroadworthy part contributed to the incident? then what happens? Who decides the insurers or does it have to go to cops?

        • -1

          It's a black and white rule.

          Your front, their back, your fault

          I've known of genuine, 100% did nothing wrong, plenty of room cases where it was still the drivers fault.

          The only exception I've ever seen is someone drove backwards and luckily there was a dash cam.

      • In this specific case the op actually realized the car ahead was slowing down and consequently slowed down also. Then all of a sudden they decide it's a great idea to move ahead. I suspect this negates the "I didn't see the brake lights so didn't know that car was slowing down" claim.

        Furthermore, knowing there are no brake lights should have been more of a reason to maintain a larger than normal gap behind the "unroadworthy" car, but the op did the exact opposite.

  • -1

    regardless weather its roadworthy or not, you are 100% liable, you can clearly see the distance between yourself and the other vehicle, you should bring up your situation with the insurance company and see what they say but i think you are liable

  • Dan Andrew’s fault for sure

    • The fine amounts will be for sure. Victoria's bleeding $20 million a day in interest payments on its debts, that moneys coming from your Victorian pocket.

  • I always give shitboxes like that extra space.

    That said it's weird that you stopped then drove into him. Did you press the wrong pedal? I don't think it's an optical illusion because the lines to the left have also stopped.

    I almost had an accident myself like that on the highway but I pulled into the shoulder at the last second and braked safely there.

    • Could be anything - No ABS, brakes overheated, got rear ended himself.

    • That said it's weird that you stopped then drove into him.

      I still don't get what happened.

      It looks like the OP came to a near complete stop and either got rear-ended and pushed into the ute or accelerated again somehow.

      It makes me question the OP's honesty, as nearly all of these "Help Me with My Road Accident Alibi" posts do.

  • You're liable but at the same time can report him to the Police with that video and get them to smack him with a few fines.

  • Put the footage on Tiktok, add some slapstick music. If it goes viral you'll make a profit. :P

    Just messing around. Unfortunate, but yeah you are 100% liable here. On the bright side, 1 accident in 15 years isn't going to get you accolades and a Guiness Book world record, but it's not terrible either. And it's a minor prang. No one was hurt. I'd say you had a bad day, but not a terrible one!

  • I mean from a police and insurance perspective this could be your get out of jail free card. Given that insurance companies will practically absolve themselves for relatively minor modifications to the car i'd say you may have a tiny opening.

  • +1

    For what it is worth even i find it hard to judge without brake lights. I think you may have a case here.

  • +1

    I think if you provide your dash cam video to you're insurer I think you'll be surprised. I have a feeling they will say that a lack of brake lights contributed to crash and would deem that each party would be responsible for repairing their own car.

    You have enough evidence to support the fact that the vehicle un-roadworthiness (break lights) contributed to the cause of this accident.

    I would love to argue this in court. :D Realistically though, its not worth argument :)

  • +1

    Part of the fault should be with you but given the lights are out on the other vehicle and the sudden stopping, it makes me wonder if they were doing that on purpose.

    Perhaps see if your insurer will apportion some of the blame on the other party.

  • Based on what you've said and shown I would say the ute is at fault. I can easily see myself in the same situation as you, Ive been caught off guard by very muddy brake lights for example - when they brake, the surprise is significant.

    Liability in terms of insurance claim however, I don't know.

    If not in your favour I think you have a case in small claims. If I had the time and motivation I might even pursue it.

  • +1

    Just pay the excess and let your insurance company decide. They'll do whatever they can to get money from someone. If they decide in your favour, they'll refund you the excess.

  • -1

    Lol you’re absolutely at fault.
    Are you sure his brake lights weren’t working?

    I had some (profanity) yell “your brake lights aren’t working” at me last week and I said “I didn’t use my brakes, I changed gears mart”, he yelled and said I should use my brake and I told him to pay more attention, it’s not my issue. He then proceeded to get out his car and I just drove off because the light changed.

    Moral of the story is pay attention.

  • +4

    Insurance lawyer here. Dual liability. Apportionment would be in your favour (70/30) unless it could be proven that the unroadworthy features of the ute could not have caused or contributed to the accident.

    I would be challenging your insurer - the substantive/proximate cause of the accident was the ute’s unroadworthy features.

  • This could be another 'proportionate liability' incident where both drivers are liable.

  • You brake on a close call for a split second but put your foot down again? I think that road is leading to south of Perth. Safer to stay left

  • Has anyone seen the video? The ute stopped for a good 2-3 seconds. Then OP car was going slow but it looked like at the 6 sec mark OP decided to lunge forward… Did you mess the break with the accelerator. You certainly went faster than what you were at before the 6 sec mark.

  • Stop driving up peoples arse. Way too close.

  • +2

    My brother in Christ, you are travelling at 93km/h, which is about 26m/s. You have a gap of approximately 12m to the vehicle in front of you, which is approximately 0.46s. For reference each white line is 3m long and the gap between is 9m. A safer gap would be more like 60-70m.

    Thinking that being that close is a safe distance is a huge issue and for anyone else reading, please take into consideration increasing the distance to the car in front of you. Not only is it safer, but it also helps to improve the traffic flow, because longer gaps allow for the traffic flow to absorb minor changes in speed of vehicles ahead of you. If everyone is closely packed, then there is no resilience in the flow, and it will breakdown much quicker. Obviously during peak hour, more vehicles means less space on the road. But if every vehicle is evenly spaced out then flows are less likely to breakdown. Most freeways can cope with between 1800 - 2000 vehicles a lane, depending on other conditions like road geometry and ramp signals, which is still an average of 1.8 to 2.0s between vehicles. There's no reason to be 12m way from the vehicle in front of you.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzzSao6ypE

  • -3

    Who said the car was unroadworthy? Your opinion? Mechanical and electrical faults occur all the time in the car, unfortunately it isn't always obvious that there is a fault. Trust me if your insurer believed this was an avenue to get out of their commitment they would use it, they wouldn't need your input on the matter.

    I can't speak to what is done in WA but in NSW your learns/Provisionals has alot of content about hazards, specifically hazard perception, to the point where we have the Hazard perception test. A big component of any decent driver is to be aware of their surrounding at ALL TIMES. This is so you can perceive any active hazards or potential hazards. You failed to do this. Yes the lights may not have been working but if you had been aware of your surrounding at all times and had keep a reasonable gap from the car in front of you, then lights or no lights you would have noticed the car slowing down and have had plenty of time to stop.

    • -3

      This.

      The "unroadworthy ute" description made me imagine some vehicle from the set of Mad Max.

      For all the OP knows that guy's brake lights could have stopped working on that very day before he set out on the freeway.

      It's not some magical get-out-of-jail-free card if someone's brake lights aren't working that immediately absolves you of 100% of liability in an accident.

    • -1

      If it wouldn't get through the pits, it's technically unroadworthy. I doubt a car without brake lights would get through the pits successfully (unless of course they didn't check properly - last time I went through the pits after installing LPG, a guy was bragging about how his Monaro got through despite all electrics being fried).

  • I don't understand how you claim to have kept a safe distance. You travelling at over +90km and you seem very close to the car in front.

  • +1

    was driving along the freeway in Perth

    Well there's your first mistake.

  • I would assume that if you can prove his rear brake lights weren't operational it would be partial fault only (eg 50/50). I once side hit an older gentlemen who went into a one way street on the wrong direction and I failed to look both sides at my stop sign and hit him. The court ruled a 50/50 fault and we both agreed.. Just depends who the other driver is, if he's the type of person who doesn't have working brake lights I doubt you will have much success resolving this matter peacefully :/

  • +1

    I think you will be 100% or close to 100% at fault.

    I do think you came off the brake before the collision (and you should have stayed on it). You could have kept it hard down and let the ABS do its job.

    It is up to the driver behind you to stop in time.

  • seat belt were made law because of drivers like this

  • +1

    I reckon the distance was insufficient. But I think any car that has no brake lights at all (not talking about one broken bulb here) should be automatically liable for people running into them, because there is no way to know whether the accident would have happened if the brake lights had worked. I'm quite frustrated with people taking no responsibility for the state of their car.

    Also, the ute stopped quite abruptly in the end.

  • Everyone here acts holier than thou - but I get it mate.

    Yes - you are fully liable.

    But in reality - you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It sucks, but it is what it is. Would you have been able to stop in time given he had brake lights? Probably.
    People here acting as if you should have known due to the car getting closer, but reality is we are people who follow patterns for safety. Naturally we see brake lights come up 99.99% of times which in turn given our training and conditioning triggers us to brake quicker. The mind needed some more time to process this guy was coming to a quicker halt as no brake lights appeared.

    It comes down to lazy legislation and ways for them to be able to handle cases quickly. Both for the cops and the insurer. Eg, if a guy does an illegal u-turn and hits you coming out of a side street, you are still liable.
    Its BS, but it is what it is.

    Just wrong place, wrong time.

  • The whole point of following at a safe distance is so that if something occurs in front of you "without warning", you can brake or take evasive action.

    Follow too close, offence complete.

  • For a car to get a RWC all the safety features need to work, but a car that has a RWC can still be driven on the road under certain conditions even if a safety feature stops working. I know someone who was pulled over by the police because both brake lights weren't working, they were given a defective notice, and told to have the lights fixed asap and inspected sometime in the next two weeks. Thankfully they didn't get a fine because it wasn't my car.
    I think the OP got a raw deal, but just because a car isn't RW doesn't mean you can hit them. Since OP was not keeping a safe distance from the car in front, then regardless of whether the break lights were working or not, they are still responsible. If the OP could prove they did keep a safe distance and still hit the car in front, then I would expect that the front driver may be found partially at fault, but only about 30%.

  • "All of a sudden the ute in front of me starts to slow down without warning."

    I see "The ute’s brake lights were not working. Neither of them."

    That is actually terrifying

  • nah, don't accept liability.,
    If you rear end a car whose brake lights aren't working, or they were reversing, it's their fault.

  • -2

    yes sucks that the car should not have been on the road and therefore you would not have hit it but then it means you still might have hit someone else anyways so its all the same

Login or Join to leave a comment