Rear-ending someone with no brake lights?

sweet water

::

You would still be at fault for following too close and not maintaining a safe distance. The driver in front has no idea what you're doing while you are at the back and could see what's happening. You would have the last opportunity to avoid the accident, and if the accident were to happen it would be because of your negligence.

Sgt Pepper

You are *always* at fault when you rear-end someone. Can you say failure to maintain a safe distance?

Me again

Here's the deal. Do not EVER trust the lights on another car to let you know what the driver is doing. Ever. And I mean never. You need to watch their car. You need to be far enough back so that nothing they do will startle you. If their car slows down or stops, you cannot be the kind of idiot who is relying on brake lights to warn you. By then it's way too late. You absolutely must be able to drive as if no one's car has brake lights or turn signals. The same way helicopter pilots are trained to fly as though their aircraft will lose power at any time with no warning, you need to drive as though the car in front of you will do something unexpected at any time with no warning. You can listen to me now and believe me, or you can ram the car in front of you and believe me when you hear my voice in your head with your face planted in your airbag. The choice is yours. You may be able to shift a very small portion of the blame to them for driving an unsafe vehicle, but that will do little to comfort you when your car is destroyed and you are in the hospital. Remember, it's not just their brake lights, or lack thereof, that's stopping. It's their whole dam car.

Firecracker .

Yes, the person who hits another from behind is usually blamed. There is the added complication of proving the light didn't work before they were smashed.

trashy

if drivers pay attention you can realize when your gaining on something and following to close. brake light malfunctions occur some dont even know till they been hit or pulled over.

cgriffin1972

Well if you would have hit him how would you prove that they did not work?

They would be smashed out, so NO - it wold not matter you would still be at fault

The Mr. Pine

Your expected to keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front of you. They will say you are at fault even if a ticket for mechanical failure is issued to the other car.

Scott H

You probably would be at fault, because you were following too closely and not paying attention if you rear end anyone.

DininZolond

Yes, you are still at fault. Because if you rear ended a parked car while driving, does it have brake lights on because it is stopped? No. You are liable for hitting the car for not paying attention.

In the very worse case for the person you ran into, they will or can be ticketed for no tail lights, but you are still guilty of not paying attention. That is why you are tested for depth perception for this very reason.

Wish I had better news.

bungee

you would be unless you could verify by someone else that they didn't work

Al Mac Wheel

Often times whe
driver-A crashes into
Driver-B butt end
there is damage done which can include whether or not driver-B brake lights are now working

so unless you got police witness or good other witnesses that driver-B slowed without using brake lites (which is not the only way to slow),

driver-A cannot blame driver-B lites for the collision

The normal rule of thumb is

If driver-A crashes into back of driver-B
it is 100% driver-A fault,
unless driver-A has some really good witnesses that driver-B dids something wrong

Itr is like a plane crash
If the pilot survives, and cannot prove something else happened to cause the accident ... like the ground coming up without signalling properly, or some mechanic did not do their job properly
the pilot normally gets blamed

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: