A long time ago, when I was 14 years old, my motorcycle rear ended a car. It was a low speed collision. The driver of the car was cited for not having brake lights. The driver maintained that the collision took out the lights. I stated that the lack of brake lights caused the collision. The police officer didn’t believe him. I was riding a 50cc bike. My passenger went to the hospital.
I hounded the driver’s insurance company about repairs to my bike. After many conversations, the agent told me that they were not liable as the accident happened in day light. Being a youngster, I accepted it.
As I got older, I felt that I was duped. But now fifty years have passed. I have always been curious, does it really matter if it was daylight?
There is a strong presumption that a rear end collision is the fault of the driver in back. You are supposed to be driving in a manner that allows you to have time to react safely to a sudden stop in front of you. The driver of the vehicle without brake lights may be guilty of some sort of contributory negligence but that doesn’t absolve you. You hit him, he didn’t hit you.
IANAL. But this Quora thread backs me up. But I doubt that they are lawyers.
Surely one of the factors contributing to the reaction of stopping in time are brake lights in the vehicles ahead. It stands to reason since you can be given a citation if even one of your brake lights is not working.
Lack of brake lights didn’t cause the collision, you not avoiding the other car caused the accident. He was only cited for a equipment violation which is not a moving violation, and not cited about anything about being the cause of the accident.
You have to be driving in a way where you can avoid other vehicles.
Now with that said, the insurance company is just going to try to get you off their back any way they can, and are experts at doing so.
I’m a little bit surprised that a 14-year-old could legally ride a motorcycle. Is that still the case?
As for the OP’s question, it seems obvious to me that if a car is driving around without brake lights, day or night, it’s going to significantly increase their chances of being rear-ended; but I have no idea how/whether it does/should affect the fault/liability of the rear-ender.
They were correct. The car could have been a manual transmission sitting still in neutral with no brake lights. I was in a similar accident as a new driver with silmilar results.
If I see a light turn red from a block away, I will take my foot off the gas and coast the block (hoping the light changes in the meantime). Whether night or day, I do not expect to get rear-ended. What usually happens is that the car behind, speeds up, passes me, and screeches to a halt at the light and I have to brake anyway to avoid hitting him.
And if you were suddenly stopping to pull into a parking place, or to pick up a passenger, you wouldn’t expect to be rear-ended either, because the car behind you would see your rear brake lights.
Of course /you/ wouldn’t suddenly stop in the middle of traffic. Unless the ‘traffic’ was just a kid on a bike. Because, speaking from experience, cars /do/ just stop or swerve suddenly when it’s just somebody on a small bike. And if you don’t even have brake lights, that gives me even less chance to avoid collision.
’
I have also heard horror stories of the “middle guy” who gets rear-ended but subsequently shoved into the vehicle in front of him, creating insurance claim uncertainty.
Bears repeating…
The driver of the car was cited for not having brake lights. The driver maintained that the collision took out the lights. I stated that the lack of brake lights caused the collision. The police officer didn’t believe him./QUOTE]No, sorry, what I mean is ANY car could be stopped without the brake lights being engaged due to being in neutral. It’s still the legal responsibility of the driver behind them not to hit them.
There’s a difference between a slowing car, a stopped car, and one that is suddenly stopping. Safe driving distance is based on time to react plus time for your car to stop. Not having brake lights means it’s going to take longer for the car behind to react and realize you slammed on your brakes.
I think the answer is going to depend on what happened. If the car was stopped (say at a red light) and you hit it, then relevance of the daylight is going to be that you can’t argue that you weren’t able to see the car (because it was dark and unlit) and that caused the accident.
If the car was stopping, then I don’t think that the daylight is going to matter.
The fact that the driver was cited for not having brake lights is only going to be relevant to your situation if that fact somehow had a causal link to the accident.
Downshifting to first suddenly means it’s going to take longer for the car behind to react.
Having a mechanical issue that locks up the transmission without triggering the brake lights means it’s going to take longer for the car behind to react.
Hitting something in the road that slows the car suddenly means it’s going to take longer for the car behind to react.
I think that’s his point. There’s all kinds of behavior, intentional or otherwise, that can cause a car to slow suddenly without brake lights. Brake lights are a helpful tool, but it’s not like there’s a law that says “if you don’t have brake lights your insurance company is automatically liable for damages.”
It’s a judgement call. To the OP, the agent could have told you they weren’t liable because it was Tuesday. They can say whatever they want. The way this works in practice is that you go to your insurance company, and let them decide if it’s worth hounding the other guy’s insurance company. Your insurance is there to make you whole. The other guy’s insurance company isn’t going to do anything out of the kindness of their hearts. They’re under no legal obligation to give you squat unless you take them to court, and they don’t have to give you a reason why.
I was the front vehicle of four in an accident like that. A pickup hit a car that hit a car that hit my work van. I barely felt a thing and had minimal cosmetic damage but the other three were pretty banged up.