That was like a five car incident I was involved in on the Santa Monica freeway. Nobody was seriously hurt, and I was the next to last car in the sequence, so I had very little damage. But the car causing the whole thing was driven by a Latino who hit a white guy who hit a black guy who hit me (white woman) who hit an Asian woman. A real SoCal quintfecta!
In your examples, people would also be hitting the brakes almost immediately. Besides the issue of even attempting to throw the gear shift in first gear if going over 20 mph, most people would hit the brakes while downshifting. I’ve driven a stick for years, and when you have to shift quickly like that, you hit the brakes and the clutch.
So far as a mechanical issue suddenly slowing you down, you will hit the brakes as soon as that happens. It’s reflex.
Same with hitting something in the road. You’re going to hit the brakes.
Kind of a blurry conundrum here. It doesn’t have to be, but you sort of have to look at it through two different but complementary lenses.
First: Criminal Law (statutes, ordinances, what regular folks call “laws”) is dictating an obligation of a vehicle operator to ensure the vehicle is in safe working order. Tires have tread, all lights are functional, etc. There is a presumption that all of this is the responsibility of the vehicle operator, as opposed to the owner. You operate a vehicle, you’d better make sure it is safe to do so. When you’re in the dirt with criminal law, it is a governmental body that is driving the legal process that culminates in a trial. Violations of criminal law are generally seen as INTENTIONAL.
Second: Civil Law, aka English Common Law. It’s a bit more nebulous and, simply stated, deals with obligations we as citizens have to one another. This is the body of law that looks at Criminal Law and says, “Yeah, but…”. It will be a person/corporation or some other private entity that drives the legal process that culminates in a trial. Violations of civil law are seen as UNINTENTIONAL acts caused by negligence (not taking a reasonable level of care, and as a result something or someone got broken).
So in the OP example, the act of driving with a nonfunctional tail light is a violation of a statute, and you are penalized by the government. The Government wants all drivers to ensure they vehicles don’t pose a hazard to other drivers, and this goal is reached by stipulating specific things that have to be functional on the car. Running your car into another car (nonmaliciously, please don’t what-if this to death, I’m trying to be general on purpose) is seen as more or less as a problem between people, an “accident” caused by someone not being reasonably careful, and the people are to sort it between themselves. Now as I said, these bodies of law are complementary, but what happens on one side doesn’t dictate what happens on the other. Cop writes you a ticket for the tail light so you deal with that side of the law to pay your fine or whatever. The result of that process is not admissible in the civil proceeding. The fact you got the ticket might be, and indeed the cop can be called as a witness to explain why you got that ticket. But the fact you got it dismissed–nope. The fun part is, should the OP scenario blossom into a lawsuit and end up in front of a jury, the jury will look at the allegation of the broken tail light, decide whether or not they think the light was actually out, or functioning below manufacturer spec. They will also look at the rear-end collision and be told about a reubuttable presumption of negligence against the rear-ending car. Just like it sounds, the guy in the back is generally hosed unless he can give a reasonable explanation for why the front guy is at fault. A hard brake check sometimes does the trick, or a sudden lane change. But if you’ve been following, you have to answer stuff like, “Why did nobody else have a problem with the light?” How long were you back there, and is there a good reason you didn’t notice the tail lights weren’t right. We’ve all noticed THAT car, and exercised caution and increased following distance–did our hero in this case? Why not? The TLDR version is: Criminal law is black and white, you either did it or you didn’t. Civil is mushier, what happened? How did it happen? Why did it happen? Was the defendant acting unreasonably? And believe it or not, a lot of states have a mechanism to make civil even more cloudy. That is the concept of “The occurrence of an accident does not raise any presumption of negligence on the part of either the plaintiff or the defendant.” Basically, shit happens, nobody’s at fault.
The last time I had a discussion about this with a LEO I was told that, unless a lane change or merge from a side street occurs, it’s the rear driver’s fault. The law expects you to have enough following distance and situational awareness to deal with a vehicle that has no brake lights, is going 10 MPH above the limit, and locks up their brakes for no externally apparent reason. That was California mid 90’s.
Thank you all for replies and comments.
As I remember, it was an in city, four lane road. I was keeping my distance in the inside lane. Maintaining the speed of the car in front. Suddenly I realized that the car in front was not moving. I grabbed the brakes, but didn’t have enough time to stop. I estimate that I was going about ten miles an hour at impact.
Because both tail lights were non functioning, it may have been more than two burned out bulbs. The driver of the car was quick to state that my impact (a 50cc Honda with two riders) took out his brake lights. I have always felt that he might have known they weren’t functioning.
Obviously the accident could have been avoided with functioning brake lights. When the insurance agent, of the car operator, stated that they were not liable because it happened during day light, I felt I had no case. Remember, I was just 14 years old. Had I had supporting parents, I believe I could have won and got my bike repaired.
I appreciate you folks reliving what happened over 50 years ago. And your input. Thank you for clearing up my fifty year old issue that I have always wondered about. Or at least allowing me to question it.
The takeaway is, if you wish to stop without using brake lights you may be increasing the odds of an accident. Sure, you may not be liable, but do you need the complications?
Graveyards are stuffed with people who had the right of way. Drive defensively, like everyone else is trying to kill you.
That is kind of psychopathic. If you move your car into a position that could allow someone to hit you (e.g., turn left in front of them, at a reasonably close distance), you should not do so with the assumption that they are going to try to hit you.
The best strategy is to drive offensively, doing your best to be in control of what is going on around you, to the extent that you can, and while being aware of how much control you can exert. Note that this is different from driving aggressively, in that you should be aware that pissing off other drivers is rarely to your actual advantage.
The driver’s first job, though, and many seem to forget this, is to not hit stuff. Animals, cars, trees, people, nothing but the road.
My cousin was being tailgated pretty hard one night, and when they came to the light, he entered the right turn lane and started the turn, while Mr. Methead made his right turn from the through lane, resulting in him striking my cousin’s front left corner with the side of his truck bed – the insurance companies decided it was my cousin’s fault because of where the damage was. So, when people are being assholes, expect stupidity and adjust your reaction patterns accordingly.
My Dad taught me to always maintain a “space cushion” between me and the car in front of me. I think there is some rule of thumb for this like one car length for every 10mph increase not sure if that’s the rule or not.
Easier to implement is the 2-second rule. You can expect it will take you around half a second to react and at least a second to stop, so 2 seconds is fair margin. Spot a reference point and count the time it takes to go from the front car’s rear bumper to your front bumper.
I prefer to go 4 seconds on the highway, but that can be somewhat dangerous if it makes you feel like you can slacken your vigilance and then something happens that you barely react to fast enough.