Accident witness.

[portzy]

Me that is. A couple of weeks ago I was waiting at a zebra crossing in the form of the pedestrian, a nice shiny E Class pulls up to allow me to cross, followed by an old taxi who merrily runs into the back of the now stationary E Class. It turns out the the E Class brake lights were not working as claimed by the taxi driver and, after examination by me/us,, they were clearly not.

The poblem I have is that an accident management firm has contacted me and one of their Q's is "who do I think was to blame?". Mmmm, dont know what to say reallly, Ive been rear ended on more than a few occasions myself and the taxi was caneing a bit if I am honest, the chap in the Merc was a nice old'ish guy, the taxi man was all profane bluster to the Merc man if you know what I mean?, get yourself off the road you old F F b***tard.

What do you reckon?, 50.50 or weigh it towards the taxi going to fast?.

Portzy.

 

[masqueraid]

Be objective, it's not your job to aportion blame.

Unless you are certain you can side-step the question by highlighting the salient points, against the MB: rear lights not working (although I guess it's possible the rear SAM failed as a result of the impact). Against Taxi: Too fast/too close

 

[neilrr]

How do we know thw brake lights didn't stop working as a result of the rear ender?

Taxi driver wasn't paying attention. He's at fault.

 

[toolman1954]

Well I always thought that anyone that runs into the back of someone was responsible for their actions, brake lights working or not. The merc driver "may" have known his brake lights were not working and "may" have given a hand signal indicating he was slowing down, which of course you as a pedestrian, may not have seen.The taxi driver should not have been using excessive speed in what I might presume is abuilt up area and should have left a suffucient distance between himself and the car in front to be able to effect an emergency stop.My judgement of blame would be on the taxi driver.

 

[gaz_l]

Working brake lights or not, the onus is on the following driver to make sure that they have enough room to stop in time. Anything else is driving without due care and attention. I would also imagine that the impact wouldn't have done any favours to an incandescent filament, assuming they were working before being hit. The insurance companies know all this, and it's their job to apportion blame, not yours. I'd decline to offer an opinion.

HTH,

Gaz.

 

[dchaddah]

E class hit you therefore His fault! Dont get involved further. Let them argue it between themselves.

 

[MangoMan]

I was always led to believe that you cannot cause an accident if you are stationary, especially if hit from the rear. After all, he could have been stationary long enough to apply his handbrake, and not have his foot on the brake pedal, or even without the handbrake applied, still not have the footbrake applied if confident that he would not move in such an instance, thereby his brakelights would not be operational anyway.

So, I would say that the fault lies with the Taxi driver, by not paying full care & attention, which in some countries is a fineable offence on it's own.

Anyway, that is my opinion.

Cheers, Bill.

 

[portzy]

Thanks guys. A bit more info is that the taxi had accelerated on to, and off of, a roudabout some forty to fifty yards before the zebra crossing to avoid a que I guess. I saw all this also and, was half expecting to see what I eventually did.

The Merc was relatively unhurt but its bumper and rear was slightly pushed in which could have played havoc with the lights etc. The taxi (Rover 45) was very sorry looking, bonnet-wings-screen-engine fluid/s everywhere ie probably a write off. So my guess is the taxi guy is looking at any and every way of claiming some form of excuse.

Portzy.

 

[MangoMan]

Working brake lights or not, the onus is on the following driver to make sure that they have enough room to stop in time. Anything else is driving without due care and attention. I would also imagine that the impact wouldn't have done any favours to an incandescent filament, assuming they were working before being hit. The insurance companies know all this, and it's their job to apportion blame, not yours. I'd decline to offer an opinion.

HTH,

Gaz.

Ignore that, sorry. I had read it as 'I' instead of 'I'd'. Appologies, must go to specsavers........lol..

 

[portzy]

E class hit you therefore His fault! Dont get involved further. Let them argue it between themselves.

No the E Class hit no-one, I was a pedestrian watching all this unfold as I stood at the zebra crossing waiting to cross to the chip shop. I tell you wherever I go trouble is sure to follow. I do feel some sympathy for the chap in the Merc though, very nice not so new but well looked after car and all that plus he was very shaken by it all and the unjust profanities he had to endure.

Portzy.

 

[IanA2]

Taxi driver.....he couldn't stop. That's it.

 

[pluggers]

I find it hard to belive that the merc had all 3 brake lights (tail lights and high level one)out at the same time.More likely that the rear end shunt has damaged something.Id just say the merc give way so you could cross and the taxi ran into the back of it.

 

[pammy]

If I've got this right - the E class was stopped at a zebra crossing - no question the taxi driver was at fault. The fact there were no brake lights - if indeed there weren't, is irrelevant as the MB driver may have applied his handbrake so none would have shown working or not!!

At the end of the day - the taxi driver should have seen the zebra crossing and been prepared to stop himself which he clearly wasn't. He would appear to be in deep doo doo!

But I would suggest you simply should state the facts as you saw them - and not try to say who was/wasn't to blame

 

[jonm]

Say for example the Merc driver had put his beloved machine in 'P', popped on the parking brake and taken his foot off the brake pedal. Result: stationary car, no brake lights, taxi driver clearly at fault.

Obviously I was not there, but, seems to me that the above would be reasonable, and as there would be no difference in appearance between this and broken tail lights seems to me that the only reasonable conclusion is that the taxi stuffed a stationary car up the a**e and is therefore at fault

Jon

 

[Flash]

Taxi to blame as far as I am concerned as the impact could have knocked the lights out...

 

[jimti]

From what you say you saw, a car ran into the back of another car that was stationary, that was all you could see. You couldn't see if any brake lights were on or not at the time, so I would say from your viewpoint the Taxi appeared to be at fault. The fact that "after the accident" the Mercedes brake lights weren't working is only proof that they didn't work after the accident.
But I would ask the accident management firm if they they think it is correct to rely on your "personal views" rather than carrying out their own investigation. I don't think it is right to ask you unless they intend paying you as a professional accident assessor

 

[splang]

Agree with flash on this one. Certainly on the balance of probability

 

[Rebel]

Look at it like this, if the E class hadnt been there you might be dead!!!!!!!

Had the E class not been hit what would have prevented the taxi driving straight into you?

Taxi is at fault, absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

PS pedestrians dont have brake lights either!

 

[Piff]

Many years ago on a dark winter night, wet country road & snow on verges. Car coming towards me with headlights on stopped in middle of road. There was enough room for 2 cars to pass on the road (verified by police measurements) but he stopped in the middle.
I didn't realise he had stopped until too late. I applied brakes (ineffective in a mark 2 Cortina on a wet road) and took to the nearside verge. Still collided with his offside wing taking out his head light , bending wing & bumper on both cars.
Police involved. Agreed he should not have stopped in the middle of road with his headlights on but I was entirely to blame as he was stationary and I should have been able to stop within my viewing distance.
Therefore taxi driver to blame.

 

[Hartzpartz]

I suppose there is a possibility that his brake lamp switch had failed? This would affect all three stop lamps.

Regardless of this, if someone drives into the back of you, it's because they haven't allowed sufficient stopping distance coupled with poor observation (freak accidents excluded of course).