No tail lights on trailer - crash

errlloyd

Hey guys,

My friend had a little crash yesterday on the N11, some of you may have seen it, 7:10 booterstown avenue. She hit a low double axel (I think) trailer being towed by a jeep with no tail lights working. The trailer did have lights they just weren't hooked up. Anyway the jeep braked rather suddenly on the n11 and she crashed into the trailer.

The Garda at the scene advised her that because the Jeep had a break light up high on the rear windscreen it was completely her fault, as if there had been lights. Doesn't quite sound right to me, is it?

Caliden

errlloyd wrote: »

Hey guys,

My friend had a little crash yesterday on the N11, some of you may have seen it, 7:10 booterstown avenue. She hit a low double axel (I think) trailer being towed by a jeep with no tail lights working. The trailer did have lights they just weren't hooked up. Anyway the jeep braked rather suddenly on the n11 and she crashed into the trailer.

The Garda at the scene advised her that because the Jeep had a break light up high on the rear windscreen it was completely her fault, as if there had been lights. Doesn't quite sound right to me, is it?

With rear end collisions the blame is nearly always put on the driver behind normally for reasons like "did not leave enough braking distance".

thecomedian

Could they see the lights on the jeep clearly?
If so, I don't think there is anything they can do.

stephendevlin

Id be inclined to say she should have kept her distance from the trailer no matter what. If you rear end someone it usually never goes to your favour. I can see the point of the lights on the jeep too.

ballooba

Sounds like it's certainly worth contesting. I would seriously consider going to court. How do you make sure that your insurance company doesn't settle on your behalf on the sly?

errlloyd

Yeah I'd never suggest she claimed no responsibility. Just something I can see myself doing. Like that stretch of N11 is quite stop start, no one ever keeps space.

stephendevlin

errlloyd wrote: »

Yeah I'd never suggest she claimed no responsibility. Just something I can see myself doing. Like that stretch of N11 is quite stop start, no one ever keeps space.

hence the problem

stephendevlin

ballooba wrote: »

Sounds like it's certainly worth contesting. I would seriously consider going to court. How do you make sure that your insurance company doesn't settle on your behalf on the sly?

I would seriously consider you gather more information before even thinking on jumping into a costly courtcase

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Your-Vehicle/About-your-Vehicle/Example-of-non-Dup/Trailers-/Technical-Trailer-Requirements-/

not all trailers are even required by law to have lights

Marcusm

In fairness, unless it had just pulled in front of her she should already have noticed that the brake lights weren't functioning due to the stop/start nature of the traffic (as you have commented). It would be hard to fight this one.

corktina

it is possible not to realise that there is a trailer on the back of a vehcile if it isn't lit, and misjudge the distance. Some blame has to be attached to the driver of the jeep. Contacting your insurance company is the first step.

Mikros

At best you might be able to argue a split in liability depending on the circumstances e.g. nature of traffic, light conditions, actions of jeep driver etc. In other words would a reasonable driver have avoided the collision. But as has been said already in a rear-end collision you are always on the back foot.

CiniO

Caliden wrote: »

With rear end collisions the blame is nearly always put on the driver behind normally for reasons like "did not leave enough braking distance".

In normal circumstances - yes.
But in case of vehicle in front of you without light (I assume it was dark) which you can't see, then how can you keep enough distance from something you couldn't see?

CiniO

stephendevlin wrote: »

I would seriously consider you gather more information before even thinking on jumping into a costly courtcase

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Your-Vehicle/About-your-Vehicle/Example-of-non-Dup/Trailers-/Technical-Trailer-Requirements-/

not all trailers are even required by law to have lights

Could you point out where does it state in your link that some trailers don't need to have light?
I genuinely looked through it, and couldn't find a word about it.

errlloyd

I guess I kinda put this up more abstractly, the insurance company will do their thing, and I trust the insurance company will do whatever is best by them, if they wanna contest it I am sure they will.

Shame though, my family does a lot of towing, various things for various people. My dad has me properly brainwashed with the importance of lightboards. He won't let us tow unless we have a spare lightboard in the trailer and stuff.

Lawless2k12

No one here can really comment on it because we have no idea what happened or what the jeep looked like. If it was a horse box then the whole jeep would be hidden, but if it was a low trailer (say for a car) then the jeep would have been visable. Then you must account for how long was she behind the jeep?

Icepick

sounds like 50/50 .. did she see the vehicle but didn't see it braking?

The insurance company will gladly go to court to make it 50/50 instead of full liability.

Boskowski

Call me fkn German but IMO throw the book at the lazy cvnt not bothering to have lights in the dark.
Reality is most likely going to be different. No lights? It'll be grand boy. Oh you caused a crash due to no lights? It'll be grand boy too.
I think the Irish way of non-enforcement actually encourages irresponsibie driving.

CiniO

Icepick wrote: »

sounds like 50/50 .. did she see the vehicle but didn't see it braking?

The insurance company will gladly go to court to make it 50/50 instead of full liability.

Unless both drivers are with the same insurer, as then this insurer will chose to blame the drive who's premium is going to be more affected after the claim.

_Kaiser_

Depending on where she was on the N11 when this happened, and how well it was lit at the point of collision, it's very reasonable that she could have hit the trailer if it's a low-loader with no lights

Sure she can see the jeep lights but that's what? 6ft further back?

biko

Let the insurance company sort it out, that's what she pays them for.

In the spirit of discussion, she should have kept better distance.

CiniO

biko wrote: »

Let the insurance company sort it out, that's what she pays them for.

To be honest I was always of the opinion, that we pay insurance companies so they could cover the cost of damage I might cause accidentally, or other damage which might occur (fire, theft). Not to decide who was liable.

By letting insurer sort those kind of things, we agree to fact, that they can sort it out whatever way it suits them.

I sometimes wonder if Ireland is the only country in the world, where it's insurers who decide who was at fault at accident.

snipey

she did keep her distance because she did n't see the trailer,if he had no lights on the trailer it's illegal to have it on the road.

thecomedian

If it was dark, the trailer should be lit. Though there are exceptions, I don't know if a low trailer is one though.

CiniO

thecomedian wrote: »

If it was dark, the trailer should be lit. Though there are exceptions, I don't know if a low trailer is one though.

Could you point out any link confirming that any kind of trailer is released from obligation to use lights?

Merch

Its bloody negligent not ensuring your lights function correctly and at this time of year too.

I've noticed plenty of jeeps (style or type) where the lights dont seem to operate and I think its by design (I know that sounds silly)
But I have seen a few of the same types (Terranos) but also others where the back lights dont seem to operate at all only what appears to be auxillary lights (high mounted rear brake, and then only maybe) or lights working in the bumper only but not in the light cluster??
I've noticed this on a few jeep types bigger than these also.

I thought this was because, the vehicles are designed to be able to tow and I have read somewhere about a towing light switch?

Is it just common that people that drive these are reckless and know nothing about vehicles? so never bother to check the operation or the functionality of the lights
OR
Am I just unaware that there is some switch in 4x4's that is used to turn on (or off) certain back lights? (either automatically or manually)

A number of times I have seen jeeps towing, where the lower back lights have been obscured and either there were no lights on the trailer or they didnt work in most circumstances and you are relying on braking indications by the driver on a high mounted light or nothing at all.

No doubt the person in question following should have paid heed to this and been extra careful because of it.
I'm suprised given most cars go through an annual NCT how many still have misaligned or non functional lights???
(I know commercial jeeps dont do the NCT, but a DOE? not sure if its the same for jeeps kitted out and used as private vehicles)

galwaytt

Merch wrote: »

Its bloody negligent not ensuring your lights function correctly and at this time of year too.

I've noticed plenty of jeeps (style or type) where the lights dont seem to operate and I think its by design (I know that sounds silly)
But I have seen a few of the same types (Terranos) but also others where the back lights dont seem to operate at all only what appears to be auxillary lights (high mounted rear brake, and then only maybe) or lights working in the bumper only but not in the light cluster??
I've noticed this on a few jeep types bigger than these also.

I thought this was because, the vehicles are designed to be able to tow and I have read somewhere about a towing light switch?

Is it just common that people that drive these are reckless and know nothing about vehicles? so never bother to check the operation or the functionality of the lights
OR
Am I just unaware that there is some switch in 4x4's that is used to turn on (or off) certain back lights? (either automatically or manually)

A number of times I have seen jeeps towing, where the lower back lights have been obscured and either there were no lights on the trailer or they didnt work in most circumstances and you are relying on braking indications by the driver on a high mounted light or nothing at all.

No doubt the person in question following should have paid heed to this and been extra careful because of it.
I'm suprised given most cars go through an annual NCT how many still have misaligned or non functional lights???
(I know commercial jeeps dont do the NCT, but a DOE? not sure if its the same for jeeps kitted out and used as private vehicles)

I know the vehicles you're on about but, those high level tail lights are illegal under EU law iirc, so they are disabled here. In other markets they may well be connected and working. It is to do with height from the ground iirc.

Now, as for the trailer, it has to be lit, and should have side markers and reflectors as well so that even where lights fail, that the lights of a following vehicle can pick it out. This includes the number plate btw....if it didn't have them, then driver of Jeep should be prosecuted.

OP, do not give in, the trailer driver has culpability here. And don't let insurance roll over on it, either.

thecomedian

CiniO wrote: »

Could you point out any link confirming that any kind of trailer is released from obligation to use lights?

It was on the rsa.ie site.
It didn't say what an exception was though. I didn't find it to be very clear, but it was the only bit on lighting.

thecomedian

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Your-Vehicle/Vehicle-Standards/Standards-for-Vehicles-in-use/

Dardania

Is there any chance the jeep broke suddenly by engine breaking rather than brakes breaking? As the high rear break light isn't the same as the runni lights for vehicle illumination

Cuddlesworth

While he should have had lights on the trailer, the N11 is lit up like a Christmas tree from town right out to Shankhill.

There is no argument that the trailer and jeep were not visible. Your friend stopped paying attention and rear ended another vehicle. I would be surprised if this went any other way then full liability on her part.

And the jeep driver should have been fined or punished for having no lights by the gardai on the scene. That's another story though.

coolisin

As I passed this yesterday evening just at the after the school it is kinda dark there. And not very well lit up at all.
But I'd say she will be found in fault and eek a trailer can do alot of damage when shunted.
But the other driver should be flicked in the nuts for having no lights on the trailer.
I didn't notice the trailer but I'm sure the rubber necker in front of me did. As they actually stopped and had a good look before driving on. I was too busy filling with rage at them at the time. But it was a badly lit trailer then all the same!!

galwaytt

Clear as day (sic), here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html

Section 32 & 33. Lights and reflectors mandatory.

mgbgt1978

galwaytt wrote: »

I know the vehicles you're on about but, those high level tail lights are illegal under EU law iirc, so they are disabled here. In other markets they may well be connected and working. It is to do with height from the ground iir

I wouldn't usually disagree with you Galway, but the reason for many 4wd's having working tail lights and indicators mounted in the bumpers is simply due to an older statute here which states that Tail lights (and Indicators) must not be obscured when the Boot lid, c/w spare wheel, is open.
As this is only required in a few countries the body-mounted lights would be wired-up in most Markets (and a different bumper, without lights, fitted).
As most 4wd's have side opening Boots c/w boot-mounted spare wheels, they are then required to have these bumper mounted lights.
Obvious examples include the early Discovery and Terrano/Maverick.
I'm not sure if this law still applies here as a lot of the newer 4wd's don't have the bumper-mounted lights.
Anyway, back to the OP's problem.........

galwaytt

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

I wouldn't usually disagree with you Galway, but the reason for many 4wd's having working tail lights and indicators mounted in the bumpers is simply due to an older statute here which states that Tail lights (and Indicators) must not be obscured when the Boot lid, c/w spare wheel, is open.
As this is only required in a few countries the body-mounted lights would be wired-up in most Markets (and a different bumper, without lights, fitted).
As most 4wd's have side opening Boots c/w boot-mounted spare wheels, they are then required to have these bumper mounted lights.
Obvious examples include the early Discovery and Terrano/Maverick.
I'm not sure if this law still applies here as a lot of the newer 4wd's don't have the bumper-mounted lights.
Anyway, back to the OP's problem.........

Hey, I'm all ears good info there.

Only exceptions I can find are in section 52 of above Regulations.........can't see how a low loader could possibly be exempt....

Merch

galwaytt wrote: »

I know the vehicles you're on about but, those high level tail lights are illegal under EU law iirc, so they are disabled here. In other markets they may well be connected and working. It is to do with height from the ground iirc.

what I was talking about is the standard rear light clusters not seemingly functional and Ive seen this in so many vehicles of the same types (as mentioned, terrano and I'm sure discovery too, also mentioned) that im sure its not an individual vehicle fault (is that what you are suggesting galwaytt, the rear light clusters disabled in favour of a light in the bumper, if so bloody hell)

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

I wouldn't usually disagree with you Galway, but the reason for many 4wd's having working tail lights and indicators mounted in the bumpers is simply due to an older statute here which states that Tail lights (and Indicators) must not be obscured when the Boot lid, c/w spare wheel, is open.
As this is only required in a few countries the body-mounted lights would be wired-up in most Markets (and a different bumper, without lights, fitted).
As most 4wd's have side opening Boots c/w boot-mounted spare wheels, they are then required to have these bumper mounted lights.
Obvious examples include the early Discovery and Terrano/Maverick.
I'm not sure if this law still applies here as a lot of the newer 4wd's don't have the bumper-mounted lights.
Anyway, back to the OP's problem.........

Having additional lights in the bumpers is all well and good as an extra or extra necessary thing, but disabling the main cluster seems ridiculous.

It may well be this is something on vehicles with side opening rear doors,
not as certain that I've noticed it on vehicles with a lift up gate/door.

mgbgt1978

Section 52 seems to apply mainly to tractors etc. and only exempts the use of lights during Daylight.
Presumably a nod to Silage cutting season and the like, and taking into account the age of the legislation the traffic situation at the time would have been more "relaxed".

mgbgt1978

Merch wrote: »

Having additional lights in the bumpers is all well and good as an extra or extra necessary thing, but disabling the main cluster seems ridiculous.

Have to agree with you there....the more lights the merrier

Merch wrote: »

It may well be this is something on vehicles with side opening rear doors,
not as certain that I've noticed it on vehicles with a lift up gate/door.

As someone who worked in the Car trailer Industry for 12 years ( which included supplying and fitting/wiring towbars), I have only ever seen this on 4wd's with side-opening doors and spare wheels mounted on these doors. It seems to be the spare wheel that's the issue as you see plenty of Transit type Vans (with double side-opening doors) that only have the Body mounted lights.

OP, best bet for your friend is a chat with a solicitor...also the Guard was a bit of a smart-ass as technically the high level brake light was part of the Jeep (which your friend didn't hit) and must have been at least 11ft ahead of the actual impact.
Having said that, my own view is that if your friend could see the Trailer then he/she should have avoided it.

galwaytt

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Section 52 seems to apply mainly to tractors etc. and only exempts the use of lights during Daylight.
Presumably a nod to Silage cutting season and the like, and taking into account the age of the legislation the traffic situation at the time would have been more "relaxed".

I know.... thats my point......And have you seen the size & speed of silage gear in recent years ? Imagine those, light less !

In fairness to them around here they're lit up like Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind......

Del2005

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Have to agree with you there....the more lights the merrier



As someone who worked in the Car trailer Industry for 12 years ( which included supplying and fitting/wiring towbars), I have only ever seen this on 4wd's with side-opening doors and spare wheels mounted on these doors. It seems to be the spare wheel that's the issue as you see plenty of Transit type Vans (with double side-opening doors) that only have the Body mounted lights.

OP, best bet for your friend is a chat with a solicitor...also the Guard was a bit of a smart-ass as technically the high level brake light was part of the Jeep (which your friend didn't hit) and must have been at least 11ft ahead of the actual impact.
Having said that, my own view is that if your friend could see the Trailer then he/she should have avoided it.

IIRC most insurance policies state that the insurance company has total control of how the claim is settled. Unless you can provide proof they do as they please and even sometimes with proof they still settle, as it's cheaper to pay out than go to court. It's not right, but that's what happens when profits are at risk.

Reloc8

Since ever there were motor vehicles, if you run into the back of someone ahead of you driving in your lane, its your problem.

galwaytt

Reloc8 wrote: »

Since ever there were motor vehicles, if you run into the back of someone ahead of you driving in your lane, its your problem.

It's not that simple.

mgbgt1978

Reloc8 wrote: »

Since ever there were motor vehicles, if you run into the back of someone ahead of you driving in your lane, its your problem.

There is at least one taxi driver (in the front vehicle ) from Limerick who would have to disagree with you .
Also a family member who was in the rear car in a different incident and was fully compensated by the other driver's insurance co.