T-bar at junction causing serious car crash

Bang_Bang

Just wanted to ask in relation to the scenario below, what would be the likely outcome. I'm not asking for legal advise, just some sort of indication from guys in the know around here.

Person A has green light at T-junction, proceeds to take the turn and gets smashed into by a car from the opposing direction.

Person B denies breaking a red light and has stated so.

Witness to the accident saw only red lights after accident. Guards haven't indicated who to prosecute. Lights were verified as working correctly at T-Junction.

How could this end up? How do the Guards decide on such matters? No cameras in the area either.

Ken.

Person B be in heap big trouble. 99.9% of accidents I heard of blame is apportioned to whoever is buried in the side of someone else. There can be mitigating circumstances.

Bang_Bang

ken wrote: »

Person B be in heap big trouble. 99.9% of accidents I heard of blame is apportioned to whoever is buried in the side of someone else. There can be mitigating circumstances.

Without going into too much detail, Person A was cut from wreckage such as the force of impact and person B had no injuries. But if Person B said my lights were green and person A says same, how can they decide when the witness wasn't useful to either party?

CIARAN_BOYLE

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Without going into too much detail, Person A was cut from wreckage such as the force of impact and person B had no injuries. But if Person B said my lights were green and person A says same, how can they decide when the witness wasn't useful to either party?

The person who is buried into the other's side would have some level of fault because regardless of the traffic lights there is a responsibility to look in the direction that you are driving. Now if there is a civil case the level of responsibility may be reduced if they had a green light and the other driver didn't but that's a different discussion.

Bang_Bang

So if the Guards can't decide, do they just let the insurance companies fight it out? Or do they prosecute both drivers?

CIARAN_BOYLE

Bang_Bang wrote: »

So if the Guards can't decide, do they just let the insurance companies fight it out? Or do they prosecute both drivers?

Criminal law has a high standard of proof, civil law works on the balance of probabilities so they could decide to just leave it to the insurance companies.

Bang_Bang

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Criminal law has a high standard of proof, civil law works on the balance of probabilities so they could decide to just leave it to the insurance companies.

Thanks for the replies, I understand now. I think dash cams should be a requirement to have them in all vehicles, I'm not sure but I think you have to have one in Russia to get insured?

With so few high quality cameras that record and only monitor traffic it seems like a no brainer for insurance companies to require a dash cam, it's mostly a win win for the Guards and the insurance companies, instead of dragging crap out for years on end.

Alucan

The guards don't decide anything in an accident they just gather any evidence available. The insurance companies will sort out between who they consider to be at fault. If they can't agree or what they agree is not acceptable to the party's involved contacting a solicitor and going to court are the next steps.

Bepolite

Always, always check your junction is clear. I'm not making any comment on who is at fault but when driving it's best do do so defensively. I was just mentioning to the wife on the way home that I must finally get round to having that dash cam installed.

Sclosages

Definitely always check your junction. Don't assume that anyone is going to obey the rules of the road. Drive like you are surrounded by a bunch of nincompoops. I've driven this way since I started and touch wood, haven't had an accident.

Ken.

I've personally only once heard of someone T-boning someone and blame being 100% the T-boned persons fault and that was an ambulance running a red light bringing someone to hospital.