Car accidents

Pulling out of a residential road on to a main road to turn right (car is white), black car with no lights on drives straight into the side of white car in the evening time, there are street lights.

Guy is interviewed under caution (not drunk etc) but says he wasn't sure he had his lights on and didn't see us.

Who is at fault?

If it was dark then the black car is at fault...however proving that us a different matter

karlypants wrote:Pulling out of a residential road on to a main road to turn right (car is white), black car with no lights on drives straight into the side of white car in the evening time, there are street lights.

Guy is interviewed under caution (not drunk etc) but says he wasn't sure he had his lights on and didn't see us.

Who is at fault?

During daylight hours you would have been at fault for failing to give way to oncoming traffic. If streetlighting was in operation then it was his fault for failing to display obligatory lights during the hours of darkness. The old Bill could also do him for driving without due care and attention.

I think that RT is right. I believe that the law says that when the street lights come on, that's when you should put your lights on. 

Q: Did you have your lights on?
If not, he could argue that he didn't see you as your lights weren't on in which case whilst both drivers are at fault you are perhaps more culpable as you pulled out.

karlypants wrote:Pulling out of a residential road on to a main road to turn right (car is white), black car with no lights on drives straight into the side of white car in the evening time, there are street lights.

Guy is interviewed under caution (not drunk etc) but says he wasn't sure he had his lights on and didn't see us.

Who is at fault?

The mere fact you are on a football forum asking this question suggests you were at fault.

If the street lights were on how did you not see a big fuck off car coming at you? Are you sure Magoo wasn't driving?

You are at fault, you should pay to have the other car repaired and a compensation figure of around £20k seems fair.

Sorry, but sometimes you just need someone to tell you the truth. No need to thank me.

A mate of mine was riding his motorbike past Old Trafford cricket ground one night when a car came out of the entrance straight into his path. He hit the car head on and went over the top. An ambulance and the police were called and my mate was injured but conscious. As he was being placed in the ambulance the copper came to him and told him that the car driver hadn't seen his bike because he didn't have his headlight on. My mate had driven from Collyhurst through Manchester city centre and insisted that his headlight had been on the whole time.

The copper removed the filament from his headlight and when he examined it, it was clear that his headlight had been switched on. The guy in the car was most probably not paying attention and was trying it on to see if he could get away with it.

The white car had it's lights on, also there was hardly any traffic on the road pretty much empty that's why the white car went to turn right.

If driver of black car had his lights on then surely he would have seen a white car in the dark?

Possibly the driver of black car was not paying attention also.

I would say that due to the extent of damage to white car (being a write-off) black car was also speeding.

A few passers by said black car didn't have his front lights on also...

White car is in the wrong, sometimes I drive with no lights on in the dark and I don't expect to crash into a fucking not-right. eat carrots they'll make you see in the dark.

scottjames30 wrote:White car is in the wrong, sometimes I drive with no lights on in the dark and I don't expect to crash into a fucking not-right. eat carrots they'll make you see in the dark.

You do know you are breaking the law don't you Scott?  

karlypants wrote:Pulling out of a residential road on to a main road to turn right (car is white), black car with no lights on drives straight into the side of white car in the evening time, there are street lights.

Guy is interviewed under caution (not drunk etc) but says he wasn't sure he had his lights on and didn't see us.

Who is at fault?

Are you going to tell us the background to this story you tease? Were you in the white or black car?

scottjames30 wrote:White car is in the wrong, sometimes I drive with no lights on in the dark and I don't expect to crash into a fucking not-right. eat carrots they'll make you see in the dark.

Do you drive a black car with a fucked up front bumper Scott?

wanderlust wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:White car is in the wrong, sometimes I drive with no lights on in the dark and I don't expect to crash into a fucking not-right. eat carrots they'll make you see in the dark.

Do you drive a black car with a fucked up front bumper Scott?

Are you a spy? how did you know.   

Natasha Whittam wrote:

karlypants wrote:Pulling out of a residential road on to a main road to turn right (car is white), black car with no lights on drives straight into the side of white car in the evening time, there are street lights.

Guy is interviewed under caution (not drunk etc) but says he wasn't sure he had his lights on and didn't see us.

Who is at fault?

Are you going to tell us the background to this story you tease? Were you in the white or black car?

Not yet no  

There are several factors at play here:

If the insurers of the white car can get reliable, independent witness statements from the passers-by, they will use them to argue that the black car didn't have his lights on and was, by definition, negligent.

However, there is still an element of blame to apportion to the driver of the white car, as irrespective of what time of day it was / whether or not the street lights were on, he had a responsibility to ensure the road was clear before pulling out.

The most likely outcome would be a split-liability settlement with both parties losing their NCD.

Whilst I agree with what you are saying, the black car said that he wasn't sure he had his lights on or not and he didn't see the white car.

Does this not open up the black car to liability as if he had his lights on then he would have seen the white car without a doubt no?

This information is on a police statement.

If the black car was also speeding, would the investigation people be able to tell approx speed from the damage done to the white car?

Karly are you going to prison    

He says he's "not sure", therefore his insurers will probably argue that there was still a good chance he had them on.

Did the plod not check if his light switch was in the on position?

That'd probably help your cause if they did, although they'd probably still argue that someone could have turned them off after the crash.

And to be fair, lights on or not, it doesn't matter if he saw the white car or not, as he was travelling straight along the highway and the driver of the white car pulled out on him, causing the crash.

And speed is almost impossible to establish at these relatively slow speeds.

Less scrupulous contributors may well advise you to bang a dodgy whiplash claim in to at least get something back out of this mess, but I'd never do that.....

Mr Magoo wrote:Karly are you going to prison    

Not yet, his brief is clutching at straws trying to get him off with the old ''the other car didn't have his lights on''

That old chestnut.   

karlypants wrote:Whilst I agree with what you are saying, the black car said that he wasn't sure he had his lights on or not and he didn't see the white car.

Does this not open up the black car to liability as if he had his lights on then he would have seen the white car without a doubt no?

This information is on a police statement.

If the black car was also speeding, would the investigation people be able to tell approx speed from the damage done to the white car?

Leave it to the police because both insurance companies will get a copy of their report.

I'm sure there's something not being said here, however, I think it will end up as a 50/50, unless the white car was a Police car, then other one will automatically be at fault.