When it's ok to break a red light!?

miyoung

Hi,

I wonder if anybody has any experience of the following scenario which resulted in a collision. My name driver (ND) was driving through a T junction on the green light from the minor road onto the major road. On entering the main road the ND was immediately confronted by a set of red lights - 2nd set of lights beyond the junction on the main road - and so stopped immediately. Coming immediately behind her a car rear ended her causing a significant amount of damage to both vehicles.

Because my ND was rear-ended as they stopped at a red light I assumed that liability would rest with the third party (TP). My view is that it appears that the third party did not observe the two-second rule as set in out the RSA Rules of the Road which states “f you drive too close to the vehicle in front (tailgating) and it brakes suddenly, you may not have enough time to react. If you run into the vehicle, you will be liable for any damage caused”.

However, the TP is claiming that my ND stopped when it was unsafe to do so and is disputing liability.

I'd be interested if anybody has experience with this scenario?

Plumbthedepths

miyoung wrote: »

Hi,

I wonder if anybody has any experience of the following scenario which resulted in a collision. My name driver (ND) was driving through a T junction on the green light from the minor road onto the major road. On entering the main road the ND was immediately confronted by a set of red lights - 2nd set of lights beyond the junction on the main road - and so stopped immediately. Coming immediately behind her a car rear ended her causing a significant amount of damage to both vehicles.

Because my ND was rear-ended as they stopped at a red light I assumed that liability would rest with the third party (TP). My view is that it appears that the third party did not observe the two-second rule as set in out the RSA Rules of the Road which states “f you drive too close to the vehicle in front (tailgating) and it brakes suddenly, you may not have enough time to react. If you run into the vehicle, you will be liable for any damage caused”.

However, the TP is claiming that my ND stopped when it was unsafe to do so and is disputing liability.

I'd be interested if anybody has experience with this scenario?

TP is chancing their arm as they drove into the back of ND, they were driving without due care and attention. Red lights mean stop, it's never ok to break them.

Del2005

Your insurance company will sort it out and you have already agreed to them settling as they want to.

You aren't clear with your description. Did the person you know stop at the traffic lights for the man road or another set slightly further down the road? Not that it matters as the other driver should have left enough room to stop.

Irishphotodesk

In general if you hit the back of another vehicle it's your fault.

Sorry to nitpick but the rules of the road do not have a 2 second rule, it's a common concept but isn't a rule.

Just to point out that if the person who crashed into the back could also face criminal charges of driving without due care and attention.

Irishphotodesk

Also...ensure your ND gets fully checked out for any muscle strains and aches that they have.... Don't settle with insurance company too fast, especially if there are aches/strains.

Tazzimus

Was the red light for the traffic on the main road, or further down the road after the junction?

If it was the red light for traffic on the main road, both parties are at fault. If it was further past the junction, then it's the other drivers fault for tailgating.

miyoung

Tazzimus wrote: »

Was the red light for the traffic on the main road, or further down the road after the junction?

If it was the red light for traffic on the main road, both parties are at fault. If it was further past the junction, then it's the other drivers fault for tailgating.

Thanks for the comments. The inference is that in the case that the red light is for traffic on the main road, it's ok for those turning onto the main road to brake this red light?

beertons

2 second rule? It's not like food hitting the floor. And at that, it's 5-10 seconds, depending on whether you have a pet or not.

miyoung

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

In general if you hit the back of another vehicle it's your fault.

Sorry to nitpick but the rules of the road do not have a 2 second rule, it's a common concept but isn't a rule.

Just to point out that if the person who crashed into the back could also face criminal charges of driving without due care and attention.

Thanks for your comments - I too remember the TV adds regarding the two second rule and understood it as a convenient slogan to communicate the need to leave enough space/time with the vehicle in front, but the quote is taken directly from the RSA Rules of the Road.

Tazzimus

miyoung wrote: »

Thanks for the comments. The inference is that in the case that the red light is for traffic on the main road, it's ok for those turning onto the main road to brake this red light?

It's meant for the traffic on the main road you're turning onto, if it's the one I'm thinking of. Main road has a set of lights either side of the junction, that red light is for them, not traffic turning onto the road.

thelawman

miyoung wrote: »

Thanks for the comments. The inference is that in the case that the red light is for traffic on the main road, it's ok for those turning onto the main road to brake this red light?

You are not breaking the 2nd red light, that light only applies to those already on the main road, if you’ve stopped for that light then your in a whole different situation

brendane

What red light are you talking about that your ND stopped at. If it is the one I am thinking of then it will be joint liability.

To clear it up. When your ND was coming out from the secondary road turning right, there would have been a green light straight in front of her, facing towards the secondary road. As she moved across the 1st lane of the main road there would have been traffic stopped to her left in the lane she would have been joining. There would have been a red light for these stopped cars on either side of the secondary road from which your ND was emerging from. Both these lights would be facing down the main road. One of these red lights would have been on your ND's left hand side which she wouldn't have been able to see the colour of and one would have been on her right which she would have seen. If she emerged from the secondary road and crossed the first lane (where the traffic would have been travelling from her right to get left) and started to turn right but stopped in the middle of the junction because of the red light that wad clearly for traffic on the main road that was already stopped, then she is partly to blame and was careless

whomitconcerns

Previous is correct. Your named driver stopped for no reason while performing a manouvere, the other party is in the wrong for not paying attention but your named drivers lack of understanding of the rules is a contributory factor, so will be a 50/50 possibly and will cost you money....

hullaballoo

The fascination of barstoolers with attaching arbitrary but very convenient liability apportionment is always interesting to watch.

We start out with poster #1 saying liability is 100% with the OP or the third party depending. Then poster #2 will say liability is 100% the other way. Before long, liability somehow seems to always be split 50:50.

What about a 5%/95% split, no? There's a little bit of contributory negligence if the OP's named driver stopped at the red light that was for the traffic on the main road. A completely idiotic thing to do but hardly crime of the century. It's also quite common. The third party was clearly going too fast and or paying no attention and or too close to the named driver if they were unable to avoid a collision in the circumstances set out by the OP.

I presume we aren't dealing with supersonic speeds here either which might compound the wrongdoing of the third party tbh as it tends to be a bit more clear cut in terms of liability at lower speeds.

whomitconcerns

Equally could be said the first driver was driving without due care and attention. Definitely not crime of the century... But a major reason for the incident. Maybe it wouldn't get to a 50/50. But it's definitely not all on the 3rd party by a long shot.

Although if the police weren't involved at the time... Then possibly no "driving without due care and attention" took place.

Insurance companies can fight it out....

it sounds very likely that the driver in this instance looked at a set of reds that clearly didnt apply to them (having just turned into that road) and braked in error

id say they have a fair amount of culpability in that instance

djan

This isn't coming from any legal basis but IMO if someone crashes into the back of you, it shouod always be their fault no matter what.

The amount of people tailgating astounds me. Don't know why so many people blindly trust others with their life (especially on motorways) when it's obvious that with human reaction time it's impossible to stop in time..

I hope that this would be the case if it goes to court.

ontheditch2

It is something I've noticed a lot of lately.
The red lights that the ND stopped at were not for the ND but the traffic waiting on the main route.
Personally, their is a fair degree of fault from both.
The ND stopping like that is dangerous driving. What the ND did, is essentially the same as coming to a stop at the main road for no reason. Putting themselves and everyone else in danger.

Their interpretation that the red light was for them was incorrect and they should not of stopped.

Obviously, the TP wasn't going that fast but didn't expect the car in front to stop like that.

triggermortis

Sounds like the ND stopped when she didn't need to to me, but the car behind should have left enough room to avoid a collision. She could have stopped at any time for any reason and it's up to the car behind not to plough into her. I'd say 100% fault of the car following

chooseusername

ontheditch2 wrote: »

It is something I've noticed a lot of lately.
The red lights that the ND stopped at were not for the ND but the traffic waiting on the main route.
Personally, their is a fair degree of fault from both.
The ND stopping like that is dangerous driving. What the ND did, is essentially the same as coming to a stop at the main road for no reason. Putting themselves and everyone else in danger.

Their interpretation that the red light was for them was incorrect and they should not of stopped.

Obviously, the TP wasn't going that fast but didn't expect the car in front to stop like that.

What if a child stepped out that the TP could not see?
The following car should leave enough space in which to stop,regardless of the reason.
"A significant amount of damage" to me means TP was going too fast

the_syco

It sounds like this junction, where the light for cars on the side road is green, but the light for cars on the main road is red.

It sounds like the ND went forward, and then stopped for no reason, thinking that the red light for the cars on the main road applied to her.

A significant amount of damage

According to who? The damage, or the labour costs? Or both?

Tazzimus

triggermortis wrote: »

I'd say 100% fault of the car following

That's simply untrue.
It may not be 50 50 but blame is on both parties.

punisher5112

This could also be seen as a crash for cash....

Shocking how bad some are.

They get a green move off then stop in the middle of the junction because they see a red man light or the lights for the other road....

This is actually very dangerous and if they don't understand the lights they shouldn't be driving or not alone.

fritzelly

the_syco wrote: »

It sounds like this junction, where the light for cars on the side road is green, but the light for cars on the main road is red.

It sounds like the ND went forward, and then stopped for no reason, thinking that the red light for the cars on the main road applied to her.

That junction you should be stopping on the red on the main road regardless where you came from

Was there a stop line at the lights? There are plenty of badly placed lights on the roads

Tazzimus

fritzelly wrote: »

That junction you should be stopping on the red on the main road regardless where you came from

Was there a stop line at the lights? There are plenty of badly placed lights on the roads

If it's a t junction with lights on both sides of the junction for the main road traffic, and you're turning onto it, those red lights don't apply and you shouldn't be stopping, that's how accidents occur.

Guy:Incognito

Tazzimus wrote: »

If it was the red light for traffic on the main road,

I see this so often lately. Idiots getting a green light at a junction, turning left or right then stopping dead at the light thats for the traffic being stopped to let them go.

Never come close to a crash but stupidity like this is ridiculous. Why do they think theyd be given a green light to go only as far as the middle of the junction itself then stop till the traffic on the main road can go again? A 30-40 second light to allow 1 car through?
I genuinely despair at the state of driving I encounter on a daily basis.

miyoung wrote: »

Thanks for the comments. The inference is that in the case that the red light is for traffic on the main road, it's ok for those turning onto the main road to brake this red light?

Youre not breaking a light, its not for you. If that was the case, every car would be breaking the lights at a huge amount of junctions.

whomitconcerns

Leaving East point business park is a good example. Turning right there are a set of lights applying to the main road and people regularly drive out of East point and come to a sudden stop. Cue multitude of beeping while they wonder why they are being "pushed to break a red light"

HeidiHeidi

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Leaving East point business park is a good example. Turning right there are a set of lights applying to the main road and people regularly drive out of East point and come to a sudden stop. Cue multitude of beeping while they wonder why they are being "pushed to break a red light"

Same on Cork St at the Lidl when you turn left out of Donore Ave. Drives me nuts!

ontheditch2

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I genuinely despair at the state of driving I encounter on a daily basis.

This. There are just some brutal drivers out there. Simple as that and the ND is one of these people. Lacking an understanding of basic driving rules

NotToScale

I got a taxi the other day in Dublin and the driver broke no less than 6 sets of l lights on full red. There's a serious issue developing where people are just expecting cars to jump the lights and it wasn't a thing a few years ago. I remember not so long ago you'd have had people beeping if someone broke the lights, but not anymore.

I've sailed gently up to an amber light and came to a stop and I've had drivers practically stand on the horn when I did.

It's unfortunate, but we're going to end to needing cameras on the junctions as the driving culture has definitely changed.

I'm actually starting to wonder if it's those super bright, snappy LED lights. The older ones always kinda changed softly and there was less sense of urgency. Wonder if there's a psychological effect?

But legally speaking, I would assume you're supposed to be driving at a speed and with sufficient distance to stop. I never understand how you get these very severe smash ups in the middle of city centres in 30 and 50kmh zones. It shouldn't be possible unless lots of people are breaking the speed limit and tailgating.

chooseusername

the_syco wrote: »

It sounds like this junction, where the light for cars on the side road is green, but the light for cars on the main road is red.

It sounds like the ND went forward, and then stopped for no reason, thinking that the red light for the cars on the main road applied to her.


According to who? The damage, or the labour costs? Or both?

The red light on the main road were for the ND and so they should have stopped .
edit;
as pointed out by Fritzelly above.

K.Flyer

Whilst I find there are an increasing amount of drivers stopping at red lights that are not for them, and a higher amount breaking full on red lights, I would say the T.P. is fully at fault.
You are supposed to drive in a manner that you leave enough braking distance to stop safely.
What would be the excuse if the ND stalled their car?
TP was driving too close, not paying attention and collided with the vehicle in front because they didn't leave enough space for the speed they were traveling to stop in a safe manner.

Tazzimus

chooseusername wrote: »

The red light on the main road were for the ND and so they should have stopped .
edit;
as pointed out by Fritzelly above.

If they were the lights immediately either side of the junction, then no they weren't, and no they shouldn't have.

If they were a separate set of lights further on from the junction, then you would be correct, but if it's the sets either side of the junction that are for the traffic on the road you're turning onto, then it's for that traffic to stop, not the traffic turning onto the road.

DavyD_83

Tazzimus wrote: »

If they were the lights immediately either side of the junction, then no they weren't, and no they shouldn't have.

If they were a separate set of lights further on from the junction, then you would be correct, but if it's the sets either side of the junction that are for the traffic on the road you're turning onto, then it's for that traffic to stop, not the traffic turning onto the road.

The lights on either side of junction you posted were pedestrian lights.
If they're red you need to stop.

AndrewJRenko

I find stopping at lights like this is usually a sign of a lack of confidence by the driver - they are just a bit nervy, and aren't sure what they are doing at all. It often happens with cars coming up Marlborough Road and turning right towards Ranelagh.

Tazzimus

DavyD_83 wrote: »

The lights on either side of junction you posted were pedestrian lights.
If they're red you need to stop.

I am definitely not talking about the pedestrian lights, that's just ridiculous..


Why is this so hard for people to understand...

The top, horizontal part of a t junction with traffic lights has two sets for the traffic on that road either side of the junction, and usually one set for the traffic on the vertical part of a t junction turning onto it, although some will have two sets there as well.

For the traffic turning onto the main road part of the t junction, the horizontal part, they ignore the two sets either side of the junction as that's for the traffic that's stopped.

fritzelly

The OP should just post a google maps link for where it happened - clear up any misconceptions

kirving

Tazzimus wrote: »

Why is this so hard for people to understand...

It's easy to understand sitting behind a computer screen with the benefit of time, and yet people still are getting it wrong as we can see.

The junction referenced is an absolutely terrible design that leads to this confusion. Low sun, unclear road markings, rain, unfamiliarity, etc all contribute to this.

If you're unsure, and second guess yourself whatsoever about who the lights apply to, you have no choice but to stop.

If the ND was hit at this particular junction, having stopped in time without slamming on the brakes, they were wrong, but I would have a lot of sympathy for them should they be found partially at fault. I would also have sympathy for the car behind who would not be expecting the car in front to brake right after taking off.

If it was a standard enough junction, and they slammed on the brakes because they're an extremely nervous driver, that's another story. It's not OK to slam on without very very good reason to. You can't just brake test the car behind for the sake of it.

hullaballoo wrote: »

The fascination of barstoolers with attaching arbitrary but very convenient liability apportionment is always interesting to watch.

Way to insult everyone who posted, on what is a publically accessible discussion forum after all.

Marcusm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I find stopping at lights like this is usually a sign of a lack of confidence by the driver - they are just a bit nervy, and aren't sure what they are doing at all. It often happens with cars coming up Marlborough Road and turning right towards Ranelagh.

That junction is even more hilarious if you join from Merton Drive; the only road in the junction which is not light controlled.

hullaballoo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Way to insult everyone who posted, on what is a publically accessible discussion forum after all.

I apologise unreservedly to anyone who took offence from my post.

Although I have to admit I am unsure how offence could be read into it.

chooseusername

Originally Posted by the_syco View Post
It sounds like this junction, where the light for cars on the side road is green, but the light for cars on the main road is red.

It sounds like the ND went forward, and then stopped for no reason, thinking that the red light for the cars on the main road applied to her.


According to who? The damage, or the labour costs? Or both?

chooseusername wrote: »

The red light on the main road were for the ND and so they should have stopped .
edit;
as pointed out by Fritzelly above.

The lights on the main road on the map posted by the-sycho are pedestrian lights (just move forward and turn left or right and you will clearly see they are pedestrian lights).
Red pedestrian lights at junctions should stop all traffic,
In this instance the pedestrian lights on green should stop all traffic on the main road and side road.
There is no point discussing the op's case without knowing the layout.
As I said earlier ,regardless of why the ND stopped or how hard they braked,
the following car should not be in a position whereby the could not stop in time.
It's why the "crash for cash" scam is so lucrative, or was anyway.

HeidiHeidi

The lights on the main road on the map posted by the-sycho are pedestrian lights (just move forward and turn left or right and you will clearly see they are pedestrian lights).
Red pedestrian lights at junctions should stop all traffic,
In this instance the pedestrian lights on green should stop all traffic on the main road and side road.
There is no point discussing the op's case without knowing the layout.

The traffic lights are for traffic. If the "man" isn't green for pedestrians, then traffic can continue through (obviously not taking out any stray pedstrians in the process!)


This is similar to the junction I am familiar with - it also has a pedestrian crossing, but once all the roads have got a green light in turn, then the "man" turns green for all crossings.


So, if I come out of the side road, I'll see a red light on the main road similar to the junction that The Syco posted - but that is to to stop the traffic on the main road to let the side road traffic out. It is NOT intended for the traffic coming from the side road.


Eventually all roads will be stopped, and the pedestrians get their turn.

As I said earlier ,regardless of why the ND stopped or how hard they braked,
the following car should not be in a position whereby the could not stop in time.
It's why the "crash for cash" scam is so lucrative, or was anyway.

Agreed.

Brian?

It doesn’t actually matter if they stopped when they shouldn’t have IMO. The car behind should always leave adequate space to stop. The car in front could have to make an emergency stop at any given time.

Take the red light out of the situation. It only confuses the issue. If I jam on the brakes because a persons steps into the road, any car behind me should have left adequate distance to brake safely.

I had a very similar situation pulling out onto the N1 at Whitehall, took off from the light turned onto the main road and had to immediately stop, a little quicker than I expected. I stopped in time, but the car behind me slammed into the back of me. Car behind was 100% in the wrong, both the driver and insurance agreed.

chooseusername

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

The traffic lights are for traffic. If the "man" isn't green for pedestrians, then traffic can continue through (obviously not taking out any stray pedstrians in the process!)


This is similar to the junction I am familiar with - it also has a pedestrian crossing, but once all the roads have got a green light in turn, then the "man" turns green for all crossings.


So, if I come out of the side road, I'll see a red light on the main road similar to the junction that The Syco posted - but that is to to stop the traffic on the main road to let the side road traffic out. It is NOT intended for the traffic coming from the side road.


Eventually all roads will be stopped, and the pedestrians get their turn.





Agreed.

Turn left at that junction and you will see a red light.
That red light on the main road is pedestrian light on red.
It also stops the traffic on the main road to allow traffic out from the side road to turn left or right.
Traffic turning left must stop at that red light as you are not supposed to guess
whether the 'man ' is green or red.
Turn right at that junction and you will meet a similar set of lights ,for both pedestrians and traffic.
If that light is red you must stop also.

kenmm

the_syco wrote: »

It sounds like this junction, where the light for cars on the side road is green, but the light for cars on the main road is red.

My thoughts were with this one, another sh!t designed junction that leads to the same behavior.

sbsquarepants

I'd say car behind is at fault and liable for the damages (although if it was me i'd feel very aggrieved, but laws trump feelings so they can feel however they like) Sounds like the first car shouldn't have stopped for the red light, but the car following still shouldn't drive up your arse if you brake unexpectedly. Could have been a person stepped out on the road.

Pataman

chooseusername wrote: »

Turn left at that junction and you will see a red light.
That red light on the main road is pedestrian light on red.
It also stops the traffic on the main road to allow traffic out from the side road to turn left or right.
Traffic turning left must stop at that red light as you are not supposed to guess
whether the 'man ' is green or red.
Turn right at that junction and you will meet a similar set of lights ,for both pedestrians and traffic.
If that light is red you must stop also.

Thats madness. The red pedestian light stops pedestrians from crossing.
Are you saying only enough cars can enter the junction and then stop at the lights? So no matter what queue of cars there are, only 2/3 can go at green?

Remember the light control the white line. If the lights are red you cant cross the white line. If the lights are green you are clear to enter the junction and proceed
Similar happens at St Vincents hospital in Dublin, cars leaving the hospital stop at the red for Nutley meaning 2/3 cars can only leave the hospital.
Stupid drivers not using common sense

chooseusername

Pataman wrote: »

Thats madness. The red pedestian light stops pedestrians from crossing.
Are you saying only enough cars can enter the junction and then stop at the lights? So no matter what queue of cars there are, only 2/3 can go at green?

Remember the light control the white line. If the lights are red you cant cross the white line. If the lights are green you are clear to enter the junction and proceed
Similar happens at St Vincents hospital in Dublin, cars leaving the hospital stop at the red for Nutley meaning 2/3 cars can only leave the hospital.
Stupid drivers not using common sense

Sorry ,misunderstood those lights,
they must be phased so that pedestrians won't get a green man until
traffic on main and side road are on red.
So in this instance is the pedestrian man red and cars turning left from the side road can proceed through the red traffic light?
By the way the the Google cam on this junction is from different dates.

NUTLEY BOY

Forget about minor/major road status issues where it is a controlled junction.

I assume OP's driver came up the vertical element of a capital letter T and turned under the authority of a green light.
If so, they were entitled to proceed through the red light which they then encountered on completing the 90 degree turn.
Arguably, they might be reasonably expected to have passed through the red light.

What I am unsure about is where the car behind came from. 2 possibilities ;
1. It came directly behind OP's car from same road in to the junction or
2. It came directly behind OP's car whilst on one of the other roads.

If option 1 applies that shows a significant failure by the car behind to keep a proper look out and or to drive at a proper speed and or to keep an adequate distance sufficient to stop in good time.

If option 2 applies it would have to mean that the other motorist drove through a red light which was against them.

What is negligence ? Basically, it is the failure to do what a reasonable person would do or doing what a reasonable and prudent person would not do.
What is contributory negligence ? It is a want or lack of care for your own safety.

OP's driver seemed to have uncertainty and, having doubt, took a precautionary safe option.
Irritating though it may be to other drivers I don't think it was unreasonable in all the circumstances.
On the contrary it showed evidence of vigilance.

Car behind shows clear evidence of an absence of anticipation as required by law.
Suppose OP's car stopped for an errant child running in to the road or something of that nature ?
Some people do not recognise the established concept that use of the highway rarely involves an entitlement to invoke perceived absolute rights.

Liability ? IMHO on the evidence and the law the car behind will be presumed primarily if not totally liable. It is for the car behind to establish contributory negligence on the evidence - good luck with that.

whomitconcerns

Em... Being confused and vigilent doesn't mean you can just suddenly stop right in the middle of the road. Which is exactly what the ops driver did.

Take the junction out of it and they just randomly stopped. How would you view it then?

Either way it's very much contributory to the accident

kirving

Brian? wrote: »

It doesn’t actually matter if they stopped when they shouldn’t have IMO. The car behind should always leave adequate space to stop. The car in front could have to make an emergency stop at any given time.

Take the red light out of the situation. It only confuses the issue. If I jam on the brakes because a persons steps into the road, any car behind me should have left adequate distance to brake safely.

It does matter, and the context is key.

It would be considered dangerous driving slam on the brakes on a motorway for no reason - and you would be found at fault if the car behind hit you in that circumstance.

If there was a crash in front and you had to do the same, the car behind would be found at fault.