Saw a crash today (mk3 focus rear ended an old Clio) - the interesting thing was that I couldn't pin who was entirely at fault...

Obviously the woman in the focus did crash into the back of the Clio... But did the Clio stop incorrectly?

Obviously hard to describe unless you know the area, but I'll do my best... (It was by the main road that runs along the range, heading into town by the junction that's overlooked by carpet right - if Clive knows..)

The pic uploaded shows the layout of the road the 4 dots are traffic lights... I only mapped the ones on my side of the road (I was in the far left lane)...

The first set of lights are stopping traffic so the side road can join, the second lights are also linked to the first set, so I would always assume these were just big obvious 'pay attention' telling you the same thing lights... However today I saw that there is actually a pedestrian crossing there....

Anyway, so I was in the left hand and in the second lane, but ahead, was the Clio followed by the focus... They were ahead of me. The lights went from green to orange, I slowed as I was never going to make it, however both the Clio and focus pressed on.. They both passed through... However as they reached that second set (which I believed was just a repeat of the first set) the Clio put the brakes on.... Focus did not...

That's how they ended up....

So who was at fault? Should the Clio have stopped there? Surely he was going to block traffic coming from the 'other road'?

Sent via carrier pigeon using Ford OC

I personally say Focus at fault, regardless of whether the Renault was going to stop in a position where it would be blocking traffic, I don't really think that has any relevance, it makes no difference, Clio stopped (safe thing to do or not is another matter given it's position) and the Focus did not.

For the record, there were no pedestrians at the crossing, both vehicles made through the first lights with plenty of time (even though it was orange) and the second set they WOULD have made it through...

The final picture shows where the cars stopped, although the Clio obviously moved forward again afterwards... The focus didn't move..

Sent via carrier pigeon using Ford OC

Another thing to add.. The way I looked at this was almost like someone pulling ON to a roundabout then stopping...

To me i almost read this like the Clio joined the junction, then stopped in the middle of it..

Sent via carrier pigeon using Ford OC

Both parties are responsible and drove without due care and attention. Sailing through the amber lights, the clio then anchoring the car was always going to end in disaster, but its not their responsibility for any vehicles behind to be as on the ball as they are. For that reason, the focus behind was driving inappropriately, and should not have chased the car through the lights, and as such was driving too fast for safe conditions, thus colliding with the clio.

Neither party is blame free, but when the insurance comes in, the Focus will be losing the NCB.

25% Clio

75% Focus

They both contravened an amber light.

They both were driving without due care.

However the Focus was too close to stop safely.

The usual form is for anyone that drives into the back of someone to take the rap unless it is proven that the car in front had defective brake lights or that the rear car had bad brakes/skidded on oil etc.

Id say the Clio shouldn't have stopped as they stopped at an incorrect light ie not one aimed at them, I've been behind a car doing this and it is frustrating however i haven't ever rear ended anyone doing this - the focus was driving too close

Insurance company will probably settle for a 50/50 I'd say

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC

I think everyone is sort of in the same mind frame as me...

I've sort of taken the thought that the Clio stopped at the wrong light (not for it)...

I think both cars were in a position where they were fine to go through the orange... It sort of just went orange... I think they were in that sort of middle ground, putting the brakes on would have been quite rapid deceleration...

But of course the deciding factor was that the focus was unable to stop in time - whether it be because she was too close or didn't notice the Clio putting the brakes on in time..

Sent via carrier pigeon using Ford OC

I was meant to understand if you ran into the back of a car you was at fault you was driving to close behind

Generally speaking that is the default response. Unless evidence suggests the party in front was liable (dangerous braking for example) or cash for crash

Focus will get the blame. You should always have enough space to stop regardless of what happens in front. That how all these please scamming insurance by slamming on breaks at a clear roundabout get off with it.

Generally speaking that is the default response. Unless evidence suggests the party in front was liable (dangerous braking for example) or cash for crash

'Dangerous braking' is sort of my slanting view towards this 'case'...

Again, the driver went through the traffic lights, but then stopped mid way...

Sent via carrier pigeon using Ford OC

I agree that the Focus is to blame. Is it common for traffic lights to be laid out like this, with a 2nd set in front of the actual stopping point? Maybe it is and I just don't notice, or take it for granted. But looking at your diagram it seems like the traffic lights might be misleading, i.e. the Clio driver thought they safely cleared the first set of lights, but needed to stop at what they thought was the second set.

Must admit, I have come across these on occasion, we have two set near us, and it is a pointless exercise.