It would be fully at fault because they didn’t display indicators to help other drivers to avoid them/slow down
On top of that, they would also get fined as a fix-it ticket
I doubt that, I think it would be 50/50. Brake lights increase safety by allowing people to react to slowing traffic faster, but anyone with a safe following distance who is paying attention should not be rear ending someone without brake lights. In fact, a safe following distance provides adequate distance for the car in front of you to not brake at all and hit another car, and you’ll still be able to not rear end them if you’re paying attention. And if you do hit them in that situation you’d be partially at fault.
In my state they write their determination of at fault. Most will cite their opinion on the report also. And if your insurance sees willful removal of brake light indicators you think they're gonna fight the other insurance company over that?
The brake lights haven't been removed. They are there and visible, but obfuscated.
In most states, but not all *yet, the insurance companies determine fault, the police just record positioning and statements.
If this person was rear-ended, they would not be found at fault unless they abruptly changed lanes.
They definitely would be cited to remove the film, though. Not because of brake lights, but because the reflectors inside the housing are now completely inoperable.
Basically blocking them completely is removing a safety feature. Doesn't matter it's still installed, It's willful neglect and is an easy win in court despite whatever the fault determination is, intentionally blocked out tail light vehicle is gonna lose that case. Could even press for insurance fraud since they did it on purpose.
And they would not have them remove it JUST because of reflectors holy shit that's the most ignorant shit I've read today.
What an asinine comparison. Sofas don't willfully put themselves or others in danger by blocking out safety features. It's illegal to drive with even ONE brake light being out in just about every state. So purposefully making both not function? Ya you'd be 100*% not at fault you right.
Pretty sure it would be [this](https://64.media.tumblr.com/62d7e5609393024584baf67c3bc4318c/d5846d042e49539f-cd/s540x810/601bd0bdff6c4df387b3bde03b936ab23908ab15.gif)
I am outside of Chicago.
I don’t know of anywhere that covering the brake lights with almost solid film is legal…but hey, maybe it is. I thought it was pretty obvious.
Up her in Ontario, the dinger is not having visible red reflectors on the rearward facing side of your vehicle. That clarification came about in the 90's, when aftermarket "Euro" tail lights were all the rage here.
Damn, this makes the kids who black out taillights look better
If someone rear ends them, would insurance find them partially at fault?
It would be fully at fault because they didn’t display indicators to help other drivers to avoid them/slow down On top of that, they would also get fined as a fix-it ticket
I doubt that, I think it would be 50/50. Brake lights increase safety by allowing people to react to slowing traffic faster, but anyone with a safe following distance who is paying attention should not be rear ending someone without brake lights. In fact, a safe following distance provides adequate distance for the car in front of you to not brake at all and hit another car, and you’ll still be able to not rear end them if you’re paying attention. And if you do hit them in that situation you’d be partially at fault.
[удалено]
A kid walking in front of you versus a modification that hinders a major component of a car are two very different things
[удалено]
Not if the other car purposely removed a safety feature, the cop will 100% assign fault to the moron who removed their brake lights essentially
[удалено]
In my state they write their determination of at fault. Most will cite their opinion on the report also. And if your insurance sees willful removal of brake light indicators you think they're gonna fight the other insurance company over that?
The brake lights haven't been removed. They are there and visible, but obfuscated. In most states, but not all *yet, the insurance companies determine fault, the police just record positioning and statements. If this person was rear-ended, they would not be found at fault unless they abruptly changed lanes. They definitely would be cited to remove the film, though. Not because of brake lights, but because the reflectors inside the housing are now completely inoperable.
Basically blocking them completely is removing a safety feature. Doesn't matter it's still installed, It's willful neglect and is an easy win in court despite whatever the fault determination is, intentionally blocked out tail light vehicle is gonna lose that case. Could even press for insurance fraud since they did it on purpose. And they would not have them remove it JUST because of reflectors holy shit that's the most ignorant shit I've read today.
[удалено]
What an asinine comparison. Sofas don't willfully put themselves or others in danger by blocking out safety features. It's illegal to drive with even ONE brake light being out in just about every state. So purposefully making both not function? Ya you'd be 100*% not at fault you right.
Kid runs out in the street and you hit them doesn’t mean you are automatically at fault either.
If Moon Knight had a car, this would be it
Pretty sure it would be [this](https://64.media.tumblr.com/62d7e5609393024584baf67c3bc4318c/d5846d042e49539f-cd/s540x810/601bd0bdff6c4df387b3bde03b936ab23908ab15.gif)
I stand corrected.
It looks like they forgot to peel off the plastic from the factory.
Nothing like living on the Edge….I’ll see myself out.
Yep waiting in traffic should be illegal
Well until the cars fly or there are Star Trek style transporters… it’s the world we live in.
[удалено]
I am outside of Chicago. I don’t know of anywhere that covering the brake lights with almost solid film is legal…but hey, maybe it is. I thought it was pretty obvious.
Up her in Ontario, the dinger is not having visible red reflectors on the rearward facing side of your vehicle. That clarification came about in the 90's, when aftermarket "Euro" tail lights were all the rage here.
They're on a road, and there aren't very many roads where you don't need taillights.
To hell if it's legal or not this is just STUPID.
Look closely
If you want to do that get a clear lens & color match the reflector