Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Another Car Dispute


Owen1978

Recommended Posts

Need some advice too...

 

Car: Ford Ka

 

Wife was a crossroads

She was crossing from a minor road across a major road to the minor road on the other side.

 

She stopped looked and proceeded to drive across.

Another motorist hit her near the passenger side back wheel arch.

 

Wife insists she crossed when the road was clear/she had enough time to cross.

The guy who hit a slight scuff on his front bumper and a little dink on his front bonnet.

 

Is she at fault?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, she's at fault all day I'm afraid.

 

It's her responsibility to ensure that when emerging from a side road, the main road was clear.. and it clearly wasn't.

The fact he's hit her rear quarter, combined with her thinking she had the time to cross, means she pulled out on him basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, she's at fault all day I'm afraid.

 

It's her responsibility to ensure that when emerging from a side road, the main road was clear.. and it clearly wasn't.

The fact he's hit her rear quarter, combined with her thinking she had the time to cross, means she pulled out on him basically.

 

I don't think that that is the case unless it has changed

 

Unless they've changed it. Somebody who worked for an insurance company told me the front bumper thing and having an obligation to brake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that that is the case unless it has changed

 

Unless they've changed it. Somebody who worked for an insurance company told me the front bumper thing and having an obligation to brake.

Best mate's missus works for an insurance company specialising in RTA's.. she's never heard of the bumper thing.

The Highway code's pretty B&W on this stuff.. It doesn't matter, and I quote "If the other driver was doing 100mph in a 30 and weaving all over the road, the exit wasn't clear so she'll be found at fault"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that that is the case unless it has changed

 

Unless they've changed it. Somebody who worked for an insurance company told me the front bumper thing and having an obligation to brake.

 

can't imagine it being that clear cut. I could pull out in front of someone and give them no chance to brake, but as long as they hit me with their front bumper it's their fault?

 

off course if someone has the chance to brake and they instead decide to hit the car pulling out it's hard to argue that they're not at least partly at fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can't imagine it being that clear cut. I could pull out in front of someone and give them no chance to brake, but as long as they hit me with their front bumper it's their fault?

 

off course if someone has the chance to brake and they instead decide to hit the car pulling out it's hard to argue that they're not at least partly at fault.

 

No witneses etc etc, I think it's the presumption that's all. If there's witnesses that can give a view then that changes.

 

As I said, somebody said it to me. It might be b******s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best mate's missus works for an insurance company specialising in RTA's.. she's never heard of the bumper thing.

The Highway code's pretty B&W on this stuff.. It doesn't matter, and I quote "If the other driver was doing 100mph in a 30 and weaving all over the road, the exit wasn't clear so she'll be found at fault"

 

 

also sounds a bit dubious. What if it's 30mph because there's a blind bend and the driver just ignores it and drives at 100mph. The car crossing the junction couldn't see him so was in the right to cross.

 

No witneses etc etc, I think it's the presumption that's all. If there's witnesses that can give a view then that changes.

 

As I said, somebody said it to me. It might be b******s.

 

so if I want to make an insurance claim I'd go at night to a quiet road and pull out in front of another car. No witnesses so they're to blame. Surely in that case the fact that I'm pulling out on a major road means it's my fault.

 

either way the law sucks. I was involved (last car) in an accident whereby a car was in the wrong lane to turn right and without indicating did an emergency stop to turn off. Two other cars were close to him and managed to stop in time.

 

I was a bit further behind and could see the road ahead of the car was clear. I saw brake lights and eased of the gas thinking he was slowing down to turn left a bit further on (there was nothing to suggest an mergency stop. In the split second it took me to realise he was doing an emergency stop it was too late, I broke, but couldn't stop in time and I went into the back of the car in front.

 

the car who actually did the mergency stop didn't get hit and drove off. I hit the car in front who just hit the car in front of that. As I was the last car in the chain i was the one who was liable insurance wise. Even though the person I actually hit agreed it was the fault of the car in front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

either way the law sucks. I was involved (last car) in an accident whereby a car was in the wrong lane to turn right and without indicating did an emergency stop to turn off. Two other cars were close to him and managed to stop in time.

 

I was a bit further behind and could see the road ahead of the car was clear. I saw brake lights and eased of the gas thinking he was slowing down to turn left a bit further on (there was nothing to suggest an mergency stop. In the split second it took me to realise he was doing an emergency stop it was too late, I broke, but couldn't stop in time and I went into the back of the car in front.

 

the car who actually did the mergency stop didn't get hit and drove off. I hit the car in front who just hit the car in front of that. As I was the last car in the chain i was the one who was liable insurance wise. Even though the person I actually hit agreed it was the fault of the car in front.

As I say, most of these things simply don't take into consideration any mitigating circumstances.. they simply go "Well you drove into the back of the car in front. That means you didn't leave a big enough gap between him & yourself (as you should always be able to perform an emergency stop etc) so you were driving without due care and attention".

 

If you're lucky (and the insurance companies can be bothered) then you'd maybe be able to get a 75/25 split of liability.. but it rarely happens. She said claims these days are pretty much a conveyor belt if there's nobody really hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also sounds a bit dubious. What if it's 30mph because there's a blind bend and the driver just ignores it and drives at 100mph. The car crossing the junction couldn't see him so was in the right to cross.

 

 

 

so if I want to make an insurance claim I'd go at night to a quiet road and pull out in front of another car. No witnesses so they're to blame. Surely in that case the fact that I'm pulling out on a major road means it's my fault.

 

either way the law sucks. I was involved (last car) in an accident whereby a car was in the wrong lane to turn right and without indicating did an emergency stop to turn off. Two other cars were close to him and managed to stop in time.

 

I was a bit further behind and could see the road ahead of the car was clear. I saw brake lights and eased of the gas thinking he was slowing down to turn left a bit further on (there was nothing to suggest an mergency stop. In the split second it took me to realise he was doing an emergency stop it was too late, I broke, but couldn't stop in time and I went into the back of the car in front.

 

the car who actually did the mergency stop didn't get hit and drove off. I hit the car in front who just hit the car in front of that. As I was the last car in the chain i was the one who was liable insurance wise. Even though the person I actually hit agreed it was the fault of the car in front.

 

Sounds like you didn't allow enough braking distance.

 

As I say, most of these things simply don't take into consideration any mitigating circumstances.. they simply go "Well you drove into the back of the car in front. That means you didn't leave a big enough gap between him & yourself (as you should always be able to perform an emergency stop etc) so you were driving without due care and attention".

 

If you're lucky (and the insurance companies can be bothered) then you'd maybe be able to get a 75/25 split of liability.. but it rarely happens. She said claims these days are pretty much a conveyor belt if there's nobody really hurt.

 

This is what I said!!! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly, I had enough of a gap to the car in front that if I did an emergency stop straight away I would have stopped in time. The problem was I saw brakelights, a clear road in front of the car (it was on a slight hill so had a clear view) and a side road a bit further down that I thought he was slowing down for.

 

I understand the insurance companies point of view, especially as the car who "caused" it drove off straight away and nobody got his details. The 2 cars I hit were not in anyway at fault so it's one i had to take on the chin. Luckily on my last renewal I decided to get protected no claims.

 

Sounds like you didn't allow enough braking distance.

 

 

 

I did just reacted a split second too late as didn't realise it was an emergency stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that that is the case unless it has changed

 

Unless they've changed it. Somebody who worked for an insurance company told me the front bumper thing and having an obligation to brake.

 

Sounds like b******s to me.

Edited by D.Boon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly, I had enough of a gap to the car in front that if I did an emergency stop straight away I would have stopped in time. The problem was I saw brakelights, a clear road in front of the car (it was on a slight hill so had a clear view) and a side road a bit further down that I thought he was slowing down for.

 

I understand the insurance companies point of view, especially as the car who "caused" it drove off straight away and nobody got his details. The 2 cars I hit were not in anyway at fault so it's one i had to take on the chin. Luckily on my last renewal I decided to get protected no claims.

 

 

 

I did just reacted a split second too late as didn't realise it was an emergency stop.

 

you crashed again :ohmy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is at fault as the other guy had right of way. Also given the fairly minor damage to his car doesn't look as though he was speeding - looks as though your mrs crossed over the road when she shouldn't have

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...