First car crash / write off and insurance advice please

_Jimlad_ · 4 May 2010 at 21:49

[TW]Fox;16489717 said:
I wonder whether the Skyline really was going fast or whether given it had a huge spoiler and a really loud exhuast people simply perceived it was going fast...

Well I do accept it technically is my fault cos of the letter of the law, but the road is 30mph road, with cars parked either side, and he left 15 yards of skid marks before an impact that has crushed his skyline bonnet to bits.

Settleddown · 4 May 2010 at 21:57

End of the day you pulled out into a road with traffic, this is a big no no and you have only yourself to blame, end of. Mistakes happen and im sure you will learn no point in finding somebody else to blame for your mistake, take it on the chin and move on.

Itchytrigg · 4 May 2010 at 22:34

Justintime said:
Hows that? So that gives others the right to do whatever they feel like in front of you once you speed? For instance i was a passenger in a crash where someone pulled out of a side road right into the path of my mate who was speeding, about 46mph indicated in a 40 on the A10, the guy paid no attention to the road and just decided it was gods will he pull out in front of an incoming car, a SAAB 95 at that, not exactly a light motor. The police reckoned at the distance my mate was at, even 25mph would have been too quick to stop. The guys cavalier was a complete wreck, entire back end squashed in and his kids are the luckiest things alive, not a scratch. My mates 95 looked surprsingly well for a high speed crash.

To this day i have back and neck issues that crop out now and then, though i never sued or anything. Dude got charged for no insurance , dangerous and careless driving etc.. my mate did not get charged with anything as we obviously did not mention his speed and that would be hard to prove anyhow i suppose plus would not have mattered to his stopping distance as it was a clear cut case. Whether or not someones speeding does not excuse muppetry on the other persons part.

Differnt cicumstances. In your case this is clear cut, the other driver had no insurance and shouldn't have been on the road. If he wasn't on the road like he was meant to be then there would have been no accident.

In the OP's case, assuming both are insured, etc. to be on the road, then the way I read it the OP was carefully pulling out, saw a car and stopped but the other car didn't stop in time. Unless the other driver's speed can be proved to have been the reason for the accident, then as was said after me the OP is at fault as he didnt have right of way.

I'm not arguing against the accident you were in, and I'm sorry to hear you are still in pain after what sounds like a very nasty crash.

[TW]Fox · 4 May 2010 at 22:36

Itchytrigg said:
I'd disagree. If you're commiting an offence, you are at fault. Think, drink driving, no insurance/mot/tax, etc.

This is completely and utterly incorrect.

If you pull out in front of me and I have right of way and its totally your fault, yet my car has no tax and no insurance, it's still your fault and your insurance company will still be liable for the repairs on my car in full.

In the same way, if you crash into somebody parked on double yellows, its your fault even though he shouldnt have been parked there.

Itchytrigg · 4 May 2010 at 22:43

[TW]Fox;16491736 said:
This is completely and utterly incorrect.

If you pull out in front of me and I have right of way and its totally your fault, yet my car has no tax and no insurance, it's still your fault and your insurance company will still be liable for the repairs on my car in full.

In the same way, if you crash into somebody parked on double yellows, its your fault even though he shouldnt have been parked there.

I don't think so. If you are not insured you should not be on the road. Regardless of the actions of the other party. That's what I've always been lead to belive as an overriding factor in most situations.

My interpretation has always been, if there is a reason for you not to be on the road driving, then it's your fault if something happens.

Parking on double yellows, I'd say it's the driver that crashed into a parked car who's at fault.

Just realised in my original post, by saying offence, I mean offence that prevents you from driving on the roads.

_Jimlad_ · 4 May 2010 at 22:52

well you live and learn, just left a bitter taste in my mouth as, i have no choice but to 'creep' out and see what is coming happens all the time, but 90% of drivers don't do the speeds this boy racer was doing, and then the intimidation tactics afterwards was quite amusing, i kid you not there were 14 of his mates/brothers/family there all with personalised number plates starting with 'Taj' before the police arrived

Tute · 4 May 2010 at 22:55

This does seem a tad harsh if true.

Think about it the other way - you can go hareing around at whatever speed you like, because if people pull out of a side road and you hit them it's their fault?

mjt · 4 May 2010 at 23:00

_Jimlad_ said:
well you live and learn, just left a bitter taste in my mouth as, i have no choice but to 'creep' out and see what is coming happens all the time

Welcome to driving..

It really annoys me when people pull out in front of me when I have way.
If I have to brake because of you and I have right of way then you can get stuffed, regardless of my speed.

[TW]Fox · 4 May 2010 at 23:17

Itchytrigg said:
I don't think so.

Luckily, though, the law is not based on what you may or may not think.

If you are not insured you should not be on the road. Regardless of the actions of the other party. That's what I've always been lead to belive as an overriding factor in most situations.

Then you have been led to beleive wrongly. You don't 'luck in' if you are negligent in an accident and the other party has no tax, or no insurance, or something. It's still your fault - the other parties lack of insurance had no bearing on the accident and is a matter between him and the police, not yourself.

My interpretation has always been, if there is a reason for you not to be on the road driving, then it's your fault if something happens.

This is completely and utterly wrong.

mrthingyx · 4 May 2010 at 23:18

Itchytrigg said:
I don't think so. If you are not insured you should not be on the road. Regardless of the actions of the other party. That's what I've always been lead to belive as an overriding factor in most situations.

My interpretation has always been, if there is a reason for you not to be on the road driving, then it's your fault if something happens.

Parking on double yellows, I'd say it's the driver that crashed into a parked car who's at fault.

Just realised in my original post, by saying offence, I mean offence that prevents you from driving on the roads.

Fox is correct. Just because you take a perspective on something, doesn't make it the law.

Idiocy is not illegal, as much as some people may like it to be.

asim18 · 4 May 2010 at 23:23

_Jimlad_ said:
i saw him coming but the dude was looking at the bunch of student girls dressed as bumble bees that i had just had the pressure of seeing reserving out of my garage.

So, you saw him coming, he wasn't looking at the road in front, but you still pulled out in front of him?

Amoeba · 4 May 2010 at 23:26

You wrote off a Skyline with your CRV? :mad:

Glad to hear you're ok though mate, that's the main thing.

Itchytrigg · 4 May 2010 at 23:36

I more than willing to accept I'm wrong, as I said it's my understanding. Can you point me in the direction of something that points this out?

[TW]Fox · 4 May 2010 at 23:38

As you are the one saying there is a provision in law which exempts a negligent party in an accident from negligence provided the third party meets certain criteria, it is up to you to point this out. You can't prove something isn't there!

jamief · 5 May 2010 at 09:14

Were you reversing into the road?

Itchytrigg · 5 May 2010 at 12:16

[TW]Fox;16492098 said:
As you are the one saying there is a provision in law which exempts a negligent party in an accident from negligence provided the third party meets certain criteria, it is up to you to point this out. You can't prove something isn't there!

Fair point. Maybe there is no basis in law for this.

This is the situation I was thinking of. Mr A is not insured, Mr B pulls out in front of Mr A causing an accident. Mr B is the cause of the accident.

Mr A shouldnt have been on the road. Mr B shouldnt have pulled out on a car. Who would the law side with or is it a 50/50 because they were both in the wrong?

[TW]Fox · 5 May 2010 at 12:21

Itchytrigg said:
This is the situation I was thinking of. Mr A is not insured, Mr B pulls out in front of Mr A causing an accident. Mr B is the cause of the accident.

Mr A shouldnt have been on the road. Mr B shouldnt have pulled out on a car. Who would the law side with or is it a 50/50 because they were both in the wrong?

Mr A should have been on the road, but he should have purchased an insurance policy.

You do not have carte blance to just drive into people and get away with it scott free because they've not bought any insurance!

In this case the law would side with Mr A. The offence of driving without insurance is not related to the accident. He may well be charged with such an offence if the police found out - and rightly so - but this would be seperate to and have no bearing on Mr B's accident.

Itchytrigg · 5 May 2010 at 12:26

[TW]Fox;16493948 said:
Mr A should have been on the road, but he should have purchased an insurance policy.

You do not have carte blance to just drive into people and get away with it scott free because they've not bought any insurance!

I'm sorry but what? You can drive on the road without insurance, get in an accident and get away with it?

I'm not saying Mr B should get away scott free but are you saying he would be the one in trouble with the law and have to pay all costs?

[TW]Fox · 5 May 2010 at 12:37

Itchytrigg said:
I'm sorry but what? You can drive on the road without insurance, get in an accident and get away with it?

You are joining two seperate issues here. Lets pull them apart again.

a) You would be completely free from blame for the accident. Why wouldnt you be? You may have been driving without insurance but you were driving along the road minding your own business when somebody else caused the accident. It was sheer coincidence that it was you who was hit by the negligent third party and not Mrs Miggens, fully insured, following behind you. So, 'scott free' is misleading - youve nothing to get 'scott free' from as its not your fault

b) You are, of course, guilty of driving on a public road without insurance against third party risks (See the other clue here? Third party risks. ie damage YOU cause to third parties, not damage third parties cause to you..). This is an offence which the police can and will deal with. So, if the police are aware of this, you will be charged and wont get away 'scott free' with that.

Both of these two factors are independent. The only link is that police presence at an accident might alert them to the fact you have no insurance.

I'm not saying Mr B should get away scott free but are you saying he would be the one in trouble with the law and have to pay all costs?

He wouldn't be in trouble with the law unless he was driving carelessly or dangerously - 99% of accidents are dealt with without police environment but he would (Well, his insurers would) have to pay all costs. Why wouldnt he - it was his negligence that caused the accident?

BigglesPiP · 5 May 2010 at 12:38

Lopéz said:
One that always sticks in my mind is when I snapped the clutch cable on my 205 a few years ago. I had to repair it outside the house and it was facing the wrong way for me to be able to work with the door open.
So I started it up in gear (1st), drove it a few yards down the road to the wide turning point, and then the few yards back to my house. All in first gear, which, given the revs and the OMP Group N exhaust system, made a decent racket.

I'd only just got out of the car when I saw one of my neighbours actually running down the street to confront me for "going like a bat out of hell" down the road and telling me I want to watch my speed what with kids playing in the street and so on. All I could do was tell him it's stuck in first gear and can't go any quicker than about 27mph :/

Because the car was relatively loud and lairy, the bloke just assumed I was driving like a lunatic.

Dad gets this a lot in his 156 Selespeed, he slows down to about 20 before junctions and hits the (-) button for 1st, it revs the engine and slots the gear in perfectly. Then pedestrians go nuts.