Just been in a minor RTA. Who's fault is it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
100% the fault of the driver that ran into the back of you. We don't know why the Merc stopped. But it wasn't sudden and neither was your stopping sudden. There may have been a genuine reason for the Merc to stop. We just don't know. But regardless, a car in front of you slowed and stopped. You allowed sufficient space to also slow and stop. The car behind either didn't or wasn't paying attention.

Their fault.
 
We can't tell why the car in front of you slowed, but you seemed to be driving at a reasonable speed leaving a reasonable gap between you and the car in front. So 100% not your fault.

That said, the video quality is pretty poor - I hope that that's due to Youtube - and you would have benefitted from having a rear-facing camera.
 
Quartz said:
and you would have benefitted from having a rear-facing camera.
Click to expand...

How would he? It's an open and shut case which will quite obviously go in his favour without the need for rear facing camera footage. The benefit of rear view cameras is presumably just for people who like to shame others on YouTube.
 
[TW]Fox;30275888 said:
How would he? It's an open and shut case which will quite obviously go in his favour without the need for rear facing camera footage. The benefit of rear view cameras is presumably just for people who like to shame others on YouTube.
Click to expand...

It prevents the "Not me, guv; it was a cloned plate." defence.
 
Nasher said:
It is. Anyone who understands probability knows this.

The chances of someone running in to you (assuming you do nothing to cause confusion yourself) remains the same. Only the one at fault is more of a risk.
Click to expand...

Dice and driving are different. Your actions don't have any bearing on what you roll (unless you've come up with some very good wrist action), whereas accidents can be partly caused by your driving style, or even where you drive.

For example if you're prone to slamming the breaks on and more aggressive or slow reaction driving then, while the particular incident may not have been your "fault", it may not have occurred if someone else was driving in your place. For example they may have left more space and they may have braked more gently, allowing the car behind more chance to brake in time, thus not hitting you.
 
Nasher said:
It is. Anyone who understands probability knows this.
Click to expand...

I'd counter that anyone that understands probability would agree its isn't a 'scam' by insurance companies. Non-fault accidents are not a 100% random event.

The chances of someone running in to you (assuming you do nothing to cause confusion yourself) remains the same. Only the one at fault is more of a risk.
Click to expand...

You touch on the reason without realising it - 'assuming you do nothing to cause confusion yourself'. There are numerous examples of situations where driving style can contribute to the occurrence of a non-fault accident. This doesn't make it the innocent parties fault - it just contributes to the chance of it happening and therefore means that not every driver has exactly the same risk of being involved in a fault accident.

Here are some examples of legal driving behavior that might increase your chance of being involved in a non-fault accident:

a) Always parking on the end of a row in a carpark - more chance that people might clip your car. Not your fault, but your choice to park there increased the risk.

b) Late braking. Most people drive only in accordance with the car directly in front of them, if you see a line of stationary traffic and brake quite sharply and lately but safely stop, an inattentive motorist behind you may not react in time. Their fault, not yours, but your choice of braking style has contributed to the situation.

c) Parking on the corner of a road at the bottom of a hill in icy conditions. Legal but you shouldn't be surprised if you come out to find a halfwit embedded in the side of your car.

d) Accelerating swiftly off the lights as soon as it goes green. This increases the risk of being hit by a moron who screws up an amber-gamble

e) Not giving way to tools flying down the sliproad trying to force their way onto the Motorway. You don't have to give way - its your priority! But those who rigidly enforce their priority might find themselves more likely to make contact with the 'don't look and expect everyone else to move' idiots... again, not your fault, but if you'd have eased off and shook your head at him it may not have happened..

etc etc

None of these hypothetical examples put you at fault but they are all examples of situations where choices made by the non-fault driver has increased the chance of being involved in a non-fault accident.

We all know people who seem to have been involved in quite a few non-fault accidents and we all know people who've never ever had one...
 
Last edited:
It looks to me as though the other driver is 100% at fault.

You will need to advise your insurance company.

I was recently rear ended and claimed through my own insurance company and they assure me that my no-claims and premiums won't be affected but may be with other companies.

The third party insurance company may contact you offering to arrange the repair, hire vehicle etc. I had the repair done through my insurers and the hire vehicle was supplied by the third party insurers.

A few hours after I was hit I had soreness in my shoulders and stiffness in my neck but that has mostly gone after a couple of weeks and I don't contemplate making any personal injury claim.
 
[TW]Fox;30277237 said:
And if they do, this is the best way to deal with it.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping they do contact me but my insurance company said it is not a legal requirement for them to so I may have to go down another route (i.e. accident management companies).

My insurance offered to use their accident management service (probably because they'll get commission) but if it comes down to it, I'll use my VW Ensurance policy.
 
You do realise that whether you go through your own company or not, you still have to declare the accident to any new insurer.
 
manjuice said:
I'm hoping they do contact me but my insurance company said it is not a legal requirement for them to so I may have to go down another route (i.e. accident management companies).
Click to expand...

Most sensible insurers will try and get involved if its a clear fault of their insured party - they have intervention teams whose job it is to convince you to let them handle it.

The reason they do this is they can control the costs if they are in charge of the process. A proactive insurer will save money by quickly offering you a like for like hire car and repairs at your choice of repairer, giving you no reason to enlist the services of an accident management firm. When I was unfortunate enough to be hit a while back I was quickly provided with an E Class Merc, paid for by the third party insurer at a rate they'd negotiated with Enterprise rather than expensive credit hire rates, and repairs authorized at my choice of garage.

Everyone won - the insurer at fault kept costs to a minimum, I was happy as my car was repaired and I was given something decent to drive in the intervening period and I had no reason to use a management firm.

You will ALWAYS need to inform your own insurer that an incident has happened, though.
 
I am rather unforgiving about this sort of situation.

Way I see the situation is...

Driver "A" (the Merc) brakes to a halt (For whatever reason, Drivers do sometimes need to do this, it is not any business of any following drivers to question why, it just isn't! Following drivers have an obligation to allow for this possibility at any time!)

Driver "B" (The OP) initially either didn't notice or didn't believe it, or both, and as a result waited far to long before engaging brakes and then ended up having to brake really quite hard at the last seconds to avoid his own collision.

Driver "C" was also inattentive, he also wasn't on a the ball and, as a consequence, ended up braking late, hard, and as it happens, insufficiently to prevent a collision with driver "B".

Arguing that this makes driver "C" 100% responsible is nonsense.

All crunches are 50/50 unless you can make a very good case for otherwise! (Which IMO, does not apply here!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom