New Bodykit!
- Thread starter Sinque
- Start date
[TW]Fox;15428235 said:Wow really? What a prize fool
Even with his speeding it'll be split liability at best.
He admitted it to me straight away, the first thing I asked was how fast he was going. Their was a passenger in my car who heard him say it too. He also said he was insured and everything so it was like he knew it was him.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,716
- Location
- Falling...
Indeed, and I would have thought they could work out from the wreckage the speed and impact force.
It was unfortunate timing, and if the guy was going too fast for the blind corner then it sucks for Sinque, but I really hope that he doesn't get destroyed for this.
No one can believe I was turning right, that's how far my car had gone. It was crazy looking at where I had ended up, the force must have been insane. My car got taken away this morning, from out the bush, and apparently half it stayed in there
Ringing the insurance up in an hour to find out if he accepts liability or if it has to go to court.
Need to fork out 50quid for a courtesy car now too... I really, really hope this goes smooth. I've never felt this gutted in my life.
i'd rather see a google map link of where it happened before i pass judgement, but i'm in favour of Sinque, there's a junction round the corner from me that i have to use often, and the bend is about 30 yards away to the right, so you have literally a second or 2 to manouevre when nothing is coming, and this is a 30mph junction too, if a car came round at 50mph, and i'd started pulling out at a 'presumed', i know for a fact i'd have no chance of missing them.
just for the record, this is the junction here, off church lane onto High street, it is also on a slight bank too but you cannot tell here.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=54.559136,-1.149418&spn=0.001549,0.004823&t=h&z=18
just for the record, this is the junction here, off church lane onto High street, it is also on a slight bank too but you cannot tell here.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=54.559136,-1.149418&spn=0.001549,0.004823&t=h&z=18
Last edited:
A 3 day old driver, almost up to the drink drive limit, speeding excessively, if he admitted 50mph you can bet it was higher. I am sure you will be fine Sinque, will be a travesty if your Insurance Company accept a split liability on that one!
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Yea but the fact the other party was breaking the law doesn't mean its a non fault as far as you are concerned.
Just like if you hit somebody illegally parked on double yellow lines doesn't stop it being your fault.
Here is a screenshot of where it happened. The red dot on St Andrews is me, and the blue dot on the far right is him. The red arrow is the brow of the hill and the blind corner. The red and blue dots in the hedge are where we both ended up respectively. The position of the cars is no exaggeration and may even need to be moved further.
There is not enough popcorn in the world to satisfy how this thread may or may not pan out.
I hope it works out in your favour, but I seriously have my doubts. The police won't give a toss about skids marks or impact speed if no one was killed or seriously seriously injured. Your 'passenger' witness is useless unfortunately. Unless the police heard him admit liability and it was noted down.
Is the corner / hill so blind as to not even be able to have seen some form of light coming from his headlights?
I hope it works out in your favour, but I seriously have my doubts. The police won't give a toss about skids marks or impact speed if no one was killed or seriously seriously injured. Your 'passenger' witness is useless unfortunately. Unless the police heard him admit liability and it was noted down.
Is the corner / hill so blind as to not even be able to have seen some form of light coming from his headlights?
Last edited:
Yeah, it's crazy dangerous as you can't see anything until the first turn-offs appear - which happened to be where I was coming from.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I just cannot see how a car can appear out of nowhere giving you absolutely no time to react at all in the slightest.
I think it was a combination of the OP just pulling out without really looking properly and the other guy driving like a tool.
I suspect this is also how the insurance company will see it as well, therefore I expect at best 50/50.
[TW]Fox;15428235 said:Wow really? What a prize fool
Indeed! His insurance company is going to hate him for that.
Na, far too many variables to be able to calculate an accurate speed.
Good luck
Just pray that he hasn't heard that you should never admit liability. Be sure to mention it to the insurance company that he admitted it.
Here is a screenshot of where it happened. The red dot on St Andrews is me, and the blue dot on the far right is him. The red arrow is the brow of the hill and the blind corner. The red and blue dots in the hedge are where we both ended up respectively. The position of the cars is no exaggeration and may even need to be moved further.
... that's not a "blind bend"?
Judging by that picture, you should have had no problem seeing him or at least his lights? Also, from looking at the pictures, it seems that your car was damaged from the initial impact on the front off side. That correct? If so, it looks as though you have just started pulling out rather than being near the end of the maneuver.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;15428410 said:
Of course not, but thats hardly the same thing, as given a chance, the police would prosecute the moving vehicle driver for undue care and attention.
If the police suspect this will be debatable from an insurance viewpoint, they will almost certainly prosecute the speeding driver, especially if someone was injured.
The OcUK crash investigation team is getting involved now, time to sit out of the usual back and forwards crap.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
whats the length of the white lines, 10ft, 5ft between? if that's correct and he was doing 50mph, that would have put the DD at around the point of turn off prior to where the op joined the road (75ft/sec, about 50mph), meaning the other driver would have travelled form there to the point of impact in about 3 seconds....
certainly enough time to see the light, but not enough to see the car itself perhaps and definatly not enough to judge the speed of the car. if the other driver was travelling even faster then i doubt the op would have seen the car at all.
what do you reckon, 3 seconds to do the manuver if the op wasnt in a hurry? it would make the op's story about correct, but the other driver would have had to of had **** poor reactions if he didnt have time to slow down judging by how hard he hit the op.
certainly enough time to see the light, but not enough to see the car itself perhaps and definatly not enough to judge the speed of the car. if the other driver was travelling even faster then i doubt the op would have seen the car at all.
what do you reckon, 3 seconds to do the manuver if the op wasnt in a hurry? it would make the op's story about correct, but the other driver would have had to of had **** poor reactions if he didnt have time to slow down judging by how hard he hit the op.
Ironic thing is they are usually right despite the flack they cop. How dare people have an opinion on something posted on the internet!
Kate pulled out on to a 30mph road and was hit by a car doing 50-60mph coming the other way on the wrong side of the road, driving with no licence. He also fled the scene and had to be apprehended and arrested by the police.
The insurance claim did not go in her favour and I don't expect it to automatically go in Sinque's either as this is a very similar case.
The insurance claim did not go in her favour and I don't expect it to automatically go in Sinque's either as this is a very similar case.
Police prosecuted the driver who hit Kate, insurance still went against her.
Exactly my point. It sucks, but insurers will claim that as he was pulling out onto a main road it was his responsibility to check for oncoming traffic, whether they were doing 29mph in a Micra or 250mph in a Bugatti Veyron.
[TW]Fox;15428796 said:
Its not what they do, its the way they do it, quite frankly the way they post in these threads stinks. (like the ridiculous VASCAR comment for example which involves measuring distance and time which even if fitted would have done naff all in this case.)
I am not going to comment on the way insurers act, suffice to say they will cop out if there are no independant witnesses, and pay out prior to prosecution in a lot of cases.
My father was in just such a position a few years ago, his solicitor fought it, and the insurers then reassesed. Uninsured loss paid for the solicitor, and the "knock for knock" was replaced by the prosecuted drivers insurer covering all losses. Most people just accept the decision and don't fight it, sometimes they do fight it, and sometimes they lose.
In this case the dispute will be over the speed and alcohol levels, a pass could turn into a fail if the police do a count back. If they cannot prove either is the case, Sinque is indeed at risk.
It is correct the driver pulling out would usually be deemed at fault, but as we cannot assess the visibility of that bend from an overhead shot, nor do we even know if the other vehicle was properly lit. Sure we can speculate that the car would have been visible some way back, and I am sure when we are pulling out onto a main road we all hang back if we can see some potential light coming round the bend. Sinque could have started to pull out before the lights were in view, but was driving very slowly?
Equally had the other guy posted we could speculate about how he was doing 80mph not 50mph, we dont know the full facts, when we have them we can probably make a more accurate assessment.