vulnerable road users?

[edscdk]

I assume an insurance company would not lie but this seems really odd

it was dark, my dad wanted to turn right across the on comming traffic, as he turned BANG a moped ran into the side of him.

the moped had no lights so as it was dark he could not see it, however the insurance company said

1) a moped is a vulnerable road user so its his fault
2) had it been a car with no lights it would NOT have been his fauly - they actually told him this...

 

[DM]

That sounds a bit odd, i hope your dad gave the man a damn good thrashing!

 

[Sin_Chase]

Good luck proving he had no lights

 

[Firestar_3x]

Should've got an S Class with night vision

Good luck proving he had no lights

It's not that tricky to prove.

 

[edscdk]

there were witness' and I dont think there is any dispute,

however it does not matter weather they were on or not it was his fault due to it being a moped...

 

[Morbius]

If it's got no lights then it's not allowed to be out in the dark. It'll only have a daytime MOT.

 

[Sagalout]

Should've got an S Class with night vision



It's not that tricky to prove.

It might be if its a modern moped. All motorbikes and mopeds built after 2004 have permanent lights on - there isn't a switch to turn them off.

 

[Firestar_3x]

It might be if its a modern moped. All motorbikes and mopeds built after 2004 have permanent lights on - there isn't a switch to turn them off.

When you have your lights on the filament inside glows white hot, if you crash with the filament in this state fragments of glass get melted onto it (provided the fixture brakes), which by the sound of the crash it could well have.

 

[Peerzy]

Good luck proving he had no lights

I remember watching some sort of UK Cops style TV show with a massive pileup on the M3. They were able to prove a car didn't have lights on apparently even though the front was smashed up. Something about taking the smashed light/bulb away and checking it over and they could see it wasn't on at time of impact.

 

[ubersonic]

I assume an insurance company would not lie but this seems really odd

it was dark, my dad wanted to turn right across the on comming traffic, as he turned BANG a moped ran into the side of him.

the moped had no lights so as it was dark he could not see it, however the insurance company said

1) a moped is a vulnerable road user so its his fault
2) had it been a car with no lights it would NOT have been his fauly - they actually told him this...

Which side did the moped hit? that's the deciding factor here, if it hit his right side then your dad will will the case 100% in the bag done like dinner, if they hit his left side its very tricky.

I remember watching some sort of UK Cops style TV show with a massive pileup on the M3. They were able to prove a car didn't have lights on apparently even though the front was smashed up. Something about taking the smashed light/bulb away and checking it over and they could see it wasn't on at time of impact.

If the bulb is on when it breaks it will char the glass (According to CSI anyway)

 

[Burnsy2023]

I assume an insurance company would not lie but this seems really odd

it was dark, my dad wanted to turn right across the on comming traffic, as he turned BANG a moped ran into the side of him.

the moped had no lights so as it was dark he could not see it, however the insurance company said

1) a moped is a vulnerable road user so its his fault
2) had it been a car with no lights it would NOT have been his fauly - they actually told him this...

I'd appeal.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Should've got an S Class with night vision



It's not that tricky to prove.

Nobody is going to do a forensic examination so yes it is impossible to prove.

 

[Firestar_3x]

Correct, but it could be proven if they wanted to.