Rummy Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Basically trying to have a quick google but not turning up much specifics. I am looking for examples of car accidents and general liability in such things. I haven't had one, but I did just come very close and so now I'm wondering if I had hit something(amazed I didn't) who'd be at fault. Also just for like general reference and stuff. Like, I was always taught not to trust signals, but if someone signals and doesn't do it, then you hit them, is it their fault or your fault? What if they don't signal and DO do something, then you hit them? Does anyone have examples of accidents and stuff where it's usually obvious who's at fault? Like, not giving way to the right on a roundabout, hitting someone from behind etc. Not just after car accident stories, interested in instances where fault is clear/been proven. Didn't we have an insurance underwriter somewhere around here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I don't think there's set rules for a lot of this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Person on drugs driving into the back of a stationary car waiting to turn on a long road (which is indicating properly and stuff) is a pretty clear case. Especially as the reason the car is stationary is because there are cars driving in the opposite direction (and are therefore also witnesses). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 In terms of liability, ignore signals. Judge the situation as though nobody had given you a signal. If there's a crash, the fact somebody signalled you means nothing. They could be an idiot, could be flashing something else, might not have actually flashed their lights, might have done it intentionally. Just stick with the highway code and common sense. If you can't see out of a space, open a window, listen and edge out carefully. If you hit someone from behind you are at fault no matter what (unless they reversed into you or something, I suppose). This is because you should always be a safe braking distance away. So even if you're flying down the motorway at 70mph and you jump full on the break, the person behind you should be far enough away to avoid you or do the same. Most of the time it's just common sense. Whoever's fault it really was will be the one at fault when it all unfolds. Eg joining a major road, you hit a car in the side, obviously your fault. Going round a roundabout, if you pull out in front of a car coming from the right instead of giving way, obviously your fault. If you change lane and don't see someone in your blindspot, your fault (should've checked over your shoulder). The only exception might be if you can prove the other driver was speeding or dui. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 If you hit someone from behind you are at fault no matter what (unless they reversed into you or something, I suppose). This is because you should always be a safe braking distance away. So even if you're flying down the motorway at 70mph and you jump full on the break, the person behind you should be far enough away to avoid you or do the same. That's not true, it used to be, but not now. At one point there was a thing where people would pull out onto somebody on the hard shoulder and brake hard, forcing the other person to crash into them from behind. Then they would claim for things like whiplash etc. One of my neighbours is a terrible driver, and always pulls out without looking. he once did it and somebody crashed into the back of him. They said it was this other guy's fault but he contested it and won. Obviously in the example you gave it would be the person behind's fault, because, as you say, you should always keep minimum braking distance. But it's not always the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Yeah those circumstances I guess I was skimming over in my "or something" I meant under normal, honest circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Quick note; Don't ever, at the scene of an accident, admit blame. The moment you apologise then you admit liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rummy Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 Yeah I know all insurers say that too. Shorty's post was quite nice, the signals thing is true, then? I've always been told signals don't matter/count and not to rely on them, wasn't sure if it can be used to prove fault(ie drive like everyone else is an idiot, not the opposite). Here's one, actually one that came up IRL recently, what happens if you brake suddenly cos the car in front does, then someone shunts you(so your back gets done) AND you hit the person in front? Or what if you brake suddenly but not fast enough, hit the car in front, THEN the car behind hits you? Tbh it isn't really for anything, I just find it all quite interesting. Also cos when I made this post I was all like 'rarr!' but now I'm not considering I managed to ninja my way out of hitting anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Here's one, actually one that came up IRL recently, what happens if you brake suddenly cos the car in front does, then someone shunts you(so your back gets done) AND you hit the person in front? Or what if you brake suddenly but not fast enough, hit the car in front, THEN the car behind hits you?. In the first example it would be the person behind's fault, because you would claim that you only hit the person in front because you were rear ended yourself. The second one is an unusual situation. It would be your fault for hitting the car in front, but the car behind's fault for hitting you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 In both situations they analyze for a double-bump to see if you hit the car in front first or the person behind knocked you into them, then apportion blame dependent on the result. The crash I had still hasn't been settled as far as I'm aware. A woman pulled out into my lane and our front wheels hit. Somehow she's argued that I hit her from behind and they haven't just told her to get lost. Before moving to the US my insurance company told me not to worry about it and they would deal with it but I haven't heard a single thing since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Shorty's post was quite nice, the signals thing is true, then? I've always been told signals don't matter/count and not to rely on them, wasn't sure if it can be used to prove fault(ie drive like everyone else is an idiot, not the opposite). Looking over my post, I can see that I worded my initial point about signals badly. What I meant to say is, you have to ignore signals unless you want to risk being accountable. Signals are not a "proper" form of comprehension of the situation so if you use them to incorrectly manouvre, you're to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 You should be okay Rummy, its unlikely you'll have an accident because you are a male driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Prove negligence on their part and you've got it made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esequiel Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 A guy tried overtaking me on a roundabout about 6 weeks ago, smashed into the side of my lorry and tried saying it was my fault for being in the left hand lane going straight on. Insurance company said it would be a 50/50 split because it's a roundabout case, I told them I accept no liability for it and would provide my own lawyer if they were unwilling to supply one if the case goes to court. So my insurance company agrees, they pay the £3700 to repair my lorry on the condition that I go all the way to court if needed and I pay the legal fees if I lose, then it all goes quiet. Receive a phone call on Sunday with a letter following this week that they are recommending the other drive attend a "improve your driving" course which they do not expect me to attend because the fault was completely his. That should sort out my insurance claim Oh and they guy would have been jailed for driving without due care and attention is he wasn't a trainee copper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rummy Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) You should be okay Rummy, its unlikely you'll have an accident because you are a male driver. Tbf because I'm a male driver I can't fucking afford to! I didn't realise how much my excesses were until the other day and today could have really fucked me up! A guy tried overtaking me on a roundabout about 6 weeks ago, smashed into the side of my lorry and tried saying it was my fault for being in the left hand lane going straight on. Insurance company said it would be a 50/50 split because it's a roundabout case, I told them I accept no liability for it and would provide my own lawyer if they were unwilling to supply one if the case goes to court. So my insurance company agrees, they pay the £3700 to repair my lorry on the condition that I go all the way to court if needed and I pay the legal fees if I lose, then it all goes quiet. Receive a phone call on Sunday with a letter following this week that they are recommending the other drive attend a "improve your driving" course which they do not expect me to attend because the fault was completely his. That should sort out my insurance claim Oh and they guy would have been jailed for driving without due care and attention is he wasn't a trainee copper. Well, I didn't want this to all boil down to personal accident stories, because then those sort of threads just turn into people all adding their own story and then fucking off(I'd say no offense to anyone, but it's true and if you're offended I don't care). However that does sound interesting. Also I always thought you're supposed to approach in the left hand lane if going straight on anyway? EDIT: Wait what, I just re-read the story. He basically didn't give way to his right because you were in the left hand lane?! Or he was in the right hand lane going straight on and collided with you both taking same exit? Edited July 14, 2011 by Rummy Automerged Doublepost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esequiel Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 I was going straight on in the roundabout which was 3rd exit, he came from behind me and overtook to take the second exit (left) and smashed into the side of my cab. He basically came from behind me thinking I was turning left when I wasn't and he was doing like 60mph on a roundabout, he mist have flew 200 metres whereas I stopped within 10! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Everybody knows you don't try to over/undertake lorries on a roundabout. There was an incident where a woman tried to undertake a lorry on a roundabout, but the lorry tipped over and crushed her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts