ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Crashed :(
- Thread starter rk2009
- Start date
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
Is Harv's point not that whether they were actually there or not is irrelevant. The statements they gave are NOT the reason liability went against you.
With that being the case, why does it bother you? You were ALWAYS going to be liable because of what you did.
Renault Clio
Well for a start that's not true, every time I've spoke to the insurance they say "well with the two witness statements holding you at fault..." - So yeah, I'd say they are a pretty vital part of it. But anyway, it's over now, really don't want to talk about it anymore!
that was exactly my point ..... but hey he will never understand , and will be another one of those who will do it again because it simply wasn't his fault and people just lied .
FWIW the 2 witnesses that appeared did him a favour and shortened his pain.
RB 200
Yea. But remember, the insurers will search the internet for things like this - 204 posts mainly saying it is actually your fault! There could have been 0 witnesses or 10 million... Either way - it's your fault, you pulled out and hit him.
Fair play for letting us know what happens, hopefully you'll learn from it ( and wait for bigger gap )
seriously mate, don't worry about the ifs and bits of who was there and who said what to who -
use the "think once, think twice, think bike" phrase, if you do, on your third look the other car would have been driving past you not into your back end. We all make mistakes, got to learn from them ...and count yourself lucky your not hurt ...
Fair play for letting us know what happens, hopefully you'll learn from it ( and wait for bigger gap )
seriously mate, don't worry about the ifs and bits of who was there and who said what to who -
use the "think once, think twice, think bike" phrase, if you do, on your third look the other car would have been driving past you not into your back end. We all make mistakes, got to learn from them ...and count yourself lucky your not hurt ...
Black 172
So..... from an Insurers point of view.
Forget insurance.. think of this as a claim you are making directly against the other driver in a civil court. You (a) vs (b).
The court hears that (b) was proceeding along the road, (a) says at excessive speed but cannot provide evidence in support of his allegations. Police attended but took no further action against driver (b). (a) pulled from a side road into the path of vehicle (b) which was unable to stop in enough time to avoid a collision. (a) and (b) agree that these circumstances are correct but (b) disputes that he was proceeding with excessive speed. No police report was filed as no injuries were sustained and therefore this is a non reportable RTC.
(b) has provided two witness statements which confirm the circumstances that (a) pulled into the path of (b) neither statement makes any comment to the speed of (b). Witnesses are called to give evidence and are examined by (a)'s representatives. The examination results in no further conclusive evidence that the speed of (b) was excessive for the prevailing conditions. (a) also confirms that he was aware of (b)'s presence when pulling from the junction into the path of (b) but misjudged the distance/speed of (b). (b) was forced to take evasive action but was unable to avoid a collision.
Court finds that there is no conclusive evidence to show that (b)'s speed contributed to the accident circumstances. It was (a) pulling into the path of (b) and (a)'s misjudgement of the conditions that was the cause of the accident. The court finds that (a) is liable.
Now back to the insurers.....
Both have legal and court fees running into thousands of pounds. (a)'s insurer now had to pay the thousands in fees, the damage to a's car, the damage to b's car, as well as replacement car charges to insurer (b) and refund (b) his policy excess.
Or...... both insurers see that there are witness statements that dont make much difference - use their experience of civil action on liability claims and settle the claim before any proceedings. The claim costs half what it could have, and the cost is not spread across all of insurer a's premium pool next year. i.e. keeping premiums as low as possible.
Thats why insurers make the judgements they do.
If there is a good case - they will take it on - but if they have a bad case, they wont. Simple.
Forget insurance.. think of this as a claim you are making directly against the other driver in a civil court. You (a) vs (b).
The court hears that (b) was proceeding along the road, (a) says at excessive speed but cannot provide evidence in support of his allegations. Police attended but took no further action against driver (b). (a) pulled from a side road into the path of vehicle (b) which was unable to stop in enough time to avoid a collision. (a) and (b) agree that these circumstances are correct but (b) disputes that he was proceeding with excessive speed. No police report was filed as no injuries were sustained and therefore this is a non reportable RTC.
(b) has provided two witness statements which confirm the circumstances that (a) pulled into the path of (b) neither statement makes any comment to the speed of (b). Witnesses are called to give evidence and are examined by (a)'s representatives. The examination results in no further conclusive evidence that the speed of (b) was excessive for the prevailing conditions. (a) also confirms that he was aware of (b)'s presence when pulling from the junction into the path of (b) but misjudged the distance/speed of (b). (b) was forced to take evasive action but was unable to avoid a collision.
Court finds that there is no conclusive evidence to show that (b)'s speed contributed to the accident circumstances. It was (a) pulling into the path of (b) and (a)'s misjudgement of the conditions that was the cause of the accident. The court finds that (a) is liable.
Now back to the insurers.....
Both have legal and court fees running into thousands of pounds. (a)'s insurer now had to pay the thousands in fees, the damage to a's car, the damage to b's car, as well as replacement car charges to insurer (b) and refund (b) his policy excess.
Or...... both insurers see that there are witness statements that dont make much difference - use their experience of civil action on liability claims and settle the claim before any proceedings. The claim costs half what it could have, and the cost is not spread across all of insurer a's premium pool next year. i.e. keeping premiums as low as possible.
Thats why insurers make the judgements they do.
If there is a good case - they will take it on - but if they have a bad case, they wont. Simple.
My missis had the same happen to her and the other car was hammering it, the whole accident was caught on security cam. he even turned into her car rather than staying on his side of the road. If he had maintained his course he would have narrowly missed her. The garage gave her the tape and police and made a statement regarding his speed. didn't help her! Both cars were a right off, best is his road side was on a taxi/bus route. She was told regardless of the speed the other party was travelling she was at fault. 12 moths later they even tried to charge her for driving without due care and attention. Also the guy had 2 claims in already for accidents, claimed his wife was in the vehicle when she wasn't and then claimed 12 months later for the 2 year old having butterfly stitches in his head and bed wetting. I was at the hospital after the accident and the child had no cut to his head. Insurer indicated he was being looked into for insurance fraud. Didn't help, still lost and they got massive payouts. Insurance fraud is a big problem but some circumstances can shaft you whether its fraud or not! Did I mention he got out the car with a joint in his hand...yer! and most of his family were there 10 minutes before the police. The police turned a blind eye and also only breath tested her!
I think you could possibly win CS moron of the year
You pulled out where you shouldn't, caused an accident, witnesses confirm, your insurance pay out and STILL you believe it was this young hooligan speeding that was entirely at fault and then he got his mates to pretend they saw it all just to rip you off lol
Sometimes in life you have to be a man and just admit you were wrong.
You pulled out where you shouldn't, caused an accident, witnesses confirm, your insurance pay out and STILL you believe it was this young hooligan speeding that was entirely at fault and then he got his mates to pretend they saw it all just to rip you off lol
Sometimes in life you have to be a man and just admit you were wrong.
GrahamS
ClioSport Club Member
335d
That's no strictly true. If the mod increases the risk, is blatent or it would have contributed to the accident this would be the case. Number plate no never in a million years. Insurers will only throw out a claim if they think they would win if the dispute went to the FOS
Whether it's fault or non fault has no impact on whether the claim is repudiated or not.
BG 182
Your eyes aren't as good without vision, Post 75
:thumbup:
It's certainly between this and the cambelt con OP.
Tbh this guy's not even in the same league.
Holy crap how did I miss that - just read it all - I feel like parts of my brain have dissolved.
Link me up phil ...I am on my phone and can't be bothered to grab the tablet ....
Though I have reread this again andvthis clown will take some beating ....
Await the whinge about the huge policy increase because the ambulance chasers got to the other guy and he remembered how his neck hurt and he was traumatised as some knob had wrecked his pride and joy for him
Though I have reread this again andvthis clown will take some beating ....
Await the whinge about the huge policy increase because the ambulance chasers got to the other guy and he remembered how his neck hurt and he was traumatised as some knob had wrecked his pride and joy for him
Be prepared to feel like smashing your head against a wall -> http://www.cliosport.net/forum/show...-(If-you-fancy-a-laugh)&highlight=cambelt+con
And yeah I'm waiting for the followup to this where the claim ends up being 18k for whiplash compensation and he winges about how unfair that is and young kids these days blah blah
And yeah I'm waiting for the followup to this where the claim ends up being 18k for whiplash compensation and he winges about how unfair that is and young kids these days blah blah
It certainly makes for a good laugh.
Clio 172
I thought the OP had manned up and admitted he was at fault, then undid all the good work by claiming the witness's were against him. Shame it could have all ended quite well for him.
Cheers, I saw the photos and can see now it appear to have been a junction on the other side. Yeah, OP went for it by the sound of it and didn't have enough ponies to pull clear. Moral of the story - Buy a faster car.
RB 200
Deeg
ClioSport Club Member
Out of interest, why are we all awful people?
It's our fault he crashed.
ban·ter (b
v. ban·tered, ban·ter·ing, ban·ters
v.tr. To speak to in a playful or teasing way.
v.intr. To exchange mildly teasing remarks.
Clio 172
Thread summary as clearly you seem to have forgotten what has happened.
1, Thread posted about concern of illegal plates after being involved in a crash.
2, Details emerge of you being hit by another car who was speeding
3, Further details emerge that you pulled out infront of speeding car.
4, People point out that you pulled out infront of him therefore are to blame.
5, You continue to argue the toss that it was his fault due to excessive speed.
6, Several people suggest you may be lucky and get a 50/50 split (me being one).
7, On further inspection of photo's (by Phil) it would appear you had only just pulled out of the junction.
8, You contine to deny it being your fault.
9, Now 99% of people in the thread have decided you are 100% to blame.
10, Insurance company hold you responsible and you appear to admit fault.
11, Denial kicks in and apprently two witness's are to blame (not you pulling out).
12, You are made to look a plonker.
13, Anger kicks in and we are all morons.
14, You have been served.
Clio 172
