Crashed :(

[Deeg]

Doubt very much it will end up in court. Insurance companies don't like going to court. It costs too much.

And herein lies the issue and the main reason most claims come down to 50/50 these days.

The cost to fight a claim is fairly high, which means the insurance companies by and large are looking for the path of least resistance, which means invariably 50/50.

If you're adamant you're not at fault, then good luck to you. However it's worth noting that people very rarely think they're at fault for an accident.

Good luck.

 

[James1470]

By the sounds of it he'll be lucky to get 50/50 IMO

 

[S2H]

Unfortunately for you, whether the kid was speeding or not is irrelevant. They'll just put it down as pulling out when unsafe to do so, whatever actually happened this is what it looks like.

The only way you have any chance of winning this one is if the cctv is as clear as day and shows the whole thing.

 

[James1470]

Although the CCTV is just going to show him pulling out and the other car hitting him, they'll surely have measured the length of the tyre tracks on the road? Or atleast took a pic, normally a good indication to how fast something's going.. The CCTV won't show how fast he was going either.

 

[2Damnsly Andy]

Unless Police attended and someone was killed they won't measure the tyre tracks. What's the point? At present thsi is an open and shut claim, he pulled out and was hit by a car on the main road who had right of way. As has been said several times he may get very lucky and see a 50/50 split but I'd expect him to lose.

 

[James1470]

Unless Police attended and someone was killed they won't measure the tyre tracks. What's the point? At present thsi is an open and shut claim, he pulled out and was hit by a car on the main road who had right of way. As has been said several times he may get very lucky and see a 50/50 split but I'd expect him to lose.

​yep

 

[Ol’ Tarby]

Unless Police attended and someone was killed they won't measure the tyre tracks. What's the point? At present thsi is an open and shut claim, he pulled out and was hit by a car on the main road who had right of way. As has been said several times he may get very lucky and see a 50/50 split but I'd expect him to lose.

+1

in my eyes the OP is at blame. He misjudged speed and pulled out on someone. Yes if the other guy wasnt speeding it may not of happened, but that's irrelevant.

 

[Iain 007]

Because of how far away he was? A bloody lorry could have pulled out if he was driving at the legal speed, you know... like you're meant to. And it isn't me that needs to learn a lesson mate.

It doesn't matter how far away they are. You're supposed to judge the speed of the vehicle and then ensure you have left a safe gap. If he was doing 30 and had to brake or even got within a car length of you at his maintained speed, you shouldn't have pulled out.

 

[...]

I suspect the op will go very quiet after the truth dawns on him,and we will never know the outcome .
The fact he has been told the other party has a witness whether he thinks they are legit or not will make his insurer cave quicker .....

You can get an insurer to fight a 50/50 but you want good legal cover and put a very clear and well argued case to them ...we did this and won a roundabout incident which took over a year with the third parties barrister telling them not to proceed at the 11th hour ... but boy you need balls of steel for it .

 

[scarble]

Although if the witness statement is fraudulent and you (or your insurer's legal team) can prove it then you'd have them over a barrel.
I'm not sure what's worse, driving like a tit and trying to blame the other guy or insurance fraud.

Would also suggest that he thinks he needs a false witness which to me means he thinks he is in part at fault, even if the law doesn't. I'm inclined to agree. You pulled out on him but if he'd been planning ahead and looking ahead and driving at a speed to allow him to be able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear he might have stood a better chance of avoiding you.
But you should still never cause another car to have to change their speed.

 

[J.B.]

he should have been able to avoid but you should never cause another driver to have to take evasive action.

Nail, head.

Both of you could have avoided the accident, but only one of you caused it. Maybe he could have stopped if he'd been quicker on the brakes, but ultimately you created an obstacle. Relying on other people to behave is not a good idea. It should really only take you a second or maybe two to judge a speed and work out if you can fit into that gap without making them brake or lift.

 

[Virtual_Unknown]

Any news on the CCTV footage yet?

 

[...]

Any news on the CCTV footage yet?

​doubt the OP will comment on this again .... especially if he has now viewed the cctv , as think about it cctv won't cover a massively wide bit of road , so if its opposite the junction and caught the incident , well lets just say it won't be doing any favours .

 

[rk2009]

Sorry I haven't replied for a few days. To start with, I haven't changed my story at all (2Damnsly). When I was waiting to pull out of the junction, I could see him, but then because of how far past the junction I travelled, there is a slight bend, which means it would have been difficult for him to see me. And I only found this out a few days later when I drove down the main road that he was coming from just to see what he would have seen. I really don't see how that is changing my story?

Secondly, when did I say that the Cctv showed the accident? I didn't. I'll repeat it for you, a woman claiming to have been driving behind the other vehicle has put an indepent witness statement in. The cctv shows exactly who was driving behind him just before the accident, so I've asked the insurance company to find out what car she says she was driving, because I think it's blatantly bulls**t. It's not going to show the crash, but it could prove that the witness was never there.

Also, now someone else has come forward as a witness, claiming they were walking down the road at the time. Again, bulls**t. Why did they not come over to us at the time? It's not looking good with these two 'witnesses', but they are both blatantly lying, which suggests to me, why do they feel the need to lie? Anyone who actually witnessed the crash would not say that I pulled out on him, and you can argue that all you want, but you were not there, and it's the truth.

Some of you have said that you should never pull out and cause someone to have to change their speed. I completely agree, and that was never my intention. When I pulled out I thought it was safe to do so, I get the fact that it was error of judgement and somebody else may have clocked how fast he was going and waited, but like I keep saying, none of you were there, and you can't say what you would or would not have done.

And last but not least, to the people that think I will "go quiet" if they do put me at fault. You don't know me, if I thought I was wrong I would admit liability. I had an accident 4 years ago and I could have refused liability for that one, bearing in mind the circumstances were completely different, but I admitted fault, because I like to think I'm a decent person. I would not be sitting here expecting a 17 year old lad to take the rap for something that wasn't his fault. But in my opinion he deserves this one, maybe it will teach him to follow the speed limit in future, because he was putting people at risk, and like I said before, if he had killed someone... you would all be slating him right now. And just because he didn't, that makes it ok? And just for the record, if they put me at fault, which is looking likely by the way, I give you my word that I will come straight on here and let you all know. Being wrong is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Inequality Street]

.QUOTE]

Just wanted to say, big respect for you coming back with that. Very dignified. I personally can see this as a 50/50 incident.

If you disagree with the outcome, don't roll over and take it. My girlfriend has a crash at a cross roads. She was going straight over, the other car turning right (across her path). They met in the middle and it was put all on her.

She fought it, and it was then changed to 50/50 and half her excess refunded.

Threatoning with the insurance onbudmen tends to make them listen, keep fighting.

 

[rk2009]

.QUOTE]

Just wanted to say, big respect for you coming back with that. Very dignified. I personally can see this as a 50/50 incident.

If you disagree with the outcome, don't roll over and take it. My girlfriend has a crash at a cross roads. She was going straight over, the other car turning right (across her path). They met in the middle and it was put all on her.

She fought it, and it was then changed to 50/50 and half her excess refunded.

Threatoning with the insurance onbudmen tends to make them listen, keep fighting.

Thanks mate, I will try

 

[scarble]

When I pulled out I thought it was safe to do so, I get the fact that it was error of judgement
[...]
But in my opinion he deserves this one, maybe it will teach him to follow the speed limit in future

I don't understand how you failed to judge his speed well enough to avoid a crash but can be certain it was above the limit.
The fact that you saw him but now say he wouldn't have seen you.. well, surely then that makes it entirely your fault?
His speed is irrelevant. He could have been doing 200 leptons and it'd still be your fault.
You saw him, you pulled out anyway. Why?

which suggests to me, why do they feel the need to lie?

u wot m8?

 

[M26]

Sorry but you pulled out into someones path. No matter how fast they were going, you still pulled out on them. Doesn't matter how far out you managed to get, all that proves is you can't judge how long it takes to get your car clear of the junction and that you can't judge how fast someone else is travelling, regardless of any speed limit.

 

[McGherkin]

rk2009, I don't actually believe you were really at fault. Like you say, if he hadn't been driving like a prick then the accident wouldn't have happened.

Unfortunately, insurance companies live on a different planet to us, and everything is decided according to a strict set of criteria and everything outside of that is completely ignored. I was involved in a minor accident coming back from CSS last year when someone in a Civic flashed me out into lane 3 so I could go around a car in front of me. As soon as I started to move across, he gunned it and hit the side of me. The accident went against me because I was the one changing lane, they simply are not interested in anything else.

If you claim for damage to your car, and you are at fault, your insurer is the one who has to cough up so they'll look for any easy ways to invalidate your insurance so they can get out of it. This includes obvious uninsured modzzz. However, the numberplate is very, VERY unlikely to be picked up on.

 

[rk2009]

I don't understand how you failed to judge his speed well enough to avoid a crash but can be certain it was above the limit.
The fact that you saw him but now say he wouldn't have seen you.. well, surely then that makes it entirely your fault?
His speed is irrelevant. He could have been doing 200 leptons and it'd still be your fault.
You saw him, you pulled out anyway. Why?


u wot m8?

Well since you don't understand, I'll try and dumb it down for you. I looked left, he was 500+ yards away, I pulled out, as I pull out I see he is rapidly approaching, then I make it quite far past the junction and boom, the rest is history. And yeah, everyone keeps saying his speed is irrelevant, I disagree, but that seems to be everyone else's way of thinking.

And as for the last bit, what don't you understand? If the witnesses were not present at the time, which they weren't, that shows that they have reason to lie, because lets not be naive, the other party involved has clearly got them to lie for him. My insurance company even said today that the only way they could have put their statement in was if their details were exchanged at the scene. The other guy and the two passengers in the car left before me and the police, and at no point were any details from any witnesses exchanged. If they had of been there, I'd have been the first to march up to them and ask them to make a statement based on what they saw, but they weren't there, so I obviously couldn't do that. My insurance will hopefully be ringing the police to ask them to confirm that no witnesses were present. However I doubt they will confirm that, and the third party and their false witnesses will get away with insurance fraud. Any of that not make sense?

 

[...]

You still failed to judge speed and caused an aproaching car to brake hard ... unfortunatley you made a mistake .

 

[Sargara]

Yes but they are both as bad as each other, if the Corsa had not been speeding then the accident would not have happened either. Which is why i suspect the best outcome from this will be 50/50.

 

[Waitey92]

Kid pulls out on a speeding car expecting them to brake in his first year of driving and thinks its the other persons fault and not his for pulling out instead of waiting 10 seconds or so.....

 

[Cup_Phil]

This forum gets a little bit worse every single day I swear

You pulled out of a junction where there wasn't room for other people to avoid you and got rear ended. It's entirely your fault.
If you can't judge the speed of other cars then you shouldn't be out driving on the road.

Yes he was in the wrong speeding, but if you can't work out how fast someone is approaching a junction then you'll end up killing someone one day.

You have to go out onto the road expecting pedestrians to step out, motorbikes to appear from nowhere and the occasional person to be speeding.
The insurance and police will find you at fault regardless of what the CCTV shows so I'd take it on the chin and have a hard think about your driving tbh.

 

[Cup_Phil]

Secondly, when did I say that the Cctv showed the accident? I didn't. I'll repeat it for you, a woman claiming to have been driving behind the other vehicle has put an indepent witness statement in. The cctv shows exactly who was driving behind him just before the accident, so I've asked the insurance company to find out what car she says she was driving, because I think it's blatantly bulls**t. It's not going to show the crash, but it could prove that the witness was never there.

Also, now someone else has come forward as a witness, claiming they were walking down the road at the time. Again, bulls**t. Why did they not come over to us at the time? It's not looking good with these two 'witnesses', but they are both blatantly lying, which suggests to me, why do they feel the need to lie? Anyone who actually witnessed the crash would not say that I pulled out on him, and you can argue that all you want, but you were not there, and it's the truth.

Ermmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm so you think it's more likely that 2 people have made up stories and gone to the police to try to incriminate you for the accident, rather than just accepting you pulled out where you shouldn't have.

And there's a corner you went round where he wouldn't be able to see you? On the pic you posted the junction is about 5 car lengths behind you - you can still see it LOL.
Seriously you pulled out where you shouldn't have, you got rear ended, your insurance will pay out and you'll pay a fortune for 3-5 years because of it.
But at least you didn't kill anyone - if it was a biker coming the other way you'd now be living with the loss of life on your hands.

 

[Dan@SJM]

I've only just seen the pictures. At a guess the glass is 45ft from the junction.

Say you pulled out and you were doing 10mph avg before the impact. That is 14.66ft/sec. So you were in the road for 3 seconds before the impact.

Stopping distance from 30mph is 75 feet.

So say you pulled out, he is travelling at 30mph(44ft/sec) that's given him just under 2 seconds to come to a stop.

That's assuming you didn't pull out between 2 cars(the first of which will have obscured his vision of the junction) so he would have only seen you for 2 seconds.

Unfortunately it's all science that's coming down to you pulling out in front of him. Sadly speed doesn't come down to it, you pulled into a main road, of such you have to GIVE WAY to traffic that is already in the carriageway.

 

[MarkCup]

As said already...

He may well have been speeding. He probably was speeding. Does that mean YOU are in the right if you pull out causing him to brake/plough into the back of you?

No. It's a contributing factor to the incident...but the main factor is that you pulled out causing him to have to brake/swerve to avoid an accident. YOU caused an accident relying on someone else's driving ability to avoid it.

You may have looked before you pulled out, clearly you didn't look enough or pay attention enough to be able to estimate his speed.

Learn from it and become a better driver instead of dodging responsibility and being bitter about it.

 

[Sunglasses_Ron]

Are you all saying that if the other bloke was speeding it doesn't have any significance to the accident?

 

[Spinksy]

Are you all saying that if the other bloke was speeding it doesn't have any significance to the accident?

nah dude, think they are getting at the fact the other party is in the wrong but it is still the op's fault for pulling out...

this post from Dan puts the point across:

I've only just seen the pictures. At a guess the glass is 45ft from the junction.

Say you pulled out and you were doing 10mph avg before the impact. That is 14.66ft/sec. So you were in the road for 3 seconds before the impact.

Stopping distance from 30mph is 75 feet.

So say you pulled out, he is travelling at 30mph(44ft/sec) that's given him just under 2 seconds to come to a stop.

That's assuming you didn't pull out between 2 cars(the first of which will have obscured his vision of the junction) so he would have only seen you for 2 seconds.

Unfortunately it's all science that's coming down to you pulling out in front of him. Sadly speed doesn't come down to it, you pulled into a main road, of such you have to GIVE WAY to traffic that is already in the carriageway.

 

[Dave..]

Are you all saying that if the other bloke was speeding it doesn't have any significance to the accident?

Theres a band wagon. Surely you must know how much CS loves a band wagon?

 

[Cup_Phil]

Are you all saying that if the other bloke was speeding it doesn't have any significance to the accident?

That's exactly what I'm saying - you can't control what other people do on the road, but you can keep yourself safe.
If you can't judge the speed of approaching vehicles then that's a fairly big issue.

If it was a blind corner the guy came hooning around the OP couldn't see the car when he pulled out - different story. But saying you looked, saw a car, and still pulled out just means you have no concept of approach speeds

 

[Sunglasses_Ron]

Theres a band wagon. Surely you must know how much CS loves a band wagon?

lol yeah I think I'm going to stay firmly out of this one.

Unfortunately I don't have a great deal of knowledge when it comes to how insurance companies make their decisions.

 

[Sunglasses_Ron]

That's exactly what I'm saying - you can't control what other people do on the road, but you can keep yourself safe.
If you can't judge the speed of approaching vehicles then that's a fairly big issue.

If it was a blind corner the guy came hooning around the OP couldn't see the car when he pulled out - different story. But saying you looked, saw a car, and still pulled out just means you have no concept of approach speeds

I see what your saying Phil but what if the other car had been travelling at say 130mph?

Some blame had to lay at the feet of someone who is speeding surely?

Like I've said I don't know how insurance companies come to their decisions but if an accident is investigated by police, the driver of a speeding vehicle would most certainly be prosecuted even if it were he who was 'pulled out' on.

 

[Cup_Phil]

As I said if there was a corner where the OP couldn't see the approaching car - or it was so far away doing an insane speed and he couldn't see it then yes that's an extreme and different scenario
But look at the damage on the photos - just a caved in bumper and a broken headlight - the guy wasn't going 100+

The speed won't be a factor at all unless someone was seriously injured/killed and a police investigation would be done. But for insurance purposes people from a trunk road ALWAYS give way to the primary road. The OP said he could clearly see the car and still made the decision to pull out completely failing to judge the gap, stopping distance and approaching speed of the other car. Game over.

It's just the same as if you run into someone because they slam on for no reason it's still your fault - failing to give yourself an adequate stopping distance - you have to drive expecting people to be doing something they shouldn't

 

[Sunglasses_Ron]

Don't get me wrong Phil I wasn't questioning your knowledge.

I can only speak from an old bill point of view not an insurance one.

 

[Cup_Phil]

Yes that's a seperate discussion lol - if there is cctv footage and the OP wants to make a complaint to the police, they may go out and give the guy a warning for speeding/dangerous driving - but even then the best he'll get is the insurance company to go 50/50

Insurance companies are a bit stubborn

My mate was driving to work and a woman coming the other way was on the wrong side of the road talking on her phone and doing her makeup (no joke), she went head on into him, he was in hospital for a few days. Nasty. Car was totally destroyed.

The police checked her phone logs and confirmed she was on the phone.

Insurance said it was still 50/50 as he should have stopped seeing her on the wrong side of the road so failed to react LOL

 

[2Damnsly Andy]

Ron the issue is currently that the op states 'he believes' that the other driver was speeding, that is as much of a fact as we have on that subject. if there was proof the guy that hit him was doing excessive speed then you still have to ask 'why pull out'? I appreciate your police knowledge in respect to one or other person breaking the law but in an insurance claim his whole argument is based on the act he believes that it was safe to pull out and the only explanation to the fact the other guy hit him was the fact he 'must' have been speeding. For all we actually know he could have pulled out on the guy far too late, attempted to floor it and before he had a chance to break safely the other driver attempted to swerve to avoid him and under braking hit him. TBH for me the op is onto a losing argument. I am not questioning his morals, ethics, upbringing or even his character but he pulled out of a side road onto a main road the result being an accident.

 

[Cup_Phil]

I find it very hard to believe that the other guy was speeding looking at the impact photos

No tyre marks at all on the road, the broken bits of headlight are only meters away from the junction which indicates to me virtually no slowing/braking time at all

Yet the impact resulted in this

If he was doing 50+ mph then either he didn't brake or react at all other than to swerve (hence hitting just the rear corner) - and if he was doing 50 there wouldn't be much of the back end of the clio left, they crumple at much slower speeds than that.
OR the OP pulled out where he shouldn't and there was no reaction time for the other driver other than to try and swerve out the way.

I think that's far more likely

Also comments like the other driver only being 17 so was speeding etc... wtf?

 

[Sunglasses_Ron]

Ron the issue is currently that the op states 'he believes' that the other driver was speeding, that is as much of a fact as we have on that subject. if there was proof the guy that hit him was doing excessive speed then you still have to ask 'why pull out'? I appreciate your police knowledge in respect to one or other person breaking the law but in an insurance claim his whole argument is based on the act he believes that it was safe to pull out and the only explanation to the fact the other guy hit him was the fact he 'must' have been speeding. For all we actually know he could have pulled out on the guy far too late, attempted to floor it and before he had a chance to break safely the other driver attempted to swerve to avoid him and under braking hit him. TBH for me the op is onto a losing argument. I am not questioning his morals, ethics, upbringing or even his character but he pulled out of a side road onto a main road the result being an accident.

Yeah please don't think I'm questioning anyone's experience/knowledge.

 

[2Damnsly Andy]

I find it very hard to believe that the other guy was speeding looking at the impact photos



No tyre marks at all on the road, the broken bits of headlight are only meters away from the junction which indicates to me virtually no slowing/braking time at all

Yet the impact resulted in this



If he was doing 50+ mph then either he didn't brake or react at all other than to swerve (hence hitting just the rear corner) - and if he was doing 50 there wouldn't be much of the back end of the clio left, they crumple at much slower speeds than that.
OR the OP pulled out where he shouldn't and there was no reaction time for the other driver other than to try and swerve out the way.

I think that's far more likely

Inspector Columbo on the case.