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.
PETE BANN - NOT GUILTY!!
- Thread starter Fred@BTM
- Start date
Renault Laguna Coupe
Roamer sent me a txt saying someone ran into Petes car - sympathy m8.
We met at fosse park then went to Meridien Centre where Pete was T-Boned by a woman in a 106 (she+the security guards claims that pete was doing 30+mph through the car park, which is rubbish cos i was behind him doing 15mph) she pulled out and twatted the side of petes valver very hard!!! (youll all no doubt see the pics) She hit him hard enough to spin petes car full 180 deg!!! The side of petes car is in a right state, and in my opinion its all her fault cos she wasnt looking. Then we were all asked to leave the site cos we were ALL speeding in the car park!!!!
Renault Laguna Coupe
Fred - Petes asking for witnesses - sounds like you might be the star m8! See the M&E forum.
Definitely the womans fault because which ever way you look at it she was the one who went into him. Unless the security guard has a way of accurately measuring speed in the car park, it doesnt matter what speed Pete was doing unless the guard can prove it. Legally there are no speed limits in car parks as its private land, though I could be wrong so dont quote me. As long as Pete sticks to his story, with no deviations or exaggerations and just the facts, he should be OK.
If the woman says its Petes fault, Pete could be on the long haul to get this for the court to decide, though I dont think she would have much of a case, especially if she didnt stop at a give way to observe for any other traffic which sounds like what she did.
Fred - I wouldnt listen too hard to what the cops said about you not being a independant witness. Petes insurers will probably be better at advising that. The cops had their own opinion on who was guilty from the second they showed up.
As posted on the meetings forum.. be a little careful what you say here. Anyone could be reading.
Pics at http://www.matthew.preston.dsl.pipex.com/midlands.htmhttp://www.matthew.preston.dsl.pipex.com/midlands.htm
Thing is, it was a stupid layout of carpark, we all came in the exit road (no sign posts) There were no give way signs on lines where the accident happened so technically theres no right of way (the only indication of the direction youre supposed to travel were painted on the road underneath her car at the crash point!!!) I mean for 15odd cars in a convoy, and not 1 of us noticed any one way signs etc on the way in must mean something???
If you look at the damage on Petes car, it shows clearly that pete had gone past (road on left, crossroad) then she pulled out. She hit his door and rear quater pannel, NOT his front wing, which suggests to me that she wasnt looking. "Give way to the right???" guess she must of forgot that!!!
If you need me to go to court, ill be there no problems
Silver Fabia vRS
Surely if it is a large car park they have CCTV so that should prove eveything!
Agree with Fred.. the damage speaks for itself.
Geoff - I thought of that but security didnt mention anything. I think the police said there were no cameras too.
hmmmmmm.
if you were on private land there will be no court case
the insurance will not apportion blame usually, they will treat it as a knock for knock due to the difficuly in apportioning blame.
you will probably both end up paying premiums on the insurance.
Joe.
The more I think about this one the stronger I think Petes case gets. It wasnt as if he came from no-where.. the section of road he drove down before she hit him must have been 30 yards long. She just wasnt looking. However, getting her insurers to agree is probably asking too much.
I hope your insurers are on the ball Pete. If you want to go back down there to take a look around Ill happily show you the way.. get more photos etc.
Agreed Sylvia, but if on private land it is difficult to sort anything properly.
You already have hostile witnesses in the guards, I would say its a no win situation already, unfortuantely.
the insurance will advise accordingly, but again be prepared for a knock for knock.
As for the car spinning 180 degrees, this is indicative of 1 of 2 things.
1. Pete was going far too fast and the angle of impact cause the car to spin by displacing the rear end.
or
2. the lady drive t-boned him at a great rate of knots.
Now, unless you have skid measurements (either from her braking or from the rear end of the clio, there is no evidence either way (to any court). (I am not saying you are not telling the whole truth.. just the way these things are assessed.
The guards will say one thing, you guys the other. Yo are already on a loser if the guards have had problems before with other enthusiastic drivers and convoys.
That again is why this almost always ends up as knock for knock... you each claim if your own insurance and absorb the hike in premiums for many years to come.
Joe.
typical lol !!
hee hee
Dont think Pete did a 180 did he?? i would have thought more like 90.
Capt - the road surafce was as greasy as hell yesterday afternoon following all the recent rain.. the carpark was pratically a skid pan so Pete didnt have to be shifting to end up as he did.
im from leics, and infact i woz in fosse park on sunday around 4ish, but didnt see any crash, let alone 15 or so clios!! where woz u all hiding!
but i can understand about it being slippy around there, coz the roads are well bad around here, especially near pork pie round about (leics ppl will understand)
sorry to hear wot happened pete.
Marc
"She hit him hard enough to spin petes car full 180 deg!!!" is what I was referring to.
Fair point though Matt, but unfortunately it still leaves the problem of apportioning blame with the hostile witnesses who will be deemed to be in a position of responsibility. I hope everything works out fine, but on private land there are no rules as such, as to right of way etc.
Again, this is where the knock for knock rules tend to apply.
One could try persuing the issue through small claims to recover increased insurance expenses, but even then it is unlikely to be benficial due to the same applying to the lady driver - her premiums would also increase, so the court is unlikely to be favourable either way.
Joe.
sh#t! Fair enough then Fred. I didnt see it happen.. just guessed Pete was exadurating his spin having only just had the accident. Ill shut up.
Oh and Fred, when me and my mrs left the pub she said she thought you were very cute. I pointed out wed only been married a couple of months so we should probably stick with it a little while longer! Anyway, she says she could definately fix you up with one of her mates if youre single.
makes me sick
!cheers people, good to know that i have a lot of support. I am in sh*t street at the mo cos i cant make a claim on my own insurance as im on TPFT. Just been down to an approved accident repair centre and ive been quoted £3000minimum for repairs. Ive got legal cover but im just playing a waiting game at the moment.
appreciated, pete
Shiny red R32
Pete
As you have legal protection, you might stand a better chance of recovering the costs from the other persons insurance, especially if you have several witnesses. Your insurance company should have an appointed lawyer who should take over.
Isnt this why we pay the extra for Legal Protection?
sh*t Pete, thats a bugger !.
Well, you HAVE to fight it then..
Check with the police and see if they are filing a report, often they dont if off the highway.. a favourable report will help a lot.
Have you spoken to your insurance company yet ??.. if not, get all information in front of you and give them a bell.
Best o luck !
Joe.
10 ??? ..... hmmmmmmmm.. is that cat years Jilly... ??
what ?? lol,.... you want to 14 again.. ??
Joe...
