car accident

[joox]

here is the exact location and a similar situation is taking place where a red van is trying to turn right:

 

cuthbert street w2 - Google Maps

 

well if you look at it from a diffedrent angle.

 

i was driving out of cuthbert street turning right.

[sailor sam]

Mmm. Looks a very dodgy junction layout to me! The zig zags for the pelican crossing appear to start half way across the junction. So its hard to say whether the TP actually infringed those. Having said that, looking at the approach that the TP was comming from, I would say the overtaking at that point (even with the van turing left), was not the smartest thing to do. The only problem I can see which goes against you is the fact that the TP was on the main road and POSSIBLY had right of way. It depends on how your respective insurers thrash it out. Your witnesses may make a diffrerence. Unfortunately we can only give our opinions on this one and mine is 75/25 in the TPs favour i'm afraid. Please do come back and correct me though if i'm wrong!

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[joox]

i disagree as the other driver's rigth of way was not clear and as i was given way on the giwe way lines, they shoudl have been paying more attention to what was happening in front.

[crem]

I cant see any way on earth that the 3rd party should have been attempting an overtaking manoeuver at that location. However, as we keep having to come back to, moral right has nothing to do with how insurance companies settle claims. I am still fearing a 50/50 claim

[joox]

where can i find templates on insurance claims

[kwaks]

Looks clear cut to me. Look at the road layout from Cuthbert St onto Edgeware Rd, there is no way whatsoever the TP could safely perform an overtake of the van turning left without breaking the law regarding the zig zags, in addition she would have to cut back in very sharply to avoid the traffic island. Vision from her point of view would also be compromised (being behind a van) and it is doubful she would be able to see what is happening in front of the van (as is evident in the incident). She does not have right of way as she would be outside the law at the point of collision.

 

I would be pushing for full recovery, and pointing out to the TP she is lucky I don't push for a motoring conviction. What she did was stupid and dangerous.

 

Template letters are a bad idea in my opinion.

[ConnyWonny]

I'm a self-employed Accident Investigator and in my opinion, if the OP can get 50/50 then he should take it. As the police didn't attend there is nothing to prove that the TP wasn't travelling legally and with priority.

 

OP should have given way.

[crem]

IAs the police didn't attend there is nothing to prove that the TP wasn't travelling legally and with priority.

 

OP should have given way.

 

erm witnesses?

 

especially as there were independant witnesses with no loyalty to show to either party.

[ConnyWonny]

erm witnesses?

 

especially as there were independant witnesses with no loyalty to show to either party.

 

 

Can you please clarify exactly what these 2 witnesses have said as I can't seem to find it anywhere?

 

Even assuming that the OP has 2 independant witnesses willing to support him, the fact that he emerged from a side road onto the priority road and then his front end collided with the nearside of the TP means that, IMO, 50/50 should be viewed as a good result.

[crem]

If you have read through the full thread ConnyWonny then you will have found that the general thoughts is that 50/50 is probably where this is heading.

 

I wouldn't go as far as to say that is a "good result" though as from the descriptions and view on google of the junction, it seems most likely the 3rd party was carrying out a dangerous and probably illegal overtaking manouevre at the time.

[ConnyWonny]

Quite possibly Crem, but in the absence of any actual proof that this was the case, then it will be (in the eyes of the insurers) 100% the fault of the OP.

 

So, if he has the 2 witnesses backing him, he may be able to negotiate back to 50/50, which I still maintain would be a good result.

[Figuremenot]

To me it looks like the fault of the OP, but I'm spreading this link for State Farm and whyagent.com gives endless reasons for you get a State Farm agent, they could probably give you some insight on what to do for this issue there...

Edited June 22, 2010 by Figuremenot

[sailor sam]

Well i'm sticking with my opinion as stated in my previous post (#27) so my thinking is the same as ConnyWonny's.

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[joox]

it has now been 6 months since the accident and i have not heard back anything from my insurers until i called them today. the OP is holding me 100% liable and i believe my insurance company are not doing enough on my behalf. the OP's damage was between passenger side door and the back panel, and scratches on the panel beneath and apparently it will cost het £3800 to repair which i believe is taking the p**s.

 

can i get a solicitor involved and what would be the costs? also my policy with this insurance company is running out and i will not renew or recommend this company at all as they are useless.

[Dragons Dennis]

Not seen this thread before but have now.

 

OK, some interesting points to be made here. I will do so impartially as I do not know either party. The OP was turning right. A van had stopped, however I do not believe this was to 'give way' but because he was unable to turn left for some reason until the OP had moved out of the junction. On the assumption that the van had actually stopped and was indicating left, the following car did not commit any offence by overtaking at this junction as long as they excercised reasonable caution passing the junction. I do not know what speed they were doing.

 

The fact that there is a zig zag does come into play, so let us cover that quickly. The law is clear. Do not overtake the leading vehicle within the zig zags. I do not believe they did as the van was turning left and thus did not enter the zig zag zone and thus the following car was quite correct to cross the zig zag to get around the van.

 

The OP has moved out at the same time as the following car was passing the van. Clearly the OP would have very limited vision at this time and even with extreme caution it would be hard to see the following car at this point. If the following car AND the OP excersised enough caution, the collision would not have happened.

 

The fact that the OP struck the following car rather than the other way around suggests that the following car could not avoid the collision because stopping would not have stopped the impact to their side. If the OP had stopped, the collision would not have happened.

 

IMHO the OP is at fault in this collision as they failed to use enough caution and observation. The impact has been the OP into the side of the following car which means that the following car was directly in front of the OP at the time of the collision. Had the OP been cauticious enough and been ready for any incident, a simple squeeze of the brakes would have prevented this collision.

 

This is of course only my opinion, but I have looked at this from an experienced driving instructors perspective and used the information provided with the law.

[joox]

thanks dennis for the informative prespective on theis collision. on my defence i had passed the van and almost on the other lane when the collision happened and the road was clearly block by my turning. i believe the OP was on the wrong side of the road too and was trying to avoid oncoming traffic when she turn and as i had nowhere to go we collided. also the OP's speed was excessive for the manoeuvre. it’s true that a squeeze on the brakes might have avoided the contact where it happened but i believe the OP would have clipped me regardless as was trying to get back in the correct lane

[Dragons Dennis]

If that is the case, then you would have a clear view of the other driver as the van would no longer be blocking your view if you were that far out into the road. So if that was indeed the case, speeding or not, why did you not see them enough to avoid impact? Bottom line is that you impacted their car,. not the other way around. Had the other driver hit you my viewpoint would be different.

 

It is a common situation for collisions. 99/100 it is driver error and usually due to lack of forward planning and observation. One of the main reasons why the current driving test is so hot on precicely those two points. We have all been there at some point, me included in years gone by and have ended up with someone hooting or shouting abuse instead of the actual impact. At times we have all reaslised that in fact we were in the wrong on that occasion.

 

I know you want to blame the other driver and without question them being there contributed, but not negligently IMHO. An example I used to give my pupils was that a child would be wrong to lay down in the middle of the motorway, but we would be far more wrong to drive over them on the basis they should not have been there. It is up to us to see them. In your case, I genuinely believe it was your duty to see this other driver.

[esmerobbo]

If that is the case, then you would have a clear view of the other driver as the van would no longer be blocking your view if you were that far out into the road. So if that was indeed the case, speeding or not, why did you not see them enough to avoid impact? Bottom line is that you impacted their car,. not the other way around. Had the other driver hit you my viewpoint would be different.

 

It is a common situation for collisions. 99/100 it is driver error and usually due to lack of forward planning and observation. One of the main reasons why the current driving test is so hot on precicely those two points. We have all been there at some point, me included in years gone by and have ended up with someone hooting or shouting abuse instead of the actual impact. At times we have all reaslised that in fact we were in the wrong on that occasion.

 

I know you want to blame the other driver and without question them being there contributed, but not negligently IMHO. An example I used to give my pupils was that a child would be wrong to lay down in the middle of the motorway, but we would be far more wrong to drive over them on the basis they should not have been there. It is up to us to see them. In your case, I genuinely believe it was your duty to see this other driver.

 

I find myself agreeing with DD although the driver coming around the van may have contributed to the collision I believe the responsibility to proceed across the give way signs safely was the OPs.

 

I know it is the thought that the car should not have overtaken on the zig zag but if you look at the street veiw if the van was turning left then it had not entered the zig zag area.

 

When I took my test and my HGV test many moons ago I was taught to flash to only let others know your there. If a vehicle flashers you to make a manoeuvre unless you can be sure its safe to do so decline the invitation.

 

And as me old mum said god bless her two wrongs don't make a right.

Edited November 3, 2010 by esmerobbo

[joox]

this case has been dragging on for ages. after almost 7 months mu insurance( ex insurance co now0 decided to settle in the other driver's favour but i refused to give in as i wanted to keep on fighting. now it has gone to court which i think i might need to attend. I have not yet read the paper work that has just come through the post.

my few questions are:

do i have to attend court myself and do i need to get a legal expert to help my case

what are these court cases like as I’ve never been

if i do eventually lose, will my ex insurance co cover/pay for the damages to my vehicle as well?

 

i have not yet repaired the damage to my car yet.

 

thanks

[ConnyWonny]

Joox, with all due respect, if I were you I would walk away from this ASAP.

 

You are liable for this accident as you have emerged from a side road, onto a priority route, and collided with the TP. You would be better off spending the money you will need to fight the Insurers decision by investing in a copy of the Highway Code, and/or attending an advanced driving course!

[joox]

what everyone seems to forget here is that fact that other driver swerved around a car drove on the chevron lines and pretty much other side of the road and as it was trying to get into the right lane, we collided. this is the reason i am trying to keep fighting this as i believe it was lack of driving ability and judgments by other driver. or even 50/50 i will be happy.

[ConnyWonny]

Joox:

 

what everyone seems to forget here is that fact that other driver swerved around a car drove on the chevron lines and pretty much other side of the road and as it was trying to get into the right lane, we collided

 

How do you know this?

 

Also, has the TP admitted to performing a dangerous manouvre in his evidence?

[Dragons Dennis]

Waht court are we talking about? magistrates or County court?

 

Who is taking who to court?

[joox]

Joox:

 

 

How do you know this?

 

Also, has the TP admitted to performing a dangerous manouvre in his evidence?

 

no. this is what i need to prove to the court

[joox]

Waht court are we talking about? magistrates or County court?

 

Who is taking who to court?

 

other insurance co taking me to a county court as i wanted to fight this.

 

what would happen if i lose here?