Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Wife had a crash, tyres may have been worn!

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    heathersonline
    Registered Users Posts: 699 ✭✭✭heathersonline


    Tigger wrote: »
    3 if the choice is hit a cyclist or pedestrian or to hit a car thsat is in your lane hit the car, cars are much cheaper to fix and if it came to it a car-car claim will go 50-50 or some other ratio a car -person claim will always go 100-0

    I dunno about this. Surely if you hit an overtaking car, most likely travelling quite quickly in your lane, your risking killing yourself, the overtaker and the cyclist? I think the op's wife made the right choice and if she hadn't been in such a state if shock and reversed it would have been a happy outcome for all involved


  • Options
    #33
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    heathersonline wrote: »
    I dunno about this. Surely if you hit an overtaking car, most likely travelling quite quickly in your lane, your risking killing yourself, the overtaker and the cyclist? I think the op's wife made the right choice and if she hadn't been in such a state if shock and reversed it would have been a happy outcome for all involved

    not if ye both braked then tipped
    she braked and swerved into the cycle lane

    but its all opinion and expereiance in here so ....


  • Options
    #34
    Yawns
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭Yawns


    CiniO wrote: »
    What makes it that costly for insurer to chase his customer for money back for paid third party claim?

    Costs of going to court, paying solicitors, proving the car was not roadworthy. Generally it's cheaper to strip the NCB, raise the insurance premium or if you have NCB you may only have it if you stay with that company so you will have to pay the higher premium.

    Of course you can shop around but most likely you will find the other insurance companies will have higher premiums when you explain the previous accident and resulting loss of NCB.

    So insurance companies generally don't risk paying thousands in what could be a drawn out court case that they may or may not lose. Safer to jack up premium and gain some of that cash back. I know they may lose a lot of money paying out but they rape all the drivers for premium renewals anyway even if you don't have an accident in 5 or 7 years.


  • Options
    #35
    MugMugs
    Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    CiniO wrote: »
    Yawns wrote: »
    They have to pay out to any 3rd party regardless. However they do have the choice of trying to recoup the cost directly from you. As mentioned above it is generally too expensive to go chasing you for the costs that they paid out to a 3rd party that they usually don't bother.

    .

    What makes it that costly for insurer to chase his customer for money back for paid third party claim?

    It's all well and good getting a judgement against somebody, getting the money from that judgement is a whole different kettle of fish. Home is marked by the bank generally so that's out.... Household items used are generally worthless. Who has savings nowadays? And the cars already knackered from the crash. It's a whole load of time and money you'll probably only ever see a fraction of back. It's just not worth the hassle. Believe me! I've tried!


  • Options
    #36
    johnos1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭johnos1984


    MugMugs wrote: »
    Who has savings nowadays?

    Lots of people according to the figures.

    More people save more in a recession and spend less.

    It's there and it ads to the problems we are currently having.

    Uncertainty is a terrible thing


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    MugMugs
    Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    johnos1984 wrote: »
    MugMugs wrote: »
    Who has savings nowadays?

    Lots of people according to the figures.

    More people save more in a recession and spend less.

    It's there and it ads to the problems we are currently having.

    Uncertainty is a terrible thing

    Fair enough.... If I was coming after your savings and in pursuit of a judgement against you..... What would you do? I'd withdraw it and "spend it" It's just not a runner. Unless the savings are of significance and there's juicy assets there you're not getting zilch out of the other party.

    Edit: Plus I have to know that you have money.


  • Options
    #38
    carbon nanotube
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 994 ✭✭✭carbon nanotube


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    Well my info on the other persons injurys are purely speculative. She was able to get up by herself but was taken to A&E anyway as a precaution and to have an x-ray.

    The tyres certainly weren't smooth/wires protruding etc. Had brake pads changed last week too and the mechanic didn't mention the tyres and he usually would say something if he sees something needed.

    The other driver (in the incoming car) didn't stop and my wife can't really give much of a description either.

    To complicate things further, the damage to the cyclist didn't even happen directly from the impact. Once the van stopped, the cyclist was on the ground. She waved at my wife in what seemed like a "back off" motion, as if to say reverse. My wife thought that the woman was trapped UNDER the vehicle (she could see her upper body) and so she reversed. Turns out that the woman was waving her to stop rather than reverse and in reversing, my wife actually caught the woman's knee between the bike wheel and the frame.

    It was that (foolish) reverse at the misunderstanding of the wave that cause the injury. So strictly speaking, the condition of the tyres had no impact on the actual injury, just the collision that led to the woman being on the road. you can imagine my face when the wife told me that she had reversed over the bike...


    had this car abs brakes...would normally cause such an incident to be avoided.


  • Options
    #39
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Here is what is going to happen over the next 12 months:

    1. Expect a claim from the injured party.

    2. The injured party onn the advice of counsel will ask the Gardai to prosecute your wife for dangerous driving. A conviction would increase the amount of awarded damages. It's 50/50 whether anything will come of this.

    3. Your insurance company will settle for an inflated sum.

    4. Your wifes insurance premium will increase considerably.


    Please note that I am not saying that your wife was driving dangerously, I am just saying what it very likely to happen.

    Although a bitter pill to swallow, your wife will just have to put it behind her. Very few people go through life without relatively minor scrapes - physical or legal.

    I wish you all the best with it.


    p.s. - buy a dash camera.


  • Options
    #40
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users Posts: 12,231 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    Tigger wrote: »
    she braked and swerved into the cycle lane

    There was no cycle lane. No hard shoulder either.


    We don't have details of the cyclist. We were thinking of sending a card or letter via the Gardai to pass on.


  • Options
    #41
    Redsoxfan
    Registered Users Posts: 5,263 ✭✭✭Redsoxfan


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    We don't have details of the cyclist. We were thinking of sending a card or letter via the Gardai to pass on.

    While you mean well, I'm not sure this is a good idea, as if the matter were to go to court, this could be seen as a sign of guilt/liability - in saying that, I am not a lawyer...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    There was no cycle lane. No hard shoulder either.


    We don't have details of the cyclist. We were thinking of sending a card or letter via the Gardai to pass on.

    well then your wife was overtaking

    different kettle of fish


  • Options
    #43
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users Posts: 12,231 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    Tigger wrote: »
    well then your wife was overtaking

    Not really. She was approaching the cyclist and would have had room to pass them without even changing lanes but the approaching overtaking car meant that she had to brake hard before she even reached the cyclist.


  • Options
    #44
    robertxxx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭robertxxx


    Just let the insurance sort it, she did hit somebody after all!!


  • Options
    #45
    Mycroft H
    Registered Users Posts: 9,316 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    Tigger wrote: »
    well then your wife was overtaking

    Not really. She was approaching the cyclist and would have had room to pass them without even changing lanes but the approaching overtaking car meant that she had to brake hard before she even reached the cyclist.


    Thats still overtaking. Unless its an extraordinary wide street, there generally isn't room for overtaking a cyclist in lane without giving them adequate space. Its an offence in itself to overtake dangerously to inconvenience other road users.


  • Options
    #46
    puzzle factory
    Registered Users Posts: 567 ✭✭✭puzzle factory


    topping up the silage pit, when your finished.


  • Options
    #47
    ArphaRima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭ArphaRima


    I have to say that this all sounds a bit strange. I think as you say your wife is not trying to shirk responsibility etc. which is fine, but then you go on to try and diminish it regardless.
    She was overtaking a bicycle and and instead hit and injured them. I'm not even sure how that is possible. Then at one point you seem to say that the cyclist magically ended up on the ground only to impose self-injury through a misunderstood hand motion.
    I certainly wouldnt want to be your wife in court with that story.

    Oh and the other overtaking vehicle has no responsibility for the actions of your wife.
    p.s. - buy a dash camera.
    Agreed. Then the next cyclist will have plenty to sue her with.


  • Options
    #48
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users Posts: 12,231 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    fluffer wrote: »
    I have to say that this all sounds a bit strange.

    Everyone else seems to have understood it pretty well?


    fluffer wrote: »
    She was overtaking a bicycle and and instead hit and injured them. I'm not even sure how that is possible.

    Sarcasm aside, I don't see how this is difficult to grasp. She was approaching the cyclist, preparing to pass, when an oncoming car forced her to brake sharply. The van skidded and hit the cyclist.


    fluffer wrote: »
    Then at one point you seem to say that the cyclist magically ended up on the ground only to impose self-injury through a misunderstood hand motion.

    She didn't "magically" end up on the ground, my wife knocked her onto the ground with the van. :confused: And where did I say she self imposed injury? My wife inflicted the injury when she reversed after misunderstanding the cyclists gesture. Never did I suggest that his was anything other than a mistake by my wife.


    fluffer wrote: »
    Then the next cyclist will have plenty to sue her with.

    And this is the typical attitude that is the reason for the country's inflated insurance quotes. Don't just claim for the loss or injury suffered, sue for as much as you can and clear a nice profit.

    I'm not sure if you're just trolling, or you really didn't read the rest of the thread but your comments show a clear misunderstanding of information that others have grasped quite easily.


  • Options
    #49
    CiniO
    Registered Users Posts: 16,089 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    Sarcasm aside, I don't see how this is difficult to grasp. She was approaching the cyclist, preparing to pass, when an oncoming car forced her to brake sharply. The van skidded and hit the cyclist.

    One conclusion for the future.
    She should avail of some advanced driving training which would include vehicle control in emergency situations (emergency braking, skids, etc).
    Good driver shouldn't allow a vehicle to skid just because of sharp braking.

    I know that in Ireland general ability to control skids among drivers is nearly non-existant, but it's something if your wife was trained for, most likely would prevent this accident.


  • Options
    #50
    Mycroft H
    Registered Users Posts: 9,316 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    Everyone else seems to have understood it pretty well?


    Sarcasm aside, I don't see how this is difficult to grasp. She was approaching the cyclist, preparing to pass, when an oncoming car forced her to brake sharply. The van skidded and hit the cyclist.

    Where did this oncoming car come from? Surely it had to be visible for some time?


  • Options
    #51
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    I don't see how this is difficult to grasp. She was approaching the cyclist, preparing to pass, when an oncoming car forced her to brake sharply. The van skidded and hit the cyclist.

    what was the speed limit the van must have skidded to the left by two or three feet to hit the bike seems a long way to skid sideways

    was it wet

    i'm only asking so i can judge whether your wife is in trouble

    the cyclist will have to press charges the cops probably won't but she can if she wants

    what have the insurance said

    remember whatever we think here is seperate to what a garda super or the dpp would think


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users Posts: 12,231 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    She think she was doing about 50-55 mph (100k zone) when she hit the brakes. There was a gentle bend a hundred yards or so ahead and the car had just come around the bend and then overtook so she didn't have much time. She thinks that she had almost stopped by the time she hit the cyclist. In fact the lady was still straddling the bicycle after the accident. I'm sure from her description of events that if she hadn't reversed when she did the lady would have been able to walk away!

    She (the cyclist) seemed in good form, was laughing and joking with the ambulance crew etc so she seemed to be ok apart from hurting her leg, but who knows what effects shock etc can have. She had been quite upset at first but my wife sat with her and held her hand until the ambulance arrived and she seemed to settle then. Unfortunately she had left in the ambulance by the time her husband arrived, and he had to be restrained by the Guardai from confronting my wife. I have to speak to the Guards tonight about the van so hopefully she will have some info on her condition, as well as an update on the van etc.

    Did my wife panic and brake too hard, who knows. She doesn't think so but she's a wreck at the minute so she can't be sure. That is one of the many "what could have happened" scenarios that is plaguing her.

    It was wet. Not lashing, but there was some light rain that morning.

    As for her taking advanced driving lessons, she is still firmly of the opinion that she will never get behind the wheel again so that's the last thing on the agenda currently!


  • Options
    #53
    ArphaRima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭ArphaRima


    No my post isnt a troll.

    I am honestly annoyed at the attitude you seem to have about people suing "for profit". What is pain and days off work worth? You didnt negotiate what injury you would cause or how much that person earns(and therefore would lose) before you hit them. This isnt a consumer transaction. I see this simply as you(as a couple) avoiding taking ownership of your actions.

    You and the wife knew she was driving a car with worn tyres. This time she didnt injure herself but rather another member of the public. This wasnt an accident that occured. It was negligence. That person could just as easily have been killed.

    Your wife drove with worn tyres and didnt anticipate a cyclist, a bend, a damp road, and react correctly to another car overtaking and you claim that because I have a problem with that, that people like me inflate claims!? wow.

    As the cyclist I would sue for the maximum. As I'm sure she will. You will see that as the cyclist milking the "system" and "claiming for profit" no doubt!


  • Options
    #54
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users Posts: 12,231 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    fluffer wrote: »
    <snip>

    First off, I like how you have ignored the rest of my post. I called you a troll because of the bulk of your post and the fact that you claimed not to understand most of the incident itself. You also skewed the facts with claims that I said the woman had "inflicted self injury" and had "magically" appeared on the ground.

    As for your new summary of the incident, it is better, but still not terribly accurate. However there is no point discussing that further with you so we'll settle for your main concern.

    At no stage did I claim that my wife was not responsible for the injury the cyclist sustained. She misunderstood the woman's hand gesture and caused an injury as a result. End of story. I have no issues whatsoever with the woman being compensated fully. For the damage to her bicycle, the injury to her leg, and any psychological damage or stress she may be going through.

    What I do take issue with is false claims, which you seem to support. What if the lady has no ligament damage or other serious injuries? What if she is a tough nut and isn't psychologically affected at all? What if the bicycle can be repaired easily? I'm not saying that any of these are true, but your opinion seems to be that the lady should sue for everything she can regardless of the actual injuries.

    If these possibilities are correct, i.e. the cyclist has not suffered any short or long term injuries or loss, would you encourage her to claim anyway? That certainly seems to be what you are suggesting.


  • Options
    #55
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users Posts: 12,231 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    I have been in an accident myself where a girl rear-ended me at a junction. Myself and my passenger could have had a whiplash claim and walked away with about 2-3 grand each. The girl was careless and caused the accident, it was entirely her fault etc.

    Fact was, we weren't injured so we didn't claim. That is all I would hope for from the cyclist in this case. If she is injured, claim away. If she isn't, then don't.


  • Options
    #56
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    a middle aged man bumped the back of my 1977 bimmer in his fiat
    ****ed up my lovley bumper

    but he seemed sorry and i couldn't be arsed with insurance compaanies and court and stuff so i let him off


    but if i was on a push bike and i was hit i'd probably think differently


  • Options
    #57
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users Posts: 12,231 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    Tigger wrote: »
    but if i was on a push bike and i was hit i'd probably think differently

    But the point still remains, you should only claim for actual loss or damage suffered. I have no problem at all with the lady claiming for that.

    But the done thing nowadays seems to be to claim for as much as possible, even if you haven't suffered. The endless whiplash claims show that. I've known people who genuinely suffered whiplash and the payout wasn't really enough given the pain they went through. I also know 3 or 4 people who got a whiplash claim when (in my opinion and compared to the legitimate case I know) there was bugger all wrong with them.

    One of these cases I know for a fact had nothing wrong but claimed on the advice of her solicitor. She was a passenger in the car with the driver at fault and was advised that she might as well claim because the people in the other car were claiming anyway. Her payout went towards the next increased insurance premium and a shopping trip.

    The way I see it there are 2 possibilities (she is injured, or she isn't) and 3 potential outcomes;

    A - Injured, she will claim

    B - Not injured, no claim
    C - Not injured, claim anyway

    If it is A then she will get the proper compensation for her injuries. Hopefully from the insurance company but worst case scenario (if the tyres were in fact a problem) she will get that compensation from me.

    If it is B then thank God she is OK and there are still honest people left in the world.

    C however seems to be standard practice!

    (PS, this is regarding the personal injury. Obviously the bicycle will be repaired/replaced too).


  • Options
    #58
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    thats the systems fault not the lady on the bike

    trust me i agree with you in princaple but i'm trying to tell you what i think will happen


  • Options
    #59
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users Posts: 12,231 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    Tigger wrote: »
    thats the systems fault not the lady on the bike

    trust me i agree with you in princaple but i'm trying to tell you what i think will happen

    Yeah I know, and as I said before I really appreciate the constructive advice I've had here.

    The Guard in charge of the case starts her shift in half an hour. Fingers crossed!


  • Options
    #60
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users Posts: 12,231 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    Well it seems that my fears about the tyres were unfounded. I was pretty sure that they were not below the legal limit and the Guards said that the van was fine and is now available for release.

    They also told me that the cyclist escaped with just minor cuts to her leg. That doesn't mean that there won't be a personal injury claim, but it does mean that she isn't too badly injured and my wife is greatly relieved.

    The down side is that the Guard said a prosecution is being recommended. She says the file will be passed to the Superintendent and he/she will decide whether to proceed and if so, on what charge. It could be dangerous driving, careless driving, driving without due care etc. She said that the maximum penalty would be loss of license (hardly an issue when my wife doesn't plan on driving again) and/or a fine.

    So good news with regards to the tyres and the woman's condition but bad news with regards to prosecution.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users Posts: 12,231 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    Which leads me to yet another question for you folk...

    If my wife holds a NI license, can the judge (if we get that far) suspend that? As I say my wife doesn't intend to drive again anyway but I'm just wondering.


Advertisement