Whos In The Right?

Volvoboy

This afternoon i was approaching a green light just about to turn Right at a T Junction when a Garda car came from my left so i stopped before i made the turn (still hadnt gone through the light) and a fella rear ended my car. Few scrapes and a bit of a dent is all thats on it nothing too bad and nobody was hurt. We swapped details and i informed the Gardai. But we either of us admitted liablity.


What ya think??

AugustusMaximus

He should have kept a safe distance behind you as to be able to stop in any situation. If he had kept the correct distance behind you then he should have been able to stop in time without rear ending you.

I'm guessing that you thought the Garda car may have ran the red light and hence IMO, you were fully correct.

Volvoboy

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

He should have kept a safe distance behind you as to be able to stop in any situation. If he had kept the correct distance behind you then he should have been able to stop in time without rear ending you.

I'm guessing that you thought the Garda car may have ran the red light and hence IMO, you were fully correct.

Yea the Garda car did break the light and go through the junction.

zod

Volvoboy wrote: »

Yea the Garda car did break the light and go through the junction.

did they stop, when they seen what they had caused?

oldyouth

Whether either of you admitted responsibility or not at the scene of an acident, it is not admissable. Both of you are deemed to be in 'shock' in the eyes of the law.

90% of the time that a lad is rere ended, it is the other party that is at fault.

Volvoboy

zod wrote: »

did they stop, when they seen what they had caused?

Nope kept on going.

VolvoMan

Is this the Carina E or did you get the S-Class in the end?

SV

You may want to get that car checked out. It's been known to cause chassis damage the whole way through from even minor bumps hasn't it?

old boy

a car cannot be hit from behind, the driver (solicitor) can argue to a judge if he is hit from the front or the side, but he cannot argue hitting from behind, also one cannot hit a parked car, even if it is left unattended, on the roadway, also being hit from behind can result in back damage if wearing a safty belt, but not from the front or the side.

Gumbo

sounds like your 100% in the right volvoboy.
shame on the garda car for breaking the red light though, which caused the crash imo

CharlieCroker

Can we confirm if the Garda car was on a blue light or not??
Agree with everyone else, he didn't leave enough distance between his front and your rear to stop in time.
Also, a driver admitting liability. It's the insurance company that pays the bill so its up to them to admit/decide liability

x in the city

reinforces my opinion of the guards tbh

Anan1

This is very simple, the guy drove into the back of you so he's at fault.

Wishbone Ash

zod wrote: »

did they stop, when they seen what they had caused?

kceire wrote: »

shame on the garda car for breaking the red light though, which caused the crash imo

One may only proceed at a green light when the way ahead is clear and it is safe to do so. In this situation, the way ahead was not clear and it was not safe to proceed. Volvoboy was correct in stopping.

I can't see how some posters think the Gardai caused the accident. Surely, the driver who rear-ended Volvoboy caused the accident and is responsible?

mikemac

kceire wrote: »

shame on the garda car for breaking the red light though, which caused the crash imo

How so?

jaffa20

mikemac wrote: »

How so?

Well, unless the Guard had a flashing blue light, he shouldn't have broken the red light. Heck, even ambulances when rushing to an emergency are very careful not to drive on to oncoming traffic. Putting other drivers at risk is dangerous driving and that's what happened.

zod

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I can't see how some posters think the Gardai caused the accident. Surely, the driver who rear-ended Volvoboy caused the accident and is responsible?

it's obvious that the person who rear ends somebody else is responsible. No one debates this and stating it does not strenghthen any argument.

Everyone has to drive with due regard to others on the road*



*except the gardai who in this case did not break the unforgivable law of leaving enough breaking distance to the car in front of them, instead broke the minor infraction of running a red light.

-Chris-

x in the city wrote: »

reinforces my opinion of the guards tbh

:rolleyes:

Anan1 wrote: »

This is very simple, the guy drove into the back of you so he's at fault.

+1

Whether a Garda car broke the red light, whether that Garda car had it's blue lights on or not, whether a cat or child ran out in front of you, or even if you thought a child was about to run out in front of you and so you braked in anticipation - I don't think any of that makes a bit of a difference to the fact that the driver behind you didn't leave ample braking room.

david

Other car is at fault for not reacting quick enough. Get your motor up on a ramp to make sure everything is still structurally straight though.

OT: Volvoboy were you the guy that gave me a lift from Highfield Rd. to Lincoln Place last Monday in the pissing rain?? Looked like your motor. Thank you if it was you :-)!

Wishbone Ash

zod wrote: »

it's obvious that the person who rear ends somebody else is responsible. No one debates this

.......which makes me wonder why you and others are bringing the Gardai into it?

VolvoMan

AudiChris wrote: »

:rolleyes:



+1

Whether a Garda car broke the red light, whether that Garda car had it's blue lights on or not, whether a cat or child ran out in front of you, or even if you thought a child was about to run out in front of you and so you braked in anticipation - I don't think any of that makes a bit of a difference to the fact that the driver behind you didn't leave ample braking room.

Why don't you head over to the legal forum and spend some time there? Because all you seem to do here is badger forum users on legal issues and show off your legal knowhow.:rolleyes:

jaffa20

So we can all break red lights and drive on the wrong side of the road and as long as we don't crash ourselves but put other motorists and pedrestrians at risk, we are not at fault.

Brilliant!

Whether it was a guard or not that broke the red light is not important but the fact that it was a motorist who broke the rules of the road, causing a crash in the process IS important.

zod

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

.......which makes me wonder why you and others are bringing the Gardai into it?

A nuclear bomb went off on the M50 today causing a sixty car pileup.

wishbone the second last car in the pileup asked the guy behind him why he didn't leave enough breaking distance and caused such an accident. When the guy didn't respond he asked him to stop looking up in the air and to swap insurance details.

Gumbo

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

One may only proceed at a green light when the way ahead is clear and it is safe to do so. In this situation, the way ahead was not clear and it was not safe to proceed. Volvoboy was correct in stopping.

I can't see how some posters think the Gardai caused the accident. Surely, the driver who rear-ended Volvoboy caused the accident and is responsible?

mikemac wrote: »

How so?

very selective quoting guys, come on, read my full post........
i stated thst volvoboy was in the right, the car behind is of course at fault for hitting him but the garda still broke a red light which started the chain of events to cause the crash.

no need for a debate here, as the rear ender will ultimately have to fork out.

Volvoboy

david wrote: »

OT: Volvoboy were you the guy that gave me a lift from Highfield Rd. to Lincoln Place last Monday in the pissing rain?? Looked like your motor. Thank you if it was you :-)!

Nope wasnt in town Monday, thanks for the replys lads.
I'm not too concerned about the garda car that ran the red light, he has a job to do and the like.

Looks like i'm in the clear, BTW Volvoman i'm still in my beloved Carina looked up a few reviews and it looks that it would be too soft to taxi. And after last nights work it wouldnt be upto standard.

-Chris-

VolvoMan wrote: »

Why don't you head over to the legal forum and spend some time there? Because all you seem to do here is badger forum users on legal issues and show off your legal knowhow.:rolleyes:

?

ilovemarmite

It was the fault of the guy who rear ended you. You were right to stop as you can only go through a green light if way is clear. He should have been keeping a safe distance especially when approaching a junction. You are supposed to turn corners at 20km so he should not have been going that fast.

Although definitely not your fault make sure you check your rearview mirror often to watch out for eejets driving to close to you.

To posters complaining about the garda, why are you complaining about them?? they did nothing wrong!!

VolvoMan

AudiChris wrote: »

?

What I'm trying to say is that your legal knowledge seems to outweigh your general knowledge of cars. You barely contribute anything motor related and just 'P.C. police' everyone.

Wishbone Ash

VolvoMan wrote: »

What I'm trying to say is that your legal knowledge seems to outweigh your general knowledge of cars

In fairness to him, isn't the thread 'legal' related?

It's entitled "Who's In The Right?".

VolvoMan

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

In fairness to him, isn't the thread 'legal' related?

It's entitled "Who's In The Right?".

I accept your point, but I feel it isn't the first time that he has spoilt the atmosphere on here with all his legal jargon. I'm not referring to his original post alone.

-Chris-

VolvoMan wrote: »

Why don't you head over to the legal forum and spend some time there? Because all you seem to do here is badger forum users on legal issues and show off your legal knowhow.:rolleyes:

VolvoMan wrote: »

What I'm trying to say is that your legal knowledge seems to outweigh your general knowledge of cars. You barely contribute anything motor related and just 'P.C. police' everyone.

VolvoMan wrote: »

I accept your point, but I feel it isn't the first time that he has spoilt the atmosphere on here with all his legal jargon. I'm not referring to his original post alone.

I take exception to these posts and you'd better either elaborate or apologise.

I've never represented myself as a legal expert. I feel I contribute where I can, and I never make stuff up or misrepresent information I have. I try and be generous with any information or experience I have.

In terms of this particular thread, I merely echoed the feelings of other posters who believed that the OP was in the right and didn't hold any liability for the accident, and meant to lend my support for him as he pursues the matter through his insurance company.


If you feel I'm badgering, PC Policing or spoiling the atmosphere on any threads, please let me know how.

elchupanebrey

Snappy comeback imminent.

x in the city

Volvoboy wrote: »

Nope kept on going.

gotta love em, the guardai

accusing people of using phones for no reason and flying thru red lights...lovely

also, i never once seen a squad car act with any sort of decency, ie: pull over if they are troddling along to let others pass out or general usefullness on the road, instead they hang around corners catching people 5/km hr over the limit and other rubbish.

morons

Alanstrainor

I don't know why this thread was resurrected tbh.

Closed.