Car Accident Opinions also please

TheQueen

I was involved in a crash the other day. A truck driver cut into the lane in front of me, I hit the brakes immediately and the rear of his truck collided with the front of my car and he did not stop. He was pulled in later up the road. My car is a write off and quite a serious crash. As far as I know, he is claiming he didn't feel any impact and does not know what happened.
Any thoughts please?

Toots

Depending on the size of the truck it is possible he didn't feel the impact. My mum drove straight into the back of a cement truck years ago and the first the driver knew about it was when she came up to his door in tears to tell him she'd hit him!

Regardless of that, if he hit you then I'd say he's at fault whether he felt it or not. Were the Gardai called and did they get his insurance details?

TheQueen

Yes they got his details. There are no witnesses so is it my word against his?

Yawns

Hope you're ok OP.

Toots* wrote: »

Regardless of that, if he hit you then I'd say he's at fault whether he felt it or not. Were the Gardai called and did they get his insurance details?

Op rear ended the truck and no witness to say the driver cut it front of him. Unless he has a dash cam or local cctv happened to record it I can see insurance company blaming OP or calling 50/50.

Of course the trucker driver may admit liability but I don't think he did as OP might have mentioned it.

OP I hope it works out well for you and as trouble free as possible but it may become quite exasperating for you dealing with the insurance companies.

Was it a dual carriageway or motorway. Any petrol stations nearby? Might be worth while to head to scene of accident and take a look around and see if there's any buildings that might have cctv or even ask to see if someone might have spotted something out a window.

Is it possible you were in the truck's blind spot? How big was it? Did he pull over himself or was he flagged down? If he pulled over himself was it because he felt you hit him or did he feel something was wrong with the truck so got out to inspect? You just said he was pulled in later up the road. Was it that you made a report and the garda pulled him in?

Yawns

With a bit of luck the insurance company may believe you were in a blind spot of his, he pulled in thinking it was clear and hit you. They hopefully will pay to have your car fixed. I can see it being drawn out tho unfortunately. It's not very clear cut if it's your word against his.

guil

Yawns wrote: »

With a bit of luck the insurance company may believe you were in a blind spot of his, he pulled in thinking it was clear and hit you. They hopefully will pay to have your car fixed. I can see it being drawn out tho unfortunately. It's not very clear cut if it's your word against his.

do you know where the blind spots are on a truck, where the op said they got hit certainly isn't one

TheQueen

Two men in a van drove up seconds after it happened. I am unsure if they saw what happened or not. They drove after the truck driver, flagged him down and got him to pull in further up the road.
Yes it was a dual carriageway.
I have fully comp insurance so either way my insurance is paying out and will get cheque tomorrow as need to get a new car asap.
There are no cctv cameras on that stretch of road.
I have no idea what the other driver has said in his statement.
Thanks for replies

Antikythera

guil wrote: »

do you know where the blind spots are on a truck, where the op said they got hit certainly isn't one

It sounds like he was in her blind spot.;)

MugMugs

I am sure if this happened the way you describe it then an independent engineers inspection could determine to cause of the same.

The damage on your vehicle surely would be consistent with a strike to the FWD of the vehicle.

Call you Insurance company and report this at once and insist that they inspect both vehicles

TheQueen

Antikythera wrote: »

It sounds like he was in her blind spot.;)

Yep that's what happened, I was driving along with my eyes closed, despite driving four members of my family in my car and being solely responsible for their safety so failed to see the huge truck and drove into it, risking the lives of my family.

-Corkie-

Antikythera wrote: »

It sounds like he was in her blind spot.;)

Sounds like wont be much good in court. Who said it wasnt a she driving the truck and a he in the car...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yawns

guil wrote: »

do you know where the blind spots are on a truck, where the op said they got hit certainly isn't one

The OP said the front of her car hit the rear of the truck. Now if it's a great big dirty truck with stuff in the back you're telling me there's a possibility that the truck driver didn't see her?

Seeing as she said she hit the brakes immediately and still collided with him, it sounds as tho the truck was in the over-taking lane, couldn't see the car in his side mirror as it was in a blind spot so he assumed the way was clear and he moved in. He didn't check the mirror as he was moving and thus didn't see the OP slam on brakes. If that was the scenario it would be very easy for OP to hit the back of truck as he moved in on top despite braking. The trucker is still at fault tho.

OP good luck with the insurance company and I hope every1 in the car was ok and wish you the best of luck and a speedy outcome.

Yawns

Did you manage to get contact details from the two men. If there's a small chance they saw it, they could help sort out the whole thing with a simple statement. Insurance company would pay straight away if you have independent witness. I wonder what the case would be seeing as you had several passengers. I know they are family so would the insurance company use their statement decisively or would they assume they are biased, can some1 shed some light on that please as I haven't a clue.

Yawns

-Corkie- wrote: »

Sounds like wont be much good in court. Who said it wasnt a she driving the truck and a he in the car...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I think that guy was just hinting at the OP's username etc

drunkmonkey

Was the truck overtaking you and you were on the inside lane when the driver of the truck re-entered the inside lane?

Is it possible your speed fluctuated and you speed up into where the truck was pulling in. Not sure how it is now but if you hit the back of someone it's your fault. Did the truck hit the front of the car or the side of it?

-Corkie-

Yawns wrote: »

I think that guy was just hinting at the OP's username etc

Never seen that... Maybe Freddie Mercury is back...:P:P

slimjimmc

I've seen trucks overtake a car on a DC and on motorways (!!!) and cut them up when pulling back in. I guess some truck drivers don't know the length of their vehicle and under-estimate the room they need. BTW I've seen them do this to other trucks too, and no the truck just overtaken didn't flash his headlights to signal it was safe. The blind spot is usually up close to the cab and forwards of it, not back towards the middle or rear. If his mirrors were correctly adjusted and he used them then he should have seen the OP's car.

Yawns

-Corkie- wrote: »

Never seen that... Maybe Freddie Mercury is back...:P:P

I didn't see it either til I read his post lol

Yawns

My guess would be the truck over taking and cut across too tight.

Afaik if you rear end someone it's usually your fault but if the OP has a witness to say the truck cut across then he will be blamed for not over taking in a safe manor. He must ensure the lane he wishes to change into is clear and it's safe to change. I hope it works out for the OP but I can envisage some sticky trouble ahead with no witness.

Sure can't the truck driver say she sped up as he was already overtaking and she rear ended him? No cameras, no witness, it'd be her word against his. OP if it were me I'd be trying to get the lads in the van if any way possible.

gpjordanf1

Glad to hear your ok OP

BUT

You rear end anyone , then you are 100% liable, you have to be in control of your vehicle at all times..

bryaner

Surely if theres any damage on the RHW of the OP's car its a cut and shut case in favor of the OP.

slimjimmc

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Glad to hear your ok OP

BUT

You rear end anyone , then you are 100% liable, you have to be in control of your vehicle at all times..

Not necessarily. The truck could have pulled across without any warning or regard for traffic already in that lane even if they were behind.
You're required to not change lanes without good reason and you must only do so without inconveniencing or endangering other road users.

TheQueen

I don't think the truck driver has much of a statement either he was oblivious as he failed to stop or else he has a story but that would involve him leaving the scene if an accident?
The damage is to the right and front of my car. My children were in the car and they are very young as was my grandmother who has dementia so not possible for any of them to give a statement.
I am probably just going over the whole thing too much main thing is we are all ok.

Paparazzo

Sounds to me that the truck was 100% in the wrong. Not sure why there'e even any doubt. He should have made sure he had room to pull in, and he didn't. If the OP hadn't braked it could have been more serious.

end a eknny

as a truck driver you would be amazed at the number of people who accelerate when you start to overtake them. i would also think if you had radio on loud there would be a slight possibility that he wasnt aware of the accident but it would be slight unless you actually drove into the back of him which would mean if he heard something and loked in the mirror there would be nothing to see and it would be your fault

gpjordanf1

bryaner wrote: »

Surely if theres any damage on the RHW of the OP's car its a cut and shut case in favor of the OP.

In this case there are no witnesses at all, when she breaked the car " could " have veered to the left trying to avoid the truck exposing the right hand wing which hit the truck and straightened up causing the rest of the frontal impact damage.

All the damage is to the front of the OP's car and whatever damage is to the rear of the truck, thus implying the OP crashed into the back of the truck. Which inturn implies she was not in control of her car and as such is 100% in the wrong.

Regardless of what she says because its her word against his, but all the evidence is pointing to her being in the wrong.

I'm really sorry to bring this up but I think you should be prepared for all eventualities, and this is one of them, you could be proved liable eventhough you done nothing wrong bar being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sucks but as you say everybodys ok and you'll be back on the road soon.

TheQueen

I am prepared that it could go against me as damage is to the right and front of my car and the back of his ( presumably)
I also know that I did nothing wrong, was only travelling at 20-30 mph as had only left traffic lights about 100m back and my car is slow. I did everything possible to try and avoid him when he appeared in my path and I was 100% in control of my car at all times.
So worse case scenario I lose my no claims bonus.

Yawns

if you are deemed at fault your premium could go thru the roof tho

It's a bit of an odd one alright. Are you sure there was no buildings around that might have cctv or was it just that stretch of roads. Which junction did it happen at?

Yawns

Also regard to truck leaving scene. He could just claim when he stopped and took a look after the lads said something. Could claim he wasn't even overtaking if there was no witness if you get me. It may come down to 50/50 but from what you're saying I hope everything goes ok for you.

slimjimmc

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

In this case there are no witnesses at all, when she breaked the car " could " have veered to the left trying to avoid the truck exposing the right hand wing which hit the truck and straightened up causing the rest of the frontal impact damage.

All the damage is to the front of the OP's car and whatever damage is to the rear of the truck, thus implying the OP crashed into the back of the truck. Which inturn implies she was not in control of her car and as such is 100% in the wrong.

Regardless of what she says because its her word against his, but all the evidence is pointing to her being in the wrong.

I'm really sorry to bring this up but I think you should be prepared for all eventualities, and this is one of them, you could be proved liable eventhough you done nothing wrong bar being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sucks but as you say everybodys ok and you'll be back on the road soon.

As I already mentioned when you stated this in your previous post ,it is very very possible to collide with the rear of another vehicle without being at fault. You can only control your own driving but you have no control over the actions of others. If a slower vehicle suddenly, without adequate warning pulls out into your lane very close in front of you there's not a lot you can do about. In that scenario it would be the other driver who caused the accident by failing to ensure it was safe to move into the other lane.

end a eknny

slimjimmc wrote: »

As I already mentioned when you stated this in your previous post ,it is very very possible to collide with the rear of another vehicle without being at fault. You can only control your own driving but you have no control over the actions of others. If a slower vehicle suddenly, without adequate warning pulls out into your lane very close in front of you there's not a lot you can do about. In that scenario it would be the other driver who caused the accident by failing to ensure it was safe to move into the other lane.

if you can get a solicitor to prove that get me their name. as for o.p i wouldnt worry too much had a small accident a few years ago with a learner we where both insured with quinn who rang up and told me i was at fault when i questioned them the lady from quin said you where driving a lorry its automatically your fault i asked her if she was having a laugh and she told me that if it went to court thats what would happen i asked her baout the fact that the other driver was a learner and had not got a full driver beside her and she said that didnt matter

gpjordanf1

slimjimmc wrote: »

As I already mentioned when you stated this in your previous post ,it is very very possible to collide with the rear of another vehicle without being at fault. You can only control your own driving but you have no control over the actions of others. If a slower vehicle suddenly, without adequate warning pulls out into your lane very close in front of you there's not a lot you can do about. In that scenario it would be the other driver who caused the accident by failing to ensure it was safe to move into the other lane.

Your not getting this are you?

Its nothing to do with fault its to do with the law, you collide into another vehicle for any reason and this includes people swerving infront of you, have no brake lights and are asleep at the wheel, the fact of the matter is, you ran into them. Your 100% in the wrong, as the law looks at it you were not in control of your vehicle, if you were there would be no accident.
A major rule of the road states you have to be able to stop a vehicle safely in the distance available to you on the road, i.e. your responsible for the breaking distance of the vehicle at the speed your doing on the road. IF you cannot stop within that distance then your wrong, end of story.

guil

Yawns wrote: »

The OP said the front of her car hit the rear of the truck. Now if it's a great big dirty truck with stuff in the back you're telling me there's a possibility that the truck driver didn't see her?

Seeing as she said she hit the brakes immediately and still collided with him, it sounds as tho the truck was in the over-taking lane, couldn't see the car in his side mirror as it was in a blind spot so he assumed the way was clear and he moved in. He didn't check the mirror as he was moving and thus didn't see the OP slam on brakes. If that was the scenario it would be very easy for OP to hit the back of truck as he moved in on top despite braking. The trucker is still at fault tho.

OP good luck with the insurance company and I hope every1 in the car was ok and wish you the best of luck and a speedy outcome.

thats not a blind spot, they are at the very rear of the truck, ie. behind it and very close to the door on both sides and to the front of the truck

if the truck pulled in on top of the op they should of spotted it long before the impact, the cab would of moved over a good bit before the trailer/back of the truck and even more so since the op said they were only travelling 20-30mph

TheQueen

TheQueen wrote: »

I was involved in a crash the other day. A truck driver cut into the lane in front of me, I hit the brakes immediately and the rear of his truck collided with the front of my car and he did not stop. He was pulled in later up the road.

Rear of his truck and front of your car? As in you drove into the back of him?


Your fault I would think, a truck is fairly big, if he was able to get the truck into your lane so that you slapped into the back of him you would have enough time to notice him moving into your lane and slow down accordingly, unless you were on planet day dream.

zuroph

photos of the damage would be interesting to see in this case, as they would probably back up a sideswipe if he changed lane onto the nose of your car.

dharn

seem to me they both took off from the lights together he pulled a bit ahead and then cut across into inside lane catching the corner of her car therefore he is at fault he did not know she was inside him but should have checked before changing lane

Antikythera

dharn wrote: »

seem to me they both took off from the lights together he pulled a bit ahead and then cut across into inside lane catching the corner of her car therefore he is at fault he did not know she was inside him but should have checked before changing lane

If true, then @90% of the truck would already have been in her lane before impact. OP saw all this happen yet still failed to avoid contact whilst doing '20-30mph'?

end a eknny wrote: »

as a truck driver you would be amazed at the number of people who accelerate when you start to overtake them.

I'd say in a lot of cases, this is down to the ideomotor effect.

sarahcoles30

Antikythera wrote: »

If true, then @90% of the truck would already have been in her lane before impact. OP saw all this happen yet still failed to avoid contact whilst doing '20-30mph'?



I'd say in a lot of cases, this is down to the ideomotor effect.

Its a tricky situation to be in. Even if your are not responsible for hitting the back of the truck, Still you will be more on the losing point with the law. I hope you get a better assessment from the insurance company.

padd b1975

Is there any way you can get the truck drivers tachograph sheets or get his download from a digital card? If he can't provide those for 28 days before the accident he is deemed to be driving while not properly rested if he can't prove otherwise. Might help prove him to be driving without due care and attention.

Antikythera

padd b1975 wrote: »

Is there any way you can get the truck drivers tachograph sheets or get his download from a digital card? If he can't provide those for 28 days before the accident he is deemed to be driving while not properly rested if he can't prove otherwise. Might help prove him to be driving without due care and attention.

You place the burden of proof squarely with the truck driver when OP drove into the back of him?

Following your logic, all the truck driver need do in order to prove he is not liable is show that his tacho records are above board for the previous month.

padd b1975

Antikythera wrote: »

You place the burden of proof squarely with the truck driver when OP drove into the back of him?

Following your logic, all the truck driver need do in order to prove he is not liable is show that his tacho records are above board for the previous month.

My point is a simple one. In the eyes of the law who is the safer truck driver? Is it the one who takes regular breaks is properly rested and does not go over his driving hours? Or is it the truck driver who can not provide evidence of his break, rest and driving hours? Which one of those would be more likely to be involved in an accident??
From reading the OP, I think it is pretty clear that it has not been legally established who exactly drove into whom. Ok?

dharn

Originally Posted by end a eknny
as a truck driver you would be amazed at the number of people who accelerate when you start to overtake them........


as they were both pulling away from traffic lights the were both accelerating ok the op reactions might have been slow but if the truck damaged the side of her car as she says it did well what could she do turn sharp left and hit the kerb the truck driver carved her up and is wriong

end a eknny

padd b1975 wrote: »

My point is a simple one. In the eyes of the law who is the safer truck driver? Is it the one who takes regular breaks is properly rested and does not go over his driving hours? Or is it the truck driver who can not provide evidence of his break, rest and driving hours? Which one of those would be more likely to be involved in an accident??
From reading the OP, I think it is pretty clear that it has not been legally established who exactly drove into whom. Ok?

so your point is if a car pulls out from a minor road into the side of a lorry all you would have to do is prove the driver hasnt taken legal breaks and they will assume the responsibility. what prove is there that this car driver hadnt driven 24 hours non stop

padd b1975

end a eknny wrote: »

so your point is if a car pulls out from a minor road into the side of a lorry all you would have to do is prove the driver hasnt taken legal breaks and they will assume the responsibility. what prove is there that this car driver hadnt driven 24 hours non stop

Thats the flipside of the law I'm afraid. There is absolutly no law stopping me from driving as long as I like in my car without a break. If I drive my truck for more than 4.5 hours I am in breach of the regulations.

Antikythera

dharn wrote: »

as they were both pulling away from traffic lights the were both accelerating

Nowhere else in this thread is the above stated. You are assuming.

I've driven hundreds of thousands of miles out there and sadly, when you are driving a truck, there are always people who have an attitude of 'go away mister truck driver, I can see you are indicating, I am aware of your intentions, I can see you have a gap, but YOU'RE NOT GETTING IN FRONT OF ME. I'm going to keep accelerating and if there is an accident, I'm going to blame it on you'.

(I'm not saying this is true in OP's case.)

dharn

TheQueen wrote: »

I am prepared that it could go against me as damage is to the right and front of my car and the back of his ( presumably)
I also know that I did nothing wrong, was only travelling at 20-30 mph as had only left traffic lights about 100m back and my car is slow. I did everything possible to try and avoid him when he appeared in my path and I was 100% in control of my car at all times.
So worse case scenario I lose my no claims bonus.

read the above...only left traffic lights..

Antikythera

I've read the above and I've read the thread. Have you?

She says she left the lights 100m behind after pulling away. You say they were both accelerating away from the lights. How do you know the lights weren't green for the truck driver on his approach?

dr.fuzzenstein

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Your not getting this are you?

Its nothing to do with fault its to do with the law, you collide into another vehicle for any reason and this includes people swerving infront of you, have no brake lights and are asleep at the wheel, the fact of the matter is, you ran into them. Your 100% in the wrong, as the law looks at it you were not in control of your vehicle, if you were there would be no accident.
A major rule of the road states you have to be able to stop a vehicle safely in the distance available to you on the road, i.e. your responsible for the breaking distance of the vehicle at the speed your doing on the road. IF you cannot stop within that distance then your wrong, end of story.

<snip>

TheQueen

I am still no wiser.

Do these things generally take ages to sort out?

In 15 years driving I have never been involved in any type of accident.

Also I can categorically state I did not speed up to try and prevent him getting him into my lane. Others may do this. People who are safe drivers with their children in their car I hope, tend not to do this.

Thanks for all your opinions. I will keep you updated.

One other thing, can I ring the Guards and ask about the other drivers statement or no?

Yawns

TheQueen wrote: »

One other thing, can I ring the Guards and ask about the other drivers statement or no?

Not afaik. It's a civil matter and it's up to the insurance companies do decide who is at fault. It'll be tricky because an independent assessor will be wondering how you couldn't stop at a fairly low speed when you saw a big truck coming into your lane. Even tho he should have checked lane was clear how come you didn't see him and stop sooner?

It might boil down to 50/50 with 0 witness. He should have checked and you should have been more observant of vehicles around you.

Tea 1000

dharn wrote: »

what could she do turn sharp left and hit the kerb the truck driver carved her up and is wriong

Turning sharply isn't the only reaction to a problem. At 20-30mph coming to a complete stop isn't difficult. It's surprising the number of people who don't properly slam on the brakes in an emergency situation, opting instead to lightly press them and steer sharply.
It's impossible to determine what happened to the OP, we don't have enough of a clear picture nor do we have any pics of the car and truck to make some sort of guess.