Help an idiot

RedXIV

Hi guys,

I'm back here for advice, ye have always provided in the past!

So the story is that my car has been totalled. A woman switched lanes on a sliproad off the m50 yesterday and then stopped in front of a van and I. Van Driver managed to stop before hitting her but I wasn't as lucky. It was raining alot at the time and which meant that it took along longer to come to a stop. Guess this meant I was able to walk away without hurting myself but wasn't able to stop in time without destroying my car.

Woman who started all of had no tax or insurance and did a legger after we said we were calling the guards but I have a pic of her licence plate. The Van driver told the guards exactly what happened so I don't know how that affects things? Regardless I'm sure I'll get the brunt of the flak from the insurance company for coming into the back of the van, would this be correct?

So other than that I need to get myself a new car. My car was insured for 4K, I MAY be able to get some more money together, up to about 5.5K Max so I'm wondering what should I be looking to get? I travel approx 50km Mon-Fri along the m50 and I'd need enough room for two car seats. Other than that, I've no other real requirements. I liked my old car which was a Nissan Almeria 1.5L but was told it'd be more worthwhile for me to get a diesel?

Sorry about all the questions, I'm not really good with car stuff

Thanks!

Berty

Get the Gardai to catch the woman, get a solicitor and sue her for causing an accident which damaged your car. Failing that have the Gardai pursue her for leaving the scene of an accident which she herself caused.

Now, are you sure you are not hurt? Are you sure you don't have a tiny pain in your back or neck that a Doctor should look at? Sometimes it takes a few days for this pain to manifest itself.

Nissan doctor

For 250k a week I wouldn't bother with the extra expense of a diesel.

The average petrol car would do a minimum of twice that to a tank.

tallaghtmick

As the poster above said well the first paragraph,im sure the 2nd paragraph is against boards rules :pac:

RedXIV

Beer Baron wrote: »

Get the Gardai to catch the woman, get a solicitor and sue her for causing an accident which damaged your car. Failing that have the Gardai pursue her for leaving the scene of an accident which she herself caused.

Now, are you sure you are not hurt? Are you sure you don't have a tiny pain in your back or neck that a Doctor should look at? Sometimes it takes a few days for this pain to manifest itself.

Cheers for answering!

Guards have her licence plate and a description which is all I could provide. Hopefully something happens but guards aren't too convincing about being able to trace someone without tax and insurance?

I don't think so.....Little stiffness in the neck maybe but I seem to be ok....probably should get it checked out i guess?

wandatowell

Beer Baron wrote: »

Now, are you sure you are not hurt? Are you sure you don't have a tiny pain in your back or neck that a Doctor should look at? Sometimes it takes a few days for this pain to manifest itself.

Very good point, my old chap had a car accident a few years ago, a couple weeks later he was crippled with back pain, still suffers to this day.

Id head for a checkup if I were you OP

drunkmonkey

Regardless of the woman changing lanes, road conditions and the van driver, would I be right in the assumption you drove up the arse of somebody because you couldn't stop in time?

RedXIV

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Regardless of the woman changing lanes, road conditions and the van driver, would I be right in the assumption you drove up the arse of somebody because you couldn't stop in time?

yup, i'm aware that the situation is not very favourable for me. I suppose thats exactly how insurance will see it

RedXIV

Nissan doctor wrote: »

For 250k a week I wouldn't bother with the extra expense of a diesel.

The average petrol car would do a minimum of twice that to a tank.

Cheers for that, helps rule out the petrol vs diesel argument anyway. Petrol it is!

drunkmonkey

RedXIV wrote: »

yup, i'm aware that the situation is not very favourable for me. I suppose thats exactly how insurance will see it

It's your fault, you should have been able to stop.

A lady was driving in front of me, her phone rang and she slammed on the brakes in the middle of the road to answer it, I gave her a right shot in the behind, my fault, thankfully it was settled out of court, but regardless of the idiot in front you should be able to stop in time, 100% your fault i'm afraid.

Had you your no claims bonus insured? If not you may be best off drop the whole thing and keep away from the insurance company, if that lady does appear it'll be to sue you if that's who you hit.

CiniO

Beer Baron wrote: »

Get the Gardai to catch the woman, get a solicitor and sue her for causing an accident which damaged your car.

But how did she caused an accident?
She forced a right of way from the van driver, which had to stop. Nothing happened here, so that case is over.
Then OP crashed into the van (that's my understanding), which was 100% his fault.

drunkmonkey

What's the Van driver doing, is he putting in a claim against your insurance?

RedXIV

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's your fault, you should have been able to stop.

A lady was driving in front of me, her phone rang and she slammed on the brakes in the middle of the road to answer it, I gave her a right shot in the behind, my fault, thankfully it was settled out of court, but regardless of the idiot in front you should be able to stop in time, 100% your fault i'm afraid.

Had you your no claims bonus insured? If not you may be best off drop the whole thing and keep away from the insurance company, if that lady does appear it'll be to sue you if that's who you hit.

Only had one year no claims and was told by insurer they don't cover no claims bonus until you've two or more. I didn't hit the lady, lady didn't get hit, van driver stopped and I hit him

CiniO wrote: »

But how did she caused an accident?
She forced a right of way from the van driver, which had to stop. Nothing happened here, so that case is over.
Then OP crashed into the van (that's my understanding), which was 100% his fault.

I know what your saying it how its probably to be viewed by the insurance company but I can't help feeling that if she hadn't decided to switch lanes and slam the breaks in front of another vehicle, none of this would have happened. But I suppose everyone thinks they are right

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What's the Van driver doing, is he putting in a claim against your insurance?

I assume so? He has all my details. Not really well up on what happens?

ART6

CiniO wrote: »

But how did she caused an accident?
She forced a right of way from the van driver, which had to stop. Nothing happened here, so that case is over.
Then OP crashed into the van (that's my understanding), which was 100% his fault.

I'm not sure about that. I can't point to one, but I seem to remember that there have been cases where someone stopped suddenly and unexpectedly without reason and caused an accident in which they were not directly involved. They were charged with dangerous or reckless driving or something I think.

Stinicker

This sort of thing has been happening quite often in the UK as an insurance scam , called crash for cash, perhaps you and the van driver just fell victim to it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NqXGtvI9MQ

drunkmonkey

RedXIV wrote: »

I assume so? He has all my details. Not really well up on what happens?

Have you a way of contacting him, if it wasn't a lot of damage he may be willing to take some cash instead of an insurance claim, at least it would keep your clean record if you have one.
Might be worth giving him a call and see what he thinks, a lot of van have bumpers so he might not have a lot of damage.

tallaghtmick

Looks to me like the driver had no choice but to break

Edit:the video that was posted just incase someone gets confused

RedXIV

Stinicker wrote: »

This sort of thing has been happening quite often in the UK as an insurance scam , called crash for cash, perhaps you and the van driver just fell victim to it?

Would that no suggest the woman was attempting to scam us? the same woman who wanted no guards involved and had no tax or insurance?

drunkmonkey

Stinicker wrote: »

This sort of thing has been happening quite often in the UK as an insurance scam , called crash for cash, perhaps you and the van driver just fell victim to it?

That just looked like an idiot in the merc, see this loads of times in real life at motorway turn offs.

-Corkie-

About 12 years ago I was on the N4 approaching Enfield when the traffic came to a sudden stop. I rear ended the guy in front of me. As I got myself together to get out he switched his car back on and turned around in the opposite direction with out stopping.

Cops told me not to worry about it and I never heard a thing about it. He must have had no D/L insurance etc..

drunkmonkey

ART6 wrote: »

I'm not sure about that. I can't point to one, but I seem to remember that there have been cases where someone stopped suddenly and unexpectedly without reason and caused an accident in which they were not directly involved. They were charged with dangerous or reckless driving or something I think.

You should be able to stop, you shouldn't be driving that close to someone. It's pretty black and white. I try to always keep a safe distance on the motorway or else just keep overtaking until there's no one in front of me, either way seem to work, I can't stand driving behind someone, got caught before.

RedXIV

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Have you a way of contacting him, if it wasn't a lot of damage he may be willing to take some cash instead of an insurance claim, at least it would keep your clean record if you have one.
Might be worth giving him a call and see what he thinks, a lot of van have bumpers so he might not have a lot of damage.

I haven't the money to fix his van. He's saying his entire van needs to be replaced which I don't fully buy as it looks like some damage to his rear bumper and some panel beating work but I know nothing about cars so he could be right for all I know.

Besides, the fact that my car is written off means I have to claim anyway? I don't have the money to buy a new one, I need the pay out. It's gonna hurt like hell on my next renewal but I don't really have a choice?

drunkmonkey

RedXIV wrote: »

Besides, the fact that my car is written off means I have to claim anyway?

You could have probably straightened the panels on the van, most vans are pretty banged up at the back from loading and unloading and reversing into things. Still if he sticks in a claim not a lot you can do.

Had you fully comprehensive?

RedXIV

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You could have probably straightened the panels on the van, most vans are pretty banged up at the back from loading and unloading and reversing into things. Still if he sticks in a claim not a lot you can do.

Had you fully comprehensive?

Yeah I'm fully comp'd. Mainly because I knew if something like this happened, I wouldn't be able to settle out of court. young kids in the house so lucky to have 2 pennies to rub together

dr.fuzzenstein

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You should be able to stop, you shouldn't be driving that close to someone. It's pretty black and white. I try to always keep a safe distance on the motorway or else just keep overtaking until there's no one in front of me, either way seem to work, I can't stand driving behind someone, got caught before.

I'd say switching lanes directly into the path of someone and slamming on the brakes and not giving that person a chance to stop definitely qualifies as careless driving.
This idiotic argument of "anyone should be able to stop anytime for anything regardless of the situation and circumstances" is simply like saying "the clouds should be made out of candyfloss and I should be able to fly".
Nice idea in cloud cuckoo land.
Now it has to be said that the van did somehow miraculously manage to stop and the OP then hit the van.
So OP at fault for hitting van, yes.
But the woman who was the cause for this did drive without due care and attention, so that's careless driving right there.
Do you deny that?

In the video posted, the camera van (?) wasn't tailgating...he seemed to react/brake slowly. Goes to show how quickly it can happen and to leave a considerable distance from the car in front.

murphm45

Sorry to hear about your accident but glad to hear you're ok (but that said it might be no harm going to the doctor as per other posters advice all the same, better to be safe than sorry and all that)

Sorry i'm not an expert on this (so sorry if i get this wrong) but i would have though this fell into the MIBI's domain. I know a solicitor was mentioned but personnally i wouldn't bother with the hassle, is that not why you have insurance? If it wasn't your fault your premium shouldn't be effect. That said I'm not in your position so maybe my attitude would change if i was.

Anyway sorry again and i hope everything works out ok when the dust settles.

heate

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'd say switching lanes directly into the path of someone and slamming on the brakes and not giving that person a chance to stop definitely qualifies as careless driving.
This idiotic argument of "anyone should be able to stop anytime for anything regardless of the situation and circumstances" is simply like saying "the clouds should be made out of candyfloss and I should be able to fly".
Nice idea in cloud cuckoo land.
Now it has to be said that the van did somehow miraculously manage to stop and the OP then hit the van.
So OP at fault for hitting van, yes.
But the woman who was the cause for this did drive without due care and attention, so that's careless driving right there.
Do you deny that?

I'd have to agree with you on that one - someone said here that a driver jammed on the brakes to take a phonecall in the middle lane of a motorway. I'm sorry but if someone slows from 110km/h to 30 on a motorway nobody can be expected to anticipate how hard someone is braking and why they are doing it for no valid reason.
If they are braking for an unseen traffic queue most people hit the hazards.

And the fact that this driver did a runner says a lot about their attitude to being on the road

end a eknny

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'd say switching lanes directly into the path of someone and slamming on the brakes and not giving that person a chance to stop definitely qualifies as careless driving.
This idiotic argument of "anyone should be able to stop anytime for anything regardless of the situation and circumstances" is simply like saying "the clouds should be made out of candyfloss and I should be able to fly".
Nice idea in cloud cuckoo land.
Now it has to be said that the van did somehow miraculously manage to stop and the OP then hit the van.
So OP at fault for hitting van, yes.
But the woman who was the cause for this did drive without due care and attention, so that's careless driving right there.
Do you deny that?

i want you as my solicitor because that was the best attempt to defend the undefendable. the van driver miraculiously got stopped. how do you know where you there. any how he got stopped and the o.p didnt only one person in trouble here

dr.fuzzenstein

Sorry, this in German:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auffahrunfall

it basically says that if the person in front slams on the brakes for absolutely no reason whatsoever, part (not all) of the responsibility lies with him/her.
There have been many verdicts in Germany where a person braking for no reason, or for a small animal, has been given part of the blame for an accident.
This is very specifically designed in order to make sure morons can't just go around braketesting people for fun, because they're bored or maybe want money.

The position in Ireland is rather more rigid, sadly, meaning that braking hard for no reason, swerving directly into the path of another car on a dual carriageway and slamming on the brakes and even reversing into the car behind you could mean the car behind automatically gets the blame.
Now if that's the case it is an idiotic system, designed and run by clowns and morons, who simply couldn't be arsed to do some proper work and just want to be off to the pub.
And the amount of money paid out for a little scratch and a sore neck would almost lead someone to suspect the judges get a cut of the payout, or otherwise people wouldn't get E20k for injuring themselves whilst climbing over a fence that was meant to keep them out in the first place. or get even more because "oh, my neck hurts".
So, no wonder there is a raging compo culture in Ireland, enabled by the law and aided by the judicial system, who are completely unaccountable and seem to be doing very well out of it.
And why the hell am I not in on this racket?
Come Monday I will take the brakelights out of my car, go onto the motorway, wait for an expensive car to tail me and slam on.
Kerching!

Big Nasty

I think we do have that here. It's called contributary negligence AFAIK.

dr.fuzzenstein

end a eknny wrote: »

i want you as my solicitor because that was the best attempt to defend the undefendable. the van driver miraculiously got stopped. how do you know where you there. any how he got stopped and the o.p didnt only one person in trouble here

Yes indeed. The OP undoubtedly carries part of the blame, since he did indeed rear-end the van. No getting out of that one.
But the woman should carry part of the blame for causing an avoidable accident.
Hhmh, solicitor you say? Nah, I couldn't live with myself.;)

MagicMarker

RedXIV wrote: »

My car was insured for 4K, I MAY be able to get some more money together, up to about 5.5K Max

Just because you valued your car at 4k when you got insured, doesn't mean that's what they're going to give you!

end a eknny

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Sorry, this in German:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auffahrunfall

it basically says that if the person in front slams on the brakes for absolutely no reason whatsoever, part (not all) of the responsibility lies with him/her.
There have been many verdicts in Germany where a person braking for no reason, or for a small animal, has been given part of the blame for an accident.
This is very specifically designed in order to make sure morons can't just go around braketesting people for fun, because they're bored or maybe want money.

The position in Ireland is rather more rigid, sadly, meaning that braking hard for no reason, swerving directly into the path of another car on a dual carriageway and slamming on the brakes and even reversing into the car behind you could mean the car behind automatically gets the blame.
Now if that's the case it is an idiotic system, designed and run by clowns and morons, who simply couldn't be arsed to do some proper work and just want to be off to the pub.
And the amount of money paid out for a little scratch and a sore neck would almost lead someone to suspect the judges get a cut of the payout, or otherwise people wouldn't get E20k for injuring themselves whilst climbing over a fence that was meant to keep them out in the first place. or get even more because "oh, my neck hurts".
So, no wonder there is a raging compo culture in Ireland, enabled by the law and aided by the judicial system, who are completely unaccountable and seem to be doing very well out of it.
And why the hell am I not in on this racket?
Come Monday I will take the brakelights out of my car, go onto the motorway, wait for an expensive car to tail me and slam on.
Kerching!

give me a shout no point going with an empty car the more people the more money. the judges where preiously solicitors liars e.t.c who make there money exactly how you have described the more the payout the more the fee so the judges or just helping their mates while getting well paid by joe soap to boot. have seen a case that involved a broken mirror. the driver claimed neck injuries . the insurance solictior showed that she had a previous claim which she was deining.until it was put in front of her in black and white. the judge admitted she was a liar and as a result he only awarded her 15,000. moral of the story if you take a case and you lose solicitor barristers e.t.c get nothing and this suits nobody so the judge will always throw you something. its a real win win situation and as usual the decent honest gob****e pays

franksm

RedXIV wrote: »

Hi guys,

I'm back here for advice, ye have always provided in the past!!

I feel for you, OP ! Had a similar close call in Belfast last week - and it's why I am glad I have a dashcam.

First warning I had was the articulated truck on the left locking up its tyres, then seeing the gobshyte stopped in lane two trying to make a late change - and me then jamming on the breaks while watching the rear-view-mirror as cars behind me were screeching and wobbling to slow down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvvDU1IHC50

heate

I had an incident recently were a chap decided it wise whilst lane hogging that he was going to test his brakes because I flashed my lights at him after sitting behind him for a good while.

He slowed to 30k's and as the road was clear I had to swerve in the middle lane and undertake him.

When we approached the lights at the turn off his wife put the window down and said she'd phoned the Gardai?
My response was that fine dear. Did you tell them that your husband was driving in the wrong lane and in a careless manner? She was gobsmacked!

Had I heaven forbid hit this idiot I would of actually tried to sue him

RedXIV

Thanks for all the replies guys, i really appreciate the input. If nothing else i feel better for ranting

MagicMarker wrote: »

Just because you valued your car at 4k when you got insured, doesn't mean that's what they're going to give you!

yeah I heard that too earlier This insurance lark seems to be a bit of a scam. guess I'll have to make do with what I get


May start doing the lotto...

dharn

Frank what you driving, lovely sound on that clip

CiniO

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'd say switching lanes directly into the path of someone and slamming on the brakes and not giving that person a chance to stop definitely qualifies as careless driving.

Definitely.
And she should be prosecuted for careless driving.

This idiotic argument of "anyone should be able to stop anytime for anything regardless of the situation and circumstances" is simply like saying "the clouds should be made out of candyfloss and I should be able to fly".
Nice idea in cloud cuckoo land.
Now it has to be said that the van did somehow miraculously manage to stop and the OP then hit the van.
So OP at fault for hitting van, yes.
But the woman who was the cause for this did drive without due care and attention, so that's careless driving right there.
Do you deny that?

Sorry but I can see two situations here.

First is the women driving carelessly (or dangerously) causing a danger. Van driver has to do emergency braking not to hit her, but in the end he manages to stop in time. It probably was a close one, but finished happily.

Second one is OP driving behind a van, and when van does emergency braking - OP doesn't manage to stop in time and hit's the van. It's OP's fault - no one else's.

Obviously there is strong relation between those two events, but no matter what the reason was for van to do emergency braking on motorway, OP was supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop.

It could be more understandable if van hit that lady, and because of that stopped unexpectedly quick, causing OP to be too much surprised. But no = that was not the case. Van just stopped using it's brakes - nothing else.

The same way van driver could do emergency braking because he just got a heart attack or something, and OP would hit him anyway.


All what I want to say in this post, is that I think you could only put the blame on the lady of first car, if it was first car (van in our case) which hit her.
Because what would you say if there was 20 cars.
She slammed on brakes on motorway. 20 cars behind her managed to stop, but 21st didn't and hit the 20th. Would you put the blame for accident on her?

dr.fuzzenstein

I am absolutely saying she should carry part of the blame.
Part of the blame, not all, that's been my point all along.
Otherwise it would state, from a legal point of view, that swerving in front of another car and jamming on the brakes is a perfectly ok thing to do.
Yes, the OP carries blame for hitting the van, but in any civilized country the lady would be held responsible for pulling a stupid and reckless manoeuvre.
She is at least guilty of careless driving.

Antikythera

RedXIV wrote: »

So other than that I need to get myself a new car. My car was insured for 4K, I MAY be able to get some more money together, up to about 5.5K Max so I'm wondering what should I be looking to get?

One of these should do you quite nicely:

RustyNut

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I am absolutely saying she should carry part of the blame.
Part of the blame, not all, that's been my point all along.
Otherwise it would state, from a legal point of view, that swerving in front of another car and jamming on the brakes is a perfectly ok thing to do.
Yes, the OP carries blame for hitting the van, but in any civilized country the lady would be held responsible for pulling a stupid and reckless manoeuvre.
She is at least guilty of careless driving.

I'd say she was guilty of careless/dangerous driving entering a lane that was not clear and the van driver avoided a crash by good driving.

The OP was driving when the van in front stopped for whatever reason and the OP hit them from behind altho the chain of events was started by the gymp driving dangerously the OP could not stop within the distance they could see to be clear.

I really feel for the OP it's just one of those things, a lot to be said for fully comp. OP insist on a rental until your insurance sorts you out it motivates them to get the finger out when they are paying out by the day, and you have paid for it.

RedXIV

Antikythera wrote: »

One of these should do you quite nicely:

If you can find a family model of this, i'd be sold :P

RedXIV

Actually just checked something here that interests me. For my next renewal of insurance, i'll be 25 which gets me out of the terror bracket of 17-24 for men and my insurance quotes online have dropped significantly which is the main thing I'm actually worried about now. I'm wondering now will the claim on my insurance bump this up alot?