Car hit, other driver drove off

dcmm

Great thread, tbh, informative,entertaining, funny.:D Pity it started out at your
expense ,here's hoping "sheila slagface":pac:,gets a big pain in her wallet and
some dose of the jitters every time she goes to park again.
Here's to justice for the victims of the phantom car bangers.:p

tayto lover

It goes to show the importance of CCTV cameras and a good honest witness too.
On another note the Civil Liberties crowd would be against those cameras but they can certainly be helpful in an incident like this.
OP I am practicing my narrating technique for the movie and reckon I am actually better than Morgan Freeman now.

ProudDUB

tbh wrote: »

I'll update again on Monday when I talk to the insurance crowd and after that if I hear anything else. Thanks again!

One word people !

SEQUEL !!!!!!

( I vote for Speilberg to direct )

I don't think this counts as dangerous driving and leaving the scene, she could claim she did not know she hit it.

Who doesn't know that they have hit another car? Unless you are driving a Sherman tank, who doesn't notice the impact of making contact with another vechicle? As this all took place in an open air car park, the other driver can't even claim the slightly plausible excuse of thinking that they hit a wall or a pillar before they took off.

There should be stiffer penalties here for people who hit another car and then scarper imo. In the US, if you do so, you are automatically convicted with two offences, dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident. And that means convicted. Not charged. There is no going before a judge and telling him a sob story. It doesn't even matter if it later turns out that the accident wasn't your fault. It doesn't matter if you claim that you didn't know you hit someone. It doesn't matter whether you are telling the truth or chancing your arm. It doesn't matter than you later claim that you were in shock. If you flee the scene, its an automatic offence, and the penalties for doing so are very high. End of story. It is a wonderful incentive for people to stop and not to do a runner.

Bruthal

ProudDUB wrote: »

In the US, if you do so, you are automatically convicted with two offences, dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident. And that means convicted. Not charged. There is no going before a judge and telling him a sob story. It doesn't even matter if it later turns out that the accident wasn't your fault. It doesn't matter if you claim that you didn't know you hit someone. It doesn't matter whether you are telling the truth or chancing your arm. It doesn't matter than you later claim that you were in shock. If you flee the scene, its an automatic offence, and the penalties for doing so are very high. End of story. It is a wonderful incentive for people to stop and not to do a runner.

We are not in the US though.

hondasam

ProudDUB wrote: »

There should be stiffer penalties here for people who hit another car and then scarper imo. In the US, if you do so, you are automatically convicted with two offences, dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident. And that means convicted. Not charged. There is no going before a judge and telling him a sob story. It doesn't even matter if it later turns out that the accident wasn't your fault. It doesn't matter if you claim that you didn't know you hit someone. It doesn't matter whether you are telling the truth or chancing your arm. It doesn't matter than you later claim that you were in shock. If you flee the scene, its an automatic offence, and the penalties for doing so are very high. End of story. It is a wonderful incentive for people to stop and not to do a runner.

Yes I'm sure every driver in the US obeys the law. Irish drivers are the worst Irish gardai are the worst etc etc etc.

ProudDUB

I know that we are not in the US, and no every US driver does not obey the law. I just think that giving people an incentive (ie not facing stiff penalties) to not flee the scene of an accident is a good thing. If people don't have them, where is the motivation for people to do the right thing, other than their own sense of personal responsibility. 24 pages of posts here has proven that our own Scumbag Slagface clearly does not have one.

Twenty years ago, people thought nothing about driving home after a feed of pints. Now they do, as the thinking behind it and tolerance of it has changed. Why should this be any different?

brian_t

ProudDUB wrote: »

Unless you are driving a Sherman tank, who doesn't notice the impact of making contact with another vechicle?.

If in a parking situation you simply scrape the side of the other car with your bumper then you don't necessarily have any "impact".

If the Guards can't prove that she knew she hit the other car then they are not going to waste their time tring to convict her of a "hit and run".

I think they will settle for driving with No Licence and No Insurance.

ProudDUB

tbh wrote: »

My wife was parked in Blanch, came back to the car to discover some woman in a jeep had hit our car and drove off. rear wheel arch, rear passenger door and driver door are fairly badly damaged.

This is the OP's original post. It wasn't a case of paint being scraped off the side of the car by a careless parker.

Kenny Logins

ProudDUB wrote: »

tbh wrote: »

My wife was parked in Blanch, came back to the car to discover some woman in a jeep had hit our car and drove off. rear wheel arch, rear passenger door and driver door are fairly badly damaged.

This is the OP's original post. It wasn't a case of paint being scraped off the side of the car by a careless parker.

We haven't seen any pics...

endacl

Kenny Logins wrote: »

ProudDUB wrote: »

tbh wrote: »

My wife was parked in Blanch, came back to the car to discover some woman in a jeep had hit our car and drove off. rear wheel arch, rear passenger door and driver door are fairly badly damaged.

This is the OP's original post. It wasn't a case of paint being scraped off the side of the car by a careless parker.

We haven't seen any pics...

Feck. He made it all up! There is no 'guard'...

Seth Brundle

endacl wrote: »

Feck. He made it all up! There is no 'guard'...

No need to be smart.
As can be seen through this thread, gardai have limited resources especially in terms of time. Should they really pursue a case that even Lionel Hutz could pick holes in?

endacl

kbannon wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

Feck. He made it all up! There is no 'guard'...

No need to be smart.
As can be seen through this thread, gardai have limited resources especially in terms of time. Should they really pursue a case that even Lionel Hutz could pick holes in?

Wasn't being smart. Did you read my previous in the thread? Now that OP has had a result, a little light-hearted banter should be perfectly acceptable...

Marcusm

n the US, if you do so, you are automatically convicted with two offences, dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident. And that means convicted. Not charged. There is no going before a judge and telling him a sob story. It doesn't even matter if it later turns out that the accident wasn't your fault. It doesn't matter if you claim that you didn't know you hit someone. It doesn't matter whether you are telling the truth or chancing your arm. It doesn't matter than you later claim that you were in shock. If you flee the scene, its an automatic offence, and the penalties for doing so are very high. End of story. It is a wonderful incentive for people to stop and not to do a runner.

You are "automatically convicted", no going before a judge with a sob story.

In which parallel universe does this US exist? One in which Thomas Paine did not write of the Rights of Man? One in which James Madison didn't get an opportunity to present his Bill of Rights guaranteeing due process prior to any conviction or punishment?

What complete and utter bolloxology has been instroduced?

sink

ProudDUB wrote: »

There should be stiffer penalties here for people who hit another car and then scarper imo. In the US, if you do so, you are automatically convicted with two offences, dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident. And that means convicted. Not charged. There is no going before a judge and telling him a sob story. It doesn't even matter if it later turns out that the accident wasn't your fault. It doesn't matter if you claim that you didn't know you hit someone. It doesn't matter whether you are telling the truth or chancing your arm. It doesn't matter than you later claim that you were in shock. If you flee the scene, its an automatic offence, and the penalties for doing so are very high. End of story. It is a wonderful incentive for people to stop and not to do a runner.

Has the sixth amendment been repealed or something?

USA Constitution, Sixth Amendment wrote:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Me thinks you are telling porkies.

dharn

i will miss this thread but i think it should be closed now, because the irrelevant post and arguments are starting

Jarren

No

l love my soap opera.

dharn

dharn wrote: »

i will miss this thread but i think it should be closed now, because the irrelevant post and arguments are starting

No way, there is a long way to go yet. Court case, small claims court to get the excess back and we all gotta find out who the b1tch was so we can go to the hearing for support. Photos haven't been posted yet either.

brian_t

dharn wrote: »

i will miss this thread but i think it should be closed now, because the irrelevant post and arguments are starting

dharn wrote: »

the driver of the crv will probably ask you about it shortly !!!

Hmmmmmmmmm.

endacl

dharn wrote: »

i will miss this thread but i think it should be closed now, because the irrelevant post and arguments are starting

You could.................. hit the aul' 'unfollow thread' button.....?

tbh

little tiny update: contacted the insurance company to update them, they asked me if I'd like to go through my own garage or one of theirs - picked one of theirs since it was quite close, so dropped it out today for an estimate and once the claim is approved, will drop it back. I get a courtesy car while it's in.

One other small detail - I get the excess I have to pay back from the MIBI So won't have to go after yer wan for it - they'll go after her instead.

h3000

tbh wrote: »

little tiny update: contacted the insurance company to update them, they asked me if I'd like to go through my own garage or one of theirs - picked one of theirs since it was quite close, so dropped it out today for an estimate and once the claim is approved, will drop it back. I get a courtesy car while it's in.

One other small detail - I get the excess I have to pay back from the MIBI So won't have to go after yer wan for it - they'll go after her instead.

I've not read every post in the thread but are you going to lose your NCB because of this claim?

Yawns

Can't see how he will as he won't be claiming from his own insurance.

h3000

Yawns wrote: »

Can't see how he will as he won't be claiming from his own insurance.

I could have it wrong but it seem he is, he has no insurance details for the other driver. I'm just getting a bit confused maybe I should read the whole thread

dharn

endacl wrote: »

You could.................. hit the aul' 'unfollow thread' button.....?

what ! and miss all the fun.. that would be a bit drastic !! i see the op is still posting so i will keep reading, i just find the irrelevant side arguments were starting to muddy the water, but we are back on track again

Opinicus

h3000 wrote: »

I could have it wrong but it seem he is, he has no insurance details for the other driver. I'm just getting a bit confused maybe I should read the whole thread

He's actually claiming through the MIBI which is a fund which compensates people who are hit by uninsured drivers.

Yawns

h3000 wrote: »

I could have it wrong but it seem he is, he has no insurance details for the other driver. I'm just getting a bit confused maybe I should read the whole thread

His insurance company will make a claim through the MIBI for him. While he has to pay the excess fee on his policy which is €300, he will receive that back. This means his NCB should not be effected. He can't lose his NCB yet be refunded the excess due no claim on his actual policy.

On the flip side his NCB might be held until the insurance company actually close the claim against mibi and he may have to stick with them for the renewal because of it. But it seems likes he's happy with the response of his insurance company to date and when the claim is fully closed he should have a full NCB history restored.

I could be wrong tho of course.

jenchussey

I'm in a fvery similar situation myself but after reading about all the hassel tbh has had I'm a bit worried now!
Whilst waiting for my hubby to come out of the shop, myself and the kids sitting paitently in the car, someone reversed into the back of ours. It jolted about 2 foot forward. I thought maybe hubby had left it in drive or something but when I turned around to see a large vehicle stopped behind me and the passenger and driver looking at me and then driving off. I got out of the car and got the reg as it was driving off.
Hubby came out, had a look at car and went back into shop to see about looking at the cctv.
The shop have the footage of the car hitting ours and driving off, but not the reg. I've just come back to work after being in the station giving a statement. Guard said he would contact them directly and ask for them to bring in their documents.
Theres not a whole lot of damage, a bit of a scratch on back bumper and a dint in the front one where, with the jolt, it hit the bollard. My problem is that I had my arm around the back of my chair trying to hand my youngest child, in his car seat, a book. In February of this year I fractured my shoulder but it had healed, now I'm in agony with it again, because of the awkward position and banging into the drivers seat when the car jolted forward. I have an appointment with my doc this afternoon, and I'm sure hell just do me a letter to go to the Xray dept..
Where do I go from here? Can I claim for personal injury for something that was previously injured?

Yawns

Yes you can but a doctor will asses you and then let a solicitor take it from there. Aggravated injuries I think it falls under. Try to use paragraphs please as I nearly stopped bothering to read.

If the other side is insured you will claim from their policy, if not you will be like tbh and have to go through mibi.

Can we get a mod to move this to it's own thread and save tbh's one for Legend of the boards

endacl

Yawns wrote: »

Yes you can but a doctor will asses you and then let a solicitor take it from there. Aggravated injuries I think it falls under. Try to use paragraphs please as I nearly stopped bothering to read.

If the other side is insured you will claim from their policy, if not you will be like tbh and have to go through mibi.

Can we get a mod to move this to it's own thread and save tbh's one for Legend of the boards

I was kinda hoping tbh would pass the torch once his claim was resolved.

Best thread in ages...

Yawns

Doesn't matter, the person decided to open a second thread anyway. They must have forgotten where they asked their question