Hands up! I'm pretty sure I'm 100% at fault here :(

cormie

T'was the end of a hard day and as the sky grew a darker shade, I'd just completed dropping off something that due to customer delays, ended up taking about 40 minutes longer than expected. Got in my van which was parked at the side of the road facing oncoming traffic and as the traffic built up behind me, I indicated left to continue straight on. A gentleman saw the traffic ahead of him, I saw him stop and he gave me a flash to come out, at a bad angle to see what was coming from behind, all I had was my mirror which appeared clear, but alas, as I pulled out a swift bang sent me to shock.

Here's a diagram of how it happened:


The pink area is the area of damage. There's also a bit of damage to the other drivers left side from taking evasive action (no actual contact with my van).

It could have been a lot worse but I'm really pissed off with myself for how it happened and the fact I let myself be influenced by the driver who was letting me out. I did stop half way out to check the mirrors and proceeded when I saw nothing approaching but it was a tight angle on a narrow enough road.

Damage to other van (Isuzu NPR): driver side corner panel (small section), cracked windscreen, driver side wing mirror torn off. Damage caused by evasive action (I'm assuming) scraped passenger side bumper and wheel cap.

Damage to my van (Ford Transit): Passenger side door buckled, rubber torn off and small door window smashed, wing mirror completely torn off, small scrape on front panel.

No injuries.

So lesson learned I guess is to never let yourself be influenced by another driver. Since beginning to drive a van and only having wing mirrors to see some spots, I've always been an advocate for using lights even in daylight. This was around 17:00 so not dark, but it could have made a difference to my visibility on this occasion.

djimi

While the fault is ultimately yours, it's extremely annoying when someone stops and flashes you out when they can see the road is not clear. It's happened to me a few times; fortunately I was able to see that it wasn't safe to pull out.

_Kaiser_

It could be argued that the other driver was just flashing to let the OP know that he was leaving a gap for him to get out on his side of the road.

Still, unlucky Cormie. At least no one was hurt

ratracer

One could argue a case of 50-50 here. If the traffic coming towards you was stationary or slow moving and they were all cars, and if you did stop half way out before crossing the white line, then the driver of the Isuzu should have been able to see you, given that his viewpoint is higher than in a car and you were driving a van, which is also higher than the cars. So he was either driving without due care and attention, because he didn't see your (as described) slow pull off, or hr was driving too fast or he just decided to take the small damage anyway. You were at fault because you pulled out in front of him, but the blame may not be 100% and this is important in terms of repairs/ compensation etc.

cormie

Yeah, just unfortunate the way it happened, I'm pretty sure there's no way the actions of another driver can hold responsibility for your own decisions. I'd love to be able to see some kind of footage of it as I'm curious how the driver who hit me didn't see I was about to pull out as he was the front of a line of vehicles coming the other way so would have had a clear view and the traffic build up behind me was only cars, him being in a NPR would have meant he should have had a pretty good view of me pulling out and pausing.

I'm probably going to need a new passenger side door which is a pain as my van is pretty rare in that it has no central locking and the passenger door is completely manual. I'm pretty sure most MK6 transits are electric. Might cause complications with having to change locks and window regulators too!

cormie

ratracer wrote: »

One could argue a case of 50-50 here. If the traffic coming towards you was stationary or slow moving and they were all cars, and if you did stop half way out before crossing the white line, then the driver of the Isuzu should have been able to see you, given that his viewpoint is higher than in a car and you were driving a van, which is also higher than the cars. So he was either driving without due care and attention, because he didn't see your (as described) slow pull off, or hr was driving too fast or he just decided to take the small damage anyway. You were at fault because you pulled out in front of him, but the blame may not be 100% and this is important in terms of repairs/ compensation etc.

I only saw your post after posting the one above, in which I mention pretty much the same curiosity. It's an interesting point alright but I guess it depends how much of a pause there was etc, which would be very difficult to prove. Also, due to the small damage, we're going to try deal without insurance companies. The guy who owned the van seemed like a decent chap anyway and was saying his van is a workhorse and he doesn't care if it's not in showroom condition so he's not going to try rip me off or anything. Getting an insurance assessor might complicate things?

djimi

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

It could be argued that the other driver was just flashing to let the OP know that he was leaving a gap for him to get out on his side of the road.

Still, unlucky Cormie. At least no one was hurt

Perhaps in this situation, however I have had people actually wave me out (as in physically gesture for me to drive out) into what would have been the path of coming traffic in the past. Ive also been on the receiving end of it where I watched a driver motion for a car to turn out a blind junction into my path. There are some right morons out there who clearly dont think before they act.

Kenny Logins

http://draw.accidentsketch.com/

Just sayin'...

mikehammer67

I hate that flashing nonsense

drivers do it constantly here like they can judge it's safe to pull out

I dont do it and take it with a pinch of salt

keithclancy

mikehammer67 wrote: »

I hate that flashing nonsense

drivers do it constantly here like they can judge it's safe to pull out

I dont do it and take it with a pinch of salt

I just ignore it most of the time.

The exception being if were on a road wide enough for one car the the person is signalling you to go.

Same as when someone is in the back of the car saying "It's safe to go"

Flashing lights in Ireland can mean anything.

Wishbone Ash

djimi wrote: »

Ive also been on the receiving end of it where I watched a driver motion for a car to turn out a blind junction into my path. There are some right morons out there who clearly dont think before they act.

mikehammer67 wrote: »

I hate that flashing nonsense

drivers do it constantly here like they can judge it's safe to pull out

I dont do it and take it with a pinch of salt

Many of these people never check for cyclists coming up the nearside cycle track before gesturing to other motorists to make a right turn. It's always left to the cyclist to take evasive/preventative action.

_Kaiser_

Kenny Logins wrote: »

http://draw.accidentsketch.com/

Just sayin'...

That's cool! *add to bookmarks*

recyclebin

Kenny Logins wrote: »

http://draw.accidentsketch.com/

Just sayin'...

That's class. We should have an accident sticky at the top of the of the motors forum and only use this website.

Bandara

Kenny Logins wrote: »

http://draw.accidentsketch.com/

Just sayin'...

Nonsense !

The orignal drawing is class, them little yellow stars for headlights are Dali-esque !

cormie

The only thing that could beat my diagram would be animation or CCTV footage

So I'm probably not going to bother to contest this if it's just a few quid. I wonder, if the van has windscreen cover, can he claim from his insurance for that without affecting anything and costing him anything?

H3llR4iser

mikehammer67 wrote: »

I hate that flashing nonsense

drivers do it constantly here like they can judge it's safe to pull out

I dont do it and take it with a pinch of salt

It would be quite foolish to take a driver stopping and flashing as as "go blindly, it's safe!"; It just means they're allowing you the space to maneuver, but you still have to take the normal care and keep the rest of the traffic in check.

scamalert

Flashing means that you are covered from one side,and driver is letting you out,that's all.But by describing damage what was made its clear that you had to pull out fast into the other lane as windscreen and bumper damage described looks like a strong impact had to be (not judging you btw) vans are hard to drive,as you have to basically relay on your mirrors,so these things happen.
There is T junction where i live and in front of it theres hotel with parking spots with vertical parking spots,So the amount of times where i had near encounters of trying to find a gap between the cars to turn into right side of the street while watching for traffic from both sides as theres no traffic lights,and when you get a gap you start driving into the lane and milliseconds later someone pulls out from parking straight into the street at full blast is scary.

cormie

The damage is actually very minor considering the situation. My windscreen and passenger opening window is still fine, just the static glass smashed, bit of damage to the door and the damage to his van is pretty minor considering also. I think a few hundred quid will sort it. Probably easiest just to take the hit myself rather than trying to prove anything.

ballooba

In Australia you get fined for parking on the wrong side of the road. Are there any other countries that fine for parking against the flow of traffic? I personally avoid it if at all possible. U-turn first if necessary.

corktina

you'll have to take the hit, you are correct that you are 100% to blame I'm afraid.

In your defence though, many wont realise there is a massive blind spot on a van when doing what you were doing and should you get yourself into such a position you have little choice but to rely on others or just chance it. I suppose the moral is not to park on the offside in future, easy to say, but hard to stick to when your options are limited and a delivery must be made.

I feel your pain OP!

As an aside, I believe in the US it is an offence to park on the wrong side of the road.....i alwys thought that a sensible idea...

cormie

Interesting alright about it being an offence in other areas. I had the back doors beside a dip in the curb to get the hand truck up on the path safely as I had a big, awkward (7x2ft square), expensive thing to take in. Let's just hope the bills won't be too bad and there'll be no messing about. I'll chance my arm to see if he can claim for the windscreen if he has windscreen cover and it won't affect him at all.

tin79

ratracer wrote: »

One could argue a case of 50-50 here. If the traffic coming towards you was stationary or slow moving and they were all cars, and if you did stop half way out before crossing the white line, then the driver of the Isuzu should have been able to see you, given that his viewpoint is higher than in a car and you were driving a van, which is also higher than the cars. So he was either driving without due care and attention, because he didn't see your (as described) slow pull off, or hr was driving too fast or he just decided to take the small damage anyway. You were at fault because you pulled out in front of him, but the blame may not be 100% and this is important in terms of repairs/ compensation etc.

Thats just silly IMO - I cant see anyway thats its possibly 50-50. The isuzu had right of way and was proceeding along the road and was hit on his RHS by someone pulling out from across the other side of the road from stationary. Right of way is key here.

There is no way its anything other than 100% the OPs liability.

H3llR4iser

ballooba wrote: »

In Australia you get fined for parking on the wrong side of the road. Are there any other countries that fine for parking against the flow of traffic? I personally avoid it if at all possible. U-turn first if necessary.

Friend of mine has a nice, extensive collection of similar parking fines in Bruxelles

It is technically and offense in Italy too, but never heard of anybody actually getting fined for it.

SCOOP 64

I say 9 out 10 drivers would have seen you trying to get out, sounds like you put your nose out slowly, countless times i have been in this situation and seen the van driver and think he cant see me and stop, i don't want to crash, i might need to hit my horn or edge forward and let him know I'm letting him out., but i believe some driver have not got the common sense to see this and just think i got the right of way and carry on.
And know way is the driver who flash you to blame, he was just letting you know he will leave a space for you to pull out.
i blame the other driver for not seeing you and not reading the situation,properly in another world at time.
but at the end of to day you will have to pay.

ratracer

tin79 wrote: »

Thats just silly IMO - I cant see anyway thats its possibly 50-50. The isuzu had right of way and was proceeding along the road and was hit on his RHS by someone pulling out from across the other side of the road from stationary. Right of way is key here.

There is no way its anything other than 100% the OPs liability.

As I had said in the post, the OP is in the wrong here, but there may be some liability on the other driver for not driving to suit the conditions and for failure to anticipate. In any case the OP seems happy to settle so its a moot point. But, going from the OPs version of events it sounds to me like the other driver could have avoided the collision if he had been paying attention. It seems to be amicable enough tho, which is good.

djimi

ratracer wrote: »

As I had said in the post, the OP is in the wrong here, but there may be some liability on the other driver for not driving to suit the conditions and for failure to anticipate. In any case the OP seems happy to settle so its a moot point. But, going from the OPs version of events it sounds to me like the other driver could have avoided the collision if he had been paying attention. It seems to be amicable enough tho, which is good.

There isnt really any liability on the other party though. The OP states that there wasnt much damage to either vehicle, which suggests that neither vehicle was travelling particularly fast. If someone pulls out in front of you through a line of traffic, with the best will in the world you might not always avoid hitting them. The other vehicle had right of way and was hit by a vehicle which was merging into his lane; I think for the most part you would have a hard time finding liability with them. You seem to be making assumptions that might not be altogether fair.

Del2005

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

And know way is the driver who flash you to blame, he was just letting you know he will leave a space for you to pull out.

I know several people who have successfully claimed off the driver who called a vehicle out, as well as claiming off the driver that they hit. If you call someone out you'd better make 110% percent sure it's safe for them to proceed.

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

i blame the other driver for not seeing you and not reading the situation,properly in another world at time.
but at the end of to day you will have to pay.

It's entirely Cormie and the calling drivers fault. The other driver slowed down, if they hadn't they would have been more damage, when they saw a van trying to get into the lane they had a right of way on. If you stopped for every vehicle edging out into traffic sometimes you won't get far, yes it can be nice to let other drivers out but there is no requirement to.

SCOOP 64

Del2005 wrote: »

I know several people who have successfully claimed off the driver who called a vehicle out, as well as claiming off the driver that they hit. If you call someone out you'd better make 110% percent sure it's safe for them to proceed.



It's entirely Cormie and the calling drivers fault. The other driver slowed down, if they hadn't they would have been more damage, when they saw a van trying to get into the lane they had a right of way on. If you stopped for every vehicle edging out into traffic sometimes you won't get far, yes it can be nice to let other drivers out but there is no requirement to.

if he slowed down ,why not stop altogether and let van out, why carry on driving, when you are still not sure what the vans going todo.

Del2005

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

if he slowed down ,why not stop altogether and let van out, why carry on driving, when you are still not sure what the vans going todo.

I have no idea as I wasn't in either van. But Cormie did say he stopped to check and then continued. It could have been the other driver while slowing down noticed Cormie stop and assumed he'd been seen so motored on. It still doesn't remove the fact that the other driver is totally blameless in the eyes of the law.

rocky

Do you have dashcam video?

Wishbone Ash

ballooba wrote: »

In Australia you get fined for parking on the wrong side of the road. Are there any other countries that fine for parking against the flow of traffic? I personally avoid it if at all possible. U-turn first if necessary.

corktina wrote: »

I believe in the US it is an offence to park on the wrong side of the road.....i alwys thought that a sensible idea...

H3llR4iser wrote: »

It is technically and offense in Italy too

AFAIK it's an offence here during lighting up hours (as the reflectors will be on the wrong side). I must check the SI's.

sentient_6

ballooba wrote: »

In Australia you get fined for parking on the wrong side of the road. Are there any other countries that fine for parking against the flow of traffic? I personally avoid it if at all possible. U-turn first if necessary.

New Zealand. Works brilliantly too. Wish we would implement the same here.

Wishbone Ash

I'm not sure if this is it. Not the easiest to read. (From the Lighting of Vehicles Regulations)

(3) (a) This sub-article applies to—
(i) passenger vehicles (including cycles) having passenger accommodation for not more than eight persons,
(ii) station wagons having passenger accommodation for not more than eight persons,
(iii) goods vehicles not exceeding 20 feet in length and 6 feet and 6 inches in width and not being used with a trailer attached, and
(vi) hand propelled vehicles.
(b) The requirements of Parts II, III and IV of these Regulations that a vehicle shall during lighting-up hours show specified lamps duly lit shall not apply in the case of a vehicle to which this sub-article applies if and so long as the vehicle is properly parked in a street and either—
(i) the street lighting is such that the vehicle during the period in which it is parked is so clearly visible to traffic as to constitute no danger to such traffic, or
(ii) the vehicle being a mechanically propelled vehicle, shows duly lit one side lamp (or, in the case of a cycle or invalid carriage, one position lamp) and one rear lamp, each of such lamps being on the side of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle nearest to the centre of the street (or in the case of a bicycle used with a side-car, or a tricycle or invalid carriage not exceeding 3 feet in width, fitted to such vehicle), or
(iii) the vehicle, being a mechanically propelled vehicle, is equipped with a parking lamp duly lit.
(c) in this sub-article—
"properly parked" means parked in such a position and in such circumstances as not to contravene any bye-laws made or deemed to have been made under section 86 or 88 of t he Act or any bye-laws or temporary rules made or deemed to have been made under section 90 of the Act or any provision of t he Act and in relation to sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (b) of this sub-article includes the requirement that the vehicle is parked parallel to the roadway and facing in the direction in which traffic on the side of the street on which the vehicle is parked is required to proceed;

cormie

Just off the phone with the owner of the van and got a huge shock when he went over the quote he got off his panel beater:


780.09 parts

1040 labour

275 paint -

450 windscreen

60eur signage,

10eur environmental health

2886.97 inc 13.5%


That seems absolutely crazy to me. From what I saw, the damage was:





He also said the step of the passenger side is damaged and it comes as a unit so will need to be replaced. Labour at €1040 with most mechanic charging say €50 per hour is working out at 20 hours work to fix this up. Hardly seems right.

I got some CCTV footage but it really only shows the collision itself after I pulled out and stopped and checked the mirrors but either way I don't think it's of any use other than curiosity.

So the guy wants his guy to do it but the price seems crazy to me. He said he'd be ok if I was to bring someone to have a look and if the price is a huge difference he'd probably be ok with my guy doing it, but he didn't seem too hot on the idea of anyone but his lad doing it. He wants a good job done and to have the van back on the road asap, which I want too as I don't want this hanging over but at 3,000eur it's a bit of a shock!

The_Nipper_One

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

AFAIK it's an offence here during lighting up hours (as the reflectors will be on the wrong side). I must check the SI's.

It's in the rules of the road aswell, though it is not preceeded by a you must so I don't know about the legality of parking on the wrong side.

ballooba

ballooba wrote: »

In Australia you get fined for parking on the wrong side of the road. Are there any other countries that fine for parking against the flow of traffic? I personally avoid it if at all possible. U-turn first if necessary.

Got a ticket in New York state for that yesterday, I didn't park the car but was driving it away when we returned, $25.

Cookie_Monster

sentient_6 wrote: »

New Zealand. Works brilliantly too. Wish we would implement the same here.

I would have said most (developed) countries apart from UK & Ireland have it at this stage, no?
It is one of those little things that just makes sense.

cpoh1

Just go through your insurance cormie, if your no claims bonus is protected it will have no impact on your premium and if its not it will only double for the first year and return to normal soon after.

People in this country are too afraid to use their insurance for what its meant for, there's a lot of scaremongering out there.

Bigcheeze

While there's no huge damage, several different parts are damaged so the quote is not surprising.

He doesn't have a problem with someone else checking it so doesn't sound like he has anything to hide.

As this is a commercial vehicle you're lucky he's not claiming for loss of earnings while the van is off the road for repairs.

Do you have any no claims protection on your insurance?

cormie

Thanks for the replies. No claims protection unfortunately. I'll probably just take the hit and pay up front, I might get it cheaper and it would probably work out cheaper in the long run rather than through insurance.

It's a 2002 Isuzu NPR 70 4.8. Would almost be cheaper to buy him a replacement, keep his old one and try sell that!

Bigcheeze

cormie wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. No claims protection unfortunately. I'll probably just take the hit and pay up front, I might get it cheaper and it would probably work out cheaper in the long run rather than through insurance.

It's a 2002 Isuzu NPR 70 4.8. Would almost be cheaper to buy him a replacement, keep his old one and try sell that!

Maybe try calling an insurance broker for a renewal quote based on having had a claim of 3k. You can then work out of it's worth claiming on insurance. You might be surprised.

cormie

I'm on a fleet policy so it might be a bit tricky.

I got the photos of the damage and the breakdown of the quote:

Click for larger images:

tbh

cormie it's a stinger, but I've been had repairs done to my car and to a car I scraped where the damage wasn't as bad as that and the cost was about 1500 in each case. I'm far from an expert but I'd gave guessed around that amount for that amount of damage.

edit to say: quote says the damage will take two days to repair - is the owner a sole trader? might be hit for loss of earnings..

ratracer

I would definitley get another quotation for repairs for this. There is going to be a problem with defining any damage that was on the vehicle prior to the collision vs damage caused by this impact and I don't know enough about how that is worked out to comment. But the step, wiper arm, wheel cover etc could all be found in the same, if not better condition, in a breakers yard. I would expect that the only requirement is to have the vehicle returned to its pre-collision state, and not a showroom finish.

antodeco

What did he hit into during his "evasive manoevoure"?

Bigcheeze

ratracer wrote: »

I would definitley get another quotation for repairs for this. There is going to be a problem with defining any damage that was on the vehicle prior to the collision vs damage caused by this impact and I don't know enough about how that is worked out to comment. But the step, wiper arm, wheel cover etc could all be found in the same, if not better condition, in a breakers yard. I would expect that the only requirement is to have the vehicle returned to its pre-collision state, and not a showroom finish.

Not true. The other party has no obligation to get parts from a breakers yards.

OP is entitled to get more than one quote.

Del2005

Bigcheeze wrote: »

Not true. The other party has no obligation to get parts from a breakers yards.

OP is entitled to get more than one quote.

The other party doesn't have to go with the OPs quote, they can insist on using their own garage for the repairs.

cormie

The quote scanned is the quote he got from his guy, I'm waiting to hear from my guy to see how it compares. I met the owner again today and took a few more snaps myself and after talking to him, he seems like a decent guy and if anyone's trying to charge extra, I think it's his panel beater. 1040 labour is say 21 hours at €50 ph, I could probably have it good as new after 21 hours just using my hands and a paperclip :pac:

He's entitled to choose where it gets repaired but I'm entitled to get a 2nd opinion. The owner seems open to a bit of negotiation anyway so I'm going to see what I can do. Seems it's not the most popular van for parts anyway!





(he said light was already broken at the top)

antodeco wrote: »

What did he hit into during his "evasive manoevoure"?

He scraped off the wall up on the path

cormie

I had an interesting idea last night, rather than the owner sticking to the idea of only using his guy, I was thinking to offer him that I would take care of the repairs to his satisfaction and give him 20% of any savings from the orginal estimate minus the windscreen. So if the original was 2400 say, and I manage to get it repaired for 800, then I give him 20% of the 1600 savings, so 320eur. I'm happy as I've saved myself money and know I haven't been ripped off and he's happy as the van is to his requirements and he gets something extra too.

I got my hands on CCTV footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1mFqCBcTys

cpoh1

Any update on this Cormie?

cormie

Will have a final update later today. The owner is being pretty accommodating anyway so if anyone needs some scaffolding he's probably a decent chap to go with and I can give him some business after all this

Meeting him around midday to finalise everything so will report back.