Advice on a crash :(

Zulu

So I had a tip this morning. Thankfully no one was hurt. But...

I'm trying to work out whether or not to go through the insurance for it. The Guard suggested that I'd be probably be found at fault, and that it might be best to settle with them.

Here's the detail:
I was travelling west along the NCR in dublin. Coming up to the junction with Phibsboro. I was in the left most lane, and they were in the right lane. The lights went orange, and she started to stop. The problem occurred when she also decided to pull into the middle of both lanes. She didn't indicate (not that it mattered too much), and left me nowhere to go. I slammed on but ended up scratching her left rear. No too bad. Sadly my front right is in bits.

So, I have photos. I got a witness, but I've no idea what he saw, or how it saw it play out. Their story is simple and they were sticking to it: "the lights went orange so I did what I was supposed to do, and stopped". They don't feel they are responsible. Clearly I feel hard done by, but have somewhat resigned a little to the fact that I hit the back of them, so I'll be found to be at fault.

She's the micra. The damage doesn't look to bad to mine from the photos, but it is. It's the side panel, the light casing, the panel between the light casing and the bumper, the bumper, and the bonnet.

What do you all think? Should I push it?? Or is it pointless???

Pedro K

I'd push it. If your witness says they saw the other party pull into your path of travel then I don't see how you could possibly be found at fault.

intellectual dosser

I'm certainly not one for advice in these matters, but the 3rd photo makes it lean in your favor in my mind. It clearly shows the Micra is sitting on a (faded) white line. If your witness can verify that the Micra crossed the line very late on then IMO you should have a case.

djimi

The damage being what it is (her left rear, your right side), coupled with the accident happening in your lane, suggests that the accident occured because she changed lanes into your path. It would be different if you hit her square on.

Im not really sure what the Garda was at saying that you sounded at fault, because from what you have said here it doesnt sound that way. Id be inclinded to go through the insurers and let the assessors sort it out.

Anan1

Looking at the faded white line, I think I'd push it. Good luck.

stonecipher

On seeing the pictures I'd be inclined to lean in your favour also.

Toyotafanboi

ok, coming up to an orange light (somewhat irrelevant imo) and she decided to switch from the right lane into the left and hit your car side on in the process. i know the rule of the road is "give way to traffic on your right" but that doesn't excuse traffic on your right from being stupid and pulling into clearly occupied lane space.

i'd be challenging it.

YbFocus

Yep I'll also go with push it, with your witness I think you have a very valid case there!

sebastianlieken

The reason the Gaurd would prefer you to settle is because it means much less paper work for him.

Persue through the correct legal avenue. Gaurds are not allowed to advise on such matters.

the_syco

Tot he Garda, I'd say he took it at a face value rear end, and thus usually you'd be at fault, however, her sitting over the white line, inbetween the two lanes, it looks like she planned to swing left, but didn't indicate.

Anan1

sebastianlieken wrote: »

The reason the Gaurd would prefer you to settle is because it means much less paper work for him.

It makes absolutely no difference to the Garda either way.

mitosis

I'd say it would go 50/50. She should have stayed in her lane, but you should not have hit her, and (assumption coming ) wouldn't have if you weren't trying to beat the amber.

Her position on the road does speak volumes though.

Call me Al

So she went to move lanes without checking her in wing mirror to verify the right lane was clear to move into?

I would push this tbh. I don't see that you've anything to lose to be honest.

Robin132

You can always go through the insurance company in the hopes they find her at fault, however if they do find you are at fault, you can still settle it without the insurance company and it shouldn't be counted as a claim. At least that is what my insurance company told me but you could double check with them.

Anan1

Call me Al wrote: »

I don't see that you've anything to lose to be honest.

There is always the possibility of provoking a personal injury claim.

Call me Al

Anan1 wrote: »

There is always the possibility of provoking a personal injury claim.

But sure that risk is there anyway.

knucklehead6

my opinion would be to push it.

She is more at fault than you, BUT the insurance companies may only apportion part of the blame (and therefore part of the cost) to her as you have said that she was stopping at an amber light. FWIR the ROTR say to stop if safe to do so in the case of an amber light, so you COULD fight it on those grounds, that not only did she pull into the middle of the road, but also it clearly was not safe to stop as there was an accident

Anan1

Call me Al wrote: »

But sure that risk is there anyway.

It is, but it's increased by fighting her on the damage.

Anan1

Anan1 wrote: »

It is, but it's increased by fighting her on the damage.

Sure you can't let the fear of what someone might do stop you trying to fight her when (to me) the woman is 100% at fault.

No one would ever fight their corner if people went by this philosophy.

mitosis

knucklehead6 wrote: »

my opinion would be to push it.

She is more at fault than you, BUT the insurance companies may only apportion part of the blame (and therefore part of the cost) to her as you have said that she was stopping at an amber light. FWIR the ROTR say to stop if safe to do so in the case of an amber light, so you COULD fight it on those grounds, that not only did she pull into the middle of the road, but also it clearly was not safe to stop as there was an accident

It's a subtle difference of language, but an important one of interpretation. This is what the rule is:

An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

Anan1

Lilah Happy Seafarer wrote: »

Sure you can't let the fear of what someone might do stop you trying to fight her when (to me) the woman is 100% at fault.

Principles are important, but you need to honestly assess what they might cost you before coming to a decision.

djimi

Anan1 wrote: »

It is, but it's increased by fighting her on the damage.

If the person is the type to make a fraudulant claim in circumstances like this then chances are they will do so regardless.

Supergurrier

Persue it she looks to have crossed into your lane without due care and attention

Zulu

Jaysus, it's an awful pain in the ar$e. She didn't seem like the type to "milk" it, but she was going to her dealer to get a costing. And there was no way she was accepting liability. In her mind, she was stopping at an amber, and I ran into the back of her.

I've rung my insurance company so am waiting to hear back.

I'd love to ring the witness and hear what his side was. (Obviously I'm not going to though) The more I think about it the angrier I get. Feick her, she totally caused the bloody crash, and I'm left hanging.

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

Jaysus, it's an awful pain in the ar$e. She didn't seem like the type to "milk" it, but she was going to her dealer to get a costing. And there was no way she was accepting liability. In her mind, she was stopping at an amber, and I ran into the back of her.

Did you point out her position on the road and how she had crossed into your lane?

_Kaiser_

For what it's worth...

A few years back I was coming home one evening and eventually ended up behind a car that was weaving all over the lane, slowing/speeding up etc.

So I stayed back, also conscious of the line of cars forming behind me too, when for no reason they jammed on the brakes in front of me. I instinctively went to swerve around it (again conscious of the possibility of a multi-car pile-up otherwise and having a clear lane to my right) and still maintain that as I did so they swung into my left front wing.

Despite an independent witness who saw the whole thing and backed up my side of the story (and who came to court twice to say so in fairness to him), despite the other car being an NI reg and a driver living nearby who refused to give any info at the scene (wanted to know if I was a Garda and if I thought she'd been drinking?) and despite her pulling the "racist" card and all, it was still ruled that because I was behind her I was mainly to blame - even though it was accepted that her driving was suspect.

So I totally get where you're coming from Zulu but unfortunately because of this "rule" you'll likely be left stuck with the bill in the end

knucklehead6

mitosis wrote: »

It's a subtle difference of language, but an important one of interpretation. This is what the rule is:

That's what i mean, there WAS a crash as a result of this woman stopping, so clearly it was not safe to do so.

godtabh

I'm not making a judgment but looking at the photos the first thing I'd ask is it looks like there is no road markings there indicating different lanes so how did she pull in to you?

(Or maybe there is. Its very hard to tell!)

If there are no road markings your fault. If there is her fault

_Kaiser_

godtabh wrote: »

I'm not making a judgment but looking at the photos the first thing I'd ask is it looks like there is no road markings there indicating different lanes so how did she pull in to you?

(Or maybe there is. Its very hard to tell!)

There is.. look at the 2nd and 3rd picture. You can see the faded white lines in both

djimi

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

For what it's worth...

A few years back I was coming home one evening and eventually ended up behind a car that was weaving all over the lane, slowing/speeding up etc.

So I stayed back, also conscious of the line of cars forming behind me too, when for no reason they jammed on the brakes in front of me. I instinctively went to swerve around it (again conscious of the possibility of a multi-car pile-up otherwise and having a clear lane to my right) and still maintain that as I did so they swung into my left front wing.

Despite an independent witness who saw the whole thing and backed up my side of the story (and who came to court twice to say so in fairness to him), despite the other car being an NI reg and a driver living nearby who refused to give any info at the scene (wanted to know if I was a Garda and if I thought she'd been drinking?) and despite her pulling the "racist" card and all, it was still ruled that because I was behind her I was mainly to blame - even though it was accepted that her driving was suspect.

So I totally get where you're coming from Zulu but unfortunately because of this "rule" you'll likely be left stuck with the bill in the end

I was in a similar situation where a woman cut a corner and caused me to hit her, but for whatever reason we were both found liable.

Id still let the insurers deal with it; even if it ends up 50/50 the OP will end up paying one way or another, and the vindictive side of me says at least this other arsehole doesnt get off scott free from an incident that their poor driving caused.

Cabaal

There may be no lines but clearly the stop has two lanes and the person is spot in the middle, I'd side with you myself

corktina

my take on it is that she had passed the bus and that's why she is between two (badly marked) lanes and that it will be judged that she was in front of you and you hit her when she stopped for the lights. Hard to see how much if any blame would be attached to the other driver I'm afraid unless you can prove she moved left and hit you, which is not what you say happened (why would she move left if she was stopping for the lights?)

_Kaiser_

corktina wrote: »

my take on it is that she had passed the bus and that's why she is between two (badly marked) lanes and that it will be judged that she was in front of you and you hit her when she stopped for the lights. Hard to see how much if any blame would be attached to the other driver I'm afraid unless you can prove she moved left and hit you, which is not what you say happened (why would she move left if she was stopping for the lights?)

I don't think it's badly marked myself.. just faded which is to be expected with the volume of traffic on that road. As above, you can clearly see the lines in the 2nd/3rd picture.

As for why she moved left.. perhaps she was planning to turn left at that junction, or just after it?

djimi

corktina wrote: »

my take on it is that she had passed the bus and that's why she is between two (badly marked) lanes and that it will be judged that she was in front of you and you hit her when she stopped for the lights. Hard to see how much if any blame would be attached to the other driver I'm afraid unless you can prove she moved left and hit you, which is not what you say happened (why would she move left if she was stopping for the lights?)

The OP was entirely in their lane when the incident occured; all of the evidence backs up their story. I dont know how an insurer will see it, but to me it doesnt seem like your usual black and white "you hit the car in front so youre at fault" type incident.

I suspect the witness might be key to proving this one.

sebastianlieken

Question, if both insurance companies come to an agreement that the blame is to be shared 50:50, do both parties lose their NCB?

Because I can see how it's favorable for insurance companies to come to these agreements as often as possible - more so in cases where the repair bill is relatively low

another question

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

As for why she moved left.. perhaps she was planning to turn left at that junction, or just after it?

Then she should have changed lanes further back not at a traffic light changing color. Aren't you always meant to indicate and give advance notices to drivers behind you if you're switching lanes.

To me she looks totally in everyones way, all the cars look staggered behind her.

furtzy

Was involved in a very similar incident where the other driver changed lane suddenly with no indication and then stalled the car. I hit him on the rear and the insurance company sided with him even though his driving was at fault. They seem to just go with you hit the car in front so you are at fault no matter what the circumstances.

Zulu

It's probably worth noting that the cars (or most of them) and the bus weren't there at the moment of the crash. The photos were taken about 5 mins later.

Anan1

djimi wrote: »

If the person is the type to make a fraudulant claim in circumstances like this then chances are they will do so regardless.

You're missing the point. If the other driver genuinely feels that they were not at fault then their resentment at a claim being made against them may lead to their making a PI claim that they would not otherwise have made.

djimi

sebastianlieken wrote: »

Question, if both insurance companies come to an agreement that the blame is to be shared 50:50, do both parties lose their NCB?

Because I can see how it's favorable for insurance companies to come to these agreements as often as possible - more so in cases where the repair bill is relatively low

Yes. It becomes even more dodgy when both parties are with the same insurer as they will be paying out either way, but the incentive is there for them to look to recoup as much from it as possible...

turniphead

sebastianlieken wrote: »

The reason the Gaurd would prefer you to settle is because it means much less paper work for him.

Persue through the correct legal avenue. Gaurds are not allowed to advise on such matters.

Absolutely not true. The Guard will have to do the same paperwork regardless of who is at fault here. Material damage traffic collisions are investigated by insurance companies. The Guards can take details alright but they only investigate when an injury occurs.

With regards to this collision the independent witness is crucial. In the vast majority of cases the car behind is liable unless it can be proven that the other car performed an illegal manoeuvre. Even then it can be tricky because you're supposed to allow enough time for breaking in the event of something unpredicatable happening up ahead.

Best of luck with it anyway.

tin79

furtzy wrote: »

Was involved in a very similar incident where the other driver changed lane suddenly with no indication and then stalled the car. I hit him on the rear and the insurance company sided with him even though his driving was at fault. They seem to just go with you hit the car in front so you are at fault no matter what the circumstances.

Agree with that. from what I have seen 99.9% of the time the driver hitting from the rear will be found at fault. In reality its often not that way of course but that's what the insurance companies generally settle at.

djimi

Anan1 wrote: »

You're missing the point. If the other driver genuinely feels that they were not at fault then their resentment at a claim being made against them may lead to their making a PI claim that they would not otherwise have made.

No rational person would use a PI claim as some kind of punishment for a claim being made against them. If they are type of scum to pull such a stunt then chances are they would be doing so either way as they would be looking for any opportunity to make a claim.

timetogo

Even if she was stopping at an amber light she can't swerve left into another lane.

If the OP was also stopping at the amber light she cut out a chunk of his stopping distance. The op should have had up until the white line to decelerate.

I don't know why the Gard was giving his advice. I had a guy go into the back of me before. It turned out to be open and shut in my favour. But when the Gards arrived they told me that all they could do was caution both drivers and weren't there to give opinions of who was at fault.

Zulu

So the upshot is: unless she admits responsibility (which she wont) I'm gonna end up forking out? FFS :mad:

another question

Zulu wrote: »

So the upshot is: unless she admits responsibility (which she wont) I'm gonna end up forking out? FFS :mad:

Out of interest, what was she like to deal with?

Anan1

djimi wrote: »

No rational person would use a PI claim as some kind of punishment for a claim being made against them. If they are type of scum to pull such a stunt then chances are they would be doing so either way as they would be looking for any opportunity to make a claim.

I've explained it as well as I can. If you still don't understand how claiming against the Micra driver's insurance increases the chances of the OP being at the receiving end of a PI claim then I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do for you.

Zulu wrote: »

So the upshot is: unless she admits responsibility (which she wont) I'm gonna end up forking out? FFS :mad:

The ins cos might agree to share liability or even to hold her fully liable, but you are taking a bit of a risk. Personally, I'd still fight it.

sebastianlieken

turniphead wrote: »

Absolutely not true. The Guard will have to do the same paperwork regardless of who is at fault here. Material damage traffic collisions are investigated by insurance companies. The Guards can take details alright but they only investigate when an injury occurs.

If the case is brought through the insureres, there is a higher liklyhood that a personal injury claim comes to light. Hence more paper work. If it's brought through insurers with no personal injury claim, the Gaurd will have to prepare a statement and ensure all paperwork is upto scratch. If the case goes to court, the Gaurd may have to attend court, more paperwork (and a court day). If it's settled, the case is dealt with there and there; if the case goes through insurers, you can bet the case wont be settled within even a month, that's just another outstanding case for the attending Gaurd aswell.

Zulu

another question wrote: »

Out of interest, what was she like to deal with?

She seemed ok, but thinking back on it I was taken a bit for a mug.
She was quick to say how old she was (in her 70's), that she had angina, that she was "coming back form dropping someone to the port", that she was "protesting yesterday for young people like me".
She wasn't offering any explanation as to why she pulled across the lanes, and when I asked her, she's start with the fanning her hand on her chest, gulping air etc..
So to be honest, I just left it and was making sure she was ok. But I'm beginning to think it was all playing the little old lady card.

djimi

Anan1 wrote: »

I've explained it as well as I can. If you still don't understand how claiming against the Micra driver's insurance increases the chances of the OP being at the receiving end of a PI claim then I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do for you.

I know exactly what you are getting at. I just dont agree that there is an increased risk of a PI claim coming in just because the OP decides to claim themselves.

Anan1

djimi wrote: »

I know exactly what you are getting at. I just dont agree that there is an increased risk of a PI claim coming in just because the OP decides to claim themselves.

I know you don't, but there is.

Zulu wrote: »

She seemed ok, but thinking back on it I was taken a bit for a mug.
She was quick to say how old she was (in her 70's), that she had angina, that she was "coming back form dropping someone to the port", that she was "protesting yesterday for young people like me".
She wasn't offering any explanation as to why she pulled across the lanes, and when I asked her, she's start with the fanning her hand on her chest, gulping air etc..
So to be honest, I just left it and was making sure she was ok. But I'm beginning to think it was all playing the little old lady card.

That's not sounding too good to me, I fear you might have a PI claim on the way regardless.