Calculations indicate Speeding

Webiter

Had a road accident recently 250m inside the 50km/hr road sign on the edge of town. As a consequence of the accident my vehicle was severely damaged as was the other drivers vehicle. I believe that my position on the roadway was overwhelmed by the excessive speed being employed by the other driver.

The other driver has made a claim to my Insurance Company for injury and damages arising from the incident. Accident Scene investigation calculations indicate that the other driver had to be traveling between 65 and 70km/hr in the 50km/hr speed zone at the time of the incident to do the damage that he done. (The final position of the smashed vehicles providing the factual evidence for consideration in the calculations)

My Insurance Company say that they cannot use the calculation info as a defense against the claim as the Garda did not prosecute the other driver for speeding. (The Garda were not on the scene prior to the accident nor have they made a determination on his speed).

Can an individual apply to the Courts for the issue of a Declaratory Judgement on the excessive speed that has been identified by means of the Accident Scene Calculations? In other words can the Courts validate the calculations so that my Insurance Company can utilize the calculation results for the defense of the claim?

seamus

Webiter wrote: »

I believe that my position on the roadway was overwhelmed by the excessive speed being employed by the other driver.

What does that mean?

In many cases the speed of another vehicle is irrelevant when assigning liability for an accident.

Such as the case in the UK where a motorcyclist was killed travelling close to 100mph but the driver who turned in front of him was correctly deemed to be at fault and even received a conviction and a driving ban.

Unless you can prove that exceeding the speed limit was a significant causative factor in the accident, then obtaining a declarative judgement is a waste of time.

coylemj

Webiter wrote: »

Can an individual apply to the Courts for the issue of a Declaratory Judgement on the excessive speed that has been identified by means of the Accident Scene Calculations? In other words can the Courts validate the calculations so that my Insurance Company can utilize the calculation results for the defense of the claim?

That's called a kangaroo court, they don't exist in this country.

Webiter

Quoted by Seamus.... "Unless you can prove that exceeding the speed limit was a significant causative factor in the accident, then obtaining a declarative judgement is a waste of time."

If the other driver had been progressing at or below the 50km/hr limit (in other words driving with due care and attention) then he would/should have been some 60 plus meters away from my position at the time of impact.

NUTLEY BOY

Webiter wrote: »

SNIP SNIP

Can an individual apply to the Courts for the issue of a Declaratory Judgement on the excessive speed that has been identified by means of the Accident Scene Calculations? In other words can the Courts validate the calculations so that my Insurance Company can utilize the calculation results for the defense of the claim?

Probably not.

Generally, courts do not like part hearing of cases although that can happen by times. I doubt that you would get an order directing a preliminary trial of the issue either - on the basis that it would be more practical for all such issues to be dealt with at the same time.

If you propose to press the speed issue it would need to be established by your own engineering evidence. The requisite standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. You might persuade your insurers to pay for the engineering evidence if they felt that the value of the case warranted it.

Even if you establish the speed issue you need to ask what will it prove ? You would have to establish on the totality of the evidence that the speed issue actually caused or contributed to the accident.

I do not see who carried out the accident scene investigations to which you refer. If this was the Gardaí it does not follow that the evidence cannot be used just because there was no prosecution. If there is evidence there that might help your position it could be secured by an Order for Discovery. This could be considered once a Garda abstract report has been obtained. Having obtained such evidence it would be looked at by your engineer to see if it helps or not. If required, the Gardaí who prepared the evidence could be compelled as witnesses. Again, much depends on whether or not your insurers are going to back this. That will be influenced by the value of the other person's claim. Insurers will not chase every conceivable evidentiary avenue unless cost justified...

endacl

Webiter wrote: »

Quoted by Seamus.... "Unless you can prove that exceeding the speed limit was a significant causative factor in the accident, then obtaining a declarative judgement is a waste of time."

If the other driver had been progressing at or below the 50km/hr limit (in other words driving with due care and attention) then he would/should have been some 60 plus meters away from my position at the time of impact.

Good luck with that...

brian_t

Webiter wrote: »

If the other driver had been progressing at or below the 50km/hr limit (in other words driving with due care and attention).

Speeding doesn't necessarily equate to (driving without due care and attention) though or does it ?

runawaybishop

Webiter wrote: »

If the other driver had been progressing at or below the 50km/hr limit (in other words driving with due care and attention) then he would/should have been some 60 plus meters away from my position at the time of impact.

And if he had left 30 seconds earlier he'd be in the same spot.How did the speed cause the accident?

nuac

Mod
Cannot give legal advice on this forum
Will leave open for now for any views on proof of and relevance of speed
Never heard of a declaratory judgement based on accident scene investigations, altho there are or were some engineers about who could extrapolate a lot from little

doolox

Did you pull out in front of him from a sideroad or make a sudden stop to turn right with no indicators?

In one case i has an uncle who pulled out in front of a guy on the main road from a side road and thought that the other guys excessive speed would allow him not to be blamed. Since the guys speed on the main road could not be proved or measured after the accident and my uncles position ( incorrect) was provable he lost the case.

Same thing happened to my daughter, hit from behind while moving off from red light by a car going sufficiently fast to break off one of the rear hubs and half axles of her car but she had changed lanes on the traffic controlled roundabout and was in the wrong position at the wrong time.

As far as I know the two insurance companies adjudicated the case and settled to give a sum to the other driver for "whip lash" although no medical examination was carried out for some reason.

My daughter did not claim for any thing but could have put in a claim if she was that way inclined.

Unless there are witnesses and cops with measuring equipment on a junction which is the site of a crash proving excessive speed can be very difficult unless talking about ballistic speeds of the motorway type....100kph and over.

Webiter

Please see selected comments and responses from the conversation below:

runawaybishop: " How did the speed cause the accident?" I believe it was a contributing factor. It usually has something to do with contributing to accidents. I do not suppose that the claimant side considered the effects of their excessive speed in the 50km/hr zone in town.

coylemj: "That's called a kangaroo court, they don't exist in this country." I would expect the claimant to be in attendance so that he could be made aware of and account for his speeding activity and its consequences.

NUTLEY BOY: "If you propose to press the speed issue it would need to be established by your own engineering evidence."

RESPONSE I am trying to press the speeding issue and at least have the claimant side be made aware that they were effectively speeding. The claimants excessive speed had him close very quickly on my position and prevented me from getting out of his way. The engineering evidence has been established by means of the calculations.

"The requisite standard of proof is the balance of probabilities"

RESPONSE could a judge in a court see that on the -balance of probabilities- that the claimant driver was progressing in excess of the speed limit by reviewing the calculations which show him to be speeding and thus accept a request for a Declaratory Judgement?

"Even if you establish the speed issue you need to ask what will it prove ? You would have to establish on the totality of the evidence that the speed issue actually caused or contributed to the accident."

RESPONSE I believe the excessive speed and its existence contributed to the accident. It would prove that the claimant driver was speeding. The insurers are rewarding his speeding activity..... which seems unjust.

ohnonotgmail

So what actually happened? did you cut across him or pull out in front of him?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Webiter

Fred Swanson stated...... "You need to read your insurance policy. You will have agreed to the insurance company handling your claim on your behalf and that you accept their determination. They can agree to settle the claim without consulting you".

Good comment...... Fred is right on the money. I have indicated that to the Insurance Company and also that I have no wish to interfere with their strategy for dealing with the claim.

I am seeking to have the claimants speeding highlighted and I am trying to find a way of doing that. The calculations demonstrate that the claimant was speeding but nobody wants to know about that or take that on board. As I see it the claimant is thus being rewarded for speeding or for bringing his excessive and aggressive speed to bear on the situation. I can accept that when the claimant submitted his claim that he would not have given much consideration to his speed in the 50km/hr zone. But now that it has been uncovered I wish to highlight it.

The Insurance Company have indicated that they would have been better able to defend the claim if the claimant had been prosecuted by law enforcement for the speeding.

So that brings me back to the start of this conversational thread.......Can an individual apply to the Courts for the issue of a Declaratory Judgement on the single issue of the excessive speed that has been identified by means of the Accident Scene Calculations? In other words can the Courts validate the calculations so that my Insurance Company could utilize the calculation results for a better defense of the claim?

Of course the claimant would be invited to attend any court proceedings and present that side of the story and that meeting would also provide me with the opportunity of having the claimant side account for the aggressive speeding activity.

seamus

Webiter wrote: »

The insurers are rewarding his speeding activity..... which seems unjust.

Nobody gets rewarded in an insurance claim, simply compensated for their losses.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. Saying that if he'd been travelling slower he wouldn't have hit you is not provably true, nor is it a material fact. If you had driven more slowly to your destination, then he would have already been gone by the time you reached the site of the accident. If he had spent an extra 30 seconds on the toilet before leaving the house that morning, he wouldn't have been there.

Handling insurance claims deals in the material facts, not the "what-if"s.

irelandrover

Webiter wrote: »

Quoted by Seamus.... "Unless you can prove that exceeding the speed limit was a significant causative factor in the accident, then obtaining a declarative judgement is a waste of time."

If the other driver had been progressing at or below the 50km/hr limit (in other words driving with due care and attention) then he would/should have been some 60 plus meters away from my position at the time of impact.

the difference between 50 km/h and 70km/h is about 6m/s. So there is now way he would have been 60 metres away unless you took a crazy amount of time to carry out your maneuver.

I don't think their speed will help you here

Webiter

Seamus stated....... "Saying that if he'd been traveling slower he wouldn't have hit you is not provably true, nor is it a material fact. If you had driven more slowly to your destination, then he would have already been gone by the time you reached the site of the accident. If he had spent an extra 30 seconds on the toilet before leaving the house that morning, he wouldn't have been there".

RESPONSE I think the above is a good helpful comment. I will try and apply what he is getting at to the facts of my situation. From the accident location to the 50km/speed sign is 250 meters that I am using to measure from. Again his excessive speed in the 50km zone is I think relevant here.

It should have taken the claimant about 18/20 seconds to reach the accident location if he had been driving in compliance with the road sign info. He hit me between 65 and 70km/hr indicating that he arrived at my position within 12/13 seconds after passing the 50km/hr road sign.

One can assume that he came through the 50km/hr road sign location a bit faster but I would not have been able to see him at that point. As I say his excessive speed overwhelmed my position on the roadway as I was probably not expecting to have to deal with such excessive speed within the town environment. Thus if he had been traveling slower and in compliance with the 50km speed limit I might not have got caught in his path.

hullaballoo

You pulled out of a side road into a main road and he hit you, is that right?

seamus

Again, you're musing on the theoretical. "If this had happened, then that would have happened."

The only thing that's relevant is what did happen, not what could have happened if things had been different.

By all means mount a defence based on "the roadway was clear when I pulled out, the other party only emerged around the corner after I had already pulled onto the road". But what-if scenarios are irrelevant. Material facts of what actually happened are all that's relevant.

If you pulled into the path of another vehicle it's incredibly unlikely to be able to defend that. Because the onus is on you to not enter the roadway until you are certain the way is clear. If this requires edging slowly out into the road until you can see, then so be it.

Denny_Crane

I blame the other party for going too slowly. Sure if he's been doing 80 he'd have been past the point where the accident occurred.

Funmum05

The other guys speed is irrelevant. If you were coming out of a side road you misjudged his speed regardless of whether he was speeding. It is up to the Gardaí to prosecute the other driver for speeding but again proving speed is very difficult and is open to interpretation. At the end of the day it looks like you were at fault for the accident from what I've read here. In future if in doubt stay put until the road is completely clear or you can accurately judge the cars on the main road speed.

Webiter

Irelandrover stated...... the difference between 50 km/h and 70km/h is about 6m/s. So there is now way he would have been 60 meters away unless you took a crazy amount of time to carry out your maneuver.


I work my calculations from the 50km sign which is 250 meters away from the impact position. I take the 50km sign as a control point. I present two speed sample calculations for his approach below.


Traveling the 250m at 50km/hr (in compliance with the rules of the road) should take him approx 18 seconds


Sample 1 - Traveling the 250m at 65km/hr would take him 13.85 seconds. If he had been in compliance with the 50km/hr road sign detail he should have only traveled 192 meters in his 13.85 seconds thus he should have been some 59 meters away from my position at the time of impact.


Sample 2 - Traveling the 250m at 70km/hr would take him 12.86 seconds. If he had been in compliance with the 50km/hr road sign detail he should have only traveled 178 meters in his 12.86 seconds thus he should have been some 72 meters away from my position at the time of impact.


Yes, I may have been slow with my maneuver but this is where I was overwhelmed by his excessive approach speed. Is the above as set out a logical approach

ohnonotgmail

Webiter wrote: »

rover stated...... the difference between 50 km/h and 70km/h is about 6m/s. So there is now way he would have been 60 meters away unless you took a crazy amount of time to carry out your maneuver.


I work my calculations from the 50km sign which is 250 meters away from the impact position. I take the 50km sign as a control point. I present two speed sample calculations for his approach below.


Traveling the 250m at 50km/hr (in compliance with the rules of the road) should take him approx 18 seconds


Sample 1 - Traveling the 250m at 65km/hr would take him 13.85 seconds. If he had been in compliance with the 50km/hr road sign detail he should have only traveled 192 meters in his 13.85 seconds thus he should have been some 59 meters away from my position at the time of impact.


Sample 2 - Traveling the 250m at 70km/hr would take him 12.86 seconds. If he had been in compliance with the 50km/hr road sign detail he should have only traveled 178 meters in his 12.86 seconds thus he should have been some 72 meters away from my position at the time of impact.


Yes, I may have been slow with my maneuver but this is where I was overwhelmed by his excessive approach speed. Is the above as set out a logical approach

very logical but totally irrelevant. Frankly if you were overwhelmed by somebody travelling at 70kmh you need to resit your test.

brian_t

Webiter wrote: »

The Garda were not on the scene prior to the accident nor have they made a determination on his speed.

If the Garda did not make a determination of the other drivers speed, did you calculate their speed yourself ?

runawaybishop

Did he come around a corner as you pulled into a main road from a side road?

4ensic15

Webiter wrote:

Can an individual apply to the Courts for the issue of a Declaratory Judgement on the excessive speed that has been identified by means of the Accident Scene Calculations? In other words can the Courts validate the calculations so that my Insurance Company can utilize the calculation results for the defense of the claim?

The short answer is no. Any such procedure requires both parties to be heard and it would only be in the context of a substantive claim. There would have to be a claim by one party for damages against another party with agreement that the speed issue be tried as either a preliminary issue with the winner wining the entire case or as an element in an overall case.

Webiter

brian_t commented as follows: If the Garda did not make a determination of the other drivers speed, did you calculate their speed yourself ?

Good comment. Speeding criteria established by a calculated analysis of facts gathered at the accident scene. The calculations are based on a like for like accident that is presented on the Accident Investigation website at http://www.tarorigin.com/ . The resultant figures are pretty robust and show that the ghost of excessive speed was at work. The formulas are as used in Accident Investigation techniques and provides us with the evidence of speeding.


Your comment prompts me to consider the following: In the absence of a Garda Prosecutioncan a Private Citizen progress a Speeding Prosecution in the courts?


My Insurance Company say that they cannot use the calculation info as a defense against the claim as the Garda did not prosecute the other driver for speeding. (The Garda were not on the scene prior to the accident to record the other drivers speed nor have they made a determination on his speed).

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Denny_Crane

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is this the 'common informant' thing? Would it not be nigh on impossible to convince a court of speeding without properly calibrated equipment?

endacl

Webiter wrote: »

I was overwhelmed

Should you be driving?

Denny_Crane

endacl wrote: »

Should you be driving?

Come on, the legal side of this is entertaining enough, let's not high horse it into an early grave!

(Although I realise there is a significant amount of the other horse metaphor going on!)

Mary63

What exactly did you do, you have avoided answering this question.

Did you pull out of a side road onto a main road without checking there was nothing coming.If you did this and you were hit you are responsible.If you were too slow coming out and didn't check the speed of the oncoming car properly how is it the other drivers fault, you caused the accident from what I am reading here.

How can speed be proved anyway if you don't have a Garda with a speed camera or a van at the exact location the cars collided.

I think you are wasting your time.

Denny_Crane

To be fair it's fairly easy to prove speed, bit of physics and forensic investigation and I'd suggest to a civil standard it might even be practical also as part of a criminal charge such as dangerous driving perhaps it's do able too, but as to a charge of speeding simpliciter I'm guessing getting beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be very difficult?

Any input welcome of course, just musing here.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Mary63

But you can't expect insurance companies to pay physics experts etc every time someone pulls out of a side road and into another car.

My premiums are too high as it is.

Denny_Crane

Mary63 wrote: »

But you can't expect insurance companies to pay physics experts etc every time someone pulls out of a side road and into another car.

My premiums are too high as it is.

To be completely fair to the OP, he's not suggesting they do.

Also your premiums aren't high due to fraud or huge numbers of experts being employed.

Denny_Crane

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I thought that was for more 'traditional' crimes like assault etc. I don't know why I have it in my head there has to be a civil equivalent or have common law roots. That probably completely faulty assumption aside does it apply to the likes of the RTA?

Webiter

Denny_Crane wrote: »

Is this the 'common informant' thing? Would it not be nigh on impossible to convince a court of speeding without properly calibrated equipment?

Calibrated speed detection equipment would likely have similar formulas at work in their software as has been used in producing the Accident Scene calculations.

Denny_Crane

Webiter wrote: »

Calibrated speed detection equipment would likely have similar formulas at work in their software as has been used in producing the Accident Scene calculations.

Very possibly, but you're not using a calibrated piece of equipment are you? I think this is where you'd find things quite difficult. In a criminal prosecution you have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I imagine that's nigh on impossible for a common informant with a crime of a purely technical nature. I stand to be corrected.

The thing that also puzzles me a bit here is are you expecting the speeding to shift the fault of the accident? I'm wrong 15 times for every time I'm right admittedly, but I can't think under what legal theory that would happen. It's not a Novus Actus Interveniens. At best it seems contributory negligence, so at best you'll get the satisfaction of the other party, maybe, losing their NCB.

Webiter

Mary63 wrote: »

But you can't expect insurance companies to pay physics experts etc every time someone pulls out of a side road and into another car.

My premiums are too high as it is.

Actually the computations are probably only at the level of intercert lower level maths. Does not need a physics expert to detect speeding. Anyway I did not ask the Insurance Company to do the investigation..... so no cost to them. How would that impact on your premium?

Webiter

Denny_Crane wrote: »

Very possibly, but you're not using a calibrated piece of equipment are you? I think this is where you'd find things quite difficult. In a criminal prosecution you have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I imagine that's nigh on impossible for a common informant with a crime of a purely technical nature. I stand to be corrected.

The thing that also puzzles me a bit here is are you expecting the speeding to shift the fault of the accident? I'm wrong 15 times for every time I'm right admittedly, but I can't think under what legal theory that would happen. It's not a Novus Actus Interveniens. At best it seems contributory negligence, so at best you'll get the satisfaction of the other party, maybe, losing their NCB.

No calibrated equipment used. All information collected using measurements by traditional measuring tape.

No not seeking to shift fault. Seeking to highlight the speeding.

Denny_Crane

Webiter wrote: »

No calibrated equipment used. All information collected using measurements by traditional measuring tape.

No not seeking to shift fault. Seeking to highlight the speeding.

Okay, laudable goal. You might get better results by joining some sort of campaign. I think you're going to struggle to get any satisfaction from the common informant approach. Either way the best of luck with it.

Mary63

The speeding isn't any of your concern though at this point in time.You drove out of a side road and into another road user and now you are attempting to place the blame on this person.It wasn't as though he or she was doing 120 km per hour and even if they were you were in the wrong place and they weren't.

Can you please explain exactly how the two cars came to collide.

Denny_Crane

Mary63 wrote: »

The speeding isn't any of your concern though at this point in time.You drove out of a side road and into another road user and now you are attempting to place the blame on this person.It wasn't as though he or she was doing 120 km per hour and even if they were you were in the wrong place and they weren't.

Can you please explain exactly how the two cars came to collide.

If the other car was doing an excessive rate of speed that would be very relevant indeed.

heroics

Webiter wrote: »

No calibrated equipment used. All information collected using measurements by traditional measuring tape.

No not seeking to shift fault. Seeking to highlight the speeding.

Of course you are trying to blame shift or you wouldn't be trying to highlight the speeding. What other reason is there to highlight it?

Basically from what I can gather you pulled out in front of someone and are trying to say that because they were speeding it's partially their fault.

At the end of the day it is your responsibility to ensure the road is clear for the length of time it will take you to make the maneuver before pulling out. If you are overwhelmed by a driver doing 70 and you also can't judge speed of approaching traffic maybe you should look at whether you should be driving.

Mary63

Whats excessive Denny though.The other driver was doing between 65 km and 70 km in a 50 km zone.This is not speeding by any stretch of the imagination.Even if you are driving at 50 kms and someone pulls out in front of you it will be very hard to stop.

ETA I believe that my position on the roadway was overwhelmed by the excessive speed being employed by the other driver.


I mean what does the OP even mean by this.It makes no sense to me.

Denny_Crane

Mary63 wrote: »

Whats excessive Denny though.The other driver was doing between 65 km and 70 km in a 50 km zone.This is not speeding by any stretch of the imagination.Even if you are driving at 50 kms and someone pulls out in front of you it will be very hard to stop.

If the OP was pulling out and someone came whomping down on top of them at 150KPH I think the OP would have a point. It goes to foreseeability, it's unforeseeable that someone would be doing that rate of speed. In a 50 zone which has just become a 50 zone it's perfectly foreseeable that someone could be going a wee bit faster than the posted limit.

You may be right, the OP may still be at fault but I'd suggest that one could see a level of contributory negligence in that situation at least. Happy to be corrected.

Webiter

heroics wrote: »

Of course you are trying to blame shift or you wouldn't be trying to highlight the speeding. What other reason is there to highlight it?

Basically from what I can gather you pulled out in front of someone and are trying to say that because they were speeding it's partially their fault.

I believe the 50km/hr sign was there for a reason. Forgive me if I am incorrect. My opinion is that the 50km/hr stipulation was there for a reason and in all reasonable circumstances it should be complied with. I am not aware that the other driver needed to be speeding in the zone to get away from anything. However, if he had a need to be somewhere in double quick time requiring his excessive speed and if he had thought it appropriate to be traveling at the excessive speed he should have at least had his lights on and maybe also his hazard lights in action. He applied neither.

Mary63

So now its not just the speed that caused the ccident, its also because you couldn't see his car because he hadn't his lights/hazard lights on.

If you had time to note he hadn't his lights on why didn't you get out of his way, is this where the overwhelmed bit comes in.You can't say his lights dazzled you because he didn't have them on.

What time of day did the accident occur.

RayCun

Mary63 wrote: »

The other driver was doing between 65 km and 70 km in a 50 km zone.This is not speeding by any stretch of the imagination.

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Driving over the speed limit is speeding by definition :pac:
and that would be 30-40% over the limit

But funnier still is that the OP is still refusing to say what happened :pac:

OP, you haven't a hope of proving that the other driver was speeding unless there is physical evidence you can point to - cameras, damage that could only be done at more than 50, skid marks on the road that point to the speed.

If all you are going on is "it took fewer than X seconds for the car to travel between this point and that point" and you have no independent evidence of how long it took, it is just your word against the other driver's word.

You argue that you completed your manoeuvre in 15 seconds (therefore he was speeding), he says he wasn't speeding and it took you longer, the judge says he can't decide either way, but you should have taken into account the speed of the oncoming traffic, whatever it was, before pulling onto the road.

Assuming that's what you did :pac:

Webiter

Mary63 wrote: »

ETA I believe that my position on the roadway was overwhelmed by the excessive speed being employed by the other driver.

I mean what does the OP even mean by this.It makes no sense to me.

Speed limit in town is usually 50km/hr
Speed limit on country roads is usually 80km/hr.

I am guessing driver did not take account of the 50km/hr sign and arrived into town and my position close to the 80km/hr as if he was still on a country road.