Car accident - Am I to blame?

Fre123

I was involved in a car accident at the weekend and just wondering if anyone has had a similar experience.

I was driving in a built up area, doing about 20/30 kmp max when a car who was parked in a bus stop (think this is illegal) went to pull out and do a u- turn on the road. They were attempting to go into hatch markings with a continuous white line so this is definitely illegal.

Anyways they didn't indicate and cut right out in front of me obviously without checking their mirrors/mistiming how much room they had causing me to hit the driver side of their car before I could break.

Had a friend who's a mechanic have a quick look at the car and he said it'd cost about 1,500 to fix. I obviously don't want to claim through my insurance for this as I don't want to lose my no claims bonus, the other person is surely liable?

tom85

Fre123 wrote: »

I was involved in a car accident at the weekend and just wondering if anyone has had a similar experience.

I was driving in a built up area, doing about 20/30 kmp max when a car who was parked in a bus stop (think this is illegal) went to pull out and do a u- turn on the road. They were attempting to go into hatch markings with a continuous white line so this is definitely illegal.

Anyways they didn't indicate and cut right out in front of me obviously without checking their mirrors/mistiming how much room they had causing me to hit the driver side of their car before I could break.

Had a friend who's a mechanic have a quick look at the car and he said it'd cost about 1,500 to fix. I obviously don't want to claim through my insurance for this as I don't want to lose my no claims bonus, the other person is surely liable?

100% the other driver fault. It you who should be claiming

mikeecho

Let your insurance sort it out

Fre123

Sorry should have made that clearer the 1,500 damage is to my car.

I'm just worried the other person's company will come back to me saying I should have been able to break sooner or something but they came out right in front of me. Going to put a claim in on their policy anyways and see.

xabi

Doesn't matter, they pulled out in front of you, 100% their fault. Let their insurance sort it, no harm letting your insurance know what happened also.

goz83

You are obligated to tell your own insurer anyway...

Alanstrainor

You must report this to your insurance company either way.

Given what you said you have nothing to worry about, give your company a call and let them handle it from here. You pay them a lot of money to handle these situations for you!

biko

You cannot be held accountable if someone suddenly moves into your lane so I agree with the others, it's the other person's fault.

Contact your insurer with the other person's details - name, policy etc and let the insurer handle it.

goochy

did you not call the guards ?

Fre123

Yes and they said as no one was injured they wouldn't be investigating it and it was up to us to sort it out with insurance companies.

bladespin

Should be simple enough, car joining lane hits car in lane, the joining car is making the maneuver and therefore should ensure it's safe to do so.
As posted above, let your insurer know and handle, it should be a no blame accident on your side for them.

peteb2

Hmmm. Argument could be had as to why you weren't able to stop in time. Devils advocate and all that. Sure they conducted a dodgy manoeuvre but it doesn't mean you can just clip them. (Said in spirit of devils advocate.

colm_mcm

peteb2 wrote: »

Hmmm. Argument could be had as to why you weren't able to stop in time. Devils advocate and all that. Sure they conducted a dodgy manoeuvre but it doesn't mean you can just clip them. (Said in spirit of devils advocate.

That's not even an argument. Other driver is at fault, even if the other driver indicated they're still at fault.

Mooooo

Young lad pulled on to a road at a t junction in front of the mother. Ended going to court as young lad said he looked and didn't see her so she must have been going too fast. Engineer worked out the mother would have had to be been going 360 mph for him not to have seen her , needless to say case closed

893bet

If you hit there side you are 100 percent right. If you hit their rear, you are still right but gets harder to prove.

CiniO

peteb2 wrote: »

Hmmm. Argument could be had as to why you weren't able to stop in time. Devils advocate and all that. Sure they conducted a dodgy manoeuvre but it doesn't mean you can just clip them. (Said in spirit of devils advocate.

I would love to see any law which would require driver to be able to stop in time for any possible scenario.

AFAIK there isn't one, that's why OP can't be held liable.

bear1

peteb2 wrote: »

Hmmm. Argument could be had as to why you weren't able to stop in time. Devils advocate and all that. Sure they conducted a dodgy manoeuvre but it doesn't mean you can just clip them. (Said in spirit of devils advocate.

Just.... sigh.

Riva10

peteb2 wrote: »

Hmmm. Argument could be had as to why you weren't able to stop in time. Devils advocate and all that. Sure they conducted a dodgy manoeuvre but it doesn't mean you can just clip them. (Said in spirit of devils advocate.

Looks more like Jameson Spirit (40% Vol) :rolleyes:

WhatsGoingOn2

Same thing happened me about 10 years ago. Taxi driver hit the side of my car in an attempt to do a U-turn. He claimed I was driving too fast (100% I wasn't).

Insurance company ended up splitting the costs, said it would be cheaper for them in the long run. They paid for mine, his insurance paid for his. I wanted to bring it to court but they talked me out of it and said it wouldn't affect my no claims, so I left it.

Sam Kade

CiniO wrote: »

I would love to see any law which would require driver to be able to stop in time for any possible scenario.

AFAIK there isn't one, that's why OP can't be held liable.

A child running across the road

Seth Brundle

Sam Kade wrote: »

A child running across the road

...and that's under which law?

dixiefly

bear1 wrote: »

Just.... sigh.

Yes, some people try to always make the contrary argument. I worked with a guy once like that, no matter the conversation or peoples experiences he always had to make an argument for the other side, devil's advocate etc. I ended up delibertaely quoting him on one occasion to demonstrate the stupidity of his argument & shut him up.

Manion

one of the biggest mistakes you can do in a situation like this is not contacting your insurer. If you delay it can be taken that you are accepting whatever liability may come.

bladespin

Sam Kade wrote: »

A child running across the road

Last time I looked at traffic laws psychic intuition wasn't a requirement.

Sam Kade

bladespin wrote: »

Last time I looked at traffic laws psychic intuition wasn't a requirement.

Try it and see what happens :rolleyes:

bladespin

Sam Kade wrote: »

Try it and see what happens :rolleyes:

Try what exactly?

I don't fancy testing the theory out by running out in front of a moving car and expecting them to anticipate it, the law certainly does not expect them to either.

cjt156

Many moons ago I had an almost identical scenario, differing only that I was on a motorbike. Car pulled a U-turn from the kerb; I T-boned him & went over the roof. I sued for injuries and the written-off bike. Despite the other driver saying I was speeding and a 'witness' saying I overtook a line of cars on the wrong side of the road I won the case.

Riva10

kbannon wrote: »

...and that's under which law?

Section 4 Sub-section 1b Rules of the always right Nameless Ninja Keyboard Warriors :eek:

Riva10

cjt156 wrote: »

Many moons ago I had an almost identical scenario, differing only that I was on a motorbike. Car pulled a U-turn from the kerb; I T-boned him & went over the roof. I sued for injuries and the written-off bike. Despite the other driver saying I was speeding and a 'witness' saying I overtook a line of cars on the wrong side of the road I won the case.

Surely if the driver made a statement that you were speeding, that in itself was an admission that he say you and decided to pull out anyway. Maybe that was a "Punishing U turn". Well done on the case result. And before any keyboard warrior voices his opinion "Noise (exhaust" does not equate to speed"

twin_beacon

Mooooo wrote: »

Young lad pulled on to a road at a t junction in front of the mother. Ended going to court as young lad said he looked and didn't see her so she must have been going too fast. Engineer worked out the mother would have had to be been going 360 mph for him not to have seen her , needless to say case closed

I've ended up in the district court, and later the steps of the high court as a witness for a serious crash before. I took photos of the scene on my phone, which ended up settling the case on the steps of the high court. Dash cam ever since!

honda boi

People really to get a dash cam. Even a 15€ one from China.
Really saves your back side.
I've tried telling people this but they don't think they,ll ever need it.

Raging_Ninja

Sam Kade wrote: »

Try it and see what happens :rolleyes:

Please study the concepts of "minimum stopping distance" and "driver reaction time".

Once you have gained a clear understanding of these concepts, try to use your imagination to envisage a scenario in which a child steps out onto the road inside the minimum stopping distance of a vehicle. In the vent of a lack of imagination, perhaps add an obstacle which obscures line of sight to the child - perhaps a parallel-parked vehicle or a bend in the road.

As an additional exercise, try to imagine a similar scenario where another vehicle suddenly changes lanes inside your minimum stopping distance.

mikeybrennan

How do they sort these things out if there's no witness and contrasting versions of events

Gavinz

dixiefly wrote: »

Yes, some people try to always make the contrary argument. I worked with a guy once like that, no matter the conversation or peoples experiences he always had to make an argument for the other side, devil's advocate etc. I ended up delibertaely quoting him on one occasion to demonstrate the stupidity of his argument & shut him up.

People like that have nothing to contribute to a conversation so take the easy, contrarian route.

ironclaw

Just so I'm clear, for my own learning, the reason the other drive is at fault is for failure to yield to traffic on the main road / to their right? However, how far does the other driver have to be into their manoeuvres before (hypothetically speaking) it becomes the OPs fault? Surely if I'm three point turning on a road, starting from the curb and its absolutely clear when I start, and I'm across the road a good period of time (Lets say 5s because i'm on a go slow), am I still at fault if someone ploughs into the side of me?

RustyNut

mikeybrennan wrote: »

How do they sort these things out if there's no witness and contrasting versions of events

Insurance companies put it down to 50-50, and by so doing get to fcuk over both parties no claims bonuses.

dev100

ironclaw wrote:

Just so I'm clear, for my own learning, the reason the other drive is at fault is for failure to yield to traffic on the main road / to their right? However, how far does the other driver have to be into their manoeuvres before (hypothetically speaking) it becomes the OPs fault? Surely if I'm three point turning on a road, starting from the curb and its absolutely clear when I start, and I'm across the road a good period of time (Lets say 5s because i'm on a go slow), am I still at fault if someone ploughs into the side of me?

Basically your supposed to drive with due care and attention so if you are on a straight road and decide to do a 3 point turn you should only do it when it's safe ie judge that you can do the manoeuvre safely without causing an accident . But also means if I'm driving towards you I can't just plough into you either and that means I've to drive with due care and attention

ironclaw

dev100 wrote: »

Basically your supposed to drive with due care and attention so if you are on a straight road and decide to do a 3 point turn you should only do it when it's safe ie judge that you can do the manoeuvre safely without causing an accident . But also means if I'm driving towards you I can't just plough into you either and that means I've to drive with due care and attention

Yes, I understand.

However, the thread here has assigned blame to the other driver. I'm not contesting that. I'm asking, at what point, does it (hypothetically speaking) become the OPs fault? In lieu of any witnesses, the time between the pulling out of the other car to start their manoeuvre and the moment of contact is wide open to debate. For all we know (not directed at the OP), the other car could have been half way through their turn when the OP came upon them.

SBPhoto

Is it not illegal to do a U turn on a main road?

CiniO

ironclaw wrote: »

Yes, I understand.

However, the thread here has assigned blame to the other driver. I'm not contesting that. I'm asking, at what point, does it (hypothetically speaking) become the OPs fault? In lieu of any witnesses, the time between the pulling out of the other car to start their manoeuvre and the moment of contact is wide open to debate. For all we know (not directed at the OP), the other car could have been half way through their turn when the OP came upon them.

IMO "driving at speed allowing you to stop on a distance of road which can be seen to be clear" plays crucial role here.

Let's say someone is driving car A at speed where stopping distance (including reaction time) is about 100 metres. (speed is quite irrelevant for now).

So if another driver of car B pulls out from the side of the road to do U-turn, and car A is less than 100 metres away, then it should be purely driver B fault.
It's just driver A has seen 100m in front of him to be clear, so he kept going. Then suddenly driver B pulled out and crossed his path closer than he was able to stop. So driver A couldn't avoid it.

On the other hand, if driver B pulls out more than 100 metres from car A, then probably fault should lean towards driver A.

dev100

ironclaw wrote:

However, the thread here has assigned blame to the other driver. I'm not contesting that. I'm asking, at what point, does it (hypothetically speaking) become the OPs fault? In lieu of any witnesses, the time between the pulling out of the other car to start their manoeuvre and the moment of contact is wide open to debate. For all we know (not directed at the OP), the other car could have been half way through their turn when the OP came upon them.

If it's just car damage and no ambulances called it would be hard to figure out but I'd say if someone was injured then the guards would assign blame .

The point I'm making is say for instance I'm far enough away from you and should have been able to stop then I would be to blame if I hit you or if you swung into me . But say I was on top of you and you went kamikaze on it and just swung straight into me without due care you would be responsible I reckon . Ultimately it's up to the 2 parties to drive with care .

I however wouldn't like to test the theory because the law can be an ass

degsie

Why anyone would pose such an open question on boards is beyond me. You have car insurance for a reason, use it.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

goz83

degsie wrote: »

Why anyone would pose such an open question on boards is beyond me. You have car insurance for a reason, use it.

Have you never asked an insurance related question here?

degsie

goz83 wrote: »

Have you never asked an insurance related question here?

The issue I sometimes have if you only ever hear one half of the conversation and the op is invariably never to blame. It's impossible to make a determination on a public forum and that is why we all (most!) pay insurance.

No harm getting the input I suppose, but this often is a fruitless exercise as you get conflicting 'advice' from both sides of the argument. My 2c.

Riva10

degsie wrote: »

The issue I sometimes have if you only ever hear one half of the conversation and the op is invariably never to blame. It's impossible to make a determination on a public forum and that is why we all (most!) pay insurance.

No harm getting the input I suppose, but this often is a fruitless exercise as you get conflicting 'advice' from both sides of the argument. My 2c.

Getting one side of the story rarely if ever stops the keyboard warriors from imparting their useless advice which can at times be both insulting and useless to the op and at times ,reading their replies shows a complete lack of understanding as it becomes obvious that they have not read the complete thread. How some of these warriors can even manage to post a reply beggars belief. Probable the eight wonder of the IT world.

goz83

degsie wrote: »

The issue I sometimes have if you only ever hear one half of the conversation and the op is invariably never to blame. It's impossible to make a determination on a public forum and that is why we all (most!) pay insurance.

No harm getting the input I suppose, but this often is a fruitless exercise as you get conflicting 'advice' from both sides of the argument. My 2c.

So, yes, you have.

We can either believe the OP or not and give our opinion, or move on. The op in this case has learned that their insurer needs to be informed, whether there is a claim, or not. I wouldn't call that fruitless. I have personally recieved and given plenty of really uselful i formation over the years from boards. Some posters are complete gobsh1tes, some are helpful and some are mute. That's what boards is all about.

punisher5112

SBPhoto wrote: »

Is it not illegal to do a U turn on a main road?

Wrong. If there is hatch markings or a continuous white line or double for that matter it is illegal.

Also if signs are posted with u turn symbol and a line through it it is illegal also.

And on the fact the car was in the bus stop that is also illegal as 24hour 365 days a year.