Motor Accident

kig

My daughter was involved in a minor accident with a taxi. The taxi had minor damage (a small chip on his bumper) whereas my daughter's car is old, he hit it from the side, and caused a fair amount of damage. Because her car is old the insurance co. doesn't want to fix it but rather scrap the car. We cannot replace the car with the payout and the additional insurance cost will make it impossible to buy another car. We recommended that she come to an agreement with the taxi driver, but he is being an opportunist, and every time she talks to him he seems to increase the price. It is disputed who was to blame, but it will be cheaper to come to a reasonable agreement with him, rather than go the insurance route. He is bullying her, any advice!

evosteo

If "he hit it" is he not liable for the repairs?

kig

Yes that is my belief. He hit her on the side of her car and even if there was a mistake on her part, it gives no one the right to drive into you. But she cannot afford to go the insurance route.

lawred2

kig wrote: »

My daughter was involved in a minor accident with a taxi. The taxi had minor damage (a small chip on his bumper) whereas my daughter's car is old, he hit it from the side, and caused a fair amount of damage. Because her car is old the insurance co. doesn't want to fix it but rather scrap the car. We cannot replace the car with the payout and the additional insurance cost will make it impossible to buy another car. We recommended that she come to an agreement with the taxi driver, but he is being an opportunist, and every time she talks to him he seems to increase the price. It is disputed who was to blame, but it will be cheaper to come to a reasonable agreement with him, rather than go the insurance route. He is bullying her, any advice!

there is a dispute over who is to blame...

you say he hit her? yet it seems like you and your daughter are freely accepting liability..

were the police involved?

why do you think not having the insurance companies involved is the best route? Unless you are actually accepting liability

kig

He knows that she has a lot more to loose in this should it go the insurance route and is therefore threatening her with that.

lawred2

kig wrote: »

Yes that is my belief. He hit her on the side of her car and even if there was a mistake on her part, it gives no one the right to drive into you. But she cannot afford to go the insurance route.

was her mistake reversing out in into traffic in front of him?

Sono

Did your daughter pull out of a side road? What are the exact circumstances here, can’t really comment on anything without the full details

kig

No she doesn't accept liability, the police weren't involved. If she goes the insurance route, they have agreed to pay out, but as expected it is nowhere close to the value of the car, which they will then write off. The car has just been through NCT and although old is still a great car, with no major issues. We will then have to buy another car which is in worse condition (more than likely, for what the insurance is will to give us), and the additional cost on insurance when we lose part of our no claims bonus (we only have a step-back on the policy) means that it becomes impossible to afford another car.

Sono

If the insurance company accepts liability and the third party wishes to claim off your daughters insurance the no claims bonus is affected regardless of what your daughter decides to do with her own car.

Also just to add if your insurance company assess your vehicle and declare it a write off you will need an independent engineer report to say it’s road worthy again, probably cost around €150

kig

She got stuck in the intersection when the traffic came to a stop and the lights changed. She was blocking traffic and had to clear the intersection as a result, he came flying up the bus lane and drove into her.

amcalester

Have you gotten a quote for repairs? And how does this compare to what they're offering? The insurance company are always going to lowball you, you'll need to fight your corner.

What type of car is it, year model etc.

Sono

kig wrote: »

She got stuck in the intersection when the traffic came to a stop and the lights changed. She was blocking traffic and had to clear the intersection as a result, he came flying up the bus lane and drove into her.

Unfortunately your daughter is most definitely at fault from what you have just told us.

lawred2

kig wrote: »

She got stuck in the intersection when the traffic came to a stop and the lights changed. She was blocking traffic and had to clear the intersection as a result, he came flying up the bus lane and drove into her.

How did he not see her? Surely she was obstructing his passage?

Obviously your daughter shouldn't have obstructed the intersection but sh!t happens sometimes, Sounds to me like he was reckless... do not accept liability.

I love Sean nos

kig wrote: »

he came flying up the bus lane and drove into her.

Then he's at fault.

kig

Yes I know, which is why we advised her to come to some sort of arrangement with him, even though we believe he was to blame.

lawred2

kig wrote: »

Yes I know, which is why we advised her to come to some sort of arrangement with him, even though we believe he was to blame.

why?

Sono

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Then he's at fault.

What did he do wrong other than the allegation of speed which cannot be proven and will not stand up in court?

If I was the taxi man I would be holding the other driver fully at fault

amcalester

Sono wrote: »

What did he do wrong other than the allegation of speed which cannot be proven and will not stand up in court?

If I was the taxi man I would be holding the other driver fully at fault

He drove into a stationary vehicle (is my understanding of it).

lawred2

Sono wrote: »

What did he do wrong other than the allegation of speed which cannot be proven and will not stand up in court?

If I was the taxi man I would be holding the other driver fully at fault

It's not clear from what was posted but if this girl was stationary then it is going to be the taxi driver's fault for driving into her..

OP, what action did she take to 'clear the intersection'? That's kinda the key issue.

LiamaDelta

kig wrote:

She got stuck in the intersection when the traffic came to a stop and the lights changed. She was blocking traffic and had to clear the intersection as a result, he came flying up the bus lane and drove into her.

This would seem to me that she crossed in front of the taxi when he potentially had right of way. If one party is not admitting liability then likely it will be shared...particularly as it's not a clear-cut case and the gardai aren't involved.

kig

She moved into the intersection long before the lights changed the traffic was moving slowly but it was moving, she expected to get through the intersection before the lights would change again, once she was in that situation she has to move through the intersection, she cannot just sit in the middle of the intersection. She knew this as she failed her driving test once for exactly that situation, the examiner told her then that she was ok moving into the intersection as she thought she would get through comfortably, but she then stopped where she was, and he said she had to in that situation move out of the intersection, as she was obstructing traffic and in a dangerous position.

Needs Must

kig wrote:

She got stuck in the intersection when the traffic came to a stop and the lights changed. She was blocking traffic and had to clear the intersection as a result, he came flying up the bus lane and drove into her.

Sounds to me that the taxi had the green light at the time of the impact.

TheChizler

LiamaDelta wrote: »

This would seem to me that she crossed in front of the taxi when he potentially had right of way.

Generally if you're already in an intersection you have right of way. Other vehicles are supposed to wait for you to clear it before entering themselves.

I love Sean nos

Sono wrote: »

What did he do wrong other than the allegation of speed which cannot be proven and will not stand up in court?

This bit:

drove into her.

Sono wrote: »

If I was the taxi man I would be holding the other driver fully at fault

I understand. Nothing would surprise me from a "professional" driver.

lawred2

kig wrote: »

She moved into the intersection long before the lights changed the traffic was moving slowly but it was moving, she expected to get through the intersection before the lights would change again, once she was in that situation she has to move through the intersection, she cannot just sit in the middle of the intersection. She knew this as she failed her driving test once for exactly that situation, the examiner told her then that she was ok moving into the intersection as she thought she would get through comfortably, but she then stopped where she was, and he said she had to in that situation move out of the intersection, as she was obstructing traffic and in a dangerous position.

that's still not clear but I'm fairly sure she would have right of way regardless of green lights or what not..

lawred2

Needs Must wrote: »

Sounds to me that the taxi had the green light at the time of the impact.

so what!?

green light does not permit you to drive into traffic

TheChizler

Was there a yellow box or anything like that? Not that I think it should make a difference if she was stationary and driven into, but the taxi man might be trying to argue that she shouldn't have been there (clearly that doesn't give them the right to drive through her).

Needs Must

lawred2 wrote:

green light does not permit you to drive into traffic

lawred2 wrote:

so what!?

So her light was red.

LiamaDelta

kig wrote:

She moved into the intersection long before the lights changed the traffic was moving slowly but it was moving, she expected to get through the intersection before the lights would change again, once she was in that situation she has to move through the intersection, she cannot just sit in the middle of the intersection. She knew this as she failed her driving test once for exactly that situation, the examiner told her then that she was ok moving into the intersection as she thought she would get through comfortably, but she then stopped where she was, and he said she had to in that situation move out of the intersection, as she was obstructing traffic and in a dangerous position.

So was she stationary or still 'moving through' the intersection when the taxi hit her.

lawred2

Needs Must wrote: »

So her light was red.

and?

you've been in traffic queues at some stage in your life right? It's not destruction derby. If you've entered an intersection you have right of way over those who are yet to enter the intersection. The current state of the lights is irrelevant.

(I'm presuming that she hasn't entered the intersection under a red light)

do you drive?

I love Sean nos

Needs Must wrote: »

Sounds to me that the taxi had the green light at the time of the impact.

Which means nothing.

From the RotR:

A green light means you may go on if the way is clear. Take special care if you
intend to turn left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing. A
green light is not a right of way – it is an indication that you can proceed with
caution.

Needs Must

lawred2 wrote:

do you drive?

Driver and a cyclist.
Can't agree with your theory that a driver can be held liable when they have a green light. Although you would expect a higher level of driving from the taxi driver as they are deemed a professional driver.

TheChizler

Needs Must wrote: »

So her light was red.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182 wrote:

(3) ( a ) A driver of a vehicle facing traffic sign number RTS 00I, RTS 002 or RTS 003 in which the green lamp is illuminated may proceed beyond the traffic lights, or beyond traffic sign number RRM 017 [stop line] if such traffic sign is provided in association with the traffic lights, provided no other road user is endangered and subject to compliance with the relevant provisions of articles 8 and 29.

Section 8 wrote:

8. (1) Save as otherwise indicated by a traffic sign in respect of which an article in these Regulations refers, a vehicle shall yield right of way where a provision of this article applies.

(2) When starting from a stationary position a driver shall yield the right of way to other traffic and pedestrians.

(3) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations.

I THINK this is the most up to date amendment to these parts, but you get the jist.

I love Sean nos

Needs Must wrote: »

Driver and a cyclist.

:pac:

Needs Must wrote: »

Can't agree with your theory that a driver can be held liable when they have a green light.

A theory? Jesus wept. :rolleyes:

lawred2

Needs Must wrote: »

Driver and a cyclist.
Can't agree with your theory that a driver can be held liable when they have a green light. Although you would expect a higher level of driving from the taxi driver as they are deemed a professional driver.

Well irrelevant of which 'theories' you think you can't agree with - those are the rules.

Rules apart - it makes intuitive sense that those already on an intersection have right of way over those not yet on an intersection.

For your own and everyone else's safety - maybe you should bone up on the rules of the road.

Needs Must

I love Sean nos wrote:

A theory? Jesus wept.

Hah, you have no regard for a cyclist is what I'm getting. Blinkered opinion but not surprised as you are not alone unfortunately.

LiamaDelta

True but generally you shouldn't enter the intersection unless you can clear it. We really don't have enough info to judge here. The OP's opinion is potentially clouded...they feel that the situation is arising because they have 'more to lose' than the taxi driver...it's possible that the taxi driver also just feels that he's in the right.

cruizer101

OP was she stopped when taxi hit her? You should really do up drawings of exactly what happened. Maybe even take screen shot from google maps and draw onto. If it does end up going to insurance, which from the sounds of things I think you probably should, the clearer you can describe the situation the better, and drawings work so much better than trying to describe it.

If you daughter was stopped when taxi hit her it is definitely 100% their fault, if she was moving to clear the junction not as clear but I would still say is not her fault.

TheChizler

LiamaDelta wrote: »

True but generally toy shouldn't enter the intersection unless you can clear it.

Only if there's a yellow box. And even if they were stopped in a yellow box it is a separate issue and should have no bearing on someone driving into her.

LiamaDelta

TheChizler wrote:

Only if there's a yellow box. And even if they were stopped in a yellow box it is a separate issue and should have no bearing on someone driving into her.

Why only if there's a yellow box? There are many junctions with no yellow box and if you know you cannot safely get through the junction you don't enter, as to do so will obstruct other traffic.
Either way...we're debating a yellow box that may or may not exist in this circumstance!

I love Sean nos

Needs Must wrote: »

Hah, you have no regard for a cyclist is what I'm getting. Blinkered opinion but not surprised as you are not alone unfortunately.

What?

kig

The issue is not whether she was in the intersection illegally, even if you are illegally parked and a person drives into you he is still the one at fault.

TheChizler

LiamaDelta wrote: »

Why only if there's a yellow box? There are many junctions with no yellow box and if you know you cannot safely get through the junction you don't enter, as to do so will obstruct other traffic.
Either way...we're debating a yellow box that may or may not exist in this circumstance!

You're better off not doing it but legally only a yellow box counts. Yellow box or no the legal status of someone stopped in a junction doesn't give another party the right to drive into them.

kig

The yellow box did not exist, but in my mind is irrelevant to the accident.

Needs Must

I love Sean nos wrote:

What?

Your response to me being a driver and a cyclist. It's loaded with sarcasm. It's ok I'm well used to it at this stage.

LiamaDelta

kig wrote:

The yellow box did not exist, but in my mind is irrelevant to the accident.

Was she stationary or moving when the accident happened?

I love Sean nos

Needs Must wrote: »

Your response to me being a driver and a cyclist. It's loaded with sarcasm. It's ok I'm well used to it at this stage.

That's not the bit that you quoted though.

Regardless, my comment wasn't sarcasm. I don't think that people on bicycles understand less about traffic light rules than users of other transport modes, but rather making fun of one of your transport modes.

My second comment is neither sarcasm nor jest. I understand that you pelting through a green light would likely have little impact on anyone bar yourself, whereas doing the same as a driver is reckless. You not understanding why caution should be used is troubling.

Needs Must

I love Sean nos wrote:

My second comment is neither sarcasm nor jest. I understand that you pelting through a green light would likely have little impact on anyone bar yourself, whereas doing the same as a driver is reckless. You not understanding why caution should be used is troubling.

Again you just state arguments to suit your own beliefs. Where did I say I pelt through red lights. I don't pelt through red or green lights.

Alanstrainor

kig wrote: »

My daughter was involved in a minor accident with a taxi. The taxi had minor damage (a small chip on his bumper) whereas my daughter's car is old, he hit it from the side, and caused a fair amount of damage. Because her car is old the insurance co. doesn't want to fix it but rather scrap the car. We cannot replace the car with the payout and the additional insurance cost will make it impossible to buy another car. We recommended that she come to an agreement with the taxi driver, but he is being an opportunist, and every time she talks to him he seems to increase the price. It is disputed who was to blame, but it will be cheaper to come to a reasonable agreement with him, rather than go the insurance route. He is bullying her, any advice!

If the insurance companies are involved and have found the taxi driver to be at fault then go through them to get this resolved. As far as I know, even if the insurance company decides that the car is a write off, it is possible to get compensation to replace the car, and then buy back your daughters damaged car for a small fee.

You need to talk to your insurance company about all the options here. Don't talk any more with the taxi man directly. Make sure that the insurance company has found the taxi is to blame, and work out how to move forward.

I love Sean nos

Needs Must wrote: »

Again you just state arguments to suit your own beliefs. Where did I say I pelt through red lights. I don't pelt through red or green lights.

Why did you bring up green lights and liability then?

Needs Must wrote: »

Can't agree with your theory that a driver can be held liable when they have a green light.

lawred2

Needs Must wrote: »

Again you just state arguments to suit your own beliefs. Where did I say I pelt through red lights. I don't pelt through red or green lights.

But you do think that a green light bestows right of way upon you. It doesn't.

There are replies showing you how you're wrong but you've ignored every single one of them.