Accident

letter2

Hi, i came out of a premises turned right across the traffic and I straightened the car. I had travelled about 10 feet I was hit from behind on a straight road. Just wondering will I be deemed to have caused the accident?

endacl

Yep.

colm_mcm

I’d imagine so.

the hedgeman

letter2 wrote: »

Hi, i came out of a premises turned right across the traffic and just as I straightened the car I was hit from behind on a straight road. Just wondering will I be deemed to have caused the accident?

I passed a similar traffic incident like yours in Tralee today,not a nice situation to be in.

Darc19

Most likely you are to blame and possibly charged with driving without due care and attention.

Only if the other driver was driving at high speed would you have a chance.

mistress_gi

You were driving into a main road, the person who hit you was on said main road. I am 95% sure you will be found liable for this accident.
Even if the other driver was speeding this is nearly impossible to prove.
Sorry OP...

Whocare

letter2 wrote: »

Hi, i came out of a premises turned right across the traffic and just as I straightened the car I was hit from behind on a straight road. Just wondering will I be deemed to have caused the accident?

Why would you think there was even a doubt about it,?

Whocare

This is the reason why I have a dash cam because some people think when there clearly at fault there not .unbelievable

redcup342

From previous experience it seems if you crash into the rear of another car and the other person says "They ran into the back of me" the person you crashed into the back of the other car is at fault.

Its almost impossible to prove the circumstances of when they pulled out onto the road (unless there is a dashcam)

Sheepdish1

redcup342 wrote: »

From previous experience it seems if you crash into the rear of another car and the other person says "They ran into the back of me" the person you crashed into the back of the other car is at fault.

Its almost impossible to prove the circumstances of when they pulled out onto the road (unless there is a dashcam)

This is also why I would think the OP is asking the question! Sorry to hear you were in an accident and I hope everyone is ok

Whocare

Sheepdish1 wrote: »

This is also why I would think the OP is asking the question! Sorry to hear you were in an accident and I hope everyone is ok

That maybe if he lie and say he didn't pulled out in front of the other car? But hopefully if op try and pull that trick the other car has a dash cam or be able to get cctv from the premises that op pull out of

Sheepdish1

Whocare wrote: »

That maybe if he lie and say he didn't pulled out in front of the other car? But hopefully if op try and pull that trick the other car has a dash cam or be able to get cctv from the premises that op pull out of

I think the OP is just trying to clarify where they stand in the accident...there is nothing to suggest they are going to lie.

If someone pulled out and someone was speeding on a main road and the speeding car rear ended the car they could be at fault?

Whocare

Sheepdish1 wrote: »

I think the OP is just trying to clarify where they stand in the accident...there is nothing to suggest they are going to lie.

If someone pulled out and someone was speeding on a main road and the speeding car rear ended the car they could be at fault?

If you read op first post just as I straightened I was hit that basically say the other car had no hope of avoid the crash
It not like op was gone down road a 20 foot and and was hit .

orm0nd

Remember a court case a few years back something similar to op's situation. It ruled in favour of the person that was rear ended, the judge stating that the other driver wasn't paying due attention and not leaving a save distance.

I'm just stating what I know happened as a family member was involved, not giving any opinion on the present incident.

seamus

If the OP had sufficient time to pull out and straighten up the car, then there's an argument that the other guy wasn't pay attention, and would have had sufficient time to slow down if he'd been travelling at an appropriate speed and/or paying attention.

OP, just report the accident to your insurer, be honest, tell them what happened and if they ask who you think was at fault, say you genuinely have no idea. Then let them sort it out, that's what you pay them for.

Lackey

orm0nd wrote: »

Remember a court case a few years back something similar to op's situation. It ruled in favour of the person that was rear ended, the judge stating that the other driver wasn't paying due attention and not leaving a save distance.

I'm just stating what I know happened as a family member was involved, not giving any opinion on the present incident.

Same thoughts here
the person that is behind is deemed at fault
Also no thoughts or opinion on present incident !!
BUT I’ve seen a similar situation and outcome too.

pippip

I was thinking similar, to pull out across a lane of traffic and straighten up is a decent amount of time for a driver paying attention to react. Of course it's what you can prove.

Whocare

pippip wrote: »

I was thinking similar, to pull out across a lane of traffic and straighten up is a decent amount of time for a driver paying attention to react. Of course it's what you can prove.

If you think that a decent amount of time. You should should try and do it to truck /car and see what happen .

Patrick2010

If I'm driving down a road and see a line of traffic coming the other way I'll keep an eye out for any gaps on my right in case a car is going to come out from a premises or side road, I won't just keep the foot down looking ahead. I assume from the OP that they came through a gap and entered the main road. It'll come down to how fast they made the manoeuvre and how fast the other car was going, not as black and white a case as some here are making out.

bucketybuck

pippip wrote: »

I was thinking similar, to pull out across a lane of traffic and straighten up is a decent amount of time for a driver paying attention to react. Of course it's what you can prove.

It would be what, about a second of time?

The way the OP describes it they hadn't even started any forward progress before the collision occurred, just pulled across the road and turned, they clearly pulled out into oncoming traffic.

realdanbreen

letter2 wrote: »

Hi, i came out of a premises turned right across the traffic and just as I straightened the car I was hit from behind on a straight road. Just wondering will I be deemed to have caused the accident?

Who do you think is at fault, bearing in mind that you drove out in front of a car? Even if the other car was speeding you should have seen it.

hi5

Reminds me of this... lots of comments going both ways.

redcup342

Patrick2010 wrote: »

If I'm driving down a road and see a line of traffic coming the other way I'll keep an eye out for any gaps on my right in case a car is going to come out from a premises or side road, I won't just keep the foot down looking ahead. I assume from the OP that they came through a gap and entered the main road. It'll come down to how fast they made the manoeuvre and how fast the other car was going, not as black and white a case as some here are making out.

Ya but unless there is a dashcam theres no way to prove that other then one person drove into the back of another person.

The court will only go on proof.

pippip

bucketybuck wrote: »

It would be what, about a second of time?

The way the OP describes it they hadn't even started any forward progress before the collision occurred, just pulled across the road and turned, they clearly pulled out into oncoming traffic.

The car on the road had more than a second to react if you account for op moving from standstill (assumption op was stopped before moving) across a lane of traffic and straighten up and move a few feet before being hit along with distance back from the junction the car was before they pulled out in front of them.

We have no idea of what type of road it was i.e. speed etc, but if it was a 50kph zone then the person on the road should really have been able to react if paying proper attention.

Alot of variables missing, i.e. speed limit of raod , damage to cars, did op see the car before moving, how fast did op pull out.

Yes the op is more than likely at fault but I'm just saying the car that hit them mightn't have been paying attention for a split second or may have been speeding. If they'd hit side on then yes I'd be 100% op as that clearly shows no reaction time possible.

endacl

redcup342 wrote: »

Ya but unless there is a dashcam theres no way to prove that other then one person drove into the back of another person.

The court will only go on proof.

Court? For a traffic tip?

bladespin

redcup342 wrote: »

Ya but unless there is a dashcam theres no way to prove that other then one person drove into the back of another person.

The court will only go on proof.

Very little hope of that bar there's injury etc, more likely insurance companies will sort it between them so both drivers will suffer

kirving

realdanbreen wrote: »

Who do you think is at fault, bearing in mind that you drove out in front of a car? Even if the other car was speeding you should have seen it.

This a common way motorcyclists are killed. Doing over double the speed limit on a country road, and a car pulls out in front of them. You'll say the car was in the wrong, but there's no reason for them to expect, and no way for them to see something coming that fast. Equally, there's no way for the motorcyclist to react.

In the OPs situation, it depends entirely on the circumstance. They may have pulled out in what is otherwise good time, the other driver was way above the limit and didn't react whatsoever.

Alternatively, the other car may have been at the speed limit, the OP pulled out too late from an obscured junction, and even a quick reaction from the other car couldn't prevent a collision. Impossible to tell from the post.

I know lots of junctions on N roads where I could pull out in front of a car doing the limit, and have time to straighten the car before being hit, even if they reacted in time. The straightening up isn't really relevant, other factors are much more important.

bladespin

Kevin Irving wrote: »

This a common way motorcyclists are killed. Doing over double the speed limit on a country road, and a car pulls out in front of them. You'll say the car was in the wrong, but there's no reason for them to expect, and no way for them to see something coming that fast. Equally, there's no way for the motorcyclist to react.

Unfortunately, yes but you don't have to be anywhere near the speed limit for it to happen, just not as big as the car the other driver was looking for (if they were looking at all), car drivers often overestimate the braking ability of a bike too (they don't have anything like the capabilities of a 4 wheel vehicle - especially on wet or poor surfaces) so ignorance can also lead to tragedy.

The general rule has to be that you enter another lane only when it's safe to do so, the onus is on the vehicle entering the lane, speed can be a mitigation though but not much. That said any/all junctions should be approached with caution, bikers learn to look at a stationary car's front wheels for a reason at junctions, not the driver (I've been looked 'through' more than once. My 2c anyway.

redcup342

endacl wrote: »

Court? For a traffic tip?

Probably not but the agreement between the insurance companies would be on the basis of if it went to court.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

If the OP had sufficient time to pull out and straighten up the car, then there's an argument that the other guy wasn't pay attention, and would have had sufficient time to slow down if he'd been travelling at an appropriate speed and/or paying attention.

OP, just report the accident to your insurer, be honest, tell them what happened and if they ask who you think was at fault, say you genuinely have no idea. Then let them sort it out, that's what you pay them for.

Twice in the last month I’ve travelled on an 80km stretch of road doing no more than about 78kph and twice I’ve had to break suddenly as a car pulled out, straightened up and decided to take off at the speed of a snail.

It’s a really hard one to call in terms of blame from an insurance perspective but in both my instances examples it was clearly the fault of the car pulling out in front of me.
I mean, how can I legislate for idiots who don’t look properly before pulling out into traffic - I’m driving below speed limit on a clear road- why should I be at fault ? I couldn’t possibly have anticipated their idiocy.

hi5

hi5 wrote: »

Reminds me of this... lots of comments going both ways.

Morgan clearly at fault. He clipped the corner in order to jump ahead on the road and was obvious he was then racing ahead to try and out pace the oncoming car which he clearly underestimated in terms of the speed it was travelling.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I couldn’t possibly have anticipated their idiocy.

But, you did anticipate it. Twice.

It comes back to the fundamental basics which require everyone to drive defensively and in expectation that other road users may not follow the rules.

I'm not saying that the OP definitely isn't at fault, but there is always a point a which the blame shifts from the guy who pulled out, to the guy who wasn't paying attention. If someone is doing 100km/h in a 50 zone and another vehicle pulls out with 100m to spare, then the guy going too fast is clearly at fault if they crash.

bladespin

seamus wrote: »

But, you did anticipate it. Twice.

It comes back to the fundamental basics which require everyone to drive defensively and in expectation that other road users may not follow the rules.

I'm not saying that the OP definitely isn't at fault, but there is always a point a which the blame shifts from the guy who pulled out, to the guy who wasn't paying attention. If someone is doing 100km/h in a 50 zone and another vehicle pulls out with 100m to spare, then the guy going too fast is clearly at fault if they crash.

Not as much as you'd think though, the vehicle entering the lane will still bear most of the blame, it's entrance has introduced the hazard.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

But, you did anticipate it. Twice.

.

I didn't "anticipate" anything- I reacted to a situation on the road and was lucky to come away with my life, given that i have good brakes, good tyres, the road was dry, my car was well maintained and i was under the speed limit. A wet road coupled with legal but low-wet performing tyres would have had a different outcome.

redcup342

Deleted User wrote: »

Twice in the last month I’ve travelled on an 80km stretch of road doing no more than about 78kph and twice I’ve had to break suddenly as a car pulled out, straightened up and decided to take off at the speed of a snail.

It’s a really hard one to call in terms of blame from an insurance perspective but in both my instances examples it was clearly the fault of the car pulling out in front of me.
I mean, how can I legislate for idiots who don’t look properly before pulling out into traffic - I’m driving below speed limit on a clear road- why should I be at fault ? I couldn’t possibly have anticipated their idiocy.

If someone just stopped in front of you and you crashed into the back of them it would be your fault.

When there is no other evidence (i.e. he said she said) they go off the basis of where the damage is.

https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2018/03/car-accidents-determining-fault-by-location-of-damage/

dsmythy

You turned where you shouldn't. They could have been paying more attention. Your insurance might fight it like it or not. Just tell them what happened and see.

Wesser

if you only got to travel 3 metres, then i think you misjudged the speed / location of the oncoming car. or didn't check at all. 3 metres is a tiny tiny distance!

mgbgt1978

seamus wrote: »

If the OP had sufficient time to pull out and straighten up the car, then there's an argument that the other guy wasn't pay attention, and would have had sufficient time to slow down if he'd been travelling at an appropriate speed and/or paying attention.

OP, just report the accident to your insurer, be honest, tell them what happened and if they ask who you think was at fault, say you genuinely have no idea. Then let them sort it out, that's what you pay them for.

The part in bold is what matters. The term is "had completed their manoeuvre".
If the Driver of the Car in front can satisfy an Insurance Assessor of this (usually fairly obvious by the damage on both vehicles) they are often considered to be the injured party.

Sheepdish1

I think there are so many variables that it is impossible to tell by a post.

If a driver pulled out into a 50km zone and was rear ended by someone driving 100km in a 50km zone the person speeding is to blame in my opinion. Particularly in exits that are concealed or after a bend - some people don't adhere to speed limits and it is difficult to merge safely when people break speed limits.

However if someone pulled out into oncoming traffic and the person didn't have enough time to react and was driving at a reasonable speed, the person who pulled out would be at fault imo. ie if person pulled out and miscalculated safe distance and sped of car

I would think all these factors and the level on impact would be able to clearly identify who is at fault.

Did you miscalculate how fast the other car was driving and rush out in front?
I did this a few weeks ago in a 50km zone and felt it was very careless of me and it gave me a bit of a fright, I'll be more careful in future as this person was driving quite fast. The other driver was speeding but slowed down but I felt we were both at fault.

redcup342

redcup342 wrote: »

If someone just stopped in front of you and you crashed into the back of them it would be your fault.

]

We're not talking about someone just stopping in front of another driver- we're talking about someone who pulls out onto a major road from a minor road without paying due care and attention to oncoming traffic- totally different.

In once instance, the car is already ahead of you and you adjust your driving to anticipate stopping etc- in the other, one second it's not there the next it is- a totally different scenario.

dsmythy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We're not talking about someone just stopping in front of another driver- we're talking about someone who pulls out onto a major road from a minor road without paying due care and attention to oncoming traffic- totally different.

In once instance, the car is already ahead of you and you adjust your driving to anticipate stopping etc- in the other, one second it's not there the next it is- a totally different scenario.

Depends on speeds. What's the difference between the first sight of a red brake light and the first sight of the nose of a car from the right? Not much I'd say. The fact that he managed to straighten up before being hit means there was a lot of time to react. I'm sure the assessor will be interested in the car's brake and tyre condition too. Definitely not clear cut but you'd need to actually witness it to know the absolute truth.

redcup342

Deleted User wrote: »

We're not talking about someone just stopping in front of another driver- we're talking about someone who pulls out onto a major road from a minor road without paying due care and attention to oncoming traffic- totally different.

In once instance, the car is already ahead of you and you adjust your driving to anticipate stopping etc- in the other, one second it's not there the next it is- a totally different scenario.

Well I haven't lived in Ireland for around 10 years but back then if you crashed into the back of another car it was your fault, unless you had evidence to prove otherwise.

It's the same case here in Germany and the netherlands as well.

Even this thread with all the differing opinions is proving that the Insurance Assessor will just go on the best physical evidence (Damage) all the other evidence is hearsay unless the OP actually admits they are at fault. (Hence why most insurance companies will ask you never to admit liability)

I've heard a few of these stories over the years with friends and work colleagues In Ireland, the UK, NL and DE.

Was either:
Pulls out on to the road in front of them when they had right of way and they couldn't stop in time
or
Braked sharply for some reason and they couldn't stop in time

One guy crashed into a woman because she'd dropped a cigarette while driving and slammed on the brakes, she got out admitted it was her fault. Then 2 weeks later said she didn't know what she was saying and now had neck problems.

Everytime I heard of someone driving into the ass of someone else they were screwed.

Moral of the story is get a dashcam

Carpentry

If the other party had no dash cam they're going to split liability, 100%, I put 50 quid on this. Let us know of the outcome.

pippip

A thread here a while back had a serious collision involving, I think, a modern hyundai.

The car ecu and GPS was able to tell a tale to the insurance company. speed of collision when airbags went off, period of braking and more.

kirving

redcup342 wrote: »

the Insurance Assessor will just go on the best physical evidence (Damage) all the other evidence is hearsay

Things have moved on, and this is no longer the case. Almost modern cars come with a black box. It will record the events leading up to and during a crash. My last car designed in 2004 had one.

A poster on here who was told their claim for a head on crash on a country road would be split 50:50. People who suggested for Hyundai to pull the data were laughed at.

Sure enough, Hyundai proved that the OP's car was doing 2km/h when the collision occurred, and it had serious damage.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057908028

OP, if you genuinely believe the other car had plenty of time to react, see if you car records such data. If it shows you had straightened the wheel and were moving for a while, it will certainly help your argument.

Getting data from the other party, if it exists at all, may require much more effort (and Garda warrants), which is unlikely to happen outside of a serious injury or death.


Edit: pippip beat me to it!

pippip wrote: »

A thread here a while back had a serious collision involving, I think, a modern hyundai.

The car ecu and GPS was able to tell a tale to the insurance company. speed of collision when airbags went off, period of braking and more.

Yep, dozens of parameters are recorded. My old car even logged the radio volume. Would be a difficult argument if you said you never heard the other car beep and the data showed it at maximum volume.

MaceFace

OP: Do you think you were at fault?
If yes, then just do the honest thing and own up to it.

A few years back, I was in an accident where I was completely blameless, but the other driver lied and there were no independent witnesses. I had to settle 50/50 as the alternative was going to court, being a prolonged case and likely the judge assigning equal blame due to lack of evidence.
My insurance company was out of pocket by about €2k and my premium went up due to the accident.

It might sound harsh, but I always viewed the other driver as a thief. They stole money from me and my insurance company by lying about what happened. For the rest of their life, they will have that hanging over them and whether it bothers them to not, that tells what type of person that is.

Be honest with yourself, and your insurance company and whatever the result, at least you can have clear conscience. Money comes and goes.

bladespin

MaceFace wrote: »

OP: Do you think you were at fault?
If yes, then just do the honest thing and own up to it.

Do not do this!

Regardless, from the very first post the OP is unsure, overthinking yourself into a corner is best avoided, if you don't know then leave it to the insurance etc.

Irish_peppa

Would it not be in the Insurance Industries interests to Subsidise both rear and front Car Camera systems.
Ie: You fit this to your car we will refund you the cost via discount on your premium over x Years?
I would have thought if there were thousands of cars going around with Dash Cams it might cop some people on

garv123

Irish_peppa wrote: »

Would it not be in the Insurance Industries interests to Subsidise both rear and front Car Camera systems.
Ie: You fit this to your car we will refund you the cost via discount on your premium over x Years?
I would have thought if there were thousands of cars going around with Dash Cams it might cop some people on

A dashcam can prove the person driving to be at fault just as much. That isn't a good thing for the insurance company.

Although I do think new cars should have front and rear fitted as standard.

bladespin

Irish_peppa wrote: »

Would it not be in the Insurance Industries interests to Subsidise both rear and front Car Camera systems.
Ie: You fit this to your car we will refund you the cost via discount on your premium over x Years?
I would have thought if there were thousands of cars going around with Dash Cams it might cop some people on

Invasion of privacy, data protection etc. not sure how keen I would be on an insurance (or any other) company being able to track me that closely.

That said fitting your own camera/s is a great idea and wouldn't be without mine.

Irish_peppa

bladespin wrote: »

Invasion of privacy, data protection etc. not sure how keen I would be on an insurance (or any other) company being able to track me that closely.

That said fitting your own camera/s is a great idea and wouldn't be without mine.

The Insurance company would not be tracking you. It would be a Dash Cam only . I would have thought a lot of fraudulent claims could be thrown out with all the video evidence. Ie: 5mph crash Ohhh my god i have whiplash thats a 30K claim.
Judge sees dash cam evidence of said car tipping into the claiments car and could rule yes you were hit from behind but to say you have a 40K whiplash claim from the tip of a car like that is nuts 5K payout max