If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Accident thoughts

  • 08-02-2022 7:04pm
    Registered Users Posts: 20,403 ✭✭✭✭

    I was driving in a car park today with a one way system (marks on the ground) drove right around a blind corner due to high bushed and a Van parked there, A women going the wrong direction & bang head on,

    Im worried because i got the CCTV footage & she stopped marginally first, quicker reaction on the brake possible because she could see my passenger side come around the bend before i could see her at all

    Will the fact she breaks first go against me even though she was going the wrong way


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,828 ✭✭✭happyoutscan

    No idea but I hope it goes in your favor. I **** hate idiots in car parks that simply refuse to follow the arrows. Best of luck.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    When you drove around the blind corner were you driving at a speed where you could stop in the distance you could see to be clear

    I would say her stopping first has a bearing on the responsibility. It could have been a child on the road

    Not legal advice

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭Lenar3556

    Also, will there be clear evidence that she contravened statutory signage, (no entry for example) in relation to this one way system? Sometimes car parks have rather primitive arrow markings painted on the roadway suggesting a direction of travel, but there may be a dispute as to these constituting a one way system.

    Was the car park in the control of a local authority or privately owned?

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,730 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus

    I wouldn't focus unduly on "statutory signage", or the question of whether she has contravened the road traffic legislation in a way that could expose her to a penalty. That doesn't matter. The issue here is whether she was negligent. If she travelled in the opposite direction to that indicated by road markings or signage, that looks pretty negligent, and it will be no help to her to say that the road markings were non-standard. She's have to say that the road markings were so poor that a reasonably careful motorist wouldn't see them, or so confusing that a reasonably careful motorist wouldn't understand them.

    From the OP it looks to me that both drivers have been negligent - one because she travelled in the opposite direction to that indicated, and the other because he rounded a blind corner at too fast a speed to stop within the limit of his vision. My guess is that the insurers will resolve this with a knock-for-knock agreement.

    The OP asked if it will go against him that she braked first. Yes, I'm afraid it will. If it had been the other way around - if he had stopped when he saw her and she had then hit him when he was stationary - he would have stopped within the limit of his vision without hitting anything, and I think the accident would be entirely her fault.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭Car99

    A head on in a car park on a blind corner and you couldn't stop would suggest you were going too fast by the sounds of it. Private car oark signage is advisory .

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,730 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus

    In this context, it doesn't matter whether the signage is advisory or mandatory. Even if its purely advsisory, ignoring advice of that kind would clearly be negligent.

    The fact (if it is a fact) that the signage was purely advisory would only be relevant if the guards sought to prosecute her for driving in a manner contrary to the signage.

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,403 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,076 ✭✭✭✭listermint

    Doesn't really matter tbh. The fact you could have run into the back side of a stationary car would have had the same result and it being your fault entirely.

    Looks like blame will be shared on this. You shouldn't exceed the speed beyond what you can physically see in front of you. You assumed the way was clear without seeing it and drove at a speed accordingly.

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,403 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright

    Not technically true i would haven seen a stationary car earlier,

    This car appeared around the corner at speed but just breaked first only visible on CCTVas in i milliseconds in it

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,076 ✭✭✭✭listermint

    I'm not sure how you would have seen the back of a stationary car versus a stationary car faced front. It braked as you said.

    You were driving too fast on a corner you couldn't see out from. I hate the argument of what of there was a child. But what if there was anything adult child dog etc etc or stopped car. You simply were not driving with due care and attention. As such share the blame on this one. Unfortunately it's a lesson for your pocket on your renewal. Learn from it and move on.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22 SloppySkidMark

    I wouldn't be bending over and taking it like Listermint.

    At the end of the day its car driving down the wrong side of the road.

    It wasnt a child or a stopped car it was a car driving on the wrong side of the road .

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,403 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright

    Because the other car was still traveling forward as i braked, a stationary car is stationary,

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,076 ✭✭✭✭listermint

    Fairly telling your only liking posts that totally obsolve you of driving around a blind corner at speed that left you with no time to stop in time for anything in your path.

    Look knock yourself out. You've no real say or choice in the matter your insurer will make any and all decisions on your behalf. As you shall learn.

  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]

    It really doesn't matter what you think or say, the insurance companies will settle this between them. Probably a split between both parties.

  • Registered Users Posts: 22 SloppySkidMark

    I'd agree,

    I'd say listermints would be on the phone to his insurance company taking responsibility as a "lesson for his pocket".

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,403 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright

    You asked me why i wouldn't have hit a stationary car and i answered,

    Not sure why ur getting upset

    You are correct in the end of the day its now out of my hands

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,076 ✭✭✭✭listermint

    Winning this morning aren't ya. Woooo.. So much gold. I mean if your goal is solid meaningless content then your acing it. What time do you knock off I'm hoping for more of the same today...

  • Registered Users Posts: 22 SloppySkidMark

    Is there something wrong with you ?

    I think you need to take a break from posting, youre on 24/7 posting every detail of your life.

    Chill out Jim

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,403 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright

    Thanks for all the comments

    Best we leave it there seems to be going in a odd direction now,

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,852 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder

    it's an interesting one though - the general rule is obviously never drive at a speed that means you can't stop within the range of what you can see, but thae example given usually involves a stationary tractor sitting on a bend, etc.

    but if someone, while you are travelling on a stretch of road, appears on your side of the road approaching you, they have actively removed some of that buffer you've created for yourself, so even if they've already come to a stop by the time you've hit them, they should still be held liable to some extent.

    to clarify, i don't think that really applies here; if you're driving through a car park where - as stated - visibility is limited, you should be driving so as to be able to stop on a dime, as there are pedestrians, including potentially loose children - in a car park. your braking distance should be literally only a few metres.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,076 ✭✭✭✭listermint

    I don't know who you are. But if you want to get personal take it to DMs. Your the one jaunting on to a thread and giving absolutely zero legitimate input and just berating me personally.

    You've evidently got a serious problem..

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,730 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus

    Your reasoning is correct - this collision happened in part because, when the OP first saw the other driver, she was moving towards him, which she should not have been. Therefore it's at least possible that he hit her not only because he was travelling faster than he should for the conditions (a blind corner in a car park) but also because she was travelling in a direction which she should not have been travelling in. So both are negligent.

    But I don't agree with you that "that doesn't apply here". Yes, because he was going round a blind corner in a car park (where cars make odd manoeuvres and the space is shared with pedestrians) he should have been driving very slowly. But for the same reason the other driver should not have been driving against the flow. So both are still negligent.

    If a blameless third party had been injured here - say, a passenger in one or other of the cars - I think they could have recovered from both drivers jointly, with the court apportioning liability between them in proportion to their respective contributions to the accident. In that scenario the OP might in theory argue that, had the other driver actually been stationary at the point where he first saw her, he would not have hit her and the bulk of the liability is therefore hers; his speed alone would not have caused any collision. How strong that argument would be depends on detailed facts - measurements of timing, speed, distance and lines of sight - that we don't have. And in the real world I doubt if the insurance companies involved would want to slog it out in court; they would almost certainly agree a 50/50 split.

  • Registered Users Posts: 22 SloppySkidMark

    You have no problem "berating" every one else, but it seems you know it all.

    You're a hard man on the internet but that's about it seems.

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,076 ✭✭✭✭listermint

    Have you anything remotely non personal to add to the discussion here. Check my posts above they are all constructed with reason as to why blame would be shared.

    There's no berating it's fully structured sentences and words.

    All you've offered is to go after me personally on 4 occasions on the thread. You are evidently only out to abuse people and nothing to actually discuss on the topic at hand.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭Lenar3556

    My focus on the signage was to establish the nature of this ‘one way system’. It’s quite relevant if that is to be relied upon by the OP as evidence that the other drivers actions were negligent - in that she was driving against the flow of traffic, which is his principle defence.

    I have come across similar cases where it was alleged that a one way system existed, but quite frankly there was little or no evidence of it, rather, at best, a colloquial practice amongst drivers in a given car park.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,730 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus

    The OP does specify that the one-way signage consists of marks on the ground, which I'm guessing are arrows to indicate the proper direction of travel. Direction signage like this is common in car parks, in my experience.

  • Registered Users Posts: 289 ✭✭AnnaStezia

    Back to first principles boys and stop scrapping......

    Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable person would do or doing something that a reasonable and prudent person would not do.

    Apply that concept to the facts to work out the respective liabilities.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,086 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer

    If someone is travelling the way on a road, their insurance company will not contest liability on the basis of the driver braking slightly ahead of the other driver. It is far to piffling in a small claim. Unless there is a major claim and there is some potential to get a large contributory negligence discount the insurance won't fight.