nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

speed

speeding

calculations

declaratory judgement

Quick Links

Comments

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.

Denny_Crane

Webiter wrote: »

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.

Your working out of that only goes to the fact you should have anticipated it.

Mary63

You said earlier that he was doing between 65 and 70 km per hour which gave him plenty of time to avoid you if he was far enough back.Are you now saying he was doing 80 km or are you saying he hit you as he exited the town after picking up speed just before the 80 km sign.

If you pulled out without checking if anyone was coming and he was too close to you he wouldn't have time to stop and thats probably the case whether he was doing 50 km per hour or 65 or 70.

I see though that you are saying he was coming into the town so I'm very confused.Have you been on a lot to your Insurance company about this.

heroics

Webiter wrote: »

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.

But at the end of the day you pulled out in front of them. Do you just assume that whatever the speed limit is that's the speed the car is doing? Can you not judge speed and distance to decide if it is safe to manoeuvre? Why would you need to be aware of the reasons the other car was speeding? Again you pulled out when it wasn't safe to do so. I still don't see the point of you trying to prove the other car was speeding.

Mary63

I don't either and neither does OPS insurance company.They have accepted he is liable and thats the end of it.

Webiter

RayCun wrote: »

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

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

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.

Good points. 30-40% over the limit. If a Garda found somebody traveling 30-40% over the limit I would be of the opinion that they might be summoned to court.

Evidence includes the distance he pushed my vehicle and his vehicle. Where the vehicles ended up, the weight of the vehicles etc. Possible to calculate the forces required and work backwards to calculate his speed.

RayCun

Webiter wrote: »

Evidence includes the distance he pushed my vehicle and his vehicle. Where the vehicles ended up, the weight of the vehicles etc. Possible to calculate the forces required and work backwards to calculate his speed.

Did you take photographs and measure this distance at the time? Can you prove that those measurements are correct?

Even if you did and could, the other car will not have hit you at full speed, so you are back into estimating if they were travelling at this speed and started braking at this point they would have been travelling at that speed at the collision. But that depends on when and how hard they started braking, which you can't prove.

And you still haven't confirmed that you pulled out onto a main road :pac:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Mary63

The Gardai wouldn't see someone driving at 70 km in a 50 km zone as being guilty of dangerous driving, if everyone caught at this speed was summoned the Gardai would get nothing done.

I saw a nissan micra plough into an old mercedes recently, the front of the micra caved in completely and the mercedes didn't move an inch, it was barely damaged.A heavy car will shunt a light car much further than the other way around so your point proves nothing.

Im sorry you had this accident but you should learn from it and move on.

ETA, I wish too you would stop avoiding the question.Did you pull out from a minor road onto a main road, yes or no.

Denny_Crane

RayCun wrote: »

Did you take photographs and measure this distance at the time? Can you prove that those measurements are correct?

Even if you did and could, the other car will not have hit you at full speed, so you are back into estimating if they were travelling at this speed and started braking at this point they would have been travelling at that speed at the collision. But that depends on when and how hard they started braking, which you can't prove.

And you still haven't confirmed that you pulled out onto a main road :pac:

Never admit liability! :pac:

SkinnyBuddha

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This +1000!

Just be glad you didn't cause a fatality or serious injury and move on.