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

RayCun

Mary63 wrote: »

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 perhaps people would eventually learn to obey the speed limits

fyp

kieran.

What allowance do you have in your calculation the prevailing surface conditions at the accident. Was the surface HRA/SMA or tar and chip ? All have different characteristics. Was there any other factors that could result in a required adjustment to your calcutions oil/grease/mud/moisture etc

nhunter100

Denny_Crane wrote:

Never admit liability!

From reading the OP's posts, it would seem his/her insurance company has ceded liability on their behalf. Time to move on.

GT_TDI_150

Can i ask... in NI arent all parties involved in an accident automatically breathalised? And if you are over the limit you are considered to be at fault for the accident? Thought i heard that as the case, logic being you should not have been on the road.

Could the same not apply for speeding / faulty vehicles/ no tax / no nct / no insurance ... you would not have been at the site of an incident if you had obeyed the law.

Webiter

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:

Guards were on scene and they could verify all positions. No sign of braking being employed.

Mary63

Do you mean your brakes which you didn't pull when you should have stopped at a junction.

Can you for the love of god explain how this accident happened.Did you emerge from a side road or did you pull across a lane into the other drivers path or did you take a right turn without checking there was no one coming at you.

Webiter

kieran. wrote: »

What allowance do you have in your calculation the prevailing surface conditions at the accident. Was the surface HRA/SMA or tar and chip ? All have different characteristics. Was there any other factors that could result in a required adjustment to your calcutions oil/grease/mud/moisture etc

The only thing that was included for this item in the calculations was a friction coefficient for tar surface.

NinjaTruncs

Webiter wrote: »

Guards were on scene and they could verify all positions. No sign of braking being employed.

Without things being measured at the time having all the eye witnesses in the world won't help even if they are guards. Eyeballing now for measurements will be inaccurate.

Webiter

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Can i ask... in NI arent all parties involved in an accident automatically breathalised? And if you are over the limit you are considered to be at fault for the accident? Thought i heard that as the case, logic being you should not have been on the road.

Could the same not apply for speeding / faulty vehicles/ no tax / no nct / no insurance ... you would not have been at the site of an incident if you had obeyed the law.

I thought that this applied here too as in NI. Guards were on scene but did not breathalise anybody.

listermint

The Ops evasion to direct questions for explanations to what occurred tends to indicate they are fully aware that their maneuver and lack of anticipation were at fault but is trying to lay some percentage of blame at the other driver.

The insurance company feels entirely different therefore he has a lost cause and frankly due to the evasion displayed id agree with them

nhunter100

listermint wrote:

The insurance company feels entirely different therefore he has a lost cause and frankly due to the evasion displayed id agree with them

Webiter

listermint wrote: »

The Ops evasion to direct questions for explanations to what occurred tends to indicate they are fully aware that their maneuver and lack of anticipation were at fault but is trying to lay some percentage of blame at the other driver.

The insurance company feels entirely different therefore he has a lost cause and frankly due to the evasion displayed id agree with them

Yes you got it, I am as you say "trying to lay some percentage of blame at the other driver". The insurance company have said, had the Garda prosecuted the other driver for speeding that they could have dealt differently with the case. I have shown the other driver to be speeding and am looking at ways of highlighting same. No evasion in that. I do accept that it may not be conventional.

Mary63

Agree with you listermint and I feel sorry for the insurance company officials.

We are very far into this thread now and he still won't tell us how he drove into the other persons car, thank god no one was seriously injured, thats what would concern me if my driving was dangerous enough to badly damage two cars.

RayCun

But you have not actually demonstrated that the other driver was speeding.
You measured the distance between two points and worked out how long it would take to close that distance at various speeds. You have not proved, and can't prove, how long it took on this occasion. You say it was 15 seconds, but that is only your recollection, which may not be accurate

Ted111

Denny_Crane wrote: »

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.

Police car/ambulance?

Basic rules of the road - you have to be ready and able to react to a dog or child running out in front of you. Meteor coming down. Any unexpected event.

There's a real obsession in this country with drink and speed. The dangerous driving I see every day is people changing lane when the way is not clear. Or people turning on to a road when the way isn't clear.
There will be people driving at high speed on the roads, legally or otherwise. You have to factor this into your driving and decision making.

listermint

Ted111 wrote: »

Police car/ambulance?

Basic rules of the road - you have to be ready and able to react to a dog or child running out in front of you. Meteor coming down. Any unexpected event.

There's a real obsession in this country with drink and speed. The dangerous driving I see every day is people changing lane when the way is not clear. Or people turning on to a road when the way isn't clear.
There will be people driving at high speed on the roads, legally or otherwise. You have to factor this into your driving and decision making.

A motorbike I'd say could have been travelling at 50 or under and the OP would still have missed it.

This is observational, anticipation and frankly bad decision making pulling across the path of another vehicle because someone either wasn't looking or felt they would get out in time which is just plain bad driving. We've enough ads about this especially in relation to motorcycles. Lucky not to kill someone frankly

Mary63

It must be so terrifying to have someone drive into you and then to think instead of showing remorse this person tries to deflect blame onto you.

Webiter

RayCun wrote: »

But you have not actually demonstrated that the other driver was speeding.
You measured the distance between two points and worked out how long it would take to close that distance at various speeds. You have not proved, and can't prove, how long it took on this occasion. You say it was 15 seconds, but that is only your recollection, which may not be accurate

Have used a methodology that calculates the speed of the incoming vehicle at the point of inpact. I think these calculation methods are used in court proceedings to prove speed of incoming vehicle.

Webiter

Ted111 wrote: »

Police car/ambulance?

Basic rules of the road - you have to be ready and able to react to a dog or child running out in front of you. Meteor coming down. Any unexpected event.

There's a real obsession in this country with drink and speed. The dangerous driving I see every day is people changing lane when the way is not clear. Or people turning on to a road when the way isn't clear.
There will be people driving at high speed on the roads, legally or otherwise. You have to factor this into your driving and decision making.

I totally agree with you on this. When it happens and you get caught in it you would not want it to be happening again. I think that I was caught out by a speeding driver.

Webiter

Mary63 wrote: »

It must be so terrifying to have someone drive into you and then to think instead of showing remorse this person tries to deflect blame onto you.

I think his speeding should be pointed out to him. I also think that he should be asked to account for it.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

listermint

Webiter wrote: »

I totally agree with you on this. When it happens and you get caught in it you would not want it to be happening again. I think that I was caught out by a speeding driver.

When you do your test you are thought to look twice before proceeding.

You don't get caught if you do that..

End of.

kippy

Webiter wrote: »

I think his speeding should be pointed out to him. I also think that he should be asked to account for it.

Why - surely he knows he was above the speed limit?

Why does his account of the reason he was breaking the speed limit (allegedly) matter?

Did you see the car coming down the road or was it out of your field of vision (not that it matters too much)

Webiter

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Might there be a different standard applied in a civil case. On balance of probability.

Mary63

You are going to lose your no claims bonus now and face hefty premiums next year.Even if the other driver is charged with speeding and he won't be this isn't going to change things for you.

Were you held totally liable for the accident.

ETA, the other driver has probably denied he was driving able the speed limit and you have no real evidence.You still want the Gardai to charge him with speeding because your word is more important than his.

Can people be charge with wasting Garda time.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Denny_Crane

Webiter wrote: »

Might there be a different standard applied in a civil case. On balance of probability.

Yes, but what theory would you proceed on. It's your negligence you're simply looking for contributory negligence to be applied. That's a defence, and a partial one at that, not a course of action.

Open to correction as always.

stimpson

Webiter wrote: »

Have used a methodology that calculates the speed of the incoming vehicle at the point of inpact. I think these calculation methods are used in court proceedings to prove speed of incoming vehicle.

What methodology have you used? I see you mention the coefficient of friction for the road surface, but the coefficient of friction will be a function of both materials, both road surface and tyre. Expensive tyres will have more grip than cheap Chinese ones. If you haven't taken this into account I'd say your numbers won't stand up to scrutiny.

nhunter100

Webiter wrote:

I totally agree with you on this. When it happens and you get caught in it you would not want it to be happening again. I think that I was caught out by a speeding driver.

You were caught out by pulling out into the path of an oncoming vehicle and failing to make progress quickly enough. You screwed up, now have the good grace to accept the consequence of your actions and learn from it.

Webiter

stimpson wrote: »

What methodology have you used? I see you mention the coefficient of friction for the road surface, but the coefficient of friction will be a function of both materials, both road surface and tyre. Expensive tyres will have more grip than cheap Chinese ones. If you haven't taken this into account I'd say your numbers won't stand up to scrutiny.

Even taken different coefficient figures into account to reflect different friction levels he is still failing the speed test relative to the 50km/hr zone.