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

stimpson

Webiter wrote: »

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.

What formula are you using?

Senna

What percentage of blame are you wishing to apply to the other driver?

Webiter

stimpson wrote: »

What formula are you using?

Formulas as demonstrated at at http://www.tarorigin.com/aangles/Inline/dkemble.html I converted for metric application.

Webiter

Senna wrote: »

What percentage of blame are you wishing to apply to the other driver?

On account of his speeding in the 50km/hr zone 50%

LeinsterDub

Webiter wrote: »

On account of his speeding in the 50km/hr zone 50%

2 days on and still no details of how the accident actually occurred

Webiter

Mary63 wrote: »

Can people be charge with wasting Garda time.

I would not waste Garda time.

LeinsterDub

Webiter wrote: »

I would not waste Garda time.

You're wasting our time by refusing to give details of the accident you caused

Webiter

LeinsterDub wrote: »

2 days on and still no details of how the accident actually occurred

The question is about speeding. I think that I presented sufficient detail to facilitate the speeding question.

Senna

Webiter wrote: »

On account of his speeding in the 50km/hr zone 50%

Not a chance, you pulled out infront of him, you admitted your maneuver was slow also.
He was doing 65-70kph, over the limit yes, but that does not mean he was a danger to over road users, you were the danger.

LeinsterDub

Webiter wrote: »

The question is about speeding. I think that I presented sufficient detail to facilitate the speeding question.

You haven't. The details of the accident are critical to everyone's understanding of why the speeding is a mitigating factor.

ezra_pound

Speeding could be in issue if and only if you could not see the vehicle before you made your turn.

That is, if the other driver was not visible (behind bend etc.) and you began to move off, and due to his excessive speed he was unable to see you in time and stop. Once you could see him before you moved it it was your responsibility to calculate his speed and the safety of the manoeuvre.

Likewise he has duty to ensure that he was driving slow enough that his braking distance is less than his clear field of vision of the road ahead.

If there was no bend then his speed is of no significance, from my understanding.

stimpson

Webiter wrote: »

Formulas as demonstrated at at http://www.tarorigin.com/aangles/Inline/dkemble.html I converted for metric application.

The formula in the second example assumes the car on the main road is fully breaking and that the car they was crossing has the same breaking force as it's being pushed laterally. Yet you have already said:

Webiter wrote: »

No sign of braking being employed.

If the other car wasn't breaking then that needs to be factored into the calculations. It could easily account for the 15-20km/h that you claim he was speeding by.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

ezra_pound

ezra_pound wrote: »

Speeding could be in issue if and only if you could not see the vehicle before you made your turn.

That is, if the other driver was not visible (behind bend etc.) and you began to move off, and due to his excessive speed he was unable to see you in time and stop. Once you could see him before you moved it it was your responsibility to calculate his speed and the safety of the manoeuvre.

Likewise he has duty to ensure that he was driving slow enough that his braking distance is less than his clear field of vision of the road ahead.

If there was no bend then his speed is of no significance, from my understanding.

Unless of course he increased his speed as you are making your turn which he clearly didn't.

Mary63

But if he could not see any vehicle before he made his turn how slow was he making the turn that a car could appear doing 70 kms an hour and hit him.

Of course he refuses to tell us was it a turn or did he change lanes.In any event he didn't drive with due care and consideration for other road users and why can't he just accept the responsibility for the error he made.

RayCun

Webiter wrote: »

Formulas as demonstrated at at http://www.tarorigin.com/aangles/Inline/dkemble.html I converted for metric application.

I feel comfortable guaranteeing that you will not be able to prove the other driver was speeding to the satisfaction of a court.

The simple fact is that people take credentials into account. You are not a garda, or a crash investigator, you are someone involved in an accident for which your insurance company has already accepted liability on your behalf.

Part of the reason that people take credentials into account is that an experienced crash investigator will know what evidence is acceptable, what factors will come into play in a collision, and will have seen the results of many collisions. You don't have that knowledge or experience, and your arguments are plainly self-interested.

gl0Rob

The calculation would not hold up in court in my opinion.
From what I have read the drag factor was not calculated using the road in question, under the conditions of the day. Condition of tires will also play a part.
How was the weight calculated ? Depending on occupants, fuel and load the weight could vary. The error margin would be huge. The drive could claim his car was fully loaded.
The drivers ability to apply the break in a timely manner would also impact the calculations.
It the person was going > 120kph I could see an argument but even then with so many factors involved it would be easy to cast doubt.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Mary63

Has anyone got full no claims bonus protection and made a claim or had a claim made against them with it.

I have full protected no claims bonus but how does it really work in practice.Do the insurance companies jack up the premium anyway, its not your premium thats being protected.

I think OP would be better off booking a few refresher lessons with a driving instructor than wasting anymore time with his calculations etc.<<Mod deletion. Pls keep it civil>>

seamus

I've made a claim with full protection. You will get slightly penalised for having a claim on your record, but the insurance do and are legally required to honour your full no claims bonus.

The first year after it, the insurer hiked my premium by about 50%, but I got insurance with someone else that was only about €50 more expensive than the previous year.

Mary63

Thats what I was asking Seamus.Your insurance hiked your premium up even though you had full no claims bonus protection.Does this mean you are protecting 50% of a premium of 1500 euros instead of protecting 50% of a premium of 500 euros prior to the claim.

h2005

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.

Wonder what their view is of a driver becoming overwhelmed and pulling out in front of them?

Mary63

They probably don't realise Webiter is busy trying to shift the liability for the accident onto them or at least half of it anyway.They will be fit to be tied when they find out especially if they were injured when Webiters car ploughed into them.They were in the correct place on the road and webiter wasn't, he is liable, everyone except webiter knows this, we all here do too even though webiter is trying to avoid telling us how the collision happened.If he just draws a picture of both cars locations at point of collision it would be helpful.

NUTLEY BOY

May we now take it as common case that the OP pulled out of a side road and that there was a collision with a vehicle travelling on the main road ?
BTW was the other motorist coming from the OP's left or right hand side ?
Excuse the pedantry but basic facts sometimes get lost in the fog of argument

.

IMHO a judge will resolve this issue on first principles if it ever gets to court.

Q1. What is the OP's obligation ?
A1. To exercise reasonable care including keeping a proper look out.

Q2. Has OP discharged that duty ?
A2. On the physical evidence, probably not. The physical evidence will raise a presumption of a failure of observation. Indeed, the other motorist will probably be able to invoke res ipsa loquitor on the basic facts especially if he happens to have a dash-cam.

Q3. Could the OP be absolved of liability ?
A3. Possibly yes if they can show that they have actually discharged the duty of care fully. This is unlikely to happen as you would need superb evidence to stand up that defence.

Q4. In the real world what is the likely outcome if this went to a hearing?
A4. A finding of liability against the OP with a reduction for contributory negligence on the basis of the other motorist's speed.

Q5. Does the other motorist not have a duty of care to the OP ?
A5. Yes.

Q6. Does a plea of contributory negligence depend upon a breach of the other motorist's duty of care to the OP ?
A6. No. A plea of contributory negligence is based on the principle that a party has by their conduct shown a lack or want of care for their own safety and thus contributed to causing their losses and injuries.

In relation to evidence it is not necessary to blind a judge with overwhelming scientific information to prove the speeding allegation. You do not have to prove the actual speed of the other motorist to prove that there was speeding - this is not a speeding prosecution. A judge is quite entitled on the evidence presented to infer the presence of speed and it's likely contribution to the issues of causation and contributory negligence.

All of that said I can empathise with the OP if this was a situation where the road was clear before he entered it only to be faced subsequently with a speeding motorist imposing himself unreasonably to other another's detriment - a not uncommon event these days.

Mary63

If the road was clear and the manoeuvre wasn't delayed unnecessarily there wouldn't have been a collision nutleyboy.The OP has already said the other driver was doing between 65 and 70 km per hour and not 120 km or over.If the other driver was travelling at 70 km per hour he would have had plenty of time to avoid OP unless OP drove directly into his path.

I think this is what happened, OP didn't check what was coming or else he can't judge speed, he either didn't see the car at all or thought it was further back than it was.We all know too that when changing lanes you have to remember that cars behind you are much closer than they appear.OP could have hit the other car changing lanes too, he isn't willing to give us the full circumstances so trying to advise him is pointless.

Webiter

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

May we now take it as common case that the OP pulled out of a side road and that there was a collision with a vehicle travelling on the main road ?
BTW was the other motorist coming from the OP's left or right hand side ?
Excuse the pedantry but basic facts sometimes get lost in the fog of argument .

IMHO a judge will resolve this issue on first principles if it ever gets to court.

Q1. What is the OP's obligation ?
A1. To exercise reasonable care including keeping a proper look out.

Q2. Has OP discharged that duty ?
A2. On the physical evidence, probably not. The physical evidence will raise a presumption of a failure of observation. Indeed, the other motorist will probably be able to invoke res ipsa loquitor on the basic facts especially if he happens to have a dash-cam.

Q3. Could the OP be absolved of liability ?
A3. Possibly yes if they can show that they have actually discharged the duty of care fully. This is unlikely to happen as you would need superb evidence to stand up that defence.

Q4. In the real world what is the likely outcome if this went to a hearing?
A4. A finding of liability against the OP with a reduction for contributory negligence on the basis of the other motorist's speed.

Q5. Does the other motorist not have a duty of care to the OP ?
A5. Yes.

Q6. Does a plea of contributory negligence depend upon a breach of the other motorist's duty of care to the OP ?
A6. No. A plea of contributory negligence is based on the principle that a party has by their conduct shown a lack or want of care for their own safety and thus contributed to causing their losses and injuries.

In relation to evidence it is not necessary to blind a judge with overwhelming scientific information to prove the speeding allegation. You do not have to prove the actual speed of the other motorist to prove that there was speeding - this is not a speeding prosecution. A judge is quite entitled on the evidence presented to infer the presence of speed and it's likely contribution to the issues of causation and contributory negligence.

All of that said I can empathise with the OP if this was a situation where the road was clear before he entered it only to be faced subsequently with a speeding motorist imposing himself unreasonably to other another's detriment - a not uncommon event these days.

Well said NUTLEY BOY. I have not given the full details of the accident as I do not think it necessary as I accept that I crossed the road in front of him. The question I raised was about speed and speeding and I gather from how the discussion thread has developed that lots of people in this country will bend over backwards to find excuses to hide the ghost of speeding. As I have managed to expose the speeding element I think that the other side should be given the opportunity to account for it to me because I believe it to be relevant. It did impact on my ability to properly execute my duty of care.

I did discuss the claimants payout detail with the Insurance Company. Further to that conversation I can arrive at the following estimate of the payout he is likely to receive. I do the estimate build up as follows:

1999 van at book value of say €1,500.00
Physical Injury claimed 300.00
Total award €1,800.00
His Solicitor fee at 40% 720.00
Total €2,520.00

Then if I look at the loss of my No Claim Bonus a serious level of disproportionality arises.
I work in an industry with high insurance costs. It must be an Irish thing because the same insurance in France or Germany is about one eighth (I repeat one eighth) the cost as to what it is in this country. A huge difference in cost yet we are all in the European Union.

Thus I have calculated that over the 5 years that it would take me to earn back the No Claim Bonus it would have cost me between 25 and 35 thousand €uros. That is some 10/15 times the value of the payout to the claimant.

Hence the above shows a disproportionality in this case that is penal on a business. It does not help competitiveness. The No Claims Bonus thing seems to be a huge benefit to the Insurance Industry. At the end of the day it is that anomaly that I am trying to challenge...... even if I had to take a win, loose or draw speeding case to highlight it.

Thus I am of the opinion that the principle of a No Claims Bonus should be relevant to an event on its individual merits and therefore suitably proportional and applied in a fair way.

ohnonotgmail

Webiter wrote: »

Well said NUTLEY BOY. I have not given the full details of the accident as I do not think it necessary as I accept that I crossed the road in front of him. The question I raised was about speed and speeding and I gather from how the discussion thread has developed that lots of people in this country will bend over backwards to find excuses to hide the ghost of speeding. As I have managed to expose the speeding element I think that the other side should be given the opportunity to account for it to me because I believe it to be relevant. It did impact on my ability to properly execute my duty of care.

I did discuss the claimants payout detail with the Insurance Company. Further to that conversation I can arrive at the following estimate of the payout he is likely to receive. I do the estimate build up as follows:

1999 van at book value of say €1,500.00
Physical Injury claimed 300.00
Total award €1,800.00
His Solicitor fee at 40% 720.00
Total €2,520.00

Then if I look at the loss of my No Claim Bonus a serious level of disproportionality arises.
I work in an industry with high insurance costs. It must be an Irish thing because the same insurance in France or Germany is about one eighth (I repeat one eighth) the cost as to what it is in this country. A huge difference in cost yet we are all in the European Union.

Thus I have calculated that over the 5 years that it would take me to earn back the No Claim Bonus it would have cost me between 25 and 35 thousand €uros. That is some 10/15 times the value of the payout to the claimant.

Hence the above shows a disproportionality in this case that is penal on a business. It does not help competitiveness. The No Claims Bonus thing seems to be a huge benefit to the Insurance Industry. At the end of the day it is that anomaly that I am trying to challenge...... even if I had to take a win, loose or draw speeding case to highlight it.

Thus I am of the opinion that the principle of a No Claims Bonus should be relevant to an event on its individual merits and therefore suitably proportional and applied in a fair way.

what does any of that have to do with your opinion that the other guy was speeding?

RayCun

Webiter wrote: »

As I have managed to expose the speeding element

You have asserted a speeding element, you have not proven it or exposed it.

And even if you managed to prove there was a speeding element, and that this was a contributory factor, you would still (afaik) lose your NCB

nhunter100

Webiter wrote:

Well said NUTLEY BOY. I have not given the full details of the accident as I do not think it necessary as I accept that I crossed the road in front of him.

So the accident was entirely your fault. Next time make your manoeuvres with due care and attention.

mikeymouse

Quote; As I have managed to expose the speeding element did you satisfy all the criteria on this site? Were you hit side-on at right angles ,center of mass to center of mass,with the wheels of the striking vehicle locked? Was the van weighed?