Calculations indicate Speeding

ezra_pound · 16-01-2017 12:23am

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 · 16-01-2017 12:25am

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 · 16-01-2017 12:26am

This post has been deleted.

ezra_pound · 16-01-2017 12:36am

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 · 16-01-2017 12:48am

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 · 16-01-2017 10:03am

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 · 16-01-2017 11:37am

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 · 16-01-2017 12:38pm

This post has been deleted.

Mary63 · 16-01-2017 12:49pm

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 · 16-01-2017 12:59pm

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 · 16-01-2017 1:10pm

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 · 16-01-2017 1:17pm

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 · 16-01-2017 1:27pm

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 · 16-01-2017 1:44pm

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 · 16-01-2017 2:02pm

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 · 16-01-2017 2:38pm

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 · 16-01-2017 2:45pm

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 · 16-01-2017 2:47pm

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 · 16-01-2017 2:53pm

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 · 16-01-2017 2:55pm

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?

heroics · 16-01-2017 2:58pm

OP you need to give this a rest. YOU pulled across the road in front of the other driver. Just be glad that there was only 300€ of personal injury claimed and that you didn't kill someone.

People are not bending over backwards to ignore speeding. YOU still have a responsibility to make sure the road is clear before proceeding regardless of the speed the other driver is doing. Its like someone saying " I looked saw the other car was definitely speeding so I pulled out anyway. If he wasn't speeding he could have stopped and not hit me"

I would be more worried about sharing the road with a driver who was overwhelmed by a car doing 70 kph and apparently does not look before and during crossing the road or if they looked cannot judge distance or speed than someone who was speeding.

I also have to query some of the "facts" that you are telling us. If there was no sign of braking and the other driver hit you doing 70 surely there would be more than 300€ in personal injury? Especially in a 17/18 year old van

RayCun · 16-01-2017 3:04pm

Webiter wrote: »

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.

You are saving over 5000 euro a year because of your no claims bonus?

seamus · 16-01-2017 3:05pm

Mary63 wrote: »

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.

Yeah, that's exactly it. The no claims bonus is a discount that's applied after your premium has been calculated. So if you do make a claim your base premium will go up.

Which in a twisted way means that your no claims bonus is worth more to you - €750 versus €250 in your example.

Honestly after having to avail of protection, I'd never go without it again. I only made a small claim, but without the no-claims protection my premium would have quadrupled.

Actually, I wouldn't have claimed at all, I would have paid out of pocket if I didn't have the protection.

Mary63 · 16-01-2017 5:10pm

Finally, finally we hear what actually happened.You pulled across into another car without checking the way was clear.

The other driver could do absolutely nothing except hit his brakes but you were into him without warning.

You are now blaming him for speeding even though if he had been travelling at 40 km per hour he couldn't have avoided you anyway.

Little CuChulainn · 16-01-2017 5:40pm

I understand the ops frustration. A while back, a friend of mine was pulling out of a side road onto a larger road. The road was clear. When she was half way out a car came around the corner at high speed. There was no time to clear the road or reverse before the collision. The other driver was going at least 20 over the speed limit. If they hadn't been then my friend would have had enough time to clear the road. The other driver was also uninsured so they shouldn't have even been on the road. The insurance company still paid out.

RayCun · 16-01-2017 6:53pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I understand the ops frustration. A while back, a friend of mine was pulling out of a side road onto a larger road. The road was clear. When she was half way out a car came around the corner at high speed. There was no time to clear the road or reverse before the collision. The other driver was going at least 20 over the speed limit. If they hadn't been then my friend would have had enough time to clear the road. The other driver was also uninsured so they shouldn't have even been on the road. The insurance company still paid out.

I agree, and someone else said this above, if the other car came around a corner at an excessive speed, that would be an issue.
OP has indicated that he saw the other car at least 250 metres away, possibly more, so I don't think that situation applies.

mikeymouse · 16-01-2017 7:00pm

RayCun wrote: »

I agree, and someone else said this above, if the other car came around a corner at an excessive speed, that would be an issue.
OP has indicated that he saw the other car at least 250 metres away, possibly more, so I don't think that situation applies.

I don't think op ever said he/she saw the van 250 mtrs away,
The speed limit sign was 250mtrs away according to op.

nhunter100 · 16-01-2017 7:03pm

mikeymouse wrote:

I don't think op ever said he/she saw the van 250 mtrs away, The speed limit sign was 250mtrs away according to op.

The OP has been very selective in the detail of the accident other than to confirm he pulled across the path of the vehicle that hit him and his insurance accepted full liability. ( I make the assumption the OP is male, open to correction)

Mary63 · 16-01-2017 7:13pm

How slow is your friend though doing manoeuvres and does she pick up speed once the manoeuvre is done.A person manoeuvring efficiently onto a road and moving on promptly is very unlikely to be hit by an oncoming car.If you are pulling onto a road with a corner you get onto that road as as fast as you can and increase your speed quickly too.

That situation is very different to what OP is describing anyway.

RayCun · 16-01-2017 7:57pm

mikeymouse wrote: »

I don't think op ever said he/she saw the van 250 mtrs away,
The speed limit sign was 250mtrs away according to op.

At least 250m away.
OP said that the other car closed the distance from the sign in x seconds, so must have been travelling at y speed.
If OP couldn't see the car at the signpost, they wouldn't even be able to guess how long it took to travel the distance.
Therefore, OP could see the other car when it was at least 250m away.

Of course, OP could simply describe the whole incident for us, but apparently they like making us work it out.

mikeymouse · 16-01-2017 8:30pm

RayCun wrote: »

At least 250m away.
OP said that the other car closed the distance from the sign in x seconds, so must have been travelling at y speed.
If OP couldn't see the car at the signpost, they wouldn't even be able to guess how long it took to travel the distance.
Therefore, OP could see the other car when it was at least 250m away.

Of course, OP could simply describe the whole incident for us, but apparently they like making us work it out.

But he said this "One can assume that he came through the 50km/hr road sign location a bit faster but I would not have been able to see him at that point. As I say his excessive speed overwhelmed my position on the roadway as I was probably not expecting to have to deal with such excessive speed within the town environment. Thus if he had been traveling slower and in compliance with the 50km speed limit I might not have got caught in his path.

Senna · 16-01-2017 9:19pm

RayCun wrote: »

Of course, OP could simply describe the whole incident for us, but apparently they like making us work it out.

Think the OP knows if they told us the full story their guilt would become very aparent and this thread would have died long ago.

BrianBoru00 · 16-01-2017 11:06pm

Is there CCTV? Otherwise as Speed is a function of both distance AND time, how can you tell what time elapsed between you seeing him and him hitting you?

RayCun · 17-01-2017 9:54am

mikeymouse wrote: »

But he said this "One can assume that he came through the 50km/hr road sign location a bit faster but I would not have been able to see him at that point.

Good point.
I keep falling into the trap of expecting the OP to make sense, but of course he was measuring from a spot he couldn't see

Mary63 · 17-01-2017 10:16am

The problem is the OP didn't see the other driver at any point.He heard the bang when he hit the other drivers car, at this point in time its quite immaterial what speed the other driver was doing, you can't react in time if someone drives into you without warning.

brian_t · 17-01-2017 10:53am

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Is there CCTV? Otherwise as Speed is a function of both distance AND time, how can you tell what time elapsed between you seeing him and him hitting you?

I presume that Garda investigators would also measure any brakeing marks (skid marks) at the scene and also access the damage to both cars in order to help determine the likely speeds of both cars.

ohnonotgmail · 17-01-2017 10:59am

brian_t wrote: »

I presume that Garda investigators would also measure any brakeing marks (skid marks) at the scene and also access the damage to both cars in order to help determine the likely speeds of both cars.

according to the OP the other guy didnt break.

EndaHonesty · 17-01-2017 11:14am

brian_t wrote: »

I presume that Garda investigators would also measure any brakeing marks (skid marks) at the scene and also access the damage to both cars in order to help determine the likely speeds of both cars.

All modern cars are fitted with ABS brakes. ABS brakes do not leave skid marks.

mikeymouse · 17-01-2017 11:33am

Mary63 wrote: »

The problem is the OP didn't see the other driver at any point.He heard the bang when he hit the other drivers car, at this point in time its quite immaterial what speed the other driver was doing, you can't react in time if someone drives into you without warning.

I don't think you've read all Webiter's posts. as he said;
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.

I read that as Webiter was hit side on.
He doesn't say he never saw the van , or lf he saw it and took a chance.
He may have run a red light,He may have been used to driving abroad and was looking left instead of right.
It may have happened on a crossroads where Webiter thought he had right of way.
We don't know.
All we know is Crossed in front of the van and was hit,

mikeymouse · 17-01-2017 11:35am

EndaHonesty wrote: »

All modern cars are fitted with ABS brakes. ABS brakes do not leave skid marks.

On a 1999 van?

PCX · 17-01-2017 11:43am

Lets imagine that you manage to get the courts to take a speeding case against the other driver and somehow the court decides based on your arguments that the other driver was speeding and gives them a small fine and penalty points. (Sounds very unlikely based on the details you have given - at the very least you would have to hire a private expert crash investigator willing to back up the the claims and calculations you have made).

So what is your next move? Do you bring the other driver to court in a civil case and argue the blame for the accident should be apportioned based on the speeding fine and that damages should be awarded to you by the other driver to compensate for the loss of your no claims bonus on a pro rata basis?

From the very small amount of details you have revealed it sounds as though even if the other vehicle was travelling above the speed limit - and you can prove that in court - you still hold the lions share of responsibility for the accident. In the absence of other facts in your favour that you are not revealing (I presume there are none) my guess would be that you are at least 90% at fault.

Even if a court found that the other driver had some partial responsibility for the accident there is no guarantee that a judge would award you any compensation for the loss of your no claims bonus. You lost that based on your contribution to the accident.

You have nothing to gain from this exercise OP.

ohnonotgmail · 17-01-2017 11:44am

mikeymouse wrote: »

On a 1999 van?

It was the OP driving a 1999 van. there is no indication of what the other vehicle was.

Little CuChulainn · 17-01-2017 12:02pm

brian_t wrote: »

I presume that Garda investigators would also measure any brakeing marks (skid marks) at the scene and also access the damage to both cars in order to help determine the likely speeds of both cars.

Only if there was serious injury or a fatality.

twowheelsonly · 17-01-2017 12:05pm

Webiter wrote: »

Irelandrover stated...... the difference between 50 km/h and 70km/h is about 6m/s. So there is now way he would have been 60 meters away unless you took a crazy amount of time to carry out your maneuver.

I work my calculations from the 50km sign which is 250 meters away from the impact position. I take the 50km sign as a control point. I present two speed sample calculations for his approach below.

Traveling the 250m at 50km/hr (in compliance with the rules of the road) should take him approx 18 seconds

Sample 1 - Traveling the 250m at 65km/hr would take him 13.85 seconds. If he had been in compliance with the 50km/hr road sign detail he should have only traveled 192 meters in his 13.85 seconds thus he should have been some 59 meters away from my position at the time of impact.

Sample 2 - Traveling the 250m at 70km/hr would take him 12.86 seconds. If he had been in compliance with the 50km/hr road sign detail he should have only traveled 178 meters in his 12.86 seconds thus he should have been some 72 meters away from my position at the time of impact.

Yes, I may have been slow with my maneuver but this is where I was overwhelmed by his excessive approach speed. Is the above as set out a logical approach

That's all well and good but is totally irrelevant to your argument.
The control point should be from his position when you pulled out and not from the speed sign.
You're dealing with facts and not 'what ifs'

You're saying that he traveled the 250 mtrs in 12.85 seconds whereas it should have taken him 13.85 seconds. What really matters is how far he traveled from the time you pulled out in front of him. i.e. if he was 125 mtrs away then you were giving him 6 seconds to react, if he was 60 mtrs then it was 3 seconds etc..

I'm not going to go into the countless variables of the accident as they've already been well covered here other than to say that your calculations are based on a paper exercise rather than real time details. That's the reason accident investigators are employed - the best computers or formulas in the world still can't take all variables into account.

Last point.... Could the fact that there was no brake marks indicate that you didn't give him enough time to brake ?? Average reaction times of drivers are estimated at 1.5 seconds, but obviously can be faster or slower, and that's up to the time the brakes are applied and start to do their job - actually stopping can take far longer.

IMO, I'm with the majority here. Suck it up, you have nothing to gain from dragging this out.

NUTLEY BOY · 17-01-2017 12:36pm

Webiter wrote: »

SNIP SNIP

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.

I have thrashed this out a few times with insurance underwriters.

Aside from any issue of protected no claims discount the conventional wisdom is that it is what it says, namely a no claims discount as distinct from a no blame discount. Any issue of fault is contractually irrelevant. In plainer terms, if insurers incur outlay and they cannot get it back from elsewhere that constitutes a claim that prejudices the NCD.

You refer to comparative insurance costs within the EU. Two issues arise. We pay high levels of damages. They have to be financed from somewhere. Secondly, the size of the risk pool in Ireland is very small as compared to a country like Germany. The underwriters always tell me that one of the principles of insurance is the spreading and sharing of risk. Put another way, as far as insurance goes, the misfortunes of the few who have accidents is compensated for or shared by the many who do not have an accident. A small risk pool that is paying high levels of compensation is probably going to have high costs in the form of premiums.

Mr. Incognito · 17-01-2017 1:39pm

Webiter wrote: »

Quoted by Seamus.... "Unless you can prove that exceeding the speed limit was a significant causative factor in the accident, then obtaining a declarative judgement is a waste of time."

If the other driver had been progressing at or below the 50km/hr limit (in other words driving with due care and attention) then he would/should have been some 60 plus meters away from my position at the time of impact.

My toaster is broken and I need to hold the plastic thing down to brown toast.

If it wasnt I would have been ready two minutes earlier and would not have been in the place the accident occurred.

Clearly your honour this accident is the toaster manufacturers fault.

Treepole · 17-01-2017 2:09pm

seamus wrote: »

Nobody gets rewarded in an insurance claim, simply compensated for their losses.

lol

Mary63 · 17-01-2017 2:25pm

One of the main reasons for our high insurance costs is the cost of solicitors involved in the claims.

Robbo · 17-01-2017 2:37pm

Moderation: OP, you appear to have answers.

The Gardaí aren't interested in it from a Road Traffic Offence perspective. You can bring a private prosecution if you so wish.

Your insurance company won't run a defence based on your conclusions so you'll either need to have it out with them or get creative.

To take this any further in the direction you wish would require legal advice, something the charter prohibits.

Thread closed.

hullaballoo · 17-01-2017 2:41pm

Mary63 wrote: »

One of the main reasons for our high insurance costs is the cost of solicitors involved in the claims.

Can you back that up?

I can save you the effort of trying because I have examined this falsehood in detail and there is no evidence available anywhere that legal costs has anything to do with the level of insurance premiums here.

In fact, all the available evidence says that legal costs have decreased substantially (by up to 70%) since 2010.

The reason for high insurance premiums is reckless mismanagement within the insurance industry.

Calculations indicate Speeding

Comments