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

Head on collision

Miss OMMC

I was involved in a head on collision this morning.

I was driving home and was 50m from my house. I was travelling straight approaching a blind bend and the other car was on the bend travelling in the opposite direction. This road is a narrow, rural road so only room for one car.

I saw the car and broke hard. My car stopped in time but other driver didn't break (at least not until the last second) and drove straight into me. No one was injured thankfully but my car is seriously damaged. The other driver is not accepting liability.

I'm wondering if there is any point in trying to claim against her insurance or should I just claim through my own. My car is quite possibly a write off.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kunst nugget

daheff wrote: »

wait till next year. your renewal was most likely already posted by the time the collision happened.

also if you accepted the renewal without confirming to them that there was an accident since your insurance may be invalid (for non disclosure).

I was in an accident - my fault, reversing out of my drive - and while my insurance went up slightly when renewing last year while the claim was open, it went back down this year. All with the same company so they know my full history.

I had ncb protection - probably the most important decision I ever made when getting insurance.

redcup342

Miss OMMC wrote: »

OP here

Hyundai says it's designed to collapse in on itself mainly to protect pedestrians if hit. The bonnet scrunches upwards to stop the person hitting the windscreen.

Also, re collision, our airbags didn't deploy, hers did. Not sure if this is relevant.

It's in the hands of the insurers at the moment.

If her airbags deployed her car will be written off.

seamus

Miss OMMC wrote: »

Also, re collision, our airbags didn't deploy, hers did. Not sure if this is relevant.

Surprisingly relevant. Airbags deploy in response to sudden deceleration in forward momentum. In some cases they may deploy if you're stationary and hit hard enough. And with the discrepancy between the age of the two vehicles, yours may just be smarter than hers.
But in a toss-up about your stories, her airbags deploying would indicate if nothing else that she was travelling considerably faster than you were at the time of collision.

Also, yes modern vehicles crumple like a coke can when hit, effectively creating a protective cocoon around the occupants and minimising the damage to 3rd parties. Which is good, but unfortunate when it's your vehicle that needs to be fixed/replaced.

DaveyDave

Am I correct in saying OP said their partner was with them and took pictures of the scene? If so surely that's a witness for them?

daheff

kunst nugget wrote: »

I was in an accident - my fault, reversing out of my drive - and while my insurance went up slightly when renewing last year while the claim was open, it went back down this year. All with the same company so they know my full history.

I had ncb protection - probably the most important decision I ever made when getting insurance.

thats what the NCB is for. Lucky you.

I got it this year for the first time because my renewal was so low (below the minimum cost) that it didnt cost me anything extra to add it to my policy. Fingers crossed i never need it.

Eggs For Dinner

DaveyDave wrote: »

Am I correct in saying OP said their partner was with them and took pictures of the scene? If so surely that's a witness for them?

The pictures might help but their partner would not be considered a witness

skallywag

seamus wrote: »

Surprisingly relevant. Airbags deploy in response to sudden deceleration in forward momentum. In some cases they may deploy if you're stationary and hit hard enough. And with the discrepancy between the age of the two vehicles, yours may just be smarter than hers.
But in a toss-up about your stories, her airbags deploying would indicate if nothing else that she was travelling considerably faster than you were at the time of collision.

+1

This is a very valid point, and just *might* be very good news also for the OP.

As far as I am aware most modern airbag systems use Accelerometer chips which can differentiate between positive and negative Accelerations, i.e. it being positive when speeding up and negative when slowing down. The majority of accidents will involve a car which was going at speed suddenly dropping in speed, and hence the systems themselves may well be tweaked to be most responsive in this direction, rather than in the opposite case where the car accelerates positively after impact.

I was actually in a crash myself once where we were stationary on a motorway in Germany due to an accident and we were hit from behind by an SUV. Our car was written off due to the impact, but the airbags never deployed.

I'm not completely up to speed (sorry!) but I would also agree that this fact could help the OP with the claim.

paleoperson

skallywag wrote: »

+1

This is a very valid point, and just *might* be very good news also for the OP.

As far as I am aware most modern airbag systems use Accelerometer chips which can differentiate between positive and negative Accelerations, i.e. it being positive when speeding up and negative when slowing down. The majority of accidents will involve a car which was going at speed suddenly dropping in speed, and hence the systems themselves may well be tweaked to be most responsive in this direction, rather than in the opposite case where the car accelerates positively after impact.

We're talking about a head-on collision, both cars are going to have severe deceleration.

Think of the conservation of momentum equation: m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1+m2)v3. Now before I get beat up for doing math just look at it - assuming they're the same mass it doesn't matter whether both were going 20mph or whether one was going 30mph and the other was going 10mph, if they're both the same size then the end result will be the same (loss of 20mph).

While you may think the person going faster in a crash is at more risk, they won't stop fully while the person going slower not only stops but is put in the opposite direction, in theory with the same deceleration. I know it gets a lot more complicated than this in reality, I have often wondered whether this really means that it doesn't matter that much how fast or slow both cars are going, only the addition of their speeds.

skallywag wrote: »

+1
I was actually in a crash myself once where we were stationary on a motorway in Germany due to an accident and we were hit from behind by an SUV. Our car was written off due to the impact, but the airbags never deployed.

Hit from behind, we're talking about a head-on collision though. Also there's more friction and you may have the brake on when you're completely stopped.

Dakota Dan

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

It was never fix your own

Yes it was no point arguing otherwise.

Eggs For Dinner

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Yes it was no point arguing otherwise.

Who's arguing? I was just pointing out your error

skallywag

paleoperson wrote: »

We're talking about a head-on collision, both cars are going to have severe deceleration.

So you think that the stationary car (i.e. the OP's) will decelerate if a moving car hits it?

Have you some manner of equation for that?

paleoperson

skallywag wrote: »

So you think that the stationary car (i.e. the OP's) will decelerate if a moving car hits it?

Have you some manner of equation for that?

I'm saying it will have negative acceleration if it hits head-on, that's the point. You used the term negative acceleration.

I was the one who brought up the word deceleration, apparently deceleration isn't the exact opposite to acceleration, fine.

twin_beacon

daheff wrote: »

if there were any skid marks on the road it would prove who was stationary and who was not.

assuming police bothered to look (or anybody else took pictures.)

Correct. I was in a similar situation 10 years ago, I took pics myself which came in handy when the guards pics went missing.....

My case went to the steps of the high Court, as the medical bills were so high from the crash it was worth the insurance companies while going to court.

If the claims are not that large, they usually leave it at 50/50 as it costs more money to fight it.

Mantis Toboggan

Will be decided on 50/50 by the insurers and both will lose no claims bonus if not protected.

skallywag

paleoperson wrote: »

I'm saying it will have negative acceleration if it hits head-on, that's the point...

The OP's car will have a positive acceleration if it was stationary and was then hit.

The other car will have a negative acceleration.

Have you even read the context in this thread or did you just jump in?

paleoperson

skallywag wrote: »

The OP's car will have a positive acceleration if it was stationary and was then hit.

The other car will have a negative acceleration.

Have you even read the context in this thread or did you just jump in?

I read all relevant details.

Rubbish, I tried to be nice about it and not smug but it will have negative acceleration. This will give it a negative velocity and it will also go a negative distance. The context is from the perspective of the car itself in a head-on collision, which is exactly what you are referring to.

Frankly you seem like the sort that no matter how wrong you are you'll just keep hammering away arguing even when you're objectively wrong like here so just forget it. You've wasted my time.

the_pen_turner

paleoperson wrote: »

I read all relevant details.

Rubbish, I tried to be nice about it and not smug but it will have negative acceleration. This will give it a negative velocity and it will also go a negative distance. The context is from the perspective of the car itself in a head-on collision, which is exactly what you are referring to.

Frankly you seem like the sort that no matter how wrong you are you'll just keep hammering away arguing even when you're objectively wrong like here so just forget it. You've wasted my time.

you clearly dont know anything about acceleration .

if your velocity in inceasing you are accelerating.
if your velocity is decreasing then you are decelerating.
direction is irrelivent . you are either, at a constant speed (in this case 0kph) , accelerating or decelerating. then the other car hits the OPs car it imarts a force that results in the OPs car accelerating .
the fact that they go backwards is irrelivent

paleoperson

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you clearly dont know anything about acceleration .

if your velocity in inceasing you are accelerating.
if your velocity is decreasing then you are decelerating.
direction is irrelivent . you are either, at a constant speed (in this case 0kph) , accelerating or decelerating. then the other car hits the OPs car it imarts a force that results in the OPs car accelerating .
the fact that they go backwards is irrelivent

You can't even spell irrelevant.

Acceleration has a direction, I promise, look it up, I'm not making it all up.

That's why you have positive acceleration and negative acceleration.

Deceleration doesn't have a direction, so it's not always the same as negative acceleration which is what we were talking about.

humberklog

This arguement's like Newton V. Einstein with a twist of Schrodinger.

OP- are both cars undrivable now?

Spook_ie

Think you're all getting hung up on technicalities here, surely it's momentum that matters?

Or myself as layman would imagine it, if car A ( moving ) hits car B (stationary ) then car B is going to move in the direction that car A was travelling, unless all the forces were absorbed by the crumple zones in which case it wouldn't move but just get messed up more.

TheChizler

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the fact that they go backwards is irrelivent

Think about it this way. When you start reversing from stationary you are accelerating in reverse. In the same way, if you are moving at a speed and decelerate/brake this is the same as accelerating in reverse. So both cars will be accelerating in reverse from their own perspectives. The initial velocity isn't relevant to acceleration, it's the change in velocity that matters.

skallywag

paleoperson wrote: »

Rubbish, I tried to be nice about it and not smug but it will have negative acceleration.

Be as smug as you wish, but it still doesn't alter the fact that you are wrong.

If a stationary body (i.e the OP's car) is hit by a moving object, that stationary object will then have a positive acceleration. It goes from a state of being at a rest to a state of being in motion. The magnitude of the acceleration is positive, not negative.

Feel free to keep going if you wish ...

Eggs For Dinner

If you think insurers are going to go in to this level of detail for a fender bender, you're mistaken. They will if there are serious injuries though. Without dashcam, supporting photos or independent witness, it will go 50/50 and they will move on to the next case.

Esel

Positive or negative whiplash, anyone?

redcup342

humberklog wrote: »

This arguement's like Newton V. Einstein with a twist of Schrodinger.

OP- are both cars undrivable now?

Both have been drinking :P

Needles73

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

If you think insurers are going to go in to this level of detail for a fender bender, you're mistaken. They will if there are serious injuries though. Without dashcam, supporting photos or independent witness, it will go 50/50 and they will move on to the next case.

You are correct. Insurance companies usually will take the path of least resistance and just look to settle 50:50. However if what the OP said is what happened I would absolutely stick to my guns and not accept any blame. Advise your insurance company in very clear terms you do not accept any responsibility (and they should pursue the other party). You normally get a form to fill and add a sketch when you report it. Plus 50:50 main mean each fixed their own.....hardly 50:50? Plus it’s early days what happens with other driver puts collar on the neck ? If they were stopped - do not accept responsibility

Voodoomelon

Serious front end damage to a 2017 Tuscon, a tough pill to swallow. Be interesting to see what repairs will be performed or if its a write off. Any pics OP?

Eggs For Dinner

Needles73 wrote: »

You are correct. Insurance companies usually will take the path of least resistance and just look to settle 50:50. However if what the OP said is what happened I would absolutely stick to my guns and not accept any blame. Advise your insurance company in very clear terms you do not accept any responsibility (and they should pursue the other party). You normally get a form to fill and add a sketch when you report it. Plus 50:50 main mean each fixed their own.....hardly 50:50? Plus it’s early days what happens with other driver puts collar on the neck ? If they were stopped - do not accept responsibility

Firstly, it is in the terms and conditions of every policy that the insurer reserves the right to handle the claim as they see fit. Of course they will defend their client as far as practicable, but if the 3rd party's insurer is doing the same thing, it cannot go unresolved forever. Without independent evidence, dashcam, witness, photos etc, it will go 50/50

Secondly, your insurer will not pursue anyone on your behalf unless they have compensated you first under your own policy for your damages.

Finally, 50/50 does not mean each fix their own. In laymans terms, you pay half his loss and he pays half your loss, with your own policy making up the difference in each case

Miss OMMC

Pic of our damage attached.

Hyundai say they can extract data to show that we were stationary at the time of the crash so hopefully that will work in our favour.

Speakerboxx

Silent Running wrote: »

Can you find a witness to say you had stopped. Maybe someone living along the road might have seen it through a window or from a garden. It might be worth knocking on doors.

why would you bother doing such a thing?