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

Alanstrainor

Miss OMMC wrote: »

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.

That's very interesting to hear Hyundai can extract the data. And needless to say... that's a lot of damage. Really sorry to see.

Henry Ford III

Miss OMMC wrote: »

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.

That's nasty. At least the people were ok.

p.s. That evidence is absolutely vital. It'll win you the case 100% I suspect.

Eggs For Dinner

Some smack alright. Given how narrow the road is, I'd say the data you talk about is vital. I have a Hyundai, so I'd be very interested myself

Silent Running

Speakerboxx wrote: »

why would you bother doing such a thing?

I would have thought it was obvious.

If an independent witness could be found to say that the OP did all possible to avoid a collision, including coming to a complete stop, they would have a much stronger claim of no fault.

twin_beacon

wow that was a big impact, thankfully nobody was hurt.

Brian Scan

humberklog wrote: »

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

OP- are both cars undrivable now?

It's certainly catty.

Seve OB

redcup342 wrote: »

If her airbags deployed her car will be written off.

says who? I'm not saying that won't be the case, but just because airbags deploy it doesn't mean the car is a write off.

Seve OB

Loadsa room there to get another car past

sorry, had to say it

Henry Ford III

Seve OB wrote: »

says who? I'm not saying that won't be the case, but just because airbags deploy it doesn't mean the car is a write off.

Absolutely

humberklog

^^^Y'know that's fake? Ikea ad I think.

kirving

Alanstrainor wrote: »

That's very interesting to hear Hyundai can extract the data. And needless to say... that's a lot of damage. Really sorry to see.

My old Volvo S40, released in 2004, had the following in the user manual:

Recording vehicle data
One or more of the computers in your Volvo
are capable of recording detailed information.
This information is intended for use in
research to enhance safety and for diagnosing
faults in some of the in-car systems. The
data may include details regarding seatbelt
use by the driver and passengers, the functions
of various vehicle systems and modules,
and status information about the
engine, throttle, steering, brakes and other
systems. This data can also include details of
the way the car is driven. This type of information
can include, without being limited to,
specific details such as vehicle speed, the
use of the brake and accelerator pedals and
steering wheel position. This latter type of
data can be stored for a limited period while
the car is being driven and subsequently
during a collision or a near-collision. Volvo
Car Corporation will not disclose the stored
information without consent. However, Volvo
Car Corporation may be forced to disclose
the information due to national legislation.
Volvo Car Corporation and authorised Volvo
workshops may also read and use the information.

seamus wrote: »

Surprisingly relevant. Airbags deploy in response to sudden deceleration in forward momentum.

It's not relevant. Modern airbag systems will take everything from vehicle speed to how far the windows are open before deciding if and when to deploy

seamus wrote: »

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.

Vehicle speed is only one variable taken into account, there are dozens if not hundreds more. Bottom line is that an airbag will deploy if the car thinks it needs to.

seamus wrote: »

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.

That's not a true statement to make.

All else being equal, and in theory, the heavier call will experience less acceleration (due to it's inertia), and in this case also has greater an crumple-zone. Either of those factors could account for the non-deployment of the airbag - regardless of vehicle speed.

Miss OMMC

Car data shows that we were travelling at 2 km/h at the time of impact.

Damage to our car is significant - engine has been pushed back

Other party are claiming 50/50

Henry Ford III

Miss OMMC wrote: »

Car data shows that we were travelling at 2 km/h at the time of impact.

Damage to our car is significant - engine has been pushed back

Other party are claiming 50/50

A good motor assessor will be able to estimate the speed of the other vehicle by looking at the damage and taking your 2kph speed into account.

Hire one, and you'll not lose very much on this at all I reckon. The 3rd party was clearly travelling much faster.

Eggs For Dinner

Miss OMMC wrote:

Car data shows that we were travelling at 2 km/h at the time of impact.

Out of curiosity, does it give the timeframe you were effectively stopped. i e. 1/2/3/4 seconds etc

Voodoomelon

Not sure how it works with the insurance cos, but i'd be pushing them to write it off and replace. I wouldn't be happy with any level of repair on that.

Henry Ford III

Arthur Tussic would fix that in his lunchtime.

p.s. Infact here's a video of him repairing an XC90 with not dissimilar damage.

flatty

Miss OMMC wrote: »

Car data shows that we were travelling at 2 km/h at the time of impact.

Damage to our car is significant - engine has been pushed back

Other party are claiming 50/50

So you weren't stopped and they drove into you as you claimed initially. Not being funny, but this is a point worth noting.

kunst nugget

flatty wrote: »

So you weren't stopped and they drove into you as you claimed initially. Not being funny, but this is a point worth noting.

She was going at 2km/h - she had come to almost a complete stop. If the other car had reacted similarly to her in terms of braking and was travelling at the same speed by the time of impact, there would have been little damage beyond a scratch.

Miss OMMC

flatty wrote: »

So you weren't stopped and they drove into you as you claimed initially. Not being funny, but this is a point worth noting.

The facts are that the other driver was travelling at speed around a 90 degree bend with no visibility (due to tall hedges) leaving no time to react safely to an oncoming car. In this case, I slowed to 'almost' a complete stop as I was travelling at a safe speed (approaching the bend) and therefore had time to react.

We drive this road every day and meet cars there all the time.

We compiled a report for the insurer so hopefully they will do the right thing.

Needles73

flatty wrote: »

So you weren't stopped and they drove into you as you claimed initially. Not being funny, but this is a point worth noting.

It’s not really a point worth noting. Do you think you’d register wether you were doing 0 or 2kmph whilst someone ploughing into the front of your car ?

sdanseo

There's a worrying number of silly posts in this thread. As a nation we seem to have a lot of that going around when it comes to driving.

No white lines means nothing in terms of fault, the basic rules of the road still apply: keep left and drive at a speed at which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

If the OP's account is correct, the other driver did neither and drove dangerously.

OP - It won't help you now, but do invest in a dashcam.

ba_barabus

Bumpy Bump.

Any updates OP?

Miss OMMC

The update is the their insurer is accepting full liability based on the evidence provided.

This is good news of course!!

The car itself is an economical write off and they have offered 25k (initially 24k).

Is this acceptable for a 171 Tucson exec with 40k miles? Similar models going for 27k +

They've advised that we can appoint our own 'MA' if we decide to refuse their offer

tcawley29

Miss OMMC wrote: »

The update is the their insurer is accepting full liability based on the evidence provided.

This is good news of course!!

The car itself is an economical write off and they have offered 25k (initially 24k).

Is this acceptable for a 171 Tucson exec with 40k miles? Similar models going for 27k +

They've advised that we can appoint our own 'MA' if we decide to refuse their offer

Not sure what they're worth price wise myself but it may be no harm to get a few screenshots or printouts of ads the same year with similar mileage and spec if there is a difference.

Glad to hear it worked out in the end OP

Eggs For Dinner

Advertised prices are deemed to be 'opening offers' and the dealer will always accept less for a wad of cash without trade in and this is the true market value of the vehicle. The OP will be a cash buyer

ba_barabus

Miss OMMC wrote: »

The update is the their insurer is accepting full liability based on the evidence provided.

Brilliant news. That's interesting to note the information can be downloaded from the ECU that lead to this result.

Does anyone know if it's common to all cars?

tcawley29

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Advertised prices are deemed to be 'opening offers' and the dealer will always accept less for a wad of cash without trade in and this is the true market value of the vehicle. The OP will be a cash buyer

Agreed but insurance companies are known for low balling offers.

If the OP does her research here and averages out the price of cars and knocks a grand or two off she should have a good idea of value.

Bigus

I advise you to employ your own loss adjuster, who ultimately will be paid by the other insurer, I'd say the chances of getting a new car would be high if they were to avoid a personal injuries claim.

Eggs For Dinner

Bigus wrote: »

, I'd say the chances of getting a new car would be high if they were to avoid a personal injuries claim.

If he's injured, let him claim for it, no problem with that. However, you're suggesting blackmail to get a new car and make a profit

Bigus

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

If he's injured, let him claim for it, no problem with that. However, you're suggesting blackmail to get a new car and make a profit

No I'm not , I'm saying take on a professional loss adjuster to ensure that the op gets back to their original position before they were inconvenienced by somebody running into them.

Whatever tactics the loss adjuster uses are not my business, but if I was an insurer I would be anxious to settle the claim quickly and generously to avoid further costs, and any loss adjuster would know this better than me.