And how did you contrive to acquire the injuries while waiting for them to attend? After all, they'd be miffed if they found you had lied to them. Was it a case of telling them the injured chap was already on his way to hospital?
"Land to which the public has access" is the legal phrase IIRC so covers public carparks that are privately owned. I've also never heard any stories about claims in office carparks even though these have no public access.
Andy
Slightly different reason, but same effect; they reckon that on the whole insurer A's people will crash just as much into B's drivers as the other way around. So regardless of fault it isn't worth chasing, it all balances out in the end.
Andy
All the law abiding people who pay for car insurance.
The insurance companies all contribute to a central fund. Victims of uninsured drivers can jump through several hoops (and probably wait for a long time) to get some compensation from the fund. The money going into the fund comes from our insurance premiums.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Mike Clarke saying something like:
Indeed. A friend was crashed into by an uninsured tart in Dunstable and had to go through the MIB to get his claim settled. They pursued her for the costs and frankly we didn't give a s**te about her.
What you've given is the accountant's reason. Maybe even the actuary's. On the other hand, underwriters come into the equation as well, which is why the mere fact of a claim settled on a "knock for knock" basis affects the future premium, whereas a claim in which a full recovery is made from the other party doesn't. And of course it's because it's an underwriting issue that "knock for knock" is normally used only in relatively low-value claims -- if it's a big claim it's important to establish to what extent the insured is a major risk in terms of the probability of future accidents, and without establishing blame in the case of past accidents that may not be possible to assess.
John
When someone crashed into the side of my car a few years ago I had no problem with apportioning the blame to the other driver. No Police were notified and no lawyers were involved.
The chances that the Police would attend a minor road collision is laughable. I couldn't even get them to attend a serious case of dangerous driving last month.
There is no obligation to call the police for all collisions, as others have said and there is no implied implication of blame if noone does call the police.
Photos may be useful but can only show the situation after the incident. In many cases it may only be possible to apportion blame if you know the situation before the collisions.
IME anyone who in travelling in one of the cars involved cannot be considered an independent witness, even if they are not related.
It does seem that B is mainly to blame. However car A may have been going too fast for the conditions. There is a number of obvious hazards for A and they should have recoginised this and have slowed down.
"I've been in collision with another vehicle and I suspect the driver is drunk"
It took almost two minutes for them to arrive when that happened to me a while back. The only downsides are that they test you both just to make sure, and if the other driver is sober then you get booked for wasting police time.
I am presuming that you are replying to my post.
I have just viewed the updated diagram (been away for a while and had forgotten about this, hence my lack of response) -- and I am still of the opinion that *B* was totally to blame.
Irrespective of the speed of car *A* and the road conditions, [1] *B* caused the accident by crossing into the path of *A* who had legal right-of-way - and *B* should have been able to see *A* approaching [2] even though the red car was parked at that location (and I'm assuming from the information that a car was parked at the time of the accident [after being pulled up for that in my OP])
[1] I agree that the road conditions at the time would have made stopping distances greater, but *both* drivers presumably would have take those factors into consideration. [2] IIRC, a statement was made in one of the replies in the original thread that both drivers were "surprised" to see each other and I made a rather caustic comment about that.To clear that up, I would have thought that the only "surprised" driver would have been the one of car *A* as he should have been concentrating on trying to keep his vehicle in a straight line on an icy road, and the last thing he would have expected was another vehicle to do a U turn in front of him.
As for the driver of car *B*, there should have been no "surprise" as he should have stopped and made sure that the road was clear before he carried out his manoeuvre - but these things happen in real life irrespective, and I hope all has been amicably resolved between the parties now. After all, that's what we pay our over-priced insurance premiums for. :-)
If all this has been said before, please accept my apologies, as I have not taken the trouble to read the original thread and its additions since I commented there.
Cash
In article , Mark writes
Agreed, but they also convey more information about the accident scene than drawing diagrams or linking to satellite shots from Google Earth.
Some years ago, a lad driving his mum's Fiesta at speed ran into the back of my Passat. He disputed my claim, saying I had braked hard unnecessarily. The photos I took of 1) the smashed windscreen of the Fiesta after impact from his head (he hadn't been wearing a belt) and 2) his car's lengthy tyre skidmarks on a dry road soon put paid to that.
Disposable cameras are a quid in your local pound shop. Well worth carrying one IMO.
-----------------------------8><
I thought there was no such thing as "right of way" in the Highway Code. (?)
If that's the case, "precedence" may be a better term.
I agree, though, that someone crossing the path of an oncoming car to enter a minor road is responsible for causing the incident.
Even if you had "braked hard unnecessarily" it would have been his fault for driving too close or failing to notice you were braking so his dispute should have made no difference.
Indeed. But they don't tell everything.
But, say, if car B was stationary at the time and car A hit it or car A was driving too fast then it would be car A to "blame". It is not likely to be this but I am trying to point out that nothing is 100% certain if you don't have all the information.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.