Who would be at fault?

JustAnotherSaver · 12 September 2017 at 9:01PM

I was tagged in a dash cam compilation video on Facebook. By the end of it i was P'd off with what i had seen. A lot of 'oooh' moments but also P'd off with the stupidity of people.

But some of the clips made me think about who would be at fault in certain situations.

So if a car is coming out of a junction on your left and doesn't stop & pulls out so it'll either be in front of you with no time to brake or in to your side - your reaction may be to swerve out of the way.
It's ok to sit on an internet forum and say you should do XYZ but with split second decision making nobody sits there and analyses in a nano-second - the reaction for many could be to just swerve out of the way

And that might be in to another vehicle.

So your swerving has caused for the idiot to not hit you, so they're unmarked, but you've ended up hitting someone else.

Who would be at fault?

My guess is you, but then are you to just stay in your lane, jam on the brakes as hard as you can knowing full well it's going to be too little too late & you hit the guy who just pulled out on you...?

comeandgo · 12 September 2017 at 9:09PM

I was taught when driving you are always looking for clear areas in case you have to swerve. If you hit another car you are at fault.

Cash-Strapped.T32 · 12 September 2017 at 9:15PM

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

So your swerving has caused for the idiot to not hit you, so they're unmarked, but you've ended up hitting someone else.

Who would be at fault?

I've asked the very same question before of people who work in claims - Even though the person at fault is clearly the one who pulled out without looking, in reality it will be very difficult in many cases to prove causality such that the guilty party's insurer will pay up, so it is more likley than not going to against the person who swerved.

There are more than a few perverse incentives that encourage you to take the option of a certain collision, rather than attempt to avoid a collision, at the risk of possibly colliding with someone other than the car at fault.

lister · 12 September 2017 at 10:54PM

Two things spring to mind.

Firstly, you would be amazed how much you can think about in fractions of a second as things start to go wrong.

I have only once lost control of a car in 26 years of driving - on black ice descending a hill I was very familiar with. I had already slowed more than normal for a corner because of the conditions, but not as much as I should have done (I was pretty inexperienced). I can still see it as if it were yesterday

I had time to calculate that I didn't want to try and correct the front wheel slide, as it would take me closer to a steep wooded drop. Realising that it was probably only a small patch of ice I hoped the front would grip again and cause the back to slip out on the ice, which would probably spin me in towards a low grass bank, which it duly did. I even thought about what was coming up the long straight after the corner, as I would be crossing their path (nothing was...). I was lucky it worked out as I had aimed for, but nonetheless, the amount of thought processing which could take place in a second or two was astonishing.

Secondly, why is the analysis taking place at the last moment in the case you give? Surely you should already have mitigated the risk of a blind side road, or a visible approaching vehicle which doesn't seem to be too keen on playing by the rules?

Anyone who places blind trust in others adhering to a set of rules they have likely forgotten most of, is playing Russian roulette with the consequences - good luck with that...

Strider590 · 12 September 2017 at 11:03PM

I do wonder how many accidents are caused by people accelerating hard rather than easing off (or just not reacting) when someone pulls out a good distance in front of them.

fiisch · 12 September 2017 at 11:06PM

I work in insurance and the idea of "fault" in a claim is not the same definition as most people would use for the word.

It is very difficult for insurance companies to ascertain true fault in a lot of circumstances, and indeed a lot of the time there is little evidence to back up two opposing claims.

In the circumstance you describe, if you swerved and hit another vehicle, you would be at fault - regardless of what or who you were swerving to avoid.

Likewise, if you run into the back of someone, you are automatically at fault, unless the car in front was reversing. It's not always fair, but it's a system borne out of necessity.

Either way, fault or non-fault, it'll inevitably cost you increased premiums in the long run.....

Marvel1 · 12 September 2017 at 11:15PM

Had one earlier, similar, I use this roundabout mostly every night, it's a traffic signalled roundabout one. Red ligh, a car on my left, green lets go they were in lane to exit inwas merging over for my exit, another red. Cheeky birch behind starts beeping me, as I cut her up.

I started shouting, swearing and beeping, mainly for 2 things:
1. I would have had the blame by insurance company.
2. If unfamilar with roundabout (first-time) don't beep others.

Either that or they knew the roundabout and was one of those who have to get in front types.

Strider590 · 13 September 2017 at 10:14AM

cjdavies wrote: »

Had one earlier, similar, I use this roundabout mostly every night, it's a traffic signalled roundabout one. Red ligh, a car on my left, green lets go they were in lane to exit inwas merging over for my exit, another red. Cheeky birch behind starts beeping me, as I cut her up.

I started shouting, swearing and beeping, mainly for 2 things:
1. I would have had the blame by insurance company.
2. If unfamilar with roundabout (first-time) don't beep others.

Either that or they knew the roundabout and was one of those who have to get in front types.

Or they know the roundabout and have always done it wrong.

JustAnotherSaver · 15 September 2017 at 8:03PM

fiisch wrote: »

I work in insurance and the idea of "fault" in a claim is not the same definition as most people would use for the word.

It is very difficult for insurance companies to ascertain true fault in a lot of circumstances, and indeed a lot of the time there is little evidence to back up two opposing claims.

In the circumstance you describe, if you swerved and hit another vehicle, you would be at fault - regardless of what or who you were swerving to avoid.

Likewise, if you run into the back of someone, you are automatically at fault, unless the car in front was reversing. It's not always fair, but it's a system borne out of necessity.

Either way, fault or non-fault, it'll inevitably cost you increased premiums in the long run.....

So in short it's a case of get yourself a good quality dash cam which shows clearly as much as possible.

Who would be at fault?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free