Hit by stolen car, found at fault, please help
Comments
-
It can be done, it should not be done.Yes, if it is safe to come out halfway into the middle of the road and wait for the other side clear, it can be done. Otherwise at junctions where there is no traffic lights you would be waiting a very long time to come out or never come out at all. It's done all the time on the roads, safely of course.
Thanks.
It's actually really anti social. And clearly not safe this time.0 -
The picture here on rule 173 is similar (though it refers to dual carriageways).
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
You did a manoevre that many people do every day. Mostly it works because the oncoming traffic is keen to avoid a crash, and so stop to let you out.0 -
It would annoy me too, but I think you are at at least partly to blame. I may well have done the same as you, but the highway code is clear...
Rule 172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
[/B]The driver of the BMW may have had no licence, and may have been unfit to drive, but ultimately he had right of way.
Yes, I understand that. But what may change things in my favour is that I was stationary when I was hit. As I understand it, it is a generally accepted standard in the insurance industry that if a stationary vehicle is hit, the vehicle that hit the stationary car is at fault. Except my insurance company keep telling me I can't prove I was stationary. I remind them that there is no one on the other side to dispute if I was stationary, but that doesn't seem to matter to them (I realise the other insurance company could dispute it, but they weren't there on the night).
Thank you.
(sorry, I had to delete your links in the quote, as I'm not allowed to post links as a new member)0 -
Yes, but please remember the BMW was very far away, I mean very far away, and that this manoeuvre is not illegal and is routinely done on the roads everyday and in driving lessons.
Thank you.
While I empathise with your situation, I believe the stance the insurance company will take is that even though you admitted that they were "very" far away when you moved into their lane, you still did not leave yourself enough time to safely complete your maneuver and clear their right of way before they hit you.
I suppose your defense is that had the driver not been under the influence of some substance, then they may have been able to stop, however you have no evidence that they were.
Ironically, had you turned left instead of right and driven on for 100m or so past the junction before they slammed into you from behind, this would probably have been considered as entirely their fault, intoxicated or otherwise.
• The rich buy assets.
• The poor only have expenses.
• The middle class buy liabilities they think are assets.
Robert T. Kiyosaki0 -
.....my insurance company keep telling me I can't prove I was stationary. I remind them that there is no one on the other side to dispute if I was stationary, but that doesn't seem to matter to them .....
You are wasting your time arguing with your insurer! They are not going to pursue your claim for you as you had no cover for damage to your own car!0 -
Do you accept your car shouldn't have been where it was?0
-
If you only have third party, fire and theft then you won't get anything from your insurers full stop. Accidental damage to your car is not covered by your policy, regardless of whether it's your fault, someone else's fault or nobody's fault in particular.Please help with any advice, I will be very grateful. I only have Third Party Fire and Theft cover, and will not get anything from my insurance company unless I can overturn the decision for fault.
All you can do is pursue the other party's insurers for your costs - or the MIB if the driver of the other car cannot be identified. This will depend on proving that the other party was to blame for the accident - which means focussing on the specific acts of driving that caused the collision, not the fact that the car was stoled/uninsured/MOTless/full of laughing gas cannisters. If your insurance comes with legal expenses cover/Motor Legal Protection then your insurer will appoint a solicitor to help with the process IF they conclude that you have a reasonable chance of success. If it doesn't then you're on your own. You could try to find a claims management company to take on the case, but again they'll only be inetersted if they think there's a good chance of proving fault against the other party.
It's easy to be wise after the event, but insuring TPFT is something that you should really only do if losing your car is a risk that you can afford to take.0 -
It can be done, it should not be done.
It's actually really anti social. And clearly not safe this time.
Please remember, the BMW was really far away. They were clearly speeding, but I could not tell they were speeding at the time, because they were so far away. It's harder to judge the speed of something when it is far away.
Thank you.0 -
Sorry, there's been too many replies to reply to you all, but thank you, and I will try to reply later.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards