Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • dnet
    • By dnet 16th Mar 17, 8:28 PM
    • 93Posts
    • 6Thanks
    dnet
    Collision with overtaking car
    • #1
    • 16th Mar 17, 8:28 PM
    Collision with overtaking car 16th Mar 17 at 8:28 PM
    Yesterday i was involved in a collision

    I was driving in a 40mph zone doing 40 when i wanted to cross to the other side and park to make a phone call

    There are hatchings with a broken line running down the middle

    I checked my mirrors, indicated and started to move right

    Almost immediately a car smashed into the side of me

    He must have been doing 70 +

    He thinks i drove into him and claims i wasn't indicating

    He was driving (what looks like) a fairly new BMW M5 and is worth over 70k apparently

    My concern is i didn't see him in the mirrors but he was going so fast i don't know where he came from

    I think both cars may be written off and if i have to pay out for his damage it could be horrendous

    I fear that if they insist i drove into them i don't know how to defend it. I don't know if there is anyway to show how fast they were going

    They say they have a dashcam but surely this would show them going well in excess of the speed limit?
Page 1
    • tho
    • By tho 16th Mar 17, 10:05 PM
    • 194 Posts
    • 425 Thanks
    tho
    • #2
    • 16th Mar 17, 10:05 PM
    • #2
    • 16th Mar 17, 10:05 PM
    This maybe better moved to motoring.

    First thing I don't think any Lane markings help your cause, if the markings suggest you shouldn't be overtaking, you also shouldn't be pulling up on the right. Maybe a Google maps link would help.

    If your description is accurate you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Don't accept liability, let the insurers decide. The car hitting from behind tends to be found as the guilty party. If he has a dashcam I'd suggest letting your insurer know. It won't show if you checked your mirror, but it'll definitely show if you indicated. The damage on the cars should also give a indication on speed. The insurance companies will factor it all on.
    • Mr.Generous
    • By Mr.Generous 16th Mar 17, 10:22 PM
    • 1,677 Posts
    • 2,518 Thanks
    Mr.Generous
    • #3
    • 16th Mar 17, 10:22 PM
    • #3
    • 16th Mar 17, 10:22 PM
    You pulled across to the other side of the road to stop while doing 40? I would have braked and reduced speed first definitely, It does sound like it will go knock for knock to me.
    • dnet
    • By dnet 16th Mar 17, 10:55 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dnet
    • #4
    • 16th Mar 17, 10:55 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Mar 17, 10:55 PM
    This is the road

    I was moving across. There was not really a need to slow down as there was nothing ahead and there is quite a way to go so i would slow down when i'm further over. I knew there was some traffic behind me but didn't know one of them was going down the middle at god knows what speed. Anyway this is the road


    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 16th Mar 17, 11:02 PM
    • 89,603 Posts
    • 56,093 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #5
    • 16th Mar 17, 11:02 PM
    • #5
    • 16th Mar 17, 11:02 PM
    Just because another car is in the wrong does not give you the right to drive into it. You may feel angry that it happened but what if that had been a motorbike? You could now be looking at prosecution if it had been and having to deal with killing someone. As it stands, it is just broken metal.

    You have confirmed that you hit a car whilst changing lane. So, I suspect that this will be classed as both as fault.

    I think both cars may be written off and if i have to pay out for his damage it could be horrendous
    Why would you have to pay out?
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • dnet
    • By dnet 16th Mar 17, 11:07 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dnet
    • #6
    • 16th Mar 17, 11:07 PM
    • #6
    • 16th Mar 17, 11:07 PM

    Why would you have to pay out?
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    I mean if my insurance pays out there will be a figure on it which i will have to declare at my renewal. I assume the level of payout affects the quote

    My understanding is 50/50 means each insurer pays half. So my insurer pays half of theirs and they pay half of mine

    Knock for knock, i believe, means each insurer only pays for their own client

    If i have to declare a payout of £35,000 on a 70k car i don't feel confident getting a good quote next time
    Last edited by dnet; 16-03-2017 at 11:11 PM.
    • lovinituk
    • By lovinituk 16th Mar 17, 11:16 PM
    • 5,371 Posts
    • 6,038 Thanks
    lovinituk
    • #7
    • 16th Mar 17, 11:16 PM
    • #7
    • 16th Mar 17, 11:16 PM
    That road looks pretty straight. How could you not see him coming up behind if you checked mirrors properly, even if he was doing 70?

    You can enter hatched lines with broken borders if it's safe to do so but you should check carefully no one else is already in them. As above, it could have been a bike.
    • dnet
    • By dnet 16th Mar 17, 11:22 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dnet
    • #8
    • 16th Mar 17, 11:22 PM
    • #8
    • 16th Mar 17, 11:22 PM
    That road looks pretty straight. How could you not see him coming up behind if you checked mirrors properly, even if he was doing 70?
    Originally posted by lovinituk
    I honestly don't know. I knew there were some cars behind but didn't know he was there until it was too late. There is a sort of blind spot and i just didn't see him
    • lovinituk
    • By lovinituk 16th Mar 17, 11:26 PM
    • 5,371 Posts
    • 6,038 Thanks
    lovinituk
    • #9
    • 16th Mar 17, 11:26 PM
    • #9
    • 16th Mar 17, 11:26 PM
    I honestly don't know. I knew there were some cars behind but didn't know he was there until it was too late. There is a sort of blind spot and i just didn't see him
    Originally posted by dnet
    Slow down, check your mirrors, turn your head, move your head around so you can see the blind spots.

    Sorry, the other guy was an a$$ but you sound dangerous too.
    • dnet
    • By dnet 16th Mar 17, 11:35 PM
    • 93 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dnet

    Sorry, the other guy was an a$$ but you sound dangerous too.
    Originally posted by lovinituk
    I'm not sure i agree but i take your point

    I will wait to see what the insurers say

    Thanks for the input
    • Retrogamer
    • By Retrogamer 17th Mar 17, 2:49 AM
    • 3,787 Posts
    • 3,773 Thanks
    Retrogamer
    If he does have a dash cam then it will show what really happened. It seems unlikely he was doing 70 though and as mentioned, even if he was you would have still seen him on such a straight road with good visibility.

    As you said, insurance will decide what happens.
    • wazza99
    • By wazza99 17th Mar 17, 8:36 AM
    • 201 Posts
    • 124 Thanks
    wazza99
    The claim value is pretty much irrelevant £100 or £10000, the claim fault is more important, thought even a none fault will increase premiums.
    • csgohan4
    • By csgohan4 17th Mar 17, 8:37 AM
    • 3,962 Posts
    • 2,470 Thanks
    csgohan4
    blind spot???
    "It is prudent when shopping for something important, not to limit yourself to Pound land"
    • RADDERS
    • By RADDERS 17th Mar 17, 8:49 AM
    • 158 Posts
    • 144 Thanks
    RADDERS
    I may be in the minority here, but if you have checked your mirrors and indicated then surely it is the fault of the overtaking car. You don't keep checking the mirrors as you do the turn just in case there is someone overtaking, you just turn.
    Also at 70mph the car would cover approximately 100 foot per second which could easily explain not seeing it.
    • SimonD316
    • By SimonD316 17th Mar 17, 9:56 AM
    • 309 Posts
    • 151 Thanks
    SimonD316
    I agree with Radders here, when you checked and started indicating the other was probably so far behind you didn't think it would be there when you pulled over.

    From the picture it looks like there is a parking area on the other side of the road, which is where you wanted to pull up to make the call.

    As others have said, if the other car has a dashcam it will show exactly what happened, but if it doesn't show what they want to see don't be surprised if the footage gets lost.
    • societys child
    • By societys child 17th Mar 17, 10:26 AM
    • 4,823 Posts
    • 5,262 Thanks
    societys child
    Don't agree with the last two posts, the op has obviously tried to pull across to the other side of the road whilst being overtaken. Claiming the other car was doing 70 or whatever is a red herring, the 'blind spot' remark shows op had not even seen that it was at the side of them so can't really comment on their speed.
    Due care and attention . . .?
    Last edited by societys child; 17-03-2017 at 10:29 AM.

    • martinsurrey
    • By martinsurrey 17th Mar 17, 10:45 AM
    • 3,188 Posts
    • 3,878 Thanks
    martinsurrey
    Don't agree with the last two posts, the op has obviously tried to pull across to the other side of the road whilst being overtaken. Claiming the other car was doing 70 or whatever is a red herring, the 'blind spot' remark shows op had not even seen that it was at the side of them so can't really comment on their speed.
    Due care and attention . . .?
    Originally posted by societys child
    I second this.

    Indicating does not mean the OP has the right to pull out, it means he intends to pull out IF IT IS SAFE to do so.

    Clearly it want safe.

    OPs fault, regardless if the other side was speeding (which the OP cant prove anyway as he claims he didn't see the car, so how does he know how fast it was going?).
    • Placitasgirl
    • By Placitasgirl 17th Mar 17, 10:48 AM
    • 230 Posts
    • 396 Thanks
    Placitasgirl
    Surely a side on impact at 70mph would have sent your car into a barrel roll, meaning that you'd be extremely fortunate to be here to tell the tale?

    Are you saying that he hit you at 70mph? What was the extent of the damage to both cars?

    I agree that if dash cam footage is available and shows you pulling across the front of this car you'll be deemed to be fully liable. If speed is a factor then it's likely the other driver will be reluctant to share the footage, especially if as you claim it shows that you indicated in good time and pulled out when it was clear to do so had he been observing the speed limit.
    • Aretnap
    • By Aretnap 17th Mar 17, 11:04 AM
    • 2,822 Posts
    • 2,320 Thanks
    Aretnap
    I mean if my insurance pays out there will be a figure on it which i will have to declare at my renewal. I assume the level of payout affects the quote
    Originally posted by dnet
    Generally the size of the claim makes little difference - many insurers don't even ask for it.

    My understanding is 50/50 means each insurer pays half. So my insurer pays half of theirs and they pay half of mine

    Knock for knock, i believe, means each insurer only pays for their own client
    That's correct as far as it goes.

    However knock for knock had nothing to do with liability and was the result of an agreement between insurance companies to simplify the claims process by not recovering costs from each other, regardless of who was to blame for the accident. These agreements broke down in the 1990s and no claim in the UK has been settled as knock for knock for over 20 years. You can safely ignore anyone who tells you that a claim will go knock for knock.

    If it's decided that you were both at fault it will mean that the claim is settled 50/50 (or 70/30, or 20/80 etc, depending on who was more at fault).
    • Tiexen
    • By Tiexen 17th Mar 17, 11:17 AM
    • 484 Posts
    • 236 Thanks
    Tiexen
    I think the key is if the "overtaking" car was at the back of a queue of cars OP is at the front decides to overtake all of them, BMW would not have seen the OP indicating.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,809Posts Today

7,447Users online

Martin's Twitter