Had an accident in work car - Rear ended but was it my fault?

Inactive

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Had you made such an error on a driving test you would have failed. You and the van driver made serious errors here.

You are a DSA Driving Examiner then ?

gaz_jones

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Had you made such an error on a driving test you would have failed. You and the van driver made serious errors here.

Yes I know we both did. I haven't doubted that once. I just don't like being called an incompetent driver when all I did was make an error. People make errors all the time.

This may have been the 1st error I've ever made or it could have been the 1000th that day. All you have to go on is what I said happened at that moment. You have no idea how I drive normally.


I will go and have a look if I had passed the sign on my lunch. I have a feeling I will have but not sure.


If this did go knock for knock then what would happen to me? Do you think it would be a disciplinary at work, or would it effect my personal insurance (NCB). I imagine it wouldn't but not sure so thought I'd ask.

Paradigm

Hintza wrote: »

Oh Dear well here we go. How about a bit of case law.

Brown and Lynn v Western Scottish Motor Traction Co Ltd.
1945 SC31, 1944 SN 59, Ct of Sess

In this case the Judge, Lord Stevenson, decided that 25 feet (7 m approx) was an adequate distance for a bus to follow a lorry @ approx 15mph. It gave enough room for the bus driver to "deal with the ordinary exigencies of traffic". :eek: At no time is there any mention of emergency/unexpected situations, a decision I find unbelievable given the braking systems of that era.

But, it was his opinion & therefore does set a precedent.

Hintza wrote: »

Thompson v Spedding
[1973] RTR 312, CA

This case had to go to appeal before it was dismissed. During the hearing the appeal judge commented "The [original] judge had failed to express correctly the duty of persons driving in a line of traffic"
I'm going to presume, rightly or wrongly, that this is referencing the above 1945 case verdict... although there is no direct link.

Hintza wrote: »

Scott v Warren
[1974] RTR 104, [1974] Crim LR 117, Div Ct

This case does directly quote the above 1945 case verdict & was dismissed.

I'm pretty sure that if the 1945 case was heard today the verdict would be quite different. As it stands there is a precedent set, wrongly in my view, that can be used in certain circumstances.

To me it's nothing more than a "loophole" in law, similar to the way Nick Freeman defends drink drivers!

XXX footballer is 3 times over the limit but gets off on a technicality... does this mean he wasn't drink driving?

XXX driver was 30 feet behind you @ 20mph & runs in the back of your car buts gets off because of the 1945 precedent.... does that mean he wasn't too close?

Staged motor accidents Why were they on the increase?
Simple, if you run in the back of someone then 99.9999% of insurance co's will put the fault on you & the crims staging the accidents knew this.
As insurance co's/police are now aware of the scam dodgy "rear enders" are investigated thoroughly.

As it stands, regardless of the 1945 verdict, if you drive into the back of another vehicle then it's because you are too close/not paying attention leaving you at fault (my opinion) & at this present time you would have an extremely difficult job + lots of money proving otherwise!

At least Hintza has used reasoned argument to support his/her view unlike some others on this thread.

Doozergirl

gaz_jones wrote: »

The guy that hit me rang my work phone yesterday and said 'Just making sure you remembered to claim liability and I won't have to come and see you after work'. So I just said 'I have told the truth about what happened (clutch etc..) and the insurance company will have to sort it out.' He then just hung up.

I will report all this to the police aswell. If he rings again I will let him know that I have contacted the police and they have advised me to not talk to him.

What a loser.

You appreciate that it is now very important that you contact the police.

Chippy_Minton_2

gaz_jones wrote: »

If this did go knock for knock then what would happen to me? Do you think it would be a disciplinary at work, or would it effect my personal insurance (NCB). I imagine it wouldn't but not sure so thought I'd ask.

You should inform your insurance company, it will not affect your ncb and yiu have not claimed. However it may effect your renewal premium.

Poppy9

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

IAM, call yourself an above average driver. LMFAO:rotfl:

Is there any need to be so rude?

Chippy_Minton wrote:

Careless Driving: Standard falls below that of a competent driver.
Dangerous Driving: Standard falls far below that of a competent driver.

Most would expect a competent driver not to mistake an automatic brake pedal for a clutch, after all it is twice as wide.

The driver has already said he normally drives a manual car. Your muscles develop muscle memory and if when you are normally steering and need to stop you use the clutch then there is a chance you will "forget". Human beings are not computers and therefore make mistakes.

Chippy_Minton wrote:

I'd be careful if I were you as this could go knock for knock.

Why the need to be careful. He's insured for incidents like this because being a human being we sometimes make mistakes.

gaz_jones wrote:

The guy that hit me rang my work phone yesterday and said 'Just making sure you remembered to claim liability and I won't have to come and see you after work'. So I just said 'I have told the truth about what happened (clutch etc..) and the insurance company will have to sort it out.' He then just hung up.

This is totally unacceptable. I would inform the police that he has threatened you.

Also if he works for a company I would contact them or get your HR officer dealing with the incident to tell them that one of their employees is threatening you

cyclonebri1

Gaz, I think you,ve had enough replies about this to be assured that you were only a minor % at fault here, no insurance company will find for the van driver onder the circumstances you describe. The exceptions quoted against you are just odd exceptions that in no way apply to your case :T

Don't worry about it.

I find the reply about not expecting people to stop on a motorway because it's illegal mind blowing:mad::mad::mad:, why the hell do you see so many rear enders, multiple ones at that?, because traffic does stop on the motorway. Expect it:eek:

lesley1960

diable wrote: »

There is no excuse for bad driving, what would you say if you came up to a pedestrian crossing outside a school and instead of braking you sped up and run over some children, would you then tell the Police about traffic jams and a long day at work and laugh about it?

The van driver may be technically in the wrong as he didn't stop in time or may have been to close to you but I would not expect someone to suddenly brake for no apparent reason on a slip road where there is no traffic in front of that driver.

Jeeez, someone smashed in to the side of me on a roundabout spun me 180 degrees sending me backwards on the wrong side of the road and her excuse was "I don't think it was my fault as I didn't see you"

At the end of the day bad drivers kill people.

That quote shows how poor a driver you must be ........ALWAYS expect the unexpected when driving

lesley1960

Jakg wrote: »

While it's dodgy as hell the OP doesn't seem to have full proper control of the vehicle, I wouldn't say they were at fault - what if a small child ran out in front of the car - is it still 50 50 blame that the OP didn't just muller the kid?

The difference being
a) the child would have been in FRONT of the OPs car ..........., although of course it depends on how close to the car the child was when he/she ran out

b) The van driver was BEHIND the OPs car , .......and as you have argued above , whoever or what ever is in front of the vehicle is blameless

dacouch

Knock for Knock does not really exist anymore, you are thinking of 50/50 or some other percentage split of the liability. Basically if you claim on your Insurance and they do not recover ALL of their outlay then your companies no claims bonus is affected. In reality I assume your employer has a fleet policy. These do not have no claims bonus, instead they calculate the premium after taking into account the total value of claims against the value of the premium and amount of vehicles (The rest of the premium takes into account the type of vehicles, post code etc etc)