RTA - 3rd party insurance, solictors dropping my case

moneysavingmatt

Guys even though this is only my 2nd post im on these boards almost every day and could really appreciate some help. Got a letter on saturday from the solictors my insurers put me onto saying they would not pursue my case and have advised my insurers to pay out however the reasons they gave led me to believe they haven't even looked at the case. If you have time my statement of the accident:

I was travelling to attend a service call for my work s an I.T. Technician at <place>. I was travelling on X road which is a national speed limit Road. The conditions were clear but the ground was wet due to the previous night's rainfall. After about 3-4 minutes of travelling on this road I dropped down from just under the speed limit (60mph) to between 45-50 mph due to a blind summit approaching and the reduced visibility on the other side. Upon reaching the apex of the hill and having vision of the other side approximately 25ft in front of me there was a Gold Fiat Punto on the otherside of the road turning into a concealed entrance on my side of the road, this vehicle appeared stationary covering almost all of my lane. The instant I saw the car I performed an emergencey stop but due to the wet conditions, travelling downhill and the short breaking + thinking distance, I collided with the vehicle hitting the car in the middle of their bumper with the right hand side of my car on my side of the road. My vehicle sustained damage to the bumper,bonnet,off side wing, head light, indicator light and fog light.

Letter from the solictors stated that I had clear visibility of the car which was 25ft , should have travelled slower to allow for breaking and there was nothing i could do.

I'm disputing their rejection on three points

- clear visibility of oncoming vehicle (it was a blind summit turning into a concealed entrance that wasn't signposted
- 25ft is ample time (i'd have thought a solicitors would know the law's position on breaking distances and in the wet i'd have probably had to do under 20mph in their eyes)
- I should have slowed down ( I did and 45mph uphill imo is slow enough on a national speed limit road knowing that there was no cars in front of me)

What are the chances they'll consider reopening the case as I've sent them an email straight away and if they don't how do i go about pursuing legal action from an independent route?

Inactive

You couldn't stop in time, you were travelling too fast for the prevailing conditions.

moneysavingmatt

Without being cheeky to avoid the crash I would have needed to be travelling at approximately 15mph.. on a national speed limit road. Added to that the 3rd party was in my lane.. none of this matters?

Inactive

moneysavingmatt wrote: »

Without being cheeky to avoid the crash I would have needed to be travelling at approximately 15mph.. on a national speed limit road. Added to that the 3rd party was in my lane.. none of this matters?

Then that would be the correct speed to travel at, you should always be travelling at a speed at which you can see to be able to stop safely.

Sorry, you have admitted in your opening remarks that you couldn't stop in time.

Inactive

From the Highway Code;

126

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

moneysavingmatt

Inactive wrote: »

From the Highway Code;

126

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

So how does the highway code perceive blind summits? go over them at 5/10 mph? wouldnt that contradict driving safely within a speed limit of 60? Also do i have any legal standing that there were no concealed entrance signs?

Anihilator

moneysavingmatt wrote: »

So how does the highway code perceive blind summits? go over them at 5/10 mph? wouldnt that contradict driving safely within a speed limit of 60? Also do i have any legal standing that there were no concealed entrance signs?

Why exactly

The national speed limit is a limit not a target.

As it was a blind area you should have been driving at a speed to enable you to stop.

I dont see any neglience on the other parties behalf. I do on yours.

motorguy

moneysavingmatt wrote: »

So how does the highway code perceive blind summits? go over them at 5/10 mph? wouldnt that contradict driving safely within a speed limit of 60? Also do i have any legal standing that there were no concealed entrance signs?

you should have approached the blind summit in wet conditions at a speed that would have allowed you to stop safely should there have been an obstacle at the other side of it. You did not do that.

your solicitor has looked at this and said you were in the wrong.

everyone here says you are in the wrong.

you are in the wrong.

Sometimes you have to take your medicine and accept it was YOUR FAULT.

There is noone else to blame.

moneysavingmatt

Im fully aware that it is not a target and at no point did i exceed that limit on the road. I'm just a bit surprised that the concensus is that I am at fault in this matter, Nowhere in my lessons or in the highway code does it really mention blind summits and having dropped down 15mph felt I was actually following the code and adhering to safe driving. The road was clear in front of me my whole journey I obviously had ruled out the fact anything would be in my side of the road so close to going over the apex.

blueye

below from the highway code

Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular

• do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit
• take the road and traffic conditions into account. Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend. Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution
• where there are junctions, be prepared for road users emerging
• in side roads and country lanes look out for unmarked junctions where nobody has priority
• be prepared to stop at traffic control systems, road works, pedestrian crossings or traffic lights as necessary
• try to anticipate what pedestrians and cyclists might do. If pedestrians, particularly children, are looking the other way, they may step out into the road without seeing you

sorry looks like you dont have a leg to stand on

moneysavingmatt

I appreciate the opinions of the posters, don't think im being !!!!!y about it I still feel like I was doing nothing wrong. ta