RTA - 3rd party insurance, solictors dropping my case

moneysavingmatt

iamana1ias wrote: »

Not directly related to your post, but I trust that you have business cover on your insurance

Wouldn't have been allowed to do my job without it

Rolandtheroadie

10,000 times you could have went over that hill and nothing happened. Once something did.
You could probably sit where the car was in the same wet conditions with a speed gun and nearly every car that comes over the top will be doing a similar speed to what you were doing (if not more). Perhaps even one or 2 that say they wouldnt have been.

When you came over the brow of the hill, was the Punto on it's own side of the road or already fully on your side of the road? Or had it started to turn?

You hit the middle of their bumper? Their front bumper? With the right hand side of your car?
Could it be interpretated as they hit you?
Could they not be expected to make sure it is safe to make the turn? It's wet, it's a NSL zone. If a car comes over the brow of that blind summit at 60, will I have time to make my turn? or will I force it to take evasive action?
The lawyers may not think theres money in it, I dont think that means it's your fault.

Just to edit, I dont think that means its 100% your fault.

moneysavingmatt

scotsman4th wrote: »

10,000 times you could have went over that hill and nothing happened. Once something did.
You could probably sit where the car was in the same wet conditions with a speed gun and nearly every car that comes over the top will be doing a similar speed to what you were doing (if not more). Perhaps even one or 2 that say they wouldnt have been.

When you came over the brow of the hill, was the Punto on it's own side of the road or already fully on your side of the road? Or had it started to turn?

You hit the middle of their bumper? Their front bumper? With the right hand side of your car?
Could it be interpretated as they hit you?
Could they not be expected to make sure it is safe to make the turn? It's wet, it's a NSL zone. If a car comes over the brow of that blind summit at 60, will I have time to make my turn? or will I force it to take evasive action?
The lawyers may not think theres money in it, I dont think that means it's your fault.

Just to edit, I dont think that means its 100% your fault.

it had started to turn but then appeared to freeze up

I hit bang in the middle of their bumper with the right hand side of my car.

The car was stationary so I dont know how it could be interpreted as anything other than me hitting them.

Hintza

moneysavingmatt wrote: »

it had started to turn but then appeared to freeze up

They kaked themselves when they saw you....

newfoundglory

I think you have to accept fault for this and move on.

There is a road near where I used to live - its a long gradual gradient bridge which crosses a railway line. You cannot see over the very top peak of the bridge and what is on the road the other side until you actually reach the fairly quick peak. The speed limit of the road is only 30mph. There is a set of traffic lights at the bottom of the bridge on the otherside... i guess about 100 metres from the top.

90% of the time traffic takes the bridge at about 30mph. This is dangerous as if there was a car immediately over the peak there is no way on this earth you would stop in time. But it doesn't seem dangerous at first when driving it. Remember that stopping distance is both breaking and reaction time. Serious accidents have happened there.

Yet people still take this "blind" bridge at 30mph. Its probably because they become so used to there not being hidden traffic on the otherside or their mind somehow tricks them into believing its okay to travel at the speed limit.

You haven't really driven recklessly as such, i think your mind has tricked you into a false state of safety and security. Accidents happen. You will probably be more much more aware of situations like that in the future.

raskazz

As mark5 pointed out, ignoring the fact that the third party was turning, what would have happened if there was a car stationary in your lane in the same place due to traffic?

Answer - you would have gone straight into the back of him through no fault of his own.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the majority here that you will really struggle to avoid being held liable for this.

Also look at it from the point of view of the person you hit - they saw a clear road and maneuvered accordingly. They certainly are not at fault in any way. Thus the only person to apportion blame to is you!