Car accident today - I don't understand!

Snakeeyes21

Eric_Pisch wrote: »

we need to bring the Indian system in, Might has right, if you get squished by something bigger than you its your fault. Works for ships as well.

I hope not, or I will be bu*gered on my little 50cc moped, even cyclists will run me down :eek::rotfl:

Heliflyguy

Wig wrote: »

You think I care about thanks totals? after being a regular here for more than 4 years :doh: BTW the chap who thanked me was 'dacouch', if you wern't so wet behind the ears, you'd know they are a regular here aswell, and, as it happens that person knows a lot more about car insurance than I do, maybe they were thanking me because what I said was quite close to the truth.

Well being so long in the tooth makes you perspective more valuble than mine does it?
I will add that I do not care for "old timers" that consider the forum and its space their own, it just puts people off posting and it was only close to the truth in another scenario

How do you know what her employers policies are on "off site" incidents? I know in my own line of work (which deals with the public) we are expected to report any off site incident that is connected with our work. I'd be surprised if a school didn't expect a teacher/staff to report off site incidents with pupils because the pupils are by definition part of the school and as such wholly inseperable.

We do not know what the policy is my advice was to explain the event in any case.
I will also add that your advice possibly correct if there was a claim against the OP was way ahead of were the OP was at the time, the OP needed to deal with the situation as it is/was rather than a possibility down the line.
I also find the "what if culture" of some of the posters rather tedious and prefer to stick what is in front of me.
Your expertise has no doubt helped others out, and long may it continue but you are both incorrect in that you got way ahead of youselves and if I was the OP your posts would have made me even more worried.
if the OP has a claim against her I hope you will be onhand to assist until then maybe stick to the current facts.

mikey72

Heliflyguy wrote: »

We do not know what the policy is my advice was to explain the event in any case.
I will also add that your advice possibly correct if there was a claim against the OP was way ahead of were the OP was at the time, the OP needed to deal with the situation as it is/was rather than a possibility down the line.
I also find the "what if culture" of some of the posters rather tedious and prefer to stick what is in front of me.
Your expertise has no doubt helped others out, and long may it continue but you are both incorrect in that you got way ahead of youselves and if I was the OP your posts would have made me even more worried.
if the OP has a claim against her I hope you will be onhand to assist until then maybe stick to the current facts.

So why post as if you do know the policy, when you are not actually correct anyway.

From your previous post
"There is no need for the school to be involved apart from reiterating road saftey advice to pupils otherwise you have no obligation to inform them but it will get talked about among pupils so it probably will feed back, it might be better to have a off record chat with your manager."

It's a school, any adverse contact with a student has to be reported. Even the op said that if her first post, so are you saying she is wrong as well?

dacouch

Heliflyguy wrote: »

We do not know what the policy is my advice was to explain the event in any case.
I will also add that your advice possibly correct if there was a claim against the OP was way ahead of were the OP was at the time, the OP needed to deal with the situation as it is/was rather than a possibility down the line.
I also find the "what if culture" of some of the posters rather tedious and prefer to stick what is in front of me.
Your expertise has no doubt helped others out, and long may it continue but you are both incorrect in that you got way ahead of youselves and if I was the OP your posts would have made me even more worried.
if the OP has a claim against her I hope you will be onhand to assist until then maybe stick to the current facts.

Your a man full of contradictions, Wig and I advise her of the facts eg that it is possible the teenager could claim against her. You stated there was no chance they could claim against them and the no claims bonus will not be reduced.

If the teenager decides to make a claim there is very little the OP can do to prevent it.

By the way your the one that got ahead of yourself by stating as fact the teenager could not claim and her no claims bonus would not be affected.

Heliflyguy

mikey72 wrote: »

So why post as if you do know the policy, when you are not actually correct anyway.

From your previous post
"There is no need for the school to be involved apart from reiterating road saftey advice to pupils otherwise you have no obligation to inform them but it will get talked about among pupils so it probably will feed back, it might be better to have a off record chat with your manager."

It's a school, any adverse contact with a student has to be reported. Even the op said that if her first post, so are you saying she is wrong as well?

No I am not saying she is wrong, you are however. I hope you pay more attention in your day job!
The OP said " will I be required to complete documentation by the school - it was not on their premises" sugesting that she did not know if it needed to be reported.
If I was wrong to say it wouldnt need reporting then I was wrong, I can accept that, if you get my drift?

My post was intended to help the OP take one step at a time, I felt that some posts were not helping by suggesting claims against the OP at that point and asking questions that would have already been asked by the police.
If your going to pick tiny holes in my posts and miss quote me "dacouch" then frankly I wont bother next time and leave the scaremongering to the experts in insurance and experts in soothsaying it would appear.
I apologise to the OP for turning their thread to this.
I wont be back to this thread to entertain nitpickers so dont bother posting any replies to this and I really hope it works out ok for the OP.

Sponge

DaveMacD wrote: »

Would make things interesting

Technically not. Those with power give way to anything using sail, regardless of size.

Also technically wrong. It's not as simple as that, but is somewhat off-topic; so I will say no more other than suggest you read the COLREGs if you're interested.

Thomas_Crown

PandorasJar wrote: »

I've never known this? Unless you're in the US, they charge there.
I've been taken by ambulance from one bad write off and we were the cause of the accident (though deemed not at fault) and nothing came from it?
If you call them as a prank I can understand that you are charged for wasting time... but I would think that if this were the case in normal situations people would be reluctant to call them and we pay them through taxes? If someone is injured, that's what they are being called out for
(Sorry if this is a US question!)

P

The ambulance service/NHS Trust will send a bill to the motorist involved in the accident. The motorist then sends the bill to their insurance company. Some (all?) insurance companies will pay the bill without it affecting the insureds NCD.

Many years ago the fee/charge was £35 but iirc it is now around £65. It is always the motorist who has to pay this fee/charge even if the accident is not their fault.

Thomas_Crown

I just got a shock when I Googled the ambulance/NHS charges following a Road Traffic Accident.

From 1/4/2010 the fee for an ambulance transporting a casualty to hospital will be £177. The NHS fee for hospital treatment following an RTA will be £585. This NHS fee is payable for each outpatient visit.

lyndorset

Road traffic law has changed in recent years. The pedestrian is a vulnerable road user and the car driver (lets face it seen as the biggest hazard on the road) is supposed to be aware of hazards such as pedestrians, especially children. You should have been able to stop when you first saw them and then once stopped waited until they had crossed the road in case they changed their mind and came back the same way. This is not my opinion, it is the way the Driving Standard Agency teach new drivers now. Older drivers need to be aware and I would strongly recommend anyone to get a few hours with a driving instructor to take them around a town. You might be very surprised at the differences.

Perhaps the mistake you made was contacting your insurance company at all? If the boy has admitted fault to the police and you have not - hopefully you will not have a liability and both you and the boy can put it down to experience.

If you see children on the pavement, regardless of the speed limit - SLOW DOWN it is the law that you should be able to stop.

On amore positive note, I hope you are recovering from a nasty experience and that that is the end of it? Good Luck

DirectDebacle

lyndorset wrote: »

Road traffic law has changed in recent years. The pedestrian is a vulnerable road user and the car driver (lets face it seen as the biggest hazard on the road) is supposed to be aware of hazards such as pedestrians, especially children......

Crikey, never realised it used to be legal to mow down pedestrians.:D

By and large I agree with your post. A short horn warning would have alerted them of her presence and would probably have avoided the accident.

The golden rule is the pedestrian always has the right of way.

Not in the Highway Code when I last looked, but should be.