Some people are too stupid to have a licence!!

cyclonebri1

johnfarquhar74 wrote: »

I'd like to think that when I'm on the road I know what I'm doing and don't have to second guess myself. That doesn't mean to say I'm in the right or am a perfect driver, but by assuming that 'all' other road users are idiots it puts you in good stead for when things go awry, off course, I'm pleasantly suprised when I find that 99% of road users are not idiots but it takes a while to work out who the other 1% are!

Agreed, and the point is that we all make mistakes, I have done but I've been lucky, one or other or even both of these 2 weren'r so lucky.

There's another old adage that I try to bear in mind to kkep me focused;

"Imagine meeting yourself coming in the opposite direction" :eek: :eek:, most apt when drivers try to bull there way through traffic.

al223

I used to work for a solicitors sorting out car insurance claims so thought I'd chip in. Just because the woman is overtaking a queue of traffic does not make her liable for another driver pulling out in front of her. The same as if someone is speeding it doesn't automatically make them liable if someone (Who can see them approaching) pulls out in front of them.

Either the OP was already in the road and somehow the woman missed the cars behind but somehow managed to run into the OP's car, or the OP pulled out into her path, putting them at fault.

To resolve something like this I'd get as much info as possible, road layout, the video and crucially, the engineers reports, as these will show the areas of damage to both vehicles.

Assuming that the OP pulled out to the right, I could see this being settled completely in favour of the other driver.

cyclonebri1

al223 wrote: »

I used to work for a solicitors sorting out car insurance claims so thought I'd chip in. Just because the woman is overtaking a queue of traffic does not make her liable for another driver pulling out in front of her. The same as if someone is speeding it doesn't automatically make them liable if someone (Who can see them approaching) pulls out in front of them.

Either the OP was already in the road and somehow the woman missed the cars behind but somehow managed to run into the OP's car, or the OP pulled out into her path, putting them at fault.

To resolve something like this I'd get as much info as possible, road layout, the video and crucially, the engineers reports, as these will show the areas of damage to both vehicles.

Assuming that the OP pulled out to the right, I could see this being settled completely in favour of the other driver.

But all223, no one can assume anything. Surely from your standpoint you realise that?

Given your background, in a situation like this just how much time (=money) will an insurer spend arguing the facts?

Answer; very little

They are all in the same boat and I'm dam sure there is a code, as in "honour amongst thieves" that they do not fight cases that may go either way.

Or maybe I'm just too cynical.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I don't think so

al223

I meant if the OP had pulled to the right, as would seem the case, but may not be, it could easily be settled against him. I think the company I worked for used to pay the insurer for the work, expecting a certain percentage of it to be fee earning injury cases. So it wasn't costing the insurer any money to argue the case and it was up to us to do the best we could given the facts, usually arguing liability with the person doing my job for the other side. If the evidence wasn't sufficient to decide on liability we would usually agree it being 50/50, the skill was in knowing what evidence you need and interpreting it.