Car Accident - Advice needed!

JQ.

foxyuk wrote: »

making no indication of moving or turning from a stationey position into your path

Where does it say that? The intemation of the OP is that car 3 was overtaking 2 cars that were in the process of crashing.

If that's not the case, then why was car 2 able to stop but car 3 was not?

foxyuk

jackieb wrote: »

And what if a car had been travelling in the opposite direction?

hypethetical!!

there was not a car on the other side of the road , if there was car 3 would be held liable for encroaching on the wrong side of the road however a lot of it is to do with distances as well...

would car 2 have pulled across the road if there was an oncoming vehicle???

:eek:

foxyuk

JQ. wrote: »

Where does it say that? The intemation of the OP is that car 3 was overtaking 2 cars that were in the process of crashing.

If that's not the case, then why was car 2 able to stop but car 3 was not?

read original post..... car 2 had already collided with car 1 not once but twice it failed to stop hence why car 2 hit car 1.... there car (3) managed to avoid the accident that occured by going on other side of the road to pass it....

FATBALLZ

JQ. wrote: »

I don't agree at all. It's not the same as passing a parked car and it pulling out on you at all.

Put yourself in the shoes of car 3 - there's a crash going in in front of you where 2 cars are out of control on an icy hill - what is the safest option? The safest option is to stop dead and not get anywhere the 2 out of control cars. However, car 3 has not left a safe distance and is not able to stop in time and choses to overtake a crash in progress. This example shows exactly why that was not a good idea. If car 3 had stopped as they should have done they would not have hit car 2 and are therefore should be responsible for the damage caused. It is irrelevant why the crash happens in front of you, you shoud leave sufficient distance between you and the car in front to STOP in time.

I'm certainly not going to disagree that car 3 was driving poorly, and should have left enough space so that they could stop, but despite that I'd suggest car 2 was driving worse as they also didn't leave enough of a gap, and then also pulled out without looking into another lane.

Assuming the 'car crash in progress' was just one car going into the back of the other without any sideways movement, I can't see any legitimate reason for car 2 trying to pull into the other lane having already hit car 1.

JQ.

foxyuk wrote: »

incorrect if you see a crash in front why would you stop...... car number 3 safely manouvered away from the accident and the stationery car that hit car number 1 pulled out without indication...

what are you meant to do stop the car and sit for 20 minutes till both cars move away .... britain would be a gridlock if everyone followed your highway code

Of course I would stop. I would check there were no injured parties, make sure everyone was ok, call the police or emergency services if needed and give my details to anyone who wanted as a witness.

Nice to see you'd just drive past in your own little world.

bigjl

It does seem that your OH was not at fault, but the 2nd driver may try and pass blame on and technically he was overtaking car 2, but I think he should still be OK as car 2 didn't ensure the road was clear before pulling out into your OH, also where exactly was car 2 going, wher they trying to leave the scene of an accident.

Car 2 may try to shift bame by saying that your OH was unable to stop hence the overtake, though from your description it does seem that car2 was driving well outside their skill level an unable to control their car in any way.

I haven't read the thread, so may be repeating what has been posted, but let the INsurance sort it out, and draw a [plan of the crash to keep it fresh in your OH's mind, and maybe go back to the spot and take some good clear digital phots if this hasn't been done already.

JQ.

FATBALLZ wrote: »

I'm certainly not going to disagree that car 3 was driving poorly, and should have left enough space so that they could stop, but despite that I'd suggest car 2 was driving worse as they also didn't leave enough of a gap, and then also pulled out without looking into another lane.

Assuming the 'car crash in progress' was just one car going into the back of the other without any sideways movement, I can't see any legitimate reason for car 2 trying to pull into the other lane having already hit car 1.

I would imagine car 2 pulled out because it did not want to hit car 1 again as they both slid down the hill. The crux of it is - if car 3 was a safe distance behind car 2, there would have been no collision between the two.

Think of it a different way - you're driving down a perfectly normal road in standard conditions and the 2 cars in front of you start spinning following a collision, what do you think you should do, stop so you don't hit them, or decide to overtake the 2 crashing cars?

JQ.

foxyuk wrote: »

read original post..... car 2 had already collided with car 1 not once but twice it failed to stop hence why car 2 hit car 1.... there car (3) managed to avoid the accident that occured by going on other side of the road to pass it....

I have read the OP. Please feel free to highlight the part where it states that cars 1 & 2 are stationary.

FATBALLZ

JQ. wrote: »

I would imagine car 2 pulled out because it did not want to hit car 1 again as they both slid down the hill. The crux of it is - if car 3 was a safe distance behind car 2, there would have been no collision between the two.

Think of it a different way - you're driving down a perfectly normal road in standard conditions and the 2 cars in front of you start spinning following a collision, what do you think you should do, stop so you don't hit them, or decide to overtake the 2 crashing cars?

Of course you should stop, but what you should do and what you must do are two different things.

Seems to me we might need a bit more detail about the crash between the other 2 - ie had they actually stopped, were they spinning/skidding sideways, were they still in the process of a collision at the time - the OP said car 2 hit car 1 'at least twice', therefore it may be the collision had already finished, however without more detail it's hard to say. This is why I noted my assumption in my first post on the subject

JQ.

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Of course you should stop, but what you should do and what you must do are two different things.

Seems to me we might need a bit more detail about the crash between the other 2 - ie had they actually stopped, were they spinning/skidding sideways, were they still in the process of a collision at the time - the OP said car 2 hit car 1 'at least twice', therefore it may be the collision had already finished, however without more detail it's hard to say. This is why I noted my assumption in my first post on the subject

I agree, there's not really enough info.

The impression I get is of 2 cars sliding down an icy hill out of control - otherwise how do you crash twice and why would car 2 pull out, if not to avoid hitting car 1 again.

Everyone else seems to draw the conclusion that cars 1 and 2 are stationary - I just don't think that's feasible, as how can the 2 crashing cars stop, but car 3 is unable to stop, as highlighted by the OP.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :beer: