We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Daughter's Car Accident - please help.

1…1415171920…24

Comments

  • The_Turner
    The_Turner Posts: 505 Forumite
    patchwork_cat wrote: »
    I don't agree. 4 years ago we had our car written off on the slip road of a motorway and aspects of the accident are blurry.

    I wouldn't worry about the arguments and people saying it was DD's fault. After our accident we were criticsed on this forum for not driving defensively enough. We were stationary on the slip road and hit from behind by a car travelling at 50 mph that shunted us into the car in front, who didn't even stop once queue moved, they pulled over briefly and then drove off!

    It's bad driving to stop on a motorway slip. After all they are long enough to allow you to merge with traffic.
  • Strider590
    Strider590 Posts: 11,874 Forumite
    The_Turner wrote: »
    It's [STRIKE]bad driving[/STRIKE] Illegal to stop on a motorway slip. After all they are long enough to allow you to merge with traffic.

    Corrected that for you :)
    “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an a** of yourself.”

    <><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Don't forget to like and subscribe \/ \/ \/
  • The_Turner
    The_Turner Posts: 505 Forumite
    Well if the motorway is stationary sometimes you have to.
  • Strider590
    Strider590 Posts: 11,874 Forumite
    The_Turner wrote: »
    Well if the motorway is stationary sometimes you have to.

    I know and fortunately so do the BIB, but the desk jockey's who write these rules, they don't.
    The BIB will however be very likely to prosecute anyone doing that into free flowing traffic.
    “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an a** of yourself.”

    <><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Don't forget to like and subscribe \/ \/ \/
  • pendulum
    pendulum Posts: 2,302 Forumite
    tesuhoha wrote: »
    To the person who suggested she was texting before the crash, my daughter's phone was checked by the police officer at the scene to ensure she had not been using it. Its routine after an accident so it shows how much you know.
    Breathalyser is routine, checking a person's phone isn't, perhaps he had suspicions. :D
  • The_Turner
    The_Turner Posts: 505 Forumite
    pendulum wrote: »
    Breathalyser is routine, checking a person's phone isn't, perhaps he had suspicions. :D

    He had no power to do it.
  • tesuhoha
    tesuhoha Posts: 17,971 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker Mortgage-free Glee!
    mikey72 wrote: »
    That's not bad, she must have a good insurer.
    Who are they?

    Liverpool Victoria
    The forest would be very silent if no birds sang except for the birds that sang the best






  • atrixblue.-MFR-.
    atrixblue.-MFR-. Posts: 6,887 Forumite
    The_Turner wrote: »
    He had no power to do it.
    yes he does, if he has reason to suspect, as far as he established it was a one vehicle accident thats all the reason he needs to carry out the mobile phone inspection to rule out illegal use of a mobile phone at the time of the accident.
  • pendulum
    pendulum Posts: 2,302 Forumite
    The_Turner wrote: »
    He had no power to do it.
    We are in agreement that checking someone's phone after an accident is not routine, and tesuhoha was wrong to claim it is.

    I suspect he had the legal right to inspect the phone if he had a reasonable suspicion she was using it at the time of the accident. Whether he had a reasonable suspicion or not is debatable! Ultimately for a court to decide.
  • The_Turner
    The_Turner Posts: 505 Forumite
    atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »
    yes he does, if he has reason to suspect, as far as he established it was a one vehicle accident thats all the reason he needs to carry out the mobile phone inspection to rule out illegal use of a mobile phone at the time of the accident.

    Ok, if you want to be pedantic about it. He should have seized the phone and examined it subject to ripa. Not have a quick look at the side of the road.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture