Just had a car crash...

MARKMAKAVELI

Apologies Strider, had some difficulty converting it. Here is a new link to a pdf file. Edited original link too.

https://www.yousendit.com/download/M3BseVdzQ1BubVVpR01UQw

Strider590

I would say that in the time spent living there, she has become complacent and no longer uses her mirrors or indicates.

I know what i'd be doing right now...........

Crabman

MARKMAKAVELI wrote: »

Apologies Strider, had some difficulty converting it. Here is a new link to a pdf file. Edited original link too.

I'd recommend you delete the file you've uploaded and instead upload one with the names blanked out. Either use Paint to blank out the details or put a piece of paper over the names when scanning in.

MARKMAKAVELI

Thanks crabman I've been in such a rage I didn't even think about that. I've taken the links down now.

I'll edit the confidential stuff now and re-up.

Edit: Edited links in previous posts and edited names out.

https://www.yousendit.com/download/M3BseVdzQ1BubVVpR01UQw

johnfarquhar74

MARKMAKAVELI, I can understand your frustration if what you say is true!
Having had a quick look on Google maps & Streetview, she must have had the whole of her car over to the right of the road, there would have been no room for you to slip by unless this was the case, and with no indication you have no idea that her intent was to swing into the drive on the left. Her statement is full of emotion and her version of 'facts' is only her opinion. It will be very important for you to set these 'facts' straight, but without the emotion/kids/cats!! She does seem to say she didn't see you though, ",,,came from nowhere", that has to prove she was not observant.

Is there any reason why folk don't reverse into these tight driveways, would make more sense to me and would prevent this kind of incident happening as you could manoeuvre from the 'correct' side of the road??

Anyways, wishing you the best of luck, the insurance companies will more than likely screw you both but I hope 'she' doesn't get away with the blatant lying!!

MARKMAKAVELI

Is anyone good at Math's?

She says she didn't see me when she checked her mirrors.

This means I must have travelled 144feet in that time frame of her checking her mirrors, signalling and performing the manouvre. I guess even the slowest driver would take 3 seconds?

So what speed would I be going to cover 144feet in 3 seconds?

PaulyB71

MARKMAKAVELI wrote: »

Is anyone good at Math's?

She says she didn't see me when she checked her mirrors.

This means I must have travelled 144feet in that time frame of her checking her mirrors, signalling and performing the manouvre. I guess even the slowest driver would take 3 seconds?

So what speed would I be going to cover 144feet in 3 seconds?

Around 33 mph

fivetide

Hmmm about 40ft per second then. At 5280ft per mile what's the working?
I may be horribly wrong!

5t.

MARKMAKAVELI

thanks fivetide, worked it out with your help.

To travel 145ft in 3 seconds would mean approx 50ft in 1 second. This means a speed of 30mph from the start.

My car, if new would do 0-60 in under 9 seconds.

My car is about 11 years old but lets treat it as new. That means 0-30 in 4 seconds being generous again.

So it takes my car 4 seconds to get the speed of 30mph, so it is impossible that between her checking her mirrors, signalling and manouvering that I have managed to get to her and hit her.

I can prove she is either lying about me speeding or failed to check her mirrors/signal.

Will still end up being 50/50 because of the rest of her lies which I can't disprove, however proving she is a lying scumbag on one aspect is a feel good factor.

MARKMAKAVELI

Email I'm about to send:

I can prove that in her statement, the other driver is lying about me speeding (in which she claims was the cause of the crash) and she failed to check her mirrors/signal.

I have used googlemaps to measure the road that crash took place on. Both parties have agreed roughly where the crash happened.

The other driver claims "I indicated left and when I looked in my rear mirrors (windscreen and passenger wing mirror), it was clear there was no-one behind me."

Firstly, the high way code states you should firstly check your mirrors, then signal, then manoeuvre. The driver didn't do any of these but claims to have done all 3. Had she performed all 3 actions like her statement says, then she has firstly admitted to carrying them out in the wrong order, thus failing to adhere to the basic rules of safety when driving, which she seems so keen to convince everyone that she follows to the letter.

On to my main point:
How long does it take to indicate, check mirrors and start to perform a manoeuvre? Even the slowest, most cautious driver would say 3 seconds?

To travel approximately 150ft in 3 seconds would mean approx 50ft in 1 second. This means a speed of 30mph from the start. I used this website to calculate this.

My car, if new would do 0-60 in under 9 seconds.

My car is about 11 years old but for the purpose of this, lets treat it as a brand new, perfectly running car. That means 0-30mph in 4 seconds, being generous again.

So it takes my car 4 seconds to get the speed of 30mph, so it is impossible that between her checking her mirrors, signalling and manoeuvring that I have managed to get to her and hit her.

So this proves I was not speeding and consequently, she did not check her mirrors. With this aspect of her statement proven to be a lie, how can the rest of her story be believed?