Just had a crash, who's fault is it? Need advice please

cyclonebri1

Tilt wrote: »

In your opinion.

Yes of course in my opinion, exactly as the long post was in it's authors opinion, not completely factual being my point. You have to remember some people go away believing what they read on here:D:D:D

Jamie_Carter

I am now 100% convinced that the OP is just trolling. They have PM'd me, and have changed their mind yet again about what actually happened.

Darfyddi

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

That is a flawed post and way too long... ...the bits I highlighted, all flawed I'm afraid.... ...all based on your own single experience.:(:(, and is not correct in all cases.

If it is too long why did you quote the whole post?

OH MY GOD!!! Did I use some of my own personal experience? I am so sorry - I should have just stuck to idle gossip and hearsay.

As for the bits you highlighted being flawed:

Originally Posted by Darfyddi
Anyone thinking another user is trolling then just walk away - What is flawed about this statement? Should we just give trollers what they want and prolong their threads?

give way to the right when entering; - oops, yes sorry, should never give way to the right on entering roundabouts - only give way to traffic from above!

always signal when changing lanes; always give way when changing lanes; - I forgot the highway code stipulates that we should not signal to others when we change lane: we wouldn't want to let them know we are about to cut them up.

not always easy to thoroughly check blind spots - if you don't believe this then maybe you should try driving on busy roundabouts now and then.

every one behind you is accelerating - Sorry, you are right on this one, most of them will be reversing away from the back of your car as you enter a roundabout.

In the event of any vehicle crash go in with the minset that it is always the other party at fault - unless of course you want to give away your NCB and pay higher premiums. Insurance companies do advise NEVER admit fault at the scene of an accident so why you even question me on this I do not know.

typically automatically 50/50 on roundabouts. - Please find me 3 of the many insurance companies that do not automatically put minor roundabout bumps to 50/50 unless their clients put up a fuss.

At the scene of the crash site you are obliged to give your vehicle registration and insurance details - you got me again, this is flawed advise; leave the scene without exchanging this information that way you have more chance of getting away with it if they don't know who you are.

It is easy to shout 'take photo's at the time it happened' but no matter how minor a bump is the instant shock will make you forget the basic things and most roundabouts are not safe enough to start running around on taking photos. - How can you even claim this is a flawed statement? why don't you take this bit, start a new thread and open an 'agree/not agree' poll on it.

also put it in writing that you will see the 3rd party in court if needs be. - yep, another flaw.... forget this and just roll over, play dead and let the 3rd party's legal team piddle all over you!

if you entered the roundabout at lane2entrance 1' at speed and she entered lane1entrance2' then your paths would cross and (providing you were both within the speed limit) then it will be 50/50 - she didn't give way to the right and you didn't check the exit was clear. - explain to the world why this is flawed with all the above in the original post in mind.

The witness you have must be truely independant - they are no use if they know you in anyway - how many judges have you been before that take into account wittness statements from friends of claimants or defendants during minor claims?

DO NOT SPEAK TO 3RD PARTY! - go on... forget this too, speak to them directly and give them oportunity to set you up into saying or agreeing to the wrong things while recording you.

don't be afraid to show emtion if you want to raise your voice when you are called a liar by the 3rd party's barrister - just remain extremely civil and polite. - oh no, sorry, this is from my own experience which we should never use in these forums. Two barristers advised me on this being beneficial in front of judges as it shows you care and are more likely to be telling the truth as opposed to coldly remembering pre-rehersed lines. When people get 'hot and bothered' about an argument they have less time to think and construct lies and this makes it harder to link lies together throughout an argument. I can give you many citations of this from various psychology experiments that are widely published. Why you highlighted the 'civil and polite' bit I don't know - would love to see the result of uncivil and impolite behaviour in front of a judge though - maybe you would like to be the test subject?

you were not injured - the fact this is highlighted is proof that you have not read this thread so how you dare criticise me is anyone guess (answers on a postcard please folks! :T )

I am trying to save for one and hopefully it will help should any of the 'crash for cash' attempts I have seen people try to pull on me actually work. - someone getting too excited with the 'bold highlight' tool?... ah bless him....

If you want to know more about what happened to me when I had similar thing in Cov then please message me - Yeah, this was flawed, a member here actually trying to help some one that has gone through what seems to be an exact same scenario - this should be banned and anyone here offering help and advice should have their accounts deleted as we are taking up space that trollers like you cyclonebri1 can use to abuse other members.

Jamie_Carter

Don't bite Darfyddi, cyclonebri1 is trying to wind you up (trolling). Otherwise they would have come up with the reasons why your post is flawed. But they didn't, so I'm wondering if it is the OP using a different login, as some people have stated that he often does.

cyclonebri1

Darfyddi wrote: »

If it is too long why did you quote the whole post?

OH MY GOD!!! Did I use some of my own personal experience? I am so sorry - I should have just stuck to idle gossip and hearsay.

As for the bits you highlighted being flawed:

Originally Posted by Darfyddi
Anyone thinking another user is trolling then just walk away - What is flawed about this statement? Should we just give trollers what they want and prolong their threads?

give way to the right when entering; - oops, yes sorry, should never give way to the right on entering roundabouts - only give way to traffic from above!

always signal when changing lanes; always give way when changing lanes; - I forgot the highway code stipulates that we should not signal to others when we change lane: we wouldn't want to let them know we are about to cut them up.

not always easy to thoroughly check blind spots - if you don't believe this then maybe you should try driving on busy roundabouts now and then.

every one behind you is accelerating - Sorry, you are right on this one, most of them will be reversing away from the back of your car as you enter a roundabout.

In the event of any vehicle crash go in with the minset that it is always the other party at fault - unless of course you want to give away your NCB and pay higher premiums. Insurance companies do advise NEVER admit fault at the scene of an accident so why you even question me on this I do not know.

typically automatically 50/50 on roundabouts. - Please find me 3 of the many insurance companies that do not automatically put minor roundabout bumps to 50/50 unless their clients put up a fuss.

At the scene of the crash site you are obliged to give your vehicle registration and insurance details - you got me again, this is flawed advise; leave the scene without exchanging this information that way you have more chance of getting away with it if they don't know who you are.

It is easy to shout 'take photo's at the time it happened' but no matter how minor a bump is the instant shock will make you forget the basic things and most roundabouts are not safe enough to start running around on taking photos. - How can you even claim this is a flawed statement? why don't you take this bit, start a new thread and open an 'agree/not agree' poll on it.

also put it in writing that you will see the 3rd party in court if needs be. - yep, another flaw.... forget this and just roll over, play dead and let the 3rd party's legal team piddle all over you!

if you entered the roundabout at lane2entrance 1' at speed and she entered lane1entrance2' then your paths would cross and (providing you were both within the speed limit) then it will be 50/50 - she didn't give way to the right and you didn't check the exit was clear. - explain to the world why this is flawed with all the above in the original post in mind.

The witness you have must be truely independant - they are no use if they know you in anyway - how many judges have you been before that take into account wittness statements from friends of claimants or defendants during minor claims?

DO NOT SPEAK TO 3RD PARTY! - go on... forget this too, speak to them directly and give them oportunity to set you up into saying or agreeing to the wrong things while recording you.

don't be afraid to show emtion if you want to raise your voice when you are called a liar by the 3rd party's barrister - just remain extremely civil and polite. - oh no, sorry, this is from my own experience which we should never use in these forums. Two barristers advised me on this being beneficial in front of judges as it shows you care and are more likely to be telling the truth as opposed to coldly remembering pre-rehersed lines. When people get 'hot and bothered' about an argument they have less time to think and construct lies and this makes it harder to link lies together throughout an argument. I can give you many citations of this from various psychology experiments that are widely published. Why you highlighted the 'civil and polite' bit I don't know - would love to see the result of uncivil and impolite behaviour in front of a judge though - maybe you would like to be the test subject?

you were not injured - the fact this is highlighted is proof that you have not read this thread so how you dare criticise me is anyone guess (answers on a postcard please folks! :T )

I am trying to save for one and hopefully it will help should any of the 'crash for cash' attempts I have seen people try to pull on me actually work. - someone getting too excited with the 'bold highlight' tool?... ah bless him....

If you want to know more about what happened to me when I had similar thing in Cov then please message me - Yeah, this was flawed, a member here actually trying to help some one that has gone through what seems to be an exact same scenario - this should be banned and anyone here offering help and advice should have their accounts deleted as we are taking up space that trollers like you cyclonebri1 can use to abuse other members.

Ok, a troll I am not, but I did take the time to read your post. The issue I have is when someone takes everything a poster has said and tries to be judge and jury without knowing the real truth.

Then to give advice as if it is law when in actual fact it's not even correct is plain wrong.

Everything you posted relates to a single accident you had and the result of that, not what often happens in reality.
I can't be bothered to even read it again, but just a couple of things that I took exception to;

The bit about giving way to traffic from the right is correct in part, but the highway code also says or maybe even only says "give way to traffic already on the roundabout", that means stuff in front of You that has already entered the rb.

The bit about "truly independent witnesses", I take it that is your definition? People working for the same company?, shopkeepers on the way to work? all have been successfully used as witnesses in claims.

Show emotion in court?, is that a suggestion to stretch the truth a little or warm up the judge for compensation, it can be read that way.


Exchanging insurance details at the scene of an accident? again there are exceptions to this that you omitted to point out, not least of which has there been damage to limb or property, correct if the scene is as per the OP but not every time.
There are exceptions to almost every situation, you need to take that into account.

Am I the op as suggested by the poster above? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: No.

Oh the issue about giving advice, that in itself can lead you into trouble.
If you really want to help the op or any other poster you simply give you opinion or your view, accept that others will have different ones to you, and let the op take a consensus of opinion and make their decision based on all views.

My only exception to that would be when something down right dangerous has been posted and then advice not to do something suggested is valid.

As I said some folks believe everything they read here forgetting it's often populated by let's say "uninformed posters"

Jamie_Carter

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Ok, a troll I am not, but I did take the time to read your post. The issue I have is when someone takes everything a poster has said and tries to be judge and jury without knowing the real truth.

Then to give advice as if it is law when in actual fact it's not even correct is plain wrong.

Everything you posted relates to a single accident you had and the result of that, not what often happens in reality.
I can't be bothered to even read it again, but just a couple of things that I took exception to;

The bit about giving way to traffic from the right is correct in part, but the highway code also says or maybe even only says "give way to traffic already on the roundabout", that means stuff in front of You that has already entered the rb.

The bit about "truly independent witnesses", I take it that is your definition? People working for the same company?, shopkeepers on the way to work? all have been successfully used as witnesses in claims.

Show emotion in court?, is that a suggestion to stretch the truth a little or warm up the judge for compensation, it can be read that way.


Exchanging insurance details at the scene of an accident? again there are exceptions to this that you omitted to point out, not least of which has there been damage to limb or property, correct if the scene is as per the OP but not every time.
There are exceptions to almost every situation, you need to take that into account.

Am I the op as suggested by the poster above? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: No.

Oh the issue about giving advice, that in itself can lead you into trouble.
If you really want to help the op or any other poster you simply give you opinion or your view, accept that others will have different ones to you, and let the op take a consensus of opinion and make their decision based on all views.

My only exception to that would be when something down right dangerous has been posted and then advice not to do something suggested is valid.

As I said some folks believe everything they read here forgetting it's often populated by let's say "uninformed posters"

So you obviously don't like the whole idea of forums then. So why are you here??

If you had read the post properly you would realise that advice was being given on the information provided. We all know that there are exceptions to most rules, but the poster wasn't talking about the exceptions, they were talking about a specific situation as described by the OP.

How can you say that "you always give way to the right on a roundabout"? Yes it obviously also applies to vehicles on the roundabout, but they aren't going to come from the left are they?

So why don't you stop nit picking at what was actually a very good, and almost entirely correct post.

TrickyWicky

Lol is this thread still alive with 11 pages?

cyclonebri1

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

So you obviously don't like the whole idea of forums then. So why are you here??

If you had read the post properly you would realise that advice was being given on the information provided. We all know that there are exceptions to most rules, but the poster wasn't talking about the exceptions, they were talking about a specific situation as described by the OP.

How can you say that "you always give way to the right on a roundabout"? Yes it obviously also applies to vehicles on the roundabout, but

So why don't you stop nit picking at what was actually a very good, and almost entirely correct post.

And that was the point I was making.
When someone posts as if they are God/Judge and jury then I will point out that the reply is not always gospel.

And the info given by the OP is not gospel either, as you yourself have gone to great lengths to point out.

Anyway detective, I'll leave you to it to conjure up another conspiracy theory.:rotfl:

Don't I like forums? of course I do but as I have tried to point out, but it seems over your head, giving direct advice to someone is dangerous and litigation can follow.
There are people desperate for advice who come here, some will take what is posted as "correct" and heaven forbid if that leads to disaster. I should be made clear for your own protection or even just conscience that what you are stating is opinion or view and not direct advice.
Or maybe you can't understand the difference, either way I've explained myself to you in a polite way irrespective of the fact that you called me a troll, end of.

Jamie_Carter

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

And that was the point I was making.
When someone posts as if they are God/Judge and jury then I will point out that the reply is not always gospel.

And the info given by the OP is not gospel either, as you yourself have gone to great lengths to point out.

Anyway detective, I'll leave you to it to conjure up another conspiracy theory.:rotfl:

Don't I like forums? of course I do but as I have tried to point out, but it seems over your head, giving direct advice to someone is dangerous and litigation can follow.
There are people desperate for advice who come here, some will take what is posted as "correct" and heaven forbid if that leads to disaster. I should be made clear for your own protection or even just conscience that what you are stating is opinion or view and not direct advice.
Or maybe you can't understand the difference, either way I've explained myself to you in a polite way irrespective of the fact that you called me a troll, end of.

For someon who has posted 7469 times I would have thought that you would know how forums work.

People do mainly give advice from their own experience. Although some armchair experts look things up on the internet, and cherry pick things, then give wrong advice. But then claim 'it is true because I looked it up on this or that site'.

It isn't people who use their own experience who are the problem, it is the armchair experts. These people will argue with the people who actually know what is right due to their own professional experience. There was even someone in this thread who was claiming to be a traffic police officer, who didn't know much at all about road law or the highway code.

So why have you picked out just one post that you say is flawed, as it is probably one of the most accurate posts in the thread.

The main rule with seeking advice on forums is to take much of the advice with a pinch of salt, unless you know for sure that the person giving the advice is professionally qualified to give that advice.

Nobody said that Darfyddi's post was gospel.

cyclonebri1

The main rule with seeking advice on forums is to take much of the advice with a pinch of salt, unless you know for sure that the person giving the advice is professionally qualified to give that advice.

Nobody said that Darfyddi's post was gospel.[/QUOTE]

That's what I said, except that it needs pointing out to some folks, ie don't believe everything printed on here.

And is Darfyd qualified?, by he length of his post he seemed to be professing to be, or at least giving out enough info as to not be questioned.

Look this was not intended to be a troll, you got that wrong, BUT, if the only thing you get from my posts is this, then I'm fine;

"Don't give advice, it could leave you liable."

Give opinion/view/suggestion even, not direct advice, but if you disagree.............. sorry.