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!
Car crash witness changed her mind about seeing it.
Comments
-
Our car was doing exactly zero (0) mph,
Then it is their fault 100%. Stick to this. Don't 2nd guess the speed of the other car (which I doubt was 40mph at impact; that's *very* fast). I would err on the side of caution when guessing their speed.
The very fact that they were moving (at whatever speed) when you were not is enough for the blame to be theirs.0 -
Then it is their fault 100%. Stick to this. Don't 2nd guess the speed of the other car (which I doubt was 40mph at impact; that's *very* fast). I would err on the side of caution when guessing their speed.
The very fact that they were moving (at whatever speed) when you were not is enough for the blame to be theirs.
This and the fact that you are on your side of the road (you said the obstruction was on the other side). therefore, you stopped safely, they crossed the middle of the road and hit you.What if there was no such thing as a rhetorical question?0 -
Then it is their fault 100%. Stick to this. Don't 2nd guess the speed of the other car (which I doubt was 40mph at impact; that's *very* fast). I would err on the side of caution when guessing their speed.Our car was doing exactly zero (0) mph,
The very fact that they were moving (at whatever speed) when you were not is enough for the blame to be theirs.This and the fact that you are on your side of the road (you said the obstruction was on the other side). therefore, you stopped safely, they crossed the middle of the road and hit you.
Neither of these points need be true.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
Sgt_Pepper wrote: »Car A hits stationary car B. Car B is to blame. As I said keep it simple.
are you SURE about that? car b is stationary, but yet car B is to blame?0 -
??????????????
It may arise if a driver was already committed to passing a group of parked cars on his side of the road when an approaching slow moving motorist either didn't see him or wrongly assumed he might move out of the way.
In the diagram below, vehicle 2 has every right to progress past the parked cars. Vehicle one should wait. If vehicle 1 doesn't stop for whatever reason, and moves into the space that V2 needs to complete his manoeuvre past the parked cars, then both vehicles need to try to stop.
Both vehicles may realise V1's error at exactly the same time, yet V1 may stop quicker than V2 if its driving speed was slower. Therefore it is not always true that a stationary vehicle is 100% blameless, nor is it always true that the vehicle coming to a stop on its own side of the road is blameless.
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
It may arise if a driver was already committed to passing a group of parked cars on his side of the road when an approaching slow moving motorist either didn't see him or wrongly assumed he might move out of the way.
In the diagram below, vehicle 2 has every right to progress past the parked cars. Vehicle one should wait. If vehicle 1 doesn't stop for whatever reason, and moves into the space that V2 needs to complete his manoeuvre past the parked cars, then both vehicles need to try to stop.
Both vehicles may realise V1's error at exactly the same time, yet V1 may stop quicker than V2 if its driving speed was slower. Therefore it is not always true that a stationary vehicle is 100% blameless, nor is it always true that the vehicle coming to a stop on its own side of the road is blameless.
In the addage "you should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear" then the driver of the car still moving has questions to answer.
Also, I would argue in your example that car 2 should pull into the gap between the parked cars and allow car 1 to proceed. There is no specific need for car 1 to halt other than courtesy.
Given what the OP has said, their car, car 1 if you like, did not pull into the other person's space. There was room for the vehicle to pass. Given then other car managed to hit them anyway, the other driver sounds lucky not have been cautioned for driving without due care and attention.
Clearly we only have one side of the argument here but as that is all we have to go on, I'd rather support the OP than try to knock holes in their case which, no offence, is simply unhelpful.What if there was no such thing as a rhetorical question?0 -
Sgt_Pepper wrote: »Don't bother with brats attempts to do a forum recon. He should know its all speculation and of no use to you.
Car A hits stationary car B. Car B is to blame. As I said keep it simple.
By the sound of the information, car A was also overtaking parked cars on her side of the road, and possibly failing to give way to oncoming traffic (this is speculation of course, but there are many drivers, who drive too fast, and then assume that everyone has to get out of their way, even those people who have right of way).
Was car A on the wrong side of the road (even slightly) when they collided with the car B?0 -
Sgt_Pepper wrote: »Don't bother with brats attempts to do a forum recon. He should know its all speculation and of no use to you.
Car A hits stationary car B. Car B is to blame. As I said keep it simple.
That should be car A is to bleame shouldn't it?0 -
Clearly (as you doubtless realise) the adage doesn't apply to every circumstance, but at least you recognise that blame can be apportioned to a stationary driver on their own side of the road -which was the only point I was making.In the addage "you should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear" then the driver of the car still moving has questions to answer.
That is precisely why I left that space there, to see if anyone would say that the car should move in. The action of slowing down to move in to that tiny gap would simply inconvenience both drivers. No, once your committed to passing the parked cars, then get past them, don't mess about by trying to tuck into a tight parking space in the belief that you're being helpful.Also, I would argue in your example that car 2 should pull into the gap between the parked cars and allow car 1 to proceed. There is no specific need for car 1 to halt other than courtesy.
Yet the 40mph speed and the car bouncing back are details that cast some doubt on the version we are being given.Given what the OP has said, their car, car 1 if you like, did not pull into the other person's space. There was room for the vehicle to pass. Given then other car managed to hit them anyway, the other driver sounds lucky not have been cautioned for driving without due care and attention.
Clearly we only have one side of the argument here but as that is all we have to go on, I'd rather support the OP than try to knock holes in their case which, no offence, is simply unhelpful.
I'd rather knock holes in a case so that the person can revisit, rethink and re-examine the truth of the event, than have someone try to use fawning support gained from a forum to bolster a case, perhaps to the detriment of the other party who might have done nothing wrong.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards