Knocked over and car hit. 3rd party now denying liability.

alleycat`

They'll try and pee you about for as long as they can get away with it in the hope you'll get fed up and just take the hit.
Keep on at your insurances company, that is why they exist to do this leg work for you.

On a side note:-

Are you a pedestrian in these circumstances?
I know there are/were some odd rules that differentiate between a dismounted cyclist and a "true" pedestrian.
The fact the police would breathalyse you suggests you were considered to be "in control" of the vehicle.

I'm not sure any of the above matters, just a point of interest.

arcon5

spacey2012 wrote: »

What was the speed limit on the road, it is an offence to park at night on the wrong side of the road on some roads.
If your lights were left on as well, they would dazzle the other driver.
hardly surprising they are denning liability.
If you were committing a traffic offence you could be found 100% liable.

HIGHLY unlikely!!

Dukesy

spacey2012 wrote: »

Probably because it was poor visibility and you were parked facing on coming traffic on the wrong side of the road with your lights on.
You have done yourself no favours by making the point of having your lights on parked against on coming traffic, the police wont be paying the insurance claim.
You might be lucky, but do not dispel what I have written, research it and prepare for the storm that may blow in, you may not see it this way but I am trying to help you.
Your defence would be it was a 30mph road or it was a designated parking spot, ie had a line painted to the edge of the lay-by separating it from the carriageway .
So be prepared
CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24

Being as highway regs say "You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space.Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24" and I can absolutely confirm it is a recognised parking spot in which I was hit, and they furthermore say that "All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h).
Law RVLR reg 24" and I had sidelights on, therefore doing exactly as i should, that really can't be any defence for her though. All I mean by the police being satisfied that I wasn't committing an offence is that having been given an incident number etc, there will presumeably be a paper trail somewhere containing the facts as given at the time, which would surely be available to the insurer?

I'm really worried about this dragging on and not getting anywhere with it.

Hackman_2

steve-L wrote: »

Not quite true... there are some defences .. just in weird circumstances like stopping right around a blind bend at night with no lights on or deliberately stopping for no reason and with no indication.

The car facing the wrong way and no sidelights can also be used (or so I heard) to split liability. Hence insurers win twice in premiums and NCB.

A driver MUST be able to stop in the distance the can see to be clear.

If someone stops to quick and you hit them. You were too close or too fast.

This weren't on a blind bend but the same would apply.

Hackman_2

arcon5 wrote: »

HIGHLY unlikely!!

I agree its scaremongering by the uneducated.

visidigi

spacey2012 wrote: »

Probably because it was poor visibility and you were parked facing on coming traffic on the wrong side of the road with your lights on.
You have done yourself no favours by making the point of having your lights on parked against on coming traffic, the police wont be paying the insurance claim.
You might be lucky, but do not dispel what I have written, research it and prepare for the storm that may blow in, you may not see it this way but I am trying to help you.
Your defence would be it was a 30mph road or it was a designated parking spot, ie had a line painted to the edge of the lay-by separating it from the carriageway .
So be prepared
CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24

Do you understand the difference between headlights and sidelights?

The OP has side lights on, which they are REQUIRED to do.

spacey2012

visidigi wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between headlights and sidelights?

The OP has side lights on, which they are REQUIRED to do.

Only if facing in the correct direction.
I have pointed out what the insurance company may pull up on, people can make their own assumptions, I thought it might help the OP to explore the possible situations and prepare for them.
Take it or leave it.

Hackman_2

visidigi wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between headlights and sidelights?

The OP has side lights on, which they are REQUIRED to do.

Sidelights aka PARKINGlights.

Dukesy

spacey2012 wrote: »

Only if facing in the correct direction.

I would be interested to see where in the highway code it says that, as I have not been able to find that particular clause.

I have pointed out what the insurance company may pull up on, people can make their own assumptions, I thought it might help the OP to explore the possible situations and prepare for them.
Take it or leave it.

I really do appreciate all input, thank you.

Hackman_2

spacey2012 wrote: »

Only if facing in the correct direction.
I have pointed out what the insurance company may pull up on, people can make their own assumptions, I thought it might help the OP to explore the possible situations and prepare for them.
Take it or leave it.

The lights have nothing to do with it. The actual offence would be parking on the offside during the hours of darkness.