Non fault accident help!

BertTheRaccoon

All the OP needs to tell the trader and any insurer is what he said in his original post and that the kid coffed to it all to the police, accepting your version of events

So long as the OP has't gone across any double central lines or into any other prevented central area, or done this opposite a junction on the right, then he should be OK.

It'll be a load of hassle but the cards are stacked in your favour (assuming none of the above exceptions are breached)

Chopper_Read

BertTheRaccoon wrote: »

All the OP needs to tell the trader and any insurer is what he said in his original post and that the kid coffed to it all to the police, accepting your version of events

So long as the OP has't gone across any double central solid lines or into any other prevented central area, or done this opposite a junction on the right, then he should be OK.

It'll be a load of hassle but the cards are stacked in your favour (assuming none of the above exceptions are breached)

Fixed that for you.

BertTheRaccoon

Yes you have, thanks (on my 5th can)

Chopper_Read

BertTheRaccoon wrote: »

Yes you have, thanks (on my 5th can)

Explains a few of your recent posts.

Crossing white lines to avoid a collision is another mater.

leftinamess

Thanks for everyone's advice, still not the clearest so any more feedback much appreciated

DUTR

Chopper_Read wrote: »

The other driver was involved.

You or I are not the insurer, if the other vehicle was not collided with, then they are not involved in the accident.
If the OP had allowed enough time and space ahead of him then the following sequence of event should not have occured.
If what the OP had attemped was during a test even without the accident, then I'm sure a not yet competent certificate would have been issued, but only time will tell if the trader insurer is going to accept liabilty or not.

Chopper_Read

DUTR wrote: »

You or I are not the insurer, if the other vehicle was not collided with, then they are not involved in the accident.
If the OP had allowed enough time and space ahead of him then the following sequence of event should not have occured.
If what the OP had attemped was during a test even without the accident, then I'm sure a not yet competent certificate would have been issued, but only time will tell if the trader insurer is going to accept liabilty or not.

The road traffic act states the other vehicle was involved.

leftinamess

Chopper_Read wrote: »

The road traffic act states the other vehicle was involved.

I would have thought he was involved seen as though he caused the accident

DUTR

Chopper_Read wrote: »

The road traffic act states the other vehicle was involved.

Which section (I don't doubt you , but would like to see the reference).

DUTR

leftinamess wrote: »

I would have thought he was involved seen as though he caused the accident

Op have the Police informed you that they are going to press charges against the other vehicle driver?
I have re-read your post and the logical side of me sees this...
You are driving along the carriageway, this road must be a good 7 metres wide, you notice that the vehicle ahead of you is possibly going to make a manouvre.
Yet observing all this you decided (incorrectly IMO) that you are going to proceed regardless, whilst you are in close proximity of the vehicle ahead of you (who does have the right of way) your evasive action is to make a sharp right turn, not only clearing the the 2nd probaly opposite lane but also mounting the footway (possibly verge) and only when your vehicle collides with the wall does the vehicle in your control come to rest.
In my mind what was wrong with the brakes for it to take so long to restrain the foward motion of your car? What sort of speed were you doing?
BTW this is not an attack as people in authority (not me ) could/would be asking similar and stronger more detailed questions