Non fault accident help!

Chopper_Read

DUTR wrote: »

Are you still trolling or going to back up evidence especially of your post #28.

Do your own research.

If you don't know the definition of a collision, should you be giving advice?

DUTR

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Do your own research.

If you don't know the definition of a collision, should you be giving advice?

You made the statement, you prove it, it seems it was a wild irrational suggestion by yourself, it was asked earlier in the thread if there are to be charges against the other driver? It seems not, only the insurance arbitrators will have the final say, the OP is at a loss, irrespective of what people may say that he likes to hear/read.
Had he been hazard aware and driving without impunity, the accident would never have occured, whether the driver ahead changed their mind or not, he would have been at a safe distance to make an evasive manouvre, crossing the other carraigeway, verge and fottway before colliding with a wall suggests he was also driving at a speed too great for the scene ahead.

powerful_Rogue

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Do your own research.

If you don't know the definition of a collision, should you be giving advice?

Definition of a road traffic collision
The law defines a reportable road traffic collision as an accident involving a mechanically-propelled vehicle on a road or other public area which causes:

• Injury or damage to anybody - other than the driver of that vehicle,
• Injury or damage to an animal- other than one being carried on that vehicle (an animal is classes as a horse, cattle, !!!, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog).
• Damage to a vehicle - other than the vehicle which caused the accident.
• Damage to property constructed on, affixed to, growing in, or otherwise forming part of the land where the road is.

From that definition, how does it involve the other vehicle?

maninthestreet

Surely the OP was overtaking at a road junction, which is contrary to
rule 167 of the HW code?

maninthestreet

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Definition of a road traffic collision
The law defines a reportable road traffic collision as an accident involving a mechanically-propelled vehicle on a road or other public area which causes:

• Injury or damage to anybody - other than the driver of that vehicle,
• Injury or damage to an animal- other than one being carried on that vehicle (an animal is classes as a horse, cattle, !!!, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog).
• Damage to a vehicle - other than the vehicle which caused the accident.
• Damage to property constructed on, affixed to, growing in, or otherwise forming part of the land where the road is.

From that definition, how does it involve the other vehicle?

....because the position of the other vehicle on the road caused a collision that resulted in damage to to property constructed on, affixed to, growing in, or otherwise forming part of the land where the road is.

Chopper_Read

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Definition of a road traffic collision
The law defines a reportable road traffic collision as an accident involving a mechanically-propelled vehicle on a road or other public area which causes:

• Injury or damage to anybody - other than the driver of that vehicle,
• Injury or damage to an animal- other than one being carried on that vehicle (an animal is classes as a horse, cattle, !!!, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog).
• Damage to a vehicle - other than the vehicle which caused the accident.
• Damage to property constructed on, affixed to, growing in, or otherwise forming part of the land where the road is.

From that definition, how does it involve the other vehicle?

Why did the op swerve?

DUTR

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Why did the op swerve?

The OP swerved because he was not driving with due care and attention to the situation which was presented ahead of him.

powerful_Rogue

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Why did the op swerve?

You stated in post 28

The road traffic act states the other vehicle was involved.

When questioned you then stated

If you don't know the definition of a collision, should you be giving advice?

Im just trying to work out from the definition above how you come to conclude the RTA states the other vehicle is involved.

powerful_Rogue

maninthestreet wrote: »

....because the position of the other vehicle on the road caused a collision that resulted in damage to to property constructed on, affixed to, growing in, or otherwise forming part of the land where the road is.

Have you got a link for that or is it your own opinion?

Chopper_Read

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

You stated in post 28



When questioned you then stated



Im just trying to work out from the definition above how you come to conclude the RTA states the other vehicle is involved.

Owing to the presence of the other car which is a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place. The op swerved to miss it and collided with a wall.

That's why it's involved.