Non fault accident help!

Chopper_Read

DUTR wrote: »

However it is the OP that is in violation , as his presence to the offside of the vehicle is incorrect.

Whats violation got to do with it? The point you were making is the other vehicle isn't involved.:D

Chopper_Read

maninthestreet wrote: »

The section of the RTA I linked to does not seek to establish blame/fault for any collision, but it does determine which parties are deemed to be 'involved', and must comply with the the requirements of that section. The OP collided with a wall as they had to swerve to avoid the change in direction of the other vehicle, so the other vehicle is involved.

Clearly DUTR and rouge aren't drivers.

Chopper_Read

DUTR wrote: »

Try the highway code section 126

126

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should

• leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram, shown below)
• allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads
• remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance to stop. If driving a large vehicle in a tunnel, you should allow a four-second gap between you and the vehicle in front.

If you have to stop in a tunnel, leave at least a 5-metre gap between you and the vehicle in front.

Whats your point here?

Oh yes the OP should have left room. Would that be room from the other vehicle involved in this collision?

DUTR

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Whats your point here?

Oh yes the OP should have left room. Would that be room from the other vehicle involved in this collision?

That would be room for the for the vehicle ahead to complete their manouvre rather than incorrectly assess that it was safe and clear to proceed.

Chopper_Read

DUTR wrote: »

That would be room for the for the vehicle ahead to complete their manouvre rather than incorrectly assess that it was safe and clear to proceed.

Whatever but do you now accept the other vehicle is involved?

DUTR

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Whatever but do you now accept the other vehicle is involved?

No I don't, there was no impact with the OP's vehicle, it was travelling in the same forward direction as the OP's vehicle, it was in front of the OP's vehicle, the OP's vehicle was travelling in excess of 13metres/sec and still taken several seconds to completely stop and that appears thanks to the presence of the wall to be what arrested the motion of the OP's vehicle, circumstancial evidence is indicating that he was not driving with due care and attention to the conditions ahead of him.

By your logic, those that are involved in an accident through rubber necking should put in a claim against the original accident across the carriageway

maninthestreet

DUTR wrote: »

No I don't, there was no impact with the OP's vehicle, it was travelling in the same forward direction as the OP's vehicle, it was in front of the OP's vehicle, the OP's vehicle was travelling in excess of 13metres/sec and still taken several seconds to completely stop and that appears thanks to the presence of the wall to be what arrested the motion of the OP's vehicle, circumstancial evidence is indicating that he was not driving with due care and attention to the conditions ahead of him.

By your logic, those that are involved in an accident through rubber necking should put in a claim against the original accident across the carriageway

You still confusing 'involvement' with 'blame/liability' .

powerful_Rogue

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Clearly DUTR and rouge aren't drivers.

Yawn........

That definition still dosnt apply to the driver of the vehicle that was turning left.

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.

Owing to the presence of the OPs vehicle on the road she caused damage to the wall.

The definition talks about the OP, not the driver of the other vehicle.

Chopper_Read

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Yawn........

That definition still dosnt apply to the driver of the vehicle that was turning left.



Owing to the presence of the OPs vehicle on the road she caused damage to the wall.

The definition talks about the OP, not the driver of the other vehicle.

Yes it does, it altered its course and caused the op to do so and crash.

Chopper_Read

DUTR wrote: »

No I don't, there was no impact with the OP's vehicle, it was travelling in the same forward direction as the OP's vehicle, it was in front of the OP's vehicle, the OP's vehicle was travelling in excess of 13metres/sec and still taken several seconds to completely stop and that appears thanks to the presence of the wall to be what arrested the motion of the OP's vehicle, circumstancial evidence is indicating that he was not driving with due care and attention to the conditions ahead of him.

By your logic, those that are involved in an accident through rubber necking should put in a claim against the original accident across the carriageway

There doesn't have to be an impact for a vehicle to be involved.