Non fault accident help!

DUTR

maninthestreet wrote: »

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

Yet, neither of you are clarifying where the involvement lay, it would seem the only basis for the involvement was being on the road at the same time as the OP?

DUTR

Chopper_Read wrote: »

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

Yet you fail to show the evidence that relates to the case presented to us.

Chopper_Read

DUTR wrote: »

Yet, neither of you are clarifying where the involvement lay, it would seem the only basis for the involvement was being on the road at the same time as the OP?

!!!!!! it has turning left and as the op was along side it it started to turn right hence she swerved to avoid it.

You're starting to troll now.

Chopper_Read

DUTR wrote: »

Yet you fail to show the evidence that relates to the case presented to us.

Are you taking the p155 now?

powerful_Rogue

Chopper_Read wrote: »

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

But the definition doesn't include that!!

The RTA is talking about due to the OP being on the road in her vehicle and because she caused damage to the wall she needs to stop and provide her details etc etc

it doesn't mention anything about "Due to another vehicle being on the road causing the OP in her vehicle on the road to cause damage to a wall she needs to stop and provide her details etc etc" - If it does then please point it out to me.

Chopper_Read

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

But the definition doesn't include that!!

The RTA is talking about due to the OP being on the road in her vehicle and because she caused damage to the wall she needs to stop and provide her details etc etc

it doesn't mention anything about "Due to another vehicle being on the road causing the OP in her vehicle on the road to cause damage to a wall she needs to stop and provide her details etc etc" - If it does then please point it out to me.

It covers it, unless you can show us where it excludes it.

powerful_Rogue

Chopper_Read wrote: »

It covers it, unless you can show us where it excludes it.

:rotfl::rotfl:

Ive already shown and explained in my previous post how it doesn't apply to the vehicle turning left!

You fail to back anything you say up.

malc_b

HappyMJ wrote: »

Why overtake? Stay back and wait until they have completed their maneuver. to me it sounds like you were following too closely and were not anticipating the other car.

This is a silly comment. You don't know what the other car was doing and it is impolite to assume the OP is a bad driver. The car in front could have been slowing to near zero to take a tight left for all we know. In that case, if the road was clear, most drivers would overtake rather than come to a stop then have to accelerate back up to speed. And this also applies to the 2s rule. For we know the OP was following 2s behind. The car in front started a manoeuvre and the OP decide to overtake. Where does it say in the highway code that you cannot overtake a vehicle turning left?

It sounds to me, and I'm guessing same as everyone else, that the car in front was slowing down so slow that the OP decided to overtake rather than just ease off a bit so that the car in front could complete the turn. The driver, since it then turned right without checking what the car following was doing, seems very inexperienced so likely to take turns much slower then experienced drivers. But I'm just guessing the same as the rest, so what's the point

leftinamess

malc_b wrote: »

This is a silly comment. You don't know what the other car was doing and it is impolite to assume the OP is a bad driver. The car in front could have been slowing to near zero to take a tight left for all we know. In that case, if the road was clear, most drivers would overtake rather than come to a stop then have to accelerate back up to speed. And this also applies to the 2s rule. For we know the OP was following 2s behind. The car in front started a manoeuvre and the OP decide to overtake. Where does it say in the highway code that you cannot overtake a vehicle turning left?

It sounds to me, and I'm guessing same as everyone else, that the car in front was slowing down so slow that the OP decided to overtake rather than just ease off a bit so that the car in front could complete the turn. The driver, since it then turned right without checking what the car following was doing, seems very inexperienced so likely to take turns much slower then experienced drivers. But I'm just guessing the same as the rest, so what's the point

Wow! were you there???? thats on the button to pretty much what went on!

Chopper_Read

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:

Ive already shown and explained in my previous post how it doesn't apply to the vehicle turning left!

You fail to back anything you say up.

Only the RTA definition of a collision but that isn't good enough for you is it?