We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
Non fault accident help!
Comments
-
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 point0 -
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!0 -
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?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards