Damage from debris in road

john342

It may of been possible to stop just in time, although it is not certain. In any case, where do you draw the line at what size obstacle are you expected to be able to see? Should I drive everywhere at 5mph just in case there is a nail in the road?

So your solution to people being too close to your rear is to slow down even further? Note, she had already slowed down a few seconds early due to the parked lorry. It is the person behind you who is ultimately responsible for stopping in time but we all know that people constantly drive too close. It came down to a judgement call in terms of risk, either:

- Break harshly and have a high chance of the car behind rear ending you.

- Drive over the rock resulting in either the rock hitting the car (ranging from minor to serious damage) or the rock fitting under the car. She judges it was marginal but it may just fit under the car.

lister wrote: »

Sorry, but a driver should always be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear. Either the speed of the vehicle was not compatible with the visibility available, or the driver didn't react appropriately to what they saw.

As for being rear-ended, again this is avoidable (or at least can be largely mitigated against) by good defensive driving. If someone is close behind you allow a larger gap to open in front, thereby giving greater visibility of the obstacle. If there wasn't someone too close behind, why would there be a rear-end collision (barring complete observation failure of the person behind, and there are limits to what you can mitigate against).

From what has been said it sounds to me like there was inappropriate speed (which doesn't mean the car was going fast - just too fast for the prevailing situation) in an area around a works site, with a large lorry present and with limited forward visibility.

Foxy-Stoat_3

If the damage is being claimed under your Mother's insurance policy then that will be the end of it. The insurers will decide whether or not to pursue the Construction Companies insurers, ie probability of winning based on the circumstances presented to them.

Worse case she will declare this as a fault accident, lose 2 years NCD if not protected and pay the excess.

All your Mother can do is claim off the Construction Company for the excess and increased premiums. IF they make a payout to your Mother it will be "without prejudice" if they are smart for the uninsured loss claim only. If they admit liailibty then your insurers can recover their outlay and it will be a win win.

Iceweasel

john342 wrote: »

It is a busy road and she was well within the speed limit. Apparently there was not enough time to stop, supported by the witness in the car.

There's your answer - the case gets thrown out at that point.

Driving at, or below, or well within, the speed limit was still too fast.

I quote from Roadcraft - the police driver's handbook:

"To drive safely you must be able to stop on your own side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear."

The highlighting is mine.

I can remember a discussion on an advanced driving course where the instructor said if you drive round a corner and collide with an elephant having a nap in the road then you are at fault - not the elephant.

I never forgot that as in my neck of the woods it actually is possible to come across not an elephant but the odd cow or sheep.

I completely sympathise - but any claim is on a hiding to nothing.

Your mother will be judged as having been driving too fast for the situation/conditions - as she didn't (or couldn't) stop before hitting an obstacle.

john342

Like I said it may of been possible to stop but it was not safe to do so due to the cars behind her. She reacted to the situation of the construction site and parked lorry by slowing down.

At what point do you draw the line in terms of being able to see if the road is clear? Should I drive everywhere at 5mph just so I can see if a nail is ahead of me?

It is not like we are talking about she was within the speed limit but rear ended someone or ran someone over because she was not able to stop in time which is obviously the driver's fault.

Iceweasel wrote: »

There's your answer - the case gets thrown out at that point.

Driving at, or below, or well within, the speed limit was still too fast.

I quote from Roadcraft - the police driver's handbook:

"To drive safely you must be able to stop on your own side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear."

The highlighting is mine.

I can remember a discussion on an advanced driving course where the instructor said if you drive round a corner and collide with an elephant having a nap in the road then you are at fault - not the elephant.

I never forgot that as in my neck of the woods it actually is possible to come across not an elephant but the odd cow or sheep.

I completely sympathise - but any claim is on a hiding to nothing.

Your mother will be judged as having been driving too fast for the situation/conditions - as she didn't (or couldn't) stop before hitting an obstacle.

comeandgo

It is a standard advanced driving instruction, if the cars are too close behind you, you slow down to give you more breaking space in front so you dont have to break quickly. In your first post you mentioned she could not avoid the rock due to oncoming traffic - later on you say your mum said road ahead clear and drove over rock to stop being rear ended?

closed

Face facts, there was something stationary in the road big enough to do damage to the car, she should have stopped to avoid the damage, for whatever reason she didn't, her fault.

john342

Yes those two statements make perfect sense if you think about this:

- Oncoming traffic is on the other side of the road. Swerving to avoid the rock would result in crossing the dividing line and potentially having a collision with the oncoming traffic

- The side of the road she is currently driving on was clear ahead of her.

Like I said, she did originally slow down anyway due to the lorry.

comeandgo wrote: »

It is a standard advanced driving instruction, if the cars are too close behind you, you slow down to give you more breaking space in front so you dont have to break quickly. In your first post you mentioned she could not avoid the rock due to oncoming traffic - later on you say your mum said road ahead clear and drove over rock to stop being rear ended?

john342

You've not addressed any of the counter points I've made to that. Please take a look at some of the posts I've made in this thread.

By that logic I could go out onto the road, throw a load of nails on the road and when people get punctures I'd just go "you should of noticed the nails and stopped".

closed wrote: »

Face facts, there was something stationary in the road big enough to do damage to the car, she should have stopped to avoid the damage, for whatever reason she didn't, her fault.

closed

There is no counter argument, to pretend there is is ridiculous. The middle pedal is there for a reason.

It didn't suddenly appear from nowhere, she hit it, poor driving, poor control, poor observation, poor awareness, speeding, chatting to passenger, take your pick instead of looking for excuses why she had to hit it, look at the real cause.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJtnXMyfmzI

Iceweasel

john342 wrote: »

Like I said it may of been possible to stop but it was not safe to do so due to the cars behind her. ....

..... It is not like we are talking about she was within the speed limit but rear ended someone or ran someone over because she was not able to stop in time which is obviously the driver's fault.

I'm sorry - but you have totally and utterly missed the point here - it is EXACTLY the same as running someone over because she was unable to stop in time.

It's irrelevant whether it was a rock or a box or the 'what if a child' that keeps on being brought into these type of discussions.

If you mother had stopped there would have been no damage to the engine.

If she had then been rammed in the rear by a following vehicle then they would be at fault and she could claim all the repairs from them.

She chose not to stop - it was the wrong decision. I think the best she can do is claim on her insurance for the engine repairs.

But I wish her all the best of luck if she decides to claim on the construction company.