Insurance Claim

Stoke

Scrootum wrote: »

Why should the oncomming driver have given way?

Because he didn't have right of way... he was encroaching into her lane.

Strider590

Scrootum wrote: »

Why should the oncomming driver have given way?

Stoke wrote: »

Because he didn't have right of way... he was encroaching into her lane.

I know what your saying.......

But strictly speaking there might be no "right of way", if it's a privately owned carpark, then the "rules of the road" don't apply and any markings are purely advisory.

thenudeone

Assume it was a public road.

You approach a blind bend.
There is an obstruction meaning you can't pass except by crossing on to the other side of the road, which you do at walking pace.
A vehicle comes the other way, [and cannot stop within the distance they can see is clear] and hits you head on.

Who is to blame?
IMO: The other driver, for driving so fast that they couldn't stop within the distance they could see was clear.

Now imagine that instead, as you see the car coming towards you, you are able to swerve into the obstruction (or into a hedge or whatever) and avoid a head-on collision. The other car drives off, undamaged.

Who is to blame for the accident this time? It's still the driver coming towards you. The fact that you didn't come into contact with their vehicle doesn't change anything. They are still to blame. You were able to stop in time, but they weren't.

If you have an independent witness confirming this sequence of events, it's definitley worth a claim, IMO.

Captain_Flack.

thenudeone wrote: »

And you have no option but to assume that everyone else also obeys the same rules.

For example, if you drive on a main road on the basis that someone approaching from a minor road will stop, but they don't, they are obviously at fault even though you could see them approaching on a potential collision course.

If everyone had to drive on the assumption that other people were going to drive very badly, the roads would be gridlocked.

I would report the accident as a fail to stop accident to Police. The accident was "owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road" (i.e. the speeding car) and the driver has an obligation to stop and report the accident.
I'd also get the insurer's details of askmid.com and make a claim directly with them.

In a civil court, you don't have to prove fault. It comes down to the balance of probabilities. The evidence of 1 driver plus 1 independent witness will probably outweigh the other driver's evidence.

There's nothing to lose and everything to gain by going down this route.

You do, but the burden of proof is the balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt.

Captain_Flack.

thenudeone wrote: »

Assume it was a public road.

You approach a blind bend.
There is an obstruction meaning you can't pass except by crossing on to the other side of the road, which you do at walking pace.
A vehicle comes the other way, [and cannot stop within the distance they can see is clear] and hits you head on.

Who is to blame?
IMO: The other driver, for driving so fast that they couldn't stop within the distance they could see was clear.

Now imagine that instead, as you see the car coming towards you, you are able to swerve into the obstruction (or into a hedge or whatever) and avoid a head-on collision. The other car drives off, undamaged.

Who is to blame for the accident this time? It's still the driver coming towards you. The fact that you didn't come into contact with their vehicle doesn't change anything. They are still to blame. You were able to stop in time, but they weren't.

If you have an independent witness confirming this sequence of events, it's definitley worth a claim, IMO.

Not before hitting a parked car. The driver who struck the parked vehicle has to accept some blame.

Retrogamer

thenudeone wrote: »

Assume it was a public road.

You approach a blind bend.
There is an obstruction meaning you can't pass except by crossing on to the other side of the road, which you do at walking pace.
A vehicle comes the other way, [and cannot stop within the distance they can see is clear] and hits you head on.

Who is to blame?
IMO: The other driver, for driving so fast that they couldn't stop within the distance they could see was clear.

Now imagine that instead, as you see the car coming towards you, you are able to swerve into the obstruction (or into a hedge or whatever) and avoid a head-on collision. The other car drives off, undamaged.

Who is to blame for the accident this time? It's still the driver coming towards you. The fact that you didn't come into contact with their vehicle doesn't change anything. They are still to blame. You were able to stop in time, but they weren't.

If you have an independent witness confirming this sequence of events, it's definitley worth a claim, IMO.

It's obvious who is at blame, but proving it beyond reasonable doubt (the only thing insurance companies are interested in due to the costs involved the longer it stems out) is a whole other ball game.

In the instance described by the OP, the other driver had claimed to be speeding. This is unlikely to hold water with the insurance based solely on someones guess (i.e the speed wasn't measured by a device)

Some people reverse their car into a wall for example by accident. They don't want to claim their own insurance so they get a friend of a friend to state as a witness (random car registration) caused them to hit the wall.
This is why it will take more than a single witness' guess of the other vehicles speed to sway it towards the OP's favour.