How to prove fault in an accident.

Aretnap

Though if your husband's a named driver on your car, you'll have to declare the accidents he's has as well as the ones you've had.

somethingcorporate

This looks 100% your fault, if the car really was out of sight when you started to turn then you must have been driving really REALLY slowly or they would have had to be driving at lightspeed to hit you.

Unfortunately, I think this looks like you were just being careless, especially if they hit you in the passenger side door which is the front half of the car.

misssarahleigh

Quentin wrote: »

Assuming that you aren't the insurer for your partner, then that write off is nothing to do with you and isn't on your history.

So from your history listed you have had 2 claims not 3.(Including this latest one)

True. Was just moaning more than anything

Aretnap wrote: »

Though if your husband's a named driver on your car, you'll have to declare the accidents he's has as well as the ones you've had.

No, just me as the named driver.

somethingcorporate wrote: »

This looks 100% your fault, if the car really was out of sight when you started to turn then you must have been driving really REALLY slowly or they would have had to be driving at lightspeed to hit you.

Unfortunately, I think this looks like you were just being careless, especially if they hit you in the passenger side door which is the front half of the car.

I was going really slowly. I was stationary for some time awaiting a space before pulling off in first gear. I'm a little unsure how else it's done lol

AnnieO1234

Contrary to what others are saying, you might be in with a chance of a fifty fifty claim here. Yes, you should have seen the mini, but the counter argument is that the mini should have seen you. Especially if you have the same insurer, (or group) you might get away with a fifty/fifty claim.

X

neilmcl

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

Contrary to what others are saying, you might be in with a chance of a fifty fifty claim here. Yes, you should have seen the mini, but the counter argument is that the mini should have seen you. Especially if you have the same insurer, (or group) you might get away with a fifty/fifty claim.

X

So what if the mini driver saw the OP, doesn't mean they could have avoided the accident. No way is this 50/50!

AdrianC

misssarahleigh wrote: »

But if she was speeding to get through the green??

30 limit, I presume?

30mph = 13metres/second

So what speed would you estimate she was travelling at, to "get through the green?
40mph = 18m/sec
50 = 22m/sec
60 = 27m/sec
70 = 31m/sec
80 = 35m/sec
90 miles per hour is 40 metres per second.

If you're claiming you couldn't possibly have seen her because she was doing 90mph, then either you're admitting that you can't see a car forty metres away, or that you pulled out into the path of a car despite having over a second to see it. I need glasses to drive - but I can easily see a car 200m or more away. That's five seconds at 90mph. How bad are your reactions?

Remember, the minimum eyesight for driving a car is to be able to read a NUMBER PLATE from 20 metres away. Even if she was doing 40, you'd have had more than a second to read her number plate before she hit you... And that's the bare minimum.

We all know what happened - you assumed the way was clear, and pulled out. Maybe you actually thought you looked. But...
Your fault, 100%.

misssarahleigh

AdrianC wrote: »

30 limit, I presume?

30mph = 13metres/second

So what speed would you estimate she was travelling at, to "get through the green?
40mph = 18m/sec
50 = 22m/sec
60 = 27m/sec
70 = 31m/sec
80 = 35m/sec
90 miles per hour is 40 metres per second.

If you're claiming you couldn't possibly have seen her because she was doing 90mph, then either you're admitting that you can't see a car forty metres away, or that you pulled out into the path of a car despite having over a second to see it. I need glasses to drive - but I can easily see a car 200m or more away. That's five seconds at 90mph. How bad are your reactions?

Remember, the minimum eyesight for driving a car is to be able to read a NUMBER PLATE from 20 metres away. Even if she was doing 40, you'd have had more than a second to read her number plate before she hit you... And that's the bare minimum.

We all know what happened - you assumed the way was clear, and pulled out. Maybe you actually thought you looked. But...
Your fault, 100%.

As mentioned. I was actually on my way back from the opticians (ironically) who told me my sight was fine and I don't need glasses. My sight is fine.

I didn't presume the way was clear. I was stationary in the middle of the road for a while as I watched the traffic pass waiting for an opening (not a quick dash as I was approaching)

Although the street view is pretty clear it was rush hour with many cars. I don't think it's a matter of I didn't spot her coming down the road regardless of speed. I think from the position she was in, I couldn't see her approaching through the other traffic (as it WAS clear when I started to turn. I don't take risks, I always check and I was being especially careful in the area I was in).

I also don't think she was able to clearly see me from her perspective and drove ahead assuming the road was clear.

I think her speed was an issue because had she not been zipping I think she would have had enough time to see me turning and stop (my instructor always taught me to be especially careful at crossroads).

I accept non of the above makes it any more her fault, I just wanted to point out that many people seem to be assuming I've bolted straight in front of her like many idiots we see. I didn't. I waited, I checked, it was clear, I moved slowly off in first gear and was hit during my turn.

She may have been well on her way in my direction and had I been a little more nippy with the turn we might have avoided this. I don't think it's a matter of she was going 90 miles an hour and thats the only way I could have missed her. The enviroment allowed me to see ahead so far, she wasn't in it. Whether that was the impact of cars, the shape of her's behind others, parked and passing vehicles etc or all of the above.

I can see 200 meters in front just fine, I can see down the road spot on using the google street view, however I cannot see 200 meters down the road when my view is obscured

fivetide

misssarahleigh wrote: »

I accept non of the above makes it any more her fault, I just wanted to point out that many people seem to be assuming I've bolted straight in front of her like many idiots we see. I didn't. I waited, I checked, it was clear, I moved slowly off in first gear and was hit during my turn.

But again, it wasn't. You thought it was, you didn't see anything but it wasn't clear or the accident would not have happened.

Very common accident for bikers this the "Sorry Mate I Didn't See You"

. The enviroment allowed me to see ahead so far, she wasn't in it. Whether that was the impact of cars, the shape of her's behind others, parked and passing vehicles etc or all of the above.

Then you needed to wait until you could see more. Again, you might have thought you could see enough. You coudln't so good lesson there.

However, unless you accept that this was entirely down to your actions at a green light they'll be difficult ones to learn. Don't mean to be harsh but it is the truth.

I can see 200 meters in front just fine, I can see down the road spot on using the google street view, however I cannot see 200 meters down the road when my view is obscured

Which is exactly my point.

AdrianC

misssarahleigh wrote: »

I didn't presume the way was clear.

Sorry - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt there. So you must have pulled out despite not knowing if it was clear? Because you certainly didn't pull out _knowing_ it to be clear, since it wasn't clear.

I don't think it's a matter of I didn't spot her coming down the road regardless of speed.

You either spotted her or you didn't spot her. If you spotted her, you deliberately pulled out in front of her. If you didn't spot her, then either you didn't look or you pulled out when you couldn't see it to be clear. They are the ONLY options available.

(as it WAS clear when I started to turn. I don't take risks, I always check and I was being especially careful in the area I was in).

The very fact that she hit you shows that it WASN'T clear. It couldn't have been, else she wouldn't have been there to hit you.

I think her speed was an issue

For you to form any opinion whatsoever on her speed, given that you didn't see her at all, is a bit difficult, is it not?

however I cannot see 200 meters down the road when my view is obscured

So now you admit that you pulled out when you couldn't actually see if there was anybody coming due to your view being obscured...?

Any chance of sharing the location via streetview? Yes, the height and traffic conditions mean it isn't directly comparable, but...

misssarahleigh

I understand the points made.

I suppose it was a matter of incorrect judgement. I thought I saw enough distance in front of me. The distance I could see was clear and hence safe to start my turn (a calculation done automatically I suppose).

The reason I think her speed was a factor is because (difficult to explain) from the distance of road I could see that was clear, and judged to be safe to turn across, she came from a position that wasn't initially visible very quickly. I also saw her as she was about to hit me and felt the impact. I don't think she applied her breaks (it was the side of my car that stopped hers as the damage goes the length of my car) and it's just generally my opinion.