whos at fault........updated with pic

Master_Blaster

Quiet_Spark wrote: »

The OP admitted in the first post that his (or her) mum was parallel parked with the junction directly behind her.

Rules 242 (and 243 depending on the OP's interpretation of "directly behind") would more than likely be applicable in this instance.

Well one of us has read it wrong then. I read it as mother must be at least one car length from the junction. How did you understand it?

F_Bear wrote: »

my mother was invovled in an accident today with 2 other cars. thankfully everyone was ok. trying to work whos at fault......

mother was parrell parked between 2 cars with a T junction directly behind her. as she indicated and pulled out a car came round the corner and hit her front wing.......pushing her car into the stationary car parked infront of her.

i havnt used any emotive laungage like 'mother pulled out slowly' and 'the driver came round quickly' as want peoples judgements. i believe the driver taking the corner was at fault but then im biased ;-)

the street was a quiet 60's residential terraced type.

cheers

Quiet_Spark

Master_Blaster wrote: »

Well one of us has read it wrong then. I read it as mother must be at least one car length from the junction. How did you understand it?

Parallel parked to me means she stopped alongside other cars that were already parked at the kerbside (what some may call "stopped" rather than parked), and the "directly behind" comment would mean to me that she was less than the 10 metres the Highway Code says should be left.

If the OP had said she was parked between two cars when she pulled out, then the junction would not have been "directly" behind her.

It would help the OP a lot if they posted a Google pic of the junction indicating the position of the vehicles involved to be honest, because if the OP's mum describes the accident as the OP has in the first post on the claim form then she is definitely going to be considered 100% to blame.

Master_Blaster

Quiet_Spark wrote: »

Parallel parked to me means she stopped alongside other cars that were already parked at the kerbside (what some may call "stopped" rather than parked), and the "directly behind" comment would mean to me that she was less than the 10 metres the Highway Code says should be left.

If the OP had said she was parked between two cars when she pulled out, then the junction would not have been "directly" behind her.

It would help the OP a lot if they posted a Google pic of the junction indicating the position of the vehicles involved to be honest, because if the OP's mum describes the accident as the OP has in the first post on the claim form then she is definitely going to be considered 100% to blame.

I think in this case you might be wrong. What are you required to do when parallel parking on a driving test, stop in the road next to a stationary vehicle?

sh0597

"Parallel parking" is when you pull up parallel to the car in front of your parking spot and reverse in. It doesn't mean you are parking next to another car.

F_Bear

thanks for all the replies.

ive added a photo of the accident site and circled where mum was parked. there was a car parked in front of her aswell. the car parked behind wa actually a transit van, blocking part of the view of the junction.

as mum pulled out a car came 'speeding' around the corner (in the direction of the arrow) hit her with such force was she pushed into the car in front.

the house opposite has cctv showing the accident.

http://s846.photobucket.com/user/F_Bear/media/mamsaccident.jpg.html

Master_Blaster

F_Bear wrote: »

thanks for all the replies.

ive added a photo of the accident site and circled where mum was parked. there was a car parked in front of her aswell. the car parked behind wa actually a transit van, blocking part of the view of the junction.

as mum pulled out a car came 'speeding' around the corner (in the direction of the arrow) hit her with such force was she pushed into the car in front.

the house opposite has cctv showing the accident.

http://s846.photobucket.com/user/F_Bear/media/mamsaccident.jpg.html

Best not say it was speeding around the corner. She could not see it and if she could then why did she pull out?

F_Bear

/\/\/\/\

thanks for the above. thats sort of the point, the road was clear as she pulled out but the kid came round the corner 'too' fast to see the hazard and stop. as he couldnt see round the corner because of the van blocking both their views.

mam had to get out the parking bay and pulled out when the road was clear.............untill he steamed round and hit her.....

atrixblue.-MFR-.

F_Bear wrote: »

/\/\/\/\

thanks for the above. thats sort of the point, the road was clear as she pulled out but the kid came round the corner 'too' fast to see the hazard and stop. as he couldnt see round the corner because of the van blocking both their views.

mam had to get out the parking bay and pulled out when the road was clear.............untill he steamed round and hit her.....

She pulled out into collision unfortunately, he could have been going 100MPH, but she still caused the collision by pulling out from stationary/parked into the road and into the path of a vehicle.






liability lies with your mum.

Master_Blaster

He had more of a view than your mother did. If he turned left he would have had a view across the grass and down the near side of the van. Turning right he would also have a view into the road. By claiming her view was blocked by the van mitigates blame against the third party. If she could not see him then why would he be able to see her. She pulled out blind causing the collision. Unless you have an independent witness to say otherwise.

Master_Blaster

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

She pulled out into collision unfortunately, he could have been going 100MPH, but she still caused the collision by pulling out from stationary/parked into the road and into the path of a vehicle.






liability lies with your mum.

Had he been doing 100-mph and it could be evidenced that would change things.