Who is liable?

DTDfanBoy

Cornucopia wrote: »

Which they say they did. Why would you claim otherwise when you weren't even there?

Because cars don't just appear out of thin air, and the OP drove directly into the side of one :T

marleyboy

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

Because don't cars just appear out of thin air, and the OP drove directly into the side of one :T

No, No, The rear side of someones car, managed to materialise and hit him. :eek:

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

So what is a plausible gap?

In a quiet estate, with hidden hazards everywhere and a 20mph limit, I would probably say 2 seconds. Maybe 3, if it was a 50/50 thing as to which direction a vehicle might come from (and therefore both directions needed checking).

6 secs? The other car would have been around that 100m if they were doing 40mph.
4 secs? The other car would have been around that 100m if they were doing 60mph.
3 secs? The other car would have been around that 100m if they were doing 70mph.

Well, yes, though I doubt they were doing 70. Sorry, what was your point again?

Astronaughtwannabe

So given that an absolute minimum realistic reaction time is 1.5 seconds for a simple incident and skid to stop from 30 mph on a typical dry road is also around 1.5 seconds (IIRC) then your 2 seconds just put you in the same position as the OP. I'll post the simple maths for your pontification if you wish and the reaction time is from a widely accepted research (citation to follow on that as well if you want?)

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

Sorry, what was your point again?

<slowly>
If we're assuming 100m of clear visibility, then this other car would have had to be doing around 70mph NOT to be visible within that three seconds that you think plausible and reasonable.

It's basic maths.

70mph = 113kph = 113,000m in one hour = 1,883m in one minute = 31.4m in one second = 3.2 seconds to cover 100m.

So if this other car was doing 70mph, which you admit you "doubt", then they were visible within 100m of the OP's car - and therefore visible - for more than three seconds. The slower they were going, the longer they would have been visible. Half the speed, twice the time. So if they were doing 35mph, they would have been less than 50m away for over three seconds, and less than 100m away for over six seconds.

For this other car not to have been within 100m two seconds before impact, they'd have had to be doing about 180kph, or over 110mph.

Cornucopia

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

Because cars don't just appear out of thin air, and the OP drove directly into the side of one :T

So what is the OP's motivation for coming on to the forum in all of this?

AdrianC

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

So given that an absolute minimum realistic reaction time is 1.5 seconds for a simple incident

If that's based on your own reactions, then you may wish to hand your driving licence...

The HC thinking distance - the time to react - is based on less than half that time, 0.7 seconds. That's pessimistic.

Strider590

AdrianC wrote: »

<slowly>
If we're assuming 100m of clear visibility, then this other car would have had to be doing around 70mph NOT to be visible within that three seconds that you think plausible and reasonable.

It's basic maths.

70mph = 113kph = 113,000m in one hour = 1,883m in one minute = 31.4m in one second = 3.2 seconds to cover 100m.

So if this other car was doing 70mph, which you admit you "doubt", then they were visible within 100m of the OP's car - and therefore visible - for more than three seconds. The slower they were going, the longer they would have been visible. Half the speed, twice the time. So if they were doing 35mph, they would have been less than 50m away for over three seconds, and less than 100m away for over six seconds.

For this other car not to have been within 100m two seconds before impact, they'd have had to be doing about 180kph, or over 110mph.

Your not accounting for BMW driver arrogance in that equation

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

So what is the OP's motivation for coming on to the forum in all of this?

To have somebody hug them and tell them it's not their fault.

Their insurer's the only one who can do that with any actual effect, though, and even if we ignore the hug, that's unlikely to happen.

AdrianC

Strider590 wrote: »

Your not accounting for BMW driver arrogance in that equation

<grin> Laws of physics and basic mathematics don't, unfortunately, take that into account either... (Or Audis)