non fault accident while stationary

bowlhead99

BykerSands wrote: »

Really, mobile phone conviction and not points.

Where has this happened?

Well, the obvious example is where someone did the crime but wasn't actually caught in the act by the police (like the woman in the OP's story) so they got 0 points...

But even if caught, in various parts of the country a driver awareness course will be offered as an alternative to fixed points or pursuing a 'conviction' for things like using mobile phone while driving. Obviously, not for repeat offences - just like with the speeding ones, you won't be able to be offered one if you've already done one recently.

PasturesNew wrote: »

slink85 wrote: »

is it any different to looking at a sat nav? fiddling with the radio? putting the windows up or down? I bet you do one or all of them on a daily basis

Yes it is. The mental processing required to listen to/think about/respond to a telephone call is an entirely different ball game to any other functions.

While listening, processing, thinking, then delivering an appropriate response, you're not able to concentrate on driving. Indeed, that's a lot harder to do than if you were singing along with the radio, while eating a sandwich and smoking a cigarette.... all of which are background tasks which are done on auto-pilot.

I agree, having a conversation on a phone, hands free or not, is a clear level of concentration above changing a radio channel or winding down a window which can almost be done subconsciously.

However, having an illegal phone conversation is probably not inherently more taxing than, for example, having a conversation with your kids who are screaming for attention from the backseat. Reading a short text message while stopped in traffic is not really more taxing than reading and interpreting directions on a satnav while stopped in traffic, though the latter is something you can get away with.

Clearly, looking up someone's number and composing a text or an email is a big distraction factor compared to just having a conversation with a caller that's broadcast through your loudspeaker or having a chat with someone in a passenger seat, but it can be be legal to do it hands free using voice recognition, even if it takes ten minutes to do ten words accurately due to the weaknesseses of current implementations of such technology. But it only seems to become an illegal act at the point that someone can prove you were driving without due care.

Taking a sip of water or bite of mars bar stored in your cupholder when cruising along on a virtually empty motorway is not going to cause instant death to all and sundry, any more than scratching your balls or wondering what might have happened at your wife's mother's hospital appointment.

The line has to be drawn somewhere of course, on what is practical to legislate.

I agree with the others that although abhorrent, without any video evidence of the person hitting you while using their phone, police and insurance companies won't care too much; the former because nothing is proven and the latter if she's not looking to deny fault anyway.

Bykersands outlined the obvious options in the first reply. If you are happy that she'll pay you as much as you want for the number plate and scratches - I wouldn't "live with them" on point of principle as my car is mostly scratch free and I want to keep it that way - then the easiest option is to take her cash and have a gentlemans agreement that neither of you will ever declare to any insurance company that the accident occurred.

However, you may not trust this to be the case, or your moral compass might not allow you to deny that you've ever been involved in an accident when you clearly were. So if your insurance company is going to be made aware either way, and it's clear that the other person was at fault, you might as well claim off their insurer. There is no real need to involve your own insurer in processing the claim if it is a simple job and the other insurer doesn't deny it.

Of course, you may find that the person who hit you is less forthcoming with the facts about how it was their fault, once its clear that they can't get out of it with a simple £50 and a handshake, but instead face higher insurance premiums for every £ you win off them in the formal claim.

arcon5

loskie wrote: »

Report her to the police for using a hand held phone. Next time it may be a pedestrian.

Why would a pedestrian be waiting to enter a roundabout at a red light.

DUTR

arcon5 wrote: »

Why would a pedestrian be waiting to enter a roundabout at a red light.

???? There are roundabouts with traffic light control.

dingends

Hey guys,

thank you for your comments!

what do you guys think is a reasonable amount to ask or if I would do a private settlement? My car was scratch free till now

dingends

DUTR wrote: »

???? There are roundabouts with traffic light control.

yea plenty, at least where I`m living

DUTR

dingends wrote: »

Hey guys,

thank you for your comments!

what do you guys think is a reasonable amount to ask or if I would do a private settlement? My car was scratch free till now

Let their insurance deal, this isn't a country where everyone has to drive around in beat up cars.

Quentin

dingends wrote: »

Hey guys,

thank you for your comments!

what do you guys think is a reasonable amount to ask or if I would do a private settlement? My car was scratch free till now

You need to get your bumper checked properly as they do absorb impacts but may have hidden damage.

Then get a quote for the cost of repairs plus a new number plate. And see if she'll pay up.

If you need a new bumper expect to have to put in a claim!

loskie

£250 if they will settle for that and you are happy.

ariba10

If you tell your insurance ( even if you do not make a claim) your premiums will increase.

DUTR

ariba10 wrote: »

If you tell your insurance ( even if you do not make a claim) your premiums will increase.

Not necessarily.