Son had accident - not his fault but other party saying it was....

Quentin

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

His initial posts made it read like the son had some element of blame. However to be fair he did say that he insurance have been given pictures. Makes you wonder if they have actually looked at them.

Can't see where the OP attributed any blame to his son.


But the photos won't prove who was at fault here. (As both drivers have opposing stories without any supporting evidence a 50/50 is quite likely)


The hope would be that the prospect of lying in court will make the liar give up and accept responsibility!

m0bov

There are several CCTV cameras outside that government looking building on the right. I'm sure that would show exactly what happened.

Nodding_Donkey

This is another occasion when dashcam footage would be invaluable.

Silver-Surfer_2

m0bov wrote: »

There are several CCTV cameras outside that government looking building on the right. I'm sure that would show exactly what happened.

I'm sure that evidence would have been disposed of when it was overwritten after about 30 days.

Loanranger

I used to be friendly with police sergeant and he told me that if you were going through a set of lights on green and someone jumped them on red and caused a crash with your vehicle, than you too would be at fault as you should have been more aware of your surroundings and been ready to brake.
Applying this principle, I believe that the son should have been able to take evasive action at this busy city centre junction and braked hard enough to avoid the woman who was crossing over into his lane.
He needs to learn from this experience that although you know what you are doing, many of the other ejeets on the road do not. Therefore, drive defensively.

Silver-Surfer_2

Loanranger wrote: »

I used to be friendly with police sergeant and he told me that if you were going through a set of lights on green and someone jumped them on red and caused a crash with your vehicle, than you too would be at fault as you should have been more aware of your surroundings and been ready to brake.
Applying this principle, I believe that the son should have been able to take evasive action at this busy city centre junction and braked hard enough to avoid the woman who was crossing over into his lane.
He needs to learn from this experience that although you know what you are doing, many of the other ejeets on the road do not. Therefore, drive defensively.

Your friend sounds like an idiot and talks like one too.

motorguy

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

I don't think the OP gave a true reflection of what happened. His initial posts made it read like the son had some element of blame.

I'm curious as to what i said that made you think what i said wasnt a true reflection of what happened and that my son had some element of blame?

motorguy

Quentin wrote: »

Can't see where the OP attributed any blame to his son.


But the photos won't prove who was at fault here. (As both drivers have opposing stories without any supporting evidence a 50/50 is quite likely)


The hope would be that the prospect of lying in court will make the liar give up and accept responsibility!

I think the risk, having thought about it, is that the other party simply say it happened further down the road than it did.

They've already lied, so whats to stop them lying again about the exactl location

motorguy

Loanranger wrote: »

I used to be friendly with police sergeant and he told me that if you were going through a set of lights on green and someone jumped them on red and caused a crash with your vehicle, than you too would be at fault as you should have been more aware of your surroundings and been ready to brake.
Applying this principle, I believe that the son should have been able to take evasive action at this busy city centre junction and braked hard enough to avoid the woman who was crossing over into his lane.
He needs to learn from this experience that although you know what you are doing, many of the other ejeets on the road do not. Therefore, drive defensively.

She drove into the side of him NOT him driving into the side of her.

He couldnt take evasive action as the first thing he knew about her driving into his lane was when she hit him. She hit him on the rear edge of the front wheel arch and down the door and into the rear panel.

It would be like somebody in the left hand lane of a dual carriage way changing lanes into the side of you, if you were in the outside lane. Not much you can do about it and the first you'll know is when you're hit.

CHR15

motorguy wrote: »

They've already lied, so whats to stop them lying again about the exactl location

Just stick to the facts, don't leave anything out just in case you think they may lie about it.

I think (guessing) the point made about your son being partly to blame is because, as I read it, it seemed as though they were filtering (two lanes become one).