Taking dishonest driver to SCC regarding accident!

47ka74

Car_54 wrote: »

Do your insurers know you intend to go to court? They usually have the right to conduct or take over any such claim.

Thanks. I will be letting them know.

47ka74

Tarambor wrote: »

But when they're in that position outside of their house which has a driveway WHERE YOU KNOW THEY LIVE then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that they're going to turn into their drive.

As explained, I do know the family, but had no idea who was driving, nor did I know that this was their car.


In any case, that is irrelevant even if I did, for the purposes of liability. I'm not here to seek reassurance that I wasn't at fault, as I 100% know I wasn't. It was more for the other questions, to seek advice from people with knowledge and those who have experienced the SCC route as to such matters.

47ka74

Tarambor wrote: »

So she was already in position to begin the manoeuvre into her driveway and then you drove up the inside as she'd started to move. Given you actually even know where she lives and that she has a reputation for being a bad driver then it is even more incredible that you made the decision to drive down the inside of her car. If I had been in the same position I'd have stopped whilst she made the clearly obviously going to happen manoeuvre. At some point a driver has to look in the direction they're travelling.

Your impatience and lack of forward planning caused this accident.

An impeccable driving record means nothing. Lots of people have impeccable driving records simply because they've been lucky enough to have people in other vehicles around them be more aware than they are and take avoiding action. It looks like your luck has run out and the impeccable driving record you have which looks to have only been there due to the avoiding actions of others has finally come to an end.

I'm sorry to say this, but you have completely the wrong end of the stick due to your preconceived notions and ideas.

Please keep your patronising and irrelevant comments to yourself. Thank you. However, if you have anything constructive to add, please do so :-)

Car_54

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

1st two comments completely uneccessary and unhelpful.
Where is the OP in the wrong. The OP is in left lane and there is a stationary/slow vehicle in the right lane. You do know you can pass a cue of slow vehicles on the left dont you Rule 163 of HC?


Also anyone performing a merge or crossing lanes have the onus on them to make sure the lane is clear from approaching traffic.

Rule 163 actually says: "stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left". This is irrelevant in the OP's case, as nthere was no queue.

The Rule also says "only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so". The OP hasn't told us whether the TP was signalling.


I think DoaM's summary above is probably correct, and the OP should have been prepared for the TP's action, or at least for her to move in some direction. This is a good example of a situation where use of the horn to alert the TP would have been advisable .

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Tarambor wrote: »

But when they're in that position outside of their house which has a driveway WHERE YOU KNOW THEY LIVE then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that they're going to turn into their drive.

OP's not a mind reader, the offending car could have been there because they had pulled off the drive and waited to turn right.

47ka74

I'd also like to add here, if I haven't already, that the TP's driveway does, it appear, require a rather sharp turn to drive straight into, but certainly not heading into the oncoming lane to do so! It was an absolutely crazy and unbelievable manoeuvre to do.

In hindsight, and one faces many such situations during the week, I maybe could have waited to see TP was going to do, but there was no indication that TP was going to suddenly drive back into my lane and smash into my car! She had no right to do that and from a liability point of view, according to Bell and Auxillis' assessors, it was her duty to check this before drifting in.


P.S. I have found out TP is an extremely bad driver from family after the accident, as she is said to always causes problems when parking her car/driving on the school run.


I'm sure solicitors would have a field day scrutinising her driving record, if it came to that in court.

societys_child

It was more for the other questions, to seek advise from people with knowledge and those who have experienced the SCC route as to such matters

I wouldn't have thought this was something for SCC.
When I came up against a lying TP, my insurers handed it to a law firm, barristers etc.
It was heading toward something far higher than SCC.



Just my own experience.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Car_54 wrote: »

Rule 163 actually says: "stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left". This is irrelevant in the OP's case, as nthere was no queue.

The Rule also says "only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so". The OP hasn't told us whether the TP was signalling.


I think DoaM's summary above is probably correct, and the OP should have been prepared for the TP's action, or at least for her to move in some direction. This is a good example of a situation where use of the horn to alert the TP would have been advisable .

Does it say MUST= Lawful instructions OR does it say Should/May/Could=Code of guidance and not lawful instruction.

Richard53

I have a similar situation if I try to enter my driveway while going North up my road, only on the right not the left. The road is narrow and I need to turn almost back on myself to get into the drive. If I have a car following, I indicate right and then wind the window down and give a very obvious hand signal - pointing finger and all. I then slow down, swing to the left and prepare to turn right - BUT, I pause and look behind. If the following car hasn't dropped back and isn't obviously aware of what I am doing, I stop and let them pass me before turning. Once or twice a following car has seen me pull to the left and steamed past at high speed despite my signals. No problem - anticipated and allowed for. No way would I pull to the left and then turn right across the traffic without looking.


Sounds like the TP should have done something similar.


(Equally, if I saw someone dithering in the middle of the road, I would slow right down or stop until I knew their intentions for sure, not drive past regardless.)

47ka74

Richard53 wrote: »

I have a similar situation if I try to enter my driveway while going North up my road, only on the right not the left. The road is narrow and I need to turn almost back on myself to get into the drive. If I have a car following, I indicate right and then wind the window down and give a very obvious hand signal - pointing finger and all. I then slow down, swing to the left and prepare to turn right - BUT, I pause and look behind. If the following car hasn't dropped back and isn't obviously aware of what I am doing, I stop and let them pass me before turning. Once or twice a following car has seen me pull to the left and steamed past at high speed despite my signals. No problem - anticipated and allowed for. No way would I pull to the left and then turn right across the traffic without looking.


Sounds like the TP should have done something similar.


(Equally, if I saw someone dithering in the middle of the road, I would slow right down or stop until I knew their intentions for sure, not drive past regardless.)

No doubting that on another day I may have stopped... but as you have explained, it is TP's obligation to check before drifting back into the lane, and ultimately she is completely liable for the accident.