Taking dishonest driver to SCC regarding accident!

Mercdriver

I agree with the above. Taking legal action separately from the insurance company is an odd stance, especially as they haven't finished theior deliberations as yet. You shouldn't be going in there telling them you are effectively taking over.

casseus

Mercdriver wrote: »

This is hilarious because it makes the point that Car 54 is making - the sign even has Priority written on it!

There is a difference between priority and right of way. Having priority doesn't mean you have right of way, just as give way doesn't mean anyone else has right of way. Right of way is an absolute. Priority is not.

The sign does have written on it doesn't it, Oh well I think I must be wrong. Oh wait, what is defined as Priority in English as say a context or meaning or synonym?
priority
Noun
•British
the right to proceed before other traffic.
"priority is given to traffic already on the roundabout"


synonyms: right of way
"traffic already on the roundabout has priority"

We use the term Right of way in a replacement for "priority" they both mean the same thing in terms of driver slang. British drivers has done it for years. If you say you havent and never have youll get no respect or honor in saying you haven't or don't as we all know that a big fibbing fib.

Your just using it as a tool in order argue over the small details and In defending somone who often nit picks and makes argument for the thrill of having that confrontation they're missing from being an officer.

Don't give them the satisfaction.
Don't let me spoil your party though.

Car_54

casseus wrote: »

The sign does have written on it doesn't it, Oh well I think I must be wrong. Oh wait, what is defined as Priority in English as say a context or meaning or synonym?
priority
Noun
•British
the right to proceed before other traffic.
"priority is given to traffic already on the roundabout"


synonyms: right of way
"traffic already on the roundabout has priority"

We use the term Right of way in a replacement for "priority" they both mean the same thing in terms of driver slang. British drivers has done it for years. If you say you havent and never have youll get no respect or honor in saying you haven't or don't as we all know that a big fibbing fib.

Your just using it as a tool in order argue over the small details and In defending somone who often nit picks and makes argument for the thrill of having that confrontation they're missing from being an officer.

Don't give them the satisfaction.
Don't let me spoil your party though.

The OP is contemplating court action, where small details may indeed be argued over. Precision of language is important: this is not a pub argument where slang is the norm.


The difference between priority and right-of-way is that only one of them exists. Claiming a non-existent right will not get far in court. Advising the OP otherwise would be irreponsible.

stator

47ka74 wrote: »

Sorry, I could have perhaps worded that better.


What I meant, with respect to NCB etc., was that I am seeking a full admission of liability and the excess. This would then allow my NCB to not be affected, as well as protect me from increased insurance premiums due to otherwise having a split liability claim on my record. (I appreciate even a non-fault accident has an impact on premiums, albeit limited).


Thanks.

You won't get what you want that way. The SCC won't offer you a "full admission of liability". No defendent would ever offer you that.

If you want to maintain your NCB the insurer will have to reclaim their losses from the other insurer. You should put pressure on them to take the case to court. But it's up to them to decide what they want to do, you can't force them.

casseus

Car_54 wrote: »

The OP is contemplating court action, where small details may indeed be argued over. Precision of language is important: this is not a pub argument where slang is the norm.


The difference between priority and right-of-way is that only one of them exists. Claiming a non-existent right will not get far in court. Advising the OP otherwise would be irreponsible.

I love it when Ex police can let it go.

Its in black and white above.

Its used in slang.

It is term for the purposes of rambling and crossing roads.

And a SSC judge is not going make a legislative ruling of It either. He a SCC judge not a crown or supreme justice, SCC Judge will not argue over the semantics of use of words in his court if he does that then he'll be there till the end of time. Facts from both sides is presented, and balance of probabilities is weighed up to who he believes based on case laws is in the right or wrong and judgement is made end of. Its not a magistrate which is what I think you have confused your self with here.

Car_54

casseus wrote: »

I love it when Ex police can let it go.
I am not, and never have been, a policeman or woman, secret or otherwise.


Its in black and white above.

Its used in slang.

It is term for the purposes of rambling and crossing roads.
It is indeed. Right of way (as in rambling, or access to a property, etc.) is an ancient concept enshrined in common law. Right of way in a motoring context is entirely different, and is essentially folklore. The Highway Code explicitly points out that no-one has it.


And a SSC judge is not going make a legislative ruling of It either. He a justice of the peace No he's not, he's a judge. Usually a District Judge, or a Circuit Judge. A JP is a magistrate with no legal qualification. A judge is a qualified and experienced lawyer.

not a crown or supreme justice, SCC Judge will not argue over the semantics of use of words in his court if he does that then he'll be there till the end of time. Facts from both sides is presented, and balance of probabilities is weighed up to who he believes based on case laws is in the right or wrong and judgement is made end of. Its not a magistrate (who actually is a JP) which is what I think you have confused your self with here.

See comments above.

casseus

Car_54 wrote: »

See comments above.

#1. Don't believe you...….

#3. the point being even a magistrate is not going to bother with your very semantic point.
A SCC is not going to entertain your semantic theory.

Ive been to many many SCC's (job related) and I can tell you your theory of arguing about a definition of right of way will be met resistance form the judge Right of way or priority is for him/her to decide if its use is allowed or not. For them to argue over and bicker and be semantics in the court room the judge will shot it down in flames. been in many a court room to know, judge will mere say I know what the meaning, about right of way as in terms of priority, theres no need to argue over it. A judge could also get offended if you even try and argue over its meaning (do you serious think he is stupid enough not to know). you just don't not go there unless ASKED, and in my experience a judge has never asked it wont affect his judgement!

I also edited my post 2 mins before you posted yours too to reflect SCC judge too.

This is a good game of tennis!.

AndyMc.....

casseus wrote: »

#1. Don't believe you...….

#3. the point being evening a magistrate is not going to bother with your very semantic point.
A SCC is not going to entertain your semantic theory.

Ive been to many many SCC's (job related) and I can tell you your theory of arguing about a definition of right of way will be met resistance form the judge Right of way or priority is for him/her to decide if its use is allowed or not. For them to argue over and bicker and be semantics in the court room the judge will shot it down in flames. been in many a court room to know, judge will mere say I know what the meaning, about right of way as in terms of priority, theres no need to argue over it. A judge could also get offended if you even try and argue over its meaning (do you serious think he is stupid enough not to know). you just don't not go there unless ASKED, and in my experience a judge has never asked it wont affect his judgement!

I also edited my 2 mins before you posted yours too to reflect SCC judge too.

This is a good game of tennis!.

I might be wrong but it think he's an ex driving instructor.

He's never claimed to be old bill and I don't think he was.

casseus

AndyMc..... wrote: »

I might be wrong but it think he's an ex driving instructor.

He's never claimed to be old bill and I don't think he was.

Could been ex officer before being kicked out for being too semantic and then became a driving instructor.


Truth is we can be what we want to be on the internet.

casseus

stator wrote: »

You won't get what you want that way. The SCC won't offer you a "full admission of liability". No defendent would ever offer you that.

If you want to maintain your NCB the insurer will have to reclaim their losses from the other insurer. You should put pressure on them to take the case to court. But it's up to them to decide what they want to do, you can't force them.

Quite right SCC judge, he'll/she'll proportion blame on both parties and use case law ruling and balance of probabilities and then split blame 50/50 or 20/80 and so on, unless you car 54 ofcourse and all words used in the court room must have a legal definition and status or we must argue over the word to be used with the judge. My god cant even believe he considered that angle to win an dispute.