Car hit my car but not admiring fault.

Aylesbury_Duck

You’re being irrational. Your alternative situations are not analogous to your wife’s.

Optimusf

Optimusf wrote: »

Ok fine but is there a rule/law that states this????????

If my wife was at fault she would have admitted fault, I either think half the world had gone mad or I'm missing something......

Not really....but thanks for the constructive point.

z1a

Optimusf wrote: »

Not really....but thanks for the constructive point.

Why are you quoting and thanking yourself?

Optimusf

I'm new to this forum and using my phone which probably wasn't the best combination. Some people like yourself are so pedantic it's hilarious

casseus

Optimusf wrote: »

Ok, that provides a bit more insight.

The reason why I'm so baffled by the general point of view is because of the following.....

The lane going from left to right had heavy traffic.

The right lane had no cars there

So my wife moved the car forward in the hope someone in the left to right lane would Give way.

Now the approaching car after she had hit my wife's car suggests two things

1) either she didn't see the car until the last minute and tried to swerve to the right hence why my wife's cars bumper has been damaged.

2)there was a little gap that the incoming car thought she could squeeze through.

I'm sorry, I see million times where the car coming from the minor road blocking a lane to get to the other side. From reading all your comments suggests that anyone who hits the car blocking will go on to always winning the claim potentially even though there's no witness and she could have been on the phone.

This also leads me to saying that this world has gone completely bonkers. So if I pedestrian is walking across the main road and they were to be hit by a car it is there fault.....so anyone and everyone can go about hitting a person or a car who is blocking the main road and win??????????????

Pedestrians will always have priority over vehicles when they are in the road, be it crossing the road or walking down the middle of it there are different case laws to that scenario. pedestrians walk out all the time its upto the driver to be alert and expect the unexpected!.


Your wife emerged from side road into a main road in the hopes she could creep forward slowly and FORCE someone to give priority by her road positioning because the van was reducing the vision, by doing that she placed the risk solely upon herself in this action by obstructing the main carriageway she entered into to cross it. Think, your driving down the main road and someone pulls out form side road, you pull to the right(as this is a natural reaction to avoid and obstacle) and hit the brakes but its too late you've hit them, Is it you're fault of the person pulling out? you would naturally blame the person pulling out because they are pulling into you're path. the only difference here is there's a van, that obstructed full view of the road to the right that makes no difference to insurance company. She pulled out into collision form a side road into main road, she is at fault


Cant say this enough, you're wife is at fault, You have case law, highway code, and
Road Traffic Act 1988

You are here:

• 1988 c. 52
• Part I
• Driving offences
• Section 3Careless, and inconsiderate, driving. E+W+S

If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence


That's 3 to 9 points and a hefty fine!

Could have even been charged with Dangerous Driving!


you're wife is lucky she was not charged with the above (many are for lesser incidents than you're wife's incident). I think the officer who attended used discretion not to issue a ticket due to you're wife pleading she was exercising caution on exiting by pulling out slowly and the van was still in situ'.

force_ten

Optimusf wrote: »

Ok, that provides a bit more insight.

The reason why I'm so baffled by the general point of view is because of the following.....

The lane going from left to right had heavy traffic.

The right lane had no cars there

So my wife moved the car forward in the hope someone in the left to right lane would Give way.

Now the approaching car after she had hit my wife's car suggests two things

1) either she didn't see the car until the last minute and tried to swerve to the right hence why my wife's cars bumper has been damaged.

2)there was a little gap that the incoming car thought she could squeeze through.

I'm sorry, I see million times where the car coming from the minor road blocking a lane to get to the other side. From reading all your comments suggests that anyone who hits the car blocking will go on to always winning the claim potentially even though there's no witness and she could have been on the phone.

This also leads me to saying that this world has gone completely bonkers. So if I pedestrian is walking across the main road and they were to be hit by a car it is there fault.....so anyone and everyone can go about hitting a person or a car who is blocking the main road and win??????????????

if your wife crossed a give way sign and was sat in the middle of the junction then she was in the wrong and would be deemed at fault in the case of an accident, you cant edge out into the middle of the road waiting for somebody with right of way to stop and give way to your wife

it may happen hundreds of times a day but it is not right and in the case of an accident it will more often than not be deemed the fault of the person that crossed a give way sign that was in the wrong

if a car hits a pedestrian it is often deemed the drivers fault so you cant compare an accident involving people rather than cars

you made a suggestion that the person that hit your car may have been on a mobile phone well if you had dash cam footage to prove that the driver that hit your car was on the phone then you may be able to get the insurance company to look at it differently but with no evidence then you are fighting a losing battle

the answers given by many above may not be what you wanted to hear but it is the way that the insurance will see it

Arklight

force_ten wrote: »

if your wife crossed a give way sign and was sat in the middle of the junction then she was in the wrong and would be deemed at fault in the case of an accident, you cant edge out into the middle of the road waiting for somebody with right of way to stop and give way to your wife

it may happen hundreds of times a day but it is not right and in the case of an accident it will more often than not be deemed the fault of the person that crossed a give way sign that was in the wrong

if a car hits a pedestrian it is often deemed the drivers fault so you cant compare an accident involving people rather than cars

you made a suggestion that the person that hit your car may have been on a mobile phone well if you had dash cam footage to prove that the driver that hit your car was on the phone then you may be able to get the insurance company to look at it differently but with no evidence then you are fighting a losing battle

the answers given by many above may not be what you wanted to hear but it is the way that the insurance will see it

You can actually, and no it isn't illegal, or considered dangerous driving. It's also a maneouever you may do on a driving test but only with permission from the examiner. As long as you aren't causing an oncoming vehicle to brake or change direction.

If the OP's wife was on the carriageway waiting to move ahead, if she was stationary and began this manoeuvre before the car that hit her was in view, then her car was there for the other driver to see and the other driver should have seen it and stopped.

Exactly as if there was a car stopped and signalling to turn right.

If they were swerving round the van and hit her because they didn't expect her to be there then they are at fault for travelling faster than they can see to brake. What if a pedestrian had been crossing?

Unless I have misunderstood what the OP is saying (and it could be a bit clearer tbh) nothing I've read means his wife should be liable for the accident.

You can't just drive down a road as far as you wish with your eyes closed until you hit someone and claim from their insurance.

Aylesbury_Duck

I read it that the collision happened as the OP's wife was in the process of emerging, not that she'd pulled out, stopped and was sitting there visibly waiting to complete the turn.

Arklight

The only way this is going to be resolved is with a screenshot of google satellite maps with crudely drawn diagrams over them done with MS Paint.

The OP owes us that much.

[Deleted User]

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I read it that the collision happened as the OP's wife was in the process of emerging, not that she'd pulled out, stopped and was sitting there visibly waiting to complete the turn.

Hard to tell as the OP seems to be in the process of changing the story as he's not got the response he was hoping for. Not unusual on here when we have these 'the car appeared out of nowhere' scenarios. Damned aliens always beaming down motor vehicles and trees into peoples paths.