Driver claiming she blacked out - not liable for crash?!

AdrianC

SG27 wrote: »

It was quite an impact In not sure anyone would have the self control to not lock the brakes and suffer a more serious crash!

I don't know if you're aware of this, but most cars built in the last couple of decades do that automagically for you.

There may be very short tyre marks left from the brakes locking before the ABS releases them again, but there certainly shouldn't be anything that's particularly telling - certainly not on the kind of investigation that'd be put into a non-fatal collision.

AndyMc.....

SG27 wrote: »

This is true. I blacked out driving once (due to an earlier unrelated head injury) the police made me go to the doctor who removed my licence for 6 months as a precaution even though the cause was known. At the time it was hard work convincing the police I was not concious but what swayed it was lack of skid marks indicating I crashed without touching the breaks.

Ultimately my insurance paid for the third party damage.

The police didn’t make you go to the doctors it was your choice to seek medical advice.

Oh and by the way it’s brakes.

Aretnap

tommyjj wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that, if it could be proven that your car started the fire, your insurance would be liable.

Your insurance would not be liable for damage to other people's cars unless it could be shown that the fire was caused by your negligence - for example if you ignored an obvious risk of fire like smoke coming out of the bonnet, or a leak from the petrol tank. The fact that the fire started in your car would not in itself make them liable.

Nasqueron

AndyMc..... wrote: »

It’s not that simple if the police didn’t seize her phone at the time.

Who’s to say she had possession of the phone at the time of the accident?

1) Yes it is, the user cannot change the network's records, they don't need to have the phone to do so. Even if they wipe the phone the record is still held
2) Phone mast triangulation and GPS will prove the phone was within 100m of the area, in cities as accurate as 10m. If it was there, tracked moving from cell to cell and she was the only driver + phone records from 1) then that would be sufficient proof alongside the 2 witnesses

AndyMc.....

Nasqueron wrote: »

1) Yes it is, the user cannot change the network's records, they don't need to have the phone to do so. Even if they wipe the phone the record is still held
2) Phone mast triangulation and GPS will prove the phone was within 100m of the area, in cities as accurate as 10m. If it was there, tracked moving from cell to cell and she was the only driver + phone records from 1) then that would be sufficient proof alongside the 2 witnesses

Let’s see you get cell site analysis for a simple accident. It won’t get authorised as DCI’s don’t like paying for traffic jobs.

SG27

AndyMc..... wrote: »

The police didn’t make you go to the doctors it was your choice to seek medical advice.

Not my choice. Like I said they made me. They gave me a note to give to my doctor who then wrote a follow up letter back. Of course I had a choice not to go and I don't know what, if any consequences there would have been if I didn't.

Oh and by the way it’s brakes.

Thanks I'll bear that in mind...

SG27

AdrianC wrote: »

I don't know if you're aware of this, but most cars built in the last couple of decades do that automagically for you.

There may be very short tyre marks left from the brakes locking before the ABS releases them again, but there certainly shouldn't be anything that's particularly telling - certainly not on the kind of investigation that'd be put into a non-fatal collision.

Well, the two coppers went back looked at the road and that was the reason given for believing me. The car had ABS.

AndyMc.....

SG27 wrote: »

Not my choice. Like I said they made me. They gave me a note to give to my doctor who then wrote a follow up letter back. Of course I had a choice not to go and I don't know what, if any consequences there would have been if I didn't.



Thanks I'll bear that in mind...

Under what act?

AndyMc.....

SG27 wrote: »

Well, the two coppers went back looked at the road and that was the reason given for believing me. The car had ABS.

Aka anti lock brakes which might account for why you didn't lock them.

Mercdriver

SG27 wrote: »

Thanks I'll bear that in mind...

You missed an opportunity to really wind up the pedants on here who should really keep their grammar and spelling OCD internal unless it is unclear what a poster is saying.

You should have said:

Thanks I'll bare that in mind. They would of done there nut.