overtaking car hit me

SHAFT

popeye4th wrote: »

when the white van overtaken me i looked at him thinking #$%$ head but because the black car was tailgating him i never seen him until he hit me and if you watch in slow motion i pull up to the left just as i reach the parked car on the left. i did steer towards the path but if id of gone too far i would of hit the parked car.

You should have used the middle pedal.

popeye4th

i don't get how drive down a road minding my own business and someone in a van speeds up behind me then overtakes me very closely then the car causing him miss judges the distance between me and him goes on the other side of the road and near misses a van and in doing that clips the front end of my car. i put this video on fb and asked for witnesses and the man in the van on the opposite side contacted me. he said the car was at fault too he shouldn't of tried overtaking on that road and especially when he could see he was driving up. it's mad to think you cant even drive down the road without worrying about getting hit. i get what everyone saying but it happened so fast and i didn't even know there was a car behind the van.

AdrianC

popeye4th wrote: »

i don't get how drive down a road minding my own business and someone in a van speeds up behind me then overtakes me very closely then the car causing him miss judges the distance between me and him goes on the other side of the road and near misses a van and in doing that clips the front end of my car.

You're missing the point.

Nobody's saying the van and black car did anything but drive very, very badly.

I'm saying that you could have easily avoided it very nearly becoming a bad collision.

it's mad to think you cant even drive down the road without worrying about getting hit.

Um, that's precisely why you need to be aware of your surroundings all the time you're behind the wheel. This is basics.

but it happened so fast

You would have had four or five seconds to see the car from the van pulling out to pass you to the car hitting you. But you were too focussed on the van.

i didn't even know there was a car behind the van.

Exactly.

[Deleted User]

popeye4th wrote: »

it's mad to think you cant even drive down the road without worrying about getting hit.

That's why you should always take driving lessons from a qualified instructor, rather than friends or family.

They would taught you that you always need to be aware of others on the road.

popeye4th

ive been on the road 10 year and had 3 people hit me... this one one when i was parked up outside mine and one in a car park when i was in the store ive avoided loads of near misses mainly on roundabouts when people cut in. but honestly this happened fast may not look it in the footage. the car i was in i just bought it 2 week previous so wouldn't want it damaged. ill see what insurance make of it hopefully it'll get resolved.

AdrianC

popeye4th wrote: »

ive been on the road 10 year and had 3 people hit me...

Wow, that many?

but honestly this happened fast may not look it in the footage

The footage is accurate on timing. It's your mind that's playing tricks.

the car i was in i just bought it 2 week previous so wouldn't want it damaged.

Nobody said you did. Just that you could have easily avoided it getting to that situation.

ill see what insurance make of it hopefully it'll get resolved.

Personally, I'd rather avoid it getting near insurance.

And that's before we remember that it was a gnat's away from insurance being the least of the issues...

Just look at this still...

Doesn't that make your blood run cold at just how close that was to being truly horrible, perhaps fatal? And don't you look at that and think "If only I'd noticed and hit the brakes to give more space"?

Senseicads

Ok ex personal injury claims handler here, hope that gives my comment a shred of credibility.

Your case definitely has some legs. If I was your claims handler I would be fighting it for you at any rate. It matters not now whether you can see the vehicle reg or not. You can make out the make, model and colours of the vehicles involved. The third party has already admitted a vehicle that a collision occurred on the road you said at the time you mentioned, that’s why his insurance has offered 50/50. On the balance of probability in court, it doesn't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the footage is yours, only on the balance of probabilities. The only difference is that his version of events differs to yours and this is where I think you have him on liability. You are moving in a straight line, you are still in your lane…I checked the footage. Regardless of his reasons for doing so he has attempted an overtaking manoeuvre when it is clearly unsafe to do so…it's unsafe because there is a vehicle coming the other way. He has misjudged the time taken to get round you. Regardless of what speed you are going(speed is not normally a factor in assessing liability), you are there to be seen, as is the van coming the other way. You can clearly see from the footage when you stop it around the 10 second mark you are proceeding in a straight line, in your lane and he has cut across you. If I was your claims handler I would be taking the footage(well done on getting that by the way) and sending it to the third party insurers denying liability. You've just got to give the insurance company a chance to use your footage. I think I would even make a complaint to the ombudsman if they hold out for a 50/50. Although any claims handler worth his salt would still put the footage and your version of events to the third party. .

DoaM

popeye4th wrote: »

i followed him got a picture of his car.

That doesn't address what I asked though ... if the video doesn't show the reg then it's merely circumstantial evidence.

But I agree that civil claims are based on the balance of probabilities.

Senseicads

DoaM wrote: »

But I agree that civil claims are based on the balance of probabilities.

For me though if it was in court, the third party have admitted they were there and are blaming the OP for the accident. I believe, and it is only a belief based upon my experience, that the court would accept that the accident in the video was the OPs accident. The two vehicles are the correct make model and colour and the van is as described on the same road at the correct time of day. On the balance of probability the court, I believe, would accept that this is the video of the accident.

to be fair, it wouldn't even get to court. No claims handler worth their salt would let it get that far. If the OP's insurance company is provided with this video and sends it to the Third party's insurance company and asks for their view on liability with this evidence then the TP's insurers will accept fault. It's not worth their risk to take it to court and incur the expense whereas for me it is worth the OPs insurance company to take threaten to take them to court. Again it's on the balance of probabilities of who the court would likely believe.

I'd fight it if I was the OP's claims handler, in fact I have fought many many similar claims.

popeye4th

Senseicads wrote: »

Ok ex personal injury claims handler here, hope that gives my comment a shred of credibility.

Your case definitely has some legs. If I was your claims handler I would be fighting it for you at any rate. It matters not now whether you can see the vehicle reg or not. You can make out the make, model and colours of the vehicles involved. The third party has already admitted a vehicle that a collision occurred on the road you said at the time you mentioned, that’s why his insurance has offered 50/50. On the balance of probability in court, it doesn't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the footage is yours, only on the balance of probabilities. The only difference is that his version of events differs to yours and this is where I think you have him on liability. You are moving in a straight line, you are still in your lane…I checked the footage. Regardless of his reasons for doing so he has attempted an overtaking manoeuvre when it is clearly unsafe to do so…it's unsafe because there is a vehicle coming the other way. He has misjudged the time taken to get round you. Regardless of what speed you are going(speed is not normally a factor in assessing liability), you are there to be seen, as is the van coming the other way. You can clearly see from the footage when you stop it around the 10 second mark you are proceeding in a straight line, in your lane and he has cut across you. If I was your claims handler I would be taking the footage(well done on getting that by the way) and sending it to the third party insurers denying liability. You've just got to give the insurance company a chance to use your footage. I think I would even make a complaint to the ombudsman if they hold out for a 50/50. Although any claims handler worth his salt would still put the footage and your version of events to the third party. .

thanks for your input it's taken some worries of my mind. and your Wright i was in my lane and didn't ask for the guy to try over take me. if you look at video frame for frame you can see the gap from my wheels until the last frame i don't swerve towards him if anything i get closer to pavement edge. what i think is the van driver who hit him had no insurance so the next best thing is to pass the blame to me but how would he explain his front end damage because it was bad from what i could see when i caught up with him.