overtaking car hit me

Jackmydad

AdrianC wrote: »

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 all reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago. Angel with wings, sat on a cloud holding a steering wheel. Caption says something like "Good job it was the other bloke's fault"

I this case it's lucky nobody was hurt or worse. Dented cars and egos can be repaired.

unholyangel

OP, theres case law on situations like this - as long as you maintained a steady speed and didn't accelerate to stop him getting past then you are not liable merely because you didn't make another drivers unsafe driving safe. And I don't believe you did speed up as guesstimating the distance in the camera (using the vehicles that are in picture) versus time it took you to cross that distance.

And while I do agree its always better to avoid an accident if you can. i also believe you when you say there was no time. It looks like the first van was just finishing overtaking before it came into shot (compare its position when it first appears to the second vans when it disappears) so it looks like you only had around 1 second to react to two events.

At 10 seconds in, you can clearly see the black car angling into your lane.

I would be exceptionally surprised if his insurers fought this.

popeye4th

unholyangel wrote: »

OP, theres case law on situations like this - as long as you maintained a steady speed and didn't accelerate to stop him getting past then you are not liable merely because you didn't make another drivers unsafe driving safe. And I don't believe you did speed up as guesstimating the distance in the camera (using the vehicles that are in picture) versus time it took you to cross that distance.

And while I do agree its always better to avoid an accident if you can. i also believe you when you say there was no time. It looks like the first van was just finishing overtaking before it came into shot (compare its position when it first appears to the second vans when it disappears) so it looks like you only had around 1 second to react to two events.

At 10 seconds in, you can clearly see the black car angling into your lane.

I would be exceptionally surprised if his insurers fought this.

thanks for your in put means a lot considering how stressful this is know i was just driving down a road and next i was getting hit. i get what others are saying i should of braked but it happened fast loads of people have said he was in the wrong overtaking on that road and he would of seen that oncoming van in the distance so chanced overtaking putting me and other people in danger and he had no thought for others. i feel bad for the guy in a way because someone hits him and drives off but in the chain reaction he did the exact same to me.

seatbeltnoob

Thanks for the input senseicads. Sone people are experts on everything and have to give their unquslified opinion on everything.

The actual recording will be a bit clearer, and they can give their independant statement certifying the date and time of this recording.

To everyone giving the op a hard time about not braking, its easy to judge in hindsight, but everything happens in a milisecond. And even if he/she did do a sharp brake, thd stopping distance and reaction time probably wouldnt have changed the circumstances much.

Korkyb

seatbeltnoob wrote: »

Thanks for the input senseicads. Sone people are experts on everything and have to give their unquslified opinion on everything.

The actual recording will be a bit clearer, and they can give their independant statement certifying the date and time of this recording.

To everyone giving the op a hard time about not braking, its easy to judge in hindsight, but everything happens in a milisecond. And even if he/she did do a sharp brake, thd stopping distance and reaction time probably wouldnt have changed the circumstances much.

Totally agree.




From what I can see, (in my totally unqualified and happy to be proven wrong opinion), the van reaches the left edge of the screen at 8 seconds and the black car gets to the same point at 10 seconds.


Even being generous with timings that means the chasing car was under 3 seconds behind the van.


Given that the van would have shielded the car from the ops view until it was past there would have only been 3 seconds to react from the car being visible.

Add to this the fact that in those less than 3 seconds the ops attention quite rightly would have been on the van - to say that they could have done anything to avoid this is just a load of, (in my unqualified opinion), tosh.


.

AdrianC

seatbeltnoob wrote: »

To everyone giving the op a hard time about not braking, its easy to judge in hindsight, but everything happens in a milisecond.

No, it really doesn't. At the speed differences and distances you can see in that video, the OP would have had about four seconds between the van pulling out to pass and the car behind it hitting them. They never even noticed the car was there.

Marvel1

AdrianC wrote: »

Wow, that many?

popeye4th wrote: »

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.

Yet somehow Mr perfect fails to even bother to read the sentence of the first 2 hits, surprise surprise.

Senseicads

AdrianC wrote: »

No, it really doesn't. At the speed differences and distances you can see in that video, the OP would have had about four seconds between the van pulling out to pass and the car behind it hitting them. They never even noticed the car was there.

it actually doesn't matter whether he should have braked or not...both the van and the OPs car were there to be seen. The car making the manoeuvre is the car behind. In this instance the onus is on them to ensure that the way is clear and the manoeuvre is one that is safe to perform...given that there has been a collision and from the viewing of the video footage, it is clear that the it wasn't safe to perform the manoeuvre . When you take this on board with the other car's statement and view the footage, I would feel really hard done by if I was the OP and be forced to take a 50/50 split. Its whether the third party would take a chance on the video not being accepted in court...i'm not sure it would be worth the chance for the third party in this case.

Korkyb

Marvel1 wrote: »

Yet somehow Mr perfect fails to even bother to read the sentence of the first 2 hits, surprise surprise.

Mr perfect indeed.

And he had more than 4 seconds to read that post.

I want to be just like him when I grow up.

brianposter

SHAFT wrote: »

That video isn't going to help much.

In my opinion the video is enough to ensure that the other driver is held 100% responsible.
If there is a (correct) timestamp on the video that would be worth mentioning in order to remove any doubt that it is a film of the appropriate accident.