Dominos driver hit me. Insurance just got messy

AdrianC

seatbeltnoob wrote: »

on a painted on mini roundabout, for a vehicle to hit the other car at the rear of its bumper the other car would have been pretty far into the roundabout and visible long enough to react.


You have to do these roundabouts super slow, 5-10mph slow. So IMHO the dominos driver saw you on the roundabout but couldn't slow down quick enough because they were driving at speed.

Perhaps they were.

But doesn't that just make pulling out in front of them even dafter?

Jumblebumble

Car_54 wrote: »

Fraud by failure to disclose?

Good luck with trying to prove that the dash cam was working
I suggest you look up John Bodkin Adams who saved himself from being hanged by keeping his mouth firmly shut

Jumblebumble

Glew wrote: »

On 11th Oct, I drove onto a mini roundabout and was hit behind by a Dominos driver who came on from the right way too fast. I checked before pulling out but he wasn't at the roundabout yet and only when he crossed the line was it obvious he was going too fast. His front bumper drivers side hit my rear bumper drivers side. Most importantly we were ok but damaged bumpers and I've been achy since. Dr confirmed whiplash but thats not where I'm going with this.
The next day I got a call from 'Innovation group' on behalf of Equity insurance. They said "Equity believe their driver is at fault" and so we went down the process of sorting my repairs direct. As instructed, I got a quote for a new bumper and submitted that to innovation group understanding the next step to be repairs and then done.
A few days later (and 7 days after the accident), I hadn't heard anything else but wanted to 'notify only' on my insurance. I had hoped to have had a response to give my insurance complete update but didn't want to wait any longer.
On calling for notification only, I was told it was already in the system because the other driver has claimed it was my fault now. (He did this 7 days after the accident and 2 days after I submitted my estimate) I don't understand. I was originally called with a very different outcome and that has now been retracted. Can this happen? I am now fighting to prove my innocence.

Has anyone else had experience with such a u-turn? I am pushing for his dash cam footage and also requesting cctv from nearby businesses. I am frustrated, scared and totally overwhelmed. The other thing now is I don't know if Innovation/Equity are acting on behalf of the driver or Dominos. All I know is the claim against me was by the driver.

You will never in my view obtain CCTV evidence
2 Lessons to come from this
First is to get an admission of liability and not rely on a third party relaying someone else's worthless speculation
Second is that if you maintain he was going too fast the dialog may go as follows
How do you know he was going too fast?
I saw him.
If you saw him why did you pull out?

jimbo6977

unholyangel wrote: »

Sorry but I have to agree with them, I don't think you understand the concept of giving way. It just means you didn't cause the other road user to alter their speed or course due to your presence. It doesn't mean you need to wait for them to pass before you can proceed.

TSRGD states:

Vehicular traffic approaching a roundabout with a small central island or approaching a junction indicated by the marking shown in item 5 of this sign table should give way at, or immediately beyond, the line to traffic circulating on the carriageway of the roundabout

Car_54

Jumblebumble wrote: »

Good luck with trying to prove that the dash cam was working
I suggest you look up John Bodkin Adams who saved himself from being hanged by keeping his mouth firmly shut

Under criminal law Dr Adams, was not compelled to give evidence.

An entirely different scenario.

Car_54

jimbo6977 wrote: »

TSRGD states:

Vehicular traffic approaching a roundabout with a small central island or approaching a junction indicated by the marking shown in item 5 of this sign table should give way at, or immediately beyond, the line to traffic circulating on the carriageway of the roundabout

1. That doesn’t supersede or override the general HC rule, and

2. The OP’s accident was at a mini roundabout, i.e. no central island.

jimbo6977

Car_54 wrote: »

1. That doesn’t supersede or override the general HC rule, and

2. The OP’s accident was at a mini roundabout, i.e. no central island.

1. The Highway Code is not the law, it is a description of various parts of the law (eg RTA, TSRGD) along with some advice on appropriate behaviour and some technically outdated rubbish like stopping distances.
2. The quote from the TSRGD relates specifically to min rabs (sorry if this wasn't clear. Unfortunately I'm not technically proficient enough to post the table and diagrams here.): the marking shown on item 5 of the table referred to is the big white dot with arrows around it that is found at mini rabs.

Mercdriver

jimbo6977 wrote: »

1. The Highway Code is not the law, it is a description of various parts of the law (eg RTA, TSRGD) along with some advice on appropriate behaviour and some technically outdated rubbish like stopping distances.
2. The quote from the TSRGD relates specifically to min rabs (sorry if this wasn't clear. Unfortunately I'm not technically proficient enough to post the table and diagrams here.): the marking shown on item 5 of the table referred to is the big white dot with arrows around it that is found at mini rabs.

Certain aspects of the HC definitely are law. And ignoring the HC could be considered to be driving below the standard of a competent driver, which could lead to DWDCA charges.

Car_54

jimbo6977 wrote: »

1. The Highway Code is not the law, it is a description of various parts of the law (eg RTA, TSRGD) along with some advice on appropriate behaviour and some technically outdated rubbish like stopping distances.
2. The quote from the TSRGD relates specifically to min rabs (sorry if this wasn't clear. Unfortunately I'm not technically proficient enough to post the table and diagrams here.): the marking shown on item 5 of the table referred to is the big white dot with arrows around it that is found at mini rabs.

1.As per Mercdriver above.

2. Interesting piece of legislation. Not only does the diagram contradict the text, but it says ‘should’ rather than ‘must’.

unholyangel

jimbo6977 wrote: »

1. The Highway Code is not the law, it is a description of various parts of the law (eg RTA, TSRGD) along with some advice on appropriate behaviour and some technically outdated rubbish like stopping distances.
2. The quote from the TSRGD relates specifically to min rabs (sorry if this wasn't clear. Unfortunately I'm not technically proficient enough to post the table and diagrams here.): the marking shown on item 5 of the table referred to is the big white dot with arrows around it that is found at mini rabs.

The legislation you're quoting is setting out requirements for signage & markings. The specific part you've quoted relates only to where there is a give way line when entering the roundabout (thats what item 5 is - a diagram of the give way line) - that in addition to the general rule of giving way to traffic from the right (as required by THC) you must also give way to any traffic already within the confines of the roundabout. This is a sensible approach otherwise you'd have drivers arguing that the car wasn't to their right on the mini roundabout when they entered.

A court tends to hold drivers to the standard of a reasonably prudent driver. The courts opinion of a reasonably prudent driver is one who drives in accordance with the highway code.

Remember, we're not talking about criminal law here. Its civil. The judges aren't bound only to what is expressly laid down in statute like they are in criminal law.