Dominos driver hit me. Insurance just got messy

SHAFT

unholyangel wrote: »

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.

The word is competent not prudent.

unholyangel

SHAFT wrote: »

The word is competent not prudent.

Competence is a can of worms. Are you forever incompetent for a single negligent act? Are you only ever negligent if you are incompetent? Luckily, no need to debate any of that as the standard the court applies is reasonably prudent.

AdrianC

The exact wording of the law is "...competent and careful driver..."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA

Kim_kim

jimbo6977 wrote: »

At a roundabout you give way to the right, but (in theory) only to vehicles already on the roundabout. Otherwise you'd have to give way to a vehicle 200 yards away if you could see it. In the end we'll all need 360deg webcams on the roof like Google maps.

I don’t know if it’s right or wrong, but I give way to vehicles approaching from the right if they are travelling at a distance and speed that my entering the roundabout would inconvenience them.

unholyangel

AdrianC wrote: »

The exact wording of the law is "...competent and careful driver..."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA

Again, criminal law. We're discussing civil law.

AdrianC

The difference is one of proof - not of standard.

Criminal prosecutions require "beyond reasonable doubt".
Civil cases only require "balance of probabilities".

If any assessment of driving standard is being used, it will be that of the RTA, not changing one word for a similar-but-not-quite the same one.

But if it comes to a court case over liability, then...
1. Barristers will be involved
2. Insurers will be paying them
3. For a minor low-speed bingle with a grand total of a couple of damaged bumpers and "a bit achey" for a week, that is never going to happen anyway

So it's a bit irrelevant what you or I might think the standard in use is, don'cha think?

unholyangel

AdrianC wrote: »

The difference is one of proof - not of standard.

Criminal prosecutions require "beyond reasonable doubt".
Civil cases only require "balance of probabilities".

If any assessment of driving standard is being used, it will be that of the RTA, not changing one word for a similar-but-not-quite the same one.

You realise there's not just one difference between criminal and civil law?

You're conflating issues, although I understand why I think. Trying to find a simple way to explain it. Like in civil law, the balance of probability would be used to determine that you turned left. Then the standard of reasonably prudent driver would be used to determine whether turning left was negligent or not. But being negligent is just one element required for a claim in civil law under tort.

The probability is in what the facts of the case are while the standards are whether those facts satisfy the required elements for the application of the relevant laws.

Jumblebumble

Car_54 wrote: »

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

An entirely different scenario.

And if the Dominos driver says "dashcam what dashcam?"
In any event he should let his insurers deal with it and not engage with the OP at all