Unusual Accident - Fault
Options
Comments
-
Pretty sure it will be your insurance paying out, it’s the golden rule about driving into someone.
But you were incredibly unlucky - that’s a real accident - could happen to anyone.0 -
Hi , yes you were unlucky, but there was nobody in front of the car transporter so he had no need to brake yet he brakes to warn you as you pull out to change lanes yet you carried on , without slowing down .
He gave you plenty of warning something was wrong but you chose to ignore it and plough on.
This can only go 100% against you because you weren't paying enough attention to what was happening around you.
The van driver may also have been less than attentive but he was alongside the car transporter so wouldn't have seen to obvious warning given by the car transporter driver.
In those conditions you should have been at least 200 yards behind the vehicle in front.
In my eyes , if your insurance see this footage it will only confirm that you are indeed to blame for not avoiding this accident.0 -
As you pulled out and the transporter driver braked it can be clearly seen that there is nothing in front of the transporter so why did this not alert you that he was braking to give you a warning that you should brake.
On a seperate note, if you had been driving defensively then before you passed the earlier road joining from the left you should have pulled into the outside lane , the van then wouldn't have got in front of you and you would have had more warning that something was wrong .It's all about being in control and not letting the traffic control you!0 -
OH got caught up in something similar couple of years ago. He was in middle lane on busy road in town, going round 90 degree corner bend to his left. He had left an ok space in front of him. All three lanes full. As they all rounded corner, slowly. the Uber car to his left suddenly swerved right into the space in front of him to avoid hitting an llegally parked car on his left. Oh braked but ran into car which had just swerved in front. Insurers eventually explained that to keep things simple, rule of thumb is anyone who runs into back of someone else is held liable REGARDLESS of circs. He was held liable. fortunately he had protected NCD.0
-
If the van had of driven into the back of the stationary car, you would have gone into the back of the van instead.0
-
You failed to keep an adequate lookout and left yourself no time to avoid a stationary hazard. Pretty straightforward in terms of liability, I would think.
You were unlucky and I think many people, me included, would have suffered the same outcome if it had been them.
This is what insurance is for.0 -
You were unlucky and I think many people, me included, would have suffered the same outcome if it had been them.
I think you are right that a lot of other drivers would have suffered the same outcome, even though this particular accident was avoidable.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
I think you've been unfortunate, and many of us might have suffered the same fate.I've been involved in a usual accident. Normally I would say yes, if I run into the back of someone, then I'm not paying attention, it's my fault..
i'm in the left hand lane of a dual carriageway doing the does limit. A van joins from the left in front of me and pulls into the right hand lane. There is a reduce in front of me slowing down. I love into the right hand lane. I've got a good distance to this van so if he stops, I know I can stop.
Next thing I know, the truck is braking heavily, and the van suddenly swerves in front of me rather dangerously, no brakes, no hazards and reveals a stationary car that I can't now not do anything to avoid. I brake hard straight away and manage to slow to about ten mph...
You did have warning of something amiss from the fact that the lorry was braking. The dashcam gets a glimpse of the stationary car, but it would be easy for you to miss it.
So all in all, one of those things - it'll go down as your accident. Well done for hitting the brakes promptly when you did see it, and limiting the impact speed.
Even if you could argue that you were 30% to blame instead of 100%, it won't make much (if any) difference - you'd still lose your NCD and face increased premiums.0 -
Hi , yes you were unlucky, but there was nobody in front of the car transporter so he had no need to brake yet he brakes to warn you as you pull out to change lanes yet you carried on , without slowing down .
He gave you plenty of warning something was wrong but you chose to ignore it and plough on.
This can only go 100% against you because you weren't paying enough attention to what was happening around you.
That's assuming I can see in front of the transporter when he's braking. When you see a car braking on the motorway, do you classify that as a warning and keep behind, or do you go into the overtaking lane to overtake a slower moving vehicle? Brake lights by themselves are not an indication of danger. It's an indication of slowing down. Braking in the left lane, is more of an indication of an issue in the left hand lane.The van driver may also have been less than attentive but he was alongside the car transporter so wouldn't have seen to obvious warning given by the car transporter driver.
May have been less than attentive? Given the fact that he would have had a total and clear view of the road ahead and the broken down car, the van driver had MORE than enough time to slow down himself and pull in BEHIND the transporter like I would have done.
Coming up onto the A45, you'll see Im going slower because I see a car in the left hand lane doing 40mph so I slow and pull in behind him, instead of doing what the van driver did and speed up in front of me, straight into the right hand lane, speed up, not see a van and swerve at the last second in front of the truck. You saw the swerve right? That wasn't a controlled manoeuvre.On a seperate note, if you had been driving defensively then before you passed the earlier road joining from the left you should have pulled into the outside lane , the van then wouldn't have got in front of you and you would have had more warning that something was wrong .It's all about being in control and not letting the traffic control you!
But if the van didn't cause it, why should that matter? And why didn't the van pull in behind me like I did when I joined the A45 earlier?ToxicWomble wrote: »If the van had of driven into the back of the stationary car, you would have gone into the back of the van instead.
I don't think so because the speed the van was going, I think there would have been plenty of warning (not just brake lights) that something was amiss. I had a good distance to the van and the van would have pushed that car and I would have been able to slow down.
But no, next time, I shall drive as if the car in front may come to a complete and total stop, even on a motorway, from 70mph to 0 mph in 0 seconds.0 -
You failed to keep an adequate lookout and left yourself no time to avoid a stationary hazard. Pretty straightforward in terms of liability, I would think.
You were unlucky and I think many people, me included, would have suffered the same outcome if it had been them.
This is what insurance is for.
This is why it's annoying, if I was in the position of the van driver, I would have seen the car and slowed down, applied brakes, hazards, pulled in behind the truck and possibly even pulled in to call the police as the car was in a dangerous situation.
But people are saying "the van driver avoided an accident, you didn't". He avoided it not through any special skill or observation, but because he was in the right place at the right time with a truck driver who anticipated it and gave him time. Had the trucker kept going at the normal speed, the van driver may have applied the brakes instead of risking it, at the very least, we know the van driver saw the vehicle at the last second through the swerve, but if there was no space, there would have been brakes (even last second, but I'd have been able to slow down exactly in the same manner and pull into the left lane.
It was either me or the van driver.I think you are right that a lot of other drivers would have suffered the same outcome, even though this particular accident was avoidable.
But there's quite a few ways that this accident could have been avoided. Simplest one is that van driver seeing his clear road ahead and braking himself with hazard lights. Which is exactly what I would have done in those circumstances which is why I find this whole thing so contentious.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards