Driver ran into me while stationary is now saying i braked
Options
Comments
-
She only needs to be found 10% at fault, for subsequent premiums to increase disproportionately. As I said, I think the companies work together to try to share the blame around as much as possible, hence more people whose premiums can be loaded.
Thats not how it works. You can be found 0% at fault and still have your premiums increased. You have have 0 accidents and still have your premiums increased.
You could be the best & safest driver in the world and still pay through the nose because every other person of the same data points (age, location, job title, car make & model etc) drives like an !!!.
Your premium is NOT a premium based on your driving history. Its a premium based on statistics. Your personal history is reflected in the form of NCB.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
I got hit from behind by a Bin Wagon, in my previous car, he claimed I had cut in front when the road narrowed swerved and he hit him as stopped.
Luckily the dash cam (Which was only forward facing), showed the truth that I had merged safely and been stopped in stationary traffic for 15 seconds before the impact at the rear (Which could not be seen but could be heard).
it also show the point of impact was over 800 yards from the merge point where the bin man and his "Independent Witness" the other bin man in the cab said it happened
Claim settled fully in my favour as soon as his lawyers saw the footage.
Get a dashcam it can save all sorts of grief.Over 100k miles of Electric Motoring and rising,0 -
I have had two incidents where careless idiots ran into the back of me.
On both occasions they were deemed liable (how could they not be !) and on both occasions i "won".
In fact the latest case is currently pending . An imbecile ran into the back of me at a read light. I have since had my car repaired, a very nice free hire car for a week ,a course of physio and a pending PI claim. This was all provided and authorised by HIS insurer. I merely informed ny insurer for information only. I have since had two renewals and both were not increased. In fact my latest renewal has just arrived and it is the same price as last year,very reasonable.Feudal Britain needs land reform. 70% of the land is "owned" by 1 % of the population and at least 50% is unregistered (inherited by landed gentry). Thats why your slave box costs so much..0 -
But average premiums have fallen 11% over the last year, so yours has increased in real terms. https://www.confused.com/car-insurance/price-indexC_Mababejive wrote: »I have had two incidents where careless idiots ran into the back of me.
On both occasions they were deemed liable (how could they not be !) and on both occasions i "won".
In fact the latest case is currently pending . An imbecile ran into the back of me at a read light. I have since had my car repaired, a very nice free hire car for a week ,a course of physio and a pending PI claim. This was all provided and authorised by HIS insurer. I merely informed ny insurer for information only. I have since had two renewals and both were not increased. In fact my latest renewal has just arrived and it is the same price as last year,very reasonable.
There are too any factors involved to know whether your claim has affected it.0 -
But average premiums have fallen 11% over the last year, so yours has increased in real terms. https://www.confused.com/car-insurance/price-index
There are too any factors involved to know whether your claim has affected it.
Yes, as i say my latest renewal arrived the other day and i shall be doing a comparison to see if i can lower it further.
As its only £217 including protected NCD and legals i doubt there is much scope for cutting but i shall have a look anyway for reassurance.Feudal Britain needs land reform. 70% of the land is "owned" by 1 % of the population and at least 50% is unregistered (inherited by landed gentry). Thats why your slave box costs so much..0 -
He stated his reasons why the person shouldn't be driving, nothing to do with bias. Driver pulled out into the road despite oncoming traffic (forcing other cars to brake is a fail on the driving test); started to speed up and then slammed on the brakes in a NSL due to seeing things that weren't there (an imaginary dog) which caused a 3 car accident.
He seems to think that anyone over a certain age shouldn't be driving, how's that not showing bias? Did he give her a quick driving test to ascertain her capability or did he base his "judgement" purely off her age?
He wasn't "forced to brake" by her pulling out either, he stated that he slowed down (no mention of whether he used his brakes or not) which would indicate that she actually pulled out correctly. You don't have to wait for a gap big enough that other drivers don't have to adjust slightly. The only reason that the accident happened was that the "female behind" (note that this one doesn't have her age mentioned which reinforces my first point) didn't slow down when @Stoke did and was possibly already too close. Purely down to inattention, driving too close and no doubt too high a speed by the 2nd woman.
The reason for the 1st woman to brake is immaterial, imaginary or not. If you "imagined" a kiddy running out would you stamp on your brakes or not?0 -
Colin_Maybe wrote: »He seems to think that anyone over a certain age shouldn't be driving, how's that not showing bias? Did he give her a quick driving test to ascertain her capability or did he base his "judgement" purely off her age?
He wasn't "forced to brake" by her pulling out either, he stated that he slowed down (no mention of whether he used his brakes or not) which would indicate that she actually pulled out correctly. You don't have to wait for a gap big enough that other drivers don't have to adjust slightly. The only reason that the accident happened was that the "female behind" (note that this one doesn't have her age mentioned which reinforces my first point) didn't slow down when @Stoke did and was possibly already too close. Purely down to inattention, driving too close and no doubt too high a speed by the 2nd woman.
The reason for the 1st woman to brake is immaterial, imaginary or not. If you "imagined" a kiddy running out would you stamp on your brakes or not?
Where does he say that anyone of a certain age should not be driving in his post? He stated a fact (the driver was old) and described what they did.
Rule 159 highway code applies here. Stoke stated he and the car behind had to slam on brakes. Perhaps in your rush to rail against an imagined slight against older drivers (I guess perhaps you are one?) you missed this fact?I had luckily already started slowing down predicting further stupidity after seeing her pull out into 60mph traffic. Anyway, bang, she's slammed her brakes, so I slam on my brakes and stop
As I said, it's a driving test fail if you pull away forcing cars to slow as it's a breach of 159 - the road was obviously not clear and the driver did not check her mirrors.
The female behind - he doesn't remember her age or simply forgot to mention it. Your little conspiracy has already fallen flat!
I do not imagine things when driving as I am not a loony. Someone who imagines a dog running out and decides to risk the lives of other road users to slam on brakes after an event that has already happened is a fool and should hand in the license0 -
Where does he say that anyone of a certain age should not be driving in his post? He stated a fact (the driver was old) and described what they did.
He stated that she was very old and in his opinion shouldn't be driving, what's so difficult to understand?Rule 159 highway code applies here. Stoke stated he and the car behind had to slam on brakes.
Actually he stated that he had to slow down initially, not that he slammed his brakes on. That only occurred when the 1st woman braked suddenly. So rule 159 of the Highway Code does not apply.Perhaps in your rush to rail against an imagined slight against older drivers (I guess perhaps you are one?) you missed this fact?
Nice try at trolling but no, I'm not an older driver (whatever that actually means). Perhaps in your rush to defend @Stoke you jumped to conclusions? Why do you jump to his defence so readily BTW, is there something you want to admit too?As I said, it's a driving test fail if you pull away forcing cars to slow as it's a breach of 159 - the road was obviously not clear and the driver did not check her mirrors.
See above to put this nonsense to bed.The female behind - he doesn't remember her age or simply forgot to mention it. Your little conspiracy has already fallen flat!
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Are you claiming he's got selective memory?I do not imagine things when driving as I am not a loony. Someone who imagines a dog running out and decides to risk the lives of other road users to slam on brakes after an event that has already happened is a fool and should hand in the license
This makes even less sense than your previous comment. How can you brake before an event has occurred? All braking is retrospective. Are you saying no one should brake in case it risks the lives of other users?0 -
Colin_Maybe wrote: »That's because in that particular case there was only one person negligent regardless of what @Stoke may think about the woman in front. The fact that he has to raise the point that "Woman in front, very old, shouldn't have been driving in my opinion" just shows his bias and blinkered view of the world.
The fact she was a woman has no bearing on it, if you are implying my views were sexist? If it did, then I would not have exonerated the female behind so quickly, would I?
Her age matters because both my grandparents drove until they were very old. One of them gave up her keys because she knew she wasn't safe on the road anymore, which I suspect took huge amount of guts.... My other grandparent did not and the last time she took the car out was with my dad who told me it was absolutely terrifying. He took her keys and she never drove again and passed away early last year.
Age does matter when driving. Your reaction times naturally slow down as you get older, you're an increased risk of undiagnosed dementia (the illness which the second of my two grandparents in the above paragraph succumbed too) and probably a lack of practice and while most older drivers are safe and careful, some are clearly not. Pulling out a junction slowly into 60mph doesn't make you a safe driver, it makes you a dangerous driver.......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