Hit by stolen car, found at fault, please help

Options
12467

Comments

  • takman
    takman Posts: 3,876 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Options
    billyghom wrote: »
    Yes, I understand that. But what may change things in my favour is that I was stationary when I was hit. As I understand it, it is a generally accepted standard in the insurance industry that if a stationary vehicle is hit, the vehicle that hit the stationary car is at fault. Except my insurance company keep telling me I can't prove I was stationary. I remind them that there is no one on the other side to dispute if I was stationary, but that doesn't seem to matter to them (I realise the other insurance company could dispute it, but they weren't there on the night).

    That's not true at all just because someone is able to stop and be stationary before an accident occurs doesn't mean they are without fault.
    So in this example; if your going down the motorway at 70 MPH and I pull out of the hard shoulder in front of you at the last minute and manage to stop before you hit me. You would be happy to take full responsibility for the accident because i was stationary?.

    The fact is that you pulled out and blocked their path and expected them to stop for you when you were supposed to give way. You also didn't keep an eye on their position otherwise you could have reversed back as they started to get closer.

    But i don't understand why you pulled out at all?. You should have just waited for both ways to be clear before you made your move.
    billyghom wrote: »
    Also there were no other cars coming (behind the BMW), this was late at night.

    So you wouldn't have had to wait much longer before the road was clear and no need for you to pull halfway across the road.
  • billyghom
    Options
    marlot wrote: »
    Actually, it is an illegal move if there was a give way sign or give way line.

    Where there is a GIVE WAY sign (diagram 602), regulation 16 requires that:
    No vehicle shall cross the transverse line shown in diagram 1003 nearer to the major road at
    the side of which that line is placed, or if that line is not clearly visible, enter that major
    road, so as to be likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in any other vehicle or to
    cause that driver to change the speed or course of his vehicle in order to avoid an accident.

    Many of us do the same as you on a regular basis. Doesn't make it right though.

    Thank you. I don't disagree. But it doesn't say it's illegal and says it is okay to come out if it is safe to do (last few lines about not endangering anyone), and I cannot say enough it was absolutely safe for me to come out.

    Thank you.
  • Loanranger
    Loanranger Posts: 2,439 Forumite
    Options
    I am surprised that so many seemingly qualified and experienced drivers think it's acceptable to pull out and sit in the middle of the road!
    Just wait til both sides are clear or take another route if you are not patient enough to do that.
  • takman
    takman Posts: 3,876 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Options
    missile wrote: »
    Well I for one don't pull out from a side road and stop blocking the lane waiting for a queue of cars from the left to pass before turning right.
    That is at the very least inconsiderate to other road users and IMHO the OP is at fault for this accident.

    Yes i fully agree, it's a very inconsiderate way to drive and pretty silly considering it was late at night and if they had simply waited for the BMW to pass they could have pulled out safely.
  • billyghom
    Options
    takman wrote: »
    That's not true at all just because someone is able to stop and be stationary before an accident occurs doesn't mean they are without fault.
    So in this example; if your going down the motorway at 70 MPH and I pull out of the hard shoulder in front of you at the last minute and manage to stop before you hit me. You would be happy to take full responsibility for the accident because i was stationary?.
    .

    Thank you, from an insurer's persepctive, who would be at fault here? (sorry, I genuinely don't know, that's why I'm asking)

    Thanks.
  • vacheron
    vacheron Posts: 1,604 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Photogenic
    Options
    billyghom wrote: »
    Thank you.

    Yes, it is not an illegal manoeuvre and it is done all the time. If you stand on any busy street for an hour, you will see it done at least two or three times, maybe more.

    You would also see 2 or 3 people speeding, 2 or 3 people on their mobile phones, 2 or 3 making illegal turns and 2 or 3 driving without due care. That still does not make it legal.

    If their actions had gone on to result in an accident I'm sure that defense wouldn't work for them either.
    • The rich buy assets.
    • The poor only have expenses.
    • The middle class buy liabilities they think are assets.
    Robert T. Kiyosaki
  • billyghom
    Options
    vacheron wrote: »
    You would also see 2 or 3 people speeding, 2 or 3 people on their mobile phones, 2 or 3 making illegal turns and 2 or 3 driving without due care. That still does not make it legal.

    If their actions had gone on to result in an accident I'm sure that defense wouldn't work for them either.

    Thank you, but there is a big difference between doing something that is illegal and just not getting caught or penalised, and doing something that is not illegal in the first place. Can't conflate the two.

    Thank you.
  • missile
    missile Posts: 11,690 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    billyghom wrote: »
    Thank you. I don't disagree. But it doesn't say it's illegal and says it is okay to come out if it is safe to do (last few lines about not endangering anyone), and I cannot say enough it was absolutely safe for me to come out.

    Thank you.
    It was clearly not safe to do so ......... you caused the accident :)
    "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
    Ride hard or stay home :iloveyou:
  • Quentin
    Quentin Posts: 40,405 Forumite
    Options
    billyghom wrote: »
    Thank you, from an insurer's persepctive, who would be at fault here? (sorry, I genuinely don't know, that's why I'm asking)

    Thanks.
    In your case, your insurer has seemingly accepted you are liable


    Bearing in mind that they are the ones who "lose" by making this decision, and have no axe to grind, why not accept that this is your fault and move on!


    Alternatively concentrate on persuading eg. a claim handler/the MIB/the third party insurer that you are blameless - only way you are going to get any compensation for your write off!!
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    billyghom wrote: »
    Thank you, but there is a big difference between doing something that is illegal and just not getting caught or penalised, and doing something that is not illegal in the first place. Can't conflate the two.

    Thank you.
    Ok, lets ignore if it's legal or not (you did endanger someone, but lets leave that aside)


    Most accidents aren't the result of someone doing something deliberately wrong. They're still at fault though.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

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
  • 248K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards