Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • donna7017
    • By donna7017 9th Aug 18, 6:45 PM
    • 4Posts
    • 0Thanks
    donna7017
    Driver ran into me while stationary is now saying i braked
    • #1
    • 9th Aug 18, 6:45 PM
    Driver ran into me while stationary is now saying i braked 9th Aug 18 at 6:45 PM
    I was on a dual carriageway stationary waiting in traffic when I was run into. My car was then written off. The other persons insurance is saying i braked and caused the accident - Totally untrue!!!
    Now i have a car that has been written off and the hire car that was provided has to go back and ive been told it could take 12 months to resolve as its got to go to court.
    This seems so unfair but im not sure what I can do?
    Has anyone had a similar unfortunate experience?
Page 3
    • Stoke
    • By Stoke 10th Aug 18, 8:01 PM
    • 2,503 Posts
    • 1,936 Thanks
    Stoke
    You cannot possibly know that until after the event.


    She could have started experiencing sharp and worsening pain in her chest, sudden loss of vision or even seen a sinkhole open up in the road ahead.
    Originally posted by usefulmale
    Right and that's all well and good.... But she didn't.
    • rudekid48
    • By rudekid48 10th Aug 18, 8:20 PM
    • 2,093 Posts
    • 3,574 Thanks
    rudekid48
    Sure I've mentioned this story before, but I was involved in an accident when I was 18ish.

    Woman in front, very old, shouldn't have been driving in my opinion, pulls out of her daughters house (despite traffic approaching) which was located on a 60 stretch of the A34 near Stafford, starts to speed up, probably gets to about 30-40, only to then stamp on the brakes thinking she had seen her daughters dog in the rear view mirror escape from the house. 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. Unfortunately the female behind shunts me at a seriously high speed (must have been somewhere between 30-50mph). Cars written off, ambulances involved, all that !!!!.

    I openly stated to the insurance company that the person to blame was actually the woman in front. She had no legitimate reason to stop and it was a dual carriageway where you should only stop to really turn into one of the houses and her initial manoeuvre was dangerous in the first place.

    No dice, it was the woman behind fault and it was her who felt the damage from it.
    Originally posted by Stoke
    This is where there is a disconnect between what insurers can do and what people think that they can do. "Fault" in insurance world is not the same as blame but is regularly seen as a moral judgment by parties held at "fault".

    In your incident, yes the woman in front contributed to the cause of the accident but it would be virtually impossible to prove negligence. The fact that you were anticipating a problem and were therefore able to stop in time should be the basis of your thinking. The same did not apply to the woman behind as she could not stop and so hit you. Of the 3 drivers there is only one that can be proven negligent.

    The insurer could not pursue the woman in front as she was not directly involved in the claim and they would have to be able to prove that she was negligent to a court. This would be virtually impossible.

    So the person behind was both to blame (for not being able to stop as you did) for the collision and at "fault" for the costs of the claim.
    All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.
    • Colin_Maybe
    • By Colin_Maybe 11th Aug 18, 9:53 AM
    • 2,481 Posts
    • 1,210 Thanks
    Colin_Maybe
    Of the 3 drivers there is only one that can be proven negligent.
    Originally posted by rudekid48
    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.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 11th Aug 18, 12:19 PM
    • 5,206 Posts
    • 3,149 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    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.
    Originally posted by Colin_Maybe

    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.
    • glentoran99
    • By glentoran99 11th Aug 18, 1:04 PM
    • 5,472 Posts
    • 4,652 Thanks
    glentoran99
    I wonder if insurers don't work together to screw motorists in cases like this...


    Isn't it in o/p's insurers interests for her to be found partly at fault? Then they can bump up her premium next year. In view of that, how hard are they likely to work to establish that she wasn't at fault?
    Originally posted by jk0


    if she is found at fault then they have to pay, how would that be smart? even if they bump up the premium the payback for that is several years
    • ChrisK.....
    • By ChrisK..... 11th Aug 18, 1:21 PM
    • 155 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    ChrisK.....
    Ombusman Shmombudsman

    Most insurance companies (like many large companies) act outside the law (defined by: if they were taken to court they KNOW they would lose)

    1/ Often Find the wrong person liable/responsible because they simply cant be bothered to find out who is at fault - the net result being innocent parties premiums and no claims forfeit

    2/ Dont offer price/ that would make the defendant (whole/as they were before the accident))

    3/ Offer a secondary repair work to favoured again not making the defendant whole

    4
    -
    50/ Any scheming scam that they can use to wriggle out of their legal obligations

    In alllllllllllll cases bar none, should these cases come before a judge they would lose, they KNOW they are acting illegally but they also KNOW they will not be challenged in court, in front of a judge

    No company is beyond the law, would like to know what you mean by this, the ombudsman is there to deal with any malpractice.
    Originally posted by Enterprise 1701C
    • rudekid48
    • By rudekid48 11th Aug 18, 1:47 PM
    • 2,093 Posts
    • 3,574 Thanks
    rudekid48
    Ombusman Shmombudsman

    Most insurance companies (like many large companies) act outside the law (defined by: if they were taken to court they KNOW they would lose)

    1/ Often Find the wrong person liable/responsible because they simply cant be bothered to find out who is at fault - the net result being innocent parties premiums and no claims forfeit

    2/ Dont offer price/ that would make the defendant (whole/as they were before the accident))

    3/ Offer a secondary repair work to favoured again not making the defendant whole

    4
    -
    50/ Any scheming scam that they can use to wriggle out of their legal obligations

    In alllllllllllll cases bar none, should these cases come before a judge they would lose, they KNOW they are acting illegally but they also KNOW they will not be challenged in court, in front of a judge
    Originally posted by ChrisK.....
    Claims go to court everyday to decide liability. If you believe that every decision made by an insurer is "illegal" then you need to specify which law is being broken, otherwise your post is just irrelevant noise.
    All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 11th Aug 18, 6:47 PM
    • 19,827 Posts
    • 211,761 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    I suspect someone may have had an insurance claim rejected
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • jk0
    • By jk0 11th Aug 18, 7:25 PM
    • 2,427 Posts
    • 25,361 Thanks
    jk0
    if she is found at fault then they have to pay, how would that be smart? even if they bump up the premium the payback for that is several years
    Originally posted by glentoran99

    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.
    • boliston
    • By boliston 11th Aug 18, 8:15 PM
    • 2,701 Posts
    • 2,252 Thanks
    boliston
    i think insurance companies favour 'defensive' drivers in the way that although a rear end shunt in normally 100% the fault of the car that does the shunting due to driving too close or not paying attention there is also the aspect of people who do not drive 'defensively' such as not slowing down if being tailgated - i always bring my speed right down if someone is on my tail to reduce the risk of a shunt
    • facade
    • By facade 11th Aug 18, 9:50 PM
    • 3,302 Posts
    • 1,747 Thanks
    facade
    although a rear end shunt in normally 100% the fault of the car that does the shunting due to driving too close or not paying attention there is also the aspect of people who do not drive 'defensively' such as not slowing down if being tailgated - i always bring my speed right down if someone is on my tail to reduce the risk of a shunt
    Originally posted by boliston

    So if the driver behind is not paying attention, and is too close, how does slowing down help you not end up with a car that is somewhat shorter than before you slowed down?
    I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....

    (except air quality and Medical Science )
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 11th Aug 18, 11:41 PM
    • 12,624 Posts
    • 9,934 Thanks
    unholyangel
    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.
    Originally posted by jk0
    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.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • Stageshoot
    • By Stageshoot 12th Aug 18, 10:14 AM
    • 556 Posts
    • 595 Thanks
    Stageshoot
    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.
    90k miles of Electric Motoring and rising,
    • boliston
    • By boliston 12th Aug 18, 10:56 AM
    • 2,701 Posts
    • 2,252 Thanks
    boliston
    So if the driver behind is not paying attention, and is too close, how does slowing down help you not end up with a car that is somewhat shorter than before you slowed down?
    Originally posted by facade
    I mean gradually loose speed rather than 'brake test' them
    • C_Mababejive
    • By C_Mababejive 12th Aug 18, 11:24 AM
    • 10,538 Posts
    • 9,473 Thanks
    C_Mababejive
    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..
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 12th Aug 18, 12:05 PM
    • 3,184 Posts
    • 1,983 Thanks
    Car 54
    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.
    Originally posted by C_Mababejive
    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.
    • C_Mababejive
    • By C_Mababejive 12th Aug 18, 11:02 PM
    • 10,538 Posts
    • 9,473 Thanks
    C_Mababejive
    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.
    Originally posted by Car 54
    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..
    • Colin_Maybe
    • By Colin_Maybe 13th Aug 18, 9:14 AM
    • 2,481 Posts
    • 1,210 Thanks
    Colin_Maybe
    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.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    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?
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 13th Aug 18, 10:27 AM
    • 5,206 Posts
    • 3,149 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    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?
    Originally posted by Colin_Maybe
    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 license
    • Colin_Maybe
    • By Colin_Maybe 13th Aug 18, 12:04 PM
    • 2,481 Posts
    • 1,210 Thanks
    Colin_Maybe
    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.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    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?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

18Posts Today

4,623Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin