Just got the following email from a friend, and I have a few questions
-- Start --
P was driving in outside lane of m40 doing about 85 mph in my car when a guy in the slow lane pulled into the middle lane without warning.
A 4x4 then swerved into side of us forcing P nearly into central
reservation
Lost control of car and went into a spin was terrifying thought we wd b hit by oncoming traffic
P managed to pump breaks and car came to halt without turning over across slow lane facing central reservation
It stalled and cdnt start engine which was awful as lorries having to swerve to avoid us
P was amazingly calm ... I was shaking, crying etc
We r so lucky to b alive today
-- and here is what her bf emailed her --
its a beautiful day to be alive !!
You must say I was driving I think the claim has to be dealt with by your insurance co Im fully comprehensively insured but that means I only get 3rd party fire and theft cover when driving another car
TW (driver of 4x4) rang last night. Wants insurance details
embrace the day xx
-- end --
So does my friend, who was a passenger in her own car, have to make the claim, or does her boyfriend, the driver, have to make the claim. I have told her that I think both must inform their own insurance companies.
No comments about the speed they were travelling at please. Haven\'t a clue why P had to pump the brakes given the car has ABS. Perhaps his own doesn\'t. You wouldn\'t believe from her grammar (I cut and pasted) that she is an author!
Apologies if the codes I have used to make the text bold are wrong!!
|
Apologies if the codes I have used to make the text bold are wrong!!
They were, but I've sorted them.
You needed to put < and > at either end, not [ and ].
DD
|
|
|
No comments about the speed they were travelling at please.
pdc, as you appear to have identified, it is the obvious thing to comment on
|
pdc.
Really busy, I'll reply tonight if I can.
M.
|
|
|
pdc, as you appear to have identified, it is the obvious thing to comment on
well not really no. I dont see that the speed had any bearing in this accident as their car was forced into the central reservation by a side on side collision. Would have been same outcome at 70, or 60 or 50mph. Granted, the risk of injury, or even death was higher than it was, but thankfully no one was hurt.
I was wanting an answer to a question without any judgement as to the circumstances surrounding the accident.
|
|
I think you are right - both should inform their insurance companies.
|
|
|
|
|
Can't see how it makes much difference whether this happens at 70 or 85. Blaming it on speed instead of carp driving by the person in the slow lane is just laxy and self-righteous.
|
"Can't see how it makes much difference whether this happens at 70 or 85. Blaming it on speed instead of carp driving by the person in the slow lane is just laxy and self-righteous."
And to say it had nothing to do with speed would be just as bad.
Doing 70 instead of 85 would have given the drivers of all vehicles involved more time to see what was going on and react accordingly. Perhaps the driver of the 4X4 would have seen the approaching car on his outside. Perhaps the driver of the ABS-equipped car would have had more time to react in a controlled manner and avoid the 4x4. And if they hadn't been doing 85 they wouldn't have been at that point in the road.....
The chances of a mistake resulting in an accident, casualties and possibly death are increased by higher speeds.
|
At the risk of it appearing that I am defending my friends boyfriend, which I am not, whether the vehicles were doing 20 mph, 50mph, 70mph, 85mph of 100mph, it was the fact that they were all side by side when driver in lane 1 failed to check over his shoulder and into his blind spot before pulling out into the vehicle in lane 2.
the accident did not happen because of the speeds involved. the only bearing that speed could have had in this incident was the severity of the outcome. it was not the cause.
|
|
|
|
|
It is unlikely that either her insurance company or his will want anything to do with this.
Hsi because the cover is TPO and hers because the person driving was not insured by them.
Firstly they should both inform their insurers. Its a little difficult to know who will or will not pay out, but they both need to know.
He may well have the DOC extension on his own policy, but for that to be used it is important that he was not insured by her policy. If he was, then as the primary insurance that would take precedence. However, from your note, I assume that he was not covered by her policy
Assuming that they were not at fault, and are not held at fault, then he should mark his claim form for information only or at least otherwise get across the fact that there will be no claim and his bonus should not be disallowed or suspended pending.
He should at this time make it clear that the accident was not his fault and at such time as she makes a full recovery he should use whatever letters/cheques are received as proof to his insurer that it was non-fault and a full recover made - this might sound OTT, but its better to be safe.
As for her, then she is not in a great position. She should advice her own insurance company, but they're not going to actually do anything - given that she was not driving, and the person who was driving was not insured under her policy. If her car was not damaged, then she's lucky. If the other car hit her, then she has a battle to fight.
Consequently, if she is to get her car repaired it will need to be at someone else's expense.
Is it likely to be deemed her fault ? Difficult to see how, but if the 4x4 driver claimed her car hit him it would be awkward and perhaps difficult to prove different.
What is the attitude of the 4x4 driver - is he admitting it was his fault ? Was he physically hit by the offending vehicle ? Did the cause of the accident actually stop and give his details ? Rather difficult to prove without vehicle damage to his vehicle unless there were independent witnesses.
If he is not traceable or denies involvement and there are no witnesses, then its going to get *really* difficult since the only person likely to pay for the damage to her car other than herself, is the driver of the 4x4. Firstly whether or not he hit her he may or may not have been at fault. If he was hit by the other vehicle then he is not likely to be deemed at fault. If he was not hit by the other vehicle but did swereve to avoid it but the original driver doesn't admit this, its goign to get very difficult.
In summary;
If the driver of the first vehicle actually hit the second vehicle and admits it, then that's good.
If the driver of the 4x4 admits that he was knocked by the other car into her car, then that's good.
If there are witnesses confirming it, then that's better.
If one of those things is not true, she may have a problem.
Whichever, neither of them will be claiming and they are going to have to get the money from someone else's insurance company, but damage to her car was not insured. Maybe she or he has an applicable uninsured loss recovery service ?
|
Thanks Mark. I asked the question because I have heard of people having bad experiences with insurance claims and just wanted to advise emma. her boyfriends insurance company have provided a courtesy car to her, and so far the 4x4 driver is admitting he hit them.
The police were called to the scene, so I presume that witness statements were taken, measurements made etc.
|
|
|
|
|
I would inform both insurance companies ,worth checking if the owners insurance has legal assistance included as this possibly would be the way to go,speed would be a big factor in any claim if it is recorded,at least they can tell the tale,tin you can buy again
|
|
The driver of the car had the accident and that is where the claim should go if they were TPO then its going to be expensive unless the other party admit liability or you can prove they swerved into you. To some extent the damage will support that but equally the other party may say you swerved into them. I carry a disposable camera (replaced once a year) and a dictorphone. How useful is that. Particularly the dictaphone as you soon learn to say nothing. Just exchange details, talk to witnesses etc. etc. And before you jump in and say it is not submitable as evidence. It IS, this is not a criminal case scenario and even then it is used as supporting evidence. Now P I would not mention the speed of the drivers. What if the other party or the insurance company read thsi thread. Not Good Is It !! Pegards Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Given that the car in lane 1 hit the 4x4 in lane 2, which hit my friend in lane 3, would the driver in lane 1 ultimately be responsible for the damage to my friends car, or would it be the vehicle in lane 2 which actually hit her. I mean, it's a bit unfair on the guy in lane 2 when he was forced over isn't it?
|
|
I missed the car in lane 1. Yes it is his fault and his insurance company that will utimately pay if justice is served. Its the same as a tale end shunt. Peter
|
If only it were so simple. Perhaps it will be in this case, but never jump to fast to conclusions. People remember things quite differently, even the honest ones.
And for two quick examples of how arguments could arise;
...was car 2 already level when car 1 started moving out, or did he move into a space he wouldn't have been in if going slower. Ditto cars 2 & 3.
..if one of the cars was going very fast, was he, at least partially, at fault and contributed to the accident ?
what happens if car 1 says "I had to move out of the way and it would have been quite safe but car 2 tried to squeeze past me which was a stupid manouver" ? Ditto car 2 & 3.
|
If only it were so simple .. ...what happens if car 1 says "I had to move out of the way and it would have been quite safe but car 2 tried to squeeze past me which was a stupid manouver" ? Ditto car 2 & 3.
agreed.
if car 3 in the fast lane had not been doing 85mph, it would have been further behind out of harms way! ;-)
|
if car 3 in the fast lane had not been doing 85mph, it would have been further behind out of harms way! ;-)
or, of course, it should have been driven at 90 mph to be well ahead out of the way of the accident.
|
|
|
if car 3 in the fast lane had not been doing 85mph, it would have been further behind out of harms way! ;-)
if the car in lane 1 hadn't been there in the first place none of this would have happened!
if my friend had left home 10 seconds later none of this would have happened.
if my friend had not wanted to read the sunday papers on the journey and had driven instead of her boyfriend, they may well have been dead, as she wouldn't have been able to handle to vehicle by her own admission.
the fact is, speed was not a contributing factor.
thanks to the couple of people who have offered good, non-judmental advice in this thread, and a light hearted grow up to the rest of you.
|
;-)
;-) pdc: did you not spot the ;-) at the end of my comment ?
|
|
yes, and i presumed that you were backing me up with that comment. thanks.
|
|
|
|
Must be nice to be in the comfortable position of believing everyone who agrees with you is constructive, and anyone who doesn't has to grow up. - don't think I have much growing up left to do, actually!
For your information, earlier in this thread I did not say speed had been the cause the accident - merely that it may have made it's avoidance more difficult, and it's potential potential consequences more serious.
|
Enough sniping please. There was reference to a \"lighhearted grow-up\" so I hardly think we need to get into the \"for your information\" and \"Well actually\" responses.
Remember, in Cyber Space, nobody can read your body language, far less a wry grin.
Now shake hands......
No Dosh
Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
|
|
|
the fact is, speed was not a contributing factor.
pdc, with all due respect, that's not a fact: it's a judgement. Some folks may agree with that judgement, but others may differ.
Several people have offered a perfectly reasonable explanation of how speed could have been a factor. But to my mind, it mostly comes down to a matter of speed differentials.
Your friend in the outside lane was travelling at 85, which is about 20mph more than the usual speed for traffic in the inside lane. That makes lane-changing a very difft proposition than it would be if all the lanes were at the same speed.
(The speed differential problem is a well-lnown safety issue: it's one the major reasons why road safety experts oppose raising the motorway speed limit)
Whatever a court might conclude about the precise cause of this accident, some of the attitudes are a bit worrying.
The outside lane driver will brook no complaint about driving at a dangerous and illegal speed, but sounds a bit indignant about another driver performing a dangerous and illegal maneouvre. Pot kettle black?
|
pdc, just to double check, your friend's bf definitely wasn't on your friend's insurance as a named driver?
As if they were, and your friend was fully comp herself, the bf would also be, and then (i believe) it would be her insurance dealing with it on a fully comp assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
