First thing first, no one in family is injured!
I was pulling out [turning right] from a side road to main road (small country road), I've already crossed the central line on main road, suddenly all I saw a car + towing caravan appeared from nowhere on my left side and I heard BOOM.
I thought my car's [Suzuki Ignis 06] entire front was destroyed - came out of it and found that only bumper was damaged [kerb side front part], scraped and there were few holes.
Then checked 3rd party's caravan appeared to be slight dent on a side panel, a sort of wire (or similar) from caravan side scraped my car's bumper.
We exchanged details, as I was emerging from side road, I think most likely it will be considered as my fault :(
However, the 3rd party tried to bully me by saying that I need to accept liability at the scene (he claimed he got a witness as well). I said I'm not going to argue and it would be our insurers to decide who is at fault. Surprisingly he told me that our insurers might decide knock for knock basis and then he would be at out of pocket.
I again said I was not going to accept liability. He then threatened to call the police. I said fine, call police. He did call the police. We both waited 10 minutes but police didn't arrive. 3rd party then drove away!! But I waited at the scene and after few more minutes police did come. The PC just asked my details and told me to drive off.
3rd party's insurer was National Farmers' Union [if it helps].
My question is: why he was after me to make me admit it was my fault?
I've already spoken with my insurer [comprehensive] and they say usually in the matter person pulling out is at fault BUT as I already crossed the central line on main road and it involved a caravan it might end up 50-50 fault share.
Any thought?
|
|
Was there a witness?
|
As I said the 3rd party said that his wife (who was on his car) managed to take a contact number from a witness (I didn't see as I was dealing with other details)
|
This mystery witness bit sounds flaky and if the other driver felt he had a strong case against you why did he clear off before Plod arrived?
On what you've said here it looks like months of insurance companies writing to each other before they agree its 50/50.
The behaviour of the other driver is odd and I would suggest that it wouldn't hurt you to write a note of your version of events as soon as possible and if you have a solicitor post it to him as soon as and certainly before you hear from the other side. I think your other party will be getting a no win,no fee lawyer on the case.
|
|
|
|
Painful to hear it but you are indeed at fault. Frankly you are lucky it was not serious, a due care summons could have been headed you way.
Non injury collisions, no requirement for Police involvement provided all details are exchanged, hence the PCs lack of interest.
If you admit fault early on it saves times and speeds the claim/repair/admin process for all concerned.
If it was the Ignis Sport then the SISOC boy racers will be breaking your car for bits after it has been written off. They're not the best built cars and the whole process may put you in something safer for the future.
|
That's a very confident analysis from what has been posted.
What if the caravan tower had been driving too fast and been unable to brake in time?
The other driver's behaviour appears inconsistent with being the 100% innocent victim of the OP's actions.
|
I'm afraid that I'd have to go with "coming out of side road vehicle is at fault" (without further information)
I've been in the situation where a car has pulled out in front of me and the oft-quoted phrase "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" was used.The fact that you didn't see the vehicle until it was upon you, doesn't mean that it wasn't there. It is a common factor in many junction accidents.
If the other party has convinced themselves that they are blameless, then they will be upset at having to pay any excess on their policy to get their vehicle repaired, so expect nasty letters from a "legal cover" outfit - pass them straight onto your insurer.
Thankfully no one hurt. Sadly it is getting more common for road rage to take over in these circumstances.
|
|
|
The OP is fully aware that they are at fault, they just can't yet bring themself to admit the mistake.
They are some way with the comment ' I think most likely it will be considered as my fault :( '.
Had they not have pulled out into the path of an oncoming vehicle there would have been no collision.
|
I have been in the position where the car I was in as a passenger pulled out of a side entrance with the road clear and it was only by flooring it to escape a car that had come screaming round the corner as we pulled out that we avoided a collision.
I seem to recall that driver doing his level best to blame us for his reckless driving.
Neither of us know the full facts, so being certain about them is not really an option.
|
|
|
|
|
If it was the Ignis Sport then the SISOC boy racers will be breaking your car for bits after it has been written off. They're not the best built cars and the whole process may put you in something safer for the future.
Don't see anything in the OP to suggest that the '06' plate car sustained significant damage. Sounds like it was restricted to front bumper. Police gave him the OK to drive away, so it's unlikely to have sustained damage that will lead to it being written off as a total loss.
|
movilogo,
You did right to just exchange details and not discuss liability. This is exactly what your insurer would want you to do. Leave it to them to sort it all out ~ it's what you pay them for.
|
Maybe he bullied you into an admission of fault because his Insurance was dicky despite him saying with NFU. Did you see his Certificate?
Feed his Reg No into: www.askmid.com/
and see if it comes up with anything.
dvd
|
|
|
Thanks for your comments. I am fully aware that *usually* it is driver who pulled out of side road is at fault.
But every accident should be judged on a case by case basis.
As soon as I saw the car+caravan was coming I braked [my car was under 3-4 mph].
But the fact that his caravan was wider than his car could make all the difference. That's the reason why his car passed without collision. However, since the caravan was slightly wider [at least what I saw visually] it collided with my car's bumper!
So, I could argue that I was actually stationary at the point of impact and his caravan actually hit me! My insurer had already marked the incident as disputed.
The only damage in my car [not Ignis sport model] is front bumper [though I am not an expert to judge damage] but I've driven the car over 100 miles after the accident and didn't observe anything unusual. In fact when I heard the bang, I thought my car will be a write off, but after I came out and see the damage, I was amazed to find that my little car has taken all the force in its bumper only. However, I'll get it inspected by a professional soon to check if any internal damage has occurred.
When the 3rd party called the police I did ask him why he called them as it was not a major accident. He replied that he had to do it since I was not accepting liability. In fact he was looking forward to me writing down that it was my fault! He thought that I might be bullied into accepting liability to avoid an encounter with police but I sticked to my point that its our insurers to decide who is at fault. At that point 3rd party left the scene.
|
movilogo,
on the facts given i can't see it any other way as being your fault i.e. you've pulled out of a side turning and been hit by a car and caravan motoing on the main road
if you were talking about excessive speed e.g. motorcyclist doing warp factor 5, then maybe there'd be a degree of mitigation, albeit you are still expected to take care pulling out of a side turning....but in reality how fast could a car/caravan combination go... much more than about 70mph and the thing would be wobbling around all over the place
I agree that the other driver's behaviour is a tad suspect and 'No Insurance' springs to mind, which if it is the case might help you in some respects, but not others..because you still need your car repaired...but even so IMO does not negate your liability...:-)
|
|
|
My insurer for the landrover is NFU Mutual. Good cover, includes a lot of things others don't, and a nice price. No strange requirements if you have a bump.
Something is very odd here. The suggestion of writing absolutely everything down is a very good one, as is, putting everything in the hands of the insurers (see below).
In complete and utter guess mode, the car might be well insured, but the caravan a bit lacking. A standard car policy covers you for third party risks towing a trailer/caravan but not the item itself. I know nothing of caravan policies, but that had lapsed perhaps?
Get a receipt for the car check, find out how much to repair as a private job. Since alarm bells have rung, keep as many options as possible open at this time. I see no harm in saying to your company the whole thing seems odd, and you wonder if the 3rd parties assets were fully insured. No more should be said, they'll know what you mean and if appropriate, take it from there.
|
Answering your question, I suspect your man might not have been properly insured. I can't think of any other reason for his strange behaviour.
Sadly, his lack of insurance should not assist you re liability in any dispute between you (although the police *might* be interested - and if he's going to make a claim then he'll have to admit he was using the vehicle on that day - though no doubt any proceedings will begin more than 6 months hence).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that as long as he was not breaking the law etc. then I think it is quite unreasonable to suggest it is anything other than your fault. His behaviour was odd and does suggest that there may be more to this but that is not within your sphere of influence. I think that most of the time the two parties should not get into too much of a discussion beyond checking for injuries and swapping details. I would just inform my insurance company and let them sort it out (as you appear to have done). Remember though that insurance companies do not care a jot who was at fault, they just care what can be proved and hence what they do and do not have to pay out.
Funnily enough just last friday I was coming down a road and indicated right, then as I turned into the road a car waiting to turn right out of the junction started moving and almost hit the side of my car, he obviously had seen my car but not my indicator (or me slowing) so had synchronised pulling out with my car passing at 30mph. He braked hard and avoided the collision but his face twisted in rage and he started mouthing abuse at me. It is just another example of "looking without seeing" followed by finger pointing. He probably felt that I hadn't indicated because he didn't see me do so and that I was "at fault" and hence worthy of some verbal abuse. You are obviously a far more reasonable person than that but I would advise you to chalk it down to a mistake that you got off from very lightly, learn from it and move on.
It is most likely that he tried to get you to admit liability because he was afraid of losing his excess and having a hiked premium if it went 50:50 or worse. Unfortunately I guess the cost of motoring is so high now that there is enough at stake for people to behave like that, although it could have been worse I guess.
|
Looking without seeing.
I have personal experience of that quite recently. I was on my hands free cellphone at the time and proved a very important lesson to me. I'll tell you more once I've put sufficient distance between it mentally. My fault totally.
|
|
me too, last monday I was on my bluetooth hands free and didn't register the van in front was braking for at least a second even though I was looking right at it. I made a resolution that I'll never use my phone while driving again because I realised it's not holding the handset to my ear that causes the problem, it's concentrating on the call. Men can't do two things at once apparently so this is probably the issue, maybe women should be allowed to use handsfree kits but for men it should be banned altogether :-)
|
|
I would heartily welcome a total ban on in car phone use. My phone rings upwards of 30 times a day and as I am usually in the car that is where it gets answered. I am currently using a "Jawbone" noise cancelling headset ( as recommended to me by a forum member ) It is very very good but I also admit that I am not 100% concentrating on driving while I am on the phone. In our 21st century world it seems that it is no longer acceptable to be out of touch for more than a few minutes and I regularly get clients calling me to obtain fairly complex info. When I explain that I am in the car and could they please e-mail their enquiry it is amazing how impatiently and reluctantly that request is received. The commercial danger is that if I do not provide the service they require.....instantly...... that they take their business elsewhere. If a total ban on phoning while driving were to be imposed at least it would level the playing field re my competitors and have the added benefit of improving road safety. Frankly if I could dis-invent incoming mobile calls and incoming E-mail I would! ......... well.......... to my phone / computer anyway ;-) And no, I dare not turn it off before you ask!
|
There are two types of phone call - one requires a higher level of concentration, I think its knowing which ones to bin. My life is easier since my office voice mails (my mobile now diverts to this as well) are now e-mailed to me with as an attachment, I can pick these up from a Blackberry, so my "out of contact" time is greatly reduced, even if I don't take the original call. I never make calls when driving.
Sorry I've hijacked the thread - back on topic if you want. :-(
Edited by Pugugly on 09/03/2008 at 14:55
|
>>I think that as long as he was not breaking the law etc. then I think it is quite
>>unreasonable to suggest it is anything other than your fault.
I don't think we have enough evidence to be CERTAIN of OP's fault.
Even were we to, on what basis does OP's fault status change, dependant on the third party's insured status.
Two wrongs don't make a right; the guilty party remains guilty.
|
>>appearing from nowhere
What visibility on the left?
|
|
|
|
For information in case anyone is interested, ordinary mortals can have the same service for free or near as makes no difference. I have a VOIP business phone number (with a geographic prefix) with a company called Sipgate and I have my mobile phone divert to that number; a voicemail is subsequently emailed to me as an attachment and I receive a text to say it has been recorded. I can dial in to hear the message if necessary.
I have no connection with this company other than as a happy customer for the last three years.
www.sipgate.co.uk I guess other VOIP services have a similar feature.
|
|
We paid a shedful of money for our system....Hardware alone, Cisco phones about £600.00 ea apparently.
|
|
Indeed. I was doing an interview for a book I was finishing about six months ago with a couple of very successful businessmen and afterwards we were chatting about this subject. They too had just spent a fortune on a similar system and were amazed that scruffy types like me could enjoy the same service. I guess it costs money to make it scale though.
|
All our new sites have Cisco VOIP phones... some of the bigger offices will have hundreds of phones in each building (and three buildings for my nearest)! But costs are reduced by using VOIP.
Now I know of colleagues going VOIP at home too... not gone that far yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
