Rear Ended - Liability now being contested!

[DoubleSix]

Bit of advice with the following scenario if you please;

Two lanes of traffic flowing in the same direction towards a set of traffic lights. On approach I changed lanes to put myself at the front for an easy 'off' from the lights. The guy who is now behind me obviously didn't like this (despite my leaving masses of room and not cutting in aggressively) and proceeds to flash lights, give it the coffee beans and generally rant away at the wheel.

This continues as the lights go green so I pull away gently whilst Mr Shouty continues flashing and hanging two inches off my rear bumper. I continue to accelerate but we're still only going 10 mph tops at this stage. Now given this is a gyratory with traffic all flowing in the same direction I now have a pavement on my right and a lane of traffic on my left also moving away from the lights, so whilst I might normally just move over and let the prat go about his business I don't have that option here.

This is where it gets weird. Mr Shouty moves as if to go round me on the drivers side between me and the pavement. I instinctively brake as had he completed the move things would have got rather cramped to say the least. Mr Shouty hits me in the rear at no more than 5-10 Mph leaving very minor scuffs on both cars.

So, he gets out all apologetic and explains he's had a bad day at work blah blah blah... we swap details etc. Now as I'm about to return to my vehicle a cyclist comes over and says "I saw what happened there..." so I'm thinking great a witness to the aggressive driving but he turns to the bloke who's just driven in to me and says "I'm happy to back up the fact that he stopped for no reason" - my jaw was on the floor at this point and I could easily of lost my temper so chose to take a deep breath and leave it to the insurers. Shouty Man is grinning and can't believe his luck.

Now my insurers have written to me saying liability is being contested and asking me to do a written description of events and diagram. I've not been involved in anything but a simple non fault in the past so am unsure how to respond. Do I lay out all the above in detail or do I keep it really simple and just state "I felt intimidated and stopped to allow him to pass". Am I going to be totally screwed due to the witness wrongly calling the situation?

For the benefit of the inevitible question: no I didn't brake test him & no I am not claiming for imaginary whiplash, he had ample time to stop but was pumped up and not paying attention. I have a photo of his passenger side front in contact with my drivers side rear which supports the fact that he was about to drive around the wrong side of me.

How best to proceed?

Thanks in advance.

Edited by DoubleSix on Thursday 5th December 08:59

[scdan4]

It does sound like you brake tested him.

Sorry.

[surveyor]

Tell it as it happened. What else can you do

[t1grm]

I wouldn't mention all the business about changing lane, flashing of lights, tail gating in the lead up to the incident. Just focus on the actual incident itself. You were driving along, saw someone try an dangerous overtaking move, decided there wasn't space for both cars so you stopped to give him space and avoid an accident. He then hit you from behind. Those are the only salient facts.

[speedking31]

Is there a solid line to your right which he has crossed? Might help your case.

He should still be able to stop even if you did brake test him (not implying you did). What if a pedestrian had run across the road and you had to brake heavily. I wouldn't give any more detail than absolutely necessary. "Moved off from lights up to 10mph, unsure which way to go so accelerating slower than usual, car behind ran into me."

[supertouring]

>he stopped for no reason

So not having a reason to stop allows everyone to drive into you?

[t1grm]

scdan4 said:

It does sound like you brake tested him.

Sorry.

Doesn't justify the other guy hitting him though. You are supposed to leave enough distance to stop regardless of the circumstances.

[Steve Benson]

Why would you instinctively brake when someone was trying to overtake you?

I can't imagine a scenario where you would other than letting someone in who had mistimed an overtake and was heading for a head on collision.

[DoubleSix]

speedking31 said:

Is there a solid line to your right which he has crossed? Might help your case.

He should still be able to stop even if you did brake test him (not implying you did). What if a pedestrian had run across the road and you had to brake heavily. I wouldn't give any more detail than absolutely necessary. "Moved off from lights up to 10mph, unsure which way to go so accelerating slower than usual, car behind ran into me."

There's no solid line, just parking bays and then pavement. In theory he could of raced up through the parking bays but that would have been nuts in rush hour traffic. Thanks for the advice.

[DoubleSix]

Steve Benson said:

Why would you instinctively brake when someone was trying to overtake you?

I can't imagine a scenario where you would other than letting someone in who had mistimed an overtake and was heading for a head on collision.

It's difficult to explain but in two lanes of traffic he would of left me no where to go if he had got along side me. It's could have got very uncomfortable.

[oldnewbie]

I imagine what you really did was to take your foot of the accelerator, that is when the collision occurred, naturally you then stopped "after" the impact. This would make the cyclists statement less relevant.
Even so as others have said following driver should have been able to stop regardless.

[DoubleSix]

oldnewbie said:

I imagine what you really did was to take your foot of the accelerator, that is when the collision occurred, naturally you then stopped "after" the impact. This would make the cyclists statement less relevant.
Even so as others have said following driver should have been able to stop regardless.

Indeed. But how important is the witness in this, I mean, can he just say what he thinks he saw and will that carry weight?

[scdan4]

t1grm said:

scdan4 said:

It does sound like you brake tested him.

Sorry.

Doesn't justify the other guy hitting him though. You are supposed to leave enough distance to stop regardless of the circumstances.

Agreed, but equally aren't you supposed to try and avoid conflict with all other road users if possible?

Takes it from being blameless to 50:50 and a protracted argument.

[Joeguard1990]

DoubleSix said:

oldnewbie said:

I imagine what you really did was to take your foot of the accelerator, that is when the collision occurred, naturally you then stopped "after" the impact. This would make the cyclists statement less relevant.
Even so as others have said following driver should have been able to stop regardless.

Indeed. But how important is the witness in this, I mean, can he just say what he thinks he saw and will that carry weight?

I would have thought, if anything, the witness' story would only help in your favour. Regardless of if you stopped for no reason, as long as you give one, he's already proven that it was the guy that hit you and not the other way around. As long as you state why you stopped or slowed down you should win the case.

[Devil2575]

supertouring said:

>he stopped for no reason

So not having a reason to stop allows everyone to drive into you?

This. He should have left enough space to allow him to stop. He didn't so the accident was his fault.

[DoubleSix]

t1grm said:

I wouldn't mention all the business about changing lane, flashing of lights, tail gating in the lead up to the incident. Just focus on the actual incident itself. You were driving along, saw someone try an dangerous overtaking move, decided there wasn't space for both cars so you stopped to give him space and avoid an accident. He then hit you from behind. Those are the only salient facts.

Cheers, this is the approach I will most likely take.

[9mm]

Devil2575 said:

supertouring said:

>he stopped for no reason

So not having a reason to stop allows everyone to drive into you?

This. He should have left enough space to allow him to stop. He didn't so the accident was his fault.

I agree and the OP didn't stop for no reason, just one neither the cyclist or rear ender knew about. In the conditions described, a sensible driver would be covering the brake and proceeding with extreme caution, anticipating having to stop suddenly in stop-start conditions.

[Aretnap]

Devil2575 said:

supertouring said:

>he stopped for no reason

So not having a reason to stop allows everyone to drive into you?

This. He should have left enough space to allow him to stop. He didn't so the accident was his fault.

Not necessarily - at least not entirely. In Ali v D'Brass (2011) a claimant who braked sharply for no good reason while being tailgated was found to be 40% liable for the ensuing accident. That sounds rather like a case of brake-testing, though those actual words don't appear in the reports.

[DoubleSix]

Is there a proper name for the type of road I have described? i.e. two lanes flowing in the same direction.

[thetrash]

It sounds to me like it's your fault(maybe not legally) for brake testing him. I don't believe you instinctively braked because it looked like he was was going to overtake In such a tight spot as part of his car was still behind yours.

On another forum somewhere is another driver moaning about some idiot who cut him up coming to a set of traffic lights, so he flashes them, who then precedes to pull away slowly, brake tests him and a collision happens.