advice needed re dispute with bus company
Discussion
Martin4x4 said:
vonhosen said:
How does that help his case?
Where else could it have been if the road width is less than double the width of the bus?
Doh. On his side of the road. QED.Where else could it have been if the road width is less than double the width of the bus?
If it couldn't possibly be anywhere else how does that help his claim?
What would you have it do?
Suddenly lose two feet of it's width?
You need to make a written "subject access request" to the controller of the bus companies cctv scheme. They are legally obliged to provide you with a copy of any footage you are on. They are entitled to ask for payment for the time and materials in burning off the footage. Last i checked the limit in what they could charge was under £20ish. If you get the footage it would be easier to tell who was at fault.
One point of devil's advocacy that might be worth mentioning.
At about 1am one morning in late 1990 I was travelling down a country lane (at reasonable speed I admit, but who the feck are you going to meet between Easton Grey and Norton at 1am on a Friday morning...)
Well I met somebody, probably going at the same speed and with the same mindset as me. We collided on the brow of a hill. I was thoroughly and completely and utterly convinced that he was at fault, and that I was as far over to the left as I possibly could have been.
I was insured third party only, but I was so convinced that he was to blame that I engaged an investigator privately. I was impressed with the bloke - I went out and looked at the scene with him, and he pointed out the bits of broken glass that were still there after a week or so and how they showed where the cars were and what their trajectories were at the time of the whack.
I was less than happy when he told me that the evidence pointed to me being in the wrong...
That cost 3 grand to rebuild the offside of a Rover P5B plus, IIRC, about £250 for the investigator.
The moral of this story is - just because you are thoroughly and completely and utterly convinced that the other party is to blame, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are. You can easily spend out a lot of money and make an expensive mistake even more expensive.
Think on
At about 1am one morning in late 1990 I was travelling down a country lane (at reasonable speed I admit, but who the feck are you going to meet between Easton Grey and Norton at 1am on a Friday morning...)
Well I met somebody, probably going at the same speed and with the same mindset as me. We collided on the brow of a hill. I was thoroughly and completely and utterly convinced that he was at fault, and that I was as far over to the left as I possibly could have been.
I was insured third party only, but I was so convinced that he was to blame that I engaged an investigator privately. I was impressed with the bloke - I went out and looked at the scene with him, and he pointed out the bits of broken glass that were still there after a week or so and how they showed where the cars were and what their trajectories were at the time of the whack.
I was less than happy when he told me that the evidence pointed to me being in the wrong...
That cost 3 grand to rebuild the offside of a Rover P5B plus, IIRC, about £250 for the investigator.
The moral of this story is - just because you are thoroughly and completely and utterly convinced that the other party is to blame, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are. You can easily spend out a lot of money and make an expensive mistake even more expensive.
Think on
I am really astounded that some of you think I would have driven knowingly into the bus if I had seen it before on my lane. Of couse before the bus hit me it didnt look like it was coming straight onto me but literally split seconds before the impact it did cross my mind gosh he's going to pass me a bit too close but not even had a chance to react as at that point impact has occurred.
I will try to request the footage again formally and will try to challange them again.
I will try to request the footage again formally and will try to challange them again.
s4tronic said:
I am really astounded that some of you think I would have driven knowingly into the bus if I had seen it before on my lane. Of couse before the bus hit me it didnt look like it was coming straight onto me but literally split seconds before the impact it did cross my mind gosh he's going to pass me a bit too close but not even had a chance to react as at that point impact has occurred.
I will try to request the footage again formally and will try to challange them again.
I don't think anybody is suggesting you had a collision on purpose, but the way you've written it sounds like you misjudged it (& he probably did too).I will try to request the footage again formally and will try to challange them again.
Parts of the road that I drive on to work every day have restrictions limiting access to vehicles no heavier than 7.5 tonne. There's good reason for this, the road is narrow and very winding and there isn't room for a large vehicle and car to pass each other safely, especially on the bends, but for some bizarre reason single and double decker buses are allowed to use the road. If you are unfortunate to meet one on a bend it's really tight as they have to cut the corner to get round, and even passing one on a NSL straight that's barely wide enough for two cars is buttock clenching stuff. I understand the principle that there isn't your side of the road and their side, but when a vehicle is so wide that it doesn't leave enough room for oncoming traffic to safely pass then it shouldn't be on that road, imo.
As an aside, there are loads of accidents on this particular road, almost always in the narrow, winding NSL sections and due to either lack of room or over exuberence on the bends, so where do the police choose to site their 'Safety Cameras'? In the few 30mph zones of course, where I've yet to see an accident in the 10 years I've been driving the route.
As an aside, there are loads of accidents on this particular road, almost always in the narrow, winding NSL sections and due to either lack of room or over exuberence on the bends, so where do the police choose to site their 'Safety Cameras'? In the few 30mph zones of course, where I've yet to see an accident in the 10 years I've been driving the route.
KFC said:
How do you work that out ? One of them was in their lane, one of them wasn't. Otherwise they couldn't have collided in the first place.
The same happened with me - woman driver coming the other way hit the side of my car. She'd strayed over the line, not by much but she was on my side. I managed to get her to admit it at the scene, and recorded her on my phone without telling her.
The insurance investigator they sent out was a bit of a dick about things and complained that she was "only just" over the line. They're paying out in full, 8k of damage
Quite simple, even if the bus was on/over the white line it doesnt mean the OP can carry on driving into it anyway, just because its on "his' side of the road. Narrow lane, yes it doesnt mean the either can just drive down the middle and play skittles but it does mean both need to slow and be prepared to stop, sounds like neither did. The same happened with me - woman driver coming the other way hit the side of my car. She'd strayed over the line, not by much but she was on my side. I managed to get her to admit it at the scene, and recorded her on my phone without telling her.
The insurance investigator they sent out was a bit of a dick about things and complained that she was "only just" over the line. They're paying out in full, 8k of damage
As far as your 'same incident' goes, I cant see all that much from your photo but it doesnt appear to be all that narrow and plenty of space for the woman to be on her side of the road? (may well be different but I cant see a huge amount) If someone had just driven into on coming traffic with no reason to then I would expect them to be found at fault.
Not slating the OP in the slightest, without seeing the incident myself it's be hard to say who was to blame more than the other, but from the black and white facts thats the way I think it would go. I'm sure someone with more experience (Loon?) could give a more informed view?
Sheepshanks said:
Our ex-Police defensive driving instructors told us there's no such thing as his / your side of the road - it's just a road.
How did they explain your obvious reply that you "thought" we drive on the left in this country and that "sometimes" there's a line in the middle of the road to assist us with that perception?CaptainMorgan said:
Quite simple, even if the bus was on/over the white line it doesnt mean the OP can carry on driving into it anyway, just because its on "his' side of the road. Narrow lane, yes it doesnt mean the either can just drive down the middle and play skittles but it does mean both need to slow and be prepared to stop, sounds like neither did.
As far as your 'same incident' goes, I cant see all that much from your photo but it doesnt appear to be all that narrow and plenty of space for the woman to be on her side of the road? (may well be different but I cant see a huge amount) If someone had just driven into on coming traffic with no reason to then I would expect them to be found at fault.
Not slating the OP in the slightest, without seeing the incident myself it's be hard to say who was to blame more than the other, but from the black and white facts thats the way I think it would go. I'm sure someone with more experience (Loon?) could give a more informed view?
But if it was like in the pic of my wrecked Lambo, if both parties keep moving then its clearly the fault of the one thats over the line surely ?As far as your 'same incident' goes, I cant see all that much from your photo but it doesnt appear to be all that narrow and plenty of space for the woman to be on her side of the road? (may well be different but I cant see a huge amount) If someone had just driven into on coming traffic with no reason to then I would expect them to be found at fault.
Not slating the OP in the slightest, without seeing the incident myself it's be hard to say who was to blame more than the other, but from the black and white facts thats the way I think it would go. I'm sure someone with more experience (Loon?) could give a more informed view?
CaptainMorgan said:
If someone had just driven into on coming traffic with no reason to then I would expect them to be found at fault.
Thats the jist of it really. If he drove into me, what chances I have of them accepting responsibility without witnesses and with driver of the bus lying in his report? That was the question I asked.s4tronic said:
CaptainMorgan said:
If someone had just driven into on coming traffic with no reason to then I would expect them to be found at fault.
Thats the jist of it really. If he drove into me, what chances I have of them accepting responsibility without witnesses and with driver of the bus lying in his report? That was the question I asked.Stop?
Go off road?
Just keep driving at him?
vonhosen said:
But what did you do whilst someone was driving at you (is the question you'll be asked)?
Stop?
Go off road?
Just keep driving at him?
what a stupid question that is - If I had time to react from the moment I realised he was going to hit me I would have swerved to the left, possibly mounting pavement at that time and damaging rim/suspension in the process. Don't want to think if there would be people on the pavement.Stop?
Go off road?
Just keep driving at him?
I didn't have time because it happened so quickly, it was 7.30 so still quite dark. He made a mistake and didn't leave me space.
IF I was stationary it would of course be his fault, case closed, so how the fact that I was moving as well make it any less his fault that he drove into me? If you apply this logic, if you t bone someone at the junction its 50/50 because he was moving as well?
So what we are saying here is that it doesn't matter if the bus is too big for the road, it can do what it want. Lines on the road don't matter, and the bus can go down roads other similar large vehicles are banned from using, and are free to damage property because it is a bus? Oh and not forgetting that there are no sides, it's just a road?
Have we all become a bus loving forum? Seems to me that if a car were to hit you, while intruding into your lane, it would be at fault.,so why not a bus?
Have we all become a bus loving forum? Seems to me that if a car were to hit you, while intruding into your lane, it would be at fault.,so why not a bus?
HertsBiker said:
So what we are saying here is that it doesn't matter if the bus is too big for the road, it can do what it want. Lines on the road don't matter, and the bus can go down roads other similar large vehicles are banned from using, and are free to damage property because it is a bus? Oh and not forgetting that there are no sides, it's just a road?
What is your basis for saying that other large vehicles are not allowed to use the road in question? Are you suggesting that the bus was in breach of a legal width restriction, and that an HGV, bin truck etc is not permitted to use that road?
s4tronic said:
I am really astounded that some of you think I would have driven knowingly into the bus if I had seen it before on my lane. Of couse before the bus hit me it didnt look like it was coming straight onto me but literally split seconds before the impact it did cross my mind gosh he's going to pass me a bit too close but not even had a chance to react as at that point impact has occurred.
I'm really not convinced that helps your argument one tiny bit.s4tronic said:
vonhosen said:
But what did you do whilst someone was driving at you (is the question you'll be asked)?
Stop?
Go off road?
Just keep driving at him?
what a stupid question that is - If I had time to react from the moment I realised he was going to hit me I would have swerved to the left, possibly mounting pavement at that time and damaging rim/suspension in the process. Don't want to think if there would be people on the pavement.Stop?
Go off road?
Just keep driving at him?
I didn't have time because it happened so quickly, it was 7.30 so still quite dark. He made a mistake and didn't leave me space.
IF I was stationary it would of course be his fault, case closed, so how the fact that I was moving as well make it any less his fault that he drove into me? If you apply this logic, if you t bone someone at the junction its 50/50 because he was moving as well?
What was the width of the road?
Were there any other obstacles?
How long was he in view before the collision?
Because this
s4tronic said:
I am really astounded that some of you think I would have driven knowingly into the bus if I had seen it before on my lane. Of couse before the bus hit me it didnt look like it was coming straight onto me but literally split seconds before the impact it did cross my mind gosh he's going to pass me a bit too close but not even had a chance to react as at that point impact has occurred.
reads like you've misjudged the width & kept driving at a gap that was too small, only realising at the last minute.Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 18th January 09:09
HertsBiker said:
So what we are saying here is that it doesn't matter if the bus is too big for the road, it can do what it want. Lines on the road don't matter, and the bus can go down roads other similar large vehicles are banned from using, and are free to damage property because it is a bus? Oh and not forgetting that there are no sides, it's just a road?
Have we all become a bus loving forum? Seems to me that if a car were to hit you, while intruding into your lane, it would be at fault.,so why not a bus?
Nobody is saying what you claim.Have we all become a bus loving forum? Seems to me that if a car were to hit you, while intruding into your lane, it would be at fault.,so why not a bus?
What is being said is that sometimes a lane will be too narrow for a vehicle to keep within it. Unless prohibited, that vehicle is still entitled to use that road, albeit straddling the centre line.
Rather than entitling oncoming traffic to then collide with that vehicle and automatically blame it for being on 'their' side of the road, instead it places a responsibility on them to drive with the expectation their lane might become compromised and be prepared to stop, if necessary.
HertsBiker said:
So what we are saying here is that it doesn't matter if the bus is too big for the road, it can do what it want. Lines on the road don't matter, and the bus can go down roads other similar large vehicles are banned from using, and are free to damage property because it is a bus? Oh and not forgetting that there are no sides, it's just a road?
Have we all become a bus loving forum? Seems to me that if a car were to hit you, while intruding into your lane, it would be at fault.,so why not a bus?
Goods vehicle weight limits only apply to goods vehicles, not buses.Have we all become a bus loving forum? Seems to me that if a car were to hit you, while intruding into your lane, it would be at fault.,so why not a bus?
What is being said that if the road is less than two bus widths it can't possibly be anywhere other than over the middle of the road. Such roads require both drivers to be using half distance braking rules.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff