Lucky to be alive.
Discussion
jjones said:
when i got stopped by an armed response car about 2 years ago it had no camera (extremely fortunately for me). (unmarked r32)
When I went to pick up my belongings from my car the guy at the compound told me that ARVs don't have cameras in case they capture someone being shot!I think from my recent experiences of insurance companies (or in fact anything slightly 'legal') they would rather go 50/50 unless there is absolute proof of someone being proved to be in the wrong.
It is easier for them, they don't have to do 'extra' work but we think they are working for us. They are not. Once you've paid the premium you might as well represent yourself.
You are just a name on a folder, on a pile of similar folders that someone has to deal with each and every day.
To you, it is a big deal and traumatic (quite rightly) but to the insurance company you are one of many with a similar problem.
My advice to you is look into your legal position yourself, even if you have 'legal representation' on your policy, and establish in black and white your options.
Make sure you email rather than phone people, or if you've phoned already then follow it up in writing. Ask for everything to be emailed to you and keep a record of who you spoke to and when etc.
There are various forums to establish your position, here being a good place to ask, but don't think 'your' people are helping you, because they probably won't.
Don't trust anyone human! We are flawed to make life easy for ourselves first and foremost, and if we may look like paying for our actions when in the wrong then we'll lie.
Hope you move forward but it sounds to me that without proof you are struggling to advance on 50/50.
It is easier for them, they don't have to do 'extra' work but we think they are working for us. They are not. Once you've paid the premium you might as well represent yourself.
You are just a name on a folder, on a pile of similar folders that someone has to deal with each and every day.
To you, it is a big deal and traumatic (quite rightly) but to the insurance company you are one of many with a similar problem.
My advice to you is look into your legal position yourself, even if you have 'legal representation' on your policy, and establish in black and white your options.
Make sure you email rather than phone people, or if you've phoned already then follow it up in writing. Ask for everything to be emailed to you and keep a record of who you spoke to and when etc.
There are various forums to establish your position, here being a good place to ask, but don't think 'your' people are helping you, because they probably won't.
Don't trust anyone human! We are flawed to make life easy for ourselves first and foremost, and if we may look like paying for our actions when in the wrong then we'll lie.
Hope you move forward but it sounds to me that without proof you are struggling to advance on 50/50.
BlimeyCharlie said:
I think from my recent experiences of insurance companies (or in fact anything slightly 'legal') they would rather go 50/50 unless there is absolute proof of someone being proved to be in the wrong.
It is easier for them, they don't have to do 'extra' work but we think they are working for us. They are not. Once you've paid the premium you might as well represent yourself.
You are just a name on a folder, on a pile of similar folders that someone has to deal with each and every day.
To you, it is a big deal and traumatic (quite rightly) but to the insurance company you are one of many with a similar problem.
My advice to you is look into your legal position yourself, even if you have 'legal representation' on your policy, and establish in black and white your options.
Make sure you email rather than phone people, or if you've phoned already then follow it up in writing. Ask for everything to be emailed to you and keep a record of who you spoke to and when etc.
There are various forums to establish your position, here being a good place to ask, but don't think 'your' people are helping you, because they probably won't.
Don't trust anyone human! We are flawed to make life easy for ourselves first and foremost, and if we may look like paying for our actions when in the wrong then we'll lie.
Hope you move forward but it sounds to me that without proof you are struggling to advance on 50/50.
I think you've knocked the nail on the head. After only a week I can see that the insurance train seem to be doing its own thing and those involved just sit back and watch while they minimise the cost outcome which I think is a good thing because its a stressful time for both parties.The only thing that is annoying me is this joint liability. So because I am off work I have rang the police and asked them for all the photo/video evidence of the scene and the incident data recorder data from the police car that hit me. Im also reporting it to the IPCC as I think there is a culture of reckless driving with the force involved as three collisions with the public in four days is extreme.It is easier for them, they don't have to do 'extra' work but we think they are working for us. They are not. Once you've paid the premium you might as well represent yourself.
You are just a name on a folder, on a pile of similar folders that someone has to deal with each and every day.
To you, it is a big deal and traumatic (quite rightly) but to the insurance company you are one of many with a similar problem.
My advice to you is look into your legal position yourself, even if you have 'legal representation' on your policy, and establish in black and white your options.
Make sure you email rather than phone people, or if you've phoned already then follow it up in writing. Ask for everything to be emailed to you and keep a record of who you spoke to and when etc.
There are various forums to establish your position, here being a good place to ask, but don't think 'your' people are helping you, because they probably won't.
Don't trust anyone human! We are flawed to make life easy for ourselves first and foremost, and if we may look like paying for our actions when in the wrong then we'll lie.
Hope you move forward but it sounds to me that without proof you are struggling to advance on 50/50.
KungFooPanda said:
. Im also reporting it to the IPCC as I think there is a culture of reckless driving with the force involved as three collisions with the public in four days is extreme.
Really? How many thousands of miles in extreme condition's have they driven in that period? The IPCC will refer it back to the investigating Force, because despite what certain usual suspects on this thread will tell you, it will be investigated properly. It will then go to the head of department and from there it will then go to an independent decision maker who will review the recommendations. Why don't you actually let the investigating officer do their job. I'd also check your insurance company is giving you correct info about the hire car. Sounds bizarre to me.Elroy Blue said:
Really? How many thousands of miles in extreme condition's have they driven in that period? The IPCC will refer it back to the investigating Force, because despite what certain usual suspects on this thread will tell you, it will be investigated properly. It will then go to the head of department and from there it will then go to an independent decision maker who will review the recommendations. Why don't you actually let the investigating officer do their job. I'd also check your insurance company is giving you correct info about the hire car. Sounds bizarre to me.
With regards to my incident, the fact that he has driven thousands of miles on calls and is an advanced driver I would of thought he would have approached the red lights at a much lower speed in the rain.I think that if I'd rang and gave the details of the accident and they had instantly brought it up on the system then I would have been happy. The fact that she couldn't find it to begin with was a tad surprising. I have just received an answer phone message and the sergeant involved is calling me tomorrow so I'll see what he has to say.
Doesn't green mean proceed with caution? You're supposed to check left and right before going through a green at a crossroads. I don't do it most of the time so I can sympathise OP, but that is how I was taught to drive. Also 100mph is an unrealistic prediction of his speed, damage would have been a hell of a lot more severe.
StottyEvo said:
Doesn't green mean proceed with caution? You're supposed to check left and right before going through a green at a crossroads. I don't do it most of the time so I can sympathise OP, but that is how I was taught to drive. Also 100mph is an unrealistic prediction of his speed, damage would have been a hell of a lot more severe.
Yellow is generally slated as "proceed with caution" (in the UK, at least). It's absolutely true that the police usually investigate accidents rigorously. But you can never rule out someone trying to pull a flanker.
For this reason, I'd be taking legal advice. On the facts presented, I can't see the OP being anything other than an innocent party.
I appreciate the job police officers are doing, and that people want them to attend ugly incidents quickly - but some of the driving I have seem in Manchester is horrendous and people have been killed.
I had a car written off whilst parked a few years ago by an uninsured vehicle being chased by GMP at 'in excess of 70 MPH' on a parked up suburban street wide enough for only one car to pass at any one time. The local school of the same street complained a few weeks later that police cars were passing the school at excessive speeds.Why chase at that speed in such a location?
Not long ago I had a police car, sirens and lights swing out from behind a line of cars, and drive head on at me on a single lane road at looked like 70-80 MPH. GMP seem to think they live in an episode of the Sweeney.
I had a car written off whilst parked a few years ago by an uninsured vehicle being chased by GMP at 'in excess of 70 MPH' on a parked up suburban street wide enough for only one car to pass at any one time. The local school of the same street complained a few weeks later that police cars were passing the school at excessive speeds.Why chase at that speed in such a location?
Not long ago I had a police car, sirens and lights swing out from behind a line of cars, and drive head on at me on a single lane road at looked like 70-80 MPH. GMP seem to think they live in an episode of the Sweeney.
Update on how things are looking....
First of all my insurance company said that the BiBs insurance company have gone for 100% liability against me. I’m guessing this is just routine and that this is where the fun starts.
I asked for traffic video from the attending police cars, the photos and the black box data from the ARV.
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
I’ve sent this in to the insurance firm and I am waiting to hear from them.
If anyone knows a good RTA lawyer in the Humberside area I’d be interested to hear from you.
First of all my insurance company said that the BiBs insurance company have gone for 100% liability against me. I’m guessing this is just routine and that this is where the fun starts.
I asked for traffic video from the attending police cars, the photos and the black box data from the ARV.
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
I’ve sent this in to the insurance firm and I am waiting to hear from them.
If anyone knows a good RTA lawyer in the Humberside area I’d be interested to hear from you.
OP, what is the speed limit on the road that the police cars were driving, could you argue that if they were exceeding the posted limit and therefore you would have no expectation of the approaching at between 84 and 56 MPH.
Basically exactly the same argument that would be used against you if you had an accident while exceeding the posted speed limit.
Basically exactly the same argument that would be used against you if you had an accident while exceeding the posted speed limit.
TheRealFingers99 said:
Yellow is generally slated as "proceed with caution" (in the UK, at least).
I haven't checked before posting this, but I'm pretty certain that apart from one specific circumstance yellow/amber always means stop. I don't think I've ever read anywhere that yellow/amber means proceed with caustion. Pretty certain that only applies to green. liner33 said:
Similar thing happened near me with a ambulance on a call
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2496893.stm
"Ian Fitzgerald, 29, a trainee paramedic who had only recently completed an advanced driving test, failed to slow down as he approached the light, it was alleged.
He had been taught to treat a red light as the equivalent of a "give way" sign and should have given more regard to other road users"
Convicted of careless driving and banned for 3 months
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/32295...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2496893.stm
"Ian Fitzgerald, 29, a trainee paramedic who had only recently completed an advanced driving test, failed to slow down as he approached the light, it was alleged.
He had been taught to treat a red light as the equivalent of a "give way" sign and should have given more regard to other road users"
Convicted of careless driving and banned for 3 months
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/32295...
BBC said:
Fitzgerald, who was working for the Berkshire Ambulance Service, drove through a red light at an estimated 35mph before hitting the side of Ms Fenney's car.
As already said, you are told to treat red lights as give ways. Stop and then proceed slowly.To me, it sounds as if the Bib in question had not done this and had crossed the light at speed.....
KungFooPanda said:
Update on how things are looking....
First of all my insurance company said that the BiBs insurance company have gone for 100% liability against me. I’m guessing this is just routine and that this is where the fun starts.
I asked for traffic video from the attending police cars, the photos and the black box data from the ARV.
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
I’ve sent this in to the insurance firm and I am waiting to hear from them.
If anyone knows a good RTA lawyer in the Humberside area I’d be interested to hear from you.
It's disgraceful that they don't just put their hands up and accept blame, and given that info., charge the driver.First of all my insurance company said that the BiBs insurance company have gone for 100% liability against me. I’m guessing this is just routine and that this is where the fun starts.
I asked for traffic video from the attending police cars, the photos and the black box data from the ARV.
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
I’ve sent this in to the insurance firm and I am waiting to hear from them.
If anyone knows a good RTA lawyer in the Humberside area I’d be interested to hear from you.
KungFooPanda said:
Update on how things are looking....
First of all my insurance company said that the BiBs insurance company have gone for 100% liability against me. I’m guessing this is just routine and that this is where the fun starts.
I asked for traffic video from the attending police cars, the photos and the black box data from the ARV.
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
I’ve sent this in to the insurance firm and I am waiting to hear from them.
If anyone knows a good RTA lawyer in the Humberside area I’d be interested to hear from you.
You won't post a link to the junction because it's still being investigated, but happy to post the above info?First of all my insurance company said that the BiBs insurance company have gone for 100% liability against me. I’m guessing this is just routine and that this is where the fun starts.
I asked for traffic video from the attending police cars, the photos and the black box data from the ARV.
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
I’ve sent this in to the insurance firm and I am waiting to hear from them.
If anyone knows a good RTA lawyer in the Humberside area I’d be interested to hear from you.
As you're new here, your posts will seem a little suspicious. You'll also get to know that you should in fact ignore most stuff that Rovinghawk posts, he's very anti police...
Thats it for me, as I've broken my rule about posting in the same threads as him
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff