Rear Ended - Liability now being contested!

[DoubleSix]

thetrash said:

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.

Cheers..

[Monkeylegend]

DoubleSix said:

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

In this instance it sounds like it was a duel carriageway.

OP, don't forget that even if you don't tell your insurance the preamble to all this, it is very likely he will relate all this to his insurance company, and probably embellish it a bit in his favour.

Your insurance might think you are trying to play down your part in this which might not go in your favour. You might be better to put on a pre-emptive strike so to speak.

[zcacogp]

Aretnap said:

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.

That's a very interesting link indeed. Thank you for posting it.

Reading between the lines of the judgement I'd agree with you entirely; it's very obvious what went on. I suspect there were whiplash injuries a-plenty and some expensive hire cars involved as well.


Oli.

[DoubleSix]

Here's the photo showing the car making progress around my drivers side between me and the kerb.

[rj1986]

I was told by a police traffic officer recently (after my GF got hit by a lorry who didn't brake in a queue of traffic) that the burden of blame is on the driver behind.

They should ALWAYS leave enough of a gap to stop if the car in front has to stop for what ever reason. So even if he did brake test him (not saying he did) there should be a gap big enough for the car behind to stop in the distance required.
In theory, he shouldn't be close enough to be brake tested in the first place.

And in slow moving or stationary traffic there should be a gap large enough that the car behind can pull out if the car in front decides to stop (say it breaks down), without having to reverse.

[Monkeylegend]

DoubleSix said:

Here's the photo showing the car making progress around my drivers side between me and the kerb.

All that shows is the position the cars stopped in, not the reason for the collision.

[DoubleSix]

Monkeylegend said:

In this instance it sounds like it was a duel carriageway.

.

I don't think so because a duel carriage way has a barrier with another carriage way on the other side doesn't it? This is just two lanes of traffic moving in the same direction with buildings on either side.

[Monkeylegend]

DoubleSix said:

Monkeylegend said:

In this instance it sounds like it was a duel carriageway.

.

I don't think so because a duel carriage way has a barrier with another carriage way on the other side doesn't it? This is just two lanes of traffic moving in the same direction with buildings on either side.

Emphasis on the "duel"

[DoubleSix]

Monkeylegend said:

DoubleSix said:

Monkeylegend said:

In this instance it sounds like it was a duel carriageway.

.

I don't think so because a duel carriage way has a barrier with another carriage way on the other side doesn't it? This is just two lanes of traffic moving in the same direction with buildings on either side.

Emphasis on the "duel"

I believe you are mistaken but thanks anyway. This is a single carriageway, albeit with two lanes flowing in the same direction.

[Monkeylegend]

DoubleSix said:

Monkeylegend said:

DoubleSix said:

Monkeylegend said:

In this instance it sounds like it was a duel carriageway.

.

I don't think so because a duel carriage way has a barrier with another carriage way on the other side doesn't it? This is just two lanes of traffic moving in the same direction with buildings on either side.

Emphasis on the "duel"

I believe you are mistaken but thanks anyway. This is a single carriageway, albeit with two lanes flowing in the same direction.

Duel as opposed to dual. That's what it sounded like.

[mrmr96]

DoubleSix said:

Monkeylegend said:

DoubleSix said:

Monkeylegend said:

In this instance it sounds like it was a duel carriageway.

.

I don't think so because a duel carriage way has a barrier with another carriage way on the other side doesn't it? This is just two lanes of traffic moving in the same direction with buildings on either side.

Emphasis on the "duel"

I believe you are mistaken but thanks anyway.

Duel vs Dual

[DoubleSix]

oh I see... sorry 'Dual'

[Monkeylegend]

I was just searching for that parrot

[DoubleSix]

Phew!, I've avoided the feathered stick until now...

[Aretnap]

zcacogp said:

That's a very interesting link indeed. Thank you for posting it.

Reading between the lines of the judgement I'd agree with you entirely; it's very obvious what went on. I suspect there were whiplash injuries a-plenty and some expensive hire cars involved as well.

There are some other examples here. Bellingham v Todd is a less extreme one - a lorry driver turning left waited until the last second before slamming his brakes on, rather than indicating and slowing down gradually, probably because he wasn't paying attention to where he was going. A motorcyclist went into the back of him and died. Not as negligent as outright brake testing, but still poor driving from the lorry driver. He was found to be 20% liable for the accident.

[DoubleSix]

Any chance those with a legal background can offer some advice on how best to proceed?

[V8LM]

DoubleSix said:

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

His fault ultimately, but your 'easy off' reads as it was far too easy. How quickly were you accelerating?

[DoubleSix]

I certainly pulled away slower than i usually might, I had less attention on the road ahead than i would of liked as I was monitoring the chap behind. I had feeling he was going to do something stupid.

But no slower than someone might if they were looking for a gap to change lanes or something... my car would have stopped quicker than usual as this is a reasonable upwards incline.

I could do with more advice on what to incude and not incude and also the type of road so I can describe it correctly, anybody?

[V8LM]

Sorry, you pulled into the outer lane to have an 'easy off', presumably because there was a car(s) in front. Then, with a guy behind, you accelerate very slowly up a hill because you now want to pull back into the near side lane. Then you brake.

I would say it as it was, exactly, and let the insurers do their job. At 5 to 10 mph, why is this an insurance claim anyway?

[Steve Benson]

Why did you pull out to pass the traffic in lane 1 and then proceed to pull away slower than you usually would?

It doesn't make sense unless you were goading the guy behind you to do something silly.

On the picture I cannot see how you think that's a attempted pass unless he was going to drive through you.

To me it sounds like you knew exactly what you were doing. You saw Mr Angry behaving badly and then tried to wind him up further. End result two bent cars.