Advice after accident
Discussion
Having just had a coming together with another car on Friday evening, I need to know who is responsible for the accident.
Driving up the village high street, I was passing 3 or 4 parked cars, the road is wide enough for 3 cars to pass in safety, when the driver coming in the opposite direction held her line very close to the middle of the road resulting in a side to side scrape. When talking to the driver of the other vehicle we observed cars passing with 4 - 5ft of clearance!
Any advice appreciated.
Driving up the village high street, I was passing 3 or 4 parked cars, the road is wide enough for 3 cars to pass in safety, when the driver coming in the opposite direction held her line very close to the middle of the road resulting in a side to side scrape. When talking to the driver of the other vehicle we observed cars passing with 4 - 5ft of clearance!
Any advice appreciated.
Any chance they were pissed?, might be worth a pop into local BIB as they'll know all the likely candidates in the area. They might not say anything but you never know.
Might even be worth a formal careless/without due care complaint too.
Was she wearing glasses? if not a good chance she might HAVE to wear them due to poor eyesight many people don't. Bib will ask if need be if you push a charge. Offer that they take an eyesight test, even if it might cost you £15 worth a try might get the point across.
Any witnesses?
Might even be worth a formal careless/without due care complaint too.
Was she wearing glasses? if not a good chance she might HAVE to wear them due to poor eyesight many people don't. Bib will ask if need be if you push a charge. Offer that they take an eyesight test, even if it might cost you £15 worth a try might get the point across.
Any witnesses?
I phoned the police straight after, they replied "if no-one is injured we will not attend" need I say more. Unfortunately no witnesses. She seemed to be a well-to-do woman, new Mercedes, private plate etc. etc. I don't remeber if she was wearing glasses and suspect she was sober as a judge. May persue the driving without due care and attention angle though.
Cheers
Cheers
So you were o/ting parked cars your side of the road. Presumably your vehicle would be over the centre line.
If Merc in sight when approaching then - if you want it straight -
70 per cent blame on you and 30 per cent on her for not moving in to side to avoid an accident.
Insurance company informed?
DVD
If Merc in sight when approaching then - if you want it straight -
70 per cent blame on you and 30 per cent on her for not moving in to side to avoid an accident.
Insurance company informed?
DVD
S3_Steve said:
I phoned the police straight after, they replied "if no-one is injured we will not attend" need I say more. Unfortunately no witnesses. She seemed to be a well-to-do woman, new Mercedes, private plate etc. etc. I don't remeber if she was wearing glasses and suspect she was sober as a judge. May persue the driving without due care and attention angle though.
Cheers
If you came to me with this complaint, you would both be reported for driving without due care and it would be down to Magistrates to decide who is to blame. I suspect they may well fine both of you. You should learn some defensive driving techniques. This sort of thing should not happen.
I have a feeling the insurance companies will be of the same opinion as me!
Wouldn't you be wasting your time Gone?
No witnesses so Steve is a witness against Lady, Lady a witness against Steve. To give evidence then both would have to incriminate themselves. Can elect not to give evidence that incriminates oneself. Both can therefore elect not to give evidence. Case up the spout which is why little interest shown when Steve reported.
Thought Mags decision was out of the window and CPS now deciding on 51 % rule.?
DVD
No witnesses so Steve is a witness against Lady, Lady a witness against Steve. To give evidence then both would have to incriminate themselves. Can elect not to give evidence that incriminates oneself. Both can therefore elect not to give evidence. Case up the spout which is why little interest shown when Steve reported.
Thought Mags decision was out of the window and CPS now deciding on 51 % rule.?
DVD
If you were in my situation, travelling the same road 4 times a day, most "normal" people will give you the room to pass. I had already started passing parked vehicles long before she would have to move over. The road is very wide at the point of the accident as there are two bus stops immediately before (my side of road) and after on the oposite sdie. I haven ever before come across someone who would hold their line intentionaly to have a collision.
S3_Steve said:
If you were in my situation, travelling the same road 4 times a day, most "normal" people will give you the room to pass. I had already started passing parked vehicles long before she would have to move over. The road is very wide at the point of the accident as there are two bus stops immediately before (my side of road) and after on the oposite sdie. I haven ever before come across someone who would hold their line intentionaly to have a collision.
Thats the problem though, occasionally you meet someone who is not. It is then you need to have some other weapon in your armoury to avoid this type of person and potential collision.
This was totally avoidable on both parts and therefore not an accident at all. It was however a collision!
Dwight VanDriver said:
Wouldn't you be wasting your time Gone?
Very probably but you know how it goes DVD. You have to show impartiality so the way to go will be both reported as they will both blame each other.
DVD said:
No witnesses so Steve is a witness against Lady, Lady a witness against Steve. To give evidence then both would have to incriminate themselves. Can elect not to give evidence that incriminates oneself. Both can therefore elect not to give evidence. Case up the spout which is why little interest shown when Steve reported.
They do not have to stand in the witness box and undergo cross examination at all if they do not want to as you so rightly suggest. They can however give evidence in chief about the actions of the other person.
DVD said:
Thought Mags decision was out of the window and CPS now deciding on 51 % rule.?
DVD
CPS have taken over as the body that decides the guilt of someone. Magistrates merely rubber stamp that decision.
51%
? They won't go for anything that is not more than 90% chance of successful conviction these days. They look to throw out any prosecution at the early stage. There is a very real concern from senior police managers because of the draconian way CPS go about decision making. In my force since the charging standard scheme was introduced, detections for offences have fallen dramatically because nothing is getting through CPS lawyers to go to court for a hearing!
gone said:
If you were in my situation, travelling the same road 4 times a day, most "normal" people will give you the room to pass. I had already started passing parked vehicles long before she would have to move over. The road is very wide at the point of the accident as there are two bus stops immediately before (my side of road) and after on the oposite sdie. I haven ever before come across someone who would hold their line intentionaly to have a collision.
Thats the problem though, occasionally you meet someone who is not. It is then you need to have some other weapon in your armoury to avoid this type of person and potential collision.
This was totally avoidable on both parts and therefore not an accident at all. It was however a collision!
Gone - for once I think you're being a tiny bit harsh here....as we dont entirely know the actual facts (a photo of the road would be so helpful!). I have had a couple of situations where I think I've been driving 100% 'correctly' and still nearly been side-swiped by someone who obviously shouldn't have a license cos they have no clue as to the width of their car (sounds ilke the lady in your situation Steve). Now have had manouver time/space etc in my cases, but it have been a bit worse.....
Now it could be true that he just sat there, arms locked, with a 'well one of is going to give way and it aint gonna be me'..until the collision occurred....or he could have been driving up this road for the thousandth time, and realised at the last minute that, unblievably!, she wasn't going to move over despite having several clear feet on her inside, and then it's a bit late.
I do agree that almost every accident acn be avoided (and this one does sound like maybe it could), but i reckon this is the sort of thing which can be more problematic than expected....
Pies said:
Thought Mags decision was out of the window and CPS now deciding on 51 % rule.?
DVD
can you explain please
Before CPS offences files went thorugh a number of supervisory officers before landing with the "BossPlod"
generally a Chief Inspector who made a judgement whether to prosecute or not. In this consideration among other facts was the possibility of it being thrown out. A country wide standard was obviouslt not employed. So you may have been prosecuted in one area and no actioned in another.
Now if there was say a due care with elements of bad driving, but maybe a bit iffy or contentiuos as to blame, CI would mark up for Prosecution to, as Gone says "let the Mags decide".
This had two advantages, it established what the Mags would accept in certain cases if Guilty pronounced or if Not Guilty then it showed to Joe Public that Courts were not Police Courts i.e. Mags not rubber stamping
decisions to prosecute by Police.
Complex cases where a DPP file had to be prepared and submitted for decision re prosecution,in those days DPP would not santion prosecution unless, in the opinion of DPP Lawyers, there was a 51 per cent chance of a Guilty verdict being obtained.
Now CPS have basically taken over the role of DPP and prosecution authorisation and work from a Standard Charging System. Ever mindful of the public purse they will not go ahead with anything that there is the slightest chance they are going to loose. From what I hear the fiqure of 51 per cent has been upped.
Use the following Key Word for a Google etc Search -
CPS Driving Offences Charging Standard - which will give you some idea how CPS operate and provide you with heavy reading for a week
DVD
Insurance companies don't tend to settle knock for knock these days as its an outdated concept. Probably neither insurer will want to take it to court as its 50/50 all day long without any independent witness evidence. If however you are convinced you're not at fault in any way, you could run it to court, taking out a civil action, but you would have to fund the costs personally as I dont think you'd get a no win no fee CFA. You'd have to make a bloody good witness though and hope she doesn't. Good luck. I had a guy reverse out from a warehouse into the path of my car ( I was simply driving down a road), he reckons because my car hit his (I had about a milisecond to avoid the collission) he thinks its my fault. Whats worse is his insurers seem to agree with him. To their credit my insurers are having none of it and are fighting it all the way, even though i've got no damage claim to put in (no injury, Volvo V70 - took the impact remarkably well).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff