Written Off my 458 Spider
Discussion
ks sake.
Thanks all for your comments , some good observations and helpful points.
My view is that the person who pulled out was at fault but interestingly my insurers not pursuing them as there was no collision with them. Until the police conclude their investigation I’ll have to sit tight as has been suggested.
The verges at the junction had not been cut and were dangerously high and undoubtedly restricted the other drivers vision. The very next day the Council cut them probably following a furore on local social media site about another serious accident at this dangerous junction.
Appreciate your comments
My view is that the person who pulled out was at fault but interestingly my insurers not pursuing them as there was no collision with them. Until the police conclude their investigation I’ll have to sit tight as has been suggested.
The verges at the junction had not been cut and were dangerously high and undoubtedly restricted the other drivers vision. The very next day the Council cut them probably following a furore on local social media site about another serious accident at this dangerous junction.
Appreciate your comments
slow ginn said:
Thanks all for your comments , some good observations and helpful points.
My view is that the person who pulled out was at fault but interestingly my insurers not pursuing them as there was no collision with them. Until the police conclude their investigation I’ll have to sit tight as has been suggested.
The verges at the junction had not been cut and were dangerously high and undoubtedly restricted the other drivers vision. The very next day the Council cut them probably following a furore on local social media site about another serious accident at this dangerous junction.
Appreciate your comments
A collision would have worked out better from an insurance point of view, but at least you avoided the possibility of injuries to the other driver by driving off road.My view is that the person who pulled out was at fault but interestingly my insurers not pursuing them as there was no collision with them. Until the police conclude their investigation I’ll have to sit tight as has been suggested.
The verges at the junction had not been cut and were dangerously high and undoubtedly restricted the other drivers vision. The very next day the Council cut them probably following a furore on local social media site about another serious accident at this dangerous junction.
Appreciate your comments
If DD is an exclusion on the policy seems perfectly reasonable for the Insurance Company to want to review the Police report prior to any settlement.
Until concluded little point arguing about the value given they may turn down the claim if the report concludes driving dangerously through excess speed. The report will likely include estimation of speed so eye witness account of speed is likely mute.
Until concluded little point arguing about the value given they may turn down the claim if the report concludes driving dangerously through excess speed. The report will likely include estimation of speed so eye witness account of speed is likely mute.
slow ginn said:
The verges at the junction had not been cut and were dangerously high and undoubtedly restricted the other drivers vision. The very next day the Council cut them probably following a furore on local social media site about another serious accident at this dangerous junction.
Appreciate your comments
Since you could see the verges had not been cut and that they might restrict someone's view when pulling out of a side road, then presumably you had reduced your speed to take account of that.Appreciate your comments
If DD is an exclusion on the policy seems perfectly reasonable for the Insurance Company to want to review the Police report prior to any settlement.
Until concluded little point arguing about the value given they may turn down the claim if the report concludes driving dangerously through excess speed. The report will likely include estimation of speed so eye witness account of speed is likely mute.
Until concluded little point arguing about the value given they may turn down the claim if the report concludes driving dangerously through excess speed. The report will likely include estimation of speed so eye witness account of speed is likely mute.
PF62 said:
slow ginn said:
The verges at the junction had not been cut and were dangerously high and undoubtedly restricted the other drivers vision. The very next day the Council cut them probably following a furore on local social media site about another serious accident at this dangerous junction.
Appreciate your comments
Since you could see the verges had not been cut and that they might restrict someone's view when pulling out of a side road, then presumably you had reduced your speed to take account of that.Appreciate your comments
slow ginn said:
....
The verges at the junction had not been cut and were dangerously high and undoubtedly restricted the other drivers vision. ......
The effect of this being exaggerated with a low sports car compared to an SUV or even a Mondeo?The verges at the junction had not been cut and were dangerously high and undoubtedly restricted the other drivers vision. ......
Vision would have been restricted in both directions, rays of light mostly take the same path in both directions.
slow ginn said:
Monkeylegend said:
A collision would have worked out better from an insurance point of view, but at least you avoided the possibility of injuries to the other driver by driving off road.
Yes that seems to be the caseOutInTheShed said:
JimSuperSix said:
What a nasty forum this has become.
Maybe it reflects society to some extent.Going fast on public roads is viewed differently from 20 or 30 years ago.
Edited by BAMoFo on Saturday 6th August 10:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff