Idiot with Bentley jailed for 14 months - Dashcam Crash
Discussion
rambo19 said:
Proves how needed dashcams are.
That could of gone 50/50 without dashcam.
Not really, it's standard practice for the speed of the impacts to be rated. The fact you can see the Bentley hit the kerb further up the road and then careen across the road means it's probably left a big mark in the kerb and then on the tarmac. And then the relative damage of the cars, and the final position of them means you can work out who was doing which speed.That could of gone 50/50 without dashcam.
TooMany2cvs said:
rambo19 said:
Proves how needed dashcams are.
That could of gone 50/50 without dashcam.
Hardly, given where that Bentley would have ended up, and the trail of destruction behind him.That could of gone 50/50 without dashcam.
Right or wrong, and irrespective of the evidence to the contrary, Bentley boy's insurers will push for a 50:50 if at all possible. That's their job. (Don't confuse them with Police/Judge whose job it is to ascertain right from wrong or establish righteous apportionment of blame)
I was passenger in a car once, icy conditions, approaching a righthand bend. Car coming the other way loses it on the bend and hits us side on on drivers door, just before we reached the bend. We were stationary and fully on the correct side of the road at time of impact, and despite the other driver taking responsibility at the scene (he couldn't really have done anything else), it ended up being a 50:50.
monthefish said:
Right or wrong, and irrespective of the evidence to the contrary, Bentley boy's insurers will push for a 50:50 if at all possible. That's their job.
Yes, it is. Well, it is if they genuinely think their insured is not 100% to blame...But that's just one insurer's PoV against the other's. Right up until...
monthefish said:
(Don't confuse them with Police/Judge whose job it is to ascertain right from wrong or establish righteous apportionment of blame)
...it goes to court, because the two insurers can't/won't agree. And - even without a dashcam, and even if BentleyBoi's insurer insisted - I can't see the Kuga's insurer looking at the debris trail and the marks on the road, and saying anything but "Umm, nope. Not paying a sausage."monthefish said:
I was passenger in a car once, icy conditions, approaching a righthand bend. Car coming the other way loses it on the bend and hits us side on on drivers door, just before we reached the bend. We were stationary and fully on the correct side of the road at time of impact, and despite the other driver taking responsibility at the scene (he couldn't really have done anything else), it ended up being a 50:50.
Your insurer decided it wasn't worth fighting.TooMany2cvs said:
monthefish said:
Right or wrong, and irrespective of the evidence to the contrary, Bentley boy's insurers will push for a 50:50 if at all possible. That's their job.
Yes, it is. Well, it is if they genuinely think their insured is not 100% to blame...But that's just one insurer's PoV against the other's. Right up until...
monthefish said:
(Don't confuse them with Police/Judge whose job it is to ascertain right from wrong or establish righteous apportionment of blame)
...it goes to court, because the two insurers can't/won't agree. And - even without a dashcam, and even if BentleyBoi's insurer insisted - I can't see the Kuga's insurer looking at the debris trail and the marks on the road, and saying anything but "Umm, nope. Not paying a sausage."I'm not for one minute saying this is anything other than 100% Bentleys fault, but in absence of dashcam footage (which is what we're discussing here), Kuga was on opposite side of the road where Bentley (oncoming vehicle) had right of way, and any element of doubt would likely result in split blame.
TooMany2cvs said:
monthefish said:
I was passenger in a car once, icy conditions, approaching a righthand bend. Car coming the other way loses it on the bend and hits us side on on drivers door, just before we reached the bend. We were stationary and fully on the correct side of the road at time of impact, and despite the other driver taking responsibility at the scene (he couldn't really have done anything else), it ended up being a 50:50.
Your insurer decided it wasn't worth fighting.Driver's father owned the insurance brokerage firm (so fairly well versed in such matters). Case was fought, and he was astounded by the decision. Dashcam footage would have made it clear cut (as in this case).
monthefish said:
[
Kuga's insurer can say what they like, but in court it's not his final decison.
I'm not for one minute saying this is anything other than 100% Bentleys fault, but in absence of dashcam footage (which is what we're discussing here), Kuga was on opposite side of the road where Bentley (oncoming vehicle) had right of way, and any element of doubt would likely result in split blame.
Not really, damage would reveal that the Kuga was hit at a speed far in excess of what would be appropriate for that stretch of road. I dont simply mean simply exceeding the speed limit, I mean that the speed was completely inappropriate.Kuga's insurer can say what they like, but in court it's not his final decison.
I'm not for one minute saying this is anything other than 100% Bentleys fault, but in absence of dashcam footage (which is what we're discussing here), Kuga was on opposite side of the road where Bentley (oncoming vehicle) had right of way, and any element of doubt would likely result in split blame.
monthefish said:
TooMany2cvs said:
monthefish said:
Right or wrong, and irrespective of the evidence to the contrary, Bentley boy's insurers will push for a 50:50 if at all possible. That's their job.
Yes, it is. Well, it is if they genuinely think their insured is not 100% to blame...But that's just one insurer's PoV against the other's. Right up until...
monthefish said:
(Don't confuse them with Police/Judge whose job it is to ascertain right from wrong or establish righteous apportionment of blame)
...it goes to court, because the two insurers can't/won't agree. And - even without a dashcam, and even if BentleyBoi's insurer insisted - I can't see the Kuga's insurer looking at the debris trail and the marks on the road, and saying anything but "Umm, nope. Not paying a sausage."And that's my point. They can each say what they like, but unless and until the other agrees, it's going to court, where the decision is out of their hands.
monthefish said:
TooMany2cvs said:
monthefish said:
I was passenger in a car once, icy conditions, approaching a righthand bend. Car coming the other way loses it on the bend and hits us side on on drivers door, just before we reached the bend. We were stationary and fully on the correct side of the road at time of impact, and despite the other driver taking responsibility at the scene (he couldn't really have done anything else), it ended up being a 50:50.
Your insurer decided it wasn't worth fighting.monthefish said:
Driver's father owned the insurance brokerage firm (so fairly well versed in such matters). Case was fought, and he was astounded by the decision. Dashcam footage would have made it clear cut (as in this case).
The broker is effectively just a salesman for somebody else's product, and doesn't get a say once the premium's paid. It's the underwriter that decided it wasn't worth fighting.captain_cynic said:
Not really, damage would reveal that the Kuga was hit at a speed far in excess of what would be appropriate for that stretch of road. I dont simply mean simply exceeding the speed limit, I mean that the speed was completely inappropriate.
Quite. The vid shows the Bentley bouncing off the wrong kerb way before the pinch. The pinch itself wasn't getting out of that unscathed, and I doubt the wall did, either. Meanwhile, the Kuga gets bounced backwards.457892345 said:
AndStilliRise said:
Thanks, I did not know that. Still 14mths is a long time for having an accident. Sentence does seem strong when there had been no injuries.
Obvious troll , that is more than having ''an accident''. The Bentley driver was insanely reckless and definitely driving beyond both his ability and road conditions. It was only a non-fatal because, by the grace of god, the old boy had invested in some of fords modern engineering. In many other older cars he very likely would have been brown bread.Alucidnation said:
Gah! When will I learn NOT to read DM comments?AndStilliRise said:
Perhaps he was coming back from work (night club owner), hence the speed at an odd time?
Maybe he called someone to pick him up because he had been drinking or something?
All of this justifying the accident....how?Maybe he called someone to pick him up because he had been drinking or something?
Also re your no injuries comment : That should be totally irrelevant. The fact there were no injuries is blind luck. Fortune should not be considered when assessing the recklessness of the driver.
TooMany2cvs said:
And that's my point. They can each say what they like, but unless and until the other agrees, it's going to court, where the decision is out of their hands.
Exactly. And that's our point - without the dashcam footage it would not have been a forgone conclusion.
(and you can bet that, with the potential injuries of such an impact, the damages could have been very severe and therefore the Bentley's insurer would have been likely to fight tooth and nail without the black and white evidence that nails their client)
I think many on here naively believe that if you're involved in an accident, but not at fault, it'll all be fine.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff