Being held up by other peoples accidents
Discussion
Plenty of times been held up by people stacking it on the motorway. There's no excuse to have an accident on a motorway, unless an external factor such as a diesel spillage happens - it's a straight road for heavens sake.
So, while stuck in the jam, I've often wondered if I could make a claim against the person deemed responsible for the accident for suffering / being made late / negligence etc?
People have claimed for less! How would you do it?
So, while stuck in the jam, I've often wondered if I could make a claim against the person deemed responsible for the accident for suffering / being made late / negligence etc?
People have claimed for less! How would you do it?
reanimate said:
Plenty of times been held up by people stacking it on the motorway. There's no excuse to have an accident on a motorway, unless an external factor such as a diesel spillage happens - it's a straight road for heavens sake.
So, while stuck in the jam, I've often wondered if I could make a claim against the person deemed responsible for the accident for suffering / being made late / negligence etc?
People have claimed for less! How would you do it?
Christ alive! Are you serious?
_dobbo_ said:
Plenty of times been held up by people stacking it on the motorway. There's no excuse to have an accident on a motorway, unless an external factor such as a diesel spillage happens - it's a straight road for heavens sake.
So, while stuck in the jam, I've often wondered if I could make a claim against the person deemed responsible for the accident for suffering / being made late / negligence etc?
People have claimed for less! How would you do it?
Christ alive! Are you serious?
No no, I agree with this. If the accident could be proved to be caused by the drivers sheer stupidity and there were no factors (mechanical faliure, envoronmental factors etc) outside of the users control when the accident happened, they should be penalised FULLY to the extent.
One accident that I was a witness to a while ago on the A38 from Plymouth to Newton Abbot, a guy went too fast over a part of the hill, lost controlof the vehicle. Road was closed off for 8 hours and caused massive local traffic problems. Why shouldnt he get hammered? He is also going down for the death of his passenger apparenty - I hope he does. He had driven that road every day for the past 10 years so he KNEW the hill etc.
Im not up for clamibng of every unliucky sod that his a diesel spill or accidents that are purly 50/50 (as can happen) but if the driver is TOTALLY and PROVEABLY at fault, then why not? Might put some feckwits off doing t
tty things if they know that they will not be able to be insured again for quiiiiiiite some time!Go anywhere in Europe (other than the UK, of course), and you'll find the number one priority of the Police is to get the traffic moving again as quickly as possible. Not here, oh no, even very minor accidents, with no injuries involved can have the Police stop traffic for hours upon hours, Why?
I'm totally, 100% serious.
E.g. Some prat follows another car too close, rear ends, holds us all up for 2 hours missing a meeting / other important / interesting / fun appoint - say it was a track day and you missed the drivers breifing and half the morning and you'd already left well early?
If you could claim back ... wouldn't you?
E.g. Some prat follows another car too close, rear ends, holds us all up for 2 hours missing a meeting / other important / interesting / fun appoint - say it was a track day and you missed the drivers breifing and half the morning and you'd already left well early?
If you could claim back ... wouldn't you?
reanimate said:You could conceivably claim against their insurers, but the cost of everyone’s insurance would soon rocket, the insurers being the only winners.
Plenty of times been held up by people stacking it on the motorway. There's no excuse to have an accident on a motorway, unless an external factor such as a diesel spillage happens - it's a straight road for heavens sake.
So, while stuck in the jam, I've often wondered if I could make a claim against the person deemed responsible for the accident for suffering / being made late / negligence etc?
People have claimed for less! How would you do it?
You could claim directly from those directly responsible, but if you won drivers will seek to get insurance against this damage, again the insurers being the only winners.
Perhaps you should aim your actions against those in government. It is they who have always maintained and decreed that motorway tuition and testing are not required, they are the obviously wrong and should be the ones held to account.
Before anyone points out those some learner drivers won’t have access to motorways: the license could be adapted in the same manner as an automatic licence. When a driver passes their practical test in an auto, their full driving licence will only entitle them to drive an automatic car and acts as a provisional when driving a car with a manual gearbox.
chris watton said:Because they can!
Go anywhere in Europe (other than the UK, of course), and you'll find the number one priority of the Police is to get the traffic moving again as quickly as possible. Not here, oh no, even very minor accidents, with no injuries involved can have the Police stop traffic for hours upon hours, Why?
Seriously, consider that it might be driven by the "compensation culture" and consequent protectionist policies - the belief that every little bit of potential evidence must be gathered ... in the event that a prosecution hinges upon it (and no, I'm not confusing criminal and civil actions ... I'm sure you can work out the possible sequence of events).
And it's because they can! By that I mean the culture that "the technology exists ... so let's use it!" that is so pervasive today.
Streaky
streaky said:
Seriously, consider that it might be driven by the "compensation culture" and consequent protectionist policies - the belief that every little bit of potential evidence must be gathered ... in the event that a prosecution hinges upon it (and no, I'm not confusing criminal and civil actions ... I'm sure you can work out the possible sequence of events).
Streaky
Spot on! I'm really fed up with this compensation culture - nothing is ever "an accident" or "one of those things" anymore. Ten years back (even) I tripped on a broken kerb walking (fairly pissed) home from the pub and broke my wrist. Even then, there were people who said I should sue the council!
Prof Beard
chris watton said:Here in the UK the injustice system has life upside down, criminals are victims and motorists are criminals just for driving a car. What's more these criinals are easier to catch than muggers or burglars and when a car's been in a smash it's even easier still. It also plays to the power thing and control freak tendencies, the Courts and BLiar have made the police impotent in every othe aspect of their working lives so when there's a chance to seal off a county and strut around behind some blue chequered tape you can bet it'll happen before you can say doughnut
Go anywhere in Europe (other than the UK, of course), and you'll find the number one priority of the Police is to get the traffic moving again as quickly as possible. Not here, oh no, even very minor accidents, with no injuries involved can have the Police stop traffic for hours upon hours, Why?
Just don't ask one of the overworked public servants on the tape what's going on, you'll get a very informative reply akin to 'bugger off'. in fact it might well be 'bugger off'. BiB bashing? Who, moi?
As to reanimate and the question of how...go see a lawyer! Not sure whether it would be advisable though. The cost of paying those delayed would come from motoring insurance, which is already too high because of menu pricing for fake injury claims. Hang on, I think I just got RSI from typing this post, can I sue Ted? Or reanimate maybe?
I have read it again, just don't see your point. You seem to think that you have the right not to be delayed, and people who have accidents in front of you are infringing on that right and have a liability to you?
It's a nice theory, but doesn't make a lot of sense. If you had that right then you would have the right to make a claim against anyone who got in your way, and all the people you delayed would have a claim against you. You could claim against the DoT for not building that bypass, or against the local supermarket for increasing the traffic in the surrounding area. Its just as well that there is no such liability or the lawyers would have a field day. But wait long enough and I suspect that road charging will eventually apply these penalties to everyone on the roads adding to the congestion, just that none of the money will come back to *you*.
You seem to think that accidents should never occur on motorways because they are straight roads. This doesn't make sense either. Given multiple lanes of traffic at differing and varying speeds you will routinely have cars coming into conflict with each other, and this introduces hazards. Where you have hazards you can reasonably expect to have accidents. Just because an accident occurs doesn't mean that any particular driver has been negligent or reckless. If they have been, they can already be prosecuted for dwodca, dangerous driving etc. As far as I know, people aren't normally charged with obstructing the highway when they are involved in an accident. Maybe they could be charged with this. But I think it's pretty dubious to try to prosecute somebody for doing the same thing that everyone else is, just because they happened to have an accident. What next, a fine for being struck by lightening?
It's a nice theory, but doesn't make a lot of sense. If you had that right then you would have the right to make a claim against anyone who got in your way, and all the people you delayed would have a claim against you. You could claim against the DoT for not building that bypass, or against the local supermarket for increasing the traffic in the surrounding area. Its just as well that there is no such liability or the lawyers would have a field day. But wait long enough and I suspect that road charging will eventually apply these penalties to everyone on the roads adding to the congestion, just that none of the money will come back to *you*.
You seem to think that accidents should never occur on motorways because they are straight roads. This doesn't make sense either. Given multiple lanes of traffic at differing and varying speeds you will routinely have cars coming into conflict with each other, and this introduces hazards. Where you have hazards you can reasonably expect to have accidents. Just because an accident occurs doesn't mean that any particular driver has been negligent or reckless. If they have been, they can already be prosecuted for dwodca, dangerous driving etc. As far as I know, people aren't normally charged with obstructing the highway when they are involved in an accident. Maybe they could be charged with this. But I think it's pretty dubious to try to prosecute somebody for doing the same thing that everyone else is, just because they happened to have an accident. What next, a fine for being struck by lightening?
GreenV8S said:
If you get held up by congestion just from the amount of traffic, do you believe you have a claim against everyone who gets in your way? What about the people *you* hold up, are you happy for them to make a claim on you?
Thats a different question, congestion is caused by the deliberate policies of Greens, Libdems and labour councils and yes they should all hang and their assets be sequestrated and sold off to make reparations. As for the idiot that causes a crash, why should a farmer be able to pile 20 quids worth of hay on 200 quid waggon and drive it down the road till it falls off and the road is closed and get away with it.
If the compensation bankrupts him, good! Do we really want people thinking its OK to block the road? Certainly if the police funds got a bonus for reduced road closure times then that may well be a way forward.There is nothing to stop you making such a claim in tort under current law, apart from the fact that your losses are almost certainly too remote and not reasonably foreseeable. Contrary to popular belief, the law of this country is in general pretty sensible and the judges over the years have ensured that this sort of unmeritorious claim does not succeed. If such claims did generally succeed, then insurance premiums would be so high as to make it prohibitively expensive to drive.
The potential hours of closure following accidents on many main roads (or even worse, motorways) is why I now never risk driving on them if I'm going to the airport. Being stuck on the M40/M25/M4 whilst trying to get to Heathrow isn't a risk I wish to take when I have a business flight to catch. So instead I use Birmingham International (exactly the same distance by road) and take the excellent back roads - only the last mile and a half of the journey being on a main road (A45). I've lost count of the times I've seen nose-to-tail stationary traffic on the motorways whilst I've been passing over the top on the flyover....
And the back road to Birrmigoom is much more fun in any case! Particularly when you add the letters 'AMG' into the smile factor!
>> Edited by nickwilcock on Sunday 4th September 18:14
And the back road to Birrmigoom is much more fun in any case! Particularly when you add the letters 'AMG' into the smile factor!
>> Edited by nickwilcock on Sunday 4th September 18:14
Right ... a few replies!
Firstly, I'm not planning on bringing a case against anyone. I do toy with the idea ...
I do feel that on a motorway, there is no excuse for an accident bar the out-of-your-control things in life as I explained earlier, and I make no appologies for this view.
If you are driving while alert, leaving a gap and looking ahead etc then, and within reason, I don't care how busy / wet the road is. Of course there are exceptions - drunk drivers, nutters.
My father reckons he's "failed" if while driving on a motorway, he has to use the brakes.
So (for example) if some prat drives into the back of someone, causing an accident that was preventable had they not been driving right up the other drivers bumper, causing the M4 to be closed for an hour, are you really happy to say: "ho hum!"
Firstly, I'm not planning on bringing a case against anyone. I do toy with the idea ...
I do feel that on a motorway, there is no excuse for an accident bar the out-of-your-control things in life as I explained earlier, and I make no appologies for this view.
If you are driving while alert, leaving a gap and looking ahead etc then, and within reason, I don't care how busy / wet the road is. Of course there are exceptions - drunk drivers, nutters.
My father reckons he's "failed" if while driving on a motorway, he has to use the brakes.
So (for example) if some prat drives into the back of someone, causing an accident that was preventable had they not been driving right up the other drivers bumper, causing the M4 to be closed for an hour, are you really happy to say: "ho hum!"
In the late 70s I worked on motorway recovery and at that time if your company was on the roter you had to be able to respond to any motorway accident within 25 minutes. the priority was to clear the debris as quick as possible and get the traffic folowing. Then the police present took details and unless it involved a death they did every thing. Even when a death was involved it was rarly more than an hour or so before the motorway was reopened.
It is undoubtedly the insurance industies who have caused this escalation in motorways and road being closed for hours or days. they want someone to take the hit not them so they will blame the police for not collecting vital evidence at the scene hence this escalation of delays whilst the accident specilaist arrive and do their thing.
It is undoubtedly the insurance industies who have caused this escalation in motorways and road being closed for hours or days. they want someone to take the hit not them so they will blame the police for not collecting vital evidence at the scene hence this escalation of delays whilst the accident specilaist arrive and do their thing.
reanimate said:
My father reckons he's "failed" if while driving on a motorway, he has to use the brakes.
I agree, I don't expect to need to brake unless traffic slows down abruptly or something unexpected happens. Things happening unexpectedly probably implies that I've failed to notice a developing hazard.
But still the fact remains that with traffic moving between lanes travelling at different speeds and cars occasionally being 'boxed in' by passing traffic, there is always the risk of misunderstanding or just lack of observation and anticipation leading to conflict. Most of the time people manage to avoid each other but sometimes it is going to end in collision. There are hazards in motorway driving just as there are in other types of driving, and the fact that an accident occurs doesn't necessarily imply that somebody is at fault.
As someone who has the misfortune to commute from jc10-jc2 of the M4 every day I'm in complete agreement.
There is absolutely no excuse for crashing on a motorway, especially in 'rush hour'. During rush hour on the M4 all the lanes move at a fairly similar speed, so just get in a lane and stay in it, keeping a safe distance from the car in front - but keeping an eye on the stream of cars further ahead.
In my experience there seem to be 3 types of motorway crashes:
1) Outside lane (lane 3 or 4) shunts. For some reason outside lane drivers break harder then most, so it's the lane that stops most. Normally just 3 or 4 cars involved.
2) Lorry crashes - well the visibility is poor, especially now that so many lorries are left hand drive, thanks to our governments efforts to tax the UK haulage business out of existence.
3) White van man - probably involved in around 50% of crashes I see. There's always one involved... And I'm guessing it's because of the way they change lanes without looking
Frankly - I think it will only be easy to sue in case 3, maybe 2...
There is absolutely no excuse for crashing on a motorway, especially in 'rush hour'. During rush hour on the M4 all the lanes move at a fairly similar speed, so just get in a lane and stay in it, keeping a safe distance from the car in front - but keeping an eye on the stream of cars further ahead.
In my experience there seem to be 3 types of motorway crashes:
1) Outside lane (lane 3 or 4) shunts. For some reason outside lane drivers break harder then most, so it's the lane that stops most. Normally just 3 or 4 cars involved.
2) Lorry crashes - well the visibility is poor, especially now that so many lorries are left hand drive, thanks to our governments efforts to tax the UK haulage business out of existence.
3) White van man - probably involved in around 50% of crashes I see. There's always one involved... And I'm guessing it's because of the way they change lanes without looking
Frankly - I think it will only be easy to sue in case 3, maybe 2...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff