scudderfish
|
| posted on 7/3/13 at 05:32 PM |
|
|
Hypothetical insurance question
My understanding is that if you are driving illegally (drunk etc) and are involved in an accident, it is automatically your fault as you
shouldn't have been there in the first place. Also, if you are moving and hit a stationary car, you too are at fault.
What happens if you hit an illegally parked car?
|
|
|
|
|
r1_pete
|
| posted on 7/3/13 at 05:37 PM |
|
|
Your fault, you are the moving vehicle and the only one able to prevent the accident, the insurer would argue you should have stopped and waited for
the parked vehicle to move if you were unable to safely drive around it.
|
|
|
Daddylonglegs
|
| posted on 7/3/13 at 05:40 PM |
|
|
I would say that you are hyothetically in the doo-doo! 
It looks like the Midget is winning at the moment......
|
|
|
Macbeast
|
| posted on 7/3/13 at 05:58 PM |
|
|
My experience is that there is no such thing as a hypothetical question
I'm addicted to brake fluid, but I can stop anytime.
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 7/3/13 at 06:26 PM |
|
|
Insurance is a weird issue, someone can crash into a parked car and it not be their fault, I had a mate who had to have his case go to court when
someone wrote off his car on his driveway while he was asleep (Though that might just have been because it happened to him twice).
Everything depends entirely on the circumstances, but I'd guess as a general rule if you crashed into an illegally parked car, it would still be
your fault, assuming it didn't just stop infront of you and was actually stopped and left, there might be some leeway if it was left on the road
and it was dark with no lights or something like that.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 7/3/13 at 07:14 PM |
|
|
Well if you crashed into an illegally parked old lady, collapsed in the road, you'd be balls deep in the brown stuff, so by extention I'd
argue that it's your fault if you hit a ca, provided it has reflectors.
|
|
|
perksy
|
| posted on 7/3/13 at 07:40 PM |
|
|
Pretty sure the insurers view would be that you should have seen the stationary vehicle.
It shouldn't have been there because it was technically illegal, however it was there and you drove into it...
|
|
|
bi22le
|
| posted on 7/3/13 at 08:12 PM |
|
|
Whats happened then if you come over the crest of a hill witin the speed limit and a lorry was coming the other way. there is an illegally parked car
on double yellow. on your side of the road. you try to stop, nowhere to go and hit the badly parked car.
you cant be blamed for driving cautious but still crash due to 3rd party ignorance.
i would say its hard to prove it but i bet your liable if parked illegally. its dangerous for a reason.
Track days ARE the best thing since sliced bread, until I get a supercharger that is!
Please read my ring story:
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/forum/13/viewthread.php?tid=139152&page=1
Me doing a sub 56sec lap around Brands Indy. I need a geo set up! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHksfvIGB3I
|
|
|
RIE
|
| posted on 7/3/13 at 08:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bi22le
Whats happened then if you come over the crest of a hill witin the speed limit and a lorry was coming the other way. there is an illegally parked car
on double yellow. on your side of the road. you try to stop, nowhere to go and hit the badly parked car.
you cant be blamed for driving cautious but still crash due to 3rd party ignorance.
i would say its hard to prove it but i bet your liable if parked illegally. its dangerous for a reason.
You were travelling at a speed which meant you couldn't stop within the distance you could see - the posted limit isn't an indicator of
fault in any case*. It could be a cyclist that had fallen over instead of a parked car or a very slow moving vehicle, neither of which are illegal.
It's all about driving to the conditions.
* You can be done for dangerous driving while travelling below the speed limit, so just because you're going slower doesn't automatically
mean 'safe'.
|
|
|
tomgregory2000
|
| posted on 7/3/13 at 08:30 PM |
|
|
Just drive off and tell no one 
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 7/3/13 at 10:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bi22le
Whats happened then if you come over the crest of a hill witin the speed limit and a lorry was coming the other way. there is an illegally parked car
on double yellow. on your side of the road. you try to stop, nowhere to go and hit the badly parked car.
you cant be blamed for driving cautious but still crash due to 3rd party ignorance.
i would say its hard to prove it but i bet your liable if parked illegally. its dangerous for a reason.
As we used to say in the IAM:
"What can be seen, what can't be seen and what may reasonably be expected to happen?"
Going over a brow with oncoming traffic and dodgy parking is a perfectly predictable scenario
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
bi22le
|
| posted on 7/3/13 at 10:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RIE
quote:
Originally posted by bi22le
Whats happened then if you come over the crest of a hill witin the speed limit and a lorry was coming the other way. there is an illegally parked car
on double yellow. on your side of the road. you try to stop, nowhere to go and hit the badly parked car.
you cant be blamed for driving cautious but still crash due to 3rd party ignorance.
i would say its hard to prove it but i bet your liable if parked illegally. its dangerous for a reason.
You were travelling at a speed which meant you couldn't stop within the distance you could see - the posted limit isn't an indicator of
fault in any case*. It could be a cyclist that had fallen over instead of a parked car or a very slow moving vehicle, neither of which are illegal.
It's all about driving to the conditions.
* You can be done for dangerous driving while travelling below the speed limit, so just because you're going slower doesn't automatically
mean 'safe'.
nope, i dont agree with all of what you have mentioned. sometimes there is simply nothing you can do.
I commuted by car from SE London to NW London. i can think of 3 separate occasions today that if i was not a careful, diligent and courteous driver i
would of crashed or run over a cyclist. they were lucky i am who i am and sometimes people are unlucky where they are. every accident does not have to
be due to poor driving. insurance companies however, do need a guilty and liable person.
Track days ARE the best thing since sliced bread, until I get a supercharger that is!
Please read my ring story:
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/forum/13/viewthread.php?tid=139152&page=1
Me doing a sub 56sec lap around Brands Indy. I need a geo set up! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHksfvIGB3I
|
|
|
RIE
|
| posted on 8/3/13 at 08:21 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bi22le
nope, i dont agree with all of what you have mentioned. sometimes there is simply nothing you can do.
I commuted by car from SE London to NW London. i can think of 3 separate occasions today that if i was not a careful, diligent and courteous driver i
would of crashed or run over a cyclist. they were lucky i am who i am and sometimes people are unlucky where they are. every accident does not have to
be due to poor driving. insurance companies however, do need a guilty and liable person.
We'll have to agree to disagree in that case.
It may appear that nothing can be done, but that is because we didn't do something right leading up to the point at which nothing could be
done.
Every accident is due to someone having failed to do something that they should, whether it's observation or vehicle/cycle control. I have
avoided 167 accidents just driving 18 miles to work this morning; I won't lie, there have been times when I haven't avoided all the
potential accidents (although I've never had more than one accident in a single journey  ).
|
|
|
hughpinder
|
| posted on 8/3/13 at 08:57 AM |
|
|
A couple of years ago, I came across some figures collected by the police on the causes of 'serious' accidents. IIRC it was 5 years info
from 5 regions in the uk, so pretty comprehensive. The officers on the scene had to say what in their opinion was the major cause(s) of the accident
(could be more than one, so adds up to more than 100%). Obviously in the case of the driver being dead they have to have an opinion based on living
witnesses.
The figures came out as (approximately)
tiredness 22%
distraction (mostly kids in car or phones) 20%
loss of attention (daydreaming, thinking about that job on the kit...) 20%
didn't see the other vehicle 20% (strangely women twice as likely as men to do this)
over alcohol limit 15%
excessive speed 13% (but 8% below the speed limit)
drugs 5% to 12% (only one to change significantly up during the 5 years)
mechanical failure <1%
So conclusion regarding speed is that 2/3 of 'speed' related accidents happen at below the speed limit. I assume the below speed limit
accidents are - ice/wet roads, someone stepping into the road unexpectedly, people driving where they can't see for their full stopping distance
and people misjudging other cars speed and gaps sizes things account for almost all of these.
Other conclusions - to improve car safetly enormously, hitting the speed thing will have little effect - it's more likely the
'tiredness' detection things that are starting to appear in cars will have most benefit (like the things that flash up in th mirrors and
you have to press a button to show you've seen it - in mercs I think). These would also detect loss of attention. Fixing the roads so you dont
spend ages in queues for roadworks/because of traffic density would reduce the likelyhood of loss of attention and distractions having an effect too.
Stopping mobiles from working in cars and as a parent, having the ability to have each child locked in their own sound proof box would go quite a long
way too!
Obviously driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is already illegal, so that needs a culture change.
Regards
Hugh
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 8/3/13 at 11:36 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bi22le
nope, i dont agree with all of what you have mentioned. sometimes there is simply nothing you can do.
I commuted by car from SE London to NW London. i can think of 3 separate occasions today that if i was not a careful, diligent and courteous driver i
would of crashed or run over a cyclist. they were lucky i am who i am and sometimes people are unlucky where they are. every accident does not have to
be due to poor driving. insurance companies however, do need a guilty and liable person.
well there isn't too much you can do about other people hitting you apart from making yourself as visable as possible
(think about the number of people driving without lights on when the weather is bad)
but as far as you hitting someone else, the legal argument is always going to come down to you going too fast for the conditions - if you can't
stop in the distance you can see, its too fast
the only excptions I know of are when someone else suddenly jumps out into your path when you have right of way
the classic on is when someone has to stop suddenly and the car behind hits them - the car behind sometimes claims the car infront braked too hard,
but legaly its always the car behinds fault for not leaving room to stop (regardles of speed or road conditions)
-
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 18/3/13 at 06:38 PM |
|
|
Have a read of this...
http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/court-throws-out-lgv-driver-s-appeal-against-careless-driving-conviction#.UUdeQTegEnw
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
ReMan
|
| posted on 18/3/13 at 06:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by coozer
Have a read of this...
http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/court-throws-out-lgv-driver-s-appeal-against-careless-driving-conviction#.UUdeQTegEnw
Interesting, I always thought that you could be liable, if for instance parking too close to a junction and other vehicles have an accident due to
decreased visibility.
Presumably, not often enforced, but in case such as this where someone is deaded, then I guess all avenues are explored
www.plusnine.co.uk
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 19/3/13 at 08:04 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReMan
Interesting, I always thought that you could be liable, if for instance parking too close to a junction and other vehicles have an accident due to
decreased visibility.
^^ yeah, but surely the guy who hit the lorry in that case shouldn't have been going so fast if he couldn't see....
-
|
|
|
ReMan
|
| posted on 19/3/13 at 09:00 AM |
|
|
Hmmm....
But is that any different from, an employee who "was told not to but his fingers into the machine", but there was no guard to stop him
doing so.
Does this then similarly become a debate on what is reasonable to expect to happen and thus all be responsible for prevention?
www.plusnine.co.uk
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 19/3/13 at 10:33 AM |
|
|
a few years back near here a guy drove into the back of a horse because he couldn't see for the low sun
the rider was thrown clear and escaped major injures but was badly bruised
the driver and his passenger both had some minor injuries
the horse on the other hand had destroyed the front of the car (total write off) and got 2 broke legs at the same time and had to be put down at the
scene 
in the eyes of the police it was 100% the drivers fault for failing to stop, they acknowledged the low sun as a factor – but at the end of the day he
should have adjusted his speed to compensate
I thought that was fair enough
but getting back to the lorry - what would the law say if he'd broken down ?
the reason might be different, but the outcome would be the same….
[Edited on 19/3/2013 by mcerd1]
-
|
|
|
ReMan
|
| posted on 19/3/13 at 10:50 AM |
|
|
but getting back to the lorry - what would the law say if he'd broken down ?
the reason might be different, but the outcome would be the same….
Yes, but in the case of breaking down, this was not a choice, in this case he chose to stop there, without (it would appear as was the court decision)
taking due consideration that it was a dangerous place to stop in the circumstances.
BTW I dont have a particualr opinion or side on what is right or wrong here
www.plusnine.co.uk
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 19/3/13 at 11:49 AM |
|
|
well I'm not saying the lorry driver isn't partly at fault
but IMHO if you drive into something its your fault
with the one exception of things that jump out infront of you without warning on otherwise clear roads with good visability
and I'm saying that as someone who has had a couple of bumps where I could have tried to blame other factors
[Edited on 19/3/2013 by mcerd1]
-
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 19/3/13 at 12:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mcerd1
quote:
Originally posted by ReMan
Interesting, I always thought that you could be liable, if for instance parking too close to a junction and other vehicles have an accident due to
decreased visibility.
^^ yeah, but surely the guy who hit the lorry in that case shouldn't have been going so fast if he couldn't see....
If he had survived, they may both have been prosecuted (driving without due care & attention for example).
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 19/3/13 at 02:21 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bi22le
Nope, I dont agree with all of what you have mentioned. sometimes there is simply nothing you can do...
The law is entirely clear about it... you HAVE to be able to stop within the distance you can see. Obviously you can't see over hill crests, or
round a blind-bend, so you HAVE to be able to stop on the crest, or mid-bend.
There is absolutely no exemption.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 19/3/13 at 02:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mcerd1
quote:
Originally posted by ReMan
Interesting, I always thought that you could be liable, if for instance parking too close to a junction and other vehicles have an accident due to
decreased visibility.
^^ yeah, but surely the guy who hit the lorry in that case shouldn't have been going so fast if he couldn't see....
As others have said, if the chap had survived the accident, then he would ALSO have been prosecuted.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
