Car crash - Who is to blame for this then?

[Kumagoro]

Saracen my point was if you feel you have made your point why make it again unless you do want to say something. It is not necessary to make a comment like the thread is stupid its repeating itself and then continue to keep posting. So obviously nothing to do with only replying if you agree with me.

To be fair to the person who crashed he didnt try and blame it on the person in the road. He was more annoyed at himself for carrying 7 people. Some people need to try and not make assumptions.

Saracen you say, 'what he was trying to do was warn oncoming traffic .... just as advised by the highway code. But as I stated earlier the Highway code says not to do it in the way he did.

Like you said anyone with common sense would have their lights and hazards on in the very least. I have already stated that I didn't say Mr Wavy is to blame I have said his action play a large part in why it happened.

[Kumagoro]

It says circumstances where this would not be the case. The might is alluding to other possible cases where it would not be the fault of the person behind. The scam is given as an example, not as the only case where its valid.

But there in lies the problem of no real information about such things no real examinable proof, just people making out that what they think, even without any professional knowledge, is how it really is.

[JPreston]

Right Kumagoro you are confusing three questions:

1. Is he responsible from a legal perspective? Might he have to face the magistrates and what is the likely outcome?

2. Is he responsible from an insurance perspective? Will this be anything other than a 100% 'at fault' claim?

3. Is he responsible from a moral perspective? Does his driving make Baby Jesus cry and does he owe more to society?

I don't know whether a driver carrying seven passengers has broken the law, or invalidated his insurance, so let's assume that he has not (I'd be surprised is this is the case though).

The answers to the above questions are:

1. If he could afford a really slimy solicitor, the sort who recently failed to get Caprice off (so to speak), the solicitor would probably advise him to claim in court that the lights weren't on, Mr Wavy-Arms maliciously jumped out from behind a tree dressed as a ninja, etc etc. It's vastly improbable that the magistrate would find in your mate's favour, but it's not literally impossible according to the word of the law. You can say any rubbish in court, because that's a defendent's right (Fred West initiated proceedings to sue Gloucester Police, because by making his case public they de-valued his house - he had a case, but would he have won?).

Because no-one was hurt, your mate is probably unlikely to be publicly prosecuted. Mr Good-Samaritan is unlikely to pursue a private claim because he will not be able to demonstrate a loss (your mate's insurance company is about to pay up in answer 2).

2. Without any doubt, at all, even a teeny bit, your mate will be held liable by the insurance companies. The above arguments would be totally irrelevant, because the insurance company does not have to secure a prosecution, just establish blame. He hit a stationary vehicle, as many have said above, "end of".

3. Should he have avoided this mess? It's a judgement call because we weren't there but I say yes, and most posters seem to agree with me. I have been surprised by pedestrians wearing black on single lane country roads at night, but they have never caused me to swerve let alone lose control or crash. Likewise I've come across an accident or two, the odd broken down vehicle, cows, branches etc etc. As everyone says, it's down to the driver to ensure he can stop in the distance he can see to be clear. Saying that it was a wide straight dry road with good visibility only makes him more negligent.

And all these answers assume that there is nothing illegal or insurance-invalidating about carrying seven passengers (one in the boot? or is your mate called Snow White?) in a car designed to take a maximum of four or five. In fact, he's probably broken a law and so invalidated his insurance anyway.

[Saracen]

Saracen my point was if you feel you have made your point why make it again unless you do want to say something. It is not necessary to make a comment like the thread is stupid its repeating itself and then continue to keep posting. So obviously nothing to do with only replying if you agree with me.

First, I didn't say the thread was stupid. That was someone else. All I said was it's going round in circles.

Second, I post because I want to, just like everybody else. You don't have the right to tell me when I should or shouldn't post.

Thirdly, if I have been making the same point over and over, so have you. At least I don't try to tell you when you can and can't post. You seem to think (and have specifically stated) that you don't see why I keep replying, yet you keep replying yourself. So if you want to know why I'm doing it, examine your own motives. Then consider that I'm not telling you not to. Hypocrisy, perhaps?

To be fair to the person who crashed he didnt try and blame it on the person in the road. He was more annoyed at himself for carrying 7 people. Some people need to try and not make assumptions.

Either he's asserting that, or you are. Either way, it makes no difference to this thread, and it's getting tedious just trying to keep tenses correct in who did what. It wasn't an assumption.

Saracen you say, 'what he was trying to do was warn oncoming traffic .... just as advised by the highway code. But as I stated earlier the Highway code says not to do it in the way he did.

So ..... unless we're absolutely sure we can comply with every last requirement of the highway code, we really shouldn't try to help, even if it might prevent an accident, and maybe save lives? Perhaps Wavy-arms should just have done what most people would have done, and driven on. Because that's the inference from your assertion.

Like you said anyone with common sense would have their lights and hazards on in the very least. I have already stated that I didn't say Mr Wavy is to blame I have said his action play a large part in why it happened.

And I've said that in my opinion, it happened because your mate was going too fast. We know that, because of events. What we don't know is what would have happened if wavy-arms hadn't been there. You're assuming, it seems, that the accident would not have happened. But it could equally well be, seeing as your mate was going sufficiently fast that he couldn't stop, that he'd have piled into the back of the first incident, and perhaps hurt either someone in that incident, or one or more of the ridiculous number of people this idiot was carrying. But, had your mate not been going too fast, he would have stopped in either case. Ergo, the problem was his speed.

So no, I don't see this as in any way wavy-arms fault. As an entirely separate matter, he didn't do everything right. But it was entirely in your work-mates power to avoid an accident he caused, simply by going at a safe speed .... and perhaps, carrying a legal load instead of an illegal one. Wavy arms may not have got everything right, but seems to have been trying to do the right thing. Your mate was just overloaded, and going too fast.

[Saracen]

But there in lies the problem of no real information about such things no real examinable proof, just people making out that what they think, even without any professional knowledge, is how it really is.

Well, the whole thread is just about opinions, isn't it? Given that all we have is one third-hand account, how can it be anything else? We don't have police reports, witness evidence, scene analysis, etc.

It's a thread about opinions, based on the circumstances as described. And that was, after all, exactly what you asked for - opinions.

To me this shouldnt be his fault but what do you think?
Can him claim any injury money off his own insurance?

And, on that basis, you have my opinion.

And how do you know whether it's based on professional knowledge or not? Do you know if those that have answered are police officers, or lawyers? Or have shown this thread to someone who is, and asked for (based on the account you gave) an opinion?

[MadduckUK]

Darwin says "everyone should have died"

[finlay666]

Some how you seem to have forgotten anything which is beyond your own control.

which is why you drive with caution in all circumstances, surely as soon as he saw the guy in the road he should have been slowing down, and kept slowing down untill he was sure he was past the incident

well, with all that extra mass im not suprised it was'nt able to slow down in time, with 2 passengers and a LOT of heavy equipment (PC's, amps etc) I can break within the 3/// on a roundabout to the 1 if I had to slam the anchors on because there was an eejit in the road waving his arms wildy at me

[Kumagoro]

Right where to start.

Saracen, I did not say you said that it was a stupid thread I wrote what I did based on your previous reply and as such an explanation, I never told you what or when to post. Ironically I was making the point that if people want to keep discussing something then that's up to them there is no need to say the thread is stupid. If someone thinks something is stupid but continues to keep it going, I'm going to wonder why and what for...

An opinion is different to saying this is how it is without any evidence. The reason 'because I say so' isn't enough for me to be certain. (again just in case you misunderstand I am not accusing you of this).

I have taken much of what you have said on board and it has made me think but I'm not going to take it as the absolute truth, would you? Also with regards to someone replying who would have professional knowledge, I would have thought they would say Oh I work in insurance claims and this is what our policy is. That was what I was hoping for or maybe someone who has had a similar experience, but no such luck.

Also, of course thinking my work colleague is blaming Mr Wavy for the accident is an assumption. I never said he did blame him. If it had of happened to me I would have felt a lot of blame towards Mr wavy.

I have never insinuated that people should leave the scene of an accident and not to help out, what I said infers nothing of the sort. Do you really believe that what he did was help? if his lights were on then I could understand him making the mistake of standing in the road without wearing something highly visible. But to turn the lights off.... thats just insane and is clearly going to make matters worse.

Taking the events at face value In all likely hood if lights and hazards had of been on he would have had much more time to spot trouble and come to a complete stop, its not equal at all, lights easy to see, dark things in the dark not so easy.
I am in the position of knowing the road very well and would hope you can see on that point at least I can predict it better. Knowing this road, for him to have been in that situation had Mr wavy's lights been on he would have to have been going very very fast, much more than 60 perhaps 100 so in that case there is a possibility that Mr wavy wasn't thinking and really did turn his lights off.

Finlay, you shouldn't break hard when turning you are very likely to lose control. Beyond your control includes people running out into the road and getting run over. There is no safe speed, people have duty of care to themselves hence why a train driver wouldn't be prosecuted if some nut job jumps in front of his train.

Jpreston,

I dont see how, if it came to court, stating that Mr wavy turned his lights off there by decreasing someone's distance of vision would be slimy. Its perfectly reasonable to show that what Mr Wavy did contributed to the situation. If the jury believe it to be valid or not valid then thats the way it is. If that wasnt the case and Mr Wavy did have his lights on then sure that would be very slimy indeed.

100% fault hmmm if he had hit Mr Wavys car then perhaps but he hit a car already damaged. Surely that would involve some kind of liability split. Also if the first accidents damage was judged to have been a write off would he have any liability at all. Injury liability would obviously be more complicated.

this is getting too long.

Anyway he has told me that he will have a meeting with the insurance company soon so we will find out what they say hopefully. Getting him to say anything though may be hard.

[JPreston]

...100% fault hmmm if he had hit Mr Wavys car then perhaps but he hit a car already damaged. Surely that would involve some kind of liability split. Also if the first accidents damage was judged to have been a write off would he have any liability at all. Injury liability would obviously be more complicated.

this is getting too long.

Anyway he has told me that he will have a meeting with the insurance company soon so we will find out what they say hopefully. Getting him to say anything though may be hard.

Are you saying that it's less negligent to crash into a the scene of accident than it is to crash into a car that is just parked?

As though a driver who is involved in an accident such that the wreckage obstructs the road, is not only duty bound to push the smouldering wreckage out of the road before any other drivers come upon it - including the emergency services - but is actually to some extent negligent if he does not do so? Really?

He is unlikely to have to see the magistrate but I've never heard of anyone having to physically meet the insurance company before. Maybe they all had such a laugh at his account of the incident that they couldn't pass up an opportunity to see him in the flesh. Do let us know the outcome anyway.

[rootjuiceUK]

i would like to say not his fault but could see some problems with that!! i dont like the rule of "if you hit someone from behind its your fault". my friend hit someone from behind while an ambulance was overtaking him. he had slowed and pulled over a bit to let it by but the guy in front was a bit old and panicked on hearing it and slamed on his nice new abs brakes and my mate being in an old alfa at the time could not slow in time so hit him.you could say it was his fault but sometime i think its not as black and white as "you were too close your fault"

[kalniel]

Of course it's not always black and white - the ambulance case is a good example of where you've deliberately gone from a defensive position (enough time for the speed to react and break) to an unsafe one (not enough time). Normally the decision to do that is stupid, but in that case there are circumstances that forced it.

In the OP there is no suggestion of a reason to deliberately put the car in an unsafe situation where it could not stop within the limits of observation given it's load and stopping power.

That is a key difference between someone 'stepping out in the road' (which is therefore already within your observation distance when you first see it) and someone 'standing in the road' which is by definition outside of your observation range initially and therefore when it hits the limits of your observation you should be able to stop in time.

Someone standing in the road has right of way and it's your fault if you hit them. Someone stepping out in the road only has right of way when they are on the road and if they do so already within your breaking distance it's possible that you won't be at fault.

[finlay666]

Finlay, you shouldn't break hard when turning you are very likely to lose control. Beyond your control includes people running out into the road and getting run over. There is no safe speed, people have duty of care to themselves hence why a train driver wouldn't be prosecuted if some nut job jumps in front of his train.

My point was stopping distances in a laden car needed to be taken into account, not that it should be done

and from what was posted the guy didnt run into the road....he was already there

There is a 'safe' speed, driving to the conditions of the road the car and the environment, clearly the driver was not doing this

and there is such a thing as ABS to help stop you losing control, and also 'sponging the brake'

and kalneil, bang on about the right of way being to the pedestrian

[Saracen]

I have taken much of what you have said on board and it has made me think but I'm not going to take it as the absolute truth, would you?

I'm not going to go through, point by point, who said what and why, because it's there for everybody to read and reach their own conclusion. But I will answer a couple of points.

In relation to that one, no, I wouldn't. But I haven't been claiming it as absolute truth. All along, you'll find I've been stating opinion. For instance, the following quote is my very first post in this thread, and the bold emphasaises that it's opinion, not a claim of fact, let alone "absolute truth".

My perspective is this - a speed limit is not an automatic authorisation to drive everywhere at that speed ... it's a maximum, and only to be used when circimstances and visibility permit. For instance, you don't drive down a 60mph windy country lane at 60mph in a pea-soup fog ..... or not for long you don't, anyway.

All of us, at all times, should be driving at a speed where we can stop within the range of our visibility. If you are driving at such a speed (even a legal one) that you can't stop when you come across a situation like this, that results in an accident, then you were going too fast for the circumstances.

So I'd say yes, it's the driver's fault, for going to fast for the circumstances. Or, at the very minimum, partially his fault.

Having said that, it's the kind of circumstances that could conspire to cause any of us a problem, and I certainly wouldn't claim I couldn't have been doing the same speed in the circumstances. We all get used to expecting certain things (cars, etc) on the road, and not expecting others (people standing in the middle of the road waving his arms). And when we're unlucky enough to come across the unexpected ....

I can't really criticise the driver for it, because I can see how it could easily have been me, but I'd still say it's (largely, at least) his fault. He was going too fast, end of.

Oh, and I wouldn't have been overloaded like that, so maybe I could have stopped safely.

And if you look at subsequent posts, you'll find phrases like "I'd say", "my view is", etc, littered through them. Short of prefacing every remark with a disclaimer as to it being opinion not fact, I don't see how I can make it any clearer that it's opinion.

So to clarify, my stance is this :-

1) A FACT is that the highway code says you should be driving at a speed that allows you to stop within the range of your visibility. I'll dig out the paragraph number if you wish, but it's there.

2) A FACT is that your mate didn't stop. I'm assuming your description in accurate in that regard.

3) My OPINION is that the only conclusion I can draw from that is that he is at fault, even leaving aside that he was carrying an illegal load and may stopped more quickly, perhaps even without impact, had he not been.

4) Everything is based on third-hand accounts, which may or may not be accurate, so all any of us can do is comment on that basis. But if you compare two eye-witness versions of a given event, you're likely to get two different accounts. It is a FACT that people interpret sensory input from multiple sources, integrate everything in their brains and come up with a single version that, all too often, includes things that didn't happen, doesn't include things that did happen and misinterprets some of the rest.

This is why eye-witness testimony is always regarded with a degree of caution in a court, even if it is given in absolutely good faith by the witness. Memory does not always accurately reflect what happened.



I don't expect anyone to take my opinion as truth, just as I don't take anyone else's as such.

Also, my OPINION is that what wavy-arms was up to is irrelevant, because there is no reason to suppose that your workmate could have stopped any faster, or would have had any better visibility, had he not been there. It seems reasonable to suppose that he'd still have been going too fast for his visibility.

Finally, on that point, my OPINION is that it's a FACT that nobody, and I mean nobody (unless they have access to police reports, etc), can give an authoritative answer on a subject like this on an internet forum because they simply don't have facts, let alone independent and impartial ones. Had you asked for an authoritative answer, rather than 'what we thought', I would not have commented at all.

Also with regards to someone replying who would have professional knowledge, I would have thought they would say Oh I work in insurance claims and this is what our policy is. That was what I was hoping for or maybe someone who has had a similar experience, but no such luck.

Maybe some people would. Maybe not. A friend of mine is a barrister. Does he declare that when posting on forums? No. Why? Because last time he did, he got inundated with people asking for, and apparently expecting, free legal advice, and also a collection of wannabee internet-expert-lawyers arguing every point with him. He ended up leaving the forum. So now, when he comments on legal issues (which isn't often), he doesn't declare himself to be a lawyer. He gives opinion, but people can take it or leave it. If they want to argue it with him, go to his chambers and pay his hourly rate.

My point is that while some people may have expertise on which they answer queries, they don't always announce what that expertise is. There may be other reasons. For instance, a friend is a senior technical manager with a well-known manufacturer. He often deals with techical issues on an independent support forum, and you can take his comments as chapter-and-verse. But he does NOT say who he is. Why? Because if he did, it may be taken as official company comment and for him to say what he does in that manner may well breach his employment contract if it appears to be expressing company view or policy.

Oh and finally, as a journalist, I'm often in possession of information that is subject to a non-disclosure agreement. So there are times when I could, and have (on Hexus and elsewhere) passed an opinion without being able to state (publicly) the basis for that opinion, and even then I have to be very careful what I say because if I break that NDA, my access to such material would vanish ..... along with a good chunk of my livelihood. I'd lay strong odds there's several others on this forum alone in exactly that position. No, actually, I KNOW there are.

However, if I give an opinion without backing it up, people can (and often in the past, have) challenge it. They're obviously entitled to do that, but it's very frustrating when I can't explain why I'm claiming what I do when I know it to be a fact. That, in large part, is why I don't comment on product matters on here any more - because I got fed up with a couple of idiots that more than once called me what amounted to either a fool or a liar, when I know for a FACT that I was right but am not in a position to provide the proof of my assertion, despite having the documents in front of me.

Just for the record, though, nobody should read this as me implying I have some expert knowledge on the subject of this thread. What I have said is my opinion and opinion only.

My point is simply this, Kumagoro. Just because people comment without declaring special expertise doesn't necessarily mean they don't have any. There are several good reasons for not declaring your background. By and large, most comments are just that - comments. Even an authoritative-seeming comment may still be wrong. But you might also be getting expert opinion, and not know it.

All any of us can do is weigh up what people say, and assess it in the light (good or bad) of what we know about them, and that may just be what they've said before. But we don't know if we're dismissing expert comment.

[Saracen]

..... Finlay, you shouldn't break hard when turning you are very likely to lose control. Beyond your control includes people running out into the road and getting run over. There is no safe speed, people have duty of care to themselves hence why a train driver wouldn't be prosecuted if some nut job jumps in front of his train.

My legal training is in my dim and distant past. This could have changed.

But what, for a FACT, certainly used to be the case, and might still be is that a driver has an absolute, statutory duty of care not to hit pedestrians. Period. That includes those running out in front of you, even if it was deliberate.

If you want to sue someone for negligence, you had to establish three things :-

1) Duty of care. You had to establish that they had a duty.
2) Breach of duty.
3) Resulting damage.

There were some famous legal cases involving people deliberately jumping out in front of cars, precisely in order to claim from insurance. Time it right and you bounce off the wing with little or no real injury, but it opened up a goldmine of claims.

So, if someone jumps out in front of you, can they establish that you were negligent? Yup, they can, and easily. How?

Well, they're a pedestrian and you're a driver. Because of that statutory duty of care, they don't need to establish your duty of care - the law did it for them. That's part one of the case.

Part 2. You hit them. There's breach of duty.

Part 3. They're hurt, clothes torn, whatever. There's the resulting damage, and case proven. All they then need to do is to establish the extent of the damage they suffered (injury, damaged clothes, time of work, medical expenses, etc), and some of those can be padded. It's difficult to establish, for instance, whether back pain is real or false. And establishing the extent of the damages isn't about winning the case (that's already done). It's just about how much they get.

So it used to be the case that if someone jumped out in front of you (as a driver) and sued for negligence, wou WOULD lose. It was an open and shut case.

However, the courts put a stop to these kind of claims using the principle of contributory negligence. That says that if you contributed to your losses by your own negligence, the extent of that contribution would be taken into account when assessing the damages you were awarded. There was a famous case where, despite the "jumper" winning the case, they were assessed as having a huge contributory negligence element and as a result, their damages (assessed according to bills, loss of work, etc in the normal way) was reduced to one half penny. In other words, if the award was (I don't remember the figures) £1000, then the jumper was assessed as responsible for £999.995p of it, and got £0.005p award. They still won the case, though, as technically, a driver hitting a pedestrian whatever the circumstances, was negligent.

Two points. First, I'm talking about civil liability here, not criminal liability. Secondly, my legal training was nearly 30 years ago. This could (I hope) have changed.

But it does show that the law and common sense don't necessarily agree.


Oh, and you may be right about train drivers. If they have a similar statutory duty, I don't know of it.

But, back to the thread, the highway code says you must be able to stop in the range of your visibility. If someone jumps out in front of you, that isn't about how far you can see and whether you can stop in that distance - it's about your reaction times. There is no speed that is absolutely safe. You're right there. But there is a speed that is safe in terms of your visibility and circumstances, and ability to stop in that distance.

If you are carrying a heavy load, that distance will reduce, because your braking will be impaired. If there's fog, it'll reduce, because your visibility is reduced. If there's heavy rain, it'll be reduced, because your visibility may well be reduced, and your braking compromised (skids, slides, aquaplaning, etc). If it's dark, your visibility will be reduced. And so on.

That requirement of drivers isn't about people jumping out in front of you (which if it's timed right, nobody can avoid), but about driving in a manner commensurate with conditions.

[Kumagoro]

god damn this is getting long I want to be able to enjoy the rest of hexus haha.
-
Firstly JP, its nothing to do with negligence its about what would be paid out. As he crashed into something which could potentially already be a write off would his insurance need to pay out for the cost of the car. Technically what he crashed into was worthless or at least not worth full value so I wonder what would happen in this case.
-
Finlay, The way you put it sounded like he would still have time to stop which unfortunatley he didnt. But I know what you mean. What I mean by there is not a safe speed is that you can never be sure that your speed is safe because unpredictable things can happen. The safe speed is never actually therefore known to you.
-
Generally, OK people have said your speed is based on how far/clearly you can see, I agree with this to an extent but in my opinion there is some limitations to this. You may or may not agree and think no matter what happens your going too fast if something happens. Personally I think if that was the case we wouldn't be allowed to drive anywhere near 60 Mph in the dark. I do see it how saracen put it but have a different view of the circumstances bit, as in what is and isn't acceptable.

'there is a speed that is safe in terms of your visibility and circumstances, and ability to stop in that distance.'

-
Saracen, I'm sorry it sounded to you like I was saying you were stating your opinion as facts that really wasn't the case and merely an explanation of what had been previously written.

I still do not agree that Mr Wavvy didnt, potentially at least, make a bad situation worse. I believe that if I were driving seeing someone suddenly in the road would be more surprising than the back on an unlit car. Along with that I think you would see an unlit car before someone standing in the road; because of your lights reflecting on theirs.

Because of this difference in distance I believe the probability changes. To me it sounds like you think spotting someone in the road is equal or easier than the back of an unlit car. Is this the case?

Personally I think its the other way and a person is potentially harder to see.

I take your point about people not wanting to reveal details I cant relate to that. Saying that if someone did say they were a car insurance blame analysis person I personally would give them sway in debate assuming its not just a lie.
I think generally they would be found out if it were otherwise.
-

[spooney]

this has been going on for days, i have been keeping an eye out for it since then just to see what is said. i hope there is goin to be an update to us all when the guilty party is revealed