Advice regarding accident

[Possum300D]

Few weeks ago I was in the process of overtaking two vehicles who were travelling one behind another, on a section of dual carriage way.

Just as I started passing the following car, the driver indicated and pulled out to overtake the one in front, failing to spot me, and although I attempted to brake and swerve it all happened too soon and both our cars made contact.

I managed to avoid being pushed in to the central reservation and kept control of my car while the other driver lost control (obviously not expecting anything) and spun off up the road. My car had damaged to the front nearside corner while the other vehicle was badly damaged after making contact with the barriers. Luckily nobody was injured.

When the police arrived, I was busy picking up debris from the road and they spoke to other people first, including an elderly couple who witnessed the accident, who said they thought I was speeding as I'd also passed them, which I of course deny. This lead to the other driver and myself both being charged, me with driving without due care and consideration as they believe I was travelling too fast.

My question is where do I stand on this one, as the witnesses say I was speeding but I don't believe the police have any proof. Although they did try to blame skid marks further back down the road on me, my car has fully functional ABS and judging by the width of said marks, they were left by a lorry or similar.

Help much appreciated. My insurers wont help me due to the couple's statement!

 

[daveenty]

Don't know where the damage is on either car, but assuming your N/S their O/S.

Speed is not a factor as it cannot be proven by witness statements (or would get ripped apart if it did get to court)....I'll defy anyone to tell the difference between 35 & 45MPH when standing watching without a camera

A good solicitor will sort this very easily..Photo's would have helped (especially with the alleged skid marks)

Good luck, but I think you'll be OK

 

[Possum300D]

I'll defy anyone to tell the difference between 35 & 45MPH when standing watching without a camera

Thats what I thought. To judge speed you need to measure the time taken to travel a specified distance between two set obejects, and due to the fact that the witnesses were almost 100 yard behind in a straight line it would be impossible for them to tell when I accurately pass said specified points.

Also, even if they try and use the skid marks against me, pretty certain that they were not measured and my tyres were not even checked for wear/match. Doesn't install confidence considering it was traffic police who should have been able to check that straight away.

Muppets

 

[BarryG]

Don't know where the damage is on either car, but assuming your N/S their O/S.

Speed is not a factor as it cannot be proven by witness statements (or would get ripped apart if it did get to court)....I'll defy anyone to tell the difference between 35 & 45MPH when standing watching without a camera

A good solicitor will sort this very easily..Photo's would have helped (especially with the alleged skid marks)

Good luck, but I think you'll be OK

I agree entirely. Get your solicitor onto this straight away and whatever happens stand by your guns that You were not speeding no matter what the old couple say. The other driver is entirely at fault you see people doing what they did to you all the time. I personally think they are looking in their rear view mirror only and missing you in their wing mirrors. I often double check as its easy to miss someone on a motorbike. By rights your speed should not come into it as the other drivers lack of observation has caused the incident.
As for the skidmarks its the polices responsibility to proove they were made by your car not just to guess. As stated a good solicitor should blow them out of the water after one letter.

Good luck
Barry

 

[MercAl]

Sounds to me like the Police have taken the easy option and charged both drivers. Instead of establishing who was at fault, which would involve measuring and matching skid marks etc., it looks like they're happy to let the court sort it out. They're probably banking on both drivers pleading guilty. Saves a lot of time and money! Cynical...but true I'm afraid. Unless it's a fatal road accident, or one of a serious nature, the Police are'nt interested. It's far too time consuming for them to be bothered with. Their attitude seems to be...send everyone to court...let them sort it out! Investigation is one of their fundamental duties, and it seems now to be a thing of the past, unless it's a serious incident.
I would fight this tooth and nail. Assuming of course it reaches court. It could be that it won't get that far, as there deosn't appear to be any evidence against you. You were performing a legitimate manouvre at the time, and no matter what the independant witnesses say, they cannot tell whether you were speeding or not. They probably don't even know the limit on that particular stretch of road! Sounds clear cut to me...the other driver's to blame.
Only my opinion of course...every man to his own!
Good Luck.

 

[Hibbo]

I concur completely with what's been said already; it is a very simple matter:
A car has pulled out on you.

Unfortunately what Al says it very true, the filth simply can't be ersed with bothering to find out who was to blame, and this way they may get two convictions out of it!

You have done absolutely nothing wrong, speed is clearly not an issue, and even if it were, they cannot prove anything (It's not what you know, it's what you can prove!).

This is an annoying example of where someone has been driving very dangerously - had you been a couple of feet further forward when impact was made, you might not be here reading this - but the filth simply blame you for speeding. They'll probably use this as an argument to put a speed camera up there!

This does happen far to often, it is easily done if someone's in your blind-spot, I always have a quick look over my shoulder just in case. But I really think some people don't even bother checking their mirrors.

I don't think you've got anything to worry about, I doubt whether the CPS will even try and prosecute you. I would even consider seeking redress from the filth.

Please let us know how you get on.

 

[Flying Scot]

HO HUM

i note

1. you dont say what speed the two cars you were trying to overtake were doing

2. what speed you were doing

3. what the speed limit on the road is

enquiring minds would like to know why you have ommited this critical important pertinant data

were i to have written that accident report i would have certainly included speeds - just my suspicious legal mind he he

 

[Flying Scot]

<BIG SNIP Sounds clear cut to me...the other driver's to blame. Only my opinion of course...every man to his own!
Good Luck.

I concur completely with what's been said already; it is a very simple matter: A car has pulled out on you

.<SNIP>

You have done absolutely nothing wrong, speed is clearly not an issue, and even if it were, they cannot prove anything (It's not what you know, it's what you can prove!).

This is an annoying example of where someone has been driving very dangerously - had you been a couple of feet further forward when impact was made, you might not be here reading this - but the filth simply blame you for speeding. They'll probably use this as an argument to put a speed camera up there!

This does happen far to often, it is easily done if someone's in your blind-spot, I always have a quick look over my shoulder just in case. But I really think some people don't even bother checking their mirrors.

<SNIP> .

wow guys HELLLLLLP

we have only heard one side of this story and we have only been told some of the story

let me try and disect this as i see it

we still dont know anything about speeds

two cars had a collision - one seriousy damaged - laughing called an accident

i doubt in any collision between two moving vehicles only one driver is totally at fault

is speed an issue here that we dont really know

and who was driving dangerously or without care and attention the guy who pulled out or the guy who hit the car pulling out on him both for sure were not driving carefully with their brains fully on the task at hand BOTH failed to properly assess the potential danger before they started their manouver

mirrors are only part of the solution you need spatial awareness and you need to know who is behind you 'all the time'

you also have to be ready for the other driver to behave like a clown and you need to give yourself time and room to avoid him if he does do something stupid - but actually quite predictable

as i ride a motor bike i can assure you simply blaming the other driver will get me killed

maybe if we all felt less safe and secure in our well made MB.s we would drive more 'carefully'

for sure i could and would not say who was right or wrong here based on what was written here and i think Mr Plod did the correct thing by charging both drivers.

time to pull on the body armour he he

 

[Flying Scot]

....I'll defy anyone to tell the difference between 35 & 45MPH when standing watching without a camera

for sure I CAN and i would expect most reasonably experienced driveres to be able to do that with a better than 90% sucess rate

I live in a 20 Zone and for sure i can tell the difference between 20 30 40 and above very very easily

Come on we are sitting at a junction about to pull out onto the main road and there is traffic on that busy main road we are (or at least i am) constantly assessing the speed of the passing cars so that we can find a safe space to pull out into - that to me is a very very basic driving skill and does require you to be able to differentiate between speeds in the range that you indicated above - if you can do that in your car - and i hope you can - i dont see the problem doing that outside the car

 

[Rory]

I was in an 'accident' when I was much younger where a guy pulled out in front of me. A witness claimed I was doing at least 60. However the Police were adamant it was the other guys fault - they said my speed was irrelevant and there was never any question of me being charged. They did, however, decide not to charge the other guy either, as there was some doubt about my speed.

Possum - Suggest you post this on http://www.pistonheads.com in Speed, Plod & the Law - quite a number of Police Officers post on there so you should get some feedback.

 

[BarryG]

To Flying Scot,
David normally on your posts I would agree with you, or, at least not be concerned enough to comment BUT???
We only heard one side! What do you want him to do phone the muppet who crashed into him to come on the forum and give his side? Sometimes we just have to accept what someone is saying is true.
I couldnt estimate speeds of cars travelling away from me with any degree of accuracy or come even close and you state 90% drivers should be able to? Im sorry but guessing someones speed from any direction is nigh on impossible unless they were driving ridiculously fast in a 20 zone yes most could tell they were over 20 but even then it would be difficult to say the driver was doing 45 at the time it would be just some abitrary figure. As for pulling out from the junction you arent sitting saying a car coming toward you is doing 30 so I will pull out.You say to yourself I think I have time to make the gap and take it.
Your comments on the accident baffle me. How when he was making an overtaking manouveur which in itself means accelerating past the car in question could he have avoided the other car? How can you allow for time and an idiot on your inside in this situation?
"i doubt in any collision between two moving vehicles only one driver is totally at fault "
Your words. ^
I have been involved in 4 accidents and cross my heart and hope to die , not one of them was my fault. The other drivers have hit my car. Oh and not one of them involved speed. Every accident I have been unlucky enough to witness have always been just one of the drivers fault. (Two that immediately come to mind the driver that caused the accident just kept on driving unscathed.)

As for the police if I was driving within the limit I would sue them for trying to get a lazy conviction.

Oh if you are that good at telling speeds your a better man than me you and Uri Gellar :-D

Barry

 

[Hibbo]

Flying Scot, you make some very good points, and you are correct to point out that I have possibly rallied to blindly support Possum without knowing the very important issue of speed.

I have been caught out in the past on motorways, as I sure many people have, you check your mirrors, the bloke in the outside lane is miles away, you start to pull out and he's (or she, only said bloke for simplicity) right on your shoulder as he's (or she's) absolutely honking along.

So well done David, let's get all the facts before we pass judgement.

Over to you Possum my son, give us all the details!

 

[BarryG]

Flying Scot, you make some very good points, and you are correct to point out that I have possibly rallied to blindly support Possum without knowing the very important issue of speed.

I have been caught out in the past on motorways, as I sure many people have, you check your mirrors, the bloke in the outside lane is miles away, you start to pull out and he's (or she, only said bloke for simplicity) right on your shoulder as he's (or she's) absolutely honking along.

So well done David, let's get all the facts before we pass judgement.

Over to you Possum my son, give us all the details!

"they thought I was speeding as I'd also passed them, which I of course deny"
Possums words.
He isnt on trial here, probably wasnt expecting to need give the exact speed of all cars involved. I certainly wouldnt
So we have to take him at his word that he wasnt speeding.
Barry

 

[gls5000]

I've got to agree with BarryG here regarding Flying Scot. We can only judge on the information given to us.

Possum may or may not have been speeding, but the point is that it's irrelevant, and would only be relevant in nullifying his claim if it could be proved (even then the other driver would still be at fault for the accident but the speeder would also be charged separately for speeding).

If somebody enters your lane to occupy the space you're in, it doesn't matter what speed you're doing; what was possum supposed to do? 'Sorry for so inconsiderately occupying the space you wanted to enter without checking your mirrors?'. The collision would still happen at 20mph or 90mph.

And being alert and making allowances for hazards and drivers doing something stupid, is just good sense, it is not a legal responsibility. It's unbelievable that you think that not being able to react in time to a hazard caused by another driver makes the victim partially responsible. I wonder where that kind of thinking would stop - 'sorry your honour, I accept some responsibility for the attempted murder because I wasn't able to move my body out of the way of the knife quickly enough'.

 

[television]

So far the one important bit has been missed out.
The police have to warn that drivers will be prosicuted, for if they do not do so within 14 days, they cannot persue it. they can always drop it, but they cant do it the other way round.

I would not be suprissed if you heard no more about it.

Malcolm

 

[Flying Scot]

I've got to agree with BarryG here regarding Flying Scot. We can only judge on the information given to us.

PLEEEESE get real - you cant JUDGE anything given only one side of the argument and only given half of the story.

 

[Flying Scot]

To Flying Scot,
David normally on your posts I would agree with you, or, at least not be concerned enough to comment BUT???
We only heard one side! What do you want him to do phone the muppet who crashed into him to come on the forum and give his side? Sometimes we just have to accept what someone is saying is true.
I couldnt estimate speeds of cars travelling away from me with any degree of accuracy or come even close and you state 90% drivers should be able to? Im sorry but guessing someones speed from any direction is nigh on impossible unless they were driving ridiculously fast in a 20 zone yes most could tell they were over 20 but even then it would be difficult to say the driver was doing 45 at the time it would be just some abitrary figure. As for pulling out from the junction you arent sitting saying a car coming toward you is doing 30 so I will pull out.You say to yourself I think I have time to make the gap and take it.
Your comments on the accident baffle me. How when he was making an overtaking manouveur which in itself means accelerating past the car in question could he have avoided the other car? How can you allow for time and an idiot on your inside in this situation?
"i doubt in any collision between two moving vehicles only one driver is totally at fault "
Your words. ^
I have been involved in 4 accidents and cross my heart and hope to die , not one of them was my fault. The other drivers have hit my car. Oh and not one of them involved speed. Every accident I have been unlucky enough to witness have always been just one of the drivers fault. (Two that immediately come to mind the driver that caused the accident just kept on driving unscathed.)

As for the police if I was driving within the limit I would sue them for trying to get a lazy conviction.

Oh if you are that good at telling speeds your a better man than me you and Uri Gellar :-D

Barry

i think i was ME that was the FIRST PERSON to draw attention to the fact that we only knew one side YET everyone was saying how terrible and you were totally blameless or words to that effect - cant be bothered going back and posting all the quotes

now you are trying to corrupt what i suggested re being able to estimate speed IF you cant do that while driving can i suggest you are a danger to every one else on the road

read all what i wrote - riding a Motorbike YOU HAVE TO consider what the other driver MAY DO and give yourself both time and room to avoid any stupid actions or you wont live long

WHY when you driving your car should you take more chances - simply because your safe in your steel box

Finally we dont as yet KNOW <sik> if the chap was driving within the legal speed limit - even he has not actually said so

 

[Flying Scot]

If somebody enters your lane to occupy the space you're in, it doesn't matter what speed you're doing; what was possum supposed to do? 'Sorry for so inconsiderately occupying the space you wanted to enter without checking your mirrors?'. The collision would still happen at 20mph or 90mph. '.

GULP what a silly statement how stupid - lets make this even more stupid instead of the car it is your wife with your two kids hand in hand that walks into the road without looking - are you going to say that the driver that kills them - who may or may not have been exceeding the speed limit BUT for sure was driving too fast to stop in the event of something happening in front of them - is blameless - they were driving too fast - they were driving without their brain switched on - for sure not driving carefully. Driving within your limits and the limits of your car comes to mind. The car did not enter the lane he was occupying - had that happened i would say that he was blameless and his options were very very limited - he was behind it and far enough behind it to see the driver indicate then it pulled out in front of him - something quite common and hardly unexpected - something you should be expecting to happen and driving defensively.

 

[stumpy]

I witnessed a similar shunt on the M3 a earlier this year. It was dark, dampish but traffic was light. A Renault 19 came zooming past me in the outside lane doing about a ton. I was doing 70 so he was definitely speeding. As he approached a group of cars ahead, 2 girls in a Clio moved into the outside lane mis-judging his closing speed. He had nowhere to go and punted the Clio up the rear which spun it across 3 lanes and into the embankment right in front of me, where it rolled 3 times. I thought the girls would be dead, but I managed to get them out through the sunroof. Thankfully, they were walking wounded. Now to my point. The police were on scene to take statements from me and another witness. The girls had no idea what happened. I expected the police to throw the book at the R19 driver as he was travelling far too quickly, and as a result of that, the girls could have died. BUT, as the girls had in effect pulled out on him the police said they weren't getting involved because it was basically a knock for knock. The final rub for me was when I got a letter from R19s solicitor asking me to be a witness in court, as he was sueing the girls!

 

[gls5000]

PLEEEESE get real - you cant JUDGE anything given only one side of the argument and only given half of the story.

Firstly, then what would you suggest we do? Ignore the post because there's a possibility the poster is lying? The guy wants advice. It's not in his interest to give false information. Unless the other party is going to come onto the forum and gives us his side your insistence that we should hear the other side of the story is utterly pointless. Possum wants advice and we are giving it on the assumption that his information is correct. If it is not correct then that invalidates the advice and he will have a problem in court. That's his problem. Not giving him advice in case he's lying is not at all helpful and achieves nothing.