ChatterBank1 min ago
I do not accept liability.. can i be forced to accept it without it being taken to court?
I overtook the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway, and pulled out into the 3rd lane to overtake it. at the point i checked my mirrors (while i was doing 70mph) a BMW was roughly 80-100 yards behind me in hte 3rd lane. This would indicate a safe distance for me to pull out. I did so, however upon being next to the car i was overtaking the BMW clearly then appeared to be speeding and hit me from behind. while i was trying to overtake, i had a good 4-5 seconds of watching the BMW come speeding up behind me but as my van is only a diesel it had no guts or oomph to speed up and move out of the way. he hit me.
He is claiming he was doing the speed limit, and on his solicitors report of my negligence, it was claimed that I was 'driving too fast under all circumstances'.
my solicitors have rolled over and given in to his claim and said I am fully at fault. they listen to what his statement says, yet dispute mine. there were no witnesses that stopped, so at this point, it is his word against mine.
Why would they take his word over mine, considering he has nothing to support his version of events which is vague, and i can clearly state everything i saw happen, as it happened?
Also, can i tell my insurance company I do not want them to pay his damages and I want to be taken/take it to court? As my solicitors (provided under legal cover) have wiped their hands clean of it.... I feel I would stand a good chance of him getting more than 50% of the blame....
He is claiming he was doing the speed limit, and on his solicitors report of my negligence, it was claimed that I was 'driving too fast under all circumstances'.
my solicitors have rolled over and given in to his claim and said I am fully at fault. they listen to what his statement says, yet dispute mine. there were no witnesses that stopped, so at this point, it is his word against mine.
Why would they take his word over mine, considering he has nothing to support his version of events which is vague, and i can clearly state everything i saw happen, as it happened?
Also, can i tell my insurance company I do not want them to pay his damages and I want to be taken/take it to court? As my solicitors (provided under legal cover) have wiped their hands clean of it.... I feel I would stand a good chance of him getting more than 50% of the blame....
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by milo_11. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
depends in what way the impact on her life it was forced upon her... ie if someone pulled out in front of her, then i could understand her response as such, as similarly, my now current distaste for the *majority* (not all) BMW drivers.
however not all cases are simply a 'pulled out immediately infront therefore person infronts fault' case... which im guessin is Dris's image of it...
however not all cases are simply a 'pulled out immediately infront therefore person infronts fault' case... which im guessin is Dris's image of it...
milo -you got it.I am not replying purely due to personal circumstances its because I cant tolerate people not accepting they were wrong and second guessing what the other driver may or may not have been doing.That doesnt wash in court.
The OP drove into the path of another driver -he was primarily at fault regardless of the 'estimated' speed the other driver was doing.He's lucky he wasnt charged with careless driving as he patently didnt estimate the other drivers speed at the time or he wouldnt have pulled out in front of him.I cant see how the other driver was at fault -Its like someone overtaking in the face of you -how can you prepare for that?
The OP drove into the path of another driver -he was primarily at fault regardless of the 'estimated' speed the other driver was doing.He's lucky he wasnt charged with careless driving as he patently didnt estimate the other drivers speed at the time or he wouldnt have pulled out in front of him.I cant see how the other driver was at fault -Its like someone overtaking in the face of you -how can you prepare for that?
thats fine and all Dris, but what about the fact his case of negligence against me states i was speeding... and again, how far ahead does one have to be in front of someone before not having to crap themselves and spend the next 30 seconds justifying to themselves are they pulling out in front of someone who then has a right to hit you just coz he legally can because you pulled out infront of him (for example) 300 yards ahead earlier?
if anything, the mere fact i was hit from behindd, is usually the fault of the driver behind. (i said usually, not always.)
the fact that it then becomes a matter that i said i had plenty of room to pull out, he says he didnt, becomes a he/she says matter, would probably move over to a 50/50. there is no proof to support either, only circumstantial theories which common sense would usually support mine, and not his. despite his lack of clarified detail in what actually happened in his claim against me, and his inconsistent claims of negligence, and the fact he didnt even respond within his 3 month dedicated reply period, but about 4 months later. it oculdnt have been that clear to him if he had to wait well past his mandatory time limit of response to my solicitors...
the fact that it then becomes a matter that i said i had plenty of room to pull out, he says he didnt, becomes a he/she says matter, would probably move over to a 50/50. there is no proof to support either, only circumstantial theories which common sense would usually support mine, and not his. despite his lack of clarified detail in what actually happened in his claim against me, and his inconsistent claims of negligence, and the fact he didnt even respond within his 3 month dedicated reply period, but about 4 months later. it oculdnt have been that clear to him if he had to wait well past his mandatory time limit of response to my solicitors...
by the way, if ever im wrong, i will put my hand up to it with no problem. i have scraped (while reversing out of a parking space) someones bumper once while driving a new car (misjudged the length of the front because i was new to it). i left a note for them apologising with my details. I am not one to lie for the sake of it, or try to bend things my way to win, or to do anything unjust. if im wrong, im wrong. if ive been done wrong, i will fight it as much as i possibly can to ensure that right is done.
I've only just come in, but this one seems to be going round in circles. The two facts seem a) he hit you (and normally the one who hits the other one in the back is at fault) - but it wasn't a straight shunt , and b) however far away he was, you pulled out in front of him. It really is his word against yours - you say you can state clearly everything which happened, but I bet he will be making exactly the same statement, he saw you pull out into the lane in front of him - he might be saying it's you who are vague and woolly. 100 yards behind you when you pulled out, isn't very far at maximum speed in the outside lane.
milo -you obviously think you have a case to answer.I think its clear cut.I do hope you know that im posting on whats been posted and fundamentally the circumstances and the law and looking at that I still stand by what I have posted.Sometimes its best to accept it -anyway what happened to 'knock for knock' -is that the 50% that others have suggested? If so then I would go down that route and try to keep your head below the parapet as I honestly think you would regret taking this to court you'll be well out of pocket.I hope you realse that I wasnt popping personally at you just the circumstances.
yeah i understand Dris, it is nothing personal, i was just lettin you know i wasnt the sort that u stated 'people not accepting they were wrong and second guessing what the other driver may or may not have been doing'...
actually, no, it has not been a k4k, no 50/50, simply decided as, my fault.
it wouldnt hurt as much if he told the truth about his speed, and i still got blamed fully for it. but the fact he lies about his speed, is like hes not only stuck the knife in, but twisted it upwards as well...
considering i can get the blame for overtaking someone in which would have been legitimate circumstances had everyone been abiding by the law, but one wasnt, obviously what with there being plenty who go over the 70... i cant see how i could comfortably ever overtake anyone for fear of someone speeding and hitting me, who it appears has the high ground, regardless of his contributory negligence....
actually, no, it has not been a k4k, no 50/50, simply decided as, my fault.
it wouldnt hurt as much if he told the truth about his speed, and i still got blamed fully for it. but the fact he lies about his speed, is like hes not only stuck the knife in, but twisted it upwards as well...
considering i can get the blame for overtaking someone in which would have been legitimate circumstances had everyone been abiding by the law, but one wasnt, obviously what with there being plenty who go over the 70... i cant see how i could comfortably ever overtake anyone for fear of someone speeding and hitting me, who it appears has the high ground, regardless of his contributory negligence....
the 3rd lane is meant for overtaking the middle lane, not for staying in for as long as you can while racing along well over the speed limit.. cant see why my van which was at 70mph before i even moved into the 3rd lane, should be exempt of the 3rd lane, otehr than it doesnt have the acceleration to go from 70-90 to catch up to other speeding drivers who arent using the 3rd lane for what it is supposed to be for...
it doesnt have to make sense, you wernt there. that IS what happened. i didnt come here to gather peoples imaginative short stories on what they think happened, i came here to find out peoples opinions based on what i have said.
american kids going into their schools and shootin the crap out of everyone doesnt really make sense either, does it... you try telling one of them it doesnt make sense and that it must have happened another way?
far fetched? yes. same principle? yes.
american kids going into their schools and shootin the crap out of everyone doesnt really make sense either, does it... you try telling one of them it doesnt make sense and that it must have happened another way?
far fetched? yes. same principle? yes.
But most people know Milo that you will only tell the story in the best light for you. There's a saying that there are always two sides to every story and somewhere down the middle is the truth. If you are coming on here asking for peoples' opinions then they will naturally arrive at conclusions based upon your statement as well as their own knowledge and experience. I'm just one of those you are asking to draw a conclusion from the information you give. After all, that's exactly what the insurance company and the solicitors do.
I'm not judging or criticising you Milo but, by using the facts you give and my own 30 years driving experience, it seems to me that the collision occurred for the reason that lies halfway between your account and that of the BMW driver (who was probably speeding but can't admit it!).
I'm not judging or criticising you Milo but, by using the facts you give and my own 30 years driving experience, it seems to me that the collision occurred for the reason that lies halfway between your account and that of the BMW driver (who was probably speeding but can't admit it!).
heres an example that makes sense. he was probably messin about on his phone, thus not paying attention.
makes sense.
''draw a conclusion from the information you give''
no, you read what i said and then totally ignored it and gave your own verdict of what probably actually happened 'based on your 30 years driving'. just because you have driven for 30 years does not mean youve seen all or most things, or that things cant happen that you have not seen before.
and i think you should find that a lot of accidents happen due to people not paying attention for whatever reason, wether its their phone, or changing cds in a cd player etc.
I know what you mean by someone would always tell the story that would be in their best light. but if u read earlier, i am not one to sugar coat things. if ive done wrong, ill admit it. if i didnt, then i didnt. if i done slightly wrong, then i done slightly wrong.
the only thing i done wrong in this case was expecting to be able to pull out in the 3rd lane at the maximum speed limit without fear of gettin hit from behind from some retard thinkin hes michael schumacher and owns the 3rd lane.
makes sense.
''draw a conclusion from the information you give''
no, you read what i said and then totally ignored it and gave your own verdict of what probably actually happened 'based on your 30 years driving'. just because you have driven for 30 years does not mean youve seen all or most things, or that things cant happen that you have not seen before.
and i think you should find that a lot of accidents happen due to people not paying attention for whatever reason, wether its their phone, or changing cds in a cd player etc.
I know what you mean by someone would always tell the story that would be in their best light. but if u read earlier, i am not one to sugar coat things. if ive done wrong, ill admit it. if i didnt, then i didnt. if i done slightly wrong, then i done slightly wrong.
the only thing i done wrong in this case was expecting to be able to pull out in the 3rd lane at the maximum speed limit without fear of gettin hit from behind from some retard thinkin hes michael schumacher and owns the 3rd lane.
milo, I previously said in a very abreviated form 'down to you Mr van driver' that having read carefully what your initial question / statement said and now all the subsequent comments you have made, I feel that there seems to be only three realistic probabilities here.
1 The BMW was travelling so fast that he could not in the amount of time you believe he had to slow down, been able to lose sufficient speed to avoid an accident.
2 You, as the driver moving into HIS lane either failed to appreciate his speed (even if it was excessive) and therefore pulled out into his path.
3 Or for a full four or five seconds the driver was not looking at the road ahead and failed to see the developing scenario.
I still feel, on balance, and no, none of us were in the vehicles, that you are the more liable party. This is what your insurance company has done.
That is my view.
1 The BMW was travelling so fast that he could not in the amount of time you believe he had to slow down, been able to lose sufficient speed to avoid an accident.
2 You, as the driver moving into HIS lane either failed to appreciate his speed (even if it was excessive) and therefore pulled out into his path.
3 Or for a full four or five seconds the driver was not looking at the road ahead and failed to see the developing scenario.
I still feel, on balance, and no, none of us were in the vehicles, that you are the more liable party. This is what your insurance company has done.
That is my view.
Whilst the BMW driver's allegation that you were speeding doesn't seem to make sense (unless they said you were speeding in the middle lane and suddenly swerved into the outside lane to avoid hitting someone), I think your insurer and their legal people will be taking a balanced view based on the circumstances. They feel it is better to pay up now rather than fight it and run the risk of paying out more in legal costs etc.
I know it's really annoying when their view doesn't match yours but they are your insurers and they are the ones who pay the claim.
By all means write again setting out your concerns but at some point you need to give up before it becomes an obsession that takes over your life- I've seen that happen.
Good luck
I know it's really annoying when their view doesn't match yours but they are your insurers and they are the ones who pay the claim.
By all means write again setting out your concerns but at some point you need to give up before it becomes an obsession that takes over your life- I've seen that happen.
Good luck
paul, thank you for elaborating your view from earlier, and i do appreciate that input, as it is not a view of telling me what i am saying is not what happened, but of a view given the circumstances i have said.
1, i can understand could well be a possibility, as from my view is easier to judge saying he could have braked (even though i still think he could have braked but didnt at all from the impact i felt)
2, perhaps this is so, giving me a contributory negligence, however i again, do feel that one should be able to go into the 3rd lane at 70mph without fear of gettin hit from behind by a speeding vehicle breaking the law and then causing a crash because of his breaking the law (but not forgettin the contributory negligence side of how the accident came to happen)
3. still my current view, that he was distracted somehow for whatever reason and was not paying attention to what was ahead.
1, i can understand could well be a possibility, as from my view is easier to judge saying he could have braked (even though i still think he could have braked but didnt at all from the impact i felt)
2, perhaps this is so, giving me a contributory negligence, however i again, do feel that one should be able to go into the 3rd lane at 70mph without fear of gettin hit from behind by a speeding vehicle breaking the law and then causing a crash because of his breaking the law (but not forgettin the contributory negligence side of how the accident came to happen)
3. still my current view, that he was distracted somehow for whatever reason and was not paying attention to what was ahead.
@factor30
' but at some point you need to give up before it becomes an obsession that takes over your life-''
this.... i just feel soooooo angry at the moment i cant think properly... i am probably not far off this at the moment... unfortunately i am a grudge holding person to someone that harshly does me wrong... (in this case not just because its in his favour, but because he lied about his speed which has gotten him totally off the hook while i told the truth as much as i possibly could and it has done me no favours whatsoever...)
people are right, this probably got stopped because the risk was too great due to lack of hard evidence/witnesses and the costs would faaar outweigh anything gained by their (insurance company) perspective...
a letter to my solicitors raising concerns in which the way some issues were handled has already been sent... but now.. do i.... i dont know...
' but at some point you need to give up before it becomes an obsession that takes over your life-''
this.... i just feel soooooo angry at the moment i cant think properly... i am probably not far off this at the moment... unfortunately i am a grudge holding person to someone that harshly does me wrong... (in this case not just because its in his favour, but because he lied about his speed which has gotten him totally off the hook while i told the truth as much as i possibly could and it has done me no favours whatsoever...)
people are right, this probably got stopped because the risk was too great due to lack of hard evidence/witnesses and the costs would faaar outweigh anything gained by their (insurance company) perspective...
a letter to my solicitors raising concerns in which the way some issues were handled has already been sent... but now.. do i.... i dont know...
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.