And hope you don't have my insurers (who shall remain nameless).
Deja vu!
|
|
|
Thanks for that guys, technically i was turning right as the road i wanted to get to was on the right the fact was i had to do more than 90 degrees to get to it properly. The thing was that when i looked behined me and infront of me there was no one around so i did it, he just came out of no where and must of put his foot down so hard to do the damage he did have a look for yourselves, which i say he wasnt looking where he was going in the first place.
uk.y42.photos.yahoo.com/mr_ri9ht
look under the folder marked escort
|
If the road was divided by a barrier or kerb (otherwise no need for the no U turn sign) and the second right turn was closer to the main road than the start of the barrier then technically you did a U turn followed by a left hand turn.
Ian L.
|
|
I not going to admit to that, he still hit me at speed thus it made me appear to do a u turn as my car spun round to face the other direction. Plus the witness said he was screaching round the corner.
|
>>I not going to admit to that
That was my point, you already have. It only takes someone to look at the road layout and your version of what you were doing, and an illegal turn, if it was as Ian suggested, would be obvious.
However, how far that would be an insurance matter rather than a police matter is doubtful.
Be honest with yourself and if it was technically an illegal turn then bear that in mind in your dealings with the other insurers.
|
|
Its a shame you dont know the road layout there as the signing is very poor, well there is signage there but to see it you have to be looking really hard for it if your with me. I will just leave it up to the insurance ppl to sort out and take it from there ;-) cheers everyone
|
|
Just focus on the fact that he thumped you in the back when you were indicating to turn. Whether or not you were permitted to turn there should not be relevant. He should have been looking whre he was going.
|
|
On your claim form, tell them you were turning right and do not mention what you were going to do afterwards. You will not be lying and you don't want to give any more info than is neccessary. The forms ask you to describe the positions and speeds of the vehicles at the time of the crash, not where they spun to later. Do not be the one to mention U-turns. I have learned *my* lesson regarding filling in claim forms.
|
Actually claim forms normally ask you to mark your intended direction of travel as well.
Be careful, and not stating a material fact is dodgy, whether or not you were directly asked.
|
|
Bit confused here - if you can't turn right without doing a U-turn, why is there a gap, and if there is a gap shouldn't it say "no-entry" since you can't U-turn and you can't turn right?
|
|
Useful photos of the damaged car - even more useful would be a photo of the scene, the sign and the road layout, to give us an idea what we're talking about here.
|
While we're on the subject of photos of accidents, I've uploaded 3 of the back of the Skoda following last week's fun and games with a Nova.
groups.msn.com/honestjohn/davestaxiphotos.msnw?act...1
Click on the "next" link to get to the other two pictures. It may not look much, but there's two grand's worth of damage there!
At least this one was fairly and squarely the other guy's fault.
|
Thank you all for you comments they were well recieved, again i agree with mark i should focus on the fact that he went into the back of me, therefore he should of been looking where he was going.
I would love to put up a photo of the location but you never know whos looking at this do you so i have added a picture to the folder with the ones of my car in its only a drawing of the layout of the road and the positions of the cars so feel free to have a look. That way you will be able to get a better idea as to the layout of the road.
uk.y42.photos.yahoo.com/mr_ri9ht
Cheers
|
Actually I don't think he hit you very hard (though it probably felt like it). Cars are designed to collapse in a controlled way on impact and that can look dramatic even in minor collisions. The amount of (visible) damage to your car is relatively light--it's still driveable, and probably still road legal, right?
Chris
|
But almost certainly a write-off. But I'm sure Mr Right already knows that. Shame, a waste of a smart looking car.
I think he must have hit fairly hard, when you compare the Escort to the back of Dave's Skoda, or the back of my Fiesta, you couldn't even see *any* visible damage to the car's structure after my smack, but it was damaged to the tune of almost a grand. :(
Looking at Mr Right's drawing of the situation, I doubt it would be classed as a U-turn, the only way that you could be in trouble is if there was a no right turn sign as well...
Blue
|
Yeah it is a shame its a lovely car both inside and out, and its got the mileage to go with it too. Just hope they give me a good payout.
Well he hit me and i ended up facing the other direction he spun me 180 degrees, my witness said he was doing some speed when he hit me, and we both came from where the arrow was and he had to wait for a gap in the traffic to turn right. So as a result he must of put his foot down while talking to his 3 young mates in the car, there is only bout 120 - 150 metres between the junction and where i was so he obvously wernt looking.
|
mr_right, assuming from your diagram that the no u-turn sign is at the first intersection at which you turned right then you have nothing to worry about, even if the sign is at the second intersection you were not intending to make a u-turn as defined by the Cambridge International Dictionary of English:-
(from Cambridge International Dictionary of English)
U-turn, Australian informal U-ie
[C]
a turn made by a car in order to go back in the direction from which it has come, or fig. esp. disapproving a complete change from one opinion or plan of action to an opposite one.
If there is a no right turn sign as well then you may have something to worry about a little, but the fact still remains that the other vehicle hit you from behind while you were stationary. I would suggest the reason that you were stationary is immaterial, you could have stopped to allow an infirm pedestrian to cross the carriageway, for instance, or for many other reasons. The onus must be on the other driver to drive within parameters which would allow him to stop in a timely manner to avoid a collision. I think you may well have hit the nail on the head when you suggest that he may have been distracted by his three passengers and, obviously, assuming the right hand lane to be clear.
Personally, I would say pretty straightforward, always with the proviso, of course, that here we only see the one side of the tale.
All the best with your claim and hope it all comes right in the end.
Cockle
|
The onus must be on the other driver todrive within parameters which would allow him to stop in a timely manner to avoid a collision.
"Never drive so fast that you cannot stop on your own side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear" Roadcraft 1994 Page 67
Obviously this driver could not see that the road was clear (he failed to see you) and I'm sure the appropriateness of his speed is questionable as well - in other words, yes the onus was on him
|
I don't fully follow the diagram, but I'd have thought a U-turn would only be if you joined the same road in the opposite direction. You are turning in to another road so unless there was a no right turn sign you are OK. Also, you mention the distance from the turn to the street you were turning in to was over 100m - no way could this be a U-turn.
Would it be possible to send a Multimap link to the junction in question? That will give us some idea, and if it's in a town or city then they will likely have an overhead map.
|
A little over the top, people.
If there was "no u-turn" *and* "no right turn" it is still a police matter, not an insurance matter, and does not affect the fact that he was hit in the back whilst correctly positioned in the road and heading in the correct direction.
If he was intending to break the law, then he shouldn't have been. But as I understand at the moment of the accident he had not.
Even if he had that does not make the accident his fault.
|
I saw a sign today that said something like 'No U turn' (with the symbol) and underneath 'for 100 m'. If there is no distance specified, it's hard to see how a right turn 150m later could possibly count as a U turn.
In any case, apportioning blame for an insurance claim is akin to second guessing negligence in tort, and it's hard to see that, even if the turn were illegal based on the first sign, how it could be Mr Right's fault if the second right turn were legally executed as where he had been before would be irrelevant.
(Pug Ugly, etc., not under seal, by deed, etc, obviously, it's late and I can't think of a better way of putting it.)
|
Thanks everyone i didnt intend for everyone to start questioning it.
Let me put a few things straight the U Turn sign in more or less in the same position of my car on the drawing in the middle of the road on a central reserve to stop ppl doing a u turn where i was. Howeva i was intending to make a right turn it does not say no right turn. So there for according to a few of your comments it doesnt matter as there was no sign saying i couldnt etc etc.
Its in the hands of the insurance firm now and i should be hearing back today on the progress so i will let you all know in the not so distant future how its progressing. Once again thank you all for your comments they were well appreciated.
|
Sorry my query about the U turn has diverted the thread. My reasoning was this, using Mr Right's diagram, if the road division was extended slight further (say to JUST past the right hand turn) and then ended completely (ie not a gap) then a no right turn sign would not be used but a no U turn sign could be used to prevent a right turn into an inaccessible road. All depends on the EXACT layout of the road. This was not at all clear before the diagram was made available.
BUT I agree that hitting a slowly moving /stationary car in the rear is the fault of the second driver. Although mitigating circumstances might include brake lights not working, indicators not working/not used etc.
regards
Ian L.
|
|
|
