Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Bartizan

My wife was involved in an accident, and our insurers are now claiming this was 100% her fault. I would appreciate any advice as to whether this is technically correct, and whether there is anything else we can do.

The site of the accident is where a private road from a business park joins a single-carriageway A-road. My wife was turning right, i.e. onto the far carriageway. The road at this point is bendy, and is a 40mph zone despite being in the countryside. There is a bend to the left of the junction, which gives drivers on the A-road initial visibility of the junction between 300 and 400 feet away (depending on vegetation growth), and similarly gave my wife a view of at least 300 feet of the road.

She checked the road was clear in both directions, and pulled out, only to be hit from the rear by a young driver travelling left-to-right on the A-road. He immediately said he was travelling at "60-ish" mph and asked her what the speed limit was there. Police were called by the young driver, determined no-one was injured, but drove my wife home as she was shaken. The Road Traffic Act was complied with and, with no injuries, they took no further action.

There were no witnesses to the accident who identified themselves (my wife's first priority was naturally not to look for witnesses, and the twisty nature of the road along with the other driver's speed makes it unlikely there would be witnesses) and there is no CCTV. The other driver has not informed his insurance company of his speed, simply that he saw my wife pulling out and was unable to stop in time. And understandably the insurers cannot simply take our word for his admission of speed.

I was not present at the accident, but I know that my wife would not have pulled out if there had been anything visible. A colleague of hers was hit recently at the same point in the same way by a speeding driver coming round the same corner, except her colleague was waiting on that far carriageway to turn into the business park, so she was minded to take extra care. My wife has excellent hazard perception (spotting things a fraction of a second before I do), and has passed her test over ten years now without a single accident or even speeding ticket. I looked up stopping distances and the ones I found were 40mph: 140 feet, 60mph, 300 feet, 70mph, 400 feet, so it seems to me that the scenario of "clear road, she pulled out, he came round corner at that point doing a little over 60mph, couldn't stop in time" is entirely consistent with what everyone says happened.

Our insurers (LV, also the insurers of the car that hit my wife) say that the only verified accounts for this accident are that my wife pulled out onto a major road and the driver travelling along that road was unable to stop in time, therefore 100% of liability is with us. I find it hard to accept that pulling out onto an empty road and being hit due to the excessive speed of someone else can be entirely our liability. Without any real evidence other than the initial (and voluntary) admission of speed, is there anything we can practically do other than reluctantly go along with this?

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Dwight Van Driver

Generally when apportioning blame one asks who was doing the most unusual manouevre?

In this case Madam.

Not the bloke going along on the main road UNLESS it can be PROVED he was travelling too fast for the conditions. In this case almost impossible to provewithout an independent witness(s)

dvd.

.

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Peter D

I'm afraid it sounds as if you wife if liable, she pulled out across a main road. Were there any skid marks. ? I suggest she learns how to use her phone as a dictaphone and camera or keeps both time in the car. Did the police not take measurment of any skid marks. How far from the junction was the impact.

Regards Peter

Edited by Peter D on 24/07/2013 at 16:47

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Bartizan

Thanks for both replies. Police did not take any measurements on account of there being no injuries, as far as they are concerned this is simply a matter for the insurers to sort out. I do not know if there were any skid marks, I would presume that these days with ABS that would be unlikely? Impact was very near the junction but I don't have a precise figure as the cars stopped a little way down the road.

From what I've read elsewhere, the dictaphone route wouldn't help as any admission could be later said to be under duress? And even cameras in the car Russian style wouldn't have helped as they would have needed to point sideways and slightly backwards to catch the driver as he came round the corner before he'd braked to under the speed limit?

There have been several other accidents on that road very near there in the past three months alone, including one motorcyclist death, as people keep ignoring the speed limit. Most of the accidents have been single cars speeding, losing control and coming off the road.

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Brit_in_Germany

Your wife could provide a sworn witness statement testifying to what the other driver said after the accident. As to whether this would make a difference would depend on how interested the insurers are in taking the matter further.

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Andrew-T

Generally when apportioning blame one asks who was doing the most unusual manouevre? In this case Madam.

Not the bloke going along on the main road UNLESS it can be PROVED he was travelling too fast for the conditions. In this case almost impossible to provewithout an independent witness(es).

These verdicts sound to me excessively unfair. A more equitable outcome would be 50:50, as Madam's vehicle was hit from behind. If the data we are given are correct, the young driver had at least 300 feet to spot the car joining the main road, which is enough to stop if travelling within the posted speed limit.

But maybe the local council has been saving expenditure on trimming back the vegetation?

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Bartizan

The 300 feet was my estimate with excessive vegetation growth. It would be 400 feet with adequate trimming. The road is notorious for drivers ignoring the 40mph speed limit and coming a cropper: see:

www.kentonline.co.uk/kentish_gazette/news/Road-clo.../

www.thisiskent.co.uk/Pean-Hill-branded-disaster-ro...F

for two accidents both at this identical bend, and there have been many more within recent months.

The insurance liability of 100% is from the "which vehicle's action caused the bump" and "major road has priority" theories. The insurers have admitted to me (off the record) that this frequently results in inequitable results, as speed is near impossible to prove whereas road priorities and car movements are easy to prove. They also said that they believe in about 50% of cases, one party outright lies to their insurers.

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - TeeCee

Without any real evidence other than the initial (and voluntary) admission of speed, is there anything we can practically do other than reluctantly go along with this?

Er, no.

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Peter D

Where abouts on Pean Hill did your wife pull out. I have found a couple of likely spots but the car must have been visible when your wife pulled out. Regards Peter

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Bartizan

John Roberts Business Park. Here's the view from the first moment the other driver would have seen it:

goo.gl/maps/4JB09

(the junction is the one with the white arch-topped sign) and here it is from the other direction.

goo.gl/maps/DVsZE

And if we go with both driver accounts: my wife checked the road was empty, pulled out, was hit before she'd gone very far at all. The other driver came round the corner at 60-ish, saw my wife pulling out, braked but couldn't stop in time.

I see nothing inconsistent with the following scenario, which is consistent with both accounts, and doesn't require the speeding car to be visible. My wife waits for a suitable gap in traffic, looks left (nothing), right (large enough gap or no traffic, handbrake release begun), left again as clutch starts to pull (still nothing), starts to move out across the carriageway and turn right, gets to far carriageway, changes to second gear (so pause in acceleration), is hit in rear about five seconds after beginning to move. The business park exit is concrete and slightly uphill, so you can't simply floor it without skidding. Assuming an average speed of 6mph and taking 2.5 seconds to position on the carriageway, she would have travelled perhaps 22 feet along the road and be doing 12mph at the 5 second mark.

The other driver is doing a little over 60mph as he suggested. He comes round the corner, just after my wife has checked left as she began to move. Being inexperienced in hazard perception, he spots my wife when she has moved halfway across the other carriageway rather than a touch before, and being inexperienced in braking hard, he initially doesn't fully depress the brake pedal, both of which mean that he doesn't slow down anywhere near the quoted vehicle stopping distances, but let's say 10fpsps at first then the typical real-life figure of 15fpsps. So his speed and total distance over those five seconds could be:

  1. 62mph, 91fps, 91 feet total
  2. 55mph, 81fps, 172 feet total
  3. 45mph, 66fps, 238 feet total
  4. 35mph, 51fps, 289 feet total
  5. 25mph, 36fps, 323 feet total

So he's now practically at the same point that my wife is, doing 13mph faster than her. She could have accelerated a little faster, or a little sooner, or any of these factors could be changed slightly, and there would still be a collision, despite the road being clear when she pulled on to it.

Incidentally, if said driver had come around the corner at the speed limit (40mph) and continued without braking, after the 10 seconds it could take to accelerate to 40mph in this car/scenario, my wife would be 240 feet down the road, and he would be 280 feet down the road from the junction (i.e. having bumped her). So even doing the speed limit, he would have needed to reduce his speed a little to avoid a collision with a car legitimately pulling out onto an apparently empty road. Or indeed a stationary bus, and this is a main local bus route with one every ten minutes.

This road needs some speed warning before the corner.

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - focussed

Highway code rule 154.

Includes the phrase:-

"Make sure that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear."

In other words, don't drive faster than your guardian angel can fly.

The guy that hit you sure didn't read that bit did he?

Just about covers it I think. Your wife should not have to take the financial rap for this incident.

Maybe worthwhile reminding the insurance company of this.

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Bartizan

They said to me that speed is the hardest thing of all to judge and get a reliable account of. They will take a camera, or police evidence, or driver admission. We can't prove any of those.

And what should happen is not how insurance companies work. They only take account of the evidence they can prove, or that is undisputed.

I try to see a silver lining in everything, but I'm struggling with this one.

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Peter D

My opinion is that there is plenty of visibility in either direction. Either the other driver was asleep or your wife did not spot the car and pulled out infront of the other car.

The other car could have driven round your wife, if he had enough notice, not ram into the rear of your wifes car.

I am glad no one was injured. What was the opinion of the police that attended.

Regards Peter

Edited by Peter D on 27/07/2013 at 09:31

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Simon

I have had a quick look at the pictures too and I think that the visibility is not too bad at all. I reckon that whether he was speeding or not you are going to have to take it on the chin, you have no evidence to prove that it wasn't your wifes fault. And at the end of the day she was pulling out of a junction onto a main road and was hit by the motorist already travelling along the main road.

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - dacouch

Out of interest how long were the skid marks and did your wife take pictures of them?

The best you could get out of this is circa 50/50 which means your wife will still be regarded as at fault and would still lose the same amount of no claims bonus as a fault claim. But her Insurers and her could recover 50% of her losses eg she could recover 50% of her excess

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Andrew-T

But in a sane world the speeding driver is the one 'at fault' as if he had been within the limit and/or looking at what he was doing, he should have been able to avoid a large stationary object, never mind a car travelling ahead of him. If visibility at that junction is as described, it should be possible to turn right out of it safely - or there would be crashes there every week.

And if the driver admitted to '60-ish' it might seem reasonable to assume it was rather more?

Edited by Andrew-T on 27/07/2013 at 14:57

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - nortones2

Details (engine rpm, throttle settings, gear, brake actuation extent) of both cars will probably be recorded on the ECU/airbag modules and are retrievable. Given that LV are involved for bothparties, I suggest OP asks LV whether they could make appropriate enquiries to find out what really happened. Or, if LV play dumb, use your own legal cover (CSMA?) to shine a light on the boy-racers antics.

Edited by nortones2 on 27/07/2013 at 15:47

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Bartizan

I agree there is more than adequate visibility for the speed limit or a little over.

Had my wife pulled out in front of the car doing 60-ish, he would have impacted the side of the car (it takes a little longer to pull out there due to the adverse slope and camber) at a greater speed. Her position and the rear impact damage suggests she pulled out as I calculated in my post above. I presume that the other driver either was unable to steer round the car due to oncoming traffic (unlikely) or simply gripped the wheel in panic due to inexperience.

The police thought it was clear-cut that the other driver entirely at fault, but probably due to the widespread myth that a rear-end is always the following vehicle's fault. Ultimately this is only money we're losing, and for that we are very grateful.

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Peter D

13 posts and now you mention "The police thought it was clear-cut" have you told your insurance company this and given them a contact. Regards Peter

Honda Jazz - Insurance claim - is this really our fault? - Bartizan

Certainly have told the insurers, but as the police (and indeed a passing ambulance) weren't present until after the accident, their supposition doesn't get us anywhere. It has becmoe clear from the advice here and elsewhere that there is no way for us to "win" this one - even if the police get back to me with a witnessed admission of speed at the scene or in the 999 call, the insurance company will hold us partially to blame for undertaking the riskier manoeuvre, and as I understand it any degree of blame above zero has the same financial impact on future premiums.