I'm trying to find something that will nail liability to this guy, the Police attended the accident but after two weeks they still haven't said who was to blame. Sorry I forgot to mention that the guy who hit me came over a bridge as I was turning right into a side street at the base of the bridge.
|
If I were to drive into a brick wall at 20mph I would be happy for the airbag to go off. ISTR it is the rate of deceleration and angle rather than the absolute speed that sets them off (or not).
I think it's only some of the American vehicles where data logging can be downloaded form airbag computers.
|
Depends on deceleration and angle of impact - hence on what is hit and what its made of. Banging into an outer panel will produce less decelleration than hitting a chassis rail, for example.
Typical airbag set-up would be a 25g sensor on each front chassis rail - triggering for impacts within about 30 degrees. There will also be a 'safing' sensor (set at, say 12g) located somewhere in the front passenger compartment, which 'authenticates' the signal from the crash sensors. This is to stop the airbag going off if someone hits your front chassis rail with a hammer - for example.
30mph is definitely feasible - right down to about 10mph if you hit a solid block, I guess..
|
|
If I were to drive into a brick wall at 20mph I would be happy for the airbag to go off.
I'd be happy for it to go off at walking pace.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
Depends how old the Focus is, It wasnt till late 2003 / early 2004 the Focus got standard ABS.
Even some of the earlier Focus Ghia spec cars lacked ABS as standard equipment.
|
Markj
So he came over a bridge and slammed into the back of you? He was demonstrably unable to bring his vehicle to a stop in the distance that he could see to be clear. Therefore he was clearly driving at excessive speed for the prevailing circumstances. Why get sidetracked into what exact speed he may have been doing: or limit he may have been exceeding? [Probably unprovable anyway.]
He went into the back of you - the words "bang to rights" come to mind.
|
Thanks for the advice. My insurance company says case law is against me because I was turning right and so I should accept liablity in this case. I threatend legal action because they want to admit liability on my behalf before the police have even made up their mind about who was to blame, so I was looking and hoping for any technical data which would shut my insurance company up and force the other drive to accept blame. I was always under the impression that if your car was hit at the rear the third party was to blame unless you were in reverse. I think my insurance company has kids doing adult work, they are probably not even old enough to drive!
|
Markj
"Case law is against you because you were turning right?" They doubtless quoted chapter and verse of Websters? When were legal[?] right turns banned? [Must've missed the memo.]
Check your policy's small print for the exact terms covering settlement of claims. Many companies give themselves the right to settle claims at their sole discretion. Why are your - apparently disinterested - insurers involved at all? Simply commence a "third party claim" against the owner of the other vehicle for your damages and consequential losses. A solicitor or the CAB will explain the procedure. Merely notify your insurer of the successful outcome in due course. No doubting where the liability lay then.
|
|
Something a bit iffy here...
they want to admit liability on my behalf
I doubt it. I think you may have misunderstood something. Insurers never admit liability and even less often on someone else's behalf.
case law is against me
Ask them which case.
>>my insurance company has kids doing adult work
Often the case and may very well be the issue here.
Can you let us know as much about the circumstances and what
has happened since and we'll see if we can't steer you a little.
Please differentiate between broker, insurer and claims handlers.
|
All logic from the OP seems to suggest that he was turning right off the main road and the guy hit him from behind. I can't imagine how, in any way, this could be the fault of the OP.
However, is there a slight chance that the OP was travelling in the opposite direction and turning right across the guy that hit him? I know OP said got hit from behind, but did he mean on the back quarter, in which case a totally different scenario?
|
Good point if the statement 'The impact was focused in on his passenger side front wing and bonet.' then the OP could have been turning right but across the on coming traffic and there is case law for this I've been there. We need more info OP and a description of the damage to you car. Regards Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Depends how old the Focus is, It wasnt till late 2003 / early 2004 the Focus got standard ABS. Even some of the earlier Focus Ghia spec cars lacked ABS as standard equipment.
This was because at the time there was a supply problem with rear disc brakes. You couldn't have ABS without rear discs. I preferred to wait until rear discs became available to get my first 2.0 petrol Ghia in April 1999.
--
L\'escargot.
|
I can never understand why anyone should even be interested in who is to blame if there is no personal injury or police prosecution involved. I just leave it to my insurer to sort. If I'm doing it wrong I'd like someone to explain to me the error of my ways.
--
L\'escargot.
|
An example. I was indicating to turn right from a main road into a minor road that was on a curve, but stopped ( Stationary ) due to an oncoming vehicle. The vehicles driver was busy talking to his Son and was cutting the corner off, he crossed the white line and then saw me jumped on his brakes but still managed to hit me. My insurance suggested I was responsible ( Case Law ), Not so the other driver crossed a white line and hit a stationary car. My insurance supported me and no excess charged or At Fault declared. But this OP's case does sound a little odd and that the OP had crossed the path of an oncoming car, even if it was the other side of the bridge. However such bridges with blind junctions are usually marked and we do not have all the facts. Regards Peter
|
|
|
Thanks for the help here guys it is appreciated. The FULL circumstances of the accident are as follows: I was travelling along a major road. I stopped behind a car which was turning right, I also wanted to turn right. The major road has a steep incline and the minor road is at the base of the incline. There was 2 stationary cars in the minor road into which I wanted to turn. As the car infront of me turned right, the first car in the minor road turned left, leaving me waiting to turn right and the car in the minor road waiting to turn left. I saw a car travelling towards me as it crested the top of the incline, and I started to make my manouver. As I was completing my manouver there was impact on my rear passenger side. The point of impact was at the back of my rear wheel. I was driving a 3dr Focus so the point of impact is with-in 12-16 inches of the rear of the car. My car was spun into the front driverside wing of the car which was stationary in the minor road. I have timed the distance from where a car is visible as it crests the incline to the point of impact. At 30mph the time taken to travel that distance is 7 seconds (more than enough time to make my manouver. The car which hit me (also a focus) hit me with the front passenger side quarter of his car. Both of his airbags fired (hence the origonal question) and he cracked his front windscreen. The police attended the accident and took everybodies details. At the scene the driver of the minor road car told the police that he looked to his right and saw a car crest the incline, he quickly looked left to ensure his road was clear and before he could look right the impact had happened.
My insurance company is now haggling with me because I changed the design of my alloy wheels and didn't inform them, even though when I phoned up for a quote I was asked "does the car have alloy wheels" which I answered yes, they didn't ask about the design. The wheels are a ford option with the same size and spec just cosmetically different, but because of the wheels my insurance company has not even had an engineers report done on my car. So to cut this long story short, my insurance company has admitted liability before the police have published there report on who is liable and before having the full facts relating to the damage of my car. Your help and advice would be appreciated.
|
So you turned across the righteous path of an oncoming car.
-Your fault. You lose your bonus. You lose all your uninsured losses.
Let us say that you prove him speeding and that contributed to the accident.
-Mostly Your fault. You lose your bonus. You lose all your uninsured losses.
Don't forget it might be sensible for him to swerve around you, brake like a loon or whatever, but its not his fault if he doesn't.
I'd give up if I were you.
The stuff over alloy wheels is annoying hassle, but its mostly just that. Unless they were dodgy wheels which contributed to the incident or unless your insurer can show that they would have refused to insure you, then you should be ok.
For you to understand, if they are able to show that the wheels materially contributed to the incident or if they had known about them it would have made a material difference to their treatment of the risk, then it will cost you money. And potentially, and in the extreme, a whole lot of money since under the right circumstances they would be able to recover all their costs from you.
However, not likely. Assuming it was an honest mistake, then just tell the truth frankly and promptly.
>>they didn't ask about the design
The duty is not upon the insurer to ask, it is upon you to disclose all material facts and if in doubt as to materiality then to disclose anyway and allow the insurer to determine.
Your insurer cannot admit liability on your behalf. They can state that they will handle the claim, but that is without prejudice.
However, any of my comments are just that, you should ignore me and get the advice on a professional expert. Never rely on anonymous free advice in a random websie for something as important as this.
|
Thanks again, the reason I am battling is because my insurance is through the roof anyway without having a fault claim against me, I am 28 and was on way to having 2 years no claim bonus, after driving company cars for 6 years. I paid over a grand for insurance but a lad on my street also has a 1.6 focus he is 21 and pays just under £800 with the same insurer?
|
Too late now, but you should have been able to conver 6 years incident free in a company car to 3 - 4 years NCD. Never mind, next time.
I'm afraid you're right out of luck on this one. And you are correct, if your insurance was painful before, its going to be relaly nasty next time. You must certainly shop around when the time comes.
From a more pragmatic point of view, I do hope that you're insured for accidental damage (comprehensive) so at least you won't have that problem.
|
|
Markj
Dont want to rain on your parade, specially as you have been comprehensive and honest, but it sounds like you are going to be lined up as the at fault blame party here. It also sounds to me like the police may want to look at this with respect to bringing charges (if they have attended they have to make a report), probably along the lines of driving without due care. If they do you are looking at points on your license too which wont help the insurance costs any.
So just to warn you, expect to be asked for a statement and to be cautioned.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the help here guys it is appreciated.
While it seems that you are at fault I guess under the circumstances I cannot blaim you for trying to accertain whether the other Focus was excessively speeding, it will not effect your liability though even if he was doing twice the speed limit.
My insurance company is now haggling with me because I changed the design of my alloy wheels and didn't inform them, even though when I phoned up for a quote I was asked "does the car have alloy wheels" which I answered yes, they didn't ask about the design. The wheels are a ford option with the same size and spec just cosmetically different,
This seems rather unreasonable, if you had fitted bigger and wider alloys I can understand the Ins Co's point however a different design of Ford wheel of the correct size and tyre spec IMHO really should make no difference.
May father is looking at buying a four year old Focus estate, while he *may* recognise the style of wheels on a car he looked at he would probably have no idea whether they are the correct ones, Ford confuse matters here, for instance the style fitted to a 2002 LX.
|
|
|
You couldn't have ABS without rear discs.
I had a 2001 Ford Focus with the optional reflex pack (Side airbags, ABS and TC) which had drum rear brakes.
|
I'm afraid you are at fault, you saw him and made the decision to cross his path, your snapshot of him would not have given you speed information but you still choose to go. The police would have noted any skid marks and there length. However you still saw him and crossed his path, no witnesses no proof he was speeding, unless the Police investigator declared the skid marks to be indicative of a speed grossly over the speed limit and even then you still crossed his path. At least no one was hurt. The dynamics of accidents is unreal. I recall many years a go clipping the rear ( Like your guy ) of a car entering around about doing not a lot of damage to me but it caved in his rear panel spun him right round and smashed the other side suspension off as he smacked the kurb and the rear strut hanging on by the brake pipe flew up and smashed in the side of his car as he continued to travel backwards some considerable Distance. I broke my bumper, a head light and the rad sprung a leak. Regards Peter
|
on a more cheerful note i reckon the report will say you made an error of judgement and that will be it.
That would be my opinion if all the facts are correct.
A good lesson to be learned with the alloys though as it is a good get out clause for the insurance companies to wipe their hands as a non standard modification,but weve all done it havent we?
|
Regardless of what happened, rejoice in the fact that you survived unhurt to become an older driver.
Money problems can be resolved; many health ones cannot.
V
|
|
|
>> You couldn't have ABS without rear discs. I had a 2001 Ford Focus with the optional reflex pack (Side airbags, ABS and TC) which had drum rear brakes.
Perhaps the situation changed between 1999 and 2001. Had I bought the car to the available build level for a 2.0 Ghia in January 1999 it would have come with rear drums and no ABS, (even though the catalogue spec included rear discs and ABS) because of manufacturer supply problems. I think there was a price reduction to reflect the lower spec.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Perhaps the situation changed between 1999 and 2001. Had I bought the car to the available build level for a 2.0 Ghia in January 1999 it would have come with rear drums and no ABS, (even though the catalogue spec included rear discs and ABS) because of manufacturer supply problems. I think there was a price reduction to reflect the lower spec. -- L\'escargot.
It sounds like it was a supply problem for period of time which was then resolved. I was slightly surprised that the rear brakes were drums on a car with ABS but the braking performance was still very good.
|
There is no reason why ABS can't work with rear drums. If fact, I would hazard to say that on many cars you'd be better off with drums at the rear rather than discs. Many cars (particularly small light cars and small sportscars) are 'overbraked' by the rear discs which operate way below optimum force. The result is that rear discs go pitted and rustly and the calipers sieze.
|
I have had several cars with ABS on the front disks and drums on the rear. A cavalier and the the Scenic.
Braking was very good on both of them. ABS will not stop, nor is designed to stop the car faster or harder or shorter but allows you to steer while braking. Hence it is only really needed on the front.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
I have had several cars with ABS on the front disks and drums on the rear. A cavalier and the the Scenic. Braking was very good on both of them. ABS will not stop, nor is designed to stop the car faster or harder or shorter but allows you to steer while braking. Hence it is only really needed on the front.
It is very important to have ABS on the back. When braking most of the weight transfer is to the front - so rears lock first. If the vehicle is dead straight then that's not too bad. If its not then a yawing moment is set up and the car will try to swap ends.
|
So
Peugeot 206, Front discs & rear drums.
ABS, EBD & EBA fitted.
Stops much better then my old 405 that had discs all round & just ABS.
Activate the EBA on the 206 & its shocking how quick & in such a short distance it can stop.
|
I know, same on my Renault. It can stop at awesome pace if you need to. The problem is can the car behind stop...
|
|
ABS will not stop, nor is designed to stop the car faster or harder or shorter ....
Deceleration with ABS activated is greater than with all four wheels locked.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Except in deep snow, apparently
::pedant mode off::
Plus didn´t the Granada (85 onwards) take an age to stop with its standar-fit antilock?
|
On the older ABS system snow is there downfall.
My old 405 with the Bosch 2E ABS system used to get disconnected when snow was on the ground because it was lethal in the snow, Apply the brakes, ABS cut in straight away & the car would speed up & make no atempt to stop.
The newer ABS systems ( ATE ) like my 206 has it stops just as well in the snow as in the wet, Really surprised me the first time I tried it in the snow to see what would happen, It stopped very quickly each & every time I tried it.
ABS technology has come a long way since the early days.
|
>> ABS will not >> stop, nor is designed to stop the car faster or harder >> or shorter .... Deceleration with ABS activated is greater than with all four wheels locked.
In the dry its not - locked wheels stop faster
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
|
It sounds like it was a supply problem for period of time which was then resolved.
Yep. I finally got the car on 30th April 1999 complete with rear discs and ABS. One reason that I prefer discs is the ease of checking the pad thickness.
--
L'escargot.
|
What makes you think that ABS does not stop a car quicker than non ABS car TVM. I don't know where you get that impression from, it must be from your own experience and your right foot is playing tricks on you. ABS outsmarts any one with all there wheels lock any time. However this is off topic so I suggest a new thread if guys want to continue this and it has all been bashed out before in a long thread and the overwhelming conclusion was, You don't want to be behind an ABS car with a non ABS car when it all goes wrong. Merc even have a system that detects the rate of change of brake pressure compared to the de-acceleration and if it does not compute they bang 2400 psi into the hydrualic system to force the ABS to take control and stop the car ASP. As Alan Sugar would say,,,, "TVM, your wrong". Regards Peter
|
We have been here before, not going there again.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
Merc even have a system that detects the rate of change of brake pressure compared to the de-acceleration and if it does not compute they bang 2400 psi into the hydrualic system to force the ABS to take control and stop the car ASP.
Not just Mercs. My Nissan Almera has something which I think is similar, called, if I remember rightly, "brake assist". HJ's road test of a Nissan Micra fitted with it was so effective that he got rear-ended by a tailgater: www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=69
|
IN the very early 1980s, CAR took a Mercedes to Moscow in Winter. They chose not to have ABS fitted to the car as they thought that they would get rear ended by a Lada and thrown inot jail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|