As an aside - will the OP return do you think? I've noticed (as have others) someone posts
a 'controversial' question one day, then doesn't respond the day(s) forever after.
|
As an aside - will the OP return do you think?
I hope so, I'd like to see the road where this crash happened!
I've noticed (as have others) someone posts a 'controversial' question one day then doesn't respond the day(s) forever after.
Yes, but IMO in this instance the question was not "controversial". The OP may've got tired of the irrelevant verbiage, though.
|
Yes, but IMO in this instance the question was not "controversial". The OP may've got tired of the irrelevant verbiage, though.
I think it was 'controversial' by any reasonable definition. It sparked differing views here & will certainly be a matter of extreme opposing views between the various parties to the accident, I'm sure.
Also note the single quotes around the original use of controversial. This denotes a slightly novel, ironic or tongue-in-cheek use of a word.
As far as "..irrelevant verbiage.." , well, had the OP paid a lawyer he might expect more concise, factual & correct advice. A public forum however, is just that & it's not unreasonable to expect to do a bit of wheat from chaff-ing.
|
|
It has been helpful to have the various views on this incident and hopefully the lawyer currently involved will provide advice. Due to the nature of the accident and of course only having one side of the story, much of this is subjective
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with FT, this is a simple matter of lack of courtesy and manners. Do we all just ignore what is in front of us and try to push our way through? Do we try to drive around someone coming out of a parking space in the car park? For goodness sake we are all on the road and all have to use it in a sensible manner. Unfortunately some drivers take risks and sometimes it does not work out, then we call it an accident. Too many drivers in a rush and impatient to keep moving, and anything in their way is an obstacle to overcome. Of course the Mercedes was in the wrong morally. Consider the opinion of a police officer if one had observed the situation, and that is the way to conduct oneself on the road. Not an answer today though, where the law of the jungle now prevails. Heaven help us to survive.
|
<<<<<< Of course the Mercedes was in the wrong morally. >>>>>>>
You've only heard one side of the story, I hope you never do jury service....................
Edited by Dox on 16/12/2009 at 14:36
|
You've only heard one side of the story I hope you never do jury service
You judge on the evidence. That's all there is to go on. In this case, "judgement" is made on the assumption that the statements given are right. If they're not, the case could of course change.
|
You judge on the evidence. That's all there is to go on. In this case "judgement" is made on the assumption that the statements given are right. If they're not the case could of course change.
We only have one statement and thats second hand / word of mouth.
|
> > You judge on the evidence. That's all there is to go on.
>
> We only have one statement and thats second hand / word of mouth.
It doesn't matter. That's all we've got to go on. If, for instance, I tell you that my friend's toe was run over by a red car outside the Co-Op, you wouldn't say "Oh! It could have been blue, so his toe could not have been run over, it must have been trodden on!" you'd say "Oh dear, I bet that hurt!" or something like. Should other statements emerge, then they may change the case.
|
|
|
|
I agree with FT this is a simple matter of lack of courtesy and manners.
Of course the Mercedes was in the wrong morally. .
Whilst not questioning anyone's honesty, this kind of opinion is based purely on the evidence of the story we have received from the OP. It would be interesting to hear a version of the whole situation from the Merc driver
|
|
We haven't received this as yet but will gladly post once this comes through
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a *lot* of pants being talked in this thread about 3 point turns.
Unless you explain exactly what "pants" is being talked, your statement (above) will have no meaning for us.
Edited by L'escargot on 16/12/2009 at 14:24
|
|
I thought you were the one extolling us to keep up with modern argot Mr Snail when you introduced us to slinking. Pants is a pejorative term in common use to describe rubbish. e.g. Norwich is pants
|
..... Pants is a pejorative term .............
I'm aware of that. I just wanted to know the details of the pants. As it was, without suppporting evidence, the sentence conveyed nothing to us and might just have well have been omitted. Who exactly has been guilty of talking pants, and what pants did they talk?
|
My apologies Mr Snail - an over quick reading of your post I'm afraid. I now see that your post was directed to the non specificity and nature of the alleged pants talk. I too look forward to clarification.
Edited by CGNorwich on 16/12/2009 at 15:24
|
|
|
|
It's clear that the gastropod knows what 'pants' means CGN. He was asking FT what pants he was alleging exactly, since he referred to pants without being specific.
Does FT think we are all talking pants, or just some of us?
|
Thanks to those who commented on the "Mercedes was in the wrong morally". I was indeed basing this opinion on the evidence submitted. I envisaged one car turning in the road and which was possibly at right angles to the flow of traffic. So I then imagined what I would have done in such a scenario. I could have tried to drive around either the front or rear of the other car, or just slowed and waited to see what was going on. Hence my comment.
Here is another scenario to consider. You are walking along a pavement which crosses the driveways to the houses on that street, and a car from behind drives across and in front of you into one of the driveways, brushing your clothes as it does so, another step and you would have been run over whilst walking along a pavement. Who is in the right and who is in the wrong?
This happened to me recently as a pedestrian, and the driver then shouted at me for being stupid and not looking for traffic. Do you stop and look for traffic as you cross every driveway in every street you walk down? Heaven help us for impeding anyone else.
|
Ka driver was foolish to do a 3-point turn in a fast road. Bet she won't try that again!
MB driver was clearly not paying enough attention. Even if Ka missed seeing MB and started moving backwards, any sensible, prudent driver would have seen car at strange angle and slowed for it.
Knock for knock means that MB driver's insurance will pay his costs, OP will lose his car.
Move along please!
|
(Ka driver was foolish to do a 3-point turn in a fast road. Bet she won't try that again!)
This is not a fast road, it is a residential road and on a Sunday lunchtime. Unfortunately, it can be driven down at speed and most cars do way in excess of 40mph!
|
(Ka driver was foolish to do a 3-point turn in a fast road. Bet she won't try that again!)
SQ
With you knowing the road and being more experienced would you perform the same maneuver?
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 16/12/2009 at 19:06
|
|
|
|
Ka driver was foolish to do a 3-point turn in a fast road.
You can't know that, it's a ridiculous assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That they're somehow dangerous, if performed in a proper place, with due care. The danger comes from herberts who won't wait for someone to finish their manoeuvre.
|
well haribo957, I'm sorry to hear of your experience , not pleasent for all involved. I too get frustrated at the arrogance of some drivers, why don't they just slow down! for the second they may of gained they have lost hours now!
I too was hit whilst stationary a few weeks ago buy a young girl doing well in excess of 40 when she had zero chance of getting past! but she did & took my 2 doors & rear wing with her!
Sadly becuase there were no witnesses the insurance company are insisting on 50/50 which had really wound me up.
I have now fitted an in car camera which to some on this forum thought a little excessive but lets just say i feel a little smug with it fitted. there won't be a 50/50 next time.
i wish you all the best & do get some resolve.
inj doc
|
|
It would clear up a lot of confusion if the OP linked us to the road on Google Maps.
|
|
|
|
The Merc apparently hit the Ka's NSF wheel so this would not appear to be a case of trying to squeeze though and mis-judging it (or that's a fair old mis-judgement).
Perhaps the Merc was going at a furious pace and appeared "out of nowhere" as people so often sa?. Perhaps the Ka driver continued to edge forwards when the Merc driver assumed she would stop?
|
Perhaps the Merc was going at a furious pace and appeared "out of nowhere" as people so often sa?. Perhaps the Ka driver continued to edge forwards when the Merc driver assumed she would stop?
Yes. From what Haribo has told us, both of those are possibilities. That's what makes judgement of this impossible. Even if we were there, and could agree on an apportionment of responsibility - 60/40 or whatever - that wouldn't affect the decisions arrived at by insurance men or a court, decisions that often seem weird and wonderful to a 'reasonable man'.
An example would be the unfortunate robbery victim who is now doing time for doing one of the toerags over with a cricket bat in the heat of the moment.
Edited by Lud on 16/12/2009 at 17:58
|
>>Unfortunately, it can be driven down at speed and most cars do way in excess of 40mph!
What a COOL place to do a 3 point turn. Let us know where it is and we'll all go up there to give it a go. Sounds like great fun.
|
Merc drivers are great aren't they?
Guy comes across an easily foreseeable hazard and drives straight into it.
Brilliant.
The fact the Ka shouldn't be there is irrelevant.
It could have been a broken down car, a cow, temporary traffic lights for roadworks, a load fallen from a lorry, a flood, subsidence, a collapsed bridge, a police road block to catch a murderer, anything.
The Merc driver should have stopped.
Clearly he has no forward observation skills, let alone road manners.
Should be charged with careless driving, also known as not paying due car and attention, which is clearly what he wasn't doing.
|
snip - reason why:-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=42612
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 17/12/2009 at 01:24
|
|
|
|
Perish the thought, I'm not suggesting this for one moment, it's just that I'm cleaning my keyboard ... Could it be that Merc-man saw an opportunity in said 'accident'?
|
|
|
|
|
An example would be the unfortunate robbery victim who is now doing time for doing one of the toerags over with a cricket bat in the heat of the moment.
Reading reports, it did seem like more than a 'heat of the moment' thing - after intruders had fled, one was chased and caught by 2 brothers and hit over the head hard enough to break the bat into 3 pieces, resulting in brain damage. Possibly seen by the judge as revenge rather than self-defence.
|
seen by the judge as revenge rather than self-defence.
I don't doubt the judge's judgement. It's the same as mine.
However, 'the heat of the moment' can last quite a long time in these cases (in very extreme ones, for years).
In my opinion though the judge was erring on the side of 'encouraging the others' instead of the side of 'compassionate understanding of a man driven to great anger by cruel, criminal behaviour'. Perhaps he hoped the sentence would be reduced on appeal once it had shown people that anger isn't an excuse for any behaviour at all.
I certainly do. Can't really bring myself to blame the guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
