What am I doing wrong?

Tommy Vercetti

cormie wrote:

Well if I was done for going through amber is such conditions I'd just take the government to court! As you do!

You'd definitely win, it's just the word of a Garda against you :rolleyes:

Also, could you post the name of the driving school you got your lessons with, just so that any future learners can avoid them like the plague.

Thanks.

RicardoSmith

Tommy Vercetti wrote:

You'd definitely win, it's just the word of a Garda against you :rolleyes:

Also, could you post the name of the driving school you got your lessons with, just so that any future learners can avoid them like the plague.

Thanks.

You'll find the guard has witness'es too. I've been there.

cormie

Tommy Vercetti wrote:

You'd definitely win, it's just the word of a Garda against you :rolleyes:

Also, could you post the name of the driving school you got your lessons with, just so that any future learners can avoid them like the plague.

Thanks.

The court comment was a joke.

But why do you say that about the school?

RicardoSmith

cormie wrote:

The court comment was a joke.

But why do you say that about the school?

Obviously humour doesn't travel well in either direction...

cormie

RicardoSmith wrote:

Obviously humour doesn't travel well in either direction...

hehe, I'm not so sure his comment was a joke though...

Kell

cormie wrote:

Seamus, I disagree that road experience behind a wheel and handlebars are incomparable.

Foresight "being critical and only possible to gain through experience" is very important whilst cycling also. You're always on the lookout for people about to make a mistake. If you're not awake and prepared for mistake whilst cycling through a city or a traffic jam or past bus stops with pedestrians, you will have an accident. I'm 100% positive cycling has given me experience that I also use whilst driving. Go for a cycle through rush hour traffic with no cycle lanes. You will understand.

For the record, I have been rear-ended. It was not my fault, I was approaching a roundabout and my destination was the first left hand turn. I was in the right hand lane, I overtook a truck,.

The bold sections highlight the fact that you are an extraordinary muppet.
Let me get this straight. Your exit off the roundabout was first left, yet you were in the right lane, AND you overtook a truck on the approach to a roundabout when you knew you would have to pull in hard to make the first exit. OMFG

As for cycling experience being worth a damn? Dont kid yourself. I cycled in and out of town for years and I dont support your presumptions. Why dont you simply accept the better experience and advice of people here who actually know their shít and stop trying to argue your point, when five odd pages of posts should have told you that its a pointless endeavour.

K-

Kell

seamus wrote:

I can't see how the shock from being hit from behind would make you take your foot off the brake, if anything it would make me press down harder, but that could be just me.

One of those arguments that will never be settled probably.

A mates wife was rear ended by a troop carrier outside the phoenix park one morning. The army investigators were quite specific about making sure that she had the handbrake applied, otherwise it would have affected their payout based on how much of the injury was her own fault. If the hadnbrake had not been applied and she ploughed into the car in front of her, then the army could have rightfully claimed that she was responsible for x amount of her own injuries.

K-

Furp

Kell wrote:

If the hadnbrake had not been applied and she ploughed into the car in front of her, then the army could have rightfully claimed that she was responsible for x amount of her own injuries.-

I wonder if this applies if you drive an automatic car which some don't have a handbrake rather a clumsy parking brake that is awkward to keep setting and releasing or new cars that have these electronic parking brakes that are applied by a touch of a button and released automatically by the car when you move.

unkel

Kell wrote:

If the hadnbrake had not been applied and she ploughed into the car in front of her, then the army could have rightfully claimed that she was responsible for x amount of her own injuries

that can't be right - if you're rear ended when stopped at a trafic light you are NEVER to blame afaik

Seth Brundle

I find this hard to believe and I assume that a barrister could easily have it thrown out.
If you are sitting with your foot on the brake pedal there would be more braking force being applied as all 4 wheels would be affected as opposed to having the handbrake on where only the two rear wheels are affected. This is even more so where you have rear discs as the shoes used in the handbrake assembly are smaller and therefore less effective as brakes than the pad setup.

seamus

Kell wrote:

A mates wife was rear ended by a troop carrier outside the phoenix park one morning. The army investigators were quite specific about making sure that she had the handbrake applied, otherwise it would have affected their payout based on how much of the injury was her own fault. If the hadnbrake had not been applied and she ploughed into the car in front of her, then the army could have rightfully claimed that she was responsible for x amount of her own injuries.

K-

Ah, but did she hit the car in front? If she did, then it's reasonable to assume that a certain amount of any injuries which occured, were caused by the collision with the car in front, which was totally her fault.
If the vehicle hits her from behind, and she doesn't hit the vehicle in front, then all of her injuries are attributable to the impact from behind, which is the other driver's fault. The status of her handbrake is irrelevant.

Actually, if the handbrake had been applied and she hit the car in front, then unless she was hit very hard from behind and pushed > 2 metres, then it's still her fault for stopping too close to the other vehicle, handbrake or no handbrake.

smokey2

I've been there!!

IE: rear ended at lights!!

was at fairly high speed aswell at a red light!!

I was stopped with my foot solid on the brake as I know the sequence of the lights well and out of nowhere this chap ran up the back of me and shoved me into the car in front!!

guards came and immediatly said the chap at the back was at fault and was to pay for all damages!! my car was worst though and he got stroppy sayin he wasn't too happy bout the quote I got so when I went to my solicitor bout it he also said that the chap at the back was at fault!! even if he'd came along 5 mins later he'd have still been in the wrong as you're not supposed to run into the back of any car under any circumstances! we all settled away from insurance companys as there was nobody hurt!!

even if you were to reverse into someone at lights it's their fault!!

weird I think but in reality you're not actully intentionally goin to reverse into someone at lights maybe some people might roll back a couple of inches but if you're at a "safe distance" from the car in front then you don't really have to worry bout this!!

a gague for this is if you can see their back wheels then you'll be ok!!

leeroybrown

The advantage of having the handbrake applied is that unlike your foot on a pedal it can't be disengaged by a sharp jolt from behind. It's entirely plausable (and reasonable) that a driver might lose foot contact with the brake pedal due to an unexpected rear end impact.

seamus

smokey2 wrote:

even if you were to reverse into someone at lights it's their fault!!

I'm pretty sure that's not correct. While it could be argued that the driver behind may have been too close, there was an occasion where I was easily enough behind a guy, when he started rolling back. And kept rolling back. He rolled back about 4 feet before I beeped and he jumped forward again. What if he had kept coming? In theory that means that there is no such thing as a safe distance, since he could have just kept on coming until he hit me.

Pretty much the rule is - If you hit a stationary vehicle, you're at fault. But there are a few exceptions to this.

Gurgle

seamus wrote:

Pretty much the rule is - If you hit a stationary vehicle, you're at fault. But there are a few exceptions to this.

Its amazing how often people get hit by a stationary vehicle.

unkel

seamus wrote:

Pretty much the rule is - If you hit a stationary vehicle, you're at fault. But there are a few exceptions to this.

That's my understanding too

smokey2

I know what you're saying and yes it's right and my solicitor was probably just using it as an extreme example!!

in your case if that car had rolled back and done damage he could have argued that he was stopped back from the lights (the 6 or 8 feet) so as to be able to properly see the traffic light cos of some visual obstruction and you ran into him!!

all I'm sayin is that it can be complicated that way!!!

but as far as it goes with a line of cars it goes all the way to the person at the back!!!

alias no.9

If someone rolls backwards into you, they are at fault. You must yield to all traffic when reversing.

seamus

smokey2 wrote:

in your case if that car had rolled back and done damage he could have argued that he was stopped back from the lights (the 6 or 8 feet) so as to be able to properly see the traffic light cos of some visual obstruction and you ran into him!!

all I'm sayin is that it can be complicated that way!!!

Ah, but in that case, he's not in the right, he's just plain lying.

BrianD3

If someone hits your stationary car from behind and pushes you into the car in front, then the person who hit you is 100% to blame and liable for all damage to you car and the car he pushed you into. Whether you had the handbrake on or had left enough space between you and the car in front is irrelevant.

The same thing applies to stop/yield signs, traffic lights etc. If you are stopped and get hit from behind and are pushed into the path of oncoming traffic then the guy who hit you is 100% at fault and liable for all damage to all vehicles.

Some cases are trickier eg car A stops, car B hits car A, then car C hits the wreckage. How do you determine what damage was caused by car B and what damage was caused by Car C? You can't really unless it's a very clear cut thing (eg car B hits car A at 50 mph then Car C taps the wreckage at 5 mph) AFAIK if it's unclear, the Car C is liable for all damage to Cars A and B even if Car B had already hit Car A by the time Car C came on the scene.

BrianD3

cormie

Kell wrote:

The bold sections highlight the fact that you are an extraordinary muppet.
Let me get this straight. Your exit off the roundabout was first left, yet you were in the right lane, AND you overtook a truck on the approach to a roundabout when you knew you would have to pull in hard to make the first exit. OMFG

As for cycling experience being worth a damn? Dont kid yourself. I cycled in and out of town for years and I dont support your presumptions. Why dont you simply accept the better experience and advice of people here who actually know their shít and stop trying to argue your point, when five odd pages of posts should have told you that its a pointless endeavour.

K-

Here I go explaining myself again.

I HAD LOADS OF ROOM! I had plenty of time. Again you come up with false assumptions "pull in hard to make the first exit" where did I say that? Nowhere. I pulled in with plenty of time and applied breaks. However the person behind me wasn't the same and happened to hit me. IT... WAS... NOT... MY... FAULT!!! Don't call me a muppet either when you are making up stories.

Well cycling definitely helped me so don't presume your right.

Victor

BrianD3 wrote:

If someone hits your stationary car from behind and pushes you into the car in front, then the person who hit you is 100% to blame and liable for all damage to you car and the car he pushed you into. Whether you had the handbrake on or had left enough space between you and the car in front is irrelevant.

No. If car number 2 in a queue is hit by car 3, forcing it into car 1 (head of the queue), driver 2 is repsonsible to driver 1, as they were too close.

BrianD3

No. If car number 2 in a queue is hit by car 3, forcing it into car 1 (head of the queue), driver 2 is repsonsible to driver 1, as they were too close.

No yourself There's no obligation on any stationary vehicle to leave a "buffer zone" in front of it in case it gets rear ended and shunted forward into another vehicle.

Ever see a car or other light vehicle that gets rear ended by a big truck? Even at slowish speed the car can easily move 10+ metres forward. At higher speed, the truck will barely slow down at all and could conceivably shunt the car 100+ metres down the road before the wreckage grinds to a halt.

Does this mean that every car should leave 100 metres gap to the car in front in case it gets shunted forward by a truck? Of course not.

Also see my comments on stop signs and traffic lights. Again, you're not expected to leave a buffer zone in front in case you get shunted out in front of oncoming traffic.

BrianD3

RicardoSmith

I've seen a truck push 5 cars ahead of it, into one another. I'd have assumed the truck liable for all costs and damages?

BrianD3

I've seen a truck push 5 cars ahead of it, into one another. I'd have assumed the truck liable for all costs and damages?

The truck would be liable, however all 5 cars might not claim directly from the truck. What may happen is: if the first car in the queue is car 1 and the last car (i.e. first one to be hit) is car 5 then car 1 will claim from car 2, car 2 will claim from car 3 for its own damage and for the claim against it by car 1. car 3 will claim off car 4 for its own damage and for the claim against it by car 2 (which itself includes the original claim by car 1) and so on. The end result is that the truck's insurance ends up paying for everything.

BrianD3

Seth Brundle

if car 1 claims off car 2, etc. then cars 2, 3 & 4 will lose their no claims bonus for making a claim. Therefore these drivers will end up paying for something they didn't do!

Andrew Duffy

Your no claims bonus is temporarily suspended when a claim is made against your insurance, but it is reinstated and you are refunded if neccessary if the insurance company is paid by another party, usually the insurer of the driver at fault. If you are involved in a collision (that is not your fault) with a vehicle belonging to a self-insured Slow Payer, like Dublin Bus or a big freight company, you'll have to claim from your own insurance to get your car fixed, and will probably have to find the cash to pay your next year's premium with no NCB. The knowledge that you'll get the money back is not comforting.

RicardoSmith

Andrew Duffy wrote:

Your no claims bonus is temporarily suspended when a claim is made against your insurance, but it is reinstated and you are refunded if neccessary if the insurance company is paid by another party, usually the insurer of the driver at fault. If you are involved in a collision (that is not your fault) with a vehicle belonging to a self-insured Slow Payer, like Dublin Bus or a big freight company, you'll have to claim from your own insurance to get your car fixed, and will probably have to find the cash to pay your next year's premium with no NCB. The knowledge that you'll get the money back is not comforting.

Had that happen to me. Only when I tried to get the money back the insurer put the premium up by the amount I was due back. In short I never got it back.

Gurgle

RicardoSmith wrote:

Had that happen to me. Only when I tried to get the money back the insurer put the premium up by the amount I was due back. In short I never got it back.

Something similar happened to my brother.
His car was hit by a bus, he got it fixed on his insurance & lost his no claims bonus for the 2 years it took to extract money from the bus company. They eventually gave him his no claims bonus back but they refused point blank to refund the extra cost of his insurance during those 2 years.

unkel

Gurgle wrote:

They eventually gave him his no claims bonus back but they refused point blank to refund the extra cost of his insurance during those 2 years.

That's scandalous, it should have been part of the claim imh :mad: