Driven off road - other driver failed to stop - insurance implications

L1011

Got driven off the road by a UK-registered camper van (travelling in convoy with another down a road too narrow for it + another car to pass); have reported it to the guards and insurers, would likely (unless it was somehow decided it was my fault, obviously) have got the damage covered by the campers insurance if they'd stopped - but they didn't. And I only have 3PF+T on my car.

Are the insurers even going to cover this and how heavily reamed is my insurance policy going to be next year if they do?

Duiske

MYOB, have a read of this. It will explain it better than I can.

Tomas_V

Did the other vehicle strike yours?

JHMEG

My father used always say that in a situation like this (2 vechicles oncoming towards each other) that you should stop and let the other driver do the hard work. If they do any damage then they are are entirely liable as you are stationary.

Back on topic, since there was no contact between your vehicles I think the insurance company will correctly say that any damage done to your car was done by you, and therefore you alone are liable. It's a hard lesson learned.

L1011

JHMEG wrote: »

My father used always say that in a situation like this (2 vechicles oncoming towards each other) that you should stop and let the other driver do the hard work. If they do any damage then they are are entirely liable as you are stationary.

Back on topic, since there was no contact between your vehicles I think the insurance company will correctly say that any damage done to your car was done by you, and therefore you alone are liable. It's a hard lesson learned.

Had I stopped he would have gone in to me - and no, I wasn't speeding. You'd need to know the road, but there was not enough stopping distance as had just come around a corner. I prefer my life over the side of my not particularly exciting car, thanks.

Tomas_V - no, it didn't hit me as I took the option of not having it drive directly in to me.

Snarler

Tomas_V - no, it didn't hit me as I took the option of not having it drive directly in to me.

Whilst that option might have saved you personal injury it does cost you price of repairs.

mikemac

But is the OP entitled to claim with the MIBI here?
I can't see how a claim will be allowed as there is no proof other that the OP's word that another car was involved.

I'll put it this way. Suppose you own a car and don't have comprehensive insurance.
You are driving in a rural area and you make a mistake and crash into a ditch, no witnesses and no proof like unique paintwork or dents.
So all you do is say some foreign reg vehicle drove you off the road and now you want compensation from the MIBI.

I'm not for one second doubting you MYOB but Ireland is a nation of chancers and cute hoors and I'd be amazed if the MIBI pay out here. And if they then maybe their procedures should be reviewed

Tomas_V

MYOB wrote: »

I wasn't speeding. You'd need to know the road, but there was not enough stopping distance as had just come around a corner....Tomas_V - no, it didn't hit me

Regulations say this:

7. A vehicle shall not be driven at a speed exceeding that which will enable its driver to bring it to a halt within the distance which the driver can see to be clear.

I think you've got no claim against MIBI & will have to pay for your own repairs. Since there is no claim against your insurance, it won't affect your no claims bonus & probably your premium will remain the same unless you were prosecuted arising from the incident.

Sometimes you can have bad luck. You chose to save yourself but it's going to cost you financially. At least you're not paying hospital bills.

BeardyGit

MIBI will pay out for a personal injury claim without the other parties registration details.

MIBI will not pay out for damage to property without a registration number, garda report and confirmation from the Gardaí that the driver of the vehicle was uninsured.

Trust me - I've been there. Read my signature if you've not already.

Bad luck, but you're alright at the end of the day.

Gil

ballooba

MYOB wrote: »

Had I stopped he would have gone in to me - and no, I wasn't speeding. You'd need to know the road, but there was not enough stopping distance as had just come around a corner.

I'm sorry but that is speeding. I'm sorry if this ruins your thread but you should know that. You must be able to stop your car in the distance you can see to be clear. Forget the inappropriately high speed limit.

L1011

ballooba wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is speeding. I'm sorry if this ruins your thread but you should know that. You must be able to stop your car in the distance you can see to be clear. Forget the inappropriately high speed limit.

Do you corner at <10kph, then? The road is posted for 80 or 60, depending on which part of it it is - amazingly the county councils involved (it cross between Kildare and South Dublin) have been fairly decent at realising that certain sections of the road are unable to handle 80, they haven't posted them all at 60 though.

I was doing <60 at the time, as it was raining. I come around a corner in my "lane" (its not lined) and theres a camper van in the middle of the road; and I've got two options - brake and continue on straight, in to the front of the camper and eventually to Blanchardstown (hospital, that is); or brake and swerve left, in to the support cable of an ESB pole. Or further left and in to the ESB pole, which is what would have happened had I had a wider car. The damage to the car is consistent with decelerating. Had I been travelling at 10kph I would likely have been able to stop the car completely, and have the camper van drive in to me.

Damage to the car quite obviously shows it wasn't driven in to a ditch, and the lack of personal injuries and lack of an ability to fake them to sue anyway probably means theres nothing to be claimed against. (on re-reading this it sound really, really, really, really wrong - "no desire" to fake them, I'm not a litigious twat)

Next thing is to replace the glass in the left wing mirror so the cars actually road legal again, wahey :mad:

ballooba

MYOB wrote: »

Do you corner at <10kph, then? The road is posted for 80 or 60, depending on which part of it it is - amazingly the county councils involved (it cross between Kildare and South Dublin) have been fairly decent at realising that certain sections of the road are unable to handle 80, they haven't posted them all at 60 though.

I'm just telling you what you learn when preparing for your theroy test and your driving test. The posted speed limits are irrelevant. If you need to travel at 10km/h to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear then you do 10km/h. I didn't make the rules so don't blame me.

[edit]ROTR Section 8 from page 87 outlines all of this. http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/017024-RoTR2nd.pdf?PHPSESSID=a4af0bde16f0714ac4dfa3fe66c00589 [/edit]

Bogger77

Also, MYOB, you or your insurance company are liable for damages to the ESB pole. I hope you informed the ESB that you struck their cable, I can see you being liable if the pole fell during high winds.

You appear to be blaming everyone around you, but yourself.
From reading your version:
You came round the corner at too fast a speed to stop safely.
You damaged your car by hitting an ESB pole support cable and ditch.
The fact that it was another vehicle on road is not important, it could have been a child, cyclist, walker, man hearding a cow. You went of the road, you're responsible for your actions, deal with it.

peasant

While I agree with all of the above re stopping distance, speed etc, it would have been decent of the motorhome driver to stop and check.

Unfortunately some motorhome drivers are not fully capable of driving their large vehicles in a manner that does not endanger fellow motorists and I have to say that I have met quite a few on the roads that I wouldn't fancy meeting again in a tight spot.

garytuohy

is the road in question the back road between Clonee and Lucan??

Exact same thing happened to me, just paid the damages myself because insurance crowd wouldnt cover me, even with witnesses.

L1011

garytuohy wrote: »

is the road in question the back road between Clonee and Lucan??

Exact same thing happened to me, just paid the damages myself because insurance crowd wouldnt cover me, even with witnesses.

Road between Hazelhatch and Barnhall, comes out at the Orchard Garden Centre. Ironically right beside a panel beaters, actually

Bogger77 wrote: »

Also, MYOB, you or your insurance company are liable for damages to the ESB pole. I hope you informed the ESB that you struck their cable, I can see you being liable if the pole fell during high winds.

You appear to be blaming everyone around you, but yourself.
From reading your version:
You came round the corner at too fast a speed to stop safely.
You damaged your car by hitting an ESB pole support cable and ditch.
The fact that it was another vehicle on road is not important, it could have been a child, cyclist, walker, man hearding a cow. You went of the road, you're responsible for your actions, deal with it.

No, as there was no contact details on the phone, and the number I have for ESB Leixlip didn't answer. The cable appears to be intact. Do you have contact details for ESB Networks?

I also didn't hit a ditch - neither west nor east Ireland definition of one, nor did I say I did. I swerved and braked to avoid hitting a driver who was illegally on my side of the road (as was the vehicle behind him), while significantly under the speed limits and at a safe speed for the road, corner, and weather conditions assuming there isn't anyone breaking the rules of the road around the corner.

ballooba

MYOB wrote: »

I swerved and braked to avoid hitting a driver who was illegally on my side of the road (as was the vehicle behind him), while significantly under the speed limits and at a safe speed for the road, corner, and weather conditions assuming there isn't anyone breaking the rules of the road around the corner.

Failure to learn from ones mistakes is what makes one a bad driver.

L1011

ballooba wrote: »

Failure to learn from ones mistakes is what makes one a bad driver.

Wee small of issue of "not legally being in the wrong" in your argument there.

ballooba

MYOB wrote: »

Wee small of issue of "not legally being in the wrong" in your argument there.

That's not going to fix your car though is it?

You were travelling at an excessive speed and you had an accident. The posted speed limit is irrelevant. It's a limit. Not a target.

FuzzyWuzzyWazza

MYOB, sorry to hear about your accident, but you where faced with two choices,

1) you could have stopped and let the other driver hit you, and then claim on his insurance,

2) or drive off the road and not have the damage to you car covered by any insurance as you don't have comprehensive cover.

Unfortunatlly you chose what was probably the safer option, but now you have to pay to get your car repaired, my only advice would be next time get comprehensice insurance, I have had to use it myself and it is totally worth the extra few hundred quid.

BrianD3

I'm sorry but that is speeding. I'm sorry if this ruins your thread but you should know that. You must be able to stop your car in the distance you can see to be clear.

Actually on a narrow, twisty country road you should be able to stop in no more than HALF the distance you can see to be clear. Even if you do this, you're still not fully protected as you could meet oncoming traffic which is travelling far too fast or just doesn't bother slowing down (as is often the case)

Based on the original post it sounds like it was the camper van driver who was in the wrong here. Driving a large vehicle on a country road, coming around a bend and not being able/willing to stop when meeting oncoming traffic. Drivers of wide vehieles should be extra careful on narrow roads but unfortunately the opposite is often the case.

The problem with these crashes is even if your car was stationary at the time of the collision AFAIK they will usually besettled 50/50 by insurance as it's more trouble than its worth to try to figure out who did what unless there is a fatality/serious injury involved

ballooba

This:

BrianD3 wrote: »

Actually on a narrow, twisty country road you should be able to stop in no more than HALF the distance you can see to be clear. Even if you do this, you're still not fully protected as you could meet oncoming traffic which is travelling far too fast or just doesn't bother slowing down (as is often the case)

Contradicts this:

BrianD3 wrote: »

Based on the original post it sounds like it was the camper van driver who was in the wrong here.

Where did you hear the thing about stopping in half the clear distance? Why half?

BrianD3

ballooba wrote: »

This:

Contradicts this:

In the original posters 2nd post he stated

Had I stopped he would have gone in to me

I conclude from this that the camper van was either travelling too fast to stop or else didn't bother stopping because he expected the OP to drive into the ditch to get out of his way.

Why half?

It's half because on a narrow road you are meeting oncoming traffic which is travelling towards you and overlapping "your" side of the road. If you are doing 50 km/h around a bend and can stop in the distance you can see to be clear that will be sufficient to avoid a stationary obstacle in the road. But if you meet an oncoming car it won't be stationary, it'll be coming directly towards you at similar speed to what you are doing.

ballooba

BrianD3 wrote: »

I conclude from this that the camper van was either travelling too fast to stop or else didn't bother stopping because he expected the OP to drive into the ditch to get out of his way.

True. In this case the camper was at fault.

The OP didn't stop though, he couldn't because he was going too fast. If the camper had been stationary then the OP would have hit him and been at fault.

BrianD3 wrote: »

It's half because on a narrow road you are meeting oncoming traffic which is travelling towards you and overlapping "your" side of the road. If you are doing 50 km/h around a bend and can stop in the distance you can see to be clear that will be sufficient to avoid a stationary obstacle in the road. But if you meet an oncoming car it won't be stationary, it'll be coming directly towards you at similar speed to what you are doing.

Got you now.

kaiser sauze

I'm a little surprised at the clamour to apportion blame to the original poster, but I respect the opinion about driving speeds/going in such a way that you can stop within the distance you can see. This is all fine, when other drivers are respecting the same principles and sticking to their side of the road.

I was driving from Athenry to Monivea a few years ago and there is a sharp right turn soon after leaving Athenry. I was driving around the corner as I normally would and suddenly there is a car going extremely fast in the opposite direction with at least half of the body of his car on my side of the road. (The road is fairly narrow in any case) I panicked and I touched my brakes, but did not jam on them as I had no ABS on that old car, and 'drove' my car up onto the embankment to avoid a collision. That car did not stop either. It was an extremely upsetting situation for me and I limped the car further down the road to a house on my side that had a space for me to get off the road and avoid anyone else hitting me. I was unable to move for a few moments and was just shaking. Eventually I got out to inspect the damage and it turned out that I had only badly scratched the bumper, knocked out an indicator lens and the steel wheel rim, which was after taking the main force, was badly buckled and needed to be changed. I was almost equally as shocked by this as the bang from the impact was huge. I changed the wheel and drove on home.

Do I think I did the right thing? Yes, without a doubt. I've had the same tiresome people say to me 'that I should have let him hit me' and 'let the insurance sort it out'. The simple fact is they were not the ones in the situation and they haven't a notion of what they are talking about. I could've been seriously injured if I had done that. [Paraphrasing laws of physics: the object going faster in a collision will have the greater momentum and will come out better in most collisions, as most of the shock will be transferred into the chassis of the slower moving vehicle. This is why you will often see people who smash into slower moving vehicles coming out ok, while they've killed the other persons(s).] Not only that, but when these type of collisions come before insurance companies they tend to settle up with each other and apportion blame equally as the cost of investigating and trial is prohibitive.

To end, I dealt with the consequences of my decision and took responsibility for my own actions. I paid to repair, the admittedly small, damage and did not even bother reporting the incident to the Gardaí. (I didn't get a number plate) I think that financially I was better off not having the need for an insurance company as if I had been found even partially to blame my premium would have skyrocketed at time of renewal.

I know that this is what people are preaching to the original poster, but I feel that no allowance is being made for the fact that the driver of the vehicle was not living by the same rules. They only work when everyone does.

I have a full, clean licence, for the record. No other incidents of any note in 13 years of driving.

ballooba

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I'm a little surprised at the clamour to apportion blame to the original poster, but I respect the opinion about driving speeds/going in such a way that you can stop within the distance you can see. This is all fine, when other drivers are respecting the same principles and sticking to their side of the road.

I wasn't apportioning blame. He said he wasn't speeding. He was. I thought he should know what speeding actually means.

You are not responsible for the behaviour of other drivers on the road. Only your own. If everybody else jumped off a bridge would you do it?

kaiser sauze

ballooba wrote: »

You are not responsible for the behaviour of other drivers on the road. Only your own. If everybody else jumped off a bridge would you do it?

What a ridiculous analogy.

peasant

In fairness now, driving on narrow country roads can be a bit difficult at times.

If you were to go by the "be prepared for the worst case scenario" - rule all the time, we would be back to the man with the red flag walking in front of the car.

In order to make any sort of progress, you HAVE to make assumptions.

You assume that other cars will stick to their side of the road, you assume that other drivers don't speed and you assume that other drivers use the same amount of care and attention as yourself.

This is how the system works and this is what allows you to make progress on those roads.

The difficulty is that some drivers just plainly break the rules while other grossly over-estimate their abilities ..that's when accidents happen.

ballooba

kaiser sauze wrote: »

What a ridiculous analogy.

Using the bad behaviour of others to condone one's own bad behaviour is ridiclous.

MYOB wrote: »

I was doing <60 at the time, as it was raining

40mph around a blind corner on a narrow road in the wet is inappropriate.

daedalus2097

There are plenty of corners I know of on back roads which are posted for 60km/h or 80km/h, but I take at or around 10km/h, purely becayse I can't see more than 3 yards ahead of me while turning. Any faster than that and I wouldn't be able to stop in the distance I can see to be clear. I do sympathise with the OP though, I've had to pull right into ditches because someone in a huge 4x4 is thundering down these roads. Drivers of large vehicles tend to have less consideration for other cars on these narrow roads in my experience...

peasant

daedalus2097 wrote: »

Drivers of large vehicles tend to have less consideration for other cars on these narrow roads in my experience...

It's called survival of the fattest