Calculations indicate Speeding

heroics

OP you need to give this a rest. YOU pulled across the road in front of the other driver. Just be glad that there was only 300€ of personal injury claimed and that you didn't kill someone.

People are not bending over backwards to ignore speeding. YOU still have a responsibility to make sure the road is clear before proceeding regardless of the speed the other driver is doing. Its like someone saying " I looked saw the other car was definitely speeding so I pulled out anyway. If he wasn't speeding he could have stopped and not hit me"

I would be more worried about sharing the road with a driver who was overwhelmed by a car doing 70 kph and apparently does not look before and during crossing the road or if they looked cannot judge distance or speed than someone who was speeding.

I also have to query some of the "facts" that you are telling us. If there was no sign of braking and the other driver hit you doing 70 surely there would be more than 300€ in personal injury? Especially in a 17/18 year old van

RayCun

Webiter wrote: »

Thus I have calculated that over the 5 years that it would take me to earn back the No Claim Bonus it would have cost me between 25 and 35 thousand €uros.

You are saving over 5000 euro a year because of your no claims bonus?

seamus

Mary63 wrote: »

Thats what I was asking Seamus.Your insurance hiked your premium up even though you had full no claims bonus protection.Does this mean you are protecting 50% of a premium of 1500 euros instead of protecting 50% of a premium of 500 euros prior to the claim.

Yeah, that's exactly it. The no claims bonus is a discount that's applied after your premium has been calculated. So if you do make a claim your base premium will go up.

Which in a twisted way means that your no claims bonus is worth more to you - €750 versus €250 in your example.

Honestly after having to avail of protection, I'd never go without it again. I only made a small claim, but without the no-claims protection my premium would have quadrupled.

Actually, I wouldn't have claimed at all, I would have paid out of pocket if I didn't have the protection.

Mary63

Finally, finally we hear what actually happened.You pulled across into another car without checking the way was clear.

The other driver could do absolutely nothing except hit his brakes but you were into him without warning.

You are now blaming him for speeding even though if he had been travelling at 40 km per hour he couldn't have avoided you anyway.

Little CuChulainn

I understand the ops frustration. A while back, a friend of mine was pulling out of a side road onto a larger road. The road was clear. When she was half way out a car came around the corner at high speed. There was no time to clear the road or reverse before the collision. The other driver was going at least 20 over the speed limit. If they hadn't been then my friend would have had enough time to clear the road. The other driver was also uninsured so they shouldn't have even been on the road. The insurance company still paid out.

RayCun

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I understand the ops frustration. A while back, a friend of mine was pulling out of a side road onto a larger road. The road was clear. When she was half way out a car came around the corner at high speed. There was no time to clear the road or reverse before the collision. The other driver was going at least 20 over the speed limit. If they hadn't been then my friend would have had enough time to clear the road. The other driver was also uninsured so they shouldn't have even been on the road. The insurance company still paid out.

I agree, and someone else said this above, if the other car came around a corner at an excessive speed, that would be an issue.
OP has indicated that he saw the other car at least 250 metres away, possibly more, so I don't think that situation applies.

mikeymouse

RayCun wrote: »

I agree, and someone else said this above, if the other car came around a corner at an excessive speed, that would be an issue.
OP has indicated that he saw the other car at least 250 metres away, possibly more, so I don't think that situation applies.

I don't think op ever said he/she saw the van 250 mtrs away,
The speed limit sign was 250mtrs away according to op.

nhunter100

mikeymouse wrote:

I don't think op ever said he/she saw the van 250 mtrs away, The speed limit sign was 250mtrs away according to op.

The OP has been very selective in the detail of the accident other than to confirm he pulled across the path of the vehicle that hit him and his insurance accepted full liability. ( I make the assumption the OP is male, open to correction)

Mary63

How slow is your friend though doing manoeuvres and does she pick up speed once the manoeuvre is done.A person manoeuvring efficiently onto a road and moving on promptly is very unlikely to be hit by an oncoming car.If you are pulling onto a road with a corner you get onto that road as as fast as you can and increase your speed quickly too.

That situation is very different to what OP is describing anyway.

RayCun

mikeymouse wrote: »

I don't think op ever said he/she saw the van 250 mtrs away,
The speed limit sign was 250mtrs away according to op.

At least 250m away.
OP said that the other car closed the distance from the sign in x seconds, so must have been travelling at y speed.
If OP couldn't see the car at the signpost, they wouldn't even be able to guess how long it took to travel the distance.
Therefore, OP could see the other car when it was at least 250m away.

Of course, OP could simply describe the whole incident for us, but apparently they like making us work it out.

mikeymouse

RayCun wrote: »

At least 250m away.
OP said that the other car closed the distance from the sign in x seconds, so must have been travelling at y speed.
If OP couldn't see the car at the signpost, they wouldn't even be able to guess how long it took to travel the distance.
Therefore, OP could see the other car when it was at least 250m away.

Of course, OP could simply describe the whole incident for us, but apparently they like making us work it out.

But he said this "One can assume that he came through the 50km/hr road sign location a bit faster but I would not have been able to see him at that point. As I say his excessive speed overwhelmed my position on the roadway as I was probably not expecting to have to deal with such excessive speed within the town environment. Thus if he had been traveling slower and in compliance with the 50km speed limit I might not have got caught in his path.

Senna

RayCun wrote: »

Of course, OP could simply describe the whole incident for us, but apparently they like making us work it out.

Think the OP knows if they told us the full story their guilt would become very aparent and this thread would have died long ago.

BrianBoru00

Is there CCTV? Otherwise as Speed is a function of both distance AND time, how can you tell what time elapsed between you seeing him and him hitting you?

RayCun

mikeymouse wrote: »

But he said this "One can assume that he came through the 50km/hr road sign location a bit faster but I would not have been able to see him at that point.

Good point.
I keep falling into the trap of expecting the OP to make sense, but of course he was measuring from a spot he couldn't see

Mary63

The problem is the OP didn't see the other driver at any point.He heard the bang when he hit the other drivers car, at this point in time its quite immaterial what speed the other driver was doing, you can't react in time if someone drives into you without warning.

brian_t

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Is there CCTV? Otherwise as Speed is a function of both distance AND time, how can you tell what time elapsed between you seeing him and him hitting you?

I presume that Garda investigators would also measure any brakeing marks (skid marks) at the scene and also access the damage to both cars in order to help determine the likely speeds of both cars.

ohnonotgmail

brian_t wrote: »

I presume that Garda investigators would also measure any brakeing marks (skid marks) at the scene and also access the damage to both cars in order to help determine the likely speeds of both cars.

according to the OP the other guy didnt break.

EndaHonesty

brian_t wrote: »

I presume that Garda investigators would also measure any brakeing marks (skid marks) at the scene and also access the damage to both cars in order to help determine the likely speeds of both cars.

All modern cars are fitted with ABS brakes. ABS brakes do not leave skid marks.

mikeymouse

Mary63 wrote: »

The problem is the OP didn't see the other driver at any point.He heard the bang when he hit the other drivers car, at this point in time its quite immaterial what speed the other driver was doing, you can't react in time if someone drives into you without warning.

I don't think you've read all Webiter's posts. as he said;
I have not given the full details of the accident as I do not think it necessary as I accept that I crossed the road in front of him.

I read that as Webiter was hit side on.
He doesn't say he never saw the van , or lf he saw it and took a chance.
He may have run a red light,He may have been used to driving abroad and was looking left instead of right.
It may have happened on a crossroads where Webiter thought he had right of way.
We don't know.
All we know is Crossed in front of the van and was hit,

mikeymouse

EndaHonesty wrote: »

All modern cars are fitted with ABS brakes. ABS brakes do not leave skid marks.

On a 1999 van?

PCX

Lets imagine that you manage to get the courts to take a speeding case against the other driver and somehow the court decides based on your arguments that the other driver was speeding and gives them a small fine and penalty points. (Sounds very unlikely based on the details you have given - at the very least you would have to hire a private expert crash investigator willing to back up the the claims and calculations you have made).

So what is your next move? Do you bring the other driver to court in a civil case and argue the blame for the accident should be apportioned based on the speeding fine and that damages should be awarded to you by the other driver to compensate for the loss of your no claims bonus on a pro rata basis?

From the very small amount of details you have revealed it sounds as though even if the other vehicle was travelling above the speed limit - and you can prove that in court - you still hold the lions share of responsibility for the accident. In the absence of other facts in your favour that you are not revealing (I presume there are none) my guess would be that you are at least 90% at fault.

Even if a court found that the other driver had some partial responsibility for the accident there is no guarantee that a judge would award you any compensation for the loss of your no claims bonus. You lost that based on your contribution to the accident.

You have nothing to gain from this exercise OP.

ohnonotgmail

mikeymouse wrote: »

On a 1999 van?

It was the OP driving a 1999 van. there is no indication of what the other vehicle was.

Little CuChulainn

brian_t wrote: »

I presume that Garda investigators would also measure any brakeing marks (skid marks) at the scene and also access the damage to both cars in order to help determine the likely speeds of both cars.

Only if there was serious injury or a fatality.

twowheelsonly

Webiter wrote: »

Irelandrover stated...... the difference between 50 km/h and 70km/h is about 6m/s. So there is now way he would have been 60 meters away unless you took a crazy amount of time to carry out your maneuver.


I work my calculations from the 50km sign which is 250 meters away from the impact position. I take the 50km sign as a control point. I present two speed sample calculations for his approach below.


Traveling the 250m at 50km/hr (in compliance with the rules of the road) should take him approx 18 seconds


Sample 1 - Traveling the 250m at 65km/hr would take him 13.85 seconds. If he had been in compliance with the 50km/hr road sign detail he should have only traveled 192 meters in his 13.85 seconds thus he should have been some 59 meters away from my position at the time of impact.


Sample 2 - Traveling the 250m at 70km/hr would take him 12.86 seconds. If he had been in compliance with the 50km/hr road sign detail he should have only traveled 178 meters in his 12.86 seconds thus he should have been some 72 meters away from my position at the time of impact.


Yes, I may have been slow with my maneuver but this is where I was overwhelmed by his excessive approach speed. Is the above as set out a logical approach

That's all well and good but is totally irrelevant to your argument.
The control point should be from his position when you pulled out and not from the speed sign.
You're dealing with facts and not 'what ifs'

You're saying that he traveled the 250 mtrs in 12.85 seconds whereas it should have taken him 13.85 seconds. What really matters is how far he traveled from the time you pulled out in front of him. i.e. if he was 125 mtrs away then you were giving him 6 seconds to react, if he was 60 mtrs then it was 3 seconds etc..

I'm not going to go into the countless variables of the accident as they've already been well covered here other than to say that your calculations are based on a paper exercise rather than real time details. That's the reason accident investigators are employed - the best computers or formulas in the world still can't take all variables into account.

Last point.... Could the fact that there was no brake marks indicate that you didn't give him enough time to brake ?? Average reaction times of drivers are estimated at 1.5 seconds, but obviously can be faster or slower, and that's up to the time the brakes are applied and start to do their job - actually stopping can take far longer.

IMO, I'm with the majority here. Suck it up, you have nothing to gain from dragging this out.

NUTLEY BOY

Webiter wrote: »

SNIP SNIP

Then if I look at the loss of my No Claim Bonus a serious level of disproportionality arises.

I work in an industry with high insurance costs. It must be an Irish thing because the same insurance in France or Germany is about one eighth (I repeat one eighth) the cost as to what it is in this country. A huge difference in cost yet we are all in the European Union.

Thus I have calculated that over the 5 years that it would take me to earn back the No Claim Bonus it would have cost me between 25 and 35 thousand €uros. That is some 10/15 times the value of the payout to the claimant.

Hence the above shows a disproportionality in this case that is penal on a business. It does not help competitiveness. The No Claims Bonus thing seems to be a huge benefit to the Insurance Industry. At the end of the day it is that anomaly that I am trying to challenge...... even if I had to take a win, loose or draw speeding case to highlight it.


Thus I am of the opinion that the principle of a No Claims Bonus should be relevant to an event on its individual merits and therefore suitably proportional and applied in a fair way.

I have thrashed this out a few times with insurance underwriters.

Aside from any issue of protected no claims discount the conventional wisdom is that it is what it says, namely a no claims discount as distinct from a no blame discount. Any issue of fault is contractually irrelevant. In plainer terms, if insurers incur outlay and they cannot get it back from elsewhere that constitutes a claim that prejudices the NCD.

You refer to comparative insurance costs within the EU. Two issues arise. We pay high levels of damages. They have to be financed from somewhere. Secondly, the size of the risk pool in Ireland is very small as compared to a country like Germany. The underwriters always tell me that one of the principles of insurance is the spreading and sharing of risk. Put another way, as far as insurance goes, the misfortunes of the few who have accidents is compensated for or shared by the many who do not have an accident. A small risk pool that is paying high levels of compensation is probably going to have high costs in the form of premiums.

Mr. Incognito

Webiter wrote: »

Quoted by Seamus.... "Unless you can prove that exceeding the speed limit was a significant causative factor in the accident, then obtaining a declarative judgement is a waste of time."

If the other driver had been progressing at or below the 50km/hr limit (in other words driving with due care and attention) then he would/should have been some 60 plus meters away from my position at the time of impact.

My toaster is broken and I need to hold the plastic thing down to brown toast.

If it wasnt I would have been ready two minutes earlier and would not have been in the place the accident occurred.

Clearly your honour this accident is the toaster manufacturers fault.

Treepole

seamus wrote: »

Nobody gets rewarded in an insurance claim, simply compensated for their losses.

lol

Mary63

One of the main reasons for our high insurance costs is the cost of solicitors involved in the claims.

Robbo

Moderation: OP, you appear to have answers.

The Gardaí aren't interested in it from a Road Traffic Offence perspective. You can bring a private prosecution if you so wish.

Your insurance company won't run a defence based on your conclusions so you'll either need to have it out with them or get creative.

To take this any further in the direction you wish would require legal advice, something the charter prohibits.

Thread closed.

hullaballoo

Mary63 wrote: »

One of the main reasons for our high insurance costs is the cost of solicitors involved in the claims.

Can you back that up?

I can save you the effort of trying because I have examined this falsehood in detail and there is no evidence available anywhere that legal costs has anything to do with the level of insurance premiums here.

In fact, all the available evidence says that legal costs have decreased substantially (by up to 70%) since 2010.

The reason for high insurance premiums is reckless mismanagement within the insurance industry.