Accident with drunk driver

ThewhiteJesus

Princess Calla wrote: »

This doesn't add up.

She started her manouver when first car started to slow down. She was progressing at a "normal" speed but still hadn't completed the turn in the time two other cars completed theirs.

Not only that the front of the car and side were damaged?

I agree, and then trying to worm out of it and blame someone else, who may or may not have been over the limit, but that's up to the gardai to resolve it just feels wrong and it's everyone elses insurance premium that go's up.

dublin49

I think its a positive the other party hit you as distinct to you hitting them ,as your insurance could argue impaired reaction from alcohol prevented the driver avoiding collison.

callaway92

Genuinely cynical comment here, but I'm not quite sure what the OP could be asking about here or why they're asking.

His wife drove out in front of oncoming traffic and collided with one of the oncoming cars.

Indicators are irrelevant here. The drink driving will be a matter for the guards, but the car damage etc it's OP's wife that cause the accident.

If there was a personal injury claim from the would-be Drink Driver the OP's wife would likely be at fault there too.

EDIT: If anything, I don't think raising a thread here would've been a great idea in the first place.

Princess Calla

callaway92 wrote: »

Genuinely cynical comment here, but I'm not quite sure what the OP could be asking about here or why they're asking.

I think they are trying to find a way to limit their responsibility to the lowest level they can.

dublin49

callaway92 wrote: »

Genuinely cynical comment here, but I'm not quite sure what the OP could be asking about here or why they're asking.

He is reasonably trying to understand if the fact the other party had alcohol taken mitigates any of the blame that would normally fall on his wife.I think his OP where he thinks blame is 50/50 is a bit ambitious

Tommo 76

redlik wrote: »

She saw 3 cars blinking left and turning so she just drove as you always do joining another road - quick but not crazy tyres burning quick.
It's hard to say how fast was that third car going, did she sped up when the 2 in front of her turned.

And I guess that’s what I’m getting at, was there time for the third car to brake / avoid the impact or was the alcohol a factor in reaction times or indeed did they use it as an opportunity, because these days you just don’t know with some people. The fact your wife went when the first car was turning in yet the third car hit her drivers side means she wasn’t even fully out onto / crossing the road so to speak.. Was she turning right or left? I had assumed left as in into the flow as opposed to across the road. Also, glad everyone is ok.

kirving

It's a wonder we have Gardai or insurance companies at all, with so many people confident to make absolute statements, based of a few vague posts from the OP.

Tell you what OP, make another post from the perspective of the other driver. Then wait for everyone to tell you that you were completely entitled to drink, drive and make a wrong indication, and that without a shadow of a doubt, your consumption of alcohol had zero effect on your ability to anticipate the likely actions of another driver.

NomadicGray

kirving wrote: »

make a wrong indication.

Is this illegal?

redlik

Tommo 76 wrote: »

And I guess that’s what I’m getting at, was there time for the third car to brake / avoid the impact or was the alcohol a factor in reaction times or indeed did they use it as an opportunity, because these days you just don’t know with some people. The fact your wife went when the first car was turning in yet the third car hit her drivers side means she wasn’t even fully out onto / crossing the road so to speak.. Was she turning right or left? I had assumed left as in into the flow as opposed to across the road. Also, glad everyone is ok.

She was turning right so she was crossing these cars lane, so to speak. As I said before she didn't jump like a rocket to join in, just a normal manoeuvre, since there were 3 cars indicating turn left into the road she was in.

redlik

Here's the map of the situation, my wife is at the bottom, cars coming from the right. All 3 blinking left turn, she moves in, she collides with third one.


Link to a map

SteM

I still can't figure out how the 3rd car in that situation hit the front driver side. The rear driver side I could almost understand.

Yester

Did the drunk driver move to overtake the cars indicating left?

redlik

SteM wrote: »

I still can't figure out how the 3rd car in that situation hit the front driver side. The rear driver side I could almost understand.

This is how it ended, more or less.

Bang!

redlik

Yester wrote: »

Did the drunk driver move to overtake the cars indicating left?

Maybe a little bit, I'd say. Not like fully overtaking and moving onto other lane, just a little arc around the back of the second car.

Princess Calla

redlik wrote: »

Maybe a little bit, I'd say. Not like fully overtaking and moving onto other lane, just a little arc around the back of the second car.

Why would they move out to an overtake position if they planned to turn ?

Moving to overtake position (even very slightly) would indicate to me they planned to continue straight.

Looking at your pictures it looks like your wife didn't progress at a "normal" speed for a turn but inched her way into a junction waiting on a gap in traffic to join the main road. In essence blocking the junction.

It'll be treated as two different things, as far as I am aware.

Your wife drove out in front of another car. That's your wife's fault. Doesn't matter if the other driver was drunk, texting, having a rave, etc. your wife broke the rules of the road and as such, will be at fault for the accident.

The other driver will speak to their insurance company and their insurance company will hear that they were over the limit. The insurance company will then tell them that they will not stand over any claims made against them, as they were over the limit. However, as your wife was in the wrong, no claim will be made against the drunk driver.

In theory, if they wanted, they could still claim against your wife (and win) a personal injury claim. An insurance company will likely argue that by being drunk, the driver is partly responsible for his injuries, but a car driving out in front of him is still ultimately the cause of the crash.


Completely separately to all of this, the drunk driver may get a conviction or penalty points, which will most likely cost them more in future on car insurance (or see outright refusals, possibly even a driving ban, etc). But none of this will be seen by your wife as it'll be out of sight and down the road when the drunk driver's renewal comes up, or he ends up in court for drunk driving, which won't have anything to do with you (ie; it won't be tied to the crash, it'll be an offence in it's own right).

GreeBo

The only relevance being drunk has is that it might have contributed to have the indicators on incorrectly, but since they are pretty much irrelevant to determining blame, I don't see how being drunk is relevant to the crash?

dublin49

GreeBo wrote: »

The only relevance being drunk has is that it might have contributed to have the indicators on incorrectly, but since they are pretty much irrelevant to determining blame, I don't see how being drunk is relevant to the crash?

Perhaps but since the drunken driver hit the OPs wifes car surely it could be argued without the influence of alcohol the accident might have been avoided with quicker reactions.

redlik

I've spoken to a friend of a friend who's the gardai at the same station and was told if the woman's test turns out positive it will be her fault, no matter what wrong my wife did. Apparently drunk driving has the priority over other offences.

So that's that. I will leave the discussion for now, thank you for all the feedback and I will try to give you an update once it is resolved, one way or another.

One a happier note, I'm collecting my PS5 today so hopefully it will cheer me up a bit :-)

Calahonda52

GreeBo wrote: »

The only relevance being drunk has is that it might have contributed to have the indicators on incorrectly, but since they are pretty much irrelevant to determining blame, I don't see how being drunk is relevant to the crash?

So where is the requirement to be paying due care and attention and be able to stop in time?


If the OPs OH was a child in the middle of the road, two cars turn left and ADD kills the child. [A for alleged]
The ADD assumed the road was clear at a spot she couldn't see.
Indicator is irrelevant

ADD's vanishing point was the number plate of the car in front
https://www.roadwise.co.uk/bikers-2/bikers-using-the-road/the-vanishing-point/

Princess Calla

redlik wrote: »

I've spoken to a friend of a friend who's the gardai at the same station and was told if the woman's test turns out positive it will be her fault, no matter what wrong my wife did. Apparently drunk driving has the priority over other offences.

So that's that. I will leave the discussion for now, thank you for all the feedback and I will try to give you an update once it is resolved, one way or another.

One a happier note, I'm collecting my PS5 today so hopefully it will cheer me up a bit :-)

If you'd a friend inside the force why bother start a thread.

Lesson learned not to trust an indicator, she may not be as lucky next time.

AndrewJRenko

redlik wrote: »

I've spoken to a friend of a friend who's the gardai at the same station and was told if the woman's test turns out positive it will be her fault, no matter what wrong my wife did. Apparently drunk driving has the priority over other offences.

So that's that. I will leave the discussion for now, thank you for all the feedback and I will try to give you an update once it is resolved, one way or another.

One a happier note, I'm collecting my PS5 today so hopefully it will cheer me up a bit :-)

The Gardai don't get to decide on insurance liability issues. That's down to the insurance companies to sort out.

biko

Some posts advocating and quoting fraud removed.

OP, ring your insurer for advice, that's what you pay them for.

Thread closed.