Wife had a crash, tyres may have been worn!

DrPhilG · 23-04-2012 02:43PM #1

Apologies if this is more of a legal issue but I thought I'd have more chance of a reply here. If needed could some kind Mod move it?

My wife had an accident yesterday. She was about to pass a cyclist on her side, when another car came overtook dangerously coming towards her. She had to brake hard, The brakes locked up and she knocked the lady off her bicycle. She had almost stopped when the impact came, and thankfully the lady was able to get up and walk away although we understand she she may have some ligament damage.

Now my question. The Gardai left my wife home afterwards. Partly because she was in no fit state to drive and partly because they said that they needed to inspect the car for roadworthiness.

I checked the tyre pressure a few weeks ago and did notice that I would need new tyres soon but I'm pretty sure that they weren't below the legal requirements. But now that the cops are checking out the vehicle I'm a little concerned that they were worse than I thought.

My question is about insurance. I understand that if the tyres were bald then it would void any claim by us, not that we need to claim as there isn't even a scratch on the van.

However why happens if the cyclist claims? She certainly wasn't badly injured and we think that only the back wheel on the bicycle was damaged but it would be a rare case nowadays that you have an accident and the other party doesn't claim personal injury etc.

Would her claim be paid if (and it's still just an "if") there was any issue with the tyres? Or would she end up pursuing us privately???

Can't find the insurance T&C to check what they say but I understand that some companies will pay a claim but then chase the policy holder to recover their losses.

seamus · 23-04-2012 02:46PM

Your insurance will pay any claim that the cyclist makes. They are legally required to.

They can only void your wife's comprehensive insurance, not her 3rd party liability.

However, if the insurance company were so inclined, they could choose to cancel your wife's policy and sue you privately for the cyclist's costs.

But this is exceptionally unlikely unless the tyres were down to the wire bead - i.e. your wife was grossly negligent in maintaining the vehicle.

What happened to the other driver? Did he stop?

Nissan doctor · 23-04-2012 02:51PM

Well Ligament damage can be a fairly long term injury so I would expect a claim of some sort.

The tyres may not be below the minum thread but if they were below 3mm then their performance would be below 20%.

The brand of the tyres would also play a major part.

If the Garda are checking the car though, if they are below the legal limit or are not the correct load rating for the van then you could be in bother.

drunkmonkey · 23-04-2012 02:54PM

She's hardly in trouble if a car was driving on her side of the road about to drive into her.

Yawns · 23-04-2012 03:01PM

Did the oncoming car have to break to avoid hitting the wife's car?

It won't matter to the guards as he didn't hit anyone so he's not liable for anything. If he was driving dangerously and caught on camera or some such then he could be in trouble with the guards. As far as the insurance goes, it's nothing to do with him or the insurance company.

DrPhilG · 23-04-2012 03:03PM

Well my info on the other persons injurys are purely speculative. She was able to get up by herself but was taken to A&E anyway as a precaution and to have an x-ray.

The tyres certainly weren't smooth/wires protruding etc. Had brake pads changed last week too and the mechanic didn't mention the tyres and he usually would say something if he sees something needed.

The other driver (in the incoming car) didn't stop and my wife can't really give much of a description either.

To complicate things further, the damage to the cyclist didn't even happen directly from the impact. Once the van stopped, the cyclist was on the ground. She waved at my wife in what seemed like a "back off" motion, as if to say reverse. My wife thought that the woman was trapped UNDER the vehicle (she could see her upper body) and so she reversed. Turns out that the woman was waving her to stop rather than reverse and in reversing, my wife actually caught the woman's knee between the bike wheel and the frame.

It was that (foolish) reverse at the misunderstanding of the wave that cause the injury. So strictly speaking, the condition of the tyres had no impact on the actual injury, just the collision that led to the woman being on the road. you can imagine my face when the wife told me that she had reversed over the bike...

DrPhilG · 23-04-2012 03:07PM

Nissan doctor wrote: »

if they are below the legal limit or are not the correct load rating for the van then you could be in bother.

PS, what level of bother are we talking about? Fines, points, prosecution?

The van is privately taxed etc, not used for business if that has any bearing.

Monty Burnz · 23-04-2012 03:11PM

DrPhilG wrote: »

A
However why happens if the cyclist claims? She certainly wasn't badly injured and we think that only the back wheel on the bicycle was damaged but it would be a rare case nowadays that you have an accident and the other party doesn't claim personal injury etc.

Sorry, on a slight side-note, I think it is quite fair at a very minimum that this person who did absolutely nothing wrong and was struck by a vehicle out of the blue could certainly expect their medical expenses to be covered. She may also be a nervous wreck in future when cycling, with possible long-term consequences wrt quality of life.

Sorry again, just thought it worth mentioning in passing.

seamus · 23-04-2012 03:16PM

PS, what level of bother are we talking about? Fines, points, prosecution?

It would be impossible to speculate on what level of bother, if any your wife could be in. Not without anyone here having seen the vehicle or the incident really.

The absolute worst that she could be charged with (and I'm talking worst-case scenario here) is

- Driving dangerously defective vehicle - Mandatory court appearance, 5 points + a fine.
- Careless driving - Again, mandatory court appearance, 5 points + fine

Don't say that to her, you'll just freak her out.

As far as I can see from your description the main issue is that she hit the cyclist, which clearly required her to swerve leftwards into the cyclist to avoid a collision, when it would have made more logical sense to just brake hard without swerving.

If a Garda decided to push ahead with something, it would most likely be driving without reasonable consideration, which is a fixed penalty notice and two points. They would need to be particularly harsh to penalise her for the scenario you mention where someone drove into oncoming traffic, forcing her to brake.

I wouldn't be too concerned that she misunderstood the cyclist and reversed after the accident, as that just indicates how shocked she was. Just ensure that the cyclist is looked after, all medical bills however small, and buy a new bike if necessary.

DrPhilG · 23-04-2012 03:29PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Sorry, on a slight side-note, I think it is quite fair at a very minimum that this person who did absolutely nothing wrong and was struck by a vehicle out of the blue could certainly expect their medical expenses to be covered. She may also be a nervous wreck in future when cycling, with possible long-term consequences wrt quality of life.

Sorry again, just thought it worth mentioning in passing.

I totally agree!

Let me clarify, I'm not looking for loopholes or any way of avoiding responsibility. I'm just trying to gauge the level of financial and legal trouble I (and my wife) are in. If my comments about the cyclist's seemed flippant that wasn't my intention. I have no problem covering the cost of her medical issues etc, I just have seen too many instances of people claiming for profit so it makes it hard to avoid being cynical.

But as I say, I'm certainly not shirking the responsibility.

CiniO · 23-04-2012 03:31PM

DrPhilG wrote: »

However why happens if the cyclist claims? She certainly wasn't badly injured and we think that only the back wheel on the bicycle was damaged but it would be a rare case nowadays that you have an accident and the other party doesn't claim personal injury etc.

Cyclist was knocked down from her bike.
After that if I understand correctly, your wife reversed a car without even getting out of it to look what happend, and that caused injury to the cyclist.
Her bicycle's wheel was damaged.
And eventually she was taken to A&E to be checked if she was OK, with suspection of twisted liegament...

And you are wondering if she is going to claim?????????? :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

CiniO · 23-04-2012 03:33PM

DrPhilG wrote: »

I totally agree!

Let me clarify, I'm not looking for loopholes or any way of avoiding responsibility. I'm just trying to gauge the level of financial and legal trouble I (and my wife) are in. If my comments about the cyclist's seemed flippant that wasn't my intention. I have no problem covering the cost of her medical issues etc, I just have seen too many instances of people claiming for profit.

Your biggest worry seems to be tyres.
Do you have access to the car? Where is it now?
Why don't you just go there and inspect tyres yourself. Measure if they have over 1.6mm tread, and if so, you can have piece of mind.

Yawns · 23-04-2012 03:38PM

The guards have the car for inspection.

As for the financial side of it, my advice is to let the insurance company handle this one. With the chance of a personal injury claim looking likely it's not worth losing sleep over the cost to your pocket at the moment.

You will have an insurance premium increase come renewal but PI claims can cost into the thousands by the time it's all settled. Let the insurance company repair the bike. IF the lady isn;t going to open a PI claim then you can reimburse the insurance company for the cost of repair and it shouldn't affect your premium next year. They will have a record of the accident against you but I think as long as you reimbursed them, you might have your NCB intact.

However the lady could lodge a PI claim even 2 years down the line. I'm not sure how long she has but it is a few years to claim if I recall.

DrPhilG · 23-04-2012 03:55PM

Yawns wrote: »

As for the financial side of it, my advice is to let the insurance company handle this one. With the chance of a personal injury claim looking likely it's not worth losing sleep over the cost to your pocket at the moment.

I agree, but my concern is that the payout will fall back to me due to the tires issue and I simply don't have the money!

seamus · 23-04-2012 04:03PM

DrPhilG wrote: »

I agree, but my concern is that the payout will fall back to me due to the tires issue and I simply don't have the money!

It's ridiculously unlikely.

The cost in terms of time and money to the insurance company of taking you to court to recover costs mean that they won't bother. Tbh, I'd be surprised if the insurance company don't handle this as a standard claim. I think you're worrying excessively about it.

DrPhilG · 23-04-2012 04:13PM

seamus wrote: »

I think you're worrying excessively about it.

Probably...

You should see the the wife. Hasn't eaten, didn't sleep last night and swears she'll never drive again. Really shook up.

That's my reasons for trying to understand the potential consequences. At least we know the worst case scenario.

DrPhilG · 25-04-2012 03:00PM

Another question...

When I took out the insurance policy on the van my wife had a provisional UK licence. She has since passed her test in the north but hasn't transferred her license yet.

Someone at work was telling me that because the insurance policy has her on record as a UK provisional but she is now a UK full license that they could refuse to pay on a technicality, i.e. Incorrect info on the policy. I never contacted hem to advise them that she had passed her test.

Any truth in what I've been told or just scare mongering?

Atlantic Dawn · 25-04-2012 03:07PM

Your insurance will pay the 3rd party regardless of any issue with the licence, they may however refuse to pay any damages to your own car.

DrPhilG · 25-04-2012 03:16PM

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Your insurance will pay the 3rd party regardless of any issue with the licence, they may however refuse to pay any damages to your own car.

Ok, so same as if the tyre fears played out?

That's fine. Thanks.

Yawns · 25-04-2012 03:33PM

They have to pay out to any 3rd party regardless. However they do have the choice of trying to recoup the cost directly from you. As mentioned above it is generally too expensive to go chasing you for the costs that they paid out to a 3rd party that they usually don't bother.

They could withhold comprehensive cover so you would have to repair your own car yourself and such forth.

seamus · 25-04-2012 03:37PM

The licence is not an issue. Although she should have informed the insurer when her licence changed, the terms of the cover only require that she holds or has held a licence for the category of vehicle being insured. They can't withdraw cover or seek to recover costs on that technicality.

There is no legal requirement to switch her UK licence for an Irish one, so that's not relevant either.

DrPhilG · 25-04-2012 04:04PM

Huge thanks to all who have replied here. Really puts my mind at ease.

Still haven't got the van back though. The Guard who attended the scene and is dealing with the case isn't back til Friday and apparently she has to clear it for release. Called them yesterday and they said it is with the PSV inspector?

Yawns · 25-04-2012 04:43PM

Just a quick one.

If it fails with the PSV inspector will the OP have to cover the fees for this along with storage fees?

As far as I know he pays nothing if it's found to be roadworthy but I did hear that the owner would have to cover the fees incurred for the test and storage. Seeing as they would have it the guts of a week as the guards won't allow it to be released until the officer involved clears it herself, it could be a few days worth of fees.

I really have no clue so DrPhilG please don't panic or worry unless someone else here has the correct info, I'm just curious as to what I read before. Not even sure if I read it or was told it by someone tbh.

padd b1975 · 25-04-2012 07:03PM

DrPhilG wrote: »

Probably...

You should see the the wife. Hasn't eaten, didn't sleep last night and swears she'll never drive again. Really shook up.

That's my reasons for trying to understand the potential consequences. At least we know the worst case scenario.

Have you been able to get in contact with the cyclist to ask how she is feeling after the accident?

CiniO · 25-04-2012 07:21PM

Yawns wrote: »

They have to pay out to any 3rd party regardless. However they do have the choice of trying to recoup the cost directly from you. As mentioned above it is generally too expensive to go chasing you for the costs that they paid out to a 3rd party that they usually don't bother.

.

What makes it that costly for insurer to chase his customer for money back for paid third party claim?

johnos1984 · 25-04-2012 07:32PM

Is it normal practice for the Gardaí to take a car for inspection after such a crash?

Just interested as I never heard of it before except after a serious collision

padd b1975 · 25-04-2012 07:38PM

johnos1984 wrote: »

Is it normal practice for the Gardaí to take a car for inspection after such a crash?

Just interested as I never heard of it before except after a serious collision

I thought they could only take it if it was not taxed or insured.
Never heard of them taking it in a minor (although frightning for those involved) prang.

johnos1984 · 25-04-2012 07:41PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

I thought they could only take it if it was not taxed or insured.
Never heard of them taking it in a minor (although frightning for those involved) prang.

Is it possible they towed it as your wife wasn't in a fit enough state to drive it again and in her panic she thought it was being towed to be inspected?

Seems more logical to me unless there is some major thing being left out of the story of what/why the accident happened

Tigger · 25-04-2012 07:55PM

ok

1 the cops take the car if some one is hurt
2 there will be a claim
3 if the choice is hit a cyclist or pedestrian or to hit a car thsat is in your lane hit the car, cars are much cheaper to fix and if it came to it a car-car claim will go 50-50 or some other ratio a car -person claim will always go 100-0

4 if your tyres are blad you are still insured i've never heard of a case where the insurance tried to recoupe all that may happen is the insurance will go sky high

5 don't worry so much this is why we have insurance

padd b1975 · 25-04-2012 08:00PM

johnos1984 wrote: »

Is it possible they towed it as your wife wasn't in a fit enough state to drive it again and in her panic she thought it was being towed to be inspected?

Seems more logical to me unless there is some major thing being left out of the story of what/why the accident happened

Lol, my wife?? I am not the OP.

johnos1984 · 25-04-2012 08:10PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Lol, my wife?? I am not the OP.

heathersonline · 25-04-2012 08:31PM

Tigger wrote: »

3 if the choice is hit a cyclist or pedestrian or to hit a car thsat is in your lane hit the car, cars are much cheaper to fix and if it came to it a car-car claim will go 50-50 or some other ratio a car -person claim will always go 100-0

I dunno about this. Surely if you hit an overtaking car, most likely travelling quite quickly in your lane, your risking killing yourself, the overtaker and the cyclist? I think the op's wife made the right choice and if she hadn't been in such a state if shock and reversed it would have been a happy outcome for all involved

Tigger · 25-04-2012 09:12PM

heathersonline wrote: »

I dunno about this. Surely if you hit an overtaking car, most likely travelling quite quickly in your lane, your risking killing yourself, the overtaker and the cyclist? I think the op's wife made the right choice and if she hadn't been in such a state if shock and reversed it would have been a happy outcome for all involved

not if ye both braked then tipped
she braked and swerved into the cycle lane

but its all opinion and expereiance in here so ....

Yawns · 25-04-2012 09:41PM

CiniO wrote: »

What makes it that costly for insurer to chase his customer for money back for paid third party claim?

Costs of going to court, paying solicitors, proving the car was not roadworthy. Generally it's cheaper to strip the NCB, raise the insurance premium or if you have NCB you may only have it if you stay with that company so you will have to pay the higher premium.

Of course you can shop around but most likely you will find the other insurance companies will have higher premiums when you explain the previous accident and resulting loss of NCB.

So insurance companies generally don't risk paying thousands in what could be a drawn out court case that they may or may not lose. Safer to jack up premium and gain some of that cash back. I know they may lose a lot of money paying out but they rape all the drivers for premium renewals anyway even if you don't have an accident in 5 or 7 years.

MugMugs · 25-04-2012 09:45PM

CiniO wrote: »

Yawns wrote: »

They have to pay out to any 3rd party regardless. However they do have the choice of trying to recoup the cost directly from you. As mentioned above it is generally too expensive to go chasing you for the costs that they paid out to a 3rd party that they usually don't bother.

.

What makes it that costly for insurer to chase his customer for money back for paid third party claim?

It's all well and good getting a judgement against somebody, getting the money from that judgement is a whole different kettle of fish. Home is marked by the bank generally so that's out.... Household items used are generally worthless. Who has savings nowadays? And the cars already knackered from the crash. It's a whole load of time and money you'll probably only ever see a fraction of back. It's just not worth the hassle. Believe me! I've tried!

johnos1984 · 25-04-2012 09:49PM

MugMugs wrote: »

Who has savings nowadays?

Lots of people according to the figures.

More people save more in a recession and spend less.

It's there and it ads to the problems we are currently having.

Uncertainty is a terrible thing

MugMugs · 25-04-2012 09:52PM

johnos1984 wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Who has savings nowadays?

Lots of people according to the figures.

More people save more in a recession and spend less.

It's there and it ads to the problems we are currently having.

Uncertainty is a terrible thing

Fair enough.... If I was coming after your savings and in pursuit of a judgement against you..... What would you do? I'd withdraw it and "spend it" It's just not a runner. Unless the savings are of significance and there's juicy assets there you're not getting zilch out of the other party.

Edit: Plus I have to know that you have money.

carbon nanotube · 25-04-2012 10:31PM

DrPhilG wrote: »

Well my info on the other persons injurys are purely speculative. She was able to get up by herself but was taken to A&E anyway as a precaution and to have an x-ray.

The tyres certainly weren't smooth/wires protruding etc. Had brake pads changed last week too and the mechanic didn't mention the tyres and he usually would say something if he sees something needed.

The other driver (in the incoming car) didn't stop and my wife can't really give much of a description either.

To complicate things further, the damage to the cyclist didn't even happen directly from the impact. Once the van stopped, the cyclist was on the ground. She waved at my wife in what seemed like a "back off" motion, as if to say reverse. My wife thought that the woman was trapped UNDER the vehicle (she could see her upper body) and so she reversed. Turns out that the woman was waving her to stop rather than reverse and in reversing, my wife actually caught the woman's knee between the bike wheel and the frame.

It was that (foolish) reverse at the misunderstanding of the wave that cause the injury. So strictly speaking, the condition of the tyres had no impact on the actual injury, just the collision that led to the woman being on the road. you can imagine my face when the wife told me that she had reversed over the bike...

had this car abs brakes...would normally cause such an incident to be avoided.

Pkiernan · 26-04-2012 01:54AM

Here is what is going to happen over the next 12 months:

1. Expect a claim from the injured party.

2. The injured party onn the advice of counsel will ask the Gardai to prosecute your wife for dangerous driving. A conviction would increase the amount of awarded damages. It's 50/50 whether anything will come of this.

3. Your insurance company will settle for an inflated sum.

4. Your wifes insurance premium will increase considerably.

Please note that I am not saying that your wife was driving dangerously, I am just saying what it very likely to happen.

Although a bitter pill to swallow, your wife will just have to put it behind her. Very few people go through life without relatively minor scrapes - physical or legal.

I wish you all the best with it.

p.s. - buy a dash camera.

DrPhilG · 26-04-2012 12:02PM

Tigger wrote: »

she braked and swerved into the cycle lane

There was no cycle lane. No hard shoulder either.

We don't have details of the cyclist. We were thinking of sending a card or letter via the Gardai to pass on.

Redsoxfan · 26-04-2012 08:48PM

DrPhilG wrote: »

We don't have details of the cyclist. We were thinking of sending a card or letter via the Gardai to pass on.

While you mean well, I'm not sure this is a good idea, as if the matter were to go to court, this could be seen as a sign of guilt/liability - in saying that, I am not a lawyer...

Tigger · 26-04-2012 08:54PM

DrPhilG wrote: »

There was no cycle lane. No hard shoulder either.

We don't have details of the cyclist. We were thinking of sending a card or letter via the Gardai to pass on.

well then your wife was overtaking

different kettle of fish

DrPhilG · 27-04-2012 12:05AM

Tigger wrote: »

well then your wife was overtaking

Not really. She was approaching the cyclist and would have had room to pass them without even changing lanes but the approaching overtaking car meant that she had to brake hard before she even reached the cyclist.

robertxxx · 27-04-2012 12:12AM

Just let the insurance sort it, she did hit somebody after all!!

Mycroft H · 27-04-2012 12:14AM

DrPhilG wrote: »

Tigger wrote: »

well then your wife was overtaking

Not really. She was approaching the cyclist and would have had room to pass them without even changing lanes but the approaching overtaking car meant that she had to brake hard before she even reached the cyclist.

Thats still overtaking. Unless its an extraordinary wide street, there generally isn't room for overtaking a cyclist in lane without giving them adequate space. Its an offence in itself to overtake dangerously to inconvenience other road users.

puzzle factory · 27-04-2012 01:01AM

topping up the silage pit, when your finished.

ArphaRima · 27-04-2012 08:16AM

I have to say that this all sounds a bit strange. I think as you say your wife is not trying to shirk responsibility etc. which is fine, but then you go on to try and diminish it regardless.
She was overtaking a bicycle and and instead hit and injured them. I'm not even sure how that is possible. Then at one point you seem to say that the cyclist magically ended up on the ground only to impose self-injury through a misunderstood hand motion.
I certainly wouldnt want to be your wife in court with that story.

Oh and the other overtaking vehicle has no responsibility for the actions of your wife.

p.s. - buy a dash camera.

Agreed. Then the next cyclist will have plenty to sue her with.

DrPhilG · 27-04-2012 10:48AM

fluffer wrote: »

I have to say that this all sounds a bit strange.

Everyone else seems to have understood it pretty well?

fluffer wrote: »

She was overtaking a bicycle and and instead hit and injured them. I'm not even sure how that is possible.

Sarcasm aside, I don't see how this is difficult to grasp. She was approaching the cyclist, preparing to pass, when an oncoming car forced her to brake sharply. The van skidded and hit the cyclist.

fluffer wrote: »

Then at one point you seem to say that the cyclist magically ended up on the ground only to impose self-injury through a misunderstood hand motion.

She didn't "magically" end up on the ground, my wife knocked her onto the ground with the van.

And where did I say she self imposed injury? My wife inflicted the injury when she reversed after misunderstanding the cyclists gesture. Never did I suggest that his was anything other than a mistake by my wife.

fluffer wrote: »

Then the next cyclist will have plenty to sue her with.

And this is the typical attitude that is the reason for the country's inflated insurance quotes. Don't just claim for the loss or injury suffered, sue for as much as you can and clear a nice profit.

I'm not sure if you're just trolling, or you really didn't read the rest of the thread but your comments show a clear misunderstanding of information that others have grasped quite easily.

CiniO · 27-04-2012 10:57AM

DrPhilG wrote: »

Sarcasm aside, I don't see how this is difficult to grasp. She was approaching the cyclist, preparing to pass, when an oncoming car forced her to brake sharply. The van skidded and hit the cyclist.

One conclusion for the future.
She should avail of some advanced driving training which would include vehicle control in emergency situations (emergency braking, skids, etc).
Good driver shouldn't allow a vehicle to skid just because of sharp braking.

I know that in Ireland general ability to control skids among drivers is nearly non-existant, but it's something if your wife was trained for, most likely would prevent this accident.

Mycroft H · 27-04-2012 10:58AM

DrPhilG wrote: »

Everyone else seems to have understood it pretty well?

Sarcasm aside, I don't see how this is difficult to grasp. She was approaching the cyclist, preparing to pass, when an oncoming car forced her to brake sharply. The van skidded and hit the cyclist.

Where did this oncoming car come from? Surely it had to be visible for some time?

Tigger · 27-04-2012 10:58AM

DrPhilG wrote: »

I don't see how this is difficult to grasp. She was approaching the cyclist, preparing to pass, when an oncoming car forced her to brake sharply. The van skidded and hit the cyclist.

what was the speed limit the van must have skidded to the left by two or three feet to hit the bike seems a long way to skid sideways

was it wet

i'm only asking so i can judge whether your wife is in trouble

the cyclist will have to press charges the cops probably won't but she can if she wants

what have the insurance said

remember whatever we think here is seperate to what a garda super or the dpp would think

Wife had a crash, tyres may have been worn!

Comments