False motor accident accusation

[bungeejumper]

An accident involving more than one party happens when both parties fail to prevent it. The one who caused the near miss, plus the one who failed to avoid it. The latter is legally deemed not at fault, but the case in which there's absolutely nothing they could've done is extremely rare.

First, I doubt the essence of any insinuation that the "non-fault" party is almost always to blame, at least partially. And I'd be interested to hear of any corroborating evidence that went beyond mere anecdote. (My anecdotal contribution is that, on all three occasions when I was hit, I was either stationary or doing perhaps 2 mph in queuing traffic. )

When we drive, most of us drive within what you might call an envelope of reasonable expectations. We don't expect everyone to be doing exactly 30 or less when we join a 30 mph road - indeed, the highway code tells us not to - but we do have a reasonable expectation that the other guy won't be coming at us at sixty on our side of the road. And if he is, and the accident happens? Well, I suppose some jobsworth might accuse us of not doing everything we could have to avoid a potential accident. Such as staying at home.

Trying to be more constructive, though: I could see how the actuaries at the insurance companies might want to say that the aggrieved parties were to blame for driving within what most would call "reasonable tolerances" of the exact and correct line and speed. And indeed, when looking at the whole volume of accident cases as a generality, it might be valid for an actuary to throw that thought into the mix.

But it's a different matter to tell an individual to his face that he's probably partially to blame because he's had "non-fault" accidents before. It might be a justifiable inference, but heck, the speaker had better have some pretty good evidence to back up his explicitly negative intimation. Otherwise, the tone of civil discourse is going to fall apart rather rapidly.

BJ

[CliffEdge]

In two years, three times idiots drove into the back of me while I was waiting at red traffic lights. Prior to that I had not had a collision for forty years. The standard of driving, like all performance by the average person residing in the UK in all areas of life, is far worse nowadays than twenty years ago.

[Lootman]

An accident involving more than one party happens when both parties fail to prevent it. The one who caused the near miss, plus the one who failed to avoid it. The latter is legally deemed not at fault, but the case in which there's absolutely nothing they could've done is extremely rare.

First, I doubt the essence of any insinuation that the "non-fault" party is almost always to blame, at least partially. And I'd be interested to hear of any corroborating evidence that went beyond mere anecdote. (My anecdotal contribution is that, on all three occasions when I was hit, I was either stationary or doing perhaps 2 mph in queuing traffic. )

i would generally take the view that if my vehicle is not moving and is hit by another vehicle, then that would be a genuine exception case of me not being partly at fault for the accident. For instance I once returned to my parked car to discover that one of my panels was dented. Obviously that was not my fault but I did not include it in my claim to have only had one accident since it was too minor - we all get bumps and scratches from time to time, and I do not report such things because it is not cost-effective to make such insurance claims.

Of course if your car is not moving but it represents a hazard or obstruction to others, e.g. double parking whilst you collect your dry cleaning, then you may still be held to be at fault. I even avoid some legal parking spaces if I think there is an elevated risk of someone hitting me e.g. at a busy junction. or where visibility is poor.

But if your vehicle is moving then you have far more control over outcomes. In such cases then it is hard to argue that someone with multiple accidents is just unlucky. Certainly insurance companies don't take that view. Nor do I think that someone with a lifetime record of zero accidents is just lucky.

[bungeejumper]

A propos the question of collective responsibility for road accidents, I'm reminded of a clause that the French government introduced when it first brought in a points system for drivers about 20 years ago.

Now, pay attention at the back. Because Frenchies drive on the other side of the road (or hmmm, maybe not? ), the French system is like a game of Pointless, only different. You start out with 12 points (or six points if you're a beginner), and the first to get down to nil is the winner. Err, I mean, the loser, because he gets banned.

So, anyway.....

When the scheme was first introduced, there was a rule that after any accident in which somebody was killed, every driver in the vicinity would have a point deducted from his licence, no matter what he was doing or not doing. The hope was that this would encourage the French to be less American in their driving habits , and to look out for each other a little more.

What they discovered instead was that, after a fatal accident, many/most of the scrotes in the vicinity of the crash would instantly floor it and head for the distant horizon before the police could note their numbers. And so they ended up with fewer witness statements, and presumably lost a few culprits too.

BJ

[Dod101]

I've had another no-fault crash since and one of the first things my insurer asked was to send in footage if I had it.

Are you then prone to accidents as a result of your dashcam or because of it?

Dashcams have been selling in large numbers for seven years now. That's not a particularly tight space of time in which to have two no-fault accidents.

Perhaps Dod's point is that "no-fault" is generally an oversimplification and almost always a misnomer.

Near-misses happen all the time. Someone has a lapse of concentration or does something actively stupid, others in the path of potential trouble successfully avoid it - perhaps with a bit of a scare on the way.

An accident involving more than one party happens when both parties fail to prevent it. The one who caused the near miss, plus the one who failed to avoid it. The latter is legally deemed not at fault, but the case in which there's absolutely nothing they could've done is extremely rare. Hence the phrase "accident-prone" applied to those who have "no-fault" accidents more than perhaps once in a lifetime.

Yes I think that the "failure to avoid" part of that is very important. In my experience that derives from having a paranoid approach to driving, such that I am constantly trying to anticipate what other drivers will do, making sure never to under-estimate the rank stupidity of many of them. This might include such tactics as leaving a bigger gap between myself and other vehicles, and slowing down when approaching junctions "just in case".

There is an entire concept called defensive driving which is based on such principles, and I was fortunate to take advanced driving classes when I was fairly young, which helped me develop a style of driving which confers a greater margin of safety than most drivers that I see out there.

And whilst I would be wary of self-identifying as an "expert" driver or even a "better" driver, I do believe that I am a safer driver and I do not drive at high speeds. I have had just one accident in the 50 years I have been driving, and that was relatively minor with no injury. Much of that driving has been in the crowded south-east of the country, plus in Los Angeles which takes a rather different set of driving skills.

Personally I would regard having two accidents in 7 years as being sufficiently "unlucky" that I might question my driving style and skills.

I can only recall one serious accident and it was entirely my own fault with no one else involved. I was driving home to Scotland from London for Christmas in a BMW 525i so you can guess it was about 30 years ago. I had crossed the Border at Gretna where we stopped for tea or something. Got back into the car and on the A74 there was some slush around. I put my foot down to overtake and lost traction and control. Ended up with the car on its roof and both my wife and I suspended by our seatbelts. We crawled out unscathed entirely due to the way the car was built. I have driven frontwheel drive or quattros ever since.

Dod

[pje16]

I can only recall one serious accident and it was entirely my own fault with no one else involved. I was driving home to Scotland from London for Christmas in a BMW 525i so you can guess it was about 30 years ago. I had crossed the Border at Gretna where we stopped for tea or something. Got back into the car and on the A74 there was some slush around. I put my foot down to overtake and lost traction and control. Ended up with the car on its roof and both my wife and I suspended by our seatbelts. We crawled out unscathed entirely due to the way the car was built. I have driven frontwheel drive or quattros ever since.
Dod

Wow in a BMW
I think they are better engineered these days
I can imagine mine slipping but not flipping
glad to hear you were both ok

[bungeejumper]

I put my foot down to overtake and lost traction and control. Ended up with the car on its roof and both my wife and I suspended by our seatbelts. We crawled out unscathed entirely due to the way the car was built. I have driven frontwheel drive or quattros ever since.

Thanks for that, Dod. And big respect for fessing up to it. That's more than a friend of mine did when he turned his car over during the short descent from Edinburgh Castle. Of course, the fact that he'd just returned from a rather boozy rugby match will have had nothing to do with the incident?

I had a neighbour who owned a 3 series BMW, of which she was rather proud. Sadly, however, she never did get the hang of rear wheel drive, and one day she lost it on an icy corner and sent it backwards through a hedge, which wrote off the car. Undaunted, she went out with the insurance money and bought an identical car.

And reversed it through the exact same hedge, on the exact same patch of ice. Yes, there are some serial eejits around.

BJ

[Maylix]

I had a neighbour who owned a 3 series BMW, of which she was rather proud. Sadly, however, she never did get the hang of rear wheel drive, and one day she lost it on an icy corner and sent it backwards through a hedge, which wrote off the car. Undaunted, she went out with the insurance money and bought an identical car.

And reversed it through the exact same hedge, on the exact same patch of ice. Yes, there are some serial eejits around.

BJ

Surely not the 'exact same patch of ice'?? After all, if she had enough time to go and buy a new car, the ice would have melted......

[Arborbridge]

I've had another no-fault crash since and one of the first things my insurer asked was to send in footage if I had it.

Are you then prone to accidents as a result of your dashcam or because of it?

Dashcams have been selling in large numbers for seven years now. That's not a particularly tight space of time in which to have two no-fault accidents. Or at least, not in the congested south. In the remoter parts of Scotland, I'd guess that wouldn't be so likely?

I was certainly double unlucky - rammed by a reversing Volvo, T-boned by a Land Rover coming out of a side turning, and T-boned again by a white van which performed an unauthorised U-turn and took my whole wing off. The Land Rover driver became aggressive, and a dash cam would undoubtedly have shut him up without the need for legal assistance.

BJ

You sound unusually unlucky to me. Let's hope your next few years pass without incident to make up for it.

NOTE: I've lived in London and suburbs all of my adult life, so I'm used to what it's like.
Arb.

[Arborbridge]

Perhaps Dod's point is that "no-fault" is generally an oversimplification and almost always a misnomer.

Near-misses happen all the time. Someone has a lapse of concentration or does something actively stupid, others in the path of potential trouble successfully avoid it - perhaps with a bit of a scare on the way.

An accident involving more than one party happens when both parties fail to prevent it. The one who caused the near miss, plus the one who failed to avoid it. The latter is legally deemed not at fault, but the case in which there's absolutely nothing they could've done is extremely rare. Hence the phrase "accident-prone" applied to those who have "no-fault" accidents more than perhaps once in a lifetime.
Yes I think that the "failure to avoid" part of that is very important. In my experience that derives from having a paranoid approach to driving, such that I am constantly trying to anticipate what other drivers will do, making sure never to under-estimate the rank stupidity of many of them. This might include such tactics as leaving a bigger gap between myself and other vehicles, and slowing down when approaching junctions "just in case".

There is an entire concept called defensive driving which is based on such principles, and I was fortunate to take advanced driving classes when I was fairly young, which helped me develop a style of driving which confers a greater margin of safety than most drivers that I see out there.

And whilst I would be wary of self-identifying as an "expert" driver or even a "better" driver, I do believe that I am a safer driver and I do not drive at high speeds. I have had just one accident in the 50 years I have been driving, and that was relatively minor with no injury. Much of that driving has been in the crowded south-east of the country, plus in Los Angeles which takes a rather different set of driving skills.

I drive a little like you. My daughter says I'm impossibly slow, but I am trying to drive well within safe limits.

Arb.

[GoSeigen]

I had a neighbour who owned a 3 series BMW, of which she was rather proud. Sadly, however, she never did get the hang of rear wheel drive, and one day she lost it on an icy corner and sent it backwards through a hedge, which wrote off the car. Undaunted, she went out with the insurance money and bought an identical car.

And reversed it through the exact same hedge, on the exact same patch of ice. Yes, there are some serial eejits around.

BJ

Surely not the 'exact same patch of ice'?? After all, if she had enough time to go and buy a new car, the ice would have melted......

"exact same"

Ugh!

GS

[sg31]

Perhaps Dod's point is that "no-fault" is generally an oversimplification and almost always a misnomer.

Near-misses happen all the time. Someone has a lapse of concentration or does something actively stupid, others in the path of potential trouble successfully avoid it - perhaps with a bit of a scare on the way.

An accident involving more than one party happens when both parties fail to prevent it. The one who caused the near miss, plus the one who failed to avoid it. The latter is legally deemed not at fault, but the case in which there's absolutely nothing they could've done is extremely rare. Hence the phrase "accident-prone" applied to those who have "no-fault" accidents more than perhaps once in a lifetime.

If someone is at a juction waiting for a gap in traffic to enable them to pull out and they are hit in the rear by a car that fails to stop I really can't see that there is much they can do to avoid the accident. This is one of the most common types of claims on insurance.

As an ex insurance underwriter I can say that there are many claims where there is no fault on one party. Defensive driving is fine and will cut out a lot of accidents but the truth is a motorist has to trust other motorists to follow the rules and act sensibly otherwise it becomes almost impossible to drive a vehicle. Drivers make mistakes. Accidents happen, sometimes a driver can get out of the way or protect themselves by defensive driving but sometimes they have no chance.

[Lootman]

If someone is at a juction waiting for a gap in traffic to enable them to pull out and they are hit in the rear by a car that fails to stop I really can't see that there is much they can do to avoid the accident. This is one of the most common types of claims on insurance.

Rear-ending another vehicle, whether that other vehicle is moving or not, is almost always considered to be the fault of the vehicle behind anyway.

But at the margin you can still reduce the risk of being rear-ended. For example by doing your best to keep larger distances between yourself and other vehicles. And by not stopping or slowing suddenly.

Whilst on foot recently I witnessed an accident. Vehicle A was approaching a junction with traffic lights. Seeing that the lights were about to change to red A slowed down. But of course many drivers in that situation would speed up to get through the junction before the red. In this case that is what the following vehicle B did, which then rear-ended A. B assumed that A would also speed up through the lights but A did the opposite.

B's fault, technically. But A could have avoided it by going through the junction as the lights changed instead of stopping. In my view A was being too careful and was not mindful of how many other drivers treat such situations.

[pje16]

B's fault, technically. But A could have avoided it by going through the junction as the lights changed instead of stopping. In my view A was being too careful and was not mindful of how many other drivers treat such situations.

"A" did the correct thing, an amber light precedes a red one and while it's legal to drive through amber lights but make sure you only do it when necessary
The fact that you have a t*at behind you is immaterial
https://www.bsm.co.uk/traffic-lights

[Lootman]

B's fault, technically. But A could have avoided it by going through the junction as the lights changed instead of stopping. In my view A was being too careful and was not mindful of how many other drivers treat such situations.

"A" did the correct thing, an amber light precedes a red one and while it's legal to drive through amber lights but make sure you only do it when necessary
The fact that you have a t*at behind you is immaterial
https://www.bsm.co.uk/traffic-lights

There is a time to follow rules and recommendations, and there are times to use your judgement. If I have a tailgater I am not going to provoke an incident by slamming on my brakes just because I know that technically he will be held liable. I would rather avoid an accident if I can, which was the topic here.

How to deal with tailgaters is of course probably worth its own topic. But it is part of my defensive driving style to not provoke them.

[pje16]

Ok ignore best practice then

[Lootman]

Ok ignore best practice then

Depends how you define "best practice". For me a good part of that is using my judgement and experience to avoid dangerous situations, rather than blindly and mechanically following technical rules. As someone famously once said "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men".

[pje16]

I am not blindly following anything
you seem intent on defending driving through amber lights
may be your choice but not mine

[Lootman]

I am not blindly following anything
you seem intent on defending driving through amber lights
may be your choice but not mine

Again, the topic here is how to avoid accidents. Slamming on your brakes when you are being tailgated increases the risk of an accident, even if it is not one you will be blamed for. It is a worse choice than the technical infraction of entering a junction on amber, which pretty much everyone does anyway.

But you drive how you want, no problem.

[daveh]

If someone is at a juction waiting for a gap in traffic to enable them to pull out and they are hit in the rear by a car that fails to stop I really can't see that there is much they can do to avoid the accident. This is one of the most common types of claims on insurance.

Rear-ending another vehicle, whether that other vehicle is moving or not, is almost always considered to be the fault of the vehicle behind anyway.

But at the margin you can still reduce the risk of being rear-ended. For example by doing your best to keep larger distances between yourself and other vehicles. And by not stopping or slowing suddenly.

Whilst on foot recently I witnessed an accident. Vehicle A was approaching a junction with traffic lights. Seeing that the lights were about to change to red A slowed down. But of course many drivers in that situation would speed up to get through the junction before the red. In this case that is what the following vehicle B did, which then rear-ended A. B assumed that A would also speed up through the lights but A did the opposite.

B's fault, technically. But A could have avoided it by going through the junction as the lights changed instead of stopping. In my view A was being too careful and was not mindful of how many other drivers treat such situations.

I've had that exact accident. Lights went yellow, decided not to run the lights, braked and stopped at the stop line as the light went red. Hit from behind by the artic who was going to run the lights behind me. He'd have been going through on red, I ended up smashed into the middle of the junction. Police put the blame entirely on the artic. said he should always be able to stop as I might have had to brake for a pedestrian or other problem Infront of me, and he shouldn't have been so close that he couldn't stop without hitting me.