View previous topic | View next topic

The "Blackboard/Chalkboard" thing

Page 5 of 7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

PDR
1342394.  Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:26 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Perhaps that is why you couldn’t avoid the pig?

;p


No, it was because I was distracted by the flashing blue light on top of the car he was driving...

:0)

PDR

 
Alfred E Neuman
1342401.  Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:37 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Safety Engineering Theory rejected this concept decades ago because it was a dangerous assumption.

Our OHS types tried to convince us that someone who stopped (on the verge) to let out passengers was to blame when someone else drove down the verge to get past the backed up traffic and collided with him. Apparently if he wasn’t there when the other driver decided to break the law, there wouldn’t have been a collision, therefore it’s his fault.

They also try to tell us (regularly) that all accidents* are avoidable. This usually accounts for the first twenty minutes of any road safety presentation, as most of the scientists I work with reject that concept, and are happy to argue about it.


* They use the word accidents as opposed to collisions, which makes their assertion even more laughable.

 
PDR
1342402.  Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:58 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:

They also try to tell us (regularly) that all accidents* are avoidable. This usually accounts for the first twenty minutes of any road safety presentation, as most of the scientists I work with reject that concept, and are happy to argue about it.


...and I'll bet those arguments are both more constructive and more entertaining that the actual planned content of the mandatory annual safety brief...

:0)

PDR

 
crissdee
1342405.  Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:59 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Green doesn’t equal go criss


Technically, perhaps not, but just about everyone on the road drives as if that is the case.

I had once (as I think I may have mentioned before) a boss who believed that an accident only happened because;

a) Someone was doing something they shouldn't
or
b) Someone wasn't doing something they should.

That was it, no ifs, buts or exceptions.

He was a tosser.

 
PDR
1342409.  Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:58 am Reply with quote

Im my experience this attitude:


crissdee wrote:

I had once (as I think I may have mentioned before) a boss who believed that an accident only happened because;

a) Someone was doing something they shouldn't
or
b) Someone wasn't doing something they should.

That was it, no ifs, buts or exceptions.


...and this intellectual ethnicity:

Quote:
He was a tosser.


...are generally found together. It goes along with the frequently voiced claim that if you hit another car from behind "It's always your fault", often acompanied by "It says so in the law!" (There are many occasions where it has been either the car in front's fault or a no-fault, and "the law" has precisely nothing to say on the matter).

PDR

 
barbados
1342410.  Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:33 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
barbados wrote:
Green doesn’t equal go criss


Technically, perhaps not, but just about everyone on the road drives as if that is the case.


If you are at a crossing, and the light is green, but there is someone still crossing the road. What do you do?
You don't drive "as if that is the case" do you, you drive in the correct way and proceed with caution when your path is clear.

If you approach a junction, and your light is green, you make sure your way is not blocked before you continue forward, with the due care and attention required for safe and considerate driving.

There are the odd idiot around who think they have a deity given right to own the road, but they are, fortunately very few, and very far between.

 
suze
1342428.  Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:42 pm Reply with quote

So, a question, and I don't know the answer.

Suppose you and I approach a set of traffic lights at 90° to each other. The lights aren't working properly, and we both see a green light - and as a result, we both proceed and we are in collision.

If that happened after I'd gone through a red light, the insurance companies would undoubtedly decide that the collision was my fault. It might still be the case that you could/should have prevented the collision, but I'd get the blame because I'd done something I knew very well I shouldn't.

But if we've both seen a green light, will they decide "no fault" for that reason alone?

 
barbados
1342435.  Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:32 pm Reply with quote

My understanding is in that particular circumstance, if neither vehicle stopped Both drivers would be ay fault (as opposed to neither).
If however we were to collide, and one of our vehicles were stationary, the fault would be with the driver of the moving vehicle.

 
barbados
1342437.  Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:37 am Reply with quote

And..... Having reread your question, I think I can probably answer your next question, which I suspect would relate to the NCD, the answer would be we would both lose any unprotected NCD, it is a discount for no claims, not no blames.

 
PDR
1342438.  Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:16 am Reply with quote

IANAL, but AFAICS the law has nothing to say here - it's a civil matter. That means two things:

1. It's down to the opposing parties to come to an agreement, and only if they can't would they take it to a court.

2. The opposing parties are insurance companies who are commercially-driven so it's extremely unlikely they would dissipate money by taking it to court unless one or other felt there was a specific thing that would massively swing it in their favour.

I would therefore suggest that it's extremely unlikely that it would be anything other than "knock for knock" (each company pays their own client's bills). Whether this affects NCDs is down to the specific terms of each party's policy - in my case I believe I'm allowed 2 claims a year before I lose my NCD protection, but this is specific to my policy (I haven't had a claim for over 25 years). But the NCD thing isn't as definitive as people think it is - they'd probably let you keep your NCD but increase your base premium by 50-100% as the collision caused them to reappraise your risk level.

The once circumstance which *might* cause the insurers to go to law would be if it was a large claim AND the client with a large loss wasn't comprehensively insured. In that case there would be a commercial benefit in taking it to court IF they felt they had a specific aspect that made it likely they'd win.

I've looked around and I can't find any cases showing the "it would be the fault of the moving one rather than the stationary one" thing - I think this is another of those myths like "hit the car in front and it's always your fault".

£0.000009 supplied, E&OE, NWEoI,

PDR

 
barbados
1342439.  Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:03 am Reply with quote

Perhaps you can think of an occasion where a stationery vehicle has struck a moving one?

 
crissdee
1342440.  Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:23 am Reply with quote

Now that goes back to a question I believe I posed some time ago, asking how a parked vehicle could be regarded as a hazard. I'm not completely sure, but I think you suggested that an illegally parked vehicle could be"at fault" if an otherwise legally driven vehicle were to hit it. I haven't got time atm to search it out, but if no one else does I will do so later.

 
Leith
1342441.  Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:23 am Reply with quote

I think a driver stopped on a level crossing for no good reason is likely to be held at fault if hit by a train.
In most car to car collisions involving a stationary vehicle, the moving one is likely to be the one with most agency and more likely to be held culpable, but there always remains the potential for poor stopping decisions to be the dominent factor in creating a high collision risk.

 
PDR
1342442.  Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:14 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Perhaps you can think of an occasion where a stationery vehicle has struck a moving one?


We were talking about the case of faulty traffic lights at a crossroads showing green to both sides at once. In that case the car which drives to the middle of the crossroads and stops could be held just as liable (or non-liable) for unreasonably/unadvisably stopping as the one which then came into collision with it. One car stopping 2 seconds before the collision doesn't change anything.

PDR

 
dr.bob
1342447.  Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:05 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
I'm just railing against a default assumption that there is always someone to blame.


I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that there is always someone to blame. However, the data I've found so far suggest that there is someone to blame in the vast majority of cases.

There being "always someone to blame" does seem to be the impression given by the driving theory test but, in that case, I believe that a little exaggeration is warranted. It's a good thing to drill the idea into people at an early stage in their driving career*. As usual clear, simple messages are much easier to get across than much more nuanced, real-world ideas. People will discover the truth later on, but it's probably a good thing to start them off thinking "someone is to blame for an accident, so I'd better make sure it's not me!"

PDR wrote:
I haven't had a claim for over 25 years


What, even with those hoards of wildlife that are constantly hurling themselves at your car? ;-)




*Personally I had previously considered skidding in slippery conditions to be "just an accident" until the theory test made me think specifically that the driver was to blame for not accounting for the road conditions.

 

Page 5 of 7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group