Just one more thing....
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Crashed :(
- Thread starter rk2009
- Start date
I find it very hard to believe that the other guy was speeding looking at the impact photos
No tyre marks at all on the road, the broken bits of headlight are only meters away from the junction which indicates to me virtually no slowing/braking time at all
Yet the impact resulted in this
If he was doing 50+ mph then either he didn't brake or react at all other than to swerve (hence hitting just the rear corner) - and if he was doing 50 there wouldn't be much of the back end of the clio left, they crumple at much slower speeds than that.
OR the OP pulled out where he shouldn't and there was no reaction time for the other driver other than to try and swerve out the way.
I think that's far more likely
That's the first time I have seen those photos. I would disagree a bit. The photos look a bad angle.
I think I would definitely say that the other guy must have been going some speed.
Even from where the peugeot is I'm pretty sure most modern cars in the dry will be able anchor on from 30mph and stop at or before the junction. There is a good few car lengths between that peugeot and the junction.
So coming from the other way where the car is pulling out and the OP getting to where he ended up there is no excuse for not stopping from 30 there with a heavy braking foot. Conditions permitting. Especially since the Op was still accelerating. He wasn't a static object.
That said, the OP saw the car but failed to take in the approach speed an just gambled at the car being at the limit or lower. 50/50 would be fair I think.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but I disagree. You may think you'd stop by then, and if you we're doing tests, you potentially would stop just after, but that's with you knowing your have to brake. The other driver could've had his mind elsewhere at the time, fatigue, auto pilot etc. 2 car lengths is rougky where the Peugeot is to the junction. That'll be about 30ft. Less than the stopping distance from 30mph.
RB 200
Im actually looking forward to seeing what happened, I'd say if the other driver had have been going faster than 30 you'd have no back end left not just a crippled bumper... Sorry but it's your fault. And your goin to look like a total mong trying to argue other wise...
Do you have a whiplash claim in too?!
Do you have a whiplash claim in too?!
I only viewed the pictures on my phone. Now having looked on a PC I'm also of the opinion there is too little damage.
Bumpers naturally pop out in a crash.
BoatNonce
ClioSport Club Member
The OP must have been right in the middle of the road in order for the corsa to hit him at that angle, even if he mounted the pavement.
Unless of course the accident took place right at the junction and the OP has kicked the bits of glass down the road a bit.
Unless of course the accident took place right at the junction and the OP has kicked the bits of glass down the road a bit.
I thought this, but the position of the glass says otherwise.
This is what my car looked like after being rear ended at about 10 mph.. and I won 100% 
I won't make any judgement on the incident though as I wasn't there and it's all complete speculation. Although I agree on the principle of not pulling out infront of someone on a major road..
I won't make any judgement on the incident though as I wasn't there and it's all complete speculation. Although I agree on the principle of not pulling out infront of someone on a major road..
BoatNonce
ClioSport Club Member
See the last sentence of my post. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen people doing it.
PH2 RS172
that glass is some distance away from the junction. thats more than enough stopping distance if youre not asleep at the wheel or driving like a total chopper. 50/50 if the insurance companies can be bothered imo. yes the op did pull out into the main flow but the other driver must have been dozing to not to be able to see him pull out and come to a speed where he avoids collision at that point in the road. if it was closer to the junction then yes 100% ops fault but thats about 4/5 car lengths past the junction!
Last edited:
4-5 car lengths is less than the stopping distance from 30mph.
You do the math
4-5 car lengths is less than the stopping distance from 30mph.
You do the math
He shouldn't apply braking exactly inline with the junction though, you would hope before hand.. >5 car lengths. You do the math
But as I'd previously stated, if he pulled out just behind another car heading the opposite direction, the drivers view of the junction would have been obscured.
PH2 RS172
He shouldn't apply braking exactly inline with the junction though, you would hope before hand.. >5 car lengths. You do the math
exactly. hes not going to slam on the brakes in line with the junction hence my point... he couldnt have been paying attention or mustve been over the limit to hit his car at that point. if it was closer to the junction then it wouldnt be 4/5 car lengths ...
180.5 bhp 172
Just seen the pics and had a quick read through here...
You said when you pulled out, he swerved and mounted the pavement to try and avoid you?
Look how wide the pavement is...
http://s1.postimg.org/a13in5egb/image.jpg
Surely he would of taken out that fence if he managed to get over enough to hit his drivers side on your pass side??? Doesn't look like a car would fit on that pavement without ANY damage to the fence.
I think there is a bit of BS going on here and the whole story isn't really coming out. Things don't add up.
Just saying.
You said when you pulled out, he swerved and mounted the pavement to try and avoid you?
Look how wide the pavement is...
http://s1.postimg.org/a13in5egb/image.jpg
Surely he would of taken out that fence if he managed to get over enough to hit his drivers side on your pass side??? Doesn't look like a car would fit on that pavement without ANY damage to the fence.
I think there is a bit of BS going on here and the whole story isn't really coming out. Things don't add up.
Just saying.
Clio 172
I was going to mention the fence as well, as I said earlier this is all getting a bit jackanory from the op. The crash from the very badly taken pictures is less than 20-30m from the junction in which case he has clearly pulled out far too late for the other driver to react. His whole argument is based on the other driver speeding which is circumstancial evidence at best and he's the only person stating it. His word against the other drivers word who would you believe as the insurance company?
4-5 car lengths is less than the stopping distance from 30mph.
You do the math
In the highway code maybe. Not with the Op accelerating away which would give the corsa a lot more braking room.
If the Op appeared from behind a car then the impact would be at the junction not some distance away from it. Unless.....the other car was going over the limit by a fair bit.
Even if the corsa only braked at the junction, he wouldn't have travelled that far without hitting the OP already. Corsa either speeding/not looking.
They've done research and found the braking distances to be pretty similar. Brakes may be better nowadays, however cars weights have gone up considerably.
The damage isn't far enough away from the junction for him to have braked at the junction. The glass will have fallen off further away from the impact. As it would have had momentum, so it will have potentially landed an extra 5-10ft from the initial impact.
The damage isn't far enough away from the junction for him to have braked at the junction. The glass will have fallen off further away from the impact. As it would have had momentum, so it will have potentially landed an extra 5-10ft from the initial impact.
Last edited:
The Chubby Pirate
ClioSport Club Member
Golf R
Jesus christ.
RB 200
People saying the other guy should've braked... Why? He shouldn't have had to change anything about his driving if he wasn't pulled out on by op. send him to jail for plates too.
No doubt his insurance co have read his thread to now .... you will be amazed what they trawl through and spot especially when sorting iffy accidents ... if they haven't there is a good chance the 3rd party will ....... last thing I would discuss on an open forum is an unresolved accident ...especially posting pics lol
Clio 172
180.5 bhp 172
Agreed.
Even if he was speeding, it is impossible to prove. Especially as there isn't any skid marks on the ground.
As said in previous comments - if you cant judge a cars speed before pulling out of the junction, get the bus.
And next time, look twice, then look again.
The insurance company will find it 100% the OP's fault. Prepare for a premium hike next renewal!
Nissan 350z
Its an insurance claim, you will be lucky to recieve an update in weeks let alone days with these types of companies
Renault Clio
The insurance rang me today, they will be admitting fault on my behalf today. Not much I can do about. At least I told the truth and didn't get people to lie for me and say that they were there. Ah well, this is what you get for being honest. Thanks to everyone that voiced their opinions in a respectful manner, have a nice day!
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
Nice one. Not many would admit and accept they did something wrong.
I do admire you for coming back and saying whats happened , however don't be bitter and think he has got people to lie , if your insurer really believed they were false statements they would have challenged them , just try and learn from it .
They obviously felt it was clear cut to have admitted liability so quickly , but we did all try and point that out.
When i was younger i had a fair few accidents that were my fault and it took a while till i learnt , i am sure your level headed enough to learn faster than i did .
Renault Clio
Mate I'm not being funny but there was nobody there. Like I said before, for them to put a statement in they would have had to give their details to the other guy at the scene, and no one was there, so they didn't. But it's his word against mine, I can't prove that it didn't happen. But for the love of god just accept what I'm saying, they blatantly lied about being there. Fact.
your still not understanding thats not the reason it went against you are you ???
Seriously you are going to have to try and learn from the mistake , its one you made , look how many people pointed that out.
or ring your insurer and ask them why it went against you so you can analyze it , they will no doubt write a report for you .
Last edited:
Renault Clio
I think it's you that's not understanding, we just went from talking about witnesses to talking about liability, how? Forget the liability for a moment. The witnesses were not there! They lied, that's all I'm saying, and you will never convince me other wise, and how the hell can you? I know that's a question, but just do me a favor and don't answer it, I'm bored.
Similar threads
