Minor car accident

[RogerS]

Happened to me at the weekend. Stationary, signalling waiting to turn right and a young lass not concentrating went into the back of me.

We exchanged information. Well, to be accurate, I got her name, car registration and insurance policy number plus the name and phone number of a third party witness. I gave her my name and phone number.

Now she wants my insurance details. Is this normal practice? I don't want to be shafted by my insurance company or hers in some kind of cosy knock for knock.

Thanks in advance

 

[wizer]

Yes it's quite normal to exchange your details. Her insurance company would have asked her for them. You'll probably find that they will offer to do the work without going through your insurer.

 

[Ironballs]

Yes, you both have to exchange details. Plus in 99 times out of 100 the person who hits from behind has to bear the full cost/blame, the logic being that you should always leave enough room and time to brake

 

[BMac]

Unfortunately you will probably find your insurance premium will increase next time because 'you have been involved in an accident' - regardless of whose fault it was. Even with protected no-claims bonus your insurance could rise because the new rate will be calculated on the increased risk assessment and then your no claims bonus is applied so you still get, say 65% discount, but on a larger initial sum for insurance.

Sorry 'bout this.

Brendan

Edit 3 seconds later - I'm not sure about the situation where there is no cost to your insurance company because I had one of those where the third party fixed my car and there was no increase to my premium but my sister had exactly the same situation and her insurance went up.

 

[Night Train]

There shouldn't be any issue with providing your insurers details and it may speed things up a bit.

My last RTA was a car that pulled out of a side road and rammed the side of my car. We swapped details and found that we were both with the same insurer. By the time I got home and phoned mine the other driver had already got things in motion and sorted it all out. I just had to go and pick up a hire car and the rest was taken care of within the day.

Unfortunately you will probably find your insurance premium will increase next time because 'you have been involved in an accident' - regardless of whose fault it was. Even with protected no-claims bonus your insurance could rise because the new rate will be calculated on the increased risk assessment and then your no claims bonus is applied so you still get, say 65% discount, but on a larger initial sum for insurance.

Sorry 'bout this.

Brendan

Edit 3 seconds later - I'm not sure about the situation where there is no cost to your insurance company because I had one of those where the third party fixed my car and there was no increase to my premium but my sister had exactly the same situation and her insurance went up.

If it is not your fault and all costs are recovered then it shouldn't affect your insurance premium. However, you do still need to declare the RTA and let them know that 'All costs were recovered' when you renew for the next three years.

 

[The Bear]

Legally you must exchange the following

Drivers names and addresses
Vehicle registration numbers
Name and adresses of the vehicle owners if these are not the same as the drivers

There is nothing to stop you exchanging other details if you so wish such as insurers details and phone numbers if you see fit and think it will speed things up.

Mark

 

[gatesmr2]

Sounds like you should not have to pay anything if you are just sitting there at lights or a junction etc.

I had something like this a few years ago, was in a car park behind where i was working and a car backed into mine. Ok no problems company car that hit mine my insurance sorted everything out with no charge to me.
Now the funny bit
Within two weeks of getting my car back the same company but different car did exactly the same thing :shock:
My car had been parked in the same place for over 6 months and then for no reason hit twice from behind needing to replace the back bumper. Ok not to bad but i saw the bill which was over a £1000 each time.
Tesco's again sorted it all out and my premium went down as although i had two claims neither of them had anything to do with me.


Martin

 

[Steve Maskery]

I had had my first car for 11 months. It was a Renault 16 (Car of the Year 1965, IIRC - beautiful).
I was going to mum and dad's for Sunday Lunch, stationary at a junction waiting to turn right when I was hit from behind. £600 damage on a car worth £400. Write off. The driver had no licence and no insurance. The police didn't want to know as no-one was hurt, not even when, after going to see the gentleman I was threatened with physical violence. It all came off my insurance.

What should have been an open and shut case was no case at all and I never got justice. I hope yours is more straightforward.

Cheers
Steve

 

[newt]

Steve thats a real bummer, how can the police not be interested in someone without a licence or insurance, why do we bother. :evil:

On another point is it true you cannot be at fault in a collision if you are stationary no matter where you are or in what situation.

 

[Steve Maskery]

I wouldn't say so. It depends on how long you've been stationary, surely. 2 minutes, sure, but 3 seconds?

A couple of weeks ago I was at traffic lights in the right hand lane to go straight ahead. Just beyond the lights was a row of parked cars, so the inside lane was blocked. A van pulled alongside me on the inside lane, took off when the lights changed, pulled out in front of me because of the parked cars and slammed on his brakes because of traffic ahead.

I almost ran into him because neither of his brake lights was working.

At the next lights, I told him what I thought of his driving. I didn't swear or shout, but I was blunt. I can't repeat the torrent of abuse I received in return.

Some days I just want to go and live on Sark where there are no cars.
S

 

[Jake]

On another point is it true you cannot be at fault in a collision if you are stationary no matter where you are or in what situation.

A good rule of thumb, no doubt. But what if I decide to park up, at night, broadside across a fast road just around a blind corner?

 

[BMac]

Hi Newt,

This question ties in with my earlier post. In any accident an insurance company investigator may determine that there was an element of contribution by the driver who was hit because of something they may have done just prior to or resulting in the accident e.g. poor positioning for a turn.
(NO INFERENCE HERE, this is only an example)

So, I would imagine the answer to your question is 'no'.

However, just to continue your theme - is there any truth that if you reversed into the car behind you at traffic lights or a junction you could have that driver blamed for driving into you because the law does not recognise reversing on a highway as a possible cause of an accident?

 

[newt]

The only reason I ask this is that a driving instructor many years ago suggested you can not be at fault if stationary. Looks like he was wrong. He used to tell me that you should drive such that you can avoid hitting a stationary object, what ever the circumstances. An example being if you broke down, and could not move the car, and another car hit you who would be to blame.

 

[Gary]

Legally you must exchange the following

Drivers names and addresses
Vehicle registration numbers
Name and adresses of the vehicle owners if these are not the same as the drivers

and insurance details in the event of an injury.

 

[Digit]

In similar circumstances I have not lost any NCB, mind you, my insurers know me by my first name!

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

The only reason I ask this is that a driving instructor many years ago suggested you can not be at fault if stationary. Looks like he was wrong. He used to tell me that you should drive such that you can avoid hitting a stationary object, what ever the circumstances. An example being if you broke down, and could not move the car, and another car hit you who would be to blame.

Could be wrong but I think that it is the car that hits you since you are supposed to drive at a speed where you can stop in time. Kind of suggests that when driving round narrow twisty country lanes that a slower speed is a good idea. Who knows what's around the corner.

Thanks for all the advice, chaps. Delighted to say that the lass has admitted full liability. Her insurance company called me this morning to inform me of the fact and to make the necessary arrangements to get it repaired. Amazingly impressive workflow system they have and also impressive service level agreements with their suppliers (repairers and hire company). Once we'd agreed that I was happy to go to their nearest preferred repairer in Hereford within ten minutes the repairer had called me to confirm the date and time for the estimate visit, within another ten minutes the replacement car company had called to arrange the vehicle and establish telephone numbers etc. Pretty impressive.

 

[Steve Maskery]

With whom on earth are you insured?
S

 

[matt]

With whom on earth are you insured?
S

More the point, who is she insured with. It'll not be underwritten by Lloyds, that's for sure. The underwriters are personally liable, therefore, will do anything to protect their gambling. Companies, by contrast, are a much more commercial enterprise and don't waste time, effort, and therefore money quibbling.

 

[Ironballs]

Roger I've done advanced driving and defensive driving - though the instructor didn't concur that defensive driving could include tactical ramming. What they teach you is to think about event horizons, on a clear straight motorway your event horizon is a long way in the distance hence you can travel at a much higher speed and still stop if something appears on your horizon.

When your horizon is shortened by hedges, buildings, corners, blind summits, you obviously have a much shorter time in which to react in case something appears on your horizon, hence you have to go slower. Wherever you are on the road you have to be sure that you can stop safely in the stretch visible to you. This is why you then position yourself on the road when approaching corners such that you stretch your horizon as far as you can, ie when you take a left hand bend you move close to the white line and don't move over until you can see the end of the corner.

You should be taught this when learning to drive, but probably aren't, common sense also suggests you should pick it up as you become a more experienced driver. I'll hold my hand up and say that I learned a lot from doing those courses

 

[Gary]

This is why you then position yourself on the road when approaching corners such that you stretch your horizon as far as you can, ie when you take a left hand bend you move close to the white line and don't move over until you can see the end of the corner.

A great help to Roger that is, he was stationary. :lol: