[Closed] Rear end collision and third party disputing - any experience?

I thought it was generally considered that a rear end shunt was their fault but any damage to the side of your car was considered your fault. I expect to be corrected on this one though.

I would have thought that no matter what you did (short of reversing into him) it was his fault for hitting you and not leaving enough space etc.

I got shunted from behind at a roundabout
...
The damage is to my drivers side rear corner and his passenger side front corner.

These could appear to be at odds. Was the impact on the corner from behind or from the side?

I assume he is suggesting that I pulled out and cut across him somehow.

Frustrated!

If he hit you on the side, then you must have pulled across his path, depending on where the imapct was. If he hit you square on the rear, I'd say it was his fault for not stopping safely.
Useless trying to comment without photos though.
good luck.

The road was single lane but the roundabout is a large double lane roundabout (in Thornbury, Bradford). He was obviously aiming for the inside lane of the roundabout therefore hitting my drivers side with his passenger side. It was from behind but not a 'straight on' collision.

If that makes sense.

To be honest,always get the police involved it makes it more cut and dried..sounds like he has shunted you into a barrier to cause the front end damage?

What Don Simon said.

I'm in the process of dealing with a similar impact at the moment. Mine was a rear-end shunt that connected corner-to-corner, but it was in traffic and wasn't square in the back because he'd tried to swerve round me.

On a roundabout, it's possible that he's right and you're wrong; not saying that's the case necessarily, but that'll be why it's not obvious. That's why I was asking the direction of the impact.

If there is damage on the side of either car then he's using this as a point of dispute. In which case chances are the insurers will probably find you both at fault to varying degrees.
I found out the other day that even if the fault is blamed 10% you and 90% the third party, you still have to declare it as an "at fault" accident 🙁
Hope this works out for you.

The road was single lane but the roundabout is a large double lane roundabout (in Thornbury, Bradford). He was obviously aiming for the inside lane of the roundabout therefore hitting my drivers side with his passenger side. It was from behind but not a 'straight on' collision.

If that makes sense.

Yep.

He's tried to overtake you on the roundabout, you didn't see him and straight-lined it, and run him off the road.

therefore hitting my drivers side with his passenger side. It was from behind but not a 'straight on' collision.

Cougar your incident sounds similar but I was stationary and he was trying to swerve round me to get to inside lane of roundabout.

Photos of damage...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[i]these could appear to be at odds. Was the impact on the corner from behind or from the side?[/i]

Not really, as it would depend on each cars positioning on the approach road, if the car in front was close to the kerb and turning left/going straight on and the car behind sitting near the centre line and going right then I can see why this would happen.

It's the postioning of the vehicles at time of impact and spread of debris that's important, not necessarily the damage alone.
The position of the silver car, straddling the white line, would suggest that they have done something wrong. the position of the horribly red coloured car would suggest that they are in a correct position.

To balance out, I have almost exactly the same damage as the silver car on mine. Some twunt reversed into mine while it was parked!! There has to be more than the damage alone to understand what happened.

Sounds like the kind of impact you'd get when one person was straightlining a two lane roundabout to be honest.

Don Simon - The photos were not taken at the site of the incident but further down the road.

And I would call it 'burnt orange'

Hmmmm. Not looking too good based on those photos.

And I would call it 'burnt orange'

There are no witnesses.

It is conceivable that the third party can argue he was driving around the roundabout, you pulled out prematurely and he swerved slightly to avoid.

With no witnesses at best you are looking at 50:50. I was rear ended on a roundabout- it was a classic front to rear-kiss. Yours isn't sadly.

I was stationary and he was trying to swerve round me to get to inside lane of roundabout.

It's not a "rear end shunt" then, is it. Taking your statements at face value, you were stationary (why?) and he's clipped you trying to pass. I'd stick to that if I were you, "I can't be at fault, I was stationary."

Your first post claims that he ran into the back of you because he wasn't paying attention, now you're saying he was trying to overtake you. If you can't get your story straight and consistent, you'll get DBFed by the insurance lawyers.

Are you sure there are no witnesses? Perhaps if you had out leaflets at the junction then someone might come forward? I had a man approach me in a car park 6 days after I got reversed into in the same car park saying he saw the whole thing! Mucho handy as the other guy changed his story half way through.

I thought it was generally considered that a rear end shunt was their fault but any damage to the side of your car was considered your fault. I expect to be corrected on this one though.

For the OP - always take pictures at the scene if you can, ideally before cars have moved.
An image from google maps for the road lay out might help, but the damage described does sound to me like a two-lane roundabout issue.

[b]I thought[/b] it was [b]generally[/b] considered that a rear end shunt was their fault but any damage to the side of your car was considered your fault. [u]I expect to be corrected on this one though.[/u]

Thanks for your input anyway geebus. 🙄

Car pulls out from a sideroad doing 10mph and just turns enough for you to hit the rear of their car.
Definitely their fault, though they got hit from behind.

It's not a "rear end shunt" then, is it. Taking your statements at face value, you were stationary (why?) and he's clipped you trying to pass. I'd stick to that if I were you, "I can't be at fault, I was stationary."

Your first post claims that he ran into the back of you because he wasn't paying attention, now you're saying he was trying to overtake you. If you can't get your story straight and consistent, you'll get DBFed by the insurance lawyers.

I was stationary while waiting to 'enter' the roundabout, looking right and waiting for a gap in traffic. I believe this is the correct way to use a roundabout.

He was behind me and set off before I did! As I mentioned the entry road is single lane and the roundabout double lane. He was obviously aiming for the inside lane of the roundabout to hit me like he did.

If

I was stationary

The photos were not taken at the site of the incident but further down the road

Edit: having looked at the pics again I can see how he may have got bored waiting for you and swerved around you. But as you were on a single lane road he must have pulled out into the face of oncoming traffic, no?
Anyhoo, I can see how this might have happened and may not be your fault, but I think the outcome will be same.

I got sideswiped going around a roundabout (the driver coming onto the roundabout decided to boot it and try and slide in front of me) however he hit me and then tried to drive off.

Luckily I had a witness or else it would have been 50/50 apparently as the insurance companies rarely fight disputes ........

The lesson I learnt was if someone hits you and tries to drive off get there reg and report it, don't chase them down as if you catch them and then they dispute the accident you are ****ed.

[IMG] [/IMG]

??
Presuming you were stopped at the roundabout when the collision took place, why would you then drive off?

Because car was drivable and I was obstructing traffic

That's a better image. I'd more inclined to say it was the silver car's fault and not the rusty coloured one. 😉

^^ Ok, so not a single lane road then. I'm swinging back in your favour, but you should not have moved your car one inch - this may be the deciding factor.

Because car was drivable and I was obstructing traffic

So he's saying I pulled out of the parked cars on left and hit him...

^^ Ok, so not a single lane road then. I'm swinging back in your favour, but you should not have moved your car one inch - this may be the deciding factor.

I disagree, the car behind should leave enough space not to hit me if I did move an inch.

It's time for Horatio! 😛
[img] [/img]

what does the /\/\/\/\ white line mean?

Approach road is single lane that we were obstructing plus I was 'shaken up' and not thinking straight

I disagree, the car behind should leave enough space not to hit me if I did move an inch.

Was the roundabout clear? Why did he think he could enter the roundabout when you didn't? Was he just pulling alongside and misjudged?

why you are speeding?

Speed limit on a dual carriageway is 70.

what does the /\/\/\/\ white line mean?

"Zig-zag lines are painted on the street either side of a pedestrian crossing. Motorists should not overtake, wait, or park in the vicinity"

Oh yeah, sorry I thought they carried further on along the road and wasn't taking the ZC into account 😳

Isn't this /\/\/\/\ a refence to reserved parking for Chelsea tractors or something similar?
Or perhaps that there's a zebra crossing, not literally a zebra crossing the road, but you know what I mean...

So he's saying I pulled out of the parked cars on left and hit him...

Did you?

Motorists [b]should not overtake[/b], wait, or park in the vicinity"

... which, presumably, is what he did. That's more ammo for you.

Having seen the picture it now seems fairly obvious what has happened - you may have started to move and he's gone for the right hand lane, but you then stopped (no law against that) and he hit you.
On this assumption I would say you're innocent and i'd like to think he'll get all the blame.

Did you?

No

So do we think it possible that the damage could have been caused from me 'alledgedly' pulling out from those parked cars? I think the damage would be worse and I may have spun...

Having seen the picture it now seems fairly obvious what has happened - you may have started to move and he's gone for the right hand lane, but you then stopped (no law against that) and he hit you.
On this assumption I would say you're innocent and i'd like to think he'll get all the blame.

That's what I wanted to hear!

Lesson learnt - whatever the hold up, get pictures before moving.
(I've been guilty of not doing this, but thankfully the bloke 'fessed up and didn't change his story after - he hit my van which was stationary in a queue of traffic on a roundabout.)

I think the fact he hit your rear quarter is going to make it hard for him to substantiate the claim that you had just pulled out from a parking space - as if you were in the act of doing so, he should hit the middle/front of your car, not the rear, which of course would be sticking out the least.

I'd say your car is so badly drawn I doubt it's roadworthy, that could count against you.

Ignoring that, if you didn't pull out from among the parked cars then it's all on him.

(But, if you had pulled out from being parked some many seconds and several tens of yards earlier - without any incident at the time - he may be using that irrelevant truth to muddy the waters.)

That's what I wanted to hear!

Oh Jesus.....why is it so hard to understand what happened?

Single lane roads often split into two lanes at a roundabout. The OP was waiting in the left hand lane, bloke behind attempts to go round the OP for whatever reason into the right hand lane. In doing so, he whacks car.

Zig-Zag lines are for level crossing.

They will always dispute a claim. I had someone reverse into me in a car park and then claimed that she was stationary and I had hit her.
Just hold your ground, be as accurate as you can and stay calm when explaining things.

Have you sent that pic as an explanation to your insurance company. I would. It describes what happened much better than a 1000 word essay.

Good luck!

Zig-Zag lines are for level crossing.

"To be honest,always get the police involved it makes it more cut and dried"

I had a police report where the other guy admitted he'd forgotten the mini-roundabout was there and had just driven straight across it (into me) but i still copped for a fault accident. I even had a witness. The other insurance company refused to communicate, mine (Directline) decided it didn't want to go to court so offered 50:50. Shafted.

^^^ HA HA! I am such an idiot.

I of course meant [s]pelican[/s] crossing......
[s]toucan[/s] crossing......
zebra crossing!

I must have been low on blood sugar or something above. I appear to have had a mini-rantette.....

(Directline) decided it didn't want to go to court so offered 50:50.

Could be wrong but, I don't believe they can do that without your agreement.

The OP was waiting in the left hand lane, bloke behind attempts to go round the OP for whatever reason into the right hand lane. In doing so, he whacks car.

stumpy01 - Its as if you were there...(err, were you?)

stumpy01 - Its as if you were there...(err, were you?)

Unfortunately....no, I wasn't. Hope it gets sorted. I'd keep fighting it. Mine kept coming back to me until the other person's insurance decided to take it to court. There's a certain procedure that has to be followed (can't remember the ins and outs), but it went on right until the 11th hour and then they backed down.

Turns out they had never received a written statement from the woman that hit me. They were just disputing it on the back of a phone call they had with her, where she told them it was actually me that had supposedly hit her.

If you can't get your story straight and consistent, you'll get DBFed by the insurance lawyers.

That happened to my brother - he was involved in a collision that he insisted was not his fault (the other party swerved into his path and clipped him).

The insurance people were only going to settle 50/50 even though he continued to refuse to accept that as he was 100% confident he was not even slightly at fault. Then the other party decided to launch a personal injuries claim so my brother's insurance company then sat up and decided to let it go to court.

At the hearing the magistrate asking a series of questions, to which my brother was clear, honest and confident in answering. The other party started to stumble over simple things like answering 'was it raining' with 'I am not sure, I think it was' whilst my brother said 'no, the roads were wet but it was a passing shower that had stopped and my wipers were switched off'.

So basically he won simply because he KNEW his answers - irrespective of whether or not they were true (they were in his case) he was confident and prepared.

^^^ Yeah, I'd agree with that.

When I contacted my insurance company, I had already prepared my statement.
It sounds stupid now, but I wrote a detailed report in Word with a header giving a brief overview of time, date, weather etc.

I then used images from Google Maps to play out what occurred in a series of steps. I did as the OP has above & placed coloured blocks & arrows on the maps to indicate what was going on & where our cars were positioned.

I was very precise in saying how the other car moved in relation to mine and the garage reported that the damage to my car was consistent with the description I had given of the incident.

I also made sure that I knew that statement inside out so every time I was questioned on it, I could recall it the same, every time.

It took about 6 months, but the claim originally went from my insurer's originally saying the best they expect to get would be 50:50 to me being cleared of fault.

??
Presuming you were stopped at the roundabout when the collision took place, why would you then drive off?

Because car was drivable and I was obstructing traffic

... witnesses then 🙄
not much help now but would have been better to leave it in the way if it meant obtaining a few people to support your version of events.

Type yourself a comprehensive account of the incident (your own witness statement) stick to the facts, dont be emotive and use short sentences. Put in every detail you can (except what you ate for lunch etc)

Draw a big plan showing position of cars at time of impact. Go back and take photos of the scene showing layout etc.

Look at it from his story point of view and work out the holes in that story. Dont conjecture, be logical and methodical.

If his story holds water, it will be down to 'on balance who's story, or which parts of both stories, are most likely to be true' this is where matiles brother got it right, he was the more credible witness.

If other bloke is making it up he will have holes in his story/memory of the events because - he made it up.

Magistrate will also look at what is the most likely senarios in normal traffic real life.

Last, dont be fobbed off by insurance claims handlers, they are mostly untrained morons whoc talk b*****ks. Once had some stupid oik give out to me about fault when he clearly didnt even know the first thing about negligence and duty of care to other road users.

had a similar - driver of other vehicle claimed was side swiped on roundabout sent photos of the damage to our vehicle and of junction layout (pre google map) and that sorted insurance co - other party then tried civil claim (courtesy some ambulance chasers who got sold contact details i guess)and insurance company dealt with that thru legal cover
good luck used to work near there and that roundabout and the leeds ring road ones are terrible for shunts