This is annoying of course your wife can be a witness she was there she saw what happened she is a witness .The issue will be weather or not she is belived . the other party will attack her saying she is not impartial but so what , most would say her evidence is supported by the circumstances and her job adds to her credability.

You should object to any insurance settlement on any basis other than 100% rcovery and in any event sue for your uninsured losses which will protect your no claims.You can take the case easily yourself in the small cliams court but you may have legal expenses insurance either on your car or house policy.

f you are unable to identify stationary lit objects

It wouldn't be stationary if it was braking. If it was stationary and the brake lights were fully functioning they wouldn't be lit anyway (unless the driver still had the foot brake applied).

But as you say, you don't drive and your ignorance is showing.

I really, really dislike no-claims bonuses. This sort of incident is exactly why you have insurance in the first place, and it's rotten of the insurer to introduce this incentive for you not to claim from them if at all possible.

Car insurance is a bloody joke, wife was cut up by a woman undertaking her, scuff damage to our front wing and her rear. Insurance company bent over and offered to pay. I complained said "no way, not our fault don't pay" insurance (Quinn) said tough we're paying. £500 claim. no claims screwed.
Also got hit from behind while on my bike, plenty of witnesses, driver took off. Registered owner refused to 'fess up who was driving so I couldn't claim for repairs. (fortunatley my house/bike insurance paid up but I've no doubt my premiums will be rising soon)

takes the piss.

Sorry to be of no help at all OP just having a rant.

If it was stationary and the brake lights were fully functioning they wouldn't be lit anyway … But as you say, you don't drive and your ignorance is showing

in the dark its tail lights would be on, in daylight it would be clearly visible. One doesn't have to be able to drive to know these things.

in the dark its tail lights would be on,

We were not discussing tail lights, we were discussing brake lights – as these are the lights that indicate braking and are the ones that are removed/disabled by the people that try to cause crashes.

I am glad you do not drive.

erm…..she's not yet my wife!!
Don't give her anymore ammo to that effect!! 🙂

I think the line on witnesses is that they have to be 'independent' although I was hoping that she might have had a bit more sway than she does!
I hope she will be asking her colleagues to make sure that Red Ford Mavericks in the region have no problems with tyres/lights/speeding/swerving that migh suggest drink/driving etc.

sfb, it is not always easy to judge distances relying solely on lights from other vehicles (such as you might need to at night). In fact there was a study done (I think in Holland, Sweden or Norway) that found motorcyclists shouldn't ride with their lights on in the daytime as it reduced the ability of other road users to judge how far away they were, compared to them riding with no lights on.
I guess this assumes that the other road users have seen the motorcyclist in the first place which is probably the primary reason for motorcyclists using their lights.

At night, if there are many sets of tail lights overlapping each other, it can be very confusing to the eye. Doubly so if there are motorcycles with single lights. Or even pairs of motorcyles in the mix. Very easy to get confused – then if someone's brake lights aren't working at all it could very quickly get ugly.

as these are the lights that indicate braking and are the ones that are removed/disabled by the people that try to cause crashes

nevertheless you're not supposed to drive into things you can see

I am glad you do not drive

presumably because I'd leave too big a gap in case things in front stopped unexpectedly, hence wasting road, and leaving you 30 metres further from your destination than otherwise ?

FYI pedestrians, cows, shopping trolleys, fallen trees, portaloos (as seen last Saturday) etc also do not have braking lights…

nevertheless you're not supposed to drive into things you can see

Agreed, I never once said that anyone should drive into a vehicle they can see is stopped or stopping. I was making the point that identifying that a car is braking at night on an unlit road would prove very difficult – much moreso than doing so in daylight when you have more points of reference in order to ascertain that the vehicle is stopping.

FYI pedestrians, cows, shopping trolleys, fallen trees, portaloos (as seen last Saturday) etc also do not have braking lights…

Agreed – and none of these would be driving down the road with brake lights removed in order to deliberately cause an accident.

much moreso than doing so in daylight when you have more points of reference in order to ascertain that the vehicle is stopping.

but you know this, and that it's still your responsibility not to hit anything and drive appropriately

sfb….any chance you could start this in a new thread instead of cluttering up my Friday grievance with lots of pedantry?? 😉

Thanks.

but you know this, and that it's still your responsibility not to hit anything and drive appropriately

Absolutely. As does the person in front who is deliberately trying to cause accidents.

IF you could prove thqat the person had disabled there brake lights (which wouldn't be hard if you hit it at speed) then they would be held responsable as there car wasn't road worthy.
It is all very well leaving a big enough gap to stop in when the car in front has its lights working but if you were travelling at 70 and they slamad on the brakes whit out the lights giving you the warning you would run into them before you had realised they were stopping.

and they slamad on the brakes whit out the lights giving you the warning you would run into them before you had realised they were stopping.

due to adjusting iPod volume or taking a nap ?

As does the person in front who is deliberately trying to cause accidents

I'm not talking about that – which may anyway be totally apocryphal – I'm saying you have to be alert to all kinds of unexpected eventualities which may not be previously signalled.

It is all very well leaving a big enough gap to stop in when the car in front has its lights working but if you were travelling at 70 and they slamad on the brakes whit out the lights giving you the warning you would run into them before you had realised they were stopping.

It is pointless trying to explain details like that to SFB – he doesn't drive so will have no idea about such things – after all, when following cars we should all be driving as if they might actually be fallen trees or something.

Perhaps if we explained that driving with such undue caution would probably lead to failing a driving test in the first place he might understand more?

due to adjusting iPod volume or taking a nap ?

If anyone, at any time drives into the back of someone when driving without due care, then they deserve all they get.

I'm not talking about that

But you were originally…
simonfbarnes – Member

often without working brakelights too, so you really have little chance of stopping when they emergency stop in front.

apart from your duty as described in the Highway Code to drive so that you can stop before colliding with other road users ? (posed as a question as I've not driven for years)

simonfbarnes – Member

and they slamad on the brakes whit out the lights giving you the warning you would run into them before you had realised they were stopping.

due to adjusting iPod volume or taking a nap ?

Have you not seen how fast a car can stop from 70? oh no i forgot you haven't driven for years have you.

Forget about your insurance company handling the claim, go to someone like Helphire, I've used them twice now and they have twice sucessfully found in my favour. One had no witnesses either, was going to be pushed all the way to court and the third party declined to take it that far (it was her fault).

The only dwonside is that they use Vauxhalls as hire cars while yours is being fixed, so expect to have to drive a Vectra for a few weeks 😯

Wahoo……pedants unite……..

yawn……….

ziggy…..I will look into that. Thanks for the heads up.

A Vectra would be great. I am currently putting up with a bog standard base spec Nissan Micra as a courtesy car.

I once drove into the side of a car that shot out backwards from an end-on parking space with no warning. It was a parking meter attendant dashing around his round. My GF was in the car, and was suitable as a witness (In Scotland, I think anyone over the age of 8, known or unknown to either party is considered a competent witness). What didn't help was that the other driver changed his version of events 8 times over the course of a year, but eventually it was his insurers that said "We've had enough!", and settled fully in my favour.

Good luck.

But you were originally…

yes, but I moved on to the general case of unexpected obstacles

… and while I'm prepared to believe that people may try to cause crashes in slow, urban situations, trying it at 70mph seems more like attempted suicide

FFS. You need to drive at a speed that allows you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. As for telling that a car without brake lights is slowing down of stopping – easy – its getting closer to you.

yes, but I moved on to the general case of unexpected obstacles

So you change your argument and expect the same set of rules to apply? Can't really discuss it with you if that is the case.

As for telling that a car without brake lights is slowing down of stopping – easy – its getting closer to you.

Agreed. Again. But as I said, this is much harder to do. On an unlit road. At night. In the dark. Less points of reference. Get it?

and while I'm prepared to believe that people may try to cause crashes in slow, urban situations, trying it at 70mph seems more like attempted suicide

you obviously didnt seethe programme on about this the other night then. On motorway the 'trick' is to disable your brake lights and then cut in front of your victim and slam your brakes on (also on motorway slip roads) – they showed cctv footage of some lunatic that that chose a royal mail hgv, cut right in front of him and slammed on his brakes. In theoury he would have said he was just driving along when nasty mr hgv ploughed into the back of him, without witnesses it would have been hard to disprove. Also another favourite place is at a roundabout car in front starts to pull away and brakes suddenly (with no brake lights) person behind is usually seeing whats coming round the roundabout rather than looking at non working brake lights.

person behind is usually seeing whats coming round the roundabout rather than looking at non working brake lights.

THAT is a pretty dangerous thing to do though (I have nearly been caught out myself many years ago – quickly learnt to watch the car in front, not the car coming from the right and assume the car in front will pull away).

M_F – hw are there less points of reference? One car, it's getting closer, you might want to brake now.

quickly learnt to watch the car in front, not the car coming from the right and assume the car in front will pull away

Though what if the car in front has already pulled away, and then stopped once completely on the roundabout?

Though what if the car in front has already pulled away, and then stopped once completely on the roundabout?

That's why you watch the car in front!

I had similar years ago. Muppet drove into my parked car, my father saw it out of the kitchen window. He tried to drive off before my dad caught him. Admitted it there and then and swapped details. Next communication from my insurers was "hard luck – your word against his – he claims to have been fifty miles away at that time"!!

Had to push really hard to get my insurers to fight it because they had to engage a barrister. I guess this is more expensive than paying half of the claim? Same in your case I guess? It took 18 months before getting to court.

Ended up having to give evidence on oath as the judge wasn't happy that one of us was clearly lying. Turns out the other guy couldn't even read and was a hopeless liar. His witness was the fat slob that was in the passenger seat at the time of the prang. The clerks at the court suggested that they were fairly regular visitors for a variety of offences. Basically scum that see a trip to court as a good day out…

Yours sounds like arrogance on behalf of the other party tho. Just can't understand why people are so embarrassed to admitting fault – its not the end of the world is it?

I'm dealing with a non-liability claim at the moment… A month in and so far my insurance company have generally not been particularly helpful other than readily supplied a cheque for the cost of writing my car off. I'm not accepting it till the other policy holder accepts liability given that the driver of their white transit van drove into my stationery car during fairly slow moving rush hour traffic. Problem is, apparently our insurance people can't get hold of the other contact details of the other policy holder despite the fact I got the policy details (and before some smartarse asks why I didn't get phone numbers, d.o.b., etc, I was on the fast lane of a motorway, and as I moved over to the hard shoulder, the other driver tore off before I had a chance to get the plate etc).

Thing is, the insurance company have made no effort to keep me updated. I tried calling this evening to find what was happening, got through to someone who said they'd find out something, put me on hold and then a few minutes later the muzak went straight to a VM stating that the offices were now closed!!! (This is a very well known insurance company with a lot of annoying adverts involving a nodding dog).

It just beggars belief that insurance companies can be so staggeringly ignorant when it comes to helping their customers.

stumpy01 there are a number of issues with using companies like helphire. Have a search for information before you do anything. Some people have been left with very very large bills after using them. Look on honestjohn.co.uk or the telegraph motoring pages. credit hire companies I think they are known as.

I personally think 50/50 is your best outcome. True with hindsight one should gather independent witnesses then its also hit and run.

Another person in your car can not be treated as a independent witness. A witness needs to be independent of the driver- i.e. 'bias'.

All the best though. I think its documented on here my hatred of careless drivers in carparks and what Ive done and will do in the future 🙄

sorry to nick the post but the side effects got me going. to quote "after all, when following cars we should all be driving as if they might actually be fallen trees or something."
Yes .
The lights issue is not relevant. If you can't stop you have got it wrong. Cars do stop dead without brake lights. If your driving can't deal with that then you need some training

had the same thing happen, just me and him, he was chief legal officer for the local police force. I showed the pics to insurance company and asked them to get a statement from him saying how this damage could have been caused fron the situation as he described it. I pushed my insurers to contest it all the way and they did and we won. Go for it.

Alternatively get one of your mates to elbow her then hit her smartly with a set of upper cuts and claim that it was self defence as she was about to hit you. Works for some apparently…

Similar thing happened to me in the works car park once – bloody woman licence holder (well, they're not really drivers are they!) reversing whilst looking forwards. She admitted responsibility on the scene, then changed her mind when her other half got involved. I calmly pointed out that she had reversed into my rear driver-side door whilst I was stationary, and that my car (a standard Cavalier at the time) was not equipped with wheels fitted at 90 degrees to normal, making it highly unlikely that I'd driven into her in the way that she was now claiming.
My car repairs were paid for by her insurers.

Well, as a bit of an update I have found the original hi-res pics I took off my camera when i first got back from the cinema.
The one's I sent off to the insurance company were smaller ones that I took off my phone & were taken a few days after. IDIOT.

On the originals you can clearly see the mark where her car has hit mine and pushed the body panels in. There is absolutely NO scrapes/scratches or any other damage to suggest that my car moved against hers – it definitely looks like an impact followed by a direct push, as I outlined in my statement. I tried e-mailing them to the insce company last night but they bounced back as they were too big, so I will re-send them using a bit higher jpeg compression.
Will probably post one of the pics up here too, if I get round to uploading them to Photobucket.

Stumpy, same thing happened to my mum… long time ago now mind and we ended up in the small claims court. The judge took one look at the pictures that were very similar to yours and found in our favour.

I was hit by a lady when I was stationary – she was looking for the name of the road and not where she was going…. She admitted responsiblity at the time but her insurance company wanted 50/50 so I told mine I wouldn't accept that. They then rang her up and asked he if she was willing to go to court to say it wasn't completely her fault. Her company then paid up 100%. Annoyingly my insurance still went up because of it at the next renewal.