Originally posted by NickFitz
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Not the best way to start the day
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View PostAs I said, it's about priority, not right of way which is largely irrelevant. You are supposed to give priority and if not giving priority leads to an accident I'd say the person who failed to give priority is going to be held to blame in most circumstances. The whole point of the highway code saying who has priority in situations of conflict is so people can make some reasonable assumptions about whether they can proceed safely or not. If nobody expected people at roundabouts to give priority to those already on the roundabout or to the right, for instance, nobody would ever get anywhere!And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
You need to inform your insurance of accidents regardless, otherwise they have a right to refuse future claims.
I think you will probably find its officially your fault. They normally go with the one that was doing the manoeuvre that is at fault. I have had 3 people drive into me over the last few years (I was driving on the main road well below the speed limit or stationary in traffic they turned right into me ). Obviously a battered Mondeo is a target.Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.Comment
-
Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostImportant words there.Comment
-
Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View PostLike not stopping your reversing maneuverer when you see a car approach (you're supposed to be constantly on the lookout for vehicles when reversing).
I thinkthe OP needs to get some expert legal advice on this one; it's not as cut and dried as some are saying.Last edited by Mich the Tester; 1 May 2014, 11:05.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostEverybody is supposed to be constantly on the lookout, especially on residential streets.
Look, OP is going to find it very difficult to convince his insurance company that the other car was liable here. If he wants to go through the insurance, that is his right, regardless of what the other driver wants. He should ring them up and inform them he was in a collision and then tell the other party to talk to their insurers.
If the other driver doesn't want to risk their premiums going up, that's up to them. They don't have to claim anything.Last edited by TheCyclingProgrammer; 1 May 2014, 11:00.Comment
-
Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View PostI thought we'd already established the other car had seen him, so it's not really a case of the other car not looking.
Look, OP is going to find it very difficult to convince his insurance company that the other car was liable here. If he wants to go through the insurance, that is his right, regardless of what the other driver wants. He should ring them up and inform them he was in a collision and then tell the other party to talk to their insurers.
If the other driver doesn't want to risk their premiums going up, that's up to them. They don't have to claim anything.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostIf he's in the AA or RAC he should call their legal advice people; the other driver saw him, but then took action which could be considered rather reckless. It might not be, but none of us really know.Comment
-
@doodab
If you have her registration number, check on askMID and you can see the status of her insurance?I was an IPSE Consultative Council Member, until the BoD abolished it. I am not an IPSE Member, since they have no longer have any relevance to me, as an IT Contractor. Read my lips...I recommend QDOS for ALL your Insurance requirements (Contact me for a referral code).Comment
-
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment