Back end shunt!

  josie mayhem 14:53 16 Apr 2007

My daughter and her friend had another friend hit the back of there car when they stopped at a round-a-bout, There was some speed involved as the said round-a-bout is at the end of a daul carrige way...

Apart from rear end damage and both suffering whip lash injuries, which both have had to take a week off work, so other major injuries sustained thankfully estimated speed was about 50mph!

At first the other friend/driver admitted libility as she said her breaks failed on her and she was unable to slow down... So insurance claims have gone in, with damaged to car and whip lash injuries sustained.

The other driver/friend has now decided that she is going to retract her admittance as she has had her breaks tested and they are working o.k, nothing wrong with them....

But has I said to my daughter this will only make the claim longer to process, as she hit the back of there car, so this automaticaly makes it her fault and not there fault, because she had not allowed enough breaking distance between her and there car to avoid a accident which is of cause breaking the highway code...

I am not sure what the other driver/friend hopes to gain from this, as she hit there car so has very little or nothing to stand on... They were pulling up to a buzy round-a-bout, so she should have been preparing to stop for other traffic on the round-a-bout... The only thing that I can think off is that she hoping to get away with it, as she only passed her test 6 months ago so prehaps she thinks that this might get off by saying that she was a inexperienced driver!

Me I think I would stick to the breaks failing to save face instead of admitting in the long run, that I was a bad driver....

  GANDALF <|:-)> 15:07 16 Apr 2007

The law is quite clear on rear end shunts. It is the responsibility of any driver to ensure that they leave a safe distance between them and the car in front in case it decides to do an emergency stop/reversing etc. It almost always the person who rear ends that is to blame. If the brakes are proved to be defective or the drivers was 'inexperienced' then a dangerous driving case could also be brought to court.


  p;3 15:14 16 Apr 2007

lots of 'problems' with all that lot in my opinion

why were they driving at such speed approaching a roundabout?

did the inexperienced driver have green P's on display?

was the driver not concentrating; or talking on a mobile phone?

  GANDALF <|:-)> 15:20 16 Apr 2007

There are no problems, quite simply the person who rear-ended is to blame it doesn't matter even if the driver in front was doing a clog dance on the bonnet of their car.


  medicine hat 15:27 16 Apr 2007

No problems as far as the insurance claim is concerned - that seems pretty clear. But the police should be taking an interest if they were indeed doing 50mph so close to a roundabout. Careless driving at least, I would have thought.

  johndrew 15:32 16 Apr 2007

If your daughter gets a letter from the other person`s insurance or solicitor claiming the accident was her fault, she should simply write back stating she was struck from the rear and the other driver was either driving excessively fast and/or too close and/or without due care and attention.

She should also report the accident to Police as there are injuries (whiplash) involved. There is a requirement in law for this.

The fact the other driver admitted liability and then withdrew it has little pertinence unless the admission was witnessed (preferably by a third party) or the admission was provided in writing (preferably signed).

If there is any financial loss (wages, cost of medical care, hire car, etc.) she should also consult either a solicitor or, if she has it, the company running her uninsured loss cover unless her insurer is prepared to do this work on her behalf.

  Belatucadrus 15:38 16 Apr 2007

Anybody that drives a fully functional car at 50mph into a stationery car at a roundabout, is not only in the proverbial "no leg to stand on" position, but if the police get involved could be looking at charges for driving without due care and attention. As GANDALF <|:-)> says, the rear end shunt is one of the few open and shut cases of responsibility, it matters not one jot whether they accept liability or not.
One has to wonder if the lack of experience caused a bit of confusion between the brake pedal and the accelerator, all this retraction bumph is just hot air.

  josie mayhem 16:01 16 Apr 2007

The car that my daughter was in, was already stopped at the round-a-bout when it was hit, lucky for them her friend had the handbrake on, other wise they would have been pushed into the round-a-bout traffic...

The speed is what the other driver quoted at the speed she felt she was doing, and max limit for the precedding streatch of the road is 50mph.

At first I thought that the friend was hoping that they would be able to sort it out with out the insurance company getting involved, (which is nothing wrong with this, as this is what a ex-boyfriend of mine did when he hit my bosses sons car when he took me into work)

But it seems that she just doesn't want to sort it out at all... The garage has already quoted aprox £1500 for the car to be sorted, as long as they don't find any other underlaying problems that have been caused where they can't see until they start to repair it.

Under the circumtance and taking the normal legal opinion into concideration for blame accountability, then the only way that I think the driver is going be able not to face any payouts is to actualy denil that she was involved in the accident in the first place, I was never there! which could be a possibility as it wasn't reported to the police!

I hope not as it is already causing bad feelings amoungst them... And it would bring other friends into the equation due to them having to say that even though the were in front of it all, so didn't actualy see the accident take place... The came back and dealt with it and she was there and she had been drving the car etc...

As far as I know she had no green 'P' plates on her car, but there again this isn't a legal requiremnet for a inexperienced driver to have them.

  Bingalau 16:12 16 Apr 2007

It is possible for one vehicle to hit a vehicle in front which may be stationary and bounce back and hit a third vehicle behind it. I actually witnessed this happen in a multiple pile up. So it is not 100% always the vehicle behind which is at fault. In fact the car behind had stopped in time to avoid the collision but was shunted into, from the front.

  josie mayhem 16:35 16 Apr 2007

aportioning blame is a fickle thing indeed.

I've had 2 accidents in the past, my first I wasn't even in my car, it was legally parked... A drunk driver turned into the road that it was parked in, skimed down the side of the van behind my car, into near-side boot of my car shunting and inbededing it into the boot of my neighbours car... 1 damaged van, mine and my neighbour cars both write offs...

The other accident I was going out of a corner on a country lane at a slow pace, blind corner with a junction... Hence doing something like 20 mph, on the exit of the corner I could see a car comig towards me at a fast pace... slamed on the breaks as I turned towards the hedge... I could hear her breaks squealing to a holt and at first thought she was going to miss, until she contacted my drivers wing and I started to go baackwards....

Tried to blame it on me shouting that I was driving too fast out of the corner (up hill by the way) With investication I was cleared of any wrong doing, and the normal hit for hit pay out, which is common for country roads accidents was also waved.... On one fact tha proved my innocnets and lack of speed against hers...

When the skid marks were checked it was proved that not only was I traveing at a slowish speed, that I had taken action to avoid the accident!

My skid marks showed that when I slamemed by breaks on, my care skidded 6inch forwards heading towards the hedge, and the impact of being hit had shunted my car back 4ft, the backwards skid mark showing that my wheels were still truned. Her skid mark well, well if I remember rightly it was over 20ft long before hitting my car and then carried on with my backward skid mark, case closed I got paid...

  Spark6 16:35 16 Apr 2007

One minor point in your first post re emergency stop/reversing. I had the misfortune some years ago to be behind a lorry that stopped at a road junction but, unknown to me, had overshot slightly into the main road ahead. Although I was at least 10 feet away from the back of said lorry it not only managed to back into me, it shunted me into the car behind. Even though I succeeded in stopping the driver and getting his details we had to battle to obtain an acceptable settlement.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Alienware 17 R4 2017 review

These brilliant Lego posters show just what children's imaginations are capable of

Mac power user tips and hidden tricks

Comment réinitialiser votre PC, ordinateur portable ou tablette Windows ?