here is the situation. collision was a car v's scooter(moped) scooter is looking to change from middle to left lanes, scooter rider checks mirrors, performs lifesaver check to left side to confirm space, scooter rider looks foward to see a car in middle lane infornt of him brake and indicate to turn right, scooter has to perform evasive action to avioid colision resulting in scooter rider skiding out and departing bike over the handlebars with the bike hitting the car in front once rider has departed bike. now the twist in this scenario is .. the road in which the car was indicating to turn right on is a no right turn road. once police had arrived at scene it was confirmed that the driver of the car would be reported for this offence. the driver of the car has admited responsibilty to police and her insurance company. so does her insurance company have grounds for defence in the fact that any colision involving the rear or anyones veihcle, is the rear partys fault? A rear collision isn't ALWAYS the fault of the car at the rear, though it usually is. If the car in front changed lanes suddenly without much indication this would tend to cause a rear collision, with the front driver at fault.
No matter what the vehicle in front is doing, you should be far enough behind it to stop if that one stops, and slow enough to stop/evade. Even if the road was a no right turn, he hadn't turned right, he only indicated right. No. If it was no right turn then you had no chance as you weren't expecting to have someone stop in front of you. Totally their fault. Rest easy. I hope you weren't badly hurt. Once the driver has admitted liability, there is no way the insurance company can complain.
Plus, the whole 'hit from the rear' isn't a defence. If a car suddenly changes lanes it is likely to be hit from behind.
If the insurance company is playing hardball, try suing the driver s she's obviously at fault. Whoever admitted the fault is finanically responsible. Keep it short. That's why the first thing your insurance company tell you in the "in case of an accident" information is "Do not admit liability."
Once you do, you are liable. Everything else becomes a moot point. Given the no right turn, and admission of liability, the moped driver is off the hook. Unfortunately, the driver of the car was committing an offence by attempting to do an illegal right turn, but that is all she is guilty of. It was your responsibility ensure that you left enough breaking distance. You mentioned that you did all the checks to the left but you failed to monitor the road ahead and you never mentioned that you were slowing down. You are responsible, I'm afraid. The woman's insurance company can and probably will claim against you, irrespective of the fact she may have claimed responsibly. she can not be responsible for the actions of someone Else's driving/riding that are behind her. Wow- SO MANY bad answers. It doesnt matter AT ALL that the other driver admitted fault... that has nothing to do with who is actually at fault here.
You need to maintain proper distance from any car in front of you so that NO MATTER WHAT they do.. your ready. What if a child had ran in front of their car and they had to break? Same thing. It doesnt matter why they braked- you needed to maintain proper distance to be ready.
Sorry dude.. id put you 100% at fault here- and so will 99% of all other adjusters. Ok, MAYBE if i was feeling generous I would go to about 30% at fault on the other driver... but you would be well over 50% at fault here. Sure, she is at fault for turning the wrong way down a road.. but that is just a seperate citation- that is not the preliminary cause of this accident.
good luck... rear end accidents are the person in back fault 99% of the time- there is no way your getting out of the majority of blame here regardless of what the people above me (who are uneducated in this field) say. if the insurance wont pay, sue the driver should not be a problem she as admitted liabilty to you and the police.
but just remember you have been very very lucky and be prepared in future for all possibilties. you could have been blamed for this accident without any doubt.
personally I think the insurance will pay out without a problem,
just because of the admission. Ive got to agree with la428282....
I worked in claims for 15 years, if he didnt actually turn, I dont think he can be held fully at fault. You should have been riding at a reasonable enough distance to stop wthout taking a dive over the handlebars. Maybe you were going too fast? You were obviously checking around so much, you didnt pay enough attention to see him indicate.
Also, it doesnt matter one bit if someone admits liability at the scene of the accident, ive seen plenty of claims go in favour of the person admitting liability.
As a road user you need to be alert and be prepared for the unexpected. You obviously werent fully watching what was going on in front of you, ive dealt with plenty of claims where someone has taken their eyes off the car in front for mere seconds, then ends up rear-ending it, I wouldnt be surprised if the car drivers insurer refuses to acept full liability, you have hit someone through not being able to stop in time as far as they are concerned, you should have been able to stop in an emergency.
Imagine if it was the other way round, you braked suddenly because you think you have missed a turning, and someone hits you in the rear. Your insurer is going to fully blame the person who hit you in the rear as they should have been ableto make an emergency stop.
Also, having the police attend doesnt hold a lot of sway with insurance companies, especially if its a rear-ender. The person at the rear who hits the person in front is generally to blame, even if the person in front is a total moron and cant decide what hes doing.
Once again, his insurer is going to blame you for not being able to stop in time.
At best, you may have to settle it 50/50, with both of you having a claim against your policy.
BUT in all honesty, i think it will be you who will held at fault for not stopping in time.
Sorry if its not what you want to hear, Im just trying to be realistic. scooter too close!
whatever the situation ALWAYS be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear, irrespective of priorities and traffic signage,,,,
there is no excuse to collide with the rear of the front vehicle but apportion of blame may be reduced because of traffic violation. i.e. maybe 70/30 You are supposed to look where you are going and ride at a speed so that you can stop when needed. The fact that the car was about to make an illegal turn is irrelevant. The fact that it was stopped is relevant. There are many reasons to find a car stopped in front of you, none of them are excuses hitting the back of a stationary vehicle!!! They do have grounds for defence, as you put it. You are required to ride/drive at such a distance from the vehicle in front that you can stop safely in an emergency. If you didn't have sufficient time to stop after doing your lifesaver checks, you were too close, should have dropped back.
The fact that the driver of the car was performing an illegal turn is nothing to do with it; the reason for the car slowing/stopping doesn't come into it, she could have had to stop suddenly if a child ran into her path.
However, if the car driver was daft enough to admit liability and you can prove that then her insurers are probably going to have to pay at least something. It'll be something the insurance companies thrash out between themselves. The fact that the other driver was stopped in the middle of the road where they should not be does NOT affect the responsibility of the driver of the scooter to ensure that they can stop in good time before running into the back of her. (Highway code)
In exceptional circumstances some liability may be admitted but it will take court action to determine this. When some one runs in to the back of a car it is that persons own fault . | 