Jump to content

Oooopps!


Luke
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes, looks like the Mazda is in the wrong but of course a normal gap to pull into is quickly shrunk when an Aventador steps on the gas I'd have thought.

That bloody Shmee bloke again, I think I saw on PH that he bought an MP12 so he is either rich naturally or doing very well out of his videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That will be 50/50 I reckon. Lambos speed is immaterial. Mazda should have seen him and not pulled out.

 

But wouldn't that make it a fault claim against the Mazda driver? I'm thinking it'll probably go 50/50 because the Lambo's speed WAS a factor?

 

Could well be the Lambo is effectively self insured anyway, or on a fairly big group/corporate policy. In which case knock for knock is probably the simplest outcome.

 

Wonder if the authority will charge for cleaning up all those nasty sharp bits of carbon fibre? :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are all saying he was doing well over 30, I don't know that you can say that.

 

The vid was taken quite close, the camera wasn't panning that fast, I don't think he was going that fast, certainly not so much so that I could say he definately was.

 

Also there was no brake lights on until he was past the scene of the accident, but either way for me the mazda can't have looked very well.

 

The waiting taxi probably flashed & both drivers thought he meant them so carried on to the scene of the accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, the speed of the Lambo is irrelevant as far as an insurance claim goes, the Mazda pulled out in front of it, full blame will be apportioned to the Mazda.

It might not be as big a claim as you would imagine, if it's an Emirates plated car (can't see the number plate clearly) then the insurance is usually found not to comply with UK regs, so the Mazda drivers insurance will refuse to pay out to repair it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, the speed of the Lambo is irrelevant as far as an insurance claim goes, the Mazda pulled out in front of it, full blame will be apportioned to the Mazda.

 

Also, while the Lambo looks as if it was moving fairly quickly, there is no firm proof of its speed unless someone starts measuring frame rates and reconstructing positions, angles and so on from the video.  There is clear proof that the Mazda pulled out in front of him, though. So on the basis of what we have available to us at the moment, the Lambo driver is ahead on points.  

 

That said, the Lambo repairs are probably going to be quite expensive, which will make it worthwhile for the Mazda's insurer to look into the accident properly.  The argument for settling things on a knock-for-knock or 50/50 basis is that the cost of arguing it through isn't justified by the value at stake.  In this case, it probably is - so I expect that analysis of the video is going to be worthwhile for someone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might not be as big a claim as you would imagine, if it's an Emirates plated car (can't see the number plate clearly) 

 

I was expecting it to be an Emirates car too when I saw the pictures in Mondays paper, but in a couple of photos you could clearly see the plates.

 

There are several videos on youtube of that lambo moving fairly briskly along the streets of London.

Edited by Andy_Bangle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, the Lambo repairs are probably going to be quite expensive, which will make it worthwhile for the Mazda's insurer to look into the accident properly. The argument for settling things on a knock-for-knock or 50/50 basis is that the cost of arguing it through isn't justified by the value at stake. In this case, it probably is - so I expect that analysis of the video is going to be worthwhile for someone.

I think it gets even more complicated than that though, the two parked vehicles will seek to claim off the Lambo insurers (as it was the Lambo that hit them), the Lambo insurers will then seek to pass that on, plus the cost of repairs to the Lambo, along the line to the Mazda.

I don't think it will go 50/50, I think it's pretty clear cut, even if they could prove the Lambo was speeding it would make no difference.

I once tried to argue someone speeding caused an accident rather than my pulling out in front of them, and I was pulling out of a blind junction too, of which there were warning signs to the other motorist, but they were having none of it, I pulled out, it was my fault, that was the end of it, my insurers wouldn't entertain my defence at all.

Edited by Tipex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once tried to argue someone speeding caused an accident rather than my pulling out in front of them, and I was pulling out of a blind junction too, of which there were warning signs to the other motorist, but they were having none of it, I pulled out, it was my fault, that was the end of it, my insurers wouldn't entertain my defence at all.

 

That sounds harsh, especially as it was a blind junction.  In theory, surely there must be a point at which liability switches to the speeding driver?  Otherwise you could never pull out of a blind junction even if it seemed to be 100% clear because there could be someone about to come round the corner at mega-mph and completely unable to stop in the distance they could see to be clear?

 

I guess proof of the other car's speed is difficult, though.  Perhaps they thought you were lying to cover up for the fact you just didn't look :coffee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are several videos on youtube of that lambo moving fairly briskly along the streets of London.

 

Just a comment on what you say as I have not & cannot seen youtube clips as work servers will not allow it, but just because the car has been seen speeding does not necessarily mean that it contributed to THIS accident.

 

I stress that I am not arguing, just making a point that unless the clips are of this precise incident thay are meaningless.

 

If they are then that may change things obviously.

 

I still believe that the Mazda driver was the ultimate cause of the accident, but that does not necessarily mean that, that is how the insurance will settle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should have gone to the insurance ombudsman?

My insurers point blank refused to present my mitigating circumstances and try for 50/50, as they said the speed of the other vehicle was immaterial.

I had witnesses (3, one in my car, 2 pedestrians) to say there was no way I could possibly have seen him coming, and by his own admission, he was doing 'about 55' in a 30 limit.

It's a country lane entering in to a village, the limit drops from national (60) to 30 about 750 yards from the junction, which is on the inside of a bend, with hedges on both sides, you can't see more than about 10 yards along the road and have to actually put the nose of your car out into the road before you can see even that around the hedge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...