Promenade - Megathread

[Happier diner]

9 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

If you think something is legal, but a judge wouldn't agree, that's rather a giveaway that it isn't really.

How naïve. In court you do not have to demonstrate legality. That's the courts job. You have to present evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the other party did not comply with the law or that you could not have reasonably avoided the accident due to the other party not driving appropriately for the conditions..

The law is vague on this point of legality and the highway code similarly vague

If I was T Boned entering QB roundabout by a speeding car I would have to demonstrate that the other driver was was/not doing one of the following

• Driving at a speed that was appropriate for the conditions
• Taking due care and attention
• Driving dangerously
• Not approaching the roundabout with due caution

All these things being difficult to evidence. My insurance company would more than likely just admit liability

[emesde]

Surely if a case like this ended in court, it would be because the police brought a case against one or other of the drivers based on the facts and witness statements etc etc. The insurance company would then decide on the outcome of that case how the financial aspects of the claim would be settled. 

 

[John Wright]

43 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

How naïve. In court you do not have to demonstrate legality. That's the courts job. You have to present evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the other party did not comply with the law or that you could not have reasonably avoided the accident due to the other party not driving appropriately for the conditions..

The law is vague on this point of legality and the highway code similarly vague

If I was T Boned entering QB roundabout by a speeding car I would have to demonstrate that the other driver was was/not doing one of the following

• Driving at a speed that was appropriate for the conditions
• Taking due care and attention
• Driving dangerously
• Not approaching the roundabout with due caution

All these things being difficult to evidence. My insurance company would more than likely just admit liability

You confuse the criminal and civil level of proof. In a civil case it’s 50% and a little bit over. 50.0001%. Balance of probability.

And the court doesn’t have to demonstrate legality. That is not the court’s job in an adversarial situation.

You as claimant would have to prove a duty of care and a breach of that duty.

[DownSouth]

One of the problems is the Highway Code was written for proper roundabouts. Most of ours are so small that once you enter the roundabout you are already at the next exit. You have to give way to approaching traffic unless everyone is doing 3mph, not going to happen.

[Happier diner]

11 minutes ago, John Wright said:

You confuse the criminal and civil level of proof. In a civil case it’s 50% and a little bit over. 50.0001%. Balance of probability.

And the court doesn’t have to demonstrate legality. That is not the court’s job in an adversarial situation.

You as claimant would have to prove a duty of care and a breach of that duty.

Hi John

Yes agreed. I don't confuse the two. Most motoring offences are civil I grant you and the vast majority don't get to court. Many are criminal though. What if I were killed in the accident. That would take it to criminal court if the police believed an offence had been committed.

The police would have to same issue. Evidence or fact being hard to gather.

The point was though, Its not just a matter of who is right and who is wrong, nor ascertaining the legality, in such a situation it would be about demonstrating proof. That would be almost impossible.

[Happier diner]

28 minutes ago, emesde said:

Surely if a case like this ended in court, it would be because the police brought a case against one or other of the drivers based on the facts and witness statements etc etc. The insurance company would then decide on the outcome of that case how the financial aspects of the claim would be settled. 

 

Only if the police believed an offence had been committed.

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, DownSouth said:

One of the problems is the Highway Code was written for proper roundabouts. Most of ours are so small that once you enter the roundabout you are already at the next exit. You have to give way to approaching traffic unless everyone is doing 3mph, not going to happen.

The Highway code explains mini roundabouts as well doesn't it?

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Hi John

Yes agreed. I don't confuse the two. Most motoring offences are civil I grant you and the vast majority don't get to court. Many are criminal though. What if I were killed in the accident. That would take it to criminal court if the police believed an offence had been committed.

The police would have to same issue. Evidence or fact being hard to gather.

The point was though, Its not just a matter of who is right and who is wrong, nor ascertaining the legality, in such a situation it would be about demonstrating proof. That would be almost impossible.

You need to read again what you originally posted. You’re clearly postulating a civil claim. You are confused.

The vast majority of motoring cases dealt with in court are criminal, not civil. Most criminal cases there is no third party.

A civil claim often follows a criminal prosecution. A civil claim at balance of probabilities is not precluded or defeated by acquittal on beyond reasonable doubt.

[Happier diner]

6 minutes ago, John Wright said:

You need to read again what you originally posted. You’re clearly postulating a civil claim. You are confused.

The vast majority of motoring cases dealt with in court are criminal, not civil. Most criminal cases there is no third party.

A civil claim often follows a criminal prosecution. A civil claim at balance of probabilities is not precluded or defeated by acquittal on beyond reasonable doubt.

You have gone off piste here though and as usually trying to be smarter than everyone else

The original post was only making the point that whist legality may be that if a driver is not on the roundabout when I set off but is going at such a speed that he hits me as I cross the roundabout then, in theory he may be in the wrong. However it would be difficult for me to demonstrate this. I would be the one with the T Boned car and he would be the one on the roundabout coming from the right.

Does that make sense?

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

You have gone off piste here though and as usually trying to be smarter than everyone else

The original post was only making the point that whist legality may be that if a driver is not on the roundabout when I set off but is going at such a speed that he hits me as I cross the roundabout then, in theory he may be in the wrong. However it would be difficult for me to demonstrate this. I would be the one with the T Boned car and he would be the one on the roundabout coming from the right.

Does that make sense?

No, totally on piste, just indicating your confusion and setting the record straight.

Your assumptions are wrong. They don't make sense. The type of ding/body work damage and the road surface markings would tell the story, speed etc, but you'd need a qualified engineer/crash reconstructions specialist/expert report

[Happier diner]

37 minutes ago, John Wright said:

No, totally on piste, just indicating your confusion and setting the record straight.

Your assumptions are wrong. They don't make sense. The type of ding/body work damage and the road surface markings would tell the story, speed etc, but you'd need a qualified engineer/crash reconstructions specialist/expert report

 

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

You have gone off piste here though and as usually trying to be smarter than everyone else

The original post was only making the point that whist legality may be that if a driver is not on the roundabout when I set off but is going at such a speed that he hits me as I cross the roundabout then, in theory he may be in the wrong. However it would be difficult for me to demonstrate this. I would be the one with the T Boned car and he would be the one on the roundabout coming from the right.

Does that make sense?

I do understand what you are saying. But sticking to the original subject and me apologising for going off piste in the first place (Roger Mexico Made me!)

So then. In the example above, in your view, who would be to blame?

For a small bump then qualified engineer/crash reconstructions specialist/expert report would not be feasible and my insurance company would be unlikely to contest it. However if there was an injury they might. Lets assume a crash expert acting for me could make a case that the person that hit me was driving too fast.

As an aside

I drove on Peel Rd today towards Douglas from the Oak Tree r/b.

At about 30m from the first roundabout I could see if there was anyone turning right coming from Douglas. There wasn't. I accelerated. At about the midpoint between both roundabouts I could see a long way down Peel road and I could see there was nothing coming in the RH lane and therefore I could continue to accelerate up to limit 30mph. If someone had pulled out of QB road across me I would have most likely hit them, who would be to blame?

[Gladys]

32 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

 

I do understand what you are saying. But sticking to the original subject and me apologising for going off piste in the first place (Roger Mexico Made me!)

So then. In the example above, in your view, who would be to blame?

For a small bump then qualified engineer/crash reconstructions specialist/expert report would not be feasible and my insurance company would be unlikely to contest it. However if there was an injury they might. Lets assume a crash expert acting for me could make a case that the person that hit me was driving too fast.

As an aside

I drove on Peel Rd today towards Douglas from the Oak Tree r/b.

At about 30m from the first roundabout I could see if there was anyone turning right coming from Douglas. There wasn't. I accelerated. At about the midpoint between both roundabouts I could see a long way down Peel road and I could see there was nothing coming in the RH lane and therefore I could continue to accelerate up to limit 30mph. If someone had pulled out of QB road across me I would have most likely hit them, who would be to blame?

Why would you go over a roundabout at 30 mph?

[John Wright]

24 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

 

I do understand what you are saying. But sticking to the original subject and me apologising for going off piste in the first place (Roger Mexico Made me!)

So then. In the example above, in your view, who would be to blame?

For a small bump then qualified engineer/crash reconstructions specialist/expert report would not be feasible and my insurance company would be unlikely to contest it. However if there was an injury they might. Lets assume a crash expert acting for me could make a case that the person that hit me was driving too fast.

As an aside

I drove on Peel Rd today towards Douglas from the Oak Tree r/b.

At about 30m from the first roundabout I could see if there was anyone turning right coming from Douglas. There wasn't. I accelerated. At about the midpoint between both roundabouts I could see a long way down Peel road and I could see there was nothing coming in the RH lane and therefore I could continue to accelerate up to limit 30mph. If someone had pulled out of QB road across me I would have most likely hit them, who would be to blame?

1. For either a criminal prosecution or a civil case it will depend on the evidence in total. The size of the damage isn’t the sole determinant. Things like vehicle position at collision, can be determined from things like dirt from wheel arches or floor pan dropping on road, the location of damage on each vehicle and then relating back to the actual roundabout design. There might be independent witnesses or CCTV. Your story may be more believable than the other driver who says things that aren’t corroborated.

Experts have a duty to the court to not be partisan. They sign a declaration to that effect. But, like many things it’s a matter of opinion.

2. Think about your postulation and the rules of the road and Highway Code. If you hit the QB roundabout, the second one, still doing 30, not having slowed down to anticipate that you might have to give way at either first or second, and had traversed the first roundabout at 30 and the distance between exiting the first and entering the second, who do you think is liable for you barrelling through.

Clue, it’s not driving to road conditions. 

[Happier diner]

11 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Why would you go over a roundabout at 30 mph?

 

7 minutes ago, John Wright said:

1. For either a criminal prosecution or a civil case it will depend on the evidence in total. The size of the damage isn’t the sole determinant. Things like vehicle position at collision, can be determined from things like dirt from wheel arches or floor pan dropping on road, the location of damage on each vehicle and then relating back to the actual roundabout design. There might be independent witnesses or CCTV. Your story may be more believable than the other driver who says things that aren’t corroborated.

Experts have a duty to the court to not be partisan. They sign a declaration to that effect. But, like many things it’s a matter of opinion.

2. Think about your postulation and the rules of the road and Highway Code. If you hit the QB roundabout, the second one, still doing 30, not having slowed down to anticipate that you might have to give way at either first or second, and had traversed the first roundabout at 30 and the distance between exiting the first and entering the second, who do you think is liable for you barrelling through.

Clue, it’s not driving to road conditions. 

Thanks John

That makes sense. Just to be clear I don't go over the roundabout at 30mph. I approach with caution and if someone pulls across me I slow down as I don't do road rage.

WRT @Gladys comment. Many do go over the roundabout at 30mph (and more) and going back to the point that @Ramseyboimade, this is one thing that slows traffic progress through the whole junction. Some nervous drivers at the bottom of QB road are terrified to exit onto the roundabout because of the excessive speed of vehicles coming onto the roundabout. The whole thing would flow better if the speed was calmed.

[John Wright]

29 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

 

Thanks John

That makes sense. Just to be clear I don't go over the roundabout at 30mph. I approach with caution and if someone pulls across me I slow down as I don't do road rage.

WRT @Gladys comment. Many do go over the roundabout at 30mph (and more) and going back to the point that @Ramseyboimade, this is one thing that slows traffic progress through the whole junction. Some nervous drivers at the bottom of QB road are terrified to exit onto the roundabout because of the excessive speed of vehicles coming onto the roundabout. The whole thing would flow better if the speed was calmed.

We need zippering as a rule of the road, at junctions and roundabouts, roundels and lane merges