Ouch too ........

[ddyer79]

Hit up the rear by a lorry on M25 today. Other driver managed to veer off at last minute to avoid really nasty shunt. Petrol tank leaking. Don't suppose I'll be driving it for a while.

[Danny 57]

Hope you are ok as the metal can be repaired though suprised that your fuel tank is leaking.

[United 11]

Good grief, that's a nasty bit of damage, but seeing it from that angle it looks repairable

[ddyer79]

Hope you are ok as the metal can be repaired though suprised that your fuel tank is leaking.

Just filled up before starting journey When recovery truck dropped me off only had 35 miles and fuel gauge nearly on empty showing on dash. May be faulty reading I guess.

[Supurbia]

Personally although repairable I wouldn't want it back myself, roof looks ok but the car will never be the same and may have hidden damage.

[Superb Smartie]

A mere flesh wound!

[ddyer79]

Personally although repairable I wouldn't want it back myself, roof looks ok but the car will never be the same and may have hidden damage.

Must confess I feel the same way even though I truly love the car - it can never be as structurally sound as it was before.

 

I have a forward facing camera and on replay today I got to see just how hard it was hit and the way the car reacted - I must say I was very impressed.

[ksr]

Must confess I feel the same way even though I truly love the car - it can never be as structurally sound as it was before.

 

 

 

In nearly 40 years of driving, I have only had one car which sustained significant accident damage (by significant accident damage, I mean a heavy side-on blow to the front driver's side wing and wheel, resulting in both front chassis legs being pushed out of line by between 5 and 10 degrees). The 18-month old car was borderline total loss, and I was disappointed that the assessor decided to go down the repair route. The car was off the road for 4 weeks (rental car paid for by other driver's insurers), and when I returned to collect the car, it looked good as new. The car handled perfectly, and served me well for a further 18 months. 

 

I tell this story to show that a good bodyshop can competently repair major structural and chassis damage, and do it properly. Could anyone tell the car had had body repairs? - I'm sure a body repair man could, but the salesman who took it in as a trade in some 18 months after the accident didn't (he didn't ask and I didn't tell). Incidentally, this was in 1988 - I would imagine body repair technology has come a long way since then.

[RBurke]

Sounds nasty.

At least all body parts are intact though!

Any chance we could see the footage?

[stevehg]

Interesting this whole topic of in car cameras. Say the Police arrive at the scene of an accident, can they insist on taking your SD card from an in car camera and if yes on what grounds?

I'm no speed freak on public roads, but regularly sit at 76-78mph on clear running motorways. What would happen if you slowed to a standstill in traffic on a motorway and a distracted driver ploughed into the back of you. Obviously not your fault, but Police insist on taking camera memory card and it shows you 2 mins earlier travelling at 77mph. Nothing to do with collision obviously, but could they technically claim you were speeding and convict you for speeding/reckless driving? It appears footage from the cases are admissible now as sole evidence.

Opinions?

[ddyer79]

Sounds nasty.

At least all body parts are intact though!

Any chance we could see the footage?

Try this Link - just put it up there: http://ddyer79.smugmug.com/Cars/Skoda-Superb-v6/21988311_82jWXQ#!i=2789848622&k=NbtVXrT

[ddyer79]

Interesting this whole topic of in car cameras. Say the Police arrive at the scene of an accident, can they insist on taking your SD card from an in car camera and if yes on what grounds?

I'm no speed freak on public roads, but regularly sit at 76-78mph on clear running motorways. What would happen if you slowed to a standstill in traffic on a motorway and a distracted driver ploughed into the back of you. Obviously not your fault, but Police insist on taking camera memory card and it shows you 2 mins earlier travelling at 77mph. Nothing to do with collision obviously, but could they technically claim you were speeding and convict you for speeding/reckless driving? It appears footage from the cases are admissible now as sole evidence.

Opinions?

 

Steve,

 

I did not offer evidence as it was not required, but you raise a good point and I was nervous as the speed limit in force at the time was 40 mph and I was not sure what speed I was slowing down from.

 

What you see on the video is how far past me the lorry goes after he had hit me and if I had caught the full force of that impact it would have been a lot more serious than it thankfully was.

[dippo]

I'm impressed by the speedy arrival of the Highways Agency - but shouldn't he be wearing hi-viz?

[Noddy90]

Interesting this whole topic of in car cameras. Say the Police arrive at the scene of an accident, can they insist on taking your SD card from an in car camera and if yes on what grounds?

I'm no speed freak on public roads, but regularly sit at 76-78mph on clear running motorways. What would happen if you slowed to a standstill in traffic on a motorway and a distracted driver ploughed into the back of you. Obviously not your fault, but Police insist on taking camera memory card and it shows you 2 mins earlier travelling at 77mph. Nothing to do with collision obviously, but could they technically claim you were speeding and convict you for speeding/reckless driving? It appears footage from the cases are admissible now as sole evidence.

Opinions?

 

Just a minor technical point: you're OK up to 79mph.  The formula is Speed Limit + 10% + 2.

[ddyer79]

I'm impressed by the speedy arrival of the Highways Agency - but shouldn't he be wearing hi-viz?

He was off shift on his way home and just happened to be there. Made paperwork easy as he just took control until on shift guys arrived. Motorway was shut for ten minutes whilst they cleared up the mess.

[gianthotdog]

You were very lucky he didn't hit you full on!!

[digidoctor]

Werent you supposed to tell by law about the used car and its accident? Even if not being asked for in particular?

[silver1011]

That isn't a Highways Agency vehicle, it's 11 years old!

 

Who is he!?

[ksr]

That isn't a Highways Agency vehicle, it's 11 years old!

 

Who is he!?

 

Yeah, I was surprised to see such an age of vehicle, but since he stayed around until the on-shift guys arrived, I reckon he was legit. Surprised that he didn't reach for a hi-vis vest or jacket before he left his Discovery, though. Also surprised to see a flash of blue as he pulled over initially - thought Highway Agency vehicles only had red lights.

[ksr]

Werent you supposed to tell by law about the used car and its accident? Even if not being asked for in particular?

 

No legal requirement to volunteer information, unless asked. Buyer has full freedom to examine the vehicle, and unless a question is asked, and not answered truthfully, it is a case of caveat emptor.

 

A car purchase invoice will often require the seller to state whether the vehicle being traded in has been the subject of an insurance company total loss, or has ever been placed on the VCAR register as having sustained significant damage. These registers were not in place when this particular vehicle was traded in.

[chrisw880]

I'm impressed by the speedy arrival of the Highways Agency - but shouldn't he be wearing hi-viz?

 

Don't think it was highways, looked like an volunteer paramedic to me

 

Edit: Highways aren't yellow and green, they are yellow and black along the sides 

[stevehg]

Just a minor technical point: you're OK up to 79mph.  The formula is Speed Limit + 10% + 2.

Just a minor technical point too, people I know have been convicted for doing less than 35mph in a 30mph etc etc by a camera so your sums are no longer relevant, especially if involved in a "collision". There's a reason why the Police changed the wording from RTA to RTC, accident's no longer happen and there's always a party at fault.

So maybe ok to do10% +2 a few years ago, but no guarantee now.

[FUBAR]

The 10% plus 2 thing is still there but it's not law and not the same everywhere as it is only guidance from the 'Association of Chief Police Officers'. Cameras for example are not all operated by one body UK wide. Law is the law and all that, some areas might not be able to process all the cars just over the limit and some piggy banks may not be turning a good enough profit so lowered...... who knows. 

 

 

 

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has issued speed enforcement policy guidance, which suggests that enforcement will normally occur when a driver exceeds the speed limit by a particular margin. This is normally 10 per cent over the speed limit plus 2 mph. It also sets guidelines for when it would not be appropriate to issue a fixed penalty notice but to issue a summons instead (see below). Note that these are guidelines and that a police officer has discretion to act outside of them providing he acts fairly, consistently and proportionately.

 

Speed limit: 20 mph 

ACPO charging threshold: 24 mph 

Summons: 35 mph

 

Speed limit: 30 mph 

ACPO charging threshold: 35 mph 

Summons: 50 mph

 

Speed limit: 40 mph 

ACPO charging threshold: 46 mph 

Summons: 66 mph

 

Speed limit: 50 mph 

ACPO charging threshold: 57 mph 

Summons: 76 mph

 

Speed limit: 60 mph 

ACPO charging threshold: 68 mph 

Summons: 86 mph

 

Speed limit: 70 mph 

ACPO charging threshold: 79 mph 

Summons: 96 mph

[ksr]

Don't think it was highways, looked like an volunteer paramedic to me

 

Edit: Highways aren't yellow and green, they are yellow and black along the sides 

 

By volunteer para-medic, we're not talking St. Johns Ambulance, but perhaps someone who likes to make their vehicle look like an emergency vehicle, and then drive around waiting for accidents to happen? Believe me, some folks get a kick out of this. What I find troubling is:

 

1. The definite blue flash seen from the vehicle left hand side as it pulls over. Unless this is an official emergency vehicle, it should not be showing a blue light.

2. The 'officer's' body language - I get the impression he is signaling something to the effect of "you idiot" - I don't expect to see behaviour like that from a professional. They are generally much too well disciplined for that.

 

So, I'm coming to the conclusion that this is someone who gets a kick out of acting like a member of the emergency services, but actually isn't.

 

Any other thoughts (or are we still too busy arguing about how much you can break speed limits by and get away with it?)

[ddyer79]

By volunteer para-medic, we're not talking St. Johns Ambulance, but perhaps someone who likes to make their vehicle look like an emergency vehicle, and then drive around waiting for accidents to happen? Believe me, some folks get a kick out of this. What I find troubling is:

 

1. The definite blue flash seen from the vehicle left hand side as it pulls over. Unless this is an official emergency vehicle, it should not be showing a blue light.

2. The 'officer's' body language - I get the impression he is signaling something to the effect of "you idiot" - I don't expect to see behaviour like that from a professional. They are generally much too well disciplined for that.

 

So, I'm coming to the conclusion that this is someone who gets a kick out of acting like a member of the emergency services, but actually isn't.

 

Any other thoughts (or are we still too busy arguing about how much you can break speed limits by and get away with it?)

 

He put on his hi-viz jacket as soon as on hard shoulder and gave me one to put on.  He was well known by the highways agency officers and police that attended the scene at his request.  He may not be legit, but he sure took control of a difficult sitation (non English speaking lorry driver, me shaking like a leaf) , ensured everyone's safety and well being.  I for one, was glad he was there, whoever he was.  He is also my witness to the accident.

.