A little local difficulty.

[hedge]

You've got proof that he's on your side of the road, was more than likely travelling at an excessive/inappropriate speed and failed to stop in time. Case closed.

As someone else said, you were clearly nearly stationary and positioned correctly when he hit you. You usually get asked on the forms what your speed was. You can also see the snow that dropped off your wheel arch in the impact and gives a good idea of your vehicle position and the fact you've hardly moved. He has clearly travelled a long way.

You could try to argue that he was driving without due care but it's a tough one to pursue.

I would deffo pursue 100% his fault. Did you get more photos? Give it all to your insurance and tell them to do their job. They won't want to pay out so should fight your corner.

If you check the MOT history of the van, it's a skip on wheels. Lots of MOT failures for brake issues.....

Stand your ground and make the stupid *rse pay up.

 

[Scully]

I hope the photos help, but without independent witnesses it’s usually deemed 50/50 I’m afraid. 

My ex was stationary when she was hit; still deemed 50/50.

[Mungler]

That photo ought to do it nicely. 

It really hacks me off that no one ever puts their hands up anymore.

Then there’s all the time and agg sorting all the paperwork and repairs and opening yourself up to 3 years of pestering phone calls asking if you’ve been involved in an accident that wasn’t your fault.

[billytheghillie]

19 hours ago, Walker570 said:

Great picture. In my day he would be visiting Magistrates Court, unfortunately Plod today is too busy chasing kiddy fiddlers and ticking boxes and the like to turn out to an accident.  That picture is spot on. Enlarging the picture you can clearly see the frozen snow/mud knocked from your rear wheel arch on impact, fully covering your statement that you were stationary when he hit you.  He should be done for careless driving at least, slippery road or no slippery road.  Be interesting to potter along to your local police station and present that photo and suggest they do that. See what they say.

Think you have misread his post, you say " you were stationary when he hit you" but the OP says he was doing 10 M.P.H.

[Dunkield]

8 hours ago, Scully said:

I hope the photos help, but without independent witnesses it’s usually deemed 50/50 I’m afraid. 

My ex was stationary when she was hit; still deemed 50/50.

Unfortunately - this ^^

I got t-boned right in the passenger side, 110% the other guys fault, and despite fighting for months that went 50/50

As Mungler says everyone a liar these days, the stakes are so high.

I know someone who was hit in the back, stationary at lights, the other party is claiming he reversed back into him.

[johnny]

Car insurance is a joke. My wife was following white van man up our road. He stopped so my wife stopped 3 car lengths behind, next thing he flies back in reverse straight into her as he’s over shot his drop off. Swears blind she has run into him. Luckily it happened outside my bosses house and we had just installed cctv and caught it. Took loads of badgering of the insurance company as they weren’t even that bothered. Had to go to court in the end as they would not accept fault. It did nearly £3000 worth of damage to our car. Got our money in the end once it went to court, but it was painful. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by johnny

[Walker570]

2 hours ago, billytheghillie said:

Think you have misread his post, you say " you were stationary when he hit you" but the OP says he was doing 10 M.P.H.

Looking at the debris in the road and the position of the car, I do believe at the time of impact the car was as near stationary as no argument. I spent 14yrs on accident investigation and can tell you that back then 'sonny jim' in the van would be standing in front of the magistrates charged with careless driving. Evidence no skid marks from car, considerable skid marks from van, some of which we cannot see.  Tests on the surface could have given a skid resistance figure and given a plus/minus speed of the van.  The fact the roads were icy has no bearing in my view, that car could have been a mother pushing a her baby in a push chair and it would have been death by dangerous.

The police service today is a joke.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Walker570

[Flashman]

Buy a dash cam - they cost pennies and think of the benefit of having a movie of the accident.

[wymberley]

7 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Looking at the debris in the road and the position of the car, I do believe at the time of impact the car was as near stationary as no argument. I spent 14yrs on accident investigation and can tell you that back then 'sonny jim' in the van would be standing in front of the magistrates charged with careless driving. Evidence no skid marks from car, considerable skid marks from van, some of which we cannot see.  Tests on the surface could have given a skid resistance figure and given a plus/minus speed of the van.  The fact the roads were icy has no bearing in my view, that car could have been a mother pushing a her baby in a push chair and it would have been death by dangerous.

The police service today is a joke.

A damning inditement, fairly reflecting the current title as opposed to the previous version.

[Uilleachan]

21 hours ago, al4x said:

Simply sit back and give your insurers as much as you have.  It helps if you were stationary at the time of impact.  

The downside is the scroat may well get 50:50 as it’s a country lane and proving anything else may well cost your insurer more than they want to pay.  At that point you just have to stay calm...

Or knock for knock, single track, as we'd call that and why I always take out No Claims protection, being crashed into is an occupational hazard on single track/narrow lanes. It isn't good, especially when your the one driving with care. As said by others give your info to your insurers and let them deal with it. 

[GingerCat]

1 hour ago, Walker570 said:

Looking at the debris in the road and the position of the car, I do believe at the time of impact the car was as near stationary as no argument. I spent 14yrs on accident investigation and can tell you that back then 'sonny jim' in the van would be standing in front of the magistrates charged with careless driving. Evidence no skid marks from car, considerable skid marks from van, some of which we cannot see.  Tests on the surface could have given a skid resistance figure and given a plus/minus speed of the van.  The fact the roads were icy has no bearing in my view, that car could have been a mother pushing a her baby in a push chair and it would have been death by dangerous.

The police service today is a joke.

Bearing in mind they werent called it's a bit harsh to start digging the police for a non pi rta that they wouldn' have attended "even in your day" especially one they weren't  aware of. Nor any day for that matter in the last 20 odd years. 

 

[Walker570]

last twenty odd years  .... absolutely.  You proved my point.  I repeat ..the police service is a joke ... it started to go downhill just after I retired in 1990. they now fail to turn out to crimes, just give you a number for insurance companies. After 10pm at night the streets belong to the criminals.   People don't bother to call the police these days as they know they will be told that no action will be taken.  I had a theft from my property, reported to the police by 999 with full details of the vehicle involved within 10 minutes of it happening.

It took me kicking back sides to get some action and the offenders where eventually arrested 5 weeks later.  An Inspector eventually visited my home and admitted the system had failed.  The Chief Constable wrote to my MP and said they had been a small hiccup or words to that effect when the enquiry resulted in 11 pages of failings.   In my day we would have had a car waiting at their address before they got home that night.    I know the lads and lassies at the bottom want to do the job but are not allowed. There is a culture in the force where they cannot trust each other. One slight wrong word or action and they can get reported by a colleague.  The senior staff say it is money, but Leicestershire Police had money to waste on silly plastic banners outside their headquarters ...LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE ARE CHASING CRIMINALS FOR YOU ...or words to that effect. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Walker570
additon

[KB1]

21 hours ago, hedge said:

You've got proof that he's on your side of the road, was more than likely travelling at an excessive/inappropriate speed and failed to stop in time. Case closed.

As someone else said, you were clearly nearly stationary and positioned correctly when he hit you. You usually get asked on the forms what your speed was. You can also see the snow that dropped off your wheel arch in the impact and gives a good idea of your vehicle position and the fact you've hardly moved. He has clearly travelled a long way.

You could try to argue that he was driving without due care but it's a tough one to pursue.

I would deffo pursue 100% his fault. Did you get more photos? Give it all to your insurance and tell them to do their job. They won't want to pay out so should fight your corner.

If you check the MOT history of the van, it's a skip on wheels. Lots of MOT failures for brake issues.....

Stand your ground and make the stupid *rse pay up.

 

If I were you JDog, I would pixelate his number plate, as posts like the above may land you in a spot of bother

[Delwint]

On 12/12/2017 at 20:18, Walker570 said:

Great picture. In my day he would be visiting Magistrates Court, unfortunately Plod today is too busy chasing kiddy fiddlers and ticking boxes and the like to turn out to an accident.

I’d say chasing the above is probably a little more important attending an RTA. And I mean no disrespect regarding your plight JDog

[pigeon controller]

Hi JDog , just picked up on your post. I hope you are well and have not been injured. I hope your insurance can handle your claim with a common sense approach.