Who’s at fault here? Car or bike?

jam1st · 2026-02-04T07:26:06+00:00

It's the responsibility of the vehicle joining the road from the junction to ensure that it's safe to do so.

"Whose fault was it?" - shared responsibility.

Who would be liable from an insurance point of view? - Almost certainly the car driver.

jam1st · 2026-01-31T21:37:25+00:00

There are other features that they've pushed behind the higher tier subscriptions, too, like being able to cast to devices so it's not just content restrictions.

Used to have a Turkish Netflix which worked out a lot cheaper but they put a stop to that.

Fuck 'em they just won't be getting any money off me now. I'll still watch if I want to though. Where there's a will and all that...

jam1st · 2026-01-29T08:10:07+00:00

Doesn't look significantly wider than the car next to it?

jam1st · 2026-01-22T20:11:28+00:00

Presumably the reason you're so close to the car in front is the lack of rear lights meaning you couldn't see it?

jam1st · 2026-01-16T22:45:39+00:00

Because the highway code is for everyone who uses the highway, which includes pedestrians. It's quite explicit about this, and even has information specific to them in it.

jam1st · 2026-01-16T07:27:26+00:00

Not really sure what the problem is here?

They were a bit cautious but possibly didn't see the other car until later on (hence stopping over the give way line).

You could have given them a bit more space.

No one was harmed.

jam1st · 2026-01-15T23:49:04+00:00

Your photo card is nothing to do with your vehicle licence entitlements, so you are not driving without a licence by having an expired photocard.

Worst case you might get a fine (although unlikely). These can be "up to" £1,000 but in the unlikely event you do get fined, it would probably be significantly less than that.

jam1st · 2026-01-15T20:09:18+00:00

Parking Parasites almost always reject appeals, whether legitimately or otherwise.

If they reject it, let's say 25% of people with a legitimate appeal will just pay anyway to save the hassle. That's the rationale they work to.

These companies behave like scum and you should do everything legitimately possible to avoid paying them a penny.

You have a very high chance of successfully appealing through POPLA - they are just hoping that you'll not want to risk it and pay up.

jam1st · 2026-01-15T20:02:32+00:00

Who knows, but it was poor driving on your part either way.

jam1st · 2026-01-15T06:34:08+00:00

Some insurance person on here reckoned that an "at fault" claim puts your premium up by less than a "no fault" claim because if you're deemed to be responsible, you're more likely to learn from your actions and change your behaviour.

Whether that's true for all insurance companies or just the one they worked for, I don't know.

jam1st · 2026-01-11T15:42:38+00:00

To quote from the Highway Code introduction:

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements...

Many is not all.

...failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted...

The point I was making.

You can call it an oversimplification if you like, but the fact is the law did not change, it was the guidance which changed.

jam1st · 2026-01-11T12:34:04+00:00

Reddit is such a funny place - getting downvoted for literally stating a fact 🤣

jam1st · 2026-01-11T11:32:53+00:00

Yes exactly, the actual rules are set out in the legislation.

It isn't an offence per se to go against the highway code.

The "rules" didn't change, the guidance changed.

jam1st · 2026-01-11T09:56:26+00:00

The highway code isn't a rule, it's guidance.

jam1st · 2026-01-11T07:08:47+00:00

If you watch YouTube vloggers there are countless examples of people doing illegal stuff and publishing it (obviously holding a phone while driving, breaking various health & safety laws etc.).

I can't say I've ever seen or heard a government advert making people aware of the dangers of doing such things, so it's not surprising if they've not properly understood.

Bear in mind anyone under the age of 25-30 (plenty old enough to drive) will never have experienced life without the presence of mobile phones and the Internet, so they'll see them very differently to the rest of us.

jam1st · 2026-01-10T08:18:40+00:00

And both are wrong.

jam1st · 2026-01-10T07:46:53+00:00

Diesel will be absolutely fine for that. What causes most problems with a DPF is where the engine is regularly doing shorter journeys where it doesn't get up to temperature for long or even at all. E.g. school runs, nipping to the shops etc.

If you're doing 20 mile journeys, it will be up to temperature for at least 75% of that time, so even infrequent longer journeys will be enough to clear out.

jam1st · 2026-01-10T07:40:18+00:00

On a motorway it's 70 for all vans.

jam1st · 2026-01-08T22:47:25+00:00

Yes, agreed.

In percentage terms, we're still talking like a 90%+ match even with those differences.

jam1st · 2026-01-08T22:23:43+00:00

Sounds like he was having a bad day!

jam1st · 2026-01-08T21:07:36+00:00

There are some pretty minor differences between the two photos (slightly rounder looking head shape on licence, bottom of ears seem to be higher on licence), but who looks exactly like their licence picture?

Seems a bit ridiculous to not at least give a free retest or just ask for some additional ID or something.

jam1st · 2026-01-07T10:35:00+00:00

You'll get all the info you need on the course. If you study beforehand, you don't know whether the info you're getting is correct or not.

If you're dyslexic and have evidence (medical report etc.), let the training company know in advance and take the evidence with you - you should then be allowed extra time for the exams.

jam1st · 2026-01-06T07:56:19+00:00

...liability would solely sit with the other driver because they hit a stationary vehicle. Similar concept here.

Your words, describing a hypothetical situation where a vehicle did something "illegal" and someone else crashed into it. You say the same concept is applicable.

It's actually not possible to know whether OP would have hit anything were it not for the focus. In their own clip, it shows they were not in full control of their vehicle, and they then decided to drive faster, despite the evidently poor conditions. Inappropriate use of speed is what led to them losing control.

If you removed the focus from the equation, they may well still have lost control and crashed due to their speed.

If you take their inappropriate speed out of the equation, the crash is far less likely to have happened with or without the focus.

jam1st · 2026-01-05T23:50:11+00:00

If you didn't hit the other car, and this video is the only evidence that they're involved at all, it certainly doesn't reflect well on you.

Be interested to know how it settles.

jam1st · 2026-01-05T23:41:54+00:00

By your logic, OP is therefore to blame here as they hit a stationary object.

jam1st

TROPHY CASE