rb5 286

iTrader: (2)

on the day of the crash the bus driver said to me that the cameras on the bus would prove i was speeding

I told the police to get the footage as evidence when i was a the hospital, they came back to me saying that the bus company told them that the cameras were not working as it was not in service

Today I got 2 cd's with the footage on it

here are 3 camera views seconds before the RTC

http://rb5.paulhooker.co.uk/rb5oc/mo...0012/crash.pdf

it is clear to see in the 3 seconds that I have shown that the filter light is not lit therefore he is jumping the lights and in the wrong, especially when you can see how close i was when he started to pull out.


what is also interesting is that in the full footage you see picking people up from bus stops prior to the RTC (strange when the police were told it was not in service)

the bus company are still saying that they are prepared to accept a 50/50 settlement.

i have to now decide whether to take this to court now

I would be interested on any1's input from experience, Tissy/Ed's views as I want to prove my innocence and get what I'm entitled to as well as not being tarred as it was my fault cos i was speeding.

pezzza

Take them for all you can get!

And that is comming from a COACH DRIVER!

London busses think they own the road, cutting into people all the time, and on several occasions i have had to stop sharpish to avoid hitting one head on!

Spec'c'57

iTrader: (1)

As above i would say. its pretty clear he pulled in front of you.

Milamber

iTrader: (2)

You have PM

spally

iTrader: (1)

have no experience here Mark, but hope you do take it all the way mate, and get your innocence proven.

rb5 286

iTrader: (2)

cheers Chris

V4JDMSTi

iTrader: (2)

as per spally mate. can't believe it's still going on.

Milamber

iTrader: (2)

The bus companies insurers would say black was white and take it to court to prove it. I really think that sometimes they even believe it too

spally

iTrader: (1)

not just bus companies mate!!! a whole society is starting to think that way...."nothing to do with me, wasnt my fault"!!!!!

Phil

You seem a fair way back mate which is why I assume they say your "speeding" however its very clear the bus shouldn't have been there

Go for it mate

Adidas

Mark,

Without seeing the full footage and not knowing the peice of road, it's so hard to tell. However, in picture 2 you can quite clearly see that the filter light is not illuminated, therefore it's quite right to say that you would have had right of way as you were travelling towards the bus and that the bus driver shouldn't have travelled across your path. Even if the light was defective he shouldn't have crossed the carriageway.

I noticed that the bus, cab & Transit in the background in picture 3 are stationary. I take it the lights they were stopped at were a completely different phasing to those that you were under?

However, don't forget it's in the bus companies interest to go for the 50:50 due to the damage to your car and the fact it was a personal injury (PI) accident. As it was a PI they are no doubt worried that you will attempt to recoup your losses for loss of earnings etc. Therefore it is quite likely they will call upon expert witnesses (normally retired Police Accident Investigators) and try to prove you were at fault (ie.travelling in excess of the speed limit) using the CCTV footage and working your speed using the distance you travelled in the 2 seconds shown on the footage.

Only if you are 100% you weren't speeding would I give it a run at court.

Unless, that is, Milamber advises you differently

EAndy

I thought the same as Phil, seeing your Scoob in all 3 images (3 seconds) you've travelled a fair distance but 3 seconds at even 30mph would cover that distance and thats not speeding.

From the 2nd shot it looks like you might of been able to slow as it looks clear that the bus is going to pull out however when I thought about that again and realised thats less than 2 seconds in real time it's a totally different situation to me looking at pictures but I think thats what they need to remember as on first glance I thought speeding, then I thought no actually thats 2 seconds.

End of the day the RTC ignoring any speed issue in my opinion is clear but.

Bus jumped the lights, you hit bus. Simple as on the RTC side. Regardless of whether speeding or not the bus jumped the lights.

If the bus hadn't jumped the lights and you were speeding there would of been no crash.

Whats a bigger issue?

Bus jumping a red light put 'x' amount of passengers at risk
or
Car doing 40? in 30 zone

In this case I'd say the Bus

VTEC to Turbo

Hi Mark

My observations (with no authority) from what you've posted would be.....

I believe I am right in saying that he is entitled to cross on a green light (even though the filter is not lit) BUT only if he is going to complete his manouver without causing oncoming traffic with the right of way to slow down.

It's clear from the pics posted he should have seen you whatever speed you were travelling. I would argue he was driving without due care and attention as you are clearly visible.

Tricky to say what distance was covered between frames 1 & 3, I'm sure this can be worked out with police computer programs! Maybe do another drive by at 30mph (or 40 if that's the limit), to see if that distance is likely. Maybe get someone filming from where the bus was as a benchmark. You can play it back to judge for yourself against the bus footage.

Finally, I'd say that only information that is documented by the police from what you say the bus company have said would be permissable in court! Otherwise it would be your word against theirs. But I believe you and think that it's pretty suspect the discrepancies in their version of events.

Don't forget to use up all your legal protection (through your insurance) They have an obligation to fight for you if you were in the right..

Best of luck mate.

Spec'c'57

iTrader: (1)

If thats where i think it is i believe its a 40 limit.

Mark_B4

Is this on what was the A13 through Dagenham, just after Elites?

If so I doubt you were speeding, there is a Speed camera a little after Elites, about 200-300 yards before the lights.

Seek legal advice mate, good luck

Leebo77

Mark,

I had an accident in 1996 that got to court in 2000. I won and there was much less evidence than there is here.

Do it matey

rb5 286

iTrader: (2)

yes its a 30 at the speed camera which then goes to a 40.

i'm not sure if i can really be arsed to go to court, knowing my luck i could have 99% of the evidence supporting my side and the judge would go in favour of the bus co.

Thats what my solicitors are warning me about, that i will be looked upon due to my 'young' age and choice of car that it was my fault cos i had my foot to the floor.

Monday morning , 7am, pissing down with rain - the last thing i would be doing is driving like the stereotype!!!

thanks for all your input guys

Adidas

Only if the Judge is Stevie Wonder

rb5 286

iTrader: (2)

ye thats what i thought but thats what the solicitor said to me

Granby

iTrader: (5)

I don't know what are these bus drivers like, they think they own the road

I'd say go for it mate, it's been known for the company's to settle out of court once they know your taking if further

WRX_Dazza

Hi Mark,
I would persevere with it a bit further mate.

surely your insurance company will do the necessary for you??
it is, after all in THEIR interest to get the blame shifted as appropriate.
(legal advice etc..)

good luck with it

ABW

iTrader: (1)

without being too much of an egg head here mate it's quite easy to work out that if that's your car behind the lights in the first picture,by the third pic it looks to me like you've traveled about 10 car lengths in the 3 seconds. Without going into the details I've made that about 31 mph based on a 14ft long scooby , if it's 15 car lengths that's about 47 ish .
I'm sure there's someone cleverer than me to work it out accurately for you

Phil

Your a clever cloggs aren't you

Its amazing how three images can be read so differently but when you put FACTS into the equation then it becomes clear cut IMHO

SUE THE AR$E off them

rb5 286

iTrader: (2)

thanks for all the input, my solicitor is out of the office today but i hope to talk to her on Monday to advise her that I want to take this to court and take them to the cleaners.

The PA said that the bus company is sticking to the 50/50 settlement as they see i'm negligent for speeding for which my legal team say that this should not even be considered when the lights are in my favour and he could clearly see me approaching.

Adidas

Budgie's looking good for his age

Milamber

iTrader: (2)

On a Friday?