Nasty

I've just run your story through my "insurance defence lawyer legal translation" device and it comes out like this:

The Wedge driver, a reckless young man, was too impatient to queue like everyone else and was carrying out a manoeuvre know as "undertaking": that is, trying to get to the front of the queue of more law abiding citizens by cutting up the inside lane. His intention was to serve violently across into the outside lane once he had got through the lights. He failed to take any account of the risk of cars turning at the junction he was approaching, and proceeded at full speed as if the road was clear when in fact he had no clear sightlines and no means of knowing whether or not it was safe to proceed.

The Wedge driver claims to have been travelling at 30mph. This is is disputed, and analysis of the degree of damage caused to my client's car, not to mention the length of skidmarks, shows that his speed was almost 40mph. But in any event, even of he was travelling at 30mph, that was in itself dangerous. As it says in the Highway Code "do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit".

Posted By: Old Git, May 6, 13:58:36