Autoversicherung: Examples of Dangerous Driving That Would Prejudice Insurance Cover in Germany

The following summary of recent state court judgement from around Germany illustrates some of the more unsavoury kinds of driving behaviours that are viewed very harshly by the authorities there. Some of these cases are really the result of simple negligence on the part of the driver which emphasises the need for road users to focus their attention on the road at all times. Others are the consequence of pure road rage!

1. Driving straight on despite indicating: those who approach a side street and slow down noticeably while indicating but then proceed to drive on are extremely negligent. If a crash occurs in the event of another driver emerging from the side-street (because this driver believes the other vehicle is turning in) then this first driver is responsible for paying full costs. ( Kiel State Court).

2. Repeatedly sounding the horn or flashing headlights in order to compel the vehicle in front to change lanes: this High Court in Düsseldorf condemned this behaviour as criminal harassment. The traffic police in Nordrhein Wesfalen (and likely anywhere else) would certainly take a very dim view of this.

3. Vehicles driving very slowly must activate their warning lights: another judgement from Düsseldorf court relates to a crash between a driver travelling around 60 mph along an A road who crashed into the rear of a Bulldozer crawling along at just 6 mph. Had this collision occurred between two cars the matter would certainly not have ended up before the judge: in this case the driver who caused the accident from behind would be deemed culpable every time. However, even though the road in question was not covered by minimum speed regulation, the judge thought the driver of the bulldozer at least partially responsible since he was going so slowly without lights: especially dangerous in view of the big, sharp bladed shovel attached to the back of the vehicle. So each party’s costs in this case would be claimed from their opposite number’s Kfz Versicherung or motor insurance.

4. Careless overtaking: the High Court at Schweinfurt clarified how blame should be apportioned in one particular example of poor judgement given free rein in the matter of overtaking. In the event of of a collision resulting from one driver’s attempt to pass two vehicles in one go when the second of these indicates to signal his intention of also moving into the outside line (but presumably doesn’t check his mirror to establish whether this is viable), the driver pulling out is deemed to be one third at fault. The one overtaking has no choice but to resort to his Autoversicherung to settle two thirds of the damages.


about the author:
Mark Lauterwein

Mark Lauterwein is a UK based writer.

article source:
http://www.articlesbase.com/