Registration plate 
Official local mnemonic: Cymru (Wales)
Postal area: Bangor
Issued: between september 2001 and february 2002
Red Mercedes C 220, manufactured in 2002, first registered on 29 January 2002. Cylinder capacity: 2148cc, CO2 emissions: 164 g/km.
As of 11 June 2016 this vehicle had done 136,208 miles. Current estimated odometer reading: 203,800 miles.
Official local mnemonic: Cymru (Wales)Postal area: Bangor
Issued: between september 2001 and february 2002
Red Mercedes C 220, manufactured in 2002, first registered on 29 January 2002. Cylinder capacity: 2148cc, CO2 emissions: 164 g/km.
As of 11 June 2016 this vehicle had done 136,208 miles. Current estimated odometer reading: 203,800 miles.
SORN
✗ No MOT Expired: 2 June 2016
MOT history
| Test date | Expiry date | Result | Odometer reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-06-11 | - | ✗ Fail | 136,208 |
| |||
| 2015-06-03 | 2016-06-02 | ✓ Pass | 127,965 |
| |||
| 2015-05-28 | - | ✗ Fail | 127,951 |
| |||
| 2014-05-31 | 2015-06-01 | ✓ Pass | 123,375 |
| |||
| 2013-05-25 | 2014-06-01 | ✓ Pass | 116,829 |
| |||
| 2012-05-11 | 2013-06-01 | ✓ Pass | 107,012 |
| 2011-06-02 | 2012-06-01 | ✓ Pass | 100,449 |
| 2011-06-01 | - | ✗ Fail | 100,449 |
| |||
| 2010-05-10 | 2011-05-13 | ✓ Pass | 94,492 |
| |||
| 2010-05-10 | - | ✗ Fail | 94,492 |
| |||
| 2009-05-14 | 2010-05-13 | ✓ Pass | 90,837 |
| |||
| 2009-05-11 | - | ✗ Fail | 90,853 |
| |||
| 2008-02-08 | 2009-02-07 | ✓ Pass | 88,165 |
| |||
| 2008-02-08 | - | ✗ Fail | 88,165 |
| |||
| 2007-01-25 | 2008-01-31 | ✓ Pass | 86,591 |
| |||
| 2006-02-01 | 2007-01-31 | ✓ Pass | 84,533 |
Rate driver
Comments
CW51 FRT
2016-07-05 23:22:29
Whoever down-voted igman's comment.. can you please tell us why? I'm just curious as to why. I can't see anything wrong in what they said. Sure, disagree; that's what threads are for, right? To debate an issue. But to just down-vote and not post..well..people will draw their own conclusions.
Whoever down-voted igman's comment.. can you please tell us why? I'm just curious as to why. I can't see anything wrong in what they said. Sure, disagree; that's what threads are for, right? To debate an issue. But to just down-vote and not post..well..people will draw their own conclusions.
CW51 FRT
2016-07-04 11:47:15
Hard to judge the relative speeds, but both cars going too quickly. 50/50 looks reasonable without any other evidence.
Hard to judge the relative speeds, but both cars going too quickly. 50/50 looks reasonable without any other evidence.
CW51 FRT
2016-07-05 23:28:43
The dash-cam driver appears to slow down to a suitable speed prior to entering the apex of the bend.
The dash-cam driver appears to slow down to a suitable speed prior to entering the apex of the bend.
CW51 FRT
Guy Laister2016-07-02 23:53:28
The insurance are saying 50/50 I say its 100% Merc drivers fault
The insurance are saying 50/50 I say its 100% Merc drivers fault
CW51 FRT
2016-07-04 20:57:38
(slowing down quite considerably [and to a safer speed] before they approach the apex).
(slowing down quite considerably [and to a safer speed] before they approach the apex).
CW51 FRT
2016-07-04 20:56:38
nightmare, they appeared to slow down considerably at the bend, unlike the approaching car. I wonder if the insurers could estimate the speed of the red car given the time and distance? Anyone? I would weigh on favour of the blue car because to me it looks like despite going what looks like a little too fast for the straight, as mentioned you can see them slowing down quite considerably. I also dread to think what would have happened had that red car hit a horse rider, pedestrian or cyclist.
nightmare, they appeared to slow down considerably at the bend, unlike the approaching car. I wonder if the insurers could estimate the speed of the red car given the time and distance? Anyone? I would weigh on favour of the blue car because to me it looks like despite going what looks like a little too fast for the straight, as mentioned you can see them slowing down quite considerably. I also dread to think what would have happened had that red car hit a horse rider, pedestrian or cyclist.
CW51 FRT
2016-07-04 15:09:12
Too quick until approaching the corner but you slowed down considerably for it, the Merc certainly couldn't stop in the visible distance (didn't really look like the driver managed to reach the brake based upon a lack of car adjustment as I would expect a big application of brakes while going around a corner to destabilise the car laterally as well as it taking a nose dive), you were practically stopped when the collision took place.
Too quick until approaching the corner but you slowed down considerably for it, the Merc certainly couldn't stop in the visible distance (didn't really look like the driver managed to reach the brake based upon a lack of car adjustment as I would expect a big application of brakes while going around a corner to destabilise the car laterally as well as it taking a nose dive), you were practically stopped when the collision took place.
CW51 FRT
nightmare2016-07-03 01:06:14
Difficult to judge but I understand the insurance 50/50 split
Why? because dashcam car was IMHO also not driving to road conditions. A little too fast for a single track/narrow country lane
Difficult to judge but I understand the insurance 50/50 split
Why? because dashcam car was IMHO also not driving to road conditions. A little too fast for a single track/narrow country lane
Add comment
Attaching movies and photos (?)
It's enough to include link to photo or youtube or facebook movie into comment's content in order to attach them to the comment
I would say the Merc was 100% at fault, although the camera car appeared to be travelling too fast on the straight, they did slow down to a reasonable speed approaching the bend and were almost staionary when the collision happened. If the Merc had approached the bend at a resonable speed there would have been no collision. I would contest the insurance company decision.