Insurance Woes - Feeling let down
Discussion
Jayho said:
I am actually lost for words as to me being on the roundabout and already decided what I was doing beforehand can paint me as in the wrong.
Some of the comments are getting a bit strong but you've used somewhat alarming language.It's not about right and wrong - it's about avoiding accidents in the first place. A moments caution would have avoided all this hassle.
The DD is a moot point now.
OP unfortuelty you can provide all the evidence you want but it is left in the hand so the gods aka insurance company. I would say you will end up with 50/50 but it may take some time.
I had a 50/50 accident on the face of it, but took 2 years to get vindicated, and the police had attended and said it wasn't my fault.
If it was me try to mitigate your costs.
OP unfortuelty you can provide all the evidence you want but it is left in the hand so the gods aka insurance company. I would say you will end up with 50/50 but it may take some time.
I had a 50/50 accident on the face of it, but took 2 years to get vindicated, and the police had attended and said it wasn't my fault.
If it was me try to mitigate your costs.
1. Drink driving is a criminal matter. Crashes are civil matters. They are unconnected and not necessarily relevant to each other. If you drive into the back of a drink spdriver who is stationary at a set of traffic lights, then you are at fault. This is for example purposes, before someone goes off on one about this not being an accident at a set of lights.
2. Roundabout crashes go 50/50 for two reasons:
a) he said / she said. No independent witnesses means both aphave vested interests and both are equally culpable.
b) case law setting a clear precedent. Grace vs Tanner applies to all roundabout cases where one party is exiting and one party isn't. This is not a debatable matter, this Court of Appeal ruling is binding on all lower courts and only if a case is run to a higher court can it be overturned. That will require a new area to be discussed and leave to continually appeal to be granted by the courts. Your insurer is simply following the outcome that the lower courts HAVE to give and saving £1000s in unnecessary costs. Dashcams will not provide the evidence to override the Court of Appeal.
Point b, will be the one many ignore and continue to extol the virtues of their grasp of the Highway Code / dashcams etc.
EDIT: All police reports now carry a specific and explicit disclaimer stating that "this report states the facts and only relates to the potential for a criminal prosecution. This report must not be relied on for insuramce purposes and offers no opinion either way. They will not accept being called by either side as a witness, unless they actually saw the incident happen"
2. Roundabout crashes go 50/50 for two reasons:
a) he said / she said. No independent witnesses means both aphave vested interests and both are equally culpable.
b) case law setting a clear precedent. Grace vs Tanner applies to all roundabout cases where one party is exiting and one party isn't. This is not a debatable matter, this Court of Appeal ruling is binding on all lower courts and only if a case is run to a higher court can it be overturned. That will require a new area to be discussed and leave to continually appeal to be granted by the courts. Your insurer is simply following the outcome that the lower courts HAVE to give and saving £1000s in unnecessary costs. Dashcams will not provide the evidence to override the Court of Appeal.
Point b, will be the one many ignore and continue to extol the virtues of their grasp of the Highway Code / dashcams etc.
EDIT: All police reports now carry a specific and explicit disclaimer stating that "this report states the facts and only relates to the potential for a criminal prosecution. This report must not be relied on for insuramce purposes and offers no opinion either way. They will not accept being called by either side as a witness, unless they actually saw the incident happen"
Edited by snorky782 on Wednesday 4th May 20:55
I'm sure if we broke down every single accident, that blame could be attributed to the "innocent" party.
If the left hand and right hand lane are signposted to be straight on then I don't see it being the OPs fault.
Obviously the precedent has been set with the previous court cases. Doesn't necessarily make it right. I'm sure the highway code says not to enter the roundabout until it's clear / safe... obvioulsy if you hit a car, it's not safe... :-)
I appreciate my opinion may not be correct or in line with the courts but that's the wonders of life.
unfortunately my opinion isn't worth sh*t compared to the court ruling.
If the left hand and right hand lane are signposted to be straight on then I don't see it being the OPs fault.
Obviously the precedent has been set with the previous court cases. Doesn't necessarily make it right. I'm sure the highway code says not to enter the roundabout until it's clear / safe... obvioulsy if you hit a car, it's not safe... :-)
I appreciate my opinion may not be correct or in line with the courts but that's the wonders of life.
unfortunately my opinion isn't worth sh*t compared to the court ruling.
xjay1337 said:
I'm sure if we broke down every single accident, that blame could be attributed to the "innocent" party.
If the left hand and right hand lane are signposted to be straight on then I don't see it being the OPs fault.
Obviously the precedent has been set with the previous court cases. Doesn't necessarily make it right. I'm sure the highway code says not to enter the roundabout until it's clear / safe... obvioulsy if you hit a car, it's not safe... :-)
I appreciate my opinion may not be correct or in line with the courts but that's the wonders of life.
unfortunately my opinion isn't worth sh*t compared to the court ruling.
it doesn't sound like the collision happened when the other party entered the roundabout, it sounds like it happened when the OP went to exit the roundabout.If the left hand and right hand lane are signposted to be straight on then I don't see it being the OPs fault.
Obviously the precedent has been set with the previous court cases. Doesn't necessarily make it right. I'm sure the highway code says not to enter the roundabout until it's clear / safe... obvioulsy if you hit a car, it's not safe... :-)
I appreciate my opinion may not be correct or in line with the courts but that's the wonders of life.
unfortunately my opinion isn't worth sh*t compared to the court ruling.
nitrodave said:
I had similar once and the fact that the FRONT of their car hit the REAR of your car makes it their fault. Stand your ground on this.
Send them your streetview diagram and get your insurance company to fight this, it's what you pay them to do.
Good luck
So if i reverse full speed into the front of your car it will be your fault? Send them your streetview diagram and get your insurance company to fight this, it's what you pay them to do.
Good luck
R8Steve said:
nitrodave said:
I had similar once and the fact that the FRONT of their car hit the REAR of your car makes it their fault. Stand your ground on this.
Send them your streetview diagram and get your insurance company to fight this, it's what you pay them to do.
Good luck
So if i reverse full speed into the front of your car it will be your fault? Send them your streetview diagram and get your insurance company to fight this, it's what you pay them to do.
Good luck
TooMany2cvs said:
R8Steve said:
nitrodave said:
I had similar once and the fact that the FRONT of their car hit the REAR of your car makes it their fault. Stand your ground on this.
Send them your streetview diagram and get your insurance company to fight this, it's what you pay them to do.
Good luck
So if i reverse full speed into the front of your car it will be your fault? Send them your streetview diagram and get your insurance company to fight this, it's what you pay them to do.
Good luck
Jayho said:
TooMany2cvs said:
R8Steve said:
nitrodave said:
I had similar once and the fact that the FRONT of their car hit the REAR of your car makes it their fault. Stand your ground on this.
Send them your streetview diagram and get your insurance company to fight this, it's what you pay them to do.
Good luck
So if i reverse full speed into the front of your car it will be your fault? Send them your streetview diagram and get your insurance company to fight this, it's what you pay them to do.
Good luck
TooMany2cvs said:
Jayho said:
TooMany2cvs said:
R8Steve said:
nitrodave said:
I had similar once and the fact that the FRONT of their car hit the REAR of your car makes it their fault. Stand your ground on this.
Send them your streetview diagram and get your insurance company to fight this, it's what you pay them to do.
Good luck
So if i reverse full speed into the front of your car it will be your fault? Send them your streetview diagram and get your insurance company to fight this, it's what you pay them to do.
Good luck
TooMany2cvs said:
Now I'm REALLY baffled as to how the hell this happened. Post photos of the damage.
As he left the roundabout from the RH "lane" he's swept across the front of the other car as that was passing the same exit and they've just managed to catch each other little more than a glancing blow.Both drivers were guilty of assuming the wrong thing.
OP was in the right hand lane, correctly it seems, to take the straight ahead exit. That lane and the left lane go round the roundabout in a full circle with exits on the left. (The roundabout then effectively becomes a 2 lane road.) At the point of exit, the op had to cross the left lane as it continues round in a circle. That is the point the op should have made sure it was safe to cross over the left lane.
The fact that the damage was to the op's rear nearside shows he turned into the other lane without checking properly it was safe to do so. OP said, "I had checked my mirrors, there was nothing there". Obviously there was a car there as there was contact.
So the other car either sped up to cause a collision or the OP didn't look properly because "It was my right of way"
I'm guessing that when the OP checked his mirror to leave the roundabout, his left signal was put on at the same time. It should have been put on as he passed the car waiting to come onto the roundabout.
The other driver assumed the OP was continuing round, the OP assumed it was clear. The courts will say 50-50, I say 100% OP for not checking properly.
OP was in the right hand lane, correctly it seems, to take the straight ahead exit. That lane and the left lane go round the roundabout in a full circle with exits on the left. (The roundabout then effectively becomes a 2 lane road.) At the point of exit, the op had to cross the left lane as it continues round in a circle. That is the point the op should have made sure it was safe to cross over the left lane.
The fact that the damage was to the op's rear nearside shows he turned into the other lane without checking properly it was safe to do so. OP said, "I had checked my mirrors, there was nothing there". Obviously there was a car there as there was contact.
So the other car either sped up to cause a collision or the OP didn't look properly because "It was my right of way"
I'm guessing that when the OP checked his mirror to leave the roundabout, his left signal was put on at the same time. It should have been put on as he passed the car waiting to come onto the roundabout.
The other driver assumed the OP was continuing round, the OP assumed it was clear. The courts will say 50-50, I say 100% OP for not checking properly.
As I said before, I've got the answers I want and I'm going to let insurance deal with it.
I really don't have the energy to be sucked in to justifying my "Lack of reflex and decision making skills"
To be honest, I did expect some backlash and people poking holes in what I feel happened and to be judged on how I could have avoided any collision. Unfortunately unlike quite a lot of people I seem to lack the reflexes and decision making of a F1 driver it seems. I was wrong to assume that someone around me would be giving way the same way I was taught when driving. I will take this as a lesson and move on.
As I said, I fully appreciate peoples honest opinions and their constructive criticism. So thank you all for contribution to this thread.
What's done is done and I'll await insurance to advise.
I really don't have the energy to be sucked in to justifying my "Lack of reflex and decision making skills"
To be honest, I did expect some backlash and people poking holes in what I feel happened and to be judged on how I could have avoided any collision. Unfortunately unlike quite a lot of people I seem to lack the reflexes and decision making of a F1 driver it seems. I was wrong to assume that someone around me would be giving way the same way I was taught when driving. I will take this as a lesson and move on.
As I said, I fully appreciate peoples honest opinions and their constructive criticism. So thank you all for contribution to this thread.
What's done is done and I'll await insurance to advise.
Jayho said:
As I said before, I've got the answers I want and I'm going to let insurance deal with it.
I really don't have the energy to be sucked in to justifying my "Lack of reflex and decision making skills"
To be honest, I did expect some backlash and people poking holes in what I feel happened and to be judged on how I could have avoided any collision. Unfortunately unlike quite a lot of people I seem to lack the reflexes and decision making of a F1 driver it seems. I was wrong to assume that someone around me would be giving way the same way I was taught when driving. I will take this as a lesson and move on.
As I said, I fully appreciate peoples honest opinions and their constructive criticism. So thank you all for contribution to this thread.
What's done is done and I'll await insurance to advise.
Based on your comments, and particularly about having to have the reflexes of an F1 driver, it is clear that you haven't learnt the lessons from this collision, and are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes in the future.I really don't have the energy to be sucked in to justifying my "Lack of reflex and decision making skills"
To be honest, I did expect some backlash and people poking holes in what I feel happened and to be judged on how I could have avoided any collision. Unfortunately unlike quite a lot of people I seem to lack the reflexes and decision making of a F1 driver it seems. I was wrong to assume that someone around me would be giving way the same way I was taught when driving. I will take this as a lesson and move on.
As I said, I fully appreciate peoples honest opinions and their constructive criticism. So thank you all for contribution to this thread.
What's done is done and I'll await insurance to advise.
Irrespective of the fault or drunkenness of the other driver, it seems that you had plenty of opportunities to anticipate, observe and react accordingly, which could have helped yo avoid the collision. You need to critically analyse the events so that you can learn to avoid being in a similar situation in the future.
Have you ever watched air crash investigations? Nearly all air crashes are caused by a sequence of minor events and circumstances that combined together create the perfect storm for a crash. The same principles apply to car accidents as well.
Sheepshanks said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Now I'm REALLY baffled as to how the hell this happened. Post photos of the damage.
As he left the roundabout from the RH "lane" he's swept across the front of the other car as that was passing the same exit and they've just managed to catch each other little more than a glancing blow.Mandat said:
Based on your comments, and particularly about having to have the reflexes of an F1 driver, it is clear that you haven't learnt the lessons from this collision, and are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes in the future.
Irrespective of the fault or drunkenness of the other driver, it seems that you had plenty of opportunities to anticipate, observe and react accordingly, which could have helped yo avoid the collision. You need to critically analyse the events so that you can learn to avoid being in a similar situation in the future.
Have you ever watched air crash investigations? Nearly all air crashes are caused by a sequence of minor events and circumstances that combined together create the perfect storm for a crash. The same principles apply to car accidents as well.
OK fine, one last bite. I have actually in fact taken everything said on this post on board and will be practicing it as far as my ability allows me to (I am human after all)Irrespective of the fault or drunkenness of the other driver, it seems that you had plenty of opportunities to anticipate, observe and react accordingly, which could have helped yo avoid the collision. You need to critically analyse the events so that you can learn to avoid being in a similar situation in the future.
Have you ever watched air crash investigations? Nearly all air crashes are caused by a sequence of minor events and circumstances that combined together create the perfect storm for a crash. The same principles apply to car accidents as well.
I was incorrect to assume that the driver was not going to enter the roundabout. I admit that that is an incorrect assumption.
And on the subject of me not having checked my mirrors correctly. I had checked my mirror as I passed the junction at which they had entered from firstly. Then signalled my intention. Then I rechecked my mirrors again after passing the junction. After that my concentration would have been to navigate my exit.
Although I accept that there is more I could have done to reduce the risk of the accident, I do not accept that I could be held 100% liable in any instance.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff