A bit of insurance advice please.

[Efbe]

rhinochopig said:

I am but I was angry and couldn't think of a word that sat between frowned upon and illegal - hence the quotes.

Their explanation was that overtaking is considered by insurance companies to be a dangerous manoeuvre. As I said they felt I was lucky to get 50/50 because my 'dangerous' driving automatically puts the blame my way.

OP> for the millionth time on this forum, I'll post this:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vehicle-Car-DVR-Dash-Cam...

£24 for something you can leave in your car and forget about, but could potentially have gotten you out of this mess.
If you were in the wrong, then don't mention it, but if they forget to indicate, or deny it happened etc, you have proof

[Deva Link]

Efbe said:

... but could potentially have gotten you out of this mess.

How? There's no suggestion from the OP that there's any dispute about what happenned.

[Efbe]

Deva Link said:

Efbe said:

... but could potentially have gotten you out of this mess.

How? There's no suggestion from the OP that there's any dispute about what happenned.

I assumed it was a given he would claim he had indicated. maybe not.

however in my experience, you tell someone you have the accident/incident on camera, and they will not try to lie or embellish facts.
Though it has never actually helped ME out, I have twice stopped behind other vehicles who have collided, offered myself as a witness and advised I had it on camera. Attitudes change very quickly when people hear this, whether or not the footage is even any good!

[mrmr96]

rhinochopig said:

So effectively it makes it 'illegal', as far as the insurance companies are concerned, to overtake another vehicle anywhere that a car can potentially turn into, including farm tracks etc. I was lucky to get 50-/50 by all accounts.

Not just the insurers who take that view, it's in the Highway Code; Rule 167.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Hig...

Highway Code said:

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road.

Seems pretty self explanatory to me.

[rhinochopig]

mrmr96 said:

rhinochopig said:

So effectively it makes it 'illegal', as far as the insurance companies are concerned, to overtake another vehicle anywhere that a car can potentially turn into, including farm tracks etc. I was lucky to get 50-/50 by all accounts. It's not the cost that bugs me, but the principle of the thing; had I hit him I'd hold my hands up.

Highway Code Rule 167: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Hig...

Highway Code said:

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road.

Seems pretty self explanatory to me.

I wasn't approaching a junction or a road. It was a drive way and the other driver wasn't indicating. Going on the letter of that, you could argue that you shouldn't overtake full stop as there is always the risk of coming into conflict withthe person you are overtaking; they drift over, move to avoid a pot hole etc.

Efbe thanks for the link, it would have at least proved his prior poor driving, him illegaly towing the trailer, and the fact he didn't indicate.

[DR10]

I was inches from having this happen to me last week so I can sympathise!

How did it go 50/50 so quickly? Did you not have any say?

[mrmr96]

rhinochopig said:

I wasn't approaching a junction or a road. It was a drive way

When the drive joins the road, is that a junction? Given that cars can (and turns out did) drive into a "drive way" I think it's safe to assume they need to be treated the same as any other "junction".

Don't flame me mate, I'm just pointing you to the relevant bit of the HC. I didn't write it!

[rhinochopig]

mrmr96 said:

rhinochopig said:

I wasn't approaching a junction or a road. It was a drive way

When the drive joins the road, is that a junction? Given that cars can (and turns out did) drive into a "drive way" I think it's safe to assume they need to be treated the same as any other "junction".

Don't flame me mate, I'm just pointing you to the relevant bit of the HC. I didn't write it!

Oh, I wasn't sorry if it came across thar way.

[Deva Link]

mrmr96 said:

When the drive joins the road, is that a junction? Given that cars can (and turns out did) drive into a "drive way" I think it's safe to assume they need to be treated the same as any other "junction".

A driveway is not a junction.

[Deva Link]

durbster said:

I sometimes flick my headlights on if I'm uncertain as to whether the other driver has seen me before I overtake them. I wonder if it would have helped here...?

I often flash main beam lights when overtaking at speed, but wouldn't do that at low speed. However, as I live in a semi-rural area and it's not unusual to be passing tractors etc, which do suddenly turn into fields, is I will sound the horn as I pass them (it's still dicey as obviously tractors are noisy and the drivers sometimes wear ear-defenders).

I found this (not sure of the date):

"Holdack vs. Bullock Bros.

Vehicle A was a scooter and Vehicle B, a van. Whilst Vehicle A was overtaking, Vehicle B swerved right and hit Vehicle A.

Who's at fault?
Liability is split 1/3 to 2/3s.

Vehicle B shouldn't have changed course without warning, so takes two-thirds of the blame. The rider of Vehicle A was originally held negligent because he/she didn't toot the horn prior to overtaking. On appeal it was felt that there was no need to toot, but still the result of the case was not changed."