Car accident/insurance advice

[Garage_Doors]

Oh dear, I always thought that the rules went along the lines of " Indicate before pulling out, however, indicating does not mean Right of Way " ? mind you it's all changed since I passed my test, so many people regard indicators as an option rather than an obligation.

Its still Mirror signal maneuver, nothing changed, just laziness, and "why should i tell other what i'm doing attitude".

 

[drew]

You're not supposed to indicate when pulling out from a parked position. It confuses the oncoming traffic, if there's a car close enough to see your indicator you just shouldn't be pulling out.

That's not what I teach my pupils. The only time you don't need to indicate when pulling away from, or to, the side of the road is when there is no one else (including pedestrians) to benefit.

As for the op, check if the bays are outside shops as they may have cctv facing towards the shop front and may have captured the incident. However, do it quick as some shops only keep recordings for two weeks.

 

[SurreySeagulls]

The problem with cars these days is that it seems indicators don't seem to work becuase no one seems to use them when turning etc

 

[Since1982]

If he drove into the side of her it is clearly his fault. This should be the view of your insurance company. Once she has won the case get her to the doctors and tell him about the terrible neck pain she is suffering. Then all you need is a no win no fee solicitor and you have yourself a couple of grand for the trouble. Happy Days

Then don't moan when the price of motor insurance keeps going up because of parasite personal injury claimants.

 

[Billy the Fish]

That's not what I teach my pupils. The only time you don't need to indicate when pulling away from, or to, the side of the road is when there is no one else (including pedestrians) to benefit.

That is pretty much what I said. If there is someone there to benefit then you shouldn't be pulling out. Look at it from the other way, you're passing somebody sitting there with their indicator on and nose out, the indicator gives the impression that they are going to pull out on you causing you to break.

If the oncoming traffic has to break then there wasn't space to go in the first place. If traffic is far enough away that they don't have to break for you, then an indicator is of no benefit to them.

I guess the only time is if you know you're going to cause them to break, but technically that's wrong in the first place.

 

[Zamora For England]

You'll have a wait on your hands, regardless! Tractor knocked a wing mirror off my car month and a half ago, admitted liability straight away, still only 1/4 through proceedings say Direct Line. I mean, a wing mirror, come on. The amount we pay in excess a year *grumble grumble*

 

[TKC]

If he drove into the side of her it is clearly his fault. This should be the view of your insurance company. Once she has won the case get her to the doctors and tell him about the terrible neck pain she is suffering. Then all you need is a no win no fee solicitor and you have yourself a couple of grand for the trouble. Happy Days

The insurance companies can't wait to judge it 50-50. It's the most profitable thing between them. Only one thing you can do. Wait for a few weeks then chuck a brick though his window.

Sound like a couple of examples of exactly whats wrong with the world!

 

[pipkin112]

My other half was unlucky enough to be hit by another driver yesterday.

She was driving along the road and the other driver was parked at the side of the road and behind another car. The other driver pulled out and into the side of her car whilst she drove past. It is important to note that he was in a parking bay at the side of the road - he was not driving lane of the road itself. The other driver also failed to indicate and was on his mobile phone at the time of the accident.

My girlfriend panicked and, perhaps naïvely, failed to get a witness at the time of the accident. The other driver is now claiming the accident is her fault.



What should she do now?

Her insurance company has suggested that as it is her word against his, she may lose her no claims and have to pay her excess. Her only real hope is that, when presented with the photographs taken at the time, his insurance company admit liability on his behalf.

Although she has the other drivers contact details, she has been instructed not to contact him, as this is now a dispute.

I think you should go round his house and shoot him in front of his family. Oh hang on i'm on the wrong thread.

 

[TKC]

I was told by my insurance company a few years ago when I had a similar incident that 99 time out of a 100, when someone comes from the side of another vehicle and there is a crash it is viewed as there fault (the person coming from the side). It should always be that drivers priority to make sure it is clear you join the carriageway. The exception would be for example if your girlfriend was driving at excessive speed and that was a contributing factor.

It sounds like it should be fine, don't worry.

 

[drew]

That is pretty much what I said. If there is someone there to benefit then you shouldn't be pulling out. Look at it from the other way, you're passing somebody sitting there with their indicator on and nose out, the indicator gives the impression that they are going to pull out on you causing you to break.

If the oncoming traffic has to break then there wasn't space to go in the first place. If traffic is far enough away that they don't have to break for you, then an indicator is of no benefit to them.

I guess the only time is if you know you're going to cause them to break, but technically that's wrong in the first place.

I think you have totally misconstrued what I have said. On your scenario, you stated that you shouldn't indicate because oncoming traffic will think you are going to pull across in front of them. Well firstly I beg to differ. If i am driving down the road and I see a car on the other side of the road and they put on their offside indicator I am merely going to expect them to pull away from the side of the road. Secondly, using your hypothesis, if you are driving down the road and wish to turn right into a side road then, if there is oncoming traffic, you are never going to signal because the oncoming traffic might just think you are just going to turn in front of them!!!

Are you one of these drivers that continually brake just because there is a car coming towards you but on the other side of the road? Out of interest, how long ago did you pass your test?

 

[slinky]

if you want an eye witness, i know someone who can be....

 

[Billy the Fish]

I think you have totally misconstrued what I have said. On your scenario, you stated that you shouldn't indicate because oncoming traffic will think you are going to pull across in front of them. Well firstly I beg to differ. If i am driving down the road and I see a car on the other side of the road and they put on their offside indicator I am merely going to expect them to pull away from the side of the road. Secondly, using your hypothesis, if you are driving down the road and wish to turn right into a side road then, if there is oncoming traffic, you are never going to signal because the oncoming traffic might just think you are just going to turn in front of them!!!

Are you one of these drivers that continually brake just because there is a car coming towards you but on the other side of the road? Out of interest, how long ago did you pass your test?

I think this is turning into a "impossible to have on internet" conversation.

The only scenario I'm talking about is if I'm parked on the side of the road facing the right way and pulling out to continue in the same direction on that road. I shouldn't have said oncoming traffic, what I mean is traffic coming from behind me over my right shoulder. Obviously you need to indicate when turning at any junction.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Insurance companies always say never admit to liability when involved in an accident.

I had a bad experience with an insurance company and it took about 3 years to settle what should have been a very straight forward, clear cut case. The other insurance company initially agreed to pay out but then changed their mind (despite sending me a letter agreeing to pay and collecting my car) before refusing to pay, coming up with rubbish wxcuse after rubbish excuse not to pay.

My vehicle was parked up and the other vehicle crashed into mine and also hit a shop window before the driver fled. He was caught on CCTV and proven to be the owbner and was arrested for it, he pleaded guilty and was sent to prison but despite this, his insurance company still refused to pay out after this and still refused after statements from the Police proving the driver was the owner who admitted it and was in prison.

My insurance company didn't want to fight for my claim but just to send it to the motor insurers bureau to resolve which would have cost me my no claims bonus so i refused and was about to take it to court myself when my insurer finally agreed to take it to court themselves and just before this was about to happen the other party finally agreed to pay out. I know the shop were still having problems getting their money even after my claim was settled as the other party's insurers still denied blame in their case.

The main problem with my claim was the cost of a hire car and the fact my insurer was extremely incompetant as it took over 6 months just to inform the other party that their clients vehicle had hit another vehicle, this inspite of me giving them the other vehicles registration details on the morning of the crash.

My insurance company just happened to be providing my courtesy car and so were in no rush to settle the claim as it was making them money. In the end the hire car bill was for £18,500 (due to the long delay the other party couldn't do anything to prevent) and even though my car was only worth £5,000 and i think this is why the other party refused to accept liability and resolve my claim.

Several months later i received a letter from my insurer saying i would be liable for the hire charge if i didn't take the other party's insurer to court to try to claim the hire charges back. I refused as i had already complained to the FSA (who weren't really interested) and explained to the solicitor they wanted me to contact that i think that my insurer wasn't acting in my interest in resolving the claim and the delay in initial contact wasn't acceptable (i had chased it up during that time and told it was progressing before finally being told several months later that they didn't know who the other driver was and who his insurer was.

The whole thing showed me what a mess the whole system was and why premiums are so expensive when they don't have to be.

All i can do is wish you both good luck. If your insurers say knock for knock, don't accept it and get them to take it to court

 

[Lady Whistledown]

In all honesty, I have to say, the police won't generally get involved in collisions where nobody is injured, no serious offences have been committed, where there is no damage to third party property, and where all drivers have exchanged details. They can't- imagine how many collisions occur every single day in every town & city? It's not a question of sleeving it, it's simply down to the sheer volume of such incidents.

Liability will come down to a debate between the insurance companies unless you can provide further witnesses. I'd have thought in this case it would be pretty obvious who was to blame, but then again if there are no photographs of the scene or other evidence, it will, unfortunately, come down to one person's word against the other. The insurers can only go on what they have, and who knows what account the other driver has given?

 

[tedebear]

That is pretty much what I said. If there is someone there to benefit then you shouldn't be pulling out. Look at it from the other way, you're passing somebody sitting there with their indicator on and nose out, the indicator gives the impression that they are going to pull out on you causing you to break.

If the oncoming traffic has to break then there wasn't space to go in the first place. If traffic is far enough away that they don't have to break for you, then an indicator is of no benefit to them.

I guess the only time is if you know you're going to cause them to break, but technically that's wrong in the first place.

Are you saying you don't indicate if you can't see anyone who might notice it? Blimey....

(ps its brake not break)

 

[DanielT]

Are you saying you don't indicate if you can't see anyone who might notice it? Blimey....

(ps its brake not break)

ps it's "it's" not its





to be pedantic even further, it's p.s., not ps

 

[tedebear]

ps it's "it's" not its





to be pedantic even further, it's p.s., not ps

Great - and the answer to the question?

 

[DanielT]

Great - and the answer to the question?

the answer is of course you need to indicate when pulling away

 

[skipper734]

I don't know why you wouldn't indicate when performing any maneuver. A lot of drivers appear to have been told the little flashing light indicates that the force field has been switched on.