had a crash today :(

vaio

I don't think it's crazy, I do think just about everything you've said about insurance is wrong, the only bit the insurance company may (and that is only a may) be able to avoid paying is damage to the drunks car, any third part claims will be paid.

goldspanners

iamana1ias wrote: »

Utter b0llox. Yes, the other driver was in the wrong, but had the OP checked his blind spot he'd have potentially been able to avoid being hit

had the other diver been watching he would never have hit the op.

this is the problem with this country, too many bam pots like you willing to try and make some kind of arguement out of nothing.
the other driver was in the wrong lane. its thier fault end off.
if they wanted into the other lane they should have carried on the route they found themselves on or stopped (possibly causing a rear ender or a tail back) but neither were the op's fault,and the op would have not been involved in any of these situations.
how can some folk never understand this? or can they understand this but just have nothing else to do and just enjoy the arguement?

but unfortunatly as others have pointed out even although the op was in the proper lane and positioned correctly the other tube will end up better off and come out with a 50/50 deal,thinking they were still in the right. becuause the laws in this country are geared towards rewarding the idiots,rather than punnishing or teaching them.

gsmmad

vaio wrote: »

I don't think it's crazy, I do think just about everything you've said about insurance is wrong, the only bit the insurance company may (and that is only a may) be able to avoid paying is damage to the drunks car, any third part claims will be paid.

All i said is two things, one that if you drive drunk, your insurance would be void. Which you partially agree, and i didnt say OW GOD there is no chance that the TP will be paid. I was just saying that the insurance can give trouble. As i may experience, i just told you what i was told by the no win no fee company. Also by the solicitor.

The second thing is something i have heard. I am not saying that its fully true.

Apart from these 2 was the fact that if TP denies liability this claim will take a lot longer to resolve and if TP lies about certain thing he may get away with a 50:50 or even win. I don't think i have said anything unreasonable.....

aliasojo

Just had a very similar thing today, idiot joined roundabout in left hand lane at 6 o'clock position...no indicators but the expectation was that he would leave the roundabout at 9 o'clock or 12 o'clock but no, he kept going right round to leave at 3 o'clock and cut in front of me in the right hand lane as I was trying to exit the roundabout.

I had to brake as did the drivers behind me. I sometimes picture me ramming them forcefully in my car just to teach them a lesson but of course would never do that in real life.

I know of someone who always goes all the way round roundabouts in the left hand lane deliberately, she reckons it's the only way she can get off them when they are busy. :rolleyes:

Hope you get this sorted out with not too much hassle OP.

vaio

gsmmad wrote: »

All i said is two things, one that if you drive drunk, your insurance would be void. Which you partially agree, and i didnt say OW GOD there is no chance that the TP will be paid. I was just saying that the insurance can give trouble. As i may experience, i just told you what i was told by the no win no fee company. Also by the solicitor.

The second thing is something i have heard. I am not saying that its fully true.

Apart from these 2 was the fact that if TP denies liability this claim will take a lot longer to resolve and if TP lies about certain thing he may get away with a 50:50 or even win. I don't think i have said anything unreasonable....

If people tell lies about what happened then that’s a different matter, my comments were aimed at what you said about insurance companies avoiding third party claims…….…

gsmmad wrote: »

…….Long story short i have been notified that we may not get paid from TP as they may say that his insurance was voided due to drink driving. Also i have heard that if someone hits your car and then does a runner, the person doing the runner will have there insurance voided. This way the driver who did the runner will not get any compensation what so ever and also can cause problems when the innocent driver is claiming. However i am damn sure that you can always argue that the insurance was valid at the point of accident. I just believe this is crazy.

There is no way an insurance company can avoid paying a third party claim because their insured was drunk or did a runner.

Mids_Costcutter

bikingbarney wrote: »

i called the police but as there were no serious injuries they would not come out?

And who decides whether an injury is serious or not? It was my understanding (as others have pointed out) that local police should attend if there is an injury. Might help clear up a few liability issues for the insurance companies too?

Yorkie1

Without getting drawn into liability issues about the accident, I'd just like to make a generic comment to correct something else which was posted back on about page 2.

If anaccident has occurs you do not have the liberty of deciding when within 24 hours to report the accident to the police. You must report it as soon as reasonably practicable - but in any event within 24 hours. This also means attending the police station and not just ringing them.

The rationale for this is to stop people drink driving and only reporting the accident the following day when they are below the legal limit to drive.

bikingbarney

thanks for all the replies.

wife has been to see a doctor as she is having difficulties standing/walking/sitting/sleeping.

she has a trapped nerve in the leg that was against the door that took the impact which according to th doctor is a symptom of a low impact crash.

i have just contacted my insurance and because i do not have legal protection on my insurance they do not do personal injury claims??

is this right??

DaveMacD

They might not, but you're not claiming your insurance. Your insurance is acting on your behalf to claim against the other party. Might want to phone and ask them again to clarify the situation. You are not admitting liability, you are claiming against the other person, as you believe they were 100% at fault. That is what the third party cover is all about.

almillar

Plenty of talk on here so I'll try to be brief. OP was in the right. Only fault of his was not getting away faster from this slow person (and if you saw him poking at his sat nav you should have made sure to get away from the danger zone as quick as possible).
However, lots of people are coming in and advising based on the generic rules of a roundabout. Those generic rules do not apply here, stop trying to apply them. The 'sat nav' driver was in a lane that was straight ahead only. The road markings clearly show what straight ahead means, and all he had to do was keep it between the lines. OP was beside him in a lane marked straight ahead or right, right being carrying on around the 'roundabout' to the next junction. Sat nav man changed lane and hit OP. OP did not hit sat nav man. Sat nav man is at fault.
People are saying that OP should have looked in his mirror/blind spot - OK, at a junction you should be aware of what's going on around you, especially if you've identified a numpty, but OP wasn't changing lane or anything, he was just minding his own business and got hit on the side.
That wasn't brief was it?!