car crash update and advice needed please!!

anewman

And of course it is not illegal to change lanes, but it is not such a good idea to do so without indicating and where you may collide with another vehicle or cause a vehicle to collide with you. Much easier to feel like the idiot you are and take the exit and come back for another try.

bikingbarney

Doozergirl i have this photo ................



this clearly shows the lane markings .

I also have this one looking back at the scene ...........



this one also shows the markings and that i was quite within my rights to take the outside lane of the dual carriage way from the middle lane at the lights. It even shows the markings for his lane going off up the inside lane too.

with regards to the court case....

The first i knew about it was when the wife phoned me in tears whilst i was serving in the falklands for 4 months, she had a letter from cheshire court saying that the other chap was taking us to court for the damges to his car and loss of earnings plus inerest.

up until then i thought the insurance was still sorting it out, so i phoned them and explained and then they appointed me a solicitor. I gave her all the info and photos and she got on with it.

As i said i spoke to her a few days agao and she told me that the solicitor for his side isnt part of his insurance but a no win no fee group .

surely his insurance would of paid for the repairs to his car??

anewman

bikingbarney wrote: »

surely his insurance would of paid for the repairs to his car??

Probably not unless he had fully comp insurance. Minimum legal insurance requirement is third party which means if you crash into someone else's car they can claim costs off you. It should really have been settled with the insurance, not a no win no fee solicitor. I really cannot see why they have taken on this case as I thought the whole idea of no win no fee was to take on cases that would win. This seems very much like one with little to no prospect of winning, i.e. he drove in to you.

Strider590

From the above images it appears that the left lane is to go toward Rubery, whilst the middle lane can go to Rubery OR carry on round.

The guy seriously has no leg to stand on im afraid, from the middle lane you'd have even been ok to turn left... He clearly wasn't paying attention and the road markings show this.

The road markings HAVE changed, BUT either before or after this, he was still wrong.

It'll get laughed out of court in your favour.

backfoot

Strider590 wrote: »

From the above images it appears that the left lane is to go toward Rubery, whilst the middle lane can go to Rubery OR carry on round.

The guy seriously has no leg to stand on im afraid, from the middle lane you'd have even been ok to turn left... He clearly wasn't paying attention and the road markings show this.

The road markings HAVE changed, BUT either before or after this, he was still wrong.

It'll get laughed out of court in your favour.

I love the definitive advice.

If you had read the thread,you would know that this is what the OP said what happened.

Wig

The 50/50 case can be seen here
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/354.html

And there are significant differences
Grace hit Tanner's rear quarter, as Tanner had turned completely across Grace's path. Grace was behind Tanner and was said to be going too fast to stop. There were no traffic lights and there were (as I see it) no lane markings.

The (previous) judge said -and the current Judges agreed with her-:
Mrs Tanner went on to the roundabout in one lane. She remained in that same lane, going round the roundabout
the mechanics of this collision are that the motorcycle went into the side of the car.
I find that Mrs Tanner missed her turning, as many people do. She kept to her same lane. She made no sudden movements

In the OP case, I think I'm right when I say they were waiting at those red lights. So they all had a clear view of the road ahead and that the roundabout was a marked lane roundabout. The judge could not say here IMHO that the culprit stayed in the same lane. They had directional arrows to tell them what the lane was for in advance and ahead of them were the white dashed lane markings. They all set off from the green lights together. The mechanics of this accident is clearly that the culprit moved across into the OPs lane causing a front side impact of both cars not a head on impact into the rear quarter side of the other car as in Grace v Tanner. Speed cannot be said to be an issue here because they were all stopped at the lights. There is very little similarity between the two cases.

In addition I found another bike forum talking about the same thing, the opposing solicitors were quoting Grace v Tanner and offering 50:50, The OP in that case wasn't accepting it and refused to accept any blame. In the end he won, the other side had dropped their case and it never went to court. I don't know, however, what the exact details of that case were lane markings/speed/indicators etc and it is impossible to find out as the original thread was removed.

I also should say, OP, best to get the camera out whilst the vehicles are in situ, I know it holds the other traffic up, but you have to think of yourself in these situations. Don't move the cars until they have been photographed.

backfoot

Strider590 wrote: »

But then the OP would have been cutting someone else up...... Bbecause all lanes move over one to the left at that point in order to open up a new lane at the inside of the island.

I am talking of the actual A38N to Rubery. It is a dual carriageway.
If as the OP has said in his evidence he wanted to get past the other driver,it was much safer for him to have done so on that long stretch of dual carriageway.He has said he was completely familiar with the route.

This is one of the difficulties for the OP. He feels he was completely entitled to leave the exit from the middle lane because the road markings encourage it. Equally,for someone who doesn't know the area, the straight ahead arrow gives an ambiguous message in this case. The other driver obviously felt so and many others have said it was better with a left turn only arrow (as it was before).

Both drivers owed a duty of care and having used this road many times, I would not have attempted the manouvre that the OP did. Did the OP signal? If he did, then the other driver may have been warned.If he didn't then,he could equally assume that the OP was heading on further round the island from that middle lane.

Negligence will be attributed on a number of factors not just road markings.

anewman

backfoot wrote: »

Did the OP signal? If he did, then the other driver may have been warned.If he didn't then,he could equally assume that the OP was heading on further round the island from that middle lane.

Equally you cannot expect the OP to drive into the vehicle to the right of him to avoid the idiot who can't use his mirrors driving into the lane he is in. Even if the OP were to follow the other way the other driver could still not possibly have avoided colliding with him. I agree that if he were signalling it would be more ammo for the case.

Two words - Lane discipline. Some driving test faults...

Lane discipline:

• Chooses incorrect lane when proceeding ahead at roundabouts or traffic lights.
• Does not keep to the selected lane where the roundabout can support two lanes of traffic.
• Uses overtaking lanes on dual carriageways for normal driving
• Straddles lane markings.
• Wanders back and forwards from one lane to the other.

from http://www.theorytestadvice.co.uk/driving-test/marking/positioning.htm

backfoot

anewman wrote: »

Equally you cannot expect the OP to drive into the vehicle to the right of him to avoid the idiot who can't use his mirrors driving into the lane he is in. Even if the OP were to follow the other way the other driver could still not possibly have avoided colliding with him. I agree that if he were signalling it would be more ammo for the case.

Two words - Lane discipline. Some driving test faults...
[/LIST]from http://www.theorytestadvice.co.uk/driving-test/marking/positioning.htm

Hi anewman ,

We are normally as one on joint topics. I still think that this is a difficult case.

I don't think any of your lane discipline list necessarily applies to the other driver. If you have ever driven round this roundabout it is not as clear cut as is made out by some here.

I also don't think assuming anyone is an idiot is helpful. We only have one version of events here and some photographs.We don't know the other sides evidence. I can see a lot of merit in the OP's case but I also detect some weakness.

One of the photos shows a line of traffic from the middle going straight on. I find it very unusual for a driver to be exiting to the left from that middle lane. I wouldn't do it.

What were the relative speeds of each vehicle? Why, if they pulled up at the lights together and the OP wanted to get past him, were they still level at the exit?

Anyway, I think I have contributed what I can and the OP can take it on board or not.

I still think a Court would award 50/50.

bikingbarney

At the end of the day i didnt cross any road markings into someone elses lane.... he did.