Car Insurance - who's the boss, me or them?

Gloomendoom

Does anyone know the answer to the OP's original question?

Can a policy holder instruct his insurer not to pay?

newbie007_2

Quentin wrote: »

To answer your original question, if you read your policy conditions you will have agreed to let your insurer deal with claims against you as they think fit.

Insurers will always take the most economical way to deal with claims.

Quentin has answered the question already. OP perhaps you need to phone your insurance company and ask this as u dispute the allege fault.

You guys need to lay off the OP, they come to ask a specific question. All you guys do are running your interpretation of road laws, which is not what was asked.

Gene_Hunt_2

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Does anyone know the answer to the OP's original question?

Can a policy holder instruct his insurer not to pay?

Without reading the terms and conditions of his policy we can't say.

mikey72

All the policies I've had appoint the insurers to act on my behalf as they see fit, and contractually I'm obliged to help them.
I don't get a say in it.

newbie007_2

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

Without reading the terms and conditions of his policy we can't say.

Then you are not helping with your posts, just wasting more data space on here.

Gene_Hunt_2

newbie007 wrote: »

Then you are not helping with your posts, just wasting more data space on here.

Likewise.;)

dizzybuff

But at the end of the day the Insurers will go off what is correct and incorrect proceedure on the road , as stated an indicator is exactly that an indication of what you wish to do do , only if it is safe , or in the white vans case ( if they can be bothered ) need they let you in as you have travelled to the end of a merging lane and attempted to barge your way in . Regardless of the fact the traffic was stationary , you and only you should have waitied until it was safe to manuver into the lane . The insurance company have done what they have the right to do . Sorry if its not what you want to hear , but instructing them not to pursue the claim will still result in you having a collision on your record and therefore it WILL effect your future premiums.

The_Cardinal

dizzybuff wrote: »

But at the end of the day the Insurers will go off what is correct and incorrect proceedure on the road , as stated an indicator is exactly that an indication of what you wish to do do , only if it is safe , or in the white vans case ( if they can be bothered ) need they let you in as you have travelled to the end of a merging lane and attempted to barge your way in . Regardless of the fact the traffic was stationary , you and only you should have waitied until it was safe to manuver into the lane . The insurance company have done what they have the right to do . Sorry if its not what you want to hear , but instructing them not to pursue the claim will still result in you having a collision on your record and therefore it WILL effect your future premiums.

It's not that I don't want to hear something, it's your opinion and that is what i asked for. However, I did not attempt to barge in. He originally left a gap then moved forward when I manoeuvred. And he was talking on his mobile telephone. I honestly believe that he wasn't concentrating and simply didn't see that I was merging in.

i'm not sure that I understand your final point though. Surely this collision will be on my record irrespective of what happens?

eyeinthesky

If this driver was coming from behind you, then he was at fault. If he was already alongside you, then you were at fault. The right hand lane merges with the left, so the onus is on the driver in the right hand lane to ensure that they have the space to move into, but also giving way to traffic already in the left hand lane.
Your insurance company will do as they see fit, don't kid yourself that they will have your interests at heart, it will be the most economical route for them. They are only in it for profit at the end of the day!

Woby_Tide

bigjl wrote: »

Since when is wizzing up the empty lane which is about to cease then cutting in front of those in a que of traffic a reasonable act. The quote that strider has posted from the IAM seems to encourage pushing in at the last minute, which surely would make the bottleneck worse,

The only reason it makes it worse is because the British mentality says it's a terribly bad thing and keeps a stiff upper lip and refuses to let anyone merge in an orderly fashion whilst keeping the traffic moving so instead everyoen stops until 1 car gets let in, then the next and it snowballs. If everyone used 2 lanes and then merged 1 car at a time then cars could move at a constantly low speed and the tailback is blatantly going to be shorter, an empty lane means the other queue is longer


In New Zealand they even put it on their Government transport pages. For roads like in the UK (motorways especially) it would work perfectly, if only it weren't for British road users and their appalling manners



Merging

Sometimes on a road, two lanes will merge into one lane.
The lanes merge where the broken lane lines stop. It's important to make sure that all vehicles from both lanes have plenty of space in which to merge safely. The instructions in this section show you how.
Merge like a zip

The best way to merge is like a zip – where a vehicle from the left lane goes and then a vehicle from the right lane goes, and so on.
As you merge, let one vehicle from the other lane go first, and then go.