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

Emmylou_2

Woby_Tide wrote: »

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.

I *try* to do this, it just seems like common sense. 20 cars in two lanes, merging in turn, is a shorter queue than 18 cars in one lane not letting 2 cars in from the other lane.

And when you're not merging, just changing lane etc, you get total idiots who think that because they've flicked their indicator on for a nanosecond, that they're absolutely entitled to be where you are.

Or people who think that because you're driving to the speed limit in the right hand lane of a dual carriageway (with the left lane full of artics/caravans/people toodling along at 50) that you're not quite going fast enough for them, and that the easiest way to get you out of your way is to put full beam on and try and ingratiate themselves into your boot. Because of course, that doesn't make me slow to 1/2 a mile an hour below the limit* and hold that speed.

*until, of course, a suitable gap comes up in the left lane, at which point I'll pull into it and wave sweetly at them...

Gordon_Hose

Had a similar situation with a woman merging into my lane at roadworks. I'd let a Merc merge in front of me, and expected her to merge behind me, instead she drove into the side of me, and tried to tell me I should have given way to the right (mega-LOLz!). The Police and eventually, her insurers, both agreed that because she was merging into my lane, she was at fault.

Another time I was changing lanes from right to left, checked my mirrors and blind spot to make sure it was clear to move, indicated and started to move across to the left lane, and blam...some chav in a Fiesta, speeding through town, hit me in the side. The Police and eventually, my insurer, both agreed that because I was changing lanes it was my fault.

So to the OP, unfortunately for you, your insurers have got it right and should be paying out.

The_Cardinal

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Had a similar situation with a woman merging into my lane at roadworks. I'd let a Merc merge in front of me, and expected her to merge behind me, instead she drove into the side of me, and tried to tell me I should have given way to the right (mega-LOLz!). The Police and eventually, her insurers, both agreed that because she was merging into my lane, she was at fault.

Another time I was changing lanes from right to left, checked my mirrors and blind spot to make sure it was clear to move, indicated and started to move across to the left lane, and blam...some chav in a Fiesta, speeding through town, hit me in the side. The Police and eventually, my insurer, both agreed that because I was changing lanes it was my fault.

So to the OP, unfortunately for you, your insurers have got it right and should be paying out.

I hear what you're saying. Unfortunately I cannot prove that the fella was on the phone. My original question was simply to try and understand whether I can instruct my insurer that they should not pay any claim. It would appear from the replies that I cannot. However, I will give it a go. Whatever happens, it seems like the insurer will pay out to the other bloke (although I understand that no claim has been made at this point), so it makes no odds whether I try it or not.

Luckily I've got protected NCD, so it's not that bad.

dizzybuff

The_Cardinal wrote: »

I hear what you're saying. Unfortunately I cannot prove that the fella was on the phone. My original question was simply to try and understand whether I can instruct my insurer that they should not pay any claim. It would appear from the replies that I cannot. However, I will give it a go. Whatever happens, it seems like the insurer will pay out to the other bloke (although I understand that no claim has been made at this point), so it makes no odds whether I try it or not.

Luckily I've got protected NCD, so it's not that bad.

You have it in your head that you were not at fault and i dont think anyone will be able to change your mind.

The fact that the driver was on his phone and you cant prove it is irrelevant as you dont have a witness and cant prove it . Just pay up and be done. Next time just make sure the person is actually letting you in , he may not have seen you , he may have been on his phone , we only have your word for it . He is higher than you so you could have been in his blind spot, from driving vans there are loads believe me.

Gene_Hunt_2

dizzybuff wrote: »

You have it in your head that you were not at fault and i dont think anyone will be able to change your mind.

The fact that the driver was on his phone and you cant prove it is irrelevant as you dont have a witness and cant prove it . Just pay up and be done. Next time just make sure the person is actually letting you in , he may not have seen you , he may have been on his phone , we only have your word for it . He is higher than you so you could have been in his blind spot, from driving vans there are loads believe me.

Well said.;)

The_Cardinal

dizzybuff wrote: »

You have it in your head that you were not at fault and i dont think anyone will be able to change your mind.

The fact that the driver was on his phone and you cant prove it is irrelevant as you dont have a witness and cant prove it . Just pay up and be done. Next time just make sure the person is actually letting you in , he may not have seen you , he may have been on his phone , we only have your word for it . He is higher than you so you could have been in his blind spot, from driving vans there are loads believe me.

Actually Dizzybuff, you have completely misunderstood what I have written. My point is that I can't prove it. I know that. However, that doesn't stop me telling the insurance company that I do not want them to pay. I know that the bloke was on the phone and I know that he left me a gap and then drove into me. It doesn't really matter whether you think that I'm to blame or not. All I asked was what I could say to the insurance company and I now have the answer. They will pay up whatever I say if they think that I was to blame. That's the end of it. Stop wasting your time having a go at me.

The_Cardinal

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

Well said.;)

Oh Gene Hunt with a capital C, you really are a sad, sad man. Haven't you got anything better to do?

Gene_Hunt_2

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

So to the OP, unfortunately for you, your insurers have got it right and should be paying out.

He didn't come one here to hear that.

Correct all the same though. I think he should name his insurance company. Too many only get bad press, this one sounds like they have a grip on reality.:T

The_Cardinal

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

He didn't come one here to hear that.

Correct all the same though. I think he should name his insurance company. Too many only get bad press, this one sounds like they have a grip on reality.:T

Gene Hunt with a capital C, you really haven't got anything better to do have you! Can't you access the !!!!!! sites at the moment?

dacouch

Whether the other driver was on the phone makes sweet fa difference to liability, if you are liable due to the rules of the road then you are liable.