Just Had A Crash Would Appreciate Some Advice

Cornucopia

The reason why I and others would ensure that the other party was aware of our presence, is to prevent exactly this kind of accident.

You're right - driving at 5mph, blocking the lane, causes a hazard and is discourteous to other road users. It's also unusual. All of that indicates a potentially hazardous situation that required caution. I would also have potentially hooted to indicate that what she was doing was not an acceptable standard of driving.

FWIW, I'm not convinced that the other party's story is going to exonerate her. It's highly unlikely that the OP would strike her vehicle at speed whether through overtaking or not, if she had been positioned/indicating correctly, AND undertaking a maneouvre in which she had right of way. His version seems much more plausible on the face of it, and in most scenarios no one should be maneuvering their vehicle into the path of an oncoming vehicle, irrespective of that vehicle's position on the road.

Hopefully, if the damage is mostly to the side of the other party's vehicle, that would also tend to support the OP's version of events.

UnderPressure

Still waiting to hear back about anything, there is some paperwork on the way for me to fill in and send back in the meantime crashed car is running brilliantly still!

Just been checking out future insurance and the impact on premiums as a result of this claim, in all honesty it is not anywhere near as bad as I thought it would be, interestingly on the gocompare website, when you add a claim to the quote there is no distinction between split liability and completely at fault they seem to only be interested in the amount the claim cost so I used a figure of 2.5k figuring a 56 plate Zafira cannot be worth much more! The result was about 20% increase in premiums on a 53 plate Citroen C8 that I have my beady eye on.

Feeling a bit more positive about the who thing now I just really hope Co Op are fighting my corner to get this recorded as a no fault for me but if not it is nice to know I will not be paying £100+ per month in insurance!

I will keep you posted...........
]

UnderPressure

Oh another thing, Co Op mentioned that if the fault is found to be split or my fault I will end up with 1 years NCD left, now when I replace this car I will get a quote of the Co Op to swap cover as it is not due to expire until March next year, am I right to presume that as they are re-quoting they will take the accident into consideration in the quote? Probably sky rocket the price to try and reclaim some losses? What happens if I then cancel the policy and go elsewhere, will they still give me my 1 year NCD or will I only get that when the policy expires? I am presuming I will get it if I cancel as the penalty if you like for the crash is to lose 2 years NCD, I joined them with 3 so I still have 1 whether I leave them or not, does this sound right?

Thanks

Quentin

If you decide to cancel this policy early bear in mind that you will still have to pay the full year's premium (assuming this claim results in you being held liable in any way)

You will have one year's ncd whenever you end the current policy (assuming no more claims)

UnderPressure

Thanks for the reply Quentin, of course I forgot this would happen, grrr fingers crossed they do not make the premium unachievable, so either way to get my 1 year NCD it is going to cost me around £250 which is still left payable on the old policy or hiked premium with the Co Op until the policy expires, I will just have to weigh it all up when I finally buy a new car I suppose.

In the meantime I will just work on the basis that the Co Op will make new premium too high so I will factor another £250 into the whole equation to get my 1 year NCD.

All this hassle could have been saved for the sake of a decent £150 dashcam! If you do not already have one people get one and quick!

Richard53

If a vehicle is turning off a road, it is 100% the responsibility of the driver to ensure that the manoeuvre is safe. That goes double if the manoeuvre involves turning across a lane of traffic from the kerb, as seems to be the case here. A careful driver, if turning across a road from a kerbside position, would check, check and check again that there was no oncoming traffic (mirror and directly) and then clearly indicate before moving off. If the lady had done that, there would be no way she could have missed the OP's car behind.


My view is that (if the account is correct) the OP is 100% in the right, although I recognise that insurers sometimes settle things in a way that suits them. Having said that, if any vehicle is showing unusual 'body language' such as an inappropriately slow speed or an unexpected road position, I would always be slowing down and expecting something strange. I don't often use the horn, but here the 'audible warning of approach' might have saved a lot of hassle.

Astronaughtwannabe

Richard53 wrote: »

If a vehicle is turning off a road, it is 100% the responsibility of the driver to ensure that the manoeuvre is safe. That goes double if the manoeuvre involves turning across a lane of traffic from the kerb, as seems to be the case here. A careful driver, if turning across a road from a kerbside position, would check, check and check again that there was no oncoming traffic (mirror and directly) and then clearly indicate before moving off. If the lady had done that, there would be no way she could have missed the OP's car behind.


My view is that (if the account is correct) the OP is 100% in the right, although I recognise that insurers sometimes settle things in a way that suits them. Having said that, if any vehicle is showing unusual 'body language' such as an inappropriately slow speed or an unexpected road position, I would always be slowing down and expecting something strange. I don't often use the horn, but here the 'audible warning of approach' might have saved a lot of hassle.

How can it be '100% the responsibility ' of the driver turning off the road AND 'the OP is 100% in the right'?


Your argument puts them both 100% in the wrong, which I suppose taking into account that you think the OP was right as well as wrong, plus the third party was wrong, now leaves this at 50/50?


Well that's alright then. Glad you cleared that up coz the case which will inevitably be cited (Pell v Mosely -see above). ;-)

dannyrst

Richard53 wrote: »

but here the 'audible warning of approach' might have saved a lot of hassle.

This, I would argue, whilst being the appropriate thing to do according to the highway code, would probably cause a struggling driver into panic and potentially cause more of a hazard.

You could similarly have flashed your full beam at the lady prior to overtaking, which, according to the highway code, is to make people aware of your presence. As opposed to it's rather opposite use in the real world, which is "oh please feel free to proceed with your maneuver".

Richard53

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

How can it be '100% the responsibility ' of the driver turning off the road AND 'the OP is 100% in the right'?


Your argument puts them both 100% in the wrong, which I suppose taking into account that you think the OP was right as well as wrong, plus the third party was wrong, now leaves this at 50/50?

Not sure I understand what you are getting at here. Apparently, the other driver didn't observe or indicate, and therefore is in the wrong. The OP is technically in the right, as the responsibility for the safe execution of the manoeuvre was with the person turning. As I said, a more cautious driver might have avoided the accident by being wary of a car driving slowly on the left and not trying to pass them, but that doesn't mean that the collision wasn't wholly the fault of the driver turning across two lanes of traffic without observing or indicating.


Of course, in the real world it will likely go 50/50, but that's not the point I was making.