Insurance settle 50/50 but im not at fault!

Norman_Castle

guy.laister wrote: »

The other bloke by his own admission was still accelerating.

Admitted to who?

It appears these head on, single lane claims are generally settled as 50/50 presumably because there is generally little evidence. Your video is good evidence of both drivers speed which the insurers should treat accordingly.

For insurers settling 50/50 is an easy option but for motorists it leaves two drivers loosing their ncb instead of one. If 50/50 claims only reduced ncb by 50% of 100/0 at fault claims, would insurers still be so keen on them?

maddogb

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Admitted to who?

It appears these head on, single lane claims are generally settled as 50/50 presumably because there is generally little evidence. Your video is good evidence of both drivers speed which the insurers should treat accordingly.

For insurers settling 50/50 is an easy option but for motorists it leaves two drivers loosing their ncb instead of one. If 50/50 claims only reduced ncb by 50% of 100/0 at fault claims, would insurers still be so keen on them?

don't forget the two excess deductions as well, good idea about the 50/50 ncb

Quentin

maddogb wrote: »

don't forget the two excess deductions as well, .......

You don't seem to understand how this works.

The situation with the excesses in a 50/50 as far as the 2 drivers are concerned is that they only end up paying 50% of their excess.


That is because they both can claim back 50% of all their uninsured losses from the other side

PPPro

guy.laister wrote: »

...

The road is a public road, ...
The other driver was driving in a car that had no MOT....

This is why I asked.

The other car's MOT had expired, and it actually failed a new test the day before the collision.
Also the other car was SORN at the time (so not taxed)

I'm surprised the police didn't nick him for both offences, yet you said they are thinking about charging him with careless driving.

The police don't make the decision to charge; the CPS do. If the police were planning on asking the CPS to make that decsion, they would also have arrested him for that at the time.

This raises the question as to why the police have not done any of this.

PPPro

Marktheshark wrote: »

You both failed to stop in time .
Its 50/50

I was giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, and presumed they had come to a complete stop before imparct, but by the OP's latest admission, I think you are correct.

guy.laister wrote: »

... I was only traveling at 15-20mph, and prior to impact around 5mph. ...

Norman_Castle

I was giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, and presumed they had come to a complete stop before imparct, but by the OP's latest admission, I think you are correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy.laister
... I was only traveling at 15-20mph, and prior to impact around 5mph. ...

If his speed went from 20 mph to zero then at some point prior to impact he would be doing 5mph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy.laister
Imanaged to stop,

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy.laister
I always make sure I can stop, as I did in this video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy.laister
But play it frame by frame I stopped in time before impact.

chanz4

It would be very hard to prove full liability and too risky in court hence 50 /50. The mot by the way is a red herring