How to avoid 50/50 car Insurers settlement?

bery_451

DavidFx wrote: »

So you were travelling down Great Barr Street and turning left into Glover Street and the car tried to undertake you? There's no room to do this unless they were prepared to drive over the pavement. There would be room to undertake if you were stationary in the centre of the junction - i.e if you were turning right into Montague Street

There is room because 3rd party car used the side glover street space to undertake. Lucky I checked my left wing mirror and spotted the idiot before I was about to turn left otherwise it would have been a bigger mess.

Is it illegal for drivers to not to keep in their lane and use the side street as space before undertaking?

bery_451

Even when the 3rd party used the side glover street room to undertake there still wasn't enough room and hence caught my car.

For the sake of the argument whether I was turning left or right the 3rd party isn't allowed to undertake on a narrow lane like this and should have waited for me to finish making my turn making the pathway and lane clear for him to continue.

If this was a bigger lane and had a white right lane directional arrow paint directions on it and if I was on the right arrow direction taking a right then there would be enough room for the 3rd party driver to continue going straight.

Nasqueron

bery your scenario makes no sense, if you were indicating to go left, the only way he could hit you on the left of your car as you describe is by mounting the pavement first. In that scenario if you were turning left he'd have hit you with the front of his car somewhere on the side of yours

Looking at street view, Glover Street is simply far too narrow for a car to even attempt to go around a moving car that is slowing to turn left - it's about a car length wide.

The big building on Glover Street with the car park parallel with the road (on the left) clearly has CCTV installed on it (if you use the newer view, not the one with the works going on)

You'll need to explain to the insurers where the damage is on both cars and see if they agree with your view. I'd imagine if you were in the middle of the lane, turning right, he'd still be at fault trying to cut past you in such a manner but there the damage would be 2 cars scraping alongside each other

bery_451

Yeah I emailed his insurance company the photos. Just waiting for their reply and keep you guys updated.

In the meantime as I already stated I reported it to the police via 101 and got a log reference number.

Should I doubt that the police won't do their investigative job because they are too lazy to request cctv? If so how do I obtain cctv footage myself or do I have to ask my solicitor to ask for it?

Can the commercial buildings have the right to refuse releasing cctv?

forgotmyname

The police wont investigate a minor traffic incident.

And looking at the road layout fail to see how anyone could undertake, what does "side glover street room" mean?

It appears the only way for them to be on your left is if they were on the pavement as mentioned or you were turning right and changed your mind.

It wouldnt take much to convince my insurance that you were 100% at fault never mind 50/50.

What CCTV footage are they going to ask for? where is the CCTV?

DavidFx

OK, I'll play devil's advocate here and guess the statement from the other driver.

' I was following a car up Great Barr Street - when it arrived at the crossroads with Glover Street it indicated right and stopped in the middle of the junction waiting to turn. I was waiting behind it for a while due to the heavy traffic. I then realised there was room to pass the vehicle on the left. As I slowly passed the vehicle, it started to turn left and collided with me. '

This sounds more plausible than your account so 50:50 may be a good outcome for you.

Nasqueron

forgotmyname wrote: »

What CCTV footage are they going to ask for? where is the CCTV?

If you look on the street view of the road there is CCTV on the big building on the corner - there are 2 passes of the road, the older one has yellow railings around the old building, the newer one (if you click onto Glover Street) has a reburbished building with new tarmac for parking etc - on the corner there are a couple of cameras

rtho782

Weren't you checking your left mirror before turning left? A bicycle or motorcyclist or pedestrian could have been there.

Having an indicator on doesn't give you right of way. You are responsible for looking. If you had not turned there would have been no accident.

Nasqueron

rtho782 wrote: »

Weren't you checking your left mirror before turning left? A bicycle or motorcyclist or pedestrian could have been there.

Having an indicator on doesn't give you right of way. You are responsible for looking. If you had not turned there would have been no accident.

IF (big if) the scenario is as he described, the car that hit him would have had to mount the pavement and drive along it, probably scraping along the fence to undertake him, it would be such a ludicrous move I can't believe it would have happened. The road is very narrow and a car could not realistically pass on the left so not looking in the mirror would be understandable.

I think it's more likely he was turning right and then changed his mind and turned left without looking as you suggest

mattk_180

It's not about what's plausible, it's about what can be proved. If you can prove it, then third party insurers will have to pay the claim in full.


If you can't, then it's your claim against theirs and will be settled 50/50.


No other way around it really.