Car insurance liability dispute UK

cw8825

LightFlare said:

cw8825 said:

Him being in that position hasn’t caused the contact 

If you didn’t swerve. Both cars would have carried on 

it’s unfortunate as if you hadn’t swerved and hit car 3 it would not have been your fault 

pedantically there wouldnt have been an incident if this had happened

I mean the contact between op & car 3
clear fault of car 3 entering into op’s path

whereas by taking avoiding action op has made contact with car 2 yet is at fault

DullGreyGuy

cw8825 said:

LightFlare said:

cw8825 said:

Him being in that position hasn’t caused the contact 

If you didn’t swerve. Both cars would have carried on 

it’s unfortunate as if you hadn’t swerved and hit car 3 it would not have been your fault 

pedantically there wouldnt have been an incident if this had happened

I mean the contact between op & car 3
clear fault of car 3 entering into op’s path

whereas by taking avoiding action op has made contact with car 2 yet is at fault

To be pedantic, and a point of consideration for the OP, there are no giveaway lines on the drawing so it's questionable if car 1 or 3 had right of way. 

In my claims days it became a game changer when people could post a GoogleMaps image of the road and overlay the vehicles. Far too often diagrams were lax which had to be taken at face value. I remember one case where the TP was in their late 80s and their diagram showed a wavy line for their path of travel which crossed the midline multiple times. Is that what they really were trying to show? Did they have motor control issues resulting in the wavy line that was supposed to be straight? Ultimately it supported our policyholders version of events which was that the car was weaving down the road and caused a head on collision when they came onto our side of the road and the TPI settled up shortly after. 

Exodi

It's always interesting to see people recount an accident they were involved in.

For example, the wording of this is quite interesting: "I swerved slightly as the speed was not great becasue the car from the left hand side wanted to engage into the main road I was on. Then, I was hit by the other car"

So you swerved into the other car which caused you to be hit by them? Surely you mean you hit them. Similarly with taking artistic license on drawings.

I'd imagine you won't win this argument. Whenever someone attempts to pull onto a motorway or whatever it happens to be, you have to check your mirrors before swerving to the right. If there is no space you'll have to slow down (you say the speed was not great) to let the car on the right pass before you can move over or completely stop. You can't just swerve into someone and blame them.

Exodi

DullGreyGuy said:

cw8825 said:

LightFlare said:

cw8825 said:

Him being in that position hasn’t caused the contact 

If you didn’t swerve. Both cars would have carried on 

it’s unfortunate as if you hadn’t swerved and hit car 3 it would not have been your fault 

pedantically there wouldnt have been an incident if this had happened

I mean the contact between op & car 3
clear fault of car 3 entering into op’s path

whereas by taking avoiding action op has made contact with car 2 yet is at fault

To be pedantic, and a point of consideration for the OP, there are no giveaway lines on the drawing so it's questionable if car 1 or 3 had right of way. 

In my claims days it became a game changer when people could post a GoogleMaps image of the road and overlay the vehicles. Far too often diagrams were lax which had to be taken at face value. I remember one case where the TP was in their late 80s and their diagram showed a wavy line for their path of travel which crossed the midline multiple times. Is that what they really were trying to show? Did they have motor control issues resulting in the wavy line that was supposed to be straight? Ultimately it supported our policyholders version of events which was that the car was weaving down the road and caused a head on collision when they came onto our side of the road and the TPI settled up shortly after. 

From some of the daytime court programs my partner and I watch it's always quite funny to see the drawings presented from each party.

E.g. how the OP may have perceived the accident vs how car 2 may have perceived it.

 

It's human nature, every person I've ever spoke to that has been involved in an accident feels they were the victim - even where fault was assigned to them (such as the OP), with the rationale that they were cheated somehow. 

It must be tiresome hearing collision cases (but maybe not so since I guess it's mainly defended by solicitors who are not as emotionally slanted).

DullGreyGuy

You need to dig out the Jasper Carrot sketch on claims forms @Exodi, sure someone will have put it on YouTube. Cannot comment if they are all genuine cases obviously but have seen my fair share.

You get them on here too occasionally, like the person that wanted to sue the owner of a parked and unattended vehicle because a drunk driver hit them and pushed their parked car into their vehicle. I had one years ago initially reported simply as "third party hit rear of my car". CCTV showed policyholder rolled down a hill into a stationary car, the person even went to the ombudsman because a policeman had told him it was always the driver behind thats at fault for an accident. 

Did get 2 of our customers blocked from buying future insurance from us... the first one who said the accident was the third parties fault and in the description included that he was on his 4th joint of the day at the time but that it wasnt skunk so he was still fine to drive... the second being an older person who mistook the accelerator for the brake and hit 8 cars in the carpark, an unusual name which rang a bell so a quick check showed he'd done the same 2 months earlier hitting 6 cars that time... he did admit it was fully his fault though. 

Fullprice13

@Exodi the wording is important here. When I say the speed was not great (becasue it was not) is to underline the fact that while swerving I did not travel a long distance. The fact also that I have only a shallow scratch proves that the contact was under very small angle. As for the drawing, me and car 2 were on the main road. Car 2 was not going on lane 2 but was engaging into this lane. I maintain that other car hit me. the driver even admitted that did not have space to avoid me so hit me. Interesting that you bring up motorway exemple and act of checking your mirrors. While getting into motorway you do not have the priority so you check your mirrors. The question here is whether while being in your lane you have the priority on your lane or not. Because if I do not it means that if there is a car passing by with his left wheels on my lane I need to let him pass and he has priority. Long story short is that I think he did not keep the safe distance form me as he was on my 5PM and he stayed (his left wheels) on my lane when I swerved. 

cw8825

Fullprice13 said:

@Exodi the wording is important here. When I say the speed was not great (becasue it was not) is to underline the fact that while swerving I did not travel a long distance. The fact also that I have only a shallow scratch proves that the contact was under very small angle. As for the drawing, me and car 2 were on the main road. Car 2 was not going on lane 2 but was engaging into this lane. I maintain that other car hit me. the driver even admitted that did not have space to avoid me so hit me. Interesting that you bring up motorway exemple and act of checking your mirrors. While getting into motorway you do not have the priority so you check your mirrors. The question here is whether while being in your lane you have the priority on your lane or not. Because if I do not it means that if there is a car passing by with his left wheels on my lane I need to let him pass and he has priority. Long story short is that I think he did not keep the safe distance form me as he was on my 5PM and he stayed (his left wheels) on my lane when I swerved. 

Whilst the best idea. You and car 2 could have driven forever in those positions without making contact

But you needed to  swerve

There’s not a lot you can do to fight this

Fullprice13

@cw8825 in ideal world you cannot drive forever with one side of your car on one lane and other part of your car on the other lane? I guess my point is that yes I swerved but I was still in my lane and he was not in his lane and top of it he was behind me. My understanding is that whatever happens in front of you (as it did in this case for car2) it is your responsability.  

sheramber

So car 2 was in the process of moving into the right hand lane

. Surely he has to travel some distance overlapping both lanes before being fully in the other lane.

Or do you do a 90 degree turn into another lane?

If you hadn’t swerved he would have completed the move to the other lane without incident.

cw8825

Fullprice13 said:

@cw8825 in ideal world you cannot drive forever with one side of your car on one lane and other part of your car on the other lane? I guess my point is that yes I swerved but I was still in my lane and he was not in his lane and top of it he was behind me. My understanding is that whatever happens in front of you (as it did in this case for car2) it is your responsability.  

If you were in the other car and somebody swrvee into you. 

Would you say that was your fault?