Accident- fault in dispute
Comments
-
Warwick_Hunt wrote: »However the third party doesn’t agree, no doubt they see it is the motorcycle overtook a vehicle turning right.
That's not what happened thoughCar pulled out of the queue of traffic onto the other side of the road with the attempt to 'queue jump' four or five cars and carry on her journey down a road to the right
Car pulled out into the oncoming lane to get passed cars waiting in traffic, The incident appeared to have occurred before any right turn was available0 -
The car driver has been described pejoratively as "queue-jumping".
First, she wasn't queue-jumping unless at least one of the vehicles in front was intending to turn right. No-one has suggestd that was the case.
Second, isn't all filtering queue-jumping?0 -
Not sure if anyone answered the OP's original question which in summary was "What happens with a disputed claim?"
While the claim is in dispute then your insurance will be treated as if there has been a successful claim against you. When it gets resolved it will all get put back to the state it would have been. This means you will get higher premiums and so on.
With an uncooperative client, there will come a point where your insurers will say that unless the other insurer can provide evidence to support their case then they will insist on closing the case in your favour. Insurers do depend on the honesty of each other, there is no benefit for an insurer trying to game the system, they'd soon find themselves being on the receiving end of a lack of cooperation.
So my advice is that unfortunately, you may find that you have an expensive renewal, it is usually better to ride it out with your existing company as you may find that after the claim is resolved, the company that provided a lower quote with an accident may be more expensive without a blame accident. It may take several more months but unlikely to drag out beyond a year - so one renewal's worth at worst.
Husband's premium will probably go up regardless, simply due to having had an accident.0 -
glentoran99 wrote: »That's not what happened though
Car pulled out into the oncoming lane to get passed cars waiting in traffic, The incident appeared to have occurred before any right turn was available
Which is in itself a perfectly legal move, unless road markings stated different, which doesn't seem to be the case.0 -
-
TCar pulled out of the queue of traffic onto the other side of the road with the attempt to 'queue jump'
Which is exactly what your husband was doing!
Regardless, this really depends on timing speed of your husband etc etc. Not sure I would necessarily accept blame in this instance. having said that the fact they haven't given their side of the story in a timely manner is wrong.0 -
Shaka_Zulu wrote: »Which is exactly what your husband was doing!
Regardless, this really depends on timing speed of your husband etc etc. Not sure I would necessarily accept blame in this instance. having said that the fact they haven't given their side of the story in a timely manner is wrong.
No he was filtering, quite legal and legitimate.
Would all the car drivers who complain about motorbikes "queue jumping" rather they sat in the queue making the queues that much longer?
The OP has stated that he was going 5-10 mph, so that is all we can go on.
The car driver pulled out without signalling (again according to the OP, again the only account we can judge/comment on) and obviously without properly checking their mirrors or blind spot as the bike was already along side the car when they made their manoeuvre.
It's no surprise that is so much aggravation given to motorcyclists when people (some of them on here, one who is I believe is a driving instructor :eek:) have the attitude that they are queue jumping and cheating, with people deliberately moving to close gaps, trying to push you off as you go past, shouting and swearing and generally being dicks for no other reason than someone is making better time than them and not sitting in traffic.
Bit pathetic really. :T0 -
RichardD1970 wrote: »No he was filtering, quite legal and legitimate.
Would all the car drivers who complain about motorbikes "queue jumping" rather they sat in the queue making the queues that much longer?
Just to be clear, I was not complaining about motorcyclists, simply pointing out an inconsistency. A motorcyclist making progress quite legitimately is "filtering". A car driver seeking to do the same is "queue-jumping", even when no-one in the queue is inconvenienced or disadvantaged.0 -
no-one in the queue is inconvenienced or disadvantaged.
Except the motorcyclist she hit and herself in doing so.
When learning to drive we are all taught to check our mirrors and blind spot before moving off, changing direction or speed. Motorcyclists are taught the same but it's called a lifesaver, because that's what it does. Observations are the most important thing. You are so much more vulnerable on a bike than in a car. A low speed collision on a bike can break bones, write off your vehicle and destroy protective equipment; a lot of hassle a lot of money. The same low speed collision in a car suffers a dent. and let's not mention the impact of high speed collisions.
As such, all bikers I know, are consistent in observing. Car drivers do become a little complacent with observations, blind spot checks in particular. I know I have been guilty of that at times, before I learnt to ride a bike. However I can guarantee my husband checked his blind spot and made observations before and during filtering.
We can argue all we like as to the difference between him filtering and her overtaking. My hubby and her will argue as to whether she was indicating. He says not. My view is that she MAY have. However IF she did, but did so last minute (given her intentions she was probably in a rush) it is likely they would not have been seen (hubby was well over half way past her car when she manoeuvred) . If hubby had seen indications he would not have filtered past.
However it comes down to this: she did not see him. Had she looked in her mirrors and blind spot she WOULD have seen him. Had she done so she would not have moved her car out. Had she done so both parties would have safely made the progress they intend to make (and were entitled to make). However you are not entitled to move your vehicle ANYWHERE unless you check it is safe to do so first. She did not check. It was not safe.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards