Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Programmer
    • By Programmer 4th Jul 18, 3:24 PM
    • 26Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Programmer
    Son's motor accident - how to settle
    • #1
    • 4th Jul 18, 3:24 PM
    Son's motor accident - how to settle 4th Jul 18 at 3:24 PM
    I've just had a phone call from my 25 year old son. He was turning right on to a main road in fairly slow moving traffic. Somebody let him in but he had to nose forward slowly as visibility was impeded by a lorry. A motorcyclist hit the car and the rider came off. Police and ambulance were called. Brief facts:


    * no damage to car apart from minor paint scuffing
    * some damage to bike; some instruments a bit loose and handles slightly out of alignment, but rideable
    * rider not seriously hurt but paramedic said he could possibly have a sprained ankle; rider was happy to continue his journey to work (on the bike)
    * after speaking to a witness, policeman said no obvious offence had been committed and said police would take no further action; invited son and rider to sort it out between themselves or with insurers
    * my son remembered his Dad's previous advice and did not offer any apologies or admit blame (that's my boy! )



    My son said there was no hostility and they shook hands. On the question of blame, he was unsure. He thought the rider was going too fast, considering he was approaching traffic lights. and the bike hit him, he didn't hit the bike. ...but was my son nudging forward too quickly? Hard to say.



    In the post-accident conversation the rider said the damage to the bike would be 300 max (bike value 1000) and invited my son to pay the garage bill, in which case (he said) he would make no insurance claim, either for the bike or his ankle. My son invited him to let him know the cost but made no commitment. The insurers already know about this offer, by the way. The black box in my son's car registered the impact and they were on the phone immediately. The insurer's initial advice is for my son to pay the garage bill, in which case (they say) the incident will be treated as a non-event and have no impact on future premiums.



    My son now wants my advice. My first thought was he should pay this garage bill and keep the whole matter out of the hands of the insurers. But I'm having second thoughts. This bike rider SAYS he will not take further action if his bike repair costs are met, but what is to stop him settling in front of the TV in the afternoon, watching an ad put out by some firm of ambulance-chasing solicitors, and immediately rushing out to buy a walking frame, neck brace, crutches and other where-there's-a-blame-there's-a-claim requisites, then phoning the 0800 number, pound signs flashing in his revolving eyeballs? And if my son pays this bill, could that be taken as an admission of responsibility is some future compensation claim?


    By the way, the 300 approx would be easily affordable and not a problem.
Page 1
    • Alter ego
    • By Alter ego 4th Jul 18, 3:32 PM
    • 2,452 Posts
    • 2,420 Thanks
    Alter ego
    • #2
    • 4th Jul 18, 3:32 PM
    • #2
    • 4th Jul 18, 3:32 PM
    Insurance companies never treat incidents as non events.
    Ignore me if you like, it's not the real me anyway.
    • caprikid1
    • By caprikid1 4th Jul 18, 3:40 PM
    • 655 Posts
    • 641 Thanks
    caprikid1
    • #3
    • 4th Jul 18, 3:40 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Jul 18, 3:40 PM
    Going to fast is rarely provable.


    Sounds like your son pulled into moving traffic when it was not clear to do so.


    I would be wary of paying for the bike on the side when the rider has already said he was injured.


    As above I would not believe the insurance Re NON EVENT.
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 4th Jul 18, 3:44 PM
    • 2,017 Posts
    • 1,384 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    • #4
    • 4th Jul 18, 3:44 PM
    • #4
    • 4th Jul 18, 3:44 PM
    As your son was entering the road, the onus is on him to ensure his entrance is unimpeded. I suspect that your son is at fault. Keeping schtum might save him money but it could get quite messy.

    The fact that the bike hit him is likely irrelevant since the bike will have had priority.
    • Ant555
    • By Ant555 4th Jul 18, 3:45 PM
    • 860 Posts
    • 344 Thanks
    Ant555
    • #5
    • 4th Jul 18, 3:45 PM
    • #5
    • 4th Jul 18, 3:45 PM
    The insurer's initial advice is for my son to pay the garage bill, in which case (they say) the incident will be treated as a non-event and have no impact on future premiums.
    Just out of interest, which black box insurer is advising you to settle the claim directly?

    How much is the excess? - if its about the same then go through the insurance as this protects you and is exactly what you have possibly paid a lot of cash for in premiums anyway.

    It WILL go down as an incident against your son and likely increase future premiums regardless of which option you choose now despite what they say. The incident WILL be recorded by them on the mystical insurance 'CUE' database of everything and can be seen by all future insurers so when asked 'have you had any claims or incidents regardless of fault in the last x years?' - the truthful answer is now 'yes'

    Hope this helps
    Last edited by Ant555; 04-07-2018 at 4:02 PM.
    • neilmcl
    • By neilmcl 4th Jul 18, 4:13 PM
    • 11,619 Posts
    • 8,400 Thanks
    neilmcl
    • #6
    • 4th Jul 18, 4:13 PM
    • #6
    • 4th Jul 18, 4:13 PM
    Which side was the biker coming from? Juts because someone "let him in" it's still your son's full responsibility to enter the road when it's clear to so and take full care and consideration when doing so.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 4th Jul 18, 5:37 PM
    • 3,303 Posts
    • 2,053 Thanks
    Car 54
    • #7
    • 4th Jul 18, 5:37 PM
    • #7
    • 4th Jul 18, 5:37 PM
    * after speaking to a witness, policeman said no obvious offence had been committed
    Originally posted by Programmer

    Strange. Failure to comply with a traffic sign seems obvious.


    RTA 1988 section 36.
    • AndyMc.....
    • By AndyMc..... 4th Jul 18, 5:43 PM
    • 2,341 Posts
    • 1,429 Thanks
    AndyMc.....
    • #8
    • 4th Jul 18, 5:43 PM
    • #8
    • 4th Jul 18, 5:43 PM
    Strange. Failure to comply with a traffic sign seems obvious.


    RTA 1988 section 36.
    Originally posted by Car 54
    No it's not.
    Hi there! Weve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if youre unsure why its been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Programmer
    • By Programmer 4th Jul 18, 5:47 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Programmer
    • #9
    • 4th Jul 18, 5:47 PM
    • #9
    • 4th Jul 18, 5:47 PM
    Just out of interest, which black box insurer is advising you to settle the claim directly?

    How much is the excess? - if its about the same then go through the insurance as this protects you and is exactly what you have possibly paid a lot of cash for in premiums anyway.

    It WILL go down as an incident against your son and likely increase future premiums regardless of which option you choose now despite what they say. The incident WILL be recorded by them on the mystical insurance 'CUE' database of everything and can be seen by all future insurers so when asked 'have you had any claims or incidents regardless of fault in the last x years?' - the truthful answer is now 'yes'

    Hope this helps
    Originally posted by Ant555

    I'm pretty sure his insurer is Hastings. Not sure the excess comes into it...do you pay an excess if someone claims against you? My son will not be claiming as he has suffered no significant damage. I think the excess is 250
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 4th Jul 18, 5:48 PM
    • 17,305 Posts
    • 10,444 Thanks
    motorguy
    Expect the motor bike rider to go home, think about it, claim for injury at ,'s, possible loss of earnings at ,s and the insurance company will probably write his bike off valued at 1,000.

    There is no way to contain this and a claim could come months or years down the line. I'd be 99.999% certain your son wont get away with just a 300 cash payment.
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
    • Programmer
    • By Programmer 4th Jul 18, 5:52 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Programmer
    Strange. Failure to comply with a traffic sign seems obvious.


    RTA 1988 section 36.
    Originally posted by Car 54

    I'm told the policeman took account of the lorry blocking his view, presumably confirmed by the witness.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 4th Jul 18, 6:03 PM
    • 17,305 Posts
    • 10,444 Thanks
    motorguy
    I've just had a phone call from my 25 year old son. He was turning right on to a main road in fairly slow moving traffic. Somebody let him in but he had to nose forward slowly as visibility was impeded by a lorry. A motorcyclist hit the car and the rider came off. Police and ambulance were called. Brief facts:


    * no damage to car apart from minor paint scuffing
    * some damage to bike; some instruments a bit loose and handles slightly out of alignment, but rideable
    * rider not seriously hurt but paramedic said he could possibly have a sprained ankle; rider was happy to continue his journey to work (on the bike)
    * after speaking to a witness, policeman said no obvious offence had been committed and said police would take no further action; invited son and rider to sort it out between themselves or with insurers
    * my son remembered his Dad's previous advice and did not offer any apologies or admit blame (that's my boy! )



    My son said there was no hostility and they shook hands. On the question of blame, he was unsure. He thought the rider was going too fast, considering he was approaching traffic lights. and the bike hit him, he didn't hit the bike. ...but was my son nudging forward too quickly? Hard to say.



    In the post-accident conversation the rider said the damage to the bike would be 300 max (bike value 1000) and invited my son to pay the garage bill, in which case (he said) he would make no insurance claim, either for the bike or his ankle. My son invited him to let him know the cost but made no commitment. The insurers already know about this offer, by the way. The black box in my son's car registered the impact and they were on the phone immediately. The insurer's initial advice is for my son to pay the garage bill, in which case (they say) the incident will be treated as a non-event and have no impact on future premiums.



    My son now wants my advice. My first thought was he should pay this garage bill and keep the whole matter out of the hands of the insurers. But I'm having second thoughts. This bike rider SAYS he will not take further action if his bike repair costs are met, but what is to stop him settling in front of the TV in the afternoon, watching an ad put out by some firm of ambulance-chasing solicitors, and immediately rushing out to buy a walking frame, neck brace, crutches and other where-there's-a-blame-there's-a-claim requisites, then phoning the 0800 number, pound signs flashing in his revolving eyeballs? And if my son pays this bill, could that be taken as an admission of responsibility is some future compensation claim?


    By the way, the 300 approx would be easily affordable and not a problem.
    Originally posted by Programmer
    Its registered with the insurance company now anyway, so if your son "gets away with" paying a 300 garage bill then thats a result all round.

    Its going to be a waiting game.....
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
    • tacpot12
    • By tacpot12 4th Jul 18, 6:11 PM
    • 1,380 Posts
    • 1,186 Thanks
    tacpot12
    I would suggest that the rider could be at fault: if son pulled out into the main road, and stopped because he could not see whether it was clear to turn into the carriageway, and was stationary for 60 seconds, and the rider didn't notice him and just ploughed into the side, then I would say the rider was at fault. But that probably isn't what happened here: son was probably still edging forward when the rider hit him; the rider had no time to see/avoid/sound horn. I would take the rider at face value, most motorcyclists are reasonable - he will have seen the very low speed that son was edging forward and understand that he was not being reckless.
    • macman
    • By macman 4th Jul 18, 6:12 PM
    • 42,686 Posts
    • 17,954 Thanks
    macman
    Your son was turning right, so he didn't have priority. He continued his turn, even though his visibility was impeded by a lorry. The fact that an oncoming car allowed him to make the turn does not alter the priority for any other vehicles. Unless the bike was breaking the speed limit, which you can't prove, and which would only be a contributory factor.
    I can't see that he really has any defence.
    I'm surprised that if the car had no more than a scuff, that the telematics box detected an impact?
    No free lunch, and no free laptop
    • prowla
    • By prowla 4th Jul 18, 6:26 PM
    • 10,074 Posts
    • 8,294 Thanks
    prowla
    I had an accident a while back:
    • I was driving on my side of the road, approaching some lights.
    • There was a side street on the opposite side of the road and an oncoming driver in the queue there had left a gap.
    • A person came out of the side street and ran into the side of my car.
    • It was their responsibility to ensure that it was safe to pull out.
    • The accident was entirely their fault.
    It seems to me that this was similar, except that there was a lorry blocking the view, so it would have been unsafe to pull out blind.


    As for the biker speeding, I suspect there would have been more damage (and possibly injury) had that been the case.


    Now, my son had a minor bump a few years back and the person he ran into was good enough to give him a break and let me settle (there was no damage at all).


    It's good of the biker, and I hope he does turn out to be genuine.
    • Nobbie1967
    • By Nobbie1967 4th Jul 18, 6:33 PM
    • 796 Posts
    • 878 Thanks
    Nobbie1967
    In exchange for the 300, get the rider to sign a disclaimer that the 300 is in full and final settlement of the incident. Without legal advice I'm not sure this is watertight, but will give you an idea if they do actually intend to claim later once they've got 300 cash in their pocket.
    • Programmer
    • By Programmer 4th Jul 18, 7:17 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Programmer
    I had an accident a while back:
    • I was driving on my side of the road, approaching some lights.
    • There was a side street on the opposite side of the road and an oncoming driver in the queue there had left a gap.
    • A person came out of the side street and ran into the side of my car.
    • It was their responsibility to ensure that it was safe to pull out.
    • The accident was entirely their fault.
    It seems to me that this was similar, except that there was a lorry blocking the view, so it would have been unsafe to pull out blind.


    As for the biker speeding, I suspect there would have been more damage (and possibly injury) had that been the case.


    Now, my son had a minor bump a few years back and the person he ran into was good enough to give him a break and let me settle (there was no damage at all).


    It's good of the biker, and I hope he does turn out to be genuine.
    Originally posted by prowla
    I'm pretty sure that it says either in the Highway Code or that book 'Driving' published by the old Ministry of Transport, that when you do not have a clear view of a lane you are turning in to, it is permissible to move your car forward until you can see round any obstruction. After all, what else can you do? The obstruction might be a parked car. You can't sit and wait for the owner to return and drive it away. The bike wasn't speeding, but may have been going too fast considering adjacent traffic lights....will be clearer when I have made my next post.....
    • cajef
    • By cajef 4th Jul 18, 7:17 PM
    • 4,845 Posts
    • 3,884 Thanks
    cajef
    I'm told the policeman took account of the lorry blocking his view, presumably confirmed by the witness.
    Originally posted by Programmer
    You are told this by who?
    I used to have a handle on life, but it broke.
    • Programmer
    • By Programmer 4th Jul 18, 7:21 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Programmer
    You are told this by who?
    Originally posted by cajef

    This is from a phone conversation with my son; unfortunately I was not there
    • building with lego
    • By building with lego 4th Jul 18, 7:59 PM
    • 2,332 Posts
    • 5,716 Thanks
    building with lego
    I'm pretty sure that it says either in the Highway Code or that book 'Driving' published by the old Ministry of Transport, that when you do not have a clear view of a lane you are turning in to, it is permissible to move your car forward until you can see round any obstruction. After all, what else can you do? The obstruction might be a parked car. You can't sit and wait for the owner to return and drive it away. The bike wasn't speeding, but may have been going too fast considering adjacent traffic lights....will be clearer when I have made my next post.....
    Originally posted by Programmer


    "Creep and peep" as my instructor called it.
    They call me Dr Worm... I'm interested in things; I'm not a real doctor but I am a real worm.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,878Posts Today

6,727Users online

Martin's Twitter