Grr, insurance, grumble, court.

alx · 1 Jul 2011 at 13:34

Matt82 said:
yup, and as far as he could see there would be no conflict whilst overtaking, because teh van was not indicating

The point is you shouldn't overtake at/near a junction regardless of what it looks like someone will do.

The rule is designed to stop accidents like the OP described above from happening. If the 'chavs' had obeyed this rule then the accident would have been avoided.

Although a pet hate of mine is people who don't indicate (not suggesting the guy in the OP didn't btw).

Kenai · 1 Jul 2011 at 13:34

ubersonic said:
He did see them in his mirror, they were behind him hence no threat to his manoeuvre

Well clearly not, as he performed the turn and two scooters smacked into the side of the van. They must have been pretty close to start with, they're not exactly the most spritely of vehicles.

I can see entirely why the insurance went 50/50 on this.

Raymond Lin · 1 Jul 2011 at 13:37

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Was there any independant witnesses?

I'm surprise to see this to get as far as the Court, they normally settle before they get this far. Your insurance company must've denied liability, or offered something like 75/25 but it must have been rejected and threw one last roll of the dice of 50/50 to get rid of it.

Think of it this way:

If they go in and loses, they stand to pay their claim, their legal costs, your own legal costs.

If they settled outside, at 50/50, they pay half their claim, less legal fees as the Barrister hasn't gone in for the trial. And if they agreed to pay own costs then that is the BIGGEST money saved. Over the course of a few years their legal costs could be in 5 figures easy.

More often than not, it is cheaper to split liability and get rid of the claim early than to fight it on principles. Principles are expensive.

Mucky_Pup · 1 Jul 2011 at 13:42

I can see why they went 50/50, cheaper to accept rather than fight, but I would have thought for the accident described in the OP, they would have told the chavs to jog on and go do one, as they were at fault. How are people defending them on here saying, passing a vehicle on the right whilst it's, stopped, and is indicating to turn right is a smart move? I ride a bike, if I come up behind a vehicle waiting to turn right, I'll either sit behind it and wait for it do it and continue on, or cautiously get passed it on the left if there is enough space, going on the right is idiotic.

Kenai · 1 Jul 2011 at 13:50

Mucky_Pup said:
How are people defending them on here saying, passing a vehicle on the right whilst it's, stopped, and is indicating to turn right is a smart move?

Nobody has said any such thing, just that both parties could have taken steps to avoid the accident so it's little wonder the insurance decided to go 50/50.

Morba · 1 Jul 2011 at 13:57

Kenai said:
Nobody has said any such thing, just that both parties could have taken steps to avoid the accident so it's little wonder the insurance decided to go 50/50.

At a roundabout, a car goes to pull out but then stops when no other traffic is coming. A car behind goes into the back of it.

Now, Both cars could have taken steps to avoid this incident, but it wouldnt go 50/50.

Mucky_Pup · 1 Jul 2011 at 13:57

What could the van driver do other than what he done though, which was mirror, signal, maneuver? Passing on the right, when someone is signalling right is idiotic and suicidal.

Raymond Lin · 1 Jul 2011 at 13:58

Kenai said:
Nobody has said any such thing, just that both parties could have taken steps to avoid the accident so it's little wonder the insurance decided to go 50/50.

That's never the reason why, it's more to do with there was no independant witnesses and the court could easily sympathise with the Claimant. A risk that is too risky to take clearly.

ubersonic · 1 Jul 2011 at 14:00

Kenai said:
Well clearly not, as he performed the turn and two scooters smacked into the side of the van.

He looked, he were vehicles behind him a safe distance away, he signalled, he executed the manoeuvred. Its the same as anybody does it.

Raymond Lin said:
Was there any independant witnesses?

Sadly no, like I said in the first post its was just our drivers word against theirs

Raymond Lin said:
I'm surprise to see this to get as far as the Court, they normally settle before they get this far.

Our barrister was surprised they went 50/50 as he was expecting to walk it

their story changing from the one they gave the police was a bad point for them and the thing from the van that records moving stopping etc (forgot what its called, takko?) showed it slowed for the corner but didn't stop as they claimed.

Mucky_Pup said:
How are people defending them on here saying, passing a vehicle on the right whilst it's, stopped, and is indicating to turn right is a smart move?

It didn't even stop, their just claiming that (not what they told the police at the time either).

Matt82 · 1 Jul 2011 at 14:25

ubersonic said:
Re-reads it matt, it says not to overtake near a junction, what you can/cannot see is irrelevant. Besides the van was indicating.

but the attitude down, youve got it wrong

> ...where you might come into conflict with other road users

so if there is a broken down car at a junction, in the dead of night, traffic is stationary, according to your logic no matter whats going on you cannot over take?

it says DO NOT overtake where you may conflict with other road users

besides, the van was indicating

because you were there? :rolleyes:

rolly eyes etc

ubersonic · 1 Jul 2011 at 14:29

Matt82 said:
youve got it wrong

Sorry but no, I haven't

Matt82 said:
so if there is a broken down car at a junction, in the dead of night, traffic is stationary, according to your logic no matter whats going on you cannot over take?

You cannot overtake a parked vehicle anyway just "pass" it, that's fine, overtaking a moving vehicle near a junction is a nono hence why its a DO NOT in the highway code...

Matt82 · 1 Jul 2011 at 14:37

if you was right, why didnt this settle in your favour?

i did insurance litigation day in day out for years in a past life. although it has only got to be proven "on a balance of probability" there is nothing to give one story more credibility than the other.

another question, did you still have your driver after three years, because drivers driving for companies tend to move about a bit so are hard to get to court, or was it actually you?

ubersonic · 1 Jul 2011 at 14:47

Matt82 said:
if you was right, why didnt this settle in your favour?

Because our insurance company didnt have the balls to go to court

Next week chav number 2's case is up so hopefully they wont bottle that one too, the barrister was even more confident about that as he was following behind the lead scooter.

Matt82 said:
another question, did you still have your driver after three years, because drivers driving for companies tend to move about a bit so are hard to get to court, or was it actually you?

Yeah, hes not a driver hes an engineer, I referred to him as a driver because he was the person driving, my bad.

Raymond Lin · 1 Jul 2011 at 14:55

Jesus, a split trial? Who are the Solicitors?! This will drive the cost up no end. They should have done more to put them in the same claim.

Matt82 · 1 Jul 2011 at 15:34

ubersonic said:
Yeah, hes not a driver hes an engineer, I referred to him as a driver because he was the person driving, my bad.

well it was definately an achievement to have a driver ready to attend on the day, good luck with it though but its going to be hard to prove.

the insurer/barrister wasnt thinking with their balls, they were thinking with their wallet.

if they let everyone have a day in court "as a matter of principal" they would all be bankrupt. the courts would have gone ballistic at the insurers for wasting so much court time because every driver/policyholder/compo scrounger feels theyre in the right and are entitled to "speak to someone else about it"

and to be fair, it is definately quite rare (from what i saw with HSBC etc) for the insurer to make an economical decission on behalf of the policyholder.

ubersonic · 20 Sep 2011 at 14:25

ubersonic said:
Because our insurance company didnt have the balls to go to court

Next week chav number 2's case is up so hopefully they wont bottle that one too, the barrister was even more confident about that as he was following behind the lead scooter.

Boy oh boy, this is turning into one massive ***********, the second case got very delayed and we have actually been allocated different legal representation for it by the insurer, and this solicitor is saying that despite the first soliciter saying that the following scooter had more to react/etc so should be easier to win we will actually be unlikely to win after the insurance company went 50/50 on the first case >.>

But get this! we have now had all the paperwork for the first case made available to us by the first legal guys and it turns out that they missed something massive, the guy who our insurers went 50/50 with because it was his word vs our drivers word lied on the paperwork his legal team submitted to the court twice!. Seriously an AS level law student could have explosed him as a lier and a scammer in 5mins, and our insurance company bottled it on the advice of a legal team that missed this >.>

So the first legal team cost us a case that would have been nigh on unlosable and may have cost us the second one too :mad:

I have a good mind to sue them for our losses >.<