Forced off the road on M6 into traffic cones - they failed to stop. What are my options?

MrRockliffe

MrRockliffe

MrRockliffe

Soldato
Joined
14 Apr 2014
Posts
7,032
Location
Sunny Sussex
Hi all,

On my journey back from Scotland on Sunday, my other half was forced off the road by a silver Mercedes on the M6 around junction 22 in the 50 average speed.


They had been on our 4 o'clock for a few minutes, when they sped up to ~52 MPH, indicated while alongside us and just moved over. We had a lorry right behind us, so to evade further damage she had to drive through cones onto the hard shoulder.


The Mercedes failed to stop, and due to the traffic cones, nobody else was able to either.




We called 999 immediately, hoping they would be able to support, however since we didn't get a number plate, they've closed the case already with no further action to be taken.



Other than contacting insurance, does anybody have any possible routes forward?


Thanks
 
Last edited:
Junction 22 and the 101 operator today said that the motorway team have closed the case, which would indicate it may not be working.


It was right on the junction with multiple cameras so I find it hard to believe.
 
jpaul said:
sounds surprising didn't brake and bring traffic to a stop rather than going into cones with potential worst outcome like concrete separators / excavations ...

don't most lorries have cctv too - so he would have captured it and send it in out of good will - he might be more distinctive to identify on cctv
Click to expand...

The lorry was right behind and closing - guessing he was at 54 on cruise. So out of the two options, driving into cones was probably the right call.


Otherwise it would have been a lorry into the back of us :(
 
Haggisman said:
TBH in that situation I would have preferred contact with the other vehicle - if for nothing other than making sure they don't get away without a bill of their own! :mad:
Click to expand...

The risk is that they still don’t stop and then I’m left with potentially more damage than has occurred from hitting cones, across more panels.


And if there’s still no evidence it’s caused by the third party, the total cost of repair goes up, and then everyone’s insurance goes up.
 
Kenai said:
I assumed from the 'evade further damage' comment that contact with the other vehicle was made, the escape into the cones was to prevent a bigger accident occurring than whatever else actually did.
Click to expand...

I didn’t word it well - evading further damage meant that moving into the cones was avoiding potential further damage of a lorry hitting us.


The car didn’t make contact with us thankfully - goodness know how she avoided contact as it caught her off guard completely. Completely unexpected.
 
Haggisman said:
True, but does the value of a claim actually directly affect how much your insurance goes up? I've never actually checked tbh :s
Click to expand...

I would have thought there’s a link, if only because the total money spent on repairs goes up, so to cover the cost, the general insurance cost climes

This is a reason insurance has gone up in general, as the cost of repairs has.




I’ve been to a local body shop and they’ve quoted me on a front bumper respray, and dent repair on the bonnet.


Roughly £800 + VAT.
 
Haggisman said:
Overall yes - but on an individual basis I don't know?

If you declare a claim when generating a quote, does putting the value at £5,000 give a higher quote than if it was £500?
Click to expand...

No but the point is that if we all had the same approach it would add up.


My mentality is always to avoid damage where possible. While some may feel as though hitting the merc would have been better, I’d likely be in a much worse position with no choice but to go through insurance.
 
GarethSouthgate said:
Sounds like the car overtaking MsRockliffe pulled in too soon and the truck behind was too close.

I guess insurance might have called it 50/50 whereas if MsRockliffe had slammed on brakes, and the lorry hit from behind, then it's the lorry's fault as well as the ovetaker.

@MrRockliffe perhaps the driver of the other car was not aware of its size or you ended up in their blind spot.
Click to expand...

The key point for me was that when they initiated their lane change, you could not see the rear of their car. But they had come from behind us in the middle lane.


The driver was probably about in line with our front wheel when they just moved across at pace.



Even though she braked it probably wouldn’t have been enough alone, even if she had done a full emergency stop and the lorry go into the back of us.
 
ICDP said:
Even in the scenario you got the number plate and had a dashcam, your wife would still be considered partly responsible. The Merc was known to be beside you, she knew the lane was coned off and that it was driving dangerously. So she had ample opportunity to back down and no, the truck behind you would not have ploughed into her.

Sorry but regardless of how you feel, this was not all the Merc drivers fault. In many cases blame is proportional to the actions you don’t take, rather than the actions you do.

To give an example, if you are on a one way road and a car comes towards you driving in the wrong direction. You stubbornly driving on without taking any sensible evasive action, puts you at equal blame when you have the inevitable crash.
Click to expand...

Sorry I’m not sure how it was driving dangerously.


It was average speed so most traffic isn’t moving relative to each other. It’s normal for someone to be sitting behind you for an extended period.


They just started going more quickly, probably at 52 ish. Again, pretty normal. Most lorries do around 54.



There was no indication they would move across. Nobody behind them, other than the lorry approaching behind me. But they (the lorry) weren’t indicating to move out.
 
Last edited:
Kenai said:
This is the crap side of insurance really, the action taken here has absolutely minimised the damage collectively but has left you up **** creek a bit because the person who actually caused the problem is unlikely to be found and even if they are, will probably argue they've not actually hit anyone etc.

You've essentially 'taken one for the team' and you'll get absolutely no thanks for having done so.
Click to expand...

Yeah but I think it’s the right thing overall. For me, there’s no value in going to insurance unless I’m able to get sufficient evidence the individual caused the incident.



Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
But you would have been directly behind them so even if they didn't stop you would have a chance to get the plate.

It does sound a bit bizarre.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is a good point. Stopping is what ultimately caused the problem.



However I still would have been nervous that it would have gone nowhere with insurance and we’d have ended up losing NCB and increased insurance next year anyway.


Plus it’s the longer term impacts which you notice more.


Whereas now I’ll pay for the repairs and that will be it.


Alternative is for the next 5 years she’ll have to add the accident to her insurance etc
 
ICDP said:
I bet that was not on you or your wife’s mind when she decided to hit the cones instead of slowing down a bit when she noticed the Merc drift over.

Playing devils advocate here. This part of your post is enough incriminating evidence to have any insurance company go 50/50.

They had been on our 4 o'clock for a few minutes, when they sped up to ~52 MPH, indicated while alongside us and just moved over.

This shows your wife was aware of the presence of the Mercedes for a long period, that she noticed it indicate and that it began drifting. The lorry behind you would be irrelevant unless it was tail gating and at no point did you imply that it was. The rational conclusion from most insurers will be, you were driving dangerously by not taking reasonable actions to avoid a potential collision.
Click to expand...

Again I’m not sure how it’s of any relevance


Have you not driven in an average speed area?


It’s hugely common for people to speed up and slow down when not using cruise control, and this is especially noticeably when you’re travelling at a constant 50.


Hence, at no point did it raise any alarm bells that a car, which had been behind us, in a different lane, would just accelerate and attempt to drive into us.



This is a VERY different scenario to one where she would be in his blind spot for an extended period. Hazard prediction is one of her biggest strengths with driving.



Hazard perception and prediction comes from pattern recognition. There was absolutely no indication that they were going to just move across.


When I say they indicated and moved, this action was at the same time.


It wasn’t just before a slip road, so they weren’t trying to cram into a gap to make an exit.



They may have even just been on adaptive cruise and moved forward with the traffic in front of them.




Are you suggesting she should have kept changing speed to change the gap and position between her and the Mercedes constantly?
 
ICDP said:
Let me make it clear, in purely rational terms, the Merc driver IMHO was 100% at fault, but real life rarely works in simplistic terms.

An insurer (and the police) would conclude based on your statement that you were aware of the potential hazards. If it was at your 4 o’clock it’s in your blind spot. If they are at your 2 o’clock then you are in their blind spot. Both scenarios are to be avoided and are specifically mentioned as hazards in the Highway Code.

I’m simply saying that your own statement validates that you both recognised a hazard and took zero action to avoid the hazard. Speed up a few mph to get them out of your blind spot, or slow down when you were in theirs. So even with evidence like dashcam footage, they would quite likely go for partial blame on both drivers.

I’ve seen how insurance companies work, it’s not about what the law states, or what’s right… but how much it costs for them. More often than not it’s just 50/50 and they move on and increase your premiums to recoup their losses.

Sorry if I seem argumentative but I’m just stating that the “but I had right of way” is rarely black and white. In many cases your “feels” mean nothing and the police and insurers will have considerably different legal and financial laws and rules that trump “feels” every single time.

Three tips:
1. Drive defensively.
2. You having “right of way” means nothing.
3. Get a dash cam*

* Only if you can do 1 and 2 above. If you can’t then a dashcam is probably a bad idea.
Click to expand...


Still doesn't make sense to me. They would be a hazard for me, as they were in my blind spot.


They moved from my blind spot, to along side me, then just pulled into my lane with no warning. They indicated as they moved over - she couldn't even see the rear of their car when they did so.


At no point was I in their blindspot. They had direct line of site with my entire car for several minutes - there is no hazard to be aware of for me, only for me to move over.





I'm not saying I had right of way.



What happened is they came from behind, and just attempted to pull into the side of my car, despite having clear visibility of my car the entire time (i.e. several minutes). I don't see how she could have "driven defensively" in this scenario. Speeding up would have broken the speed limit.



They didn't sit in my 2 o'clock for ANY period of time before moving over to me.



For what it's worth, the police agreed with my statement that they were at fault. The only thing they needed was evidence.





I'm always very open to debate, and very much enjoy playing devils advocate. However I really fail to understand your point here.
 
lordrobs said:
I think no matter how much you try and dissect an incident over the internet the fact remains that the human instinct to try and avoid colliding with another car is very strong. That basically leaves you with steer or brake. Would brake have been better, who knows but the fact remains that saying to stand your ground and drive into another car should be going against all of your natural instincts when driving. I couldn't honestly say that I would ever choose that outcome even if it meant I bounced off an inanimate object while trying to avoid it.
Click to expand...

The moment a moving object interacts with another moving object, especially when changes in friction are involved (e.g. caused by rubber), physics takes hold in ways you cannot predict.


I was chatting to a work colleague today about this and they had a friend who was seriously injured from colliding side by side with another vehicle in a similar situation - they just pulled across into their friend’s lane.



Their tyres connected and the friend’s car rotated on the motorway, causing another vehicle to travel into the drivers door




We definitely could have been better off colliding with the other vehicle, if only because we may not have stopped and could have stayed level with them to get their registration. But in hindsight I do think the risk would have been greater for serious injury.



As it stands, the only damage which has occurred is my other half’s ego and physical damage to just our car.




Ultimately, you need to do what feels right at the time, and the way she reacted was based on the information she had available during that split second of “oh they’re actually going to hit me if I do nothing”.



While Im gutted the car is damaged, I am proud that she did manage to avoid a much more serious situation - if only by luck.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom