Forced off the road on M6 into traffic cones - they failed to stop. What are my options?
- Thread starter MrRockliffe
- Start date
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.
Soldato
They probably would have still driven off though
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.
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:
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.
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
Also, we were still 4 hours from home. Had the Merc hit us, we may not have been able to continue our journey home, adding more issues
Also, we were still 4 hours from home. Had the Merc hit us, we may not have been able to continue our journey home, adding more issues
I meant the Merc was driving dangerously. 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 along side her.
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, your wife has shared liability by not taking reasonable actions to avoid a potential collision.
Last edited:
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?
Worst case would be that lorry smashing into the rear after you've slammed your brakes on and killing you.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Last edited:
had similar with a close family friend years ago , country lane he came round a corner over the centre of the road, car coming towards him swerved and put there car in the ditch.
friend pulled over and exchanged details end of story.
nope several days later the other owner got in touch threatening him wanting the damage paid for, the insurance said as no contact was physically made between the 2 vehicles the other driver was at fault for technically losing control of his vehicle and ditching it.
i had similar few years later in a company van, maybe slightly too fast wet road, had a transit in front of me and a car in front of him, car indicates to turn right into a junction and stops due to oncoming traffic.
van in front locks up ad narrowly avoids hitting car by going sideways.
yeap im presented with the side of the van and skid into it.
my fault being a idiot and not observing conditions.....so i thought, insurance claim off the van as he lost control of his vehicle, and effectively gave me no other way of avoiding hitting him.
dunno whether the underwriter had a bad day but i got my excess back and the claim went against the company with the transit go figure.
as said, someone sitting of your wing isn't unusual in such a speed controlled roadworks, you might become suspicious if there was an upcoming exit and no space for car to slot in behind you,
but otherwise if they pulled adjacent (out of sight of a dashcam) and erratically shifted left you would be surprised, but, as said several times,
most would instinctively brake and would have to very confident of no worse fate by pulling left into cones
I would know they weren't astride those vertical lane dividers they sometimes screw into carriageway/cats-eyes ? or could get stuck under car with loss of control .. yada yada.
probably h&S/legislation on putting the concrete seperators anywhere work men & their kit might be upcoming on a blanked lane.
someone oncoming on the wrong side of road yes dashcam would be good, but if you widen bends they should see you.
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.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 26,223
In fairness, I bet a lot of people's first reaction is to sway away from a car in such a scenario.
Most would honk the horn as a warning and brake, or be a lot more aware of the developing scenario and avoid it. I know sometimes it can be a more sudden scenario, but in this case it was over a period of many minutes.
Yep. Get tonnes of clowns doing this on the M1 50mph zone where it loses lane 4. You just stay away. Unfortunately people leave it late; you just gotta see it coming or stay in lane 1 if lane 3 is too tricky.
Let’s look at this as if you are insurance company trying to save money.
Two mph overtaking speed is dangerously slow and less than one metre per second. If your wife had just eased off the throttle 3 or 4 mph it would have shortened that overtake substantially. This is all the preventative action that would be required.
1. Your wife (by your own admission in a police statement) noticed and ignored a dangerous situation developing and did nothing to avert or minimise the danger.
2. Given the above inadvertent admission that she ignored the obvious danger, they would quite likely decide upon joint culpability. Purely because of time and money considerations.
I can’t make it any simpler. Insurance companies will decide culpability not in the truth, or what’s morally correct, but in their bottom line.
I know of people given equal liability for a head on collision where the other car was driving on the wrong side of the road because parked cars blocked their lane. All because the “victim” admitted the other car looked like it wasn’t going to stop, but they had “right of way” so kept driving. In essence despite the oncoming car being on the wrong side of the road, the “victim” could have taken preventative action but chose not to.
So not a blame thing, just a heads up on how insurance companies operate.
Hence my three tips:
1. Drive defensively.
2. You having “right of way” means nothing in the event of attribute of blame.
3. Get a dash cam fitted
Last edited:
Soldato
It wasn't a dangerous situation until the other car decided to drive into her. It's just not practical to ease off every time a car is overtaking you slowly - particularly as the OP has stated in average speed 50mph zones, where everyone is travelling within 1-2mph of each other. I'm all for defensive driving, but what you're suggesting is just ridiculous. Do you also slow to a crawl when passing junctions just in case someone decides to pull out in front of you?
That's all well and good, except that someone overtaking you on a motorway isn't "obvious danger". It's a hazard to be aware of, but if you slowed down every time someone overtook you, you'd end up causing more of a hazard yourself by driving too slowly!
Then they can argue that in court and with the ombudsman, and see how that affects their bottom line
There's a difference between "keeping driving into danger", and "not getting out of the way quick enough". In your example, it would be a more accurate comparison to suggest that the "victim" would still be given liability even if they stopped, purely because they didn't slam it into reverse or swerve to go up the kerb to get out of the way of the oncoming car.
I don't disagree with any of those tips, but even driving defensively doesn't make you completely immune to stupid people doing stupid things
Last edited:
It wasn't a dangerous situation until the other car decided to drive into her. It's just not practical to ease off every time a car is overtaking you slowly - particularly as the OP has stated in average speed 50mph zones, where everyone is travelling within 1-2mph of each other. I'm all for defensive driving, but what you're suggesting is just ridiculous. Do you also slow to a crawl when passing junctions just in case someone decides to pull out in front of you?
That's all well and good, except that someone overtaking you on a motorway isn't "obvious danger". It's a hazard to be aware of, but if you slowed down every time someone overtook you, you'd end up causing more of a hazard yourself by driving too slowly!
Then they can argue that in court and with the ombudsman, and see how that affects their bottom line
There's a difference between "keeping driving into danger", and "not getting out of the way quick enough". In your example, it would be a more accurate comparison to suggest that the "victim" would still be given liability even if they stopped, purely because they didn't slam it into reverse or swerve to go up the kerb to get out of the way of the oncoming car.
I don't disagree with any of those tips, but even driving defensively doesn't make you completely immune to stupid people doing stupid things
All very good, but not how insurance companies operate. I am not arguing about right and wrong but proof of liability, or the lack of. I’m showing that in the event of an actual collision their statement could be used by the other drivers insurer to attribute liability.
If you elect to go to court because you are convinced you are right, then expect a long and potentially stressful and costly fight. I’m not saying who was right or wrong, but how a simple inadvertent statement can actually implicate you in the eyes of the insurance company.
A decent dashcam will reduce the likelihood of such issues. As will driving a bit more defensively.
- Oh you ignored the car in your blind spot for at least two minutes.
- Oh you saw the other driver driving dangerously and proceeded to assume “right of way” applied
- Oh you admit you were speeding slightly before the other car pulled out of the junction.
Last edited:
Associate
I'd agree with you if it was a normal road and the overtake meant that the car was on the wrong side of the road slowly creeping past, but this was on a motorway with average speed cameras.
Not sure if you've ever driven on one with 3 lanes of traffic but with everyone's speedometers reading slightly different most vehicles are passing others only a couple of mph in difference. You'd only let off the accelerator if, once the car has passed they indicated to move into your lane and you felt the distance between vehicles needed to be increased.
This doesn't sound like the case if the OP's version of events is accurate.
OP wasn't claiming a right of way either, the version of events stated that the other car decided to occupy the space OP was in and they took defensive action to avoid a collision.
Dash cam? - definitely.