70/30 offer but we're not at fault! Please advise!

[roofi_1]

Sorry - my husband had checked his mirror again before turning, and his blind spot to ensure there were no errant cyclists or anything! Obviously at that point the other driver was behind and it was safe to make the manouevre. The other driver appeared to be going quickly but they were quite a way behind us at that point, I don't believe an insurance company can lay 30% or even 20% of the blame on us because the other driver may have been speeding, or indeed simply going faster than we would at that point on that road. I don't think it is reasonable to expect us to anticipate him overtaking with such disregard for the highway code. If that was to be considered, they should have waited as there are several right turns and driveways, therefore they are again in error.

As we've stated to the insurance company, the facts are such that he has driven into us, we were almost in - or in the road - when he hit us, he wrote off our car. Those facts are indisputable, yet the insurers are laying the most store by what we might have anticipated (unreasonably given the highway code) and keep suggesting to us that we were in error based on the case law they would like to use against us.

[wagolynn]

I think the insurance company will be considering the case law that will be presented in court, should the case get there. As to the mirror, if the car was not visible at the time of committing to the manoeuver where was it?

[roofi_1]

It was visable in the mirror, it was behind, not indicating and there was no reason to suspect it would overtake.
With regards to the case law, it's not the same as English law so they need to find a new case for comparison as the laws on civil cases are different in England and Scotland.

[Snowball]

Your insurers are correct, turning right is one of the more common manoeuvres involved in crashes.
The key to the apportionment of blame lies in your first post - My husband checked his mirror, signaled to turn right and turned - It should be mirror, if clear signal followed by mirror (to confirm any other traffic has seen and understood the signal) and finally if it all looks OK complete the maneuver or abandon if not safe. All the rest about the other driving going quickly would suggest to me more care will be required.

We know the right-turn sequences for mirror, indicate, etc., wagolynn, but this needs to be put into the perspective of continually moving traffic. The poster had made the necessary signal and checked his mirror. As the following driver was not himself signalling (indicator) to pull out, it can be construed that he had observed the right-turn intention. If he admits to NOT seeing the indicator, this suggests that he may not have been sufficiently attentive to his driving. Also, where you are following a vehicle and intend to overtake it, the onus is on yourself to ensure it is safe to do so.
In practical terms, the vehicle rear vehicle driver has the clearest view of the road ahead. This is a classic example of how too many of todays drivers simply ignore another vehicle's trafficators. It happens all the time; and is one of the main reasons why drivers will not go into the nearside lane of a motorway because, when they need to pull out again, drivers in the centre lane (often well over the speed limit) will not themselves pull into a clear outside lane, and the driver in the nearside lane is forced to brake.
I think you are fudging the issue a little by trying to apply a clinical approach to off-load some of the blame for what appears to be sloppy driving by the overtaking vehicle. Every driver is unable to be pristine perfect all of the time (including you and me), but this does not mean that the poster has driven in a way to suggest he deserves a degree of blame.

[wagolynn]

Whilst you are correct in that they are using a Scottish case, I think there are many English cases where the judgement has been based on the similar facts/opinions. The judges have to work from the starting point that reasonable drivers will have taken every possible action to avert a collision. The final judgment is an assessment of how far short of that ideal each driver demonstrated at the time.

[Gem1912]

Hi roofi1 I was just wondering what the outcome is of your claim as nothing on here since August, 11. I have just had an accident exactly the same as yours and I'm with Direct Line 😏

[Davie Kerr]

Roofi_1, having just come across this thread and read through the various postings thereon, I am forced to the conclusion that you are being screwed over by your insurance company, whether through negligence, avarice or anything else I don't know. In your very first post you've stated that the following driver said that he didn't see your husband indicating his intention to turn: there is a marked difference between "he made no signal" and "I didn't see any signal", and it would appear that the following driver simply didn't see your signal, in which case I can see absolutely no reason why any blame at all should be attached to you. Even had you not been indicating and slowing down, it would appear that it was a bloody stupid place for the other car to try and overtake you anyway! I'd be interested to hear the eventual outcome of this incident.

[roofi_1]

Hi,

Sorry to hear about your accident Gem1912.
We refused to accept the 70/30 'offered' and although they said we could not appeal we just continually refused to accept it. Eventually they took it to their solicitors (so hang on in there!!) and it went to 80/20 despite them saying this would never happen. We were forced to accept it as we don't have a spare £6000 to take the other person to court. If you would like to 'quote' us as examples you would be very welcome to, and I'll happily provide you with further details if Direct Line want that.

We then took the issue to the Financial Ombudsman... This in itself has been a palava as they're not on anyone's side so refuse to see how you have been affected really. Also, they won't look at the liability.
We were offered £100 by Direct Line eventually in January and in an effort to resolve the whole thing decided to take it and move on. Would you believe, they then only sent £50?! Despite repeat emails to the FOS they said we had to wait 28 days, which we have, so we are now asking for it to be taken to an Ombudsman rather than the adjudicator who has dealt with it so far.

Thanks Davie - I'm glad it's not just me!! Unfortunately the 4 people who heard him say that were him, myself, my husband and my father-in-law. Apparently that means all our opinions are invalid and lies..ahh!!

What I would like to get from the case is an email address for Direct Line, and also to change the case law to avoid the '70/30 is all you can get' statement. I haven't been able to find out how though.

Can't believe this is still ongoing 10 months later to be honest!!

[wagolynn]

We know the right-turn sequences for mirror, indicate, etc., wagolynn, but this needs to be put into the perspective of continually moving traffic. The poster had made the necessary signal and checked his mirror. As the following driver was not himself signalling (indicator) to pull out, it can be construed that he had observed the right-turn intention. If he admits to NOT seeing the indicator, this suggests that he may not have been sufficiently attentive to his driving. Also, where you are following a vehicle and intend to overtake it, the onus is on yourself to ensure it is safe to do so.
In practical terms, the vehicle rear vehicle driver has the clearest view of the road ahead. This is a classic example of how too many of todays drivers simply ignore another vehicle's trafficators. It happens all the time; and is one of the main reasons why drivers will not go into the nearside lane of a motorway because, when they need to pull out again, drivers in the centre lane (often well over the speed limit) will not themselves pull into a clear outside lane, and the driver in the nearside lane is forced to brake.
I think you are fudging the issue a little by trying to apply a clinical approach to off-load some of the blame for what appears to be sloppy driving by the overtaking vehicle. Every driver is unable to be pristine perfect all of the time (including you and me), but this does not mean that the poster has driven in a way to suggest he deserves a degree of blame.

I am just suggesting the questions a judge would/is likely to ask, if the case went to court.
Your motorway example belies the misunderstanding about indicators. Indicators do not give a driver the right to do anything, if you read and understand that section of the Highway Code it does not say any rights are bestowed, and the duty of care is always present. In your motorway example, the only chance the outer vehicle has any chance of seeing the indication is if it is in front or behind you. If it is alongside it cannot see the indicators, should it be travelling faster, apart from this is upsetting to many people (being passed), it is not a problem because it will soon be out of the way.

[roofi_1]

Indicators do not give a driver the right to do anything, if you read and understand that section of the Highway Code it does not say any rights are bestowed, and the duty of care is always present.

Unfortunately the driver behind us admitted to 'not seeing' the indicator but because the only people who can vouch for that are related to the driver (funny that, who else would be there?!) it's apparently invalid. It's a very infuriating position to be in. I can see that indicating doesn't give you a 'right' to turn but it does signal the intention to all other road users who need to be paying attention. If indicators don't allow for some degree of right to turn, there is very little point to them, and we may as well all drive how we like. Interestingly, although there is no right to turn, it does say 'do not' overtake opposite a junction, but because this is not enshrined in law, apparently it's ok just to make it up as you feel you would like to!