Accident with rental car - advice please

[The Mechanic]

Talk to your own insurance company. They may be willing to pursue a claim against the drivers insurers to recoup their costs. Also, if you have legal cover on your home contents insurance, you could use that to cover the cost of your solicitor.

BTW, just because an insurance company turns you down initially, does not meant that they will not pay up eventually. They do that as a matter of course. All insurers employ people who's sole job is to find ways to not pay out on a claim.

Also, report the incident to the police. It is probably too late for them to do anything about it now but you will need a incident number for your own insurers.

[Vorpal]

I guess this means they are prepared to go to court over this.

Insurance companies don't like court. It's too expensive. They just want you to believe that they will go to court so that you accept their offer of 50/50 and go away.

If 50/50 is good enough for you, and it's not worth the hassle to get compensation, that's your decision.

If it's not good enough, don't accept it. Stick to it and instruct a solicitor. The insurance company will make it as big a hassle as they can to get you to go away for the least cost. It's their business. You have to out-stubborn a stubborn thing to get what's coming to you.

p.s. it may not matter if the driver indicated; she still has an obligation to ensure it is clear before turning.

p.p.s. don't tell anything more to her insurance company; go through the solicitor or your insurance

[Mark1978]

Agreed with above, an indicator has no legal meaning, it's simply a signal to others that the driver is intending to make a turn, they must first assure that the road is clear such that the maneuver can be made.

[TonyR]

Please don't talk further to their insurance company. You are walking straight into their arms with some of the things you said and have probably harmed your case significantly. Get your insurance company to take it up for you or a legal professional such as the CTC's legal advisers. Otherwise enter a Small Claims Court action to recover your costs. Its not expensive, its designed to be a DIY system rather than using lawyers and the other side cannot claim their costs even if they win unless your case was clearly without a shred of merit. The insurance company will make you work for it but will fold a day or two before the hearing because it costs them far more to send someone to Court (which will be your, not their, local Court) than to settle.

[Postboxer]

I used to work settling car insurance claims, but not personal injury ones. Assuming you haven't got any lasting injuries then I don't think any personal injury claim would be enough to trigger costs, so No Win No Fee solicitors won't be interested.
I don't fully understand the accident circumstances, were you overtaking a line of queuing traffic? If so, which side of the road were you on, which side of the white line. The driver of the other vehicle should have checked before turning, you should be checking all indicators, also, you shouldn't be overtaking where there are junctions.

Very very few cases progress to court, especially where the claim is relatively low, as the costs of going to court and the time spent keeping the file open that long outweigh the cost of just paying out. It can however take a long time providing evidence and arguing your side whilst negotiating and settling liability.

Also with regards to the amount of the claim, with a car on car collision, a claim is paid for the market value of the car before the accident, not a new for old, so expect the other insurer to look at prices for similar bikes on ebay and the like, then offer you quite a lot less than it would be new.

Check whether any of your policies have legal cover, then use them if you can.

Try and get evidence of the prices of the bits of bike that are damaged and keep a record of any other costs incurred, such as extra travel expenses, however, you have a duty to keep your costs to a minimum.

[ltimothy]

I don't fully understand the accident circumstances, were you overtaking a line of queuing traffic? If so, which side of the road were you on, which side of the white line. The driver of the other vehicle should have checked before turning, you should be checking all indicators, also, you shouldn't be overtaking where there are junctions.

I was cycling along a line of cars on the driver side, that was all packed together and either stationary and/or moving very slowly. I was within the traffic lane, not cycling in the opposing traffic lane. As I approached, the car pulled out suddenly to make an 80 degree turn right up the hill which is a one way road.

Have a look at the 3 attached diagrams of what happened.

One

Two

Three

[AndyBSG]

Please don't talk further to their insurance company. You are walking straight into their arms with some of the things you said and have probably harmed your case significantly

This.

I've spoken to their insurance company and the driver is disputing the events. The driver is claiming they indicated and that was perfectly sufficient notice. My claim is that the row of cars was tight and stationary, it would be difficult to cycle along and check every single car indicator, and that the car was making an irregular turn, almost an 80 degree turn up a one way street.

The bit in bold is where you may have damaged your defence if they have recorded that.

Your defence should be based on the simple fact that the driver in question did not check that it was safe for them to make the turn before they made it and that they clearly did not look in their rear view mirror

You really do need to make sure you make no more statements to their insurance company without legal advice.

[ltimothy]

Please don't talk further to their insurance company. You are walking straight into their arms with some of the things you said and have probably harmed your case significantly

This.

I've spoken to their insurance company and the driver is disputing the events. The driver is claiming they indicated and that was perfectly sufficient notice. My claim is that the row of cars was tight and stationary, it would be difficult to cycle along and check every single car indicator, and that the car was making an irregular turn, almost an 80 degree turn up a one way street.

The bit in bold is where you may have damaged your defence if they have recorded that.

Your defence should be based on the simple fact that the driver in question did not check that it was safe for them to make the turn before they made it and that they clearly did not look in their rear view mirror

You really do need to make sure you make no more statements to their insurance company without legal advice.

I have never said that or anything remotely resembling that to their insurance company. What I did say was when asked "did you see her indicating" I said roughly speaking "that's beside the point, they should have checked their right wing-mirror and if they did, they would have clearly seen me."

My defence will be based on this fact, they absolutely 100% did not check in their mirror to see if I was coming. They should have checked, if they did check they would have seen me and wouldn't have hit me. If they did check and they did see me, well that's another matter entirely..!

[TonyR]

I read it very much as AndyBSG did from the first para of your post before last ...."My claim is......."

Would the driver have overtaken you before joining the queue? If so you can add that having overtaken you they cannot have not been aware of you and therefore should have anticipated you might be overtaking them. It counters the "He came out of nowhere guv" excuse.

[ltimothy]

I read it very much as AndyBSG did from the first para of your post before last ...."My claim is......."

Would the driver have overtaken you before joining the queue? If so you can add that having overtaken you they cannot have not been aware of you and therefore should have anticipated you might be overtaking them. It counters the "He came out of nowhere guv" excuse.

No, the row of cars was pretty much stationary and/or moving very slowly. They would not have driven past me first, stopped in the row of cars, and then waited for me to approach and turned right. It would have been more like - they were already in the rows, I was approaching them and they didn't check to see me and turned right.

[ArMoRothair]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment:-

"My client, who is a very experienced and safe driver of x years with a full clean licence, having checked her mirror, having signalled appropriately, was conducting a slow rightwards turn into Hill Street once she had ascertained her way was clear, was shocked to see Mr A coming at great speed as he executed a dangerous overtake of the traffic queue. Mr A was travelling too fast for the conditions and although my client stopped her vehicle there was no way she could avoid an accident when Mr A was unable to stop his vehicle and crashed into my client."


That's what you are up against. I concur with others above; don't speak to her insurers again, let your solicitors do the talking.

[dalifnei]

I looked at it as if it was a personal injury claim coming to my desk.

First thought: I don't like it. Although car drivers have a duty to check their mirrors and specifically to check again just before moving (there is authority on this), the courts very often tend to be car friendly and cyclist unfriendly. If my money was riding on this I would advise that a judge would be likely to believe a driver who said they were indicating in preference to the word of a filtering cyclist who overtook a car in the process of turning right...

It's very difficult to prove but I think 50/50 would be the best likely result, or 70/30 on a very good day.

[TonyR]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment:-

"My client, who is a very experienced and safe driver of x years with a full clean licence, having checked her mirror, having signalled appropriately, was conducting a slow rightwards turn into Hill Street once she had ascertained her way was clear, was shocked to see Mr A coming at great speed as he executed a dangerous overtake of the traffic queue. Mr A was travelling too fast for the conditions and although my client stopped her vehicle there was no way she could avoid an accident when Mr A was unable to stop his vehicle and crashed into my client."


That's what you are up against. I concur with others above; don't speak to her insurers again, let your solicitors do the talking.

I think that that's the problem. I believe Challoner v Williams 1974 is the authority:

Abstract: On December 31, 1971, at about 10 p.m. P and D2 were travelling in D2's car. D1, travelling in the same direction, had decided to make a right hand turn. In order to do so he moved out into the centre of the road. He did not see D2's car which was overtaking. There was a collision and P was injured.

Held, in the circumstances D1 was not liable and that D2 was liable for the damages in full.

plus:

167

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
...........
when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled

[Pete Owens]

Looks to me like it is a clear cut case of the cyclist at fault. If I were the insurance company I would be looking to claim costs for any damage to the car - so I would take the offer of 50% before they change their mind. Unless of course you could find an independent witness who could confirm that the car turned without signalling.

Imagine the tables were turned - a cyclist was about to turn right heading downhill in the wet. A signal to move to the centre of the road then you are covering your brakes as you approach the junction. A quick life saver check over the shoulder before you turn and there is a BMW overtaking and moving too fast to stop in time.

[snibgo]

First: my sympathies, for your injuries and the bike. I hope you get well soon, and quickly get back on a bike.

I'm not quite as pessimistic as the last two posters. I think most fault lies with the driver, for moving out of position without properly checking that no one also wanted to occupy that space. This applies whether or not the driver indicated; they should always look properly.

But I think some fault lies with the cyclist. Undertaking (passing very close to) motorists approaching a left turn is unwise. Similarly, overtaking very close to motorists approaching a right turn. The problem is, if the vehicle you are approaching decides to pull out, you have no warning at all.

I would put the blame at 70-30 in the cyclist's favour. I expect a jury or magistrate would be far less sympathetic, especially if the driver convincingly claims she was indicating.

I am sure that 80% of vehicles drive straight along that road and only 20% (if that) make that turn.

From your diagram, you pass 3 or 4 cars near the junction that could decide to turn right. If one of five actually does so, then you have a very good chance of passing very close to a car that will move out. Frankly, this is asking for trouble. Don't ride in the door zone, because doors aren't the only things we need to watch out for.

Suppose the bike damage is £1400 and the car damage is £700.

If the liability goes 66-33% in the cyclist's favour, no one pays anyone anything. If it goes 50-50, the cyclist would pay the car owner £350 (so each side suffers £1050 loss).

So, if the driver's insurance is offering to pay you anything, I think that's your best option.

However, as you are insured, this is academic. You pay your insurance company to negotiate. Give them your version of the facts and let them do their job.