Car pulled out in front of me, I swerved but againgst my Insurance, Insurance company not pursuing at-fault driver for their insurance Options

[geordiemike]

I was driving up a straight road. A driver was coming the other way, and had stopped in the middle of the road , so they could turn to their right into a side road. They pulled right across me. I had to swerve to avoid a full on collision with the side of their car

I went up a verge and hit a lamppost screwing up my car

i tried to report to the police at the time for dangerous driving but the police werent interested

I have an independent witness (a cyclist) who saw the whole thing and definitely feels that they were at fault

The driver herself, apologised and said that she was sorry and didnt see me coming. I exchanged details and she drove off. Meanwhile I am by the side of the road with a smashed up car


However my insurance company wants to take it out of my insurance, not hers! I want to challenge this , what should I do.

Many thanks

[Advertisement]

[The Rookie]

Formal complaint to the insurer and then on to the ombudsman.

You can't do much about the Police

As a rule of thumb its better to crash into the party in the wrong than avoid them and end up hitting something else! The reason your insurer is taking the easy path is that it's much harder to prove the other party is at fault if they aren't physically involved in the accident.

[The Slithy Tove]

As a rule of thumb its better to crash into the party in the wrong than avoid them and end up hitting something else!

The difficulty is thinking about that in the fraction of a second you have to react, and where the natural reaction is to avoid the immediate danger regardless of what you might crash into subsequently.

This post has been edited by The Slithy Tove: Tue, 21 May 2019 - 17:20

[stamfordman]

How bad is the damage? I had a similar a situation avoiding a driver on the wrong side of the road and also hit a lamppost and also broke a couple of wheels - in the end I just paid for the repairs and spares myself at a place I knew well (about £1,000) as it was all too complicated otherwise with approved garage, excess, poss increased premiums etc. I did inform the insurer and said i had the other driver's details but it was same response and there were no witnesses and other driver didn't think he had fallen asleep...

Police turned up and the only thing they were concerned with was any damage to the lamppost!

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 21 May 2019 - 17:38

[cp8759]

As a rule of thumb its better to crash into the party in the wrong than avoid them and end up hitting something else! The reason your insurer is taking the easy path is that it's much harder to prove the other party is at fault if they aren't physically involved in the accident.

By this logic if a child runs out into the street and the alternative is to mount a verge, you'd run the child over?

[The Rookie]

If you want to read it like that, feel free to do so.

[Redivi]

The morality question is a genuine dilemma that the software for self-driving cars will have to address

What is its priority to protect, its occupant(s) or the pedestrian(s) ?

Will it even be able to distinguish between a small child and, for example, a dog ?

This post has been edited by Redivi: Wed, 22 May 2019 - 11:12

[cp8759]

The morality question is a genuine dilemma that the software for self-driving cars will have to address

I don't think it's a question of morality alone. I think if the driver admitted he'd chosen to drive into the child, he'd be facing at the very least a dangerous driving charge, if not death by dangerous driving. Even if he didn't admit it, if the evidence supported it he could be convicted of the offence.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 23 May 2019 - 13:19

[Korting]

Speaking to a car hire company once, their agent told me that you should NEVER swerve to avoid something/someone as you could end up like the o/p or wose get prosecuted for something you weren't responsible for in the first place.

[Redivi]

Ironic as the purpose of ABS is to allow you to brake and swerve at the same time

Agree though

[stamfordman]

Speaking to a car hire company once, their agent told me that you should NEVER swerve to avoid something/someone as you could end up like the o/p or wose get prosecuted for something you weren't responsible for in the first place.

That's clearly nonsense because it depends on the situation. In my case noted above I avoided a head on collision with the other driver. It's the only accident I've had in many years of driving and there's no way if i were in that situation again I wouldn't take avoiding action.

The ethical dilemma about choosing between two harms has been long debated (see the classic runaway railway trolley scenario). But these problems tend to be for a bystander not a participant.

[geordiemike]

If I would have hit the other driver - it would have been side on into their passenger door.

They did have a passenger and it was a VW golf - so not good rigidity on the doors - so it could have badly injured the passenger.

Regardless of whether it was my fault or not (it wasnt) - that would have been really difficult for me to live with.



So - does anyone know - what concrete steps I should take to persuade the insurer to take it up with the other persons insurance company?

[The Rookie]

Formal complaint to the insurer and then on to the ombudsman.

[cp8759]

Formal complaint to the insurer and then on to the ombudsman.

+1