Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Lorry drove into me
FightBack Forums > Discussion > The Flame Pit
Pezzy
In Nov last year I was travelling to work when a lorry changed lanes and hit my car without seeing me. Admittedly I was overtaking him in the inside lane as I was doing the speed limit and he was not. Upon pulling over he was very apologetic and said he didn't see me.

Surprise surprise when my insurance company contacted him he blamed me for the accident and my insurance company agreed with him! Even though I sent them the dashcam footage. His fleet manager said all their lorries had dashcams, so I told my insurance company to make sure they get hold of it as it will show what really happened. So far though, they've not been able to obtain it, and of course it is because he's to blame.

I told my insurance company that I will not admit liability for an accident I didn't commit and that I'd be happy to take it to court. I'm not sure how it's progressing as there has been no update.

Below is my dashcam footage.

https://files.mycloud.com/home.php?seuuid=7...name=Accident_1
The Slithy Tove
Rather than ask people to download a 100MB file of unknown provenance, how about uploading to somewhere like YouTube?

The video doesn't really show enough. Can't tell the moment of impact, or the reason for the sudden swerve to lane 2. Was there audio as well? With sound, it may indicate the impact. As it stands, it doesn't really prove your "innocence" and could be alleged that you swerved into lane 2 abruptly and caused the accident.
Pezzy
QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 15:03) *
Rather than ask people to download a 100MB file of unknown provenance, how about uploading to somewhere like YouTube?

The video doesn't really show enough. Can't tell the moment of impact, or the reason for the sudden swerve to lane 2. Was there audio as well? With sound, it may indicate the impact. As it stands, it doesn't really prove your "innocence" and could be alleged that you swerved into lane 2 abruptly and caused the accident.


If you look again you will see around 20 seconds in, my car moves when I get shoved on the drivers rear quarter. To get away from the lorry I accelerated hard and moved into the outside lane as I was afraid to get pinned between the lorry and the pickup in front. In hindsight I should have stayed in my lane as I don't have a rear facing dashcam, and that's the excuse the 3rd party is using saying I moved into him. But at the rate he's travelling and the rate at which I accelerate, surely it's common sense that there's no way I could make contact with him?

If you look at the damage on my car it's also evident that someone shoved me from behind rather than me somehow creating a long crease on my rear quarter panel and bumper.
typefish
QUOTE (Pezzy @ Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 15:14) *
If you look again you will see around 20 seconds in, my car moves when I get shoved on the drivers rear quarter. To get away from the lorry I accelerated hard and moved into the outside lane as I was afraid to get pinned between the lorry and the pickup in front. In hindsight I should have stayed in my lane as I don't have a rear facing dashcam, and that's the excuse the 3rd party is using saying I moved into him. But at the rate he's travelling and the rate at which I accelerate, surely it's common sense that there's no way I could make contact with him?

If you look at the damage on my car it's also evident that someone shoved me from behind rather than me somehow creating a long crease on my rear quarter panel and bumper.


Yeah, I can see what you're referring to - it's not a fluid motion.

I presume your car isn't rear wheel drive?

Sound, if available would help really well here.
Pezzy
QUOTE (typefish @ Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 15:24) *
Yeah, I can see what you're referring to - it's not a fluid motion.

I presume your car isn't rear wheel drive?

Sound, if available would help really well here.


It is rear wheel drive. And with the sound on you can't hear the impact as my music is quite loud(not as loud as my cussing), and it was a shove not a bang.
nigelbb
QUOTE (Pezzy @ Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 14:29) *
In Nov last year I was travelling to work when a lorry changed lanes and hit my car without seeing me. Admittedly I was overtaking him in the inside lane as I was doing the speed limit and he was not. Upon pulling over he was very apologetic and said he didn't see me.

You are always going to struggle to prove it was the other vehicle at fault when you were performing a manoeuvre forbidden by the Highway Code.
PASTMYBEST
I can see why your insurance accept liability. You can decline their service and take this to court yourself if you want, but they will not pay if you lose that will be down to you. And you will still have the accident on your record
steeringwheel
You didn't do yourself any favours by declaring that you overtook a lorry on left, on a motorway especially as it was dark, raining and poor visibility. (Rule 268) Do not overtake on the left.

Except in (Rule 163) Only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is turning right.

From what I can make out from your footage, you did overtake on the left and the lorry did hit you as you continued in a straight line.

The lorry must have changed lanes just as you passed it. And there can be no disputing that but would that sway in your favour? I would not count on it.

So, the powers that be (insurance, courts, etc) could see it as you put yourself in that position and that the lorry just didn't see you under all of the above weather conditions taken into consideration.

I can understand the insurance position as the manoeuvre you made is a big NO NO!! with lorries all over the country labeled with stickers DO NOT PASS ON THIS SIDE on the left-hand side of their vehicles.

If, you were as familiar with that stretch of motorway as I believe you may have been because you said that you were on your way to work.............why didn't you wait 20 seconds till the motorway opened up into three lanes and you could have passed the lorry on the right-hand side legally?

As for the third party camera footage, I don't believe they are at liberty to divulge its contents until a court case. It's their evidence after all.

I wish you good luck.
southpaw82
QUOTE (steeringwheel @ Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 20:52) *
As for the third party camera footage, I don't believe they are at liberty to divulge its contents until a court case. It's their evidence after all.

They’re at liberty to divulge it if they want to.
andy_foster
It would appear that "steeringwheel" was conflated "at liberty to" with "obliged to". I will leave the reader to decide what that says about the quality of their advice.
notmeatloaf
If you have to explain your dashcam footage, you're always in trouble as the other driver can also explain your footage. Dashcam footage only works when it is very obvious exactly what has happened.

Seeing as, best, by your own admission you would be be found xx% liable, it would seem insane to dispense of the services of your insurance company and allow the other party to take you to court.

If you leave it to your insurance company you are inevitably bound by the terms of your policy to let them handle the claim. If they have already decided to admit liability, then it seems very unlikely they will defend the claim.

It is inevitable you will feel cheesed off if you feel the other driver was at at fault. However, insurance is about pragmatism. They're not going to defend a claim as a point of principle that they are very likely to lose just because you have paid £300-ish and want them to.
DancingDad
About the worst position any driver can put themselves into is into the blind spots on the inside of a lorry.
And you did put yourself there, by undertaking.
I'm not surprised the insurance decided to accept.

BTW, similar situation when overtaking or running alongside a foreign lorry in lane 2, you may be legal but the driver cannot see you, totally reliant on mirrors.

The Slithy Tove
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 24 Apr 2019 - 10:26) *
BTW, similar situation when overtaking or running alongside a foreign lorry in lane 2, you may be legal but the driver cannot see you, totally reliant on mirrors.

Though not the same in terms of culpability in the event of an accident. I've been sideswiped by a large lorry as it moved from lane 1 to lane 2 (where I was). Luckily, it was in near stationary traffic as it pulled out to avoid an incident in lane 1 that the police were already dealing with, so speeds very low and no injury. Just left lane 2 closed as well as my car was now stranded and wouldn't move!
Anyway, after many months (Spanish truck driven by a Bulgarian driver), the insurance finally decided it was 100% the truck driver's fault.
Now I have a dash cam myself, which I would hope would make it easier (though as we see in this case, the dash cam evidence can be far from conclusive).
notmeatloaf
Undertaking in near stationary traffic is different to undertaking at speed.

Don't get me wrong, I've done it when there is some idiot staying in the outside lane. But always with an escape plan in case they decide to move in deliberately or obliviously.
Atomic Tomato
QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Wed, 24 Apr 2019 - 13:57) *
Now I have a dash cam myself, which I would hope would make it easier (though as we see in this case, the dash cam evidence can be far from conclusive).

Dashcams are like tracer ammunition. They work both ways.
roythebus
Having looked at the video, the car passes the lorry in lane 1, nothing illegal in that, the law allows for it. But why then does said car suddenly move into lane 2 when the driver knows there is a lorry there? Maybe the lorry driver "could" have seen the car's headlights shining on the road, There's no way the lorry driver could have seen the car pull out in front of him and I'd suggest the lorry didn't change lanes at all.

It's not a move I would try to do! I often pass slower moving vehicles when I'm in lane 1, but would not cut in front of anything big I'd just passed!

The car driver's insurance will admit liability as it's cheaper for them than contesting it. I'd suggest damage to the lorry was minimal, maybe a scratched front bumper. What probably ****** off others was the ensuing delay as the motorway gets shut for an hour at a seemingly busy time.
The Slithy Tove
QUOTE (roythebus @ Thu, 25 Apr 2019 - 00:47) *
Having looked at the video, the car passes the lorry in lane 1, nothing illegal in that, the law allows for it. But why then does said car suddenly move into lane 2 when the driver knows there is a lorry there? Maybe the lorry driver "could" have seen the car's headlights shining on the road, There's no way the lorry driver could have seen the car pull out in front of him and I'd suggest the lorry didn't change lanes at all.

The OP's explanation is different from your observations (see post #3). And that is the whole point - different interpretations of the same set of observations.
Pezzy
QUOTE (steeringwheel @ Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 20:52) *
You didn't do yourself any favours by declaring that you overtook a lorry on left, on a motorway especially as it was dark, raining and poor visibility. (Rule 268) Do not overtake on the left.

Except in (Rule 163) Only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is turning right.

From what I can make out from your footage, you did overtake on the left and the lorry did hit you as you continued in a straight line.

The lorry must have changed lanes just as you passed it. And there can be no disputing that but would that sway in your favour? I would not count on it.

So, the powers that be (insurance, courts, etc) could see it as you put yourself in that position and that the lorry just didn't see you under all of the above weather conditions taken into consideration.

I can understand the insurance position as the manoeuvre you made is a big NO NO!! with lorries all over the country labeled with stickers DO NOT PASS ON THIS SIDE on the left-hand side of their vehicles.

If, you were as familiar with that stretch of motorway as I believe you may have been because you said that you were on your way to work.............why didn't you wait 20 seconds till the motorway opened up into three lanes and you could have passed the lorry on the right-hand side legally?

As for the third party camera footage, I don't believe they are at liberty to divulge its contents until a court case. It's their evidence after all.

I wish you good luck.


My insurance company is not making a point about me undertaking. They say the problem is they can't see the accident happening. Plus the fact that I moved into the RH lane. If I stayed in my lane then there would be no dispute, and if they had footage of the lorry moving into me, undertaken or not, then it would be totally his fault. Maybe my dashcam footage seems cut and dry to me as I was in the car, but I can understand why anyone looking at it for the first time might have some questions. Still, what else can explain the thump to my car when I'm driving in a straight line?

I am angry that I have to take this on the chin when someone else crashed into me, especially since they're lying through their teeth. But, I won't be putting myself in that situation again. Plus I'm going to get a dashcam that's rear facing as well as that would have made my life a lot easier.
Tartarus
I haven't seen the footage yet, or whether it shows such thing, but it can depend if you deliberately moved into lane 1 to undertake him, or whether you were already there for a while and just happened to be going faster than him.

Almost the same accident happened to me about 3.5 years ago, I was in lane 1 travelling faster albeit I had been in said lane for about 3 miles (it was between J10 and J11 on M25) and the lorry was in lane 2 and moved over to lane 1, hitting the side of my car and spinning me 90 degrees. Insurance found him 100% liable, although my car was declared a valuation write-off (cost more to repair than worth, not that it couldn't be repaired).

So if you are adamant you didn't move to lane 1 to overtake, I say keep fighting...
Pezzy
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Thu, 25 Apr 2019 - 10:32) *
I haven't seen the footage yet, or whether it shows such thing, but it can depend if you deliberately moved into lane 1 to undertake him, or whether you were already there for a while and just happened to be going faster than him.

Almost the same accident happened to me about 3.5 years ago, I was in lane 1 travelling faster albeit I had been in said lane for about 3 miles (it was between J10 and J11 on M25) and the lorry was in lane 2 and moved over to lane 1, hitting the side of my car and spinning me 90 degrees. Insurance found him 100% liable, although my car was declared a valuation write-off (cost more to repair than worth, not that it couldn't be repaired).

So if you are adamant you didn't move to lane 1 to overtake, I say keep fighting...

I was in lane 1 the whole time.
Mat_Shamus
From the video it appears you overtook the truck on the left, then tried to pull in front of it by cutting in quickly.

I understand you are stating this isn't what happened, but the dash cam footage makes you look more at fault than not.
Pezzy
QUOTE (Mat_Shamus @ Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 13:24) *
From the video it appears you overtook the truck on the left, then tried to pull in front of it by cutting in quickly.

I understand you are stating this isn't what happened, but the dash cam footage makes you look more at fault than not.


If that was indeed what I intended to do, why did I slow down immediately afterwards and flagged him down to pull over?
notmeatloaf
Because you had just had a collision?
cp8759
This goes to show why it's worth having a rear-view camera.
The Rookie
Well I wouldn't want to have evidence I'd been reading!
Pezzy
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 29 Apr 2019 - 10:51) *
Because you had just had a collision?


Can you explain the 'invisible force' that collided with my car before I moved over then as can clearly be seen in the footage?
The Rookie
You need to explain what the heck you mean?

Are you really trying to say you flagged him down before the collision?
Pezzy
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 1 May 2019 - 12:35) *
You need to explain what the heck you mean?

Are you really trying to say you flagged him down before the collision?


I'm sorry that doesn't make sense. 20 seconds in you see my car move as it gets hit. After this I move to the outside lane, slow down and flag down the lorry, who made no attempt to stop at the time. He only seemed to realise he collided with me shortly before I pulled over.
nigelbb
QUOTE (Pezzy @ Fri, 3 May 2019 - 10:57) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 1 May 2019 - 12:35) *
You need to explain what the heck you mean?

Are you really trying to say you flagged him down before the collision?


I'm sorry that doesn't make sense. 20 seconds in you see my car move as it gets hit. After this I move to the outside lane, slow down and flag down the lorry, who made no attempt to stop at the time. He only seemed to realise he collided with me shortly before I pulled over.

Whether he collided with you or you collided with him is open to interpretation.
Pezzy
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Fri, 3 May 2019 - 12:00) *
Whether he collided with you or you collided with him is open to interpretation.


No it's absolutely not. I was there so I know what happened.
typefish
The best thing to do would be to post the video, with audio.
Mat_Shamus
Regardless of what we think here, it's the insurance companies decision as you elected them to represent you in liability claims, and it appears they've already made their decision.
nigelbb
QUOTE (Mat_Shamus @ Sat, 11 May 2019 - 12:49) *
Regardless of what we think here, it's the insurance companies decision as you elected them to represent you in liability claims, and it appears they've already made their decision.

Clearly the insurance company’s interpretation was that the OP was the guilty party & caused the collision.
Mat_Shamus
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Sat, 11 May 2019 - 15:51) *
QUOTE (Mat_Shamus @ Sat, 11 May 2019 - 12:49) *
Regardless of what we think here, it's the insurance companies decision as you elected them to represent you in liability claims, and it appears they've already made their decision.

Clearly the insurance company’s interpretation was that the OP was the guilty party & caused the collision.


Yes, that's the point i was making.
nigelbb
QUOTE (Mat_Shamus @ Sat, 11 May 2019 - 16:11) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Sat, 11 May 2019 - 15:51) *
QUOTE (Mat_Shamus @ Sat, 11 May 2019 - 12:49) *
Regardless of what we think here, it's the insurance companies decision as you elected them to represent you in liability claims, and it appears they've already made their decision.

Clearly the insurance company’s interpretation was that the OP was the guilty party & caused the collision.


Yes, that's the point i was making.

My response was for the benefit of the OP. When I said that who collided with who was open to interpretation they wrote “No it's absolutely not. I was there so I know what happened.”
DastardlyDick
Without seeing the OPs footage (my computer won't let me view it) if you're daft enough to "undertake" an HGV in his blind spot, then I have to say I'm inclined to agree with the Insurers on this one.
The dashcam footage on the HGV probably doesn't show anything - most of them only have front facing cameras fitted to stop the old "crash for cash" scam.
Pezzy
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Mon, 13 May 2019 - 10:45) *
Without seeing the OPs footage (my computer won't let me view it) if you're daft enough to "undertake" an HGV in his blind spot, then I have to say I'm inclined to agree with the Insurers on this one.
The dashcam footage on the HGV probably doesn't show anything - most of them only have front facing cameras fitted to stop the old "crash for cash" scam.


So I'm not allowed to go the speed limit in my lane if there's a lorry in the outside lane of the motorway driving like miss daisy?

QUOTE (nigelbb @ Sat, 11 May 2019 - 15:51) *
Clearly the insurance company’s interpretation was that the OP was the guilty party & caused the collision.


No it wasn't actually. They have since instructed their legal team to pursue the 3rd party driver for the damages and said for me to get ready to attend court if it progresses that far. I guess we'll have to see if the lorry driver fesses up or if he is prepared to lie in court.
PASTMYBEST
I would like to see the evidence that cause your insurance company to change their mind. What you have shown to date wouldn't. From what I saw a claim that you were operating a crash for cash would not be totally without merit
Pezzy
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 15:25) *
I would like to see the evidence that cause your insurance company to change their mind. What you have shown to date wouldn't. From what I saw a claim that you were operating a crash for cash would not be totally without merit


It's a good thing you don't work for an insurance company then because god help us all. With that sort of comment I'm not sure what you are doing on a forum like this?
DancingDad
QUOTE (Pezzy @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 15:18) *
......So I'm not allowed to go the speed limit in my lane if there's a lorry in the outside lane of the motorway driving like miss daisy?
……..


Not illegal per se but not recommended either.
And could see you being done for dangerous or careless driving.

Are you aware of the highway code?

I'm obviously in the same boat as PBM because I cannot see what in the video would make the insurance company change their mind.
southpaw82
QUOTE (Pezzy @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 15:18) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Sat, 11 May 2019 - 15:51) *
Clearly the insurance company’s interpretation was that the OP was the guilty party & caused the collision.


No it wasn't actually. They have since instructed their legal team to pursue the 3rd party driver for the damages and said for me to get ready to attend court if it progresses that far. I guess we'll have to see if the lorry driver fesses up or if he is prepared to lie in court.

What made them change their mind?
nigelbb
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 18:25) *
QUOTE (Pezzy @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 15:18) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Sat, 11 May 2019 - 15:51) *
Clearly the insurance company’s interpretation was that the OP was the guilty party & caused the collision.


No it wasn't actually. They have since instructed their legal team to pursue the 3rd party driver for the damages and said for me to get ready to attend court if it progresses that far. I guess we'll have to see if the lorry driver fesses up or if he is prepared to lie in court.

What made them change their mind?

Allegedly change their mind.
Pezzy
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 17:34) *
Not illegal per se but not recommended either.
And could see you being done for dangerous or careless driving.

Are you aware of the highway code?

I'm obviously in the same boat as PBM because I cannot see what in the video would make the insurance company change their mind.


I am aware of the highway code.

It says under Rule 268, "In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right".

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 18:25) *
What made them change their mind?


Possibly that I pulled my case handler up on the fact that instead of accusing me he should be doing his job and look at the evidence. I explained exactly what happened and said they must insist on the 3rd party's dashcam footage as it will show what happened. Something that will never come to light as it will incriminate him and show he is lying. Possibly also the fact that I refused to accept liability and said I'd take this to court if I have to.

They then assigned a different case handler who apologised and after that I received a letter from their solicitors.

This post isn't about whether anyone here believes me. I couldn't give a toss to be honest. And the frankly absurd accusations thrown around here by some self righteous posters beggars belief.

What I have noticed here is that unless it's a cut and dry case, people will always assume you are guilty. So much for fightback forums.
Korting
I think the problem might be that insurers insist you must not admit liability, so people use that as an excuse for lying.

Many years ago whilst trying to turn onto a very busy dual carriageway, a woman drove into the back of me.

I got out and so did she and immediately accused me of reversing into her.

Apart from a jolt to my back, there was no damage to my car, but because of her accusation, I called the Police.
southpaw82
QUOTE (Pezzy @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 08:31) *
What I have noticed here is that unless it's a cut and dry case, people will always assume you are guilty. So much for fightback forums.

Nobody is forcing you to stay. I equally don’t give a toss whether you like the answers you’re given or not.
Pezzy
I started a post a while ago about a lorry that crashed into me, accepted liability at the roadside and then went on to lie to his insurance blaming me. I posted my dashcam footage and everyone seemed to think I was making the whole thing up and some even suggested I was running a crash for cash scheme.

Well, after my insurance's solicitors sent me a letter saying they will pursue the 3rd party for the costs, I got a letter from them yesterday.
Pezzy
Deleting perfectly legitimate posts because your ego got bruised? Typical copper by the looks of it.
Jlc
It was added to your existing thread (here) and not deleted.

You might get the 'wind your neck in' response... wink.gif
southpaw82
QUOTE (Pezzy @ Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 09:23) *
Deleting perfectly legitimate posts because your ego got bruised? Typical copper by the looks of it.

No, I simply added it to your existing thread because you were in breach of the one case, one thread rule. Now, your thread had been locked because you spat your dummy and acted like an entitled brat, so you were also in breach of the pretty standard and obvious rule about not resurrecting a locked thread. Buh bye.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.