Duty to avoid a collision and insurance payouts
Discussion
Highway Code says everyone has a duty to avoid an incident.
Remember this incident where the biker lay his bike down on the road to avoid a falling bridge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-3722418...
The DCW threads usually show people colliding but occasionally someone takes to the trees to avoid a collision with maybe someone pulling out of a road junction.
However it's still a collision.
If theyd collided with whoever pulled out, the insurance claim may have been straightforward. If they collide with the trees, is it just a claim through their own insurer or is there some come-uppance against the third party?
Any experiences?
Does it seem best to collide for insurance purposes despite what the Highway Code says?
Remember this incident where the biker lay his bike down on the road to avoid a falling bridge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-3722418...
The DCW threads usually show people colliding but occasionally someone takes to the trees to avoid a collision with maybe someone pulling out of a road junction.
However it's still a collision.
If theyd collided with whoever pulled out, the insurance claim may have been straightforward. If they collide with the trees, is it just a claim through their own insurer or is there some come-uppance against the third party?
Any experiences?
Does it seem best to collide for insurance purposes despite what the Highway Code says?
I've thought the same thing before. If you swerve to avoid some moron who pulls out on you, your car ends up in a ditch and the idiot drives off unaware or uncaring you get penalised for claiming off your own insurance.
I suppose this is when witnesses to prove that you only crashed due to someone else. That I suppose is a perfect example of why having a dashcam running just to cover your own back is a good idea.
I suppose this is when witnesses to prove that you only crashed due to someone else. That I suppose is a perfect example of why having a dashcam running just to cover your own back is a good idea.
A colleague had this issue. He was on his 1200 bike, dizzy parent pulled out on him at a school and he laid the bike down to avoid going over her car.
The bike ended up battered to buggery, but made no contact with the car.
He fought for over 2 years to get anything covered by insurance.
The bike ended up battered to buggery, but made no contact with the car.
He fought for over 2 years to get anything covered by insurance.
Alex_225 said:
I've thought the same thing before. If you swerve to avoid some moron who pulls out on you, your car ends up in a ditch and the idiot drives off unaware or uncaring you get penalised for claiming off your own insurance.
I suppose this is when witnesses to prove that you only crashed due to someone else. That I suppose is a perfect example of why having a dashcam running just to cover your own back is a good idea.
I suppose this is the decision we all make to drive defensively. Because it could be argued that the person did not do anything massively wrong and you completely overreacted. Really the only way to ensure the other person's insurance claim would be to smash into the back of them (drive 'offensively') and then the court would see you could not have slowed down in time.I suppose this is when witnesses to prove that you only crashed due to someone else. That I suppose is a perfect example of why having a dashcam running just to cover your own back is a good idea.
The same applies if someone does a poor overtake coming your way- you may well kill yourself and the person but if you maintain your stride and smash into the oncoming car it will be their fault for doing the poor overtake
cantstopbuyingcars said:
I suppose this is the decision we all make to drive defensively. Because it could be argued that the person did not do anything massively wrong and you completely overreacted. Really the only way to ensure the other person's insurance claim would be to smash into the back of them (drive 'offensively') and then the court would see you could not have slowed down in time.
The same applies if someone does a poor overtake coming your way- you may well kill yourself and the person but if you maintain your stride and smash into the oncoming car it will be their fault for doing the poor overtake
Good lord.The same applies if someone does a poor overtake coming your way- you may well kill yourself and the person but if you maintain your stride and smash into the oncoming car it will be their fault for doing the poor overtake
COM31E said:
A colleague had this issue. He was on his 1200 bike, dizzy parent pulled out on him at a school and he laid the bike down to avoid going over her car.
The bike ended up battered to buggery, but made no contact with the car.
He fought for over 2 years to get anything covered by insurance.
It should have been covered by his own comp insurance, no issue. Claiming against a third party that you haven't hit, a lot more tricky.The bike ended up battered to buggery, but made no contact with the car.
He fought for over 2 years to get anything covered by insurance.
Basically, to successfully claim of someone who wasn't involved in the collision but who you think caused it, you need one of 3 things. An admission of guilt from the other person, 0r dashcam footage, or an independent witness. Otherwise, not a hope.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff