ChatterBank0 min ago
Accident At A Give Way
18 Answers
Hi, I have got an on going insurance claim at the minute. I had a driver driving a HGV lorry on a 2 lane road. Traffic was busy. A bus let a car pull out of a give way, he pulled across the 2 lanes, traffic moved my driver didn't see him being so high up and hit the drivers side of the car. The police turned up and said the car driver should have made eye contact with my driver which he didn't. They left without leaving details. I am blaming him. His insurance is blaming my driver. Now my insurance is trying to suggest that we settle 1/3 to him and 2/3s to me as it will cost too much if it goes to court.
Can anyone please help? Thanks
Can anyone please help? Thanks
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by clarkie4108. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Pointless aguing about it, your driver failed to see a car in his way and hit it, being 'high up' is no excuse . Your driver is expected to make allowances for the size of the vechcle he is driving. You could never prove that a driver did or did not 'make eye contact', I think you are very lucky not to be paying 100% of the claim.
I'm with you, Clarkie. I feel the car should have moved through the "Give Way" to a position in front of the bus (which had indicated to the car driver that he could do that). The car should then have indicated to show his wish to move one lane to his right, in front of your lorry and not moved into that lane until it was clear for him to do so, or your driver gave him the nod. In efeect, the car driver was switching lanes without indicating and without waiting until it was clear for him to do so.
Eddie, surely a give way sign means the car driver has to give way to all traffic, not just vehicles in the near lane? Sounds to me as though he pulled out in front of a HGV he was supposed to give way to.
Alternatively, if you think he was no longer controlled by the sign, as the bus driver waved him through, he was changing lanes without warning.
Alternatively, if you think he was no longer controlled by the sign, as the bus driver waved him through, he was changing lanes without warning.
^^ the bus had already let the car out, the lorry driver ''didn't see him being so high up' sorry but that is not an excuse, an hgv driver has to allow for such things. Yes the car driver should have made eye contact but if it went to court there would be no way to prove if or not eye contact was made. The car driver would just say '' I looked at the hgv driver and he gave me a nod so I carried on'', one drivers word against another and impossible to prove.
The admitted facts here are that a bus let a car out and then an hgv hit it because the hgv driver failed to see the car.
The admitted facts here are that a bus let a car out and then an hgv hit it because the hgv driver failed to see the car.
-- answer removed --
hang on - where was the give way sign?
was the car actually pulling out of a side road onto a main road, and the bus driver just stopped to be nice?
or did the bus driver HAVE to stop?
when you say a 2 lane road - do you mean 2 lanes going in opposite directions? or 2 lanes on either side = 4 lanes?
it does sound like the driver just pulled out and if he needed to make eye contact before continuing then he wasn't really in a good place ...
it sounds like the bus driver stopping for him has made him think the road is clear and hes just swung out
but we need more details - your OP is very confusing
was the car actually pulling out of a side road onto a main road, and the bus driver just stopped to be nice?
or did the bus driver HAVE to stop?
when you say a 2 lane road - do you mean 2 lanes going in opposite directions? or 2 lanes on either side = 4 lanes?
it does sound like the driver just pulled out and if he needed to make eye contact before continuing then he wasn't really in a good place ...
it sounds like the bus driver stopping for him has made him think the road is clear and hes just swung out
but we need more details - your OP is very confusing
one drivers word against another and impossible to prove.
I'm not so sure, Eddie. The fact that the HGV hit the car would be pretty good evidence that he hadn't seen it and therefore couldn't have waved the driver through.
It's clear neither driver saw the other. But one was under an obligation to give way to oncoming traffic and the other wasn't.
joko, I read it as the give way sign was on the side street the car was coming out of, and the street he was entering had two lanes going the same way - one occupied by the bus, the other by the HGV. But it isn't entirely clear.
I'm not so sure, Eddie. The fact that the HGV hit the car would be pretty good evidence that he hadn't seen it and therefore couldn't have waved the driver through.
It's clear neither driver saw the other. But one was under an obligation to give way to oncoming traffic and the other wasn't.
joko, I read it as the give way sign was on the side street the car was coming out of, and the street he was entering had two lanes going the same way - one occupied by the bus, the other by the HGV. But it isn't entirely clear.
exactly jno - so the bus driver didn't have to give way, he just did.
give way signs are not on main roads expecting traffic to stop to let people out of side roads.
meaning the car should have given way if it was coming out of a side road
if i have it right - basically the car drove into the path of the lorry, because it was hidden behind the bus and because the car had assumed the bus beckoning him out meant the way was clear... but it wasnt
thats why they advise people never to beckon other drivers or pedestrians, because some take that as kind of freedom and assurance that its ok, so just move off with out checking themselves
give way signs are not on main roads expecting traffic to stop to let people out of side roads.
meaning the car should have given way if it was coming out of a side road
if i have it right - basically the car drove into the path of the lorry, because it was hidden behind the bus and because the car had assumed the bus beckoning him out meant the way was clear... but it wasnt
thats why they advise people never to beckon other drivers or pedestrians, because some take that as kind of freedom and assurance that its ok, so just move off with out checking themselves
that's my feeling too, joko. Unless I'm missing something obvious, the car driver's entirely at fault; the lorry driver isn't to blame if people come through give way signs without checking the way is clear and fall under the lorry's wheels. The bus driver could only beckon him to enter his own lane, not any other, and an sensible car driver would have taken it one lane at a time..
As I said at first it is pointless arguing about fault, both the car driver and the hgv driver are to blame to some degree. The insurance company will go do whatever they want anyway. The best that could be achieved would be 50/50 and the costs of arguing the case in court would far exceed the saving to the questioner.
clarkie4108 write back to the insurance and say you will accept 50/50 and see what happens you might be lucky and get a saving. How much is the claim anyway is it worth arguing about? The main cost is going to be the increase in insurance premium due to having a claim against you, that will not be affected by the % of the claim you paid the fact that have a claim against you is sufficient.
clarkie4108 write back to the insurance and say you will accept 50/50 and see what happens you might be lucky and get a saving. How much is the claim anyway is it worth arguing about? The main cost is going to be the increase in insurance premium due to having a claim against you, that will not be affected by the % of the claim you paid the fact that have a claim against you is sufficient.
In my inexperienced opinion I agree that the car driver was most in the wrong. They assumed a 'let out' by a vehicle in the left hand lane meant they could just go into the right hand lane without checking that was ok. Simple error to make but error nonetheless.
It is possible some blame could be attributed to the lorry driver for not spotting the situation developing and taking sufficient evasive action, but IMO the lorry driver could easily claim there was little he could do as he had no idea the bus had stopped for that reason, and by the time he saw something entering his path it was too late. Whether that gets him off the hook totally is, I suspect, unlikely.
I agree with the police that the car driver needed to get the lorry driver's attention and implicit permission before move to the next lane.
Insurance companies always blame the other group. And also they wish to minimise costs by getting folk to agree. Plus they are in the driving seat, as it were, as all we drivers need to use one or the other so we can't win from that viewpoint.
In clarkie's shoes I'd tell my insurance company to go do what I pay them for and stop trying to place responsibility on me for their own convenience. To accept most of the blame seems ridiculous given the description in the OP. And if they raise the premium next year go find a more acceptable quote.
Having said all that, my past experience of the law is that whatever you think is indisputably right they'll find some excuse to twist it all around.
It is possible some blame could be attributed to the lorry driver for not spotting the situation developing and taking sufficient evasive action, but IMO the lorry driver could easily claim there was little he could do as he had no idea the bus had stopped for that reason, and by the time he saw something entering his path it was too late. Whether that gets him off the hook totally is, I suspect, unlikely.
I agree with the police that the car driver needed to get the lorry driver's attention and implicit permission before move to the next lane.
Insurance companies always blame the other group. And also they wish to minimise costs by getting folk to agree. Plus they are in the driving seat, as it were, as all we drivers need to use one or the other so we can't win from that viewpoint.
In clarkie's shoes I'd tell my insurance company to go do what I pay them for and stop trying to place responsibility on me for their own convenience. To accept most of the blame seems ridiculous given the description in the OP. And if they raise the premium next year go find a more acceptable quote.
Having said all that, my past experience of the law is that whatever you think is indisputably right they'll find some excuse to twist it all around.
One fly in the ointment having re-read. It says "traffic moved" which seems to imply this wasn't a case of already moving down the road, but of traffic stopped, and the car believing the space in front of the lorry had been left for him deliberately. If that is the case then that would reverse my earlier opinion. If you have a car in front of you because you left a space (for whatever reason but presumably for a car to enter from the side road) then the emphasis should be on the lorry driver to be aware of what had occurred earlier. In which case the 1/3rd 2/3rds offer is not so bad.
At the end of the day it's up to the insurance company to decide how to settle bearing in mind the costs of fighting the case and the risk of losing if it goes to court.
My mum had a very similar case many years ago- hers involved a bus or lorry in the left hand lane allowing a car to pull out of a petrol station. Her insurer accepted a share of the blame. We consulted some friends who were motor claims experts and they advised us that a court would say that mum, driving in the right hand lane, should have been aware of what was happening to her left and should have slowed down and proceeded with caution. It seemed harsh I know.
My mum had a very similar case many years ago- hers involved a bus or lorry in the left hand lane allowing a car to pull out of a petrol station. Her insurer accepted a share of the blame. We consulted some friends who were motor claims experts and they advised us that a court would say that mum, driving in the right hand lane, should have been aware of what was happening to her left and should have slowed down and proceeded with caution. It seemed harsh I know.
one drivers word against another and impossible to prove.
I'm not so sure, Eddie.
ah boys and girls if only the sex cases were conducted on such a basis !
Anyway to the point: if the insurance co's are involved doesnt the principle of subrogation ( Preston 1828 ) get put into action
which means the insurer can do whatever he likes without say-so from the the insured parties.
but I coiuld be wrong
in which case I would grab the deal.
You obviously lose the no claims bonus and that could if you are determined to have your day in court could be the subject of a small claim brought by yourself.
I'm not so sure, Eddie.
ah boys and girls if only the sex cases were conducted on such a basis !
Anyway to the point: if the insurance co's are involved doesnt the principle of subrogation ( Preston 1828 ) get put into action
which means the insurer can do whatever he likes without say-so from the the insured parties.
but I coiuld be wrong
in which case I would grab the deal.
You obviously lose the no claims bonus and that could if you are determined to have your day in court could be the subject of a small claim brought by yourself.
FF - whilst i do agree that when she saw the car stop in front on a petrol station but not go in, she could have guessed why and knew a car might come out, the fact that she must have been pretty much on top of that section of road, but why would anyone in their right mind expect the car to not just go into the left lane?
I dont see how she can be blamed if another car crossed her path - from behind another vehicle, thereby obscuring their visibility!
being let out onto the left lane, by the car in the left lane doesn't mean its ok to come across one lane into the right line, since the car that stopped has no control over traffic flow in the right lane
id have been furious with that - but i suppose its their job to try to twist it so they win
if thats basically whats happened here with clarkie, id say the car driver is 100% at fault - you cannot expect a HGV to be able to just slam on and stop in time - and as for expecting the driver to have spotted the car in advance - how? - there was a bus in the way - thats why the car should have inched across not just drove out.
also buses have windows, you can usually see right through them, so why could the car see a great big HGV
clarkie - please correct us if we have got the incident wrong - if we are correct = i would hugely suggest you spend some time writing this incident out and making diagrams because your account of the incident here is very confusing and doesnt make total sense - so may be viewed as unreliable
I dont see how she can be blamed if another car crossed her path - from behind another vehicle, thereby obscuring their visibility!
being let out onto the left lane, by the car in the left lane doesn't mean its ok to come across one lane into the right line, since the car that stopped has no control over traffic flow in the right lane
id have been furious with that - but i suppose its their job to try to twist it so they win
if thats basically whats happened here with clarkie, id say the car driver is 100% at fault - you cannot expect a HGV to be able to just slam on and stop in time - and as for expecting the driver to have spotted the car in advance - how? - there was a bus in the way - thats why the car should have inched across not just drove out.
also buses have windows, you can usually see right through them, so why could the car see a great big HGV
clarkie - please correct us if we have got the incident wrong - if we are correct = i would hugely suggest you spend some time writing this incident out and making diagrams because your account of the incident here is very confusing and doesnt make total sense - so may be viewed as unreliable
1 to 18 of 18
