Getting ripped off with claim

[coupe deville]

I am sure you are NOT at fault, if there are 2 lanes going straight ahead I always use the righthand lane if other traffic is in the left lane simply because I am usually driving faster [not illegally] than the other traffic.
In my experience, slower drivers use the left lane and drivers who are pushing on a bit use the right

 

[Rory]

Does the highway code really say this? Can it apply to this situation when the lane is clearly marked for going straight ahead?

Look at it here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070338
Shows a car turning right and leaving the roundabout in either lane.

As you say, it's irrelevant anyway if you were in a lane marked specifically for the route you were taking. Does GoogleEarth show the lane marking at the junction, by any chance?

 

[Dieselman]

Get photographs of the road markings..they will show both lanes to be marked out appropriately.
If marked then the normal rules of a roundabout don't apply as long as you stayed in a marked lane and indicated appropriately.

I suppose even if NU pay the claim against you there's nothing to stop you claiming back off the other driver, but consult Albany with regard to that.

 

[kusanku]

Look at it here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070338
Shows a car turning right and leaving the roundabout in either lane.

As you say, it's irrelevant anyway if you were in a lane marked specifically for the route you were taking. Does GoogleEarth show the lane marking at the junction, by any chance?

Just had a look at Google earth, and the junction is on there. It is Junction 17 of the M5, and I was going north. It looks clear enough to me, but maybe both I and all the other drivers who go round there are misinterpreting things. According to the third party's account, he had been next to me since the previous set of traffic lights, which meant he had gone all the way round in the left hand lane, even though he intended to turn right. The other interesting thing about his account, although it has no direct bearing on the accident, was that he stopped afterwards on the motorway slip-road. He then says that he reversed back along the slip-road onto the roundabout to continue on his intended route: clearly desribing an illegal manoeuvre.

 

[crockers]

Just had a look at Google earth, and the junction is on there. It is Junction 17 of the M5, and I was going north. It looks clear enough to me, but maybe both I and all the other drivers who go round there are misinterpreting things. According to the third party's account, he had been next to me since the previous set of traffic lights, which meant he had gone all the way round in the left hand lane, even though he intended to turn right. The other interesting thing about his account, although it has no direct bearing on the accident, was that he stopped afterwards on the motorway slip-road. He then says that he reversed back along the slip-road onto the roundabout to continue on his intended route: clearly desribing an illegal manoeuvre.

Although these two indicate a bad driver - they don't actually influence the decision of the driver and yourself at the time of the incident.

Can you add a link to google earth to your post so we can examine it...

I think NU are "bullying" you into making a decision. Let us know what Albany say when they come back to you.

Good luck

 

[timwood2000]

This is appalling behaviour on the part if NU. I think you should either escalate this at NU with someone more senior, or better still write a formal complaint about how they are handling your case - it is unbelievable that if the 3rd party had offered a 50/50 that they are telling you to accept full liability.

They clearly only want to close the case without doing any further work - insist they go to court (you have legal protection right?) and make sure you write a formal complaint - thy will have to deal with according to specific procedures and it won't be down to one lazy **** anymore at NU.

What a nighmare - good luck.

 

[kusanku]

Although these two indicate a bad driver - they don't actually influence the decision of the driver and yourself at the time of the incident.

Can you add a link to google earth to your post so we can examine it...

I think NU are "bullying" you into making a decision. Let us know what Albany say when they come back to you.

Good luck

I am not sure you can post a link to a specific satelite photo, i.e. I do not know how. The URL at the top appears to just be http://maps.google.com/
I found it by putting in Bristol UK, then looking for the M5 and focussing down on J17. Sorry, that probably does not help very much.

 

[crockers]

Found it. Were you heading away from Taunton towards the M4. It looks as though that is the only 2 lane part of the roundabout as the rest is 3 laned. An interesting point is that as you go off the roundabout towards the M5 the 2 lanes run into 2 lanes on the slip road so why would he want to move across to your lane. There is room for both cars to enter the sliproad together.

I think that this makes your case even stronger. Send those photos to NU and ALbany

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...29044,-2.60976&spn=0.000437,0.001207&t=h&z=20

 

[Dieselman]

Looks like it's Cribbs Causeway.

 

[crockers]

show off....just because your screen is bigger than mine..

How do you convert a screen dump into a picture?? I had to put the link on instead .. same pic

 

[Dieselman]

show off....just because your screen is bigger than mine..

How do you convert a screen dump into a picture?? I had to put the link on instead .. same pic

Clip it with Alt + print screen then use paint to save and convert it.

 

[kusanku]

Found it. Were you heading away from Taunton towards the M4. It looks as though that is the only 2 lane part of the roundabout as the rest is 3 laned. An interesting point is that as you go off the roundabout towards the M5 the 2 lanes run into 2 lanes on the slip road so why would he want to move across to your lane. There is room for both cars to enter the sliproad together.

I think that this makes your case even stronger. Send those photos to NU and ALbany

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...29044,-2.60976&spn=0.000437,0.001207&t=h&z=20

Yes,
this is the Cibbs Causeway junction.

He moved into my lane because he was turning right and not intending to go onto the motorway. I had mistakenly been under the impression that he had denied this and said he was going straight ahead, but his account, as read out to me over the phone this afternoon, was that he was heading towards Patchway, which is the right-hand exit.. That is why he cut accross my lane, and he assumed that as I was in the right-hand lane I would also be turning right. His arguement, which NU seem to accept, is that the right-hand lane should only be used for vehicles intending to turn right, which allegedly puts me at fault.

I have sent both NU and Albany extensive photographs of the junction, although not this aerial view, as I had not thought of it. Given exactly the same information, NU and Albany appear to have come to opposite conclusions. However, NU appear to believe the deciding factor is his claim that I was in the wrong lane, which I think is completely wrong.

If Albany's account is correct that it was the third party who offered a 50/50 and NU who rejected it, the rat I thought I could smell is actually NU rather than the third party. The question is what to do about it? I think the conversation with Albany tomorrow is going to be vital.

 

[Corrado]

Yes,
this is the Cibbs Causeway junction.

He moved into my lane because he was turning right and not intending to go onto the motorway. I had mistakenly been under the impression that he had denied this and said he was going straight ahead, but his account, as read out to me over the phone this afternoon, was that he was heading towards Patchway, which is the right-hand exit.. That is why he cut accross my lane, and he assumed that as I was in the right-hand lane I would also be turning right. His arguement, which NU seem to accept, is that the right-hand lane should only be used for vehicles intending to turn right, which allegedly puts me at fault.

I have sent both NU and Albany extensive photographs of the junction, although not this aerial view, as I had not thought of it. Given exactly the same information, NU and Albany appear to have come to opposite conclusions. However, NU appear to believe the deciding factor is his claim that I was in the wrong lane, which I think is completely wrong.

If Albany's account is correct that it was the third party who offered a 50/50 and NU who rejected it, the rat I thought I could smell is actually NU rather than the third party. The question is what to do about it? I think the conversation with Albany tomorrow is going to be vital.

In the OP you say his is a PI claim. From your conversation with Albany is there any indication that that is true? It doesn't quite stack up when there's an offering of a 50/50 settlement. It would be poor form (to say the least) if NU were misleading you on this point.
The third party positioned himself in the wrong lane - and (from personal experience at that junction) you'd have to proceed with extreme caution to carry on round eastwards under the M5 from the outside lane. If its on a roll from the previous set of lights, the traffic on the outside lane will be getting up to speed as its heading up on to the N-bound M5.
He appears to have stitched himself up by admitting to incorrect assumptions about the lanes on and leading off of the roundabout. If that the case, you're in the right, so stick with it. 50/50 won't do!

 

[kusanku]

In the OP you say his is a PI claim. From your conversation with Albany is there any indication that that is true? It doesn't quite stack up when there's an offering of a 50/50 settlement. It would be poor form (to say the least) if NU were misleading you on this point.
The third party positioned himself in the wrong lane - and (from personal experience at that junction) you'd have to proceed with extreme caution to carry on round eastwards under the M5 from the outside lane. If its on a roll from the previous set of lights, the traffic on the outside lane will be getting up to speed as its heading up on to the N-bound M5.
He appears to have stitched himself up by admitting to incorrect assumptions about the lanes on and leading off of the roundabout. If that the case, you're in the right, so stick with it. 50/50 won't do!

There are a lot of things which do not add up here, and a lot of things I have been unhappy with regarding NU's handling, like the fact that I had to report this three times before they recorded the details, and each time I contacted them they said they had no record of it, or even that I was insured with them. Just on the basis of those early signs, I had a feeling this was not going to go well. I would have also thought that he has stitched himself up with these false assumptions, which I stated in my letter. However, NU are taking the stance that his assumptions are correct. Albany have promised to phone me this afternoon, so hopefully they will be able to advise me where to go with this.

 

[Marque]

I have studied the road layout and markings in Google Earth. There are some road marking under the M5 just before the B4055 exit. The left-hand lane is marked "B4055" with a straight arrow. The middle and right-hand lanes are marked with turn right arrows, but the writing before the arrows is not visible. These are the last road markings before the M5 North exit, which is clearly a two-lane exit.

IMHO, unless the right-hand lane is marked "M5N" or "M5N THE MILL" at this point, it could be argued that both drivers were in the wrong lane and that each should have indicated their intentions and taken extra care while approaching the M5 North exit. Insurance companies would normally consider this to be a 50/50.

However, if the right-hand lane is marked "M5N" or "M5N THE MILL" then I would say that the OP is in the right, unless he was not signalling left or otherwise driving without due care and attention. (There would probably need to be an admission of fault or an independent witness.)

In essence, I cannot see how NU could conclude that the other driver is not at least partly at fault, unless they know about some specific case law that deals with this particular situation.

You will need to find out what the hidden road markings are to be sure of your position. Good luck!

Afterthought:
Most cross-over accidents like this occur on the roundabout itself, just before the exit. However, if this accident occurred on the slip road then this would indicate that the other party is lying and he simply pulled out into your lane without looking. Do you have any proof of where the accident occurred?

 

[kusanku]

I have studied the road layout and markings in Google Earth. There are some road marking under the M5 just before the B4055 exit. The left-hand lane is marked "B4055" with a straight arrow. The middle and right-hand lanes are marked with turn right arrows, but the writing before the arrows is not visible. These are the last road markings before the M5 North exit, which is clearly a two-lane exit.

IMHO, unless the right-hand lane is marked "M5N" or "M5N THE MILL" at this point, it could be argued that both drivers were in the wrong lane and that each should have indicated their intentions and taken extra care while approaching the M5 North exit. Insurance companies would normally consider this to be a 50/50.

However, if the right-hand lane is marked "M5N" or "M5N THE MILL" then I would say that the OP is in the right, unless he was not signalling left or otherwise driving without due care and attention. (There would probably need to be an admission of fault or an independent witness.)

In essence, I cannot see how NU could conclude that the other driver is not at least partly at fault, unless they know about some specific case law that deals with this particular situation.

You will need to find out what the hidden road markings are to be sure of your position. Good luck!

Afterthought:
Most cross-over accidents like this occur on the roundabout itself, just before the exit. However, if this accident occurred on the slip road then this would indicate that the other party is lying and he simply pulled out into your lane without looking. Do you have any proof of where the accident occurred?

On the road markings at the arrows you mention, where the bridge hides them from the overhead view, both lanes are marked M5 North. I have attached a photograph of these markings, which was submitted along with everything else. I submitted extensive photos of the area: only the google earth one was missing because I did not think of that. The third party was in the left-hand lane, which is also clearly marked M5(N), even though he was intending to turn right and not proceed straight ahead onto the M5.

The accident occurred on the roundabout as we approached the slip-road, and it is now clear from the third party's own account that he was not intending to join the slip road, but was attempting to turn right from the left-hand lane.

 

[Marque]

On the road markings at the arrows you mention, where the bridge hides them from the overhead view, both lanes are marked M5 North. I have a photograph of these markings, which was submitted along with everything else.

I'm just a bloke on t'internet, but your photo tells me that you were probably not at fault. However, check with the legal people that there is no case law that says otherwise. A complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman may be appropriate!

Reminder to self: must change Mrs Marque's car insurance from NU...

 

[Marque]

The third party was in the left-hand lane, which is also clearly marked M5(N), even though he was intending to turn right and not proceed straight ahead onto the M5.

I assume the middle lane was marked "M5(N)" only and the right-hand lane was marked "M5(N) THE MILL". (I can't see the full markings in your photo.) If he was heading towards The Mill, the other driver must have entered the roundabout from the A4018 (Cribbs Causeway) where there are similar road markings, so he should have been in the right-hand lane even before he joined the roundabout.

 

[crockers]

A complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman may be appropriate!

Insurance Ombudsman wont be interested in this at this point.....

There is an official complaints procedure that - assuming NU don't change their mind - you have to go through before proceeding to the Insurance Ombudsmand..

 

[kusanku]

I spoke to Albany this afternoon. They had gone through the file, and said they still consider the third party to be 100% liable for this. They had referred to the highway code, which states clearly that road signs and markings at the site are the decisive indicator of which lane you should be in, and that I was clearly in the correct lane.

The intention is for them to speak to NU and the third party insurers on monday to ascertain exactly why they consider me to be at fault, but on the basis of the information provided (both mine and the third party), they still consider the third party to be liable and will continue to pursue him. So I will now wait for a phone call on monday.