Road traffic accident query

[TandB]

I'm hoping there might be some insurance/RTA lawyers out there - it's an area I have never worked in at all.

I had a fairly minor accident this morning and it's all been reported to insurers, so out of my hands really, but I'm just wondering how the liability is likely to fall.

I was crossing a fairly big junction (with traffic lights) which has two lanes coming from all four directions. I was on the main road going straight across. As you enter the junction there are two lanes - the right hand one is the one you use to go straight on and the left hand one is a left turn lane if you are a car, and a straight-on if you are a bus. The far side is a bus lane on the left and a straight on lane on the right.

There are garages and a retail park all down the left hand side so you have to cross the bus lane to enter them.

The bus lane only operates until 10am - after that you can go straight on in the left hand lane.

I was crossing the junction and should have been clear to do so but a couple of cars and vans came down the inside and forced their way across in front of the truck in front of me, so instead of being able to clear the junction, the truck had to stop, leaving me stuck out into the junction. The lights were about to change and there were cars entering the junction behind me, so the whole thing was going to back up. I looked in the mirror and there were no buses coming so I edged round the back of the lorry to get out of the way (barely moving - a couple of mph) and as I pulled alongside it a woman somehow came alongside - so we were three abreast - and hit the side of my car with the side of hers. I honestly have no idea how I didn't see her - either she was far enough back that she was one of the cars which I assumed to be turning left, in which case I don't know why she didn't stop, or she was one of the cars behind me and she tried to perform the same move as me, but faster, iyswim.

We stopped and exchanged details and she admitted that she had been trying to enter the bus lane as she wanted to turn left into one of the garages about a hundred yards further on. I often go to a softplay centre next door to that garage and I always drive in the car lane and then cross the bus lane when I get to the entrance, because the bus lane is operational at that time.

I know I will be found liable at least in part - I've been quite honest with the insurers that I was moving lanes at the time of the incident and didn't see her approaching - but I'm wondering whether the fact that she admits that she was trying to enter an operational buslane is going to be a factor. If the buslane hadn't been in operation I would have been driving down it anyway, but had I been in the right hand lane for any reason I wouldn't have moved across because the cars behind me could have been going either left or straight on, if that makes sense - you couldn't make any assumptions about which way they were going. I did make an assumption that none of the cars I could see would carry straight on because they shouldn't have been doing so at that time.

Any thoughts? If it's going to turn into a major dispute I'm inclined just to accept liability in full, because my car has a tiny scratch so all the cost will be for her car which somehow has the whole side panel pushed in from a fairly light impact. It's probably going to cost more in the long run to dispute full liability than just to get it all done quickly.

My gut feeling is that it's probably going to be mainly me in the wrong, because I changed lanes and was doing so to get clear of a junction, although I'm irritated about it because if she hadn't been trying to drive in the buslane it wouldn't have happened. I'm also annoyed because I genuinely can't work out how it happened - she should really have had plenty of time to stop because she definitely wasn't right on my blindspot otherwise the impact would have been instant rather than happening at the end of my maneouvre.

From experience - do not admit liability and it will probably end being a knock for knock or whatever they call it. I had this last year when a woman hit the side of me when she took a corner too fast in snowy conditions. Very little damage to my car but I blamed her, she blamed me and the insurance companies ended up saying that we both should cover out own costs - my damage was so slight - and I didn't lose my no claims bonus.

You should major on the fact that she admits to committing an offence by moving into a bus lane intentionally.

Good luck.

I agree with Exit.
Did she have lights on? It's been very dark in the daytime recently.
I wouldn't admit liability at all either.

Kungfu, if the other driver has been in the wrong lane for her intended route i.e. she should have been behind you instead of undertaking you as she had no right to enter the bus lane, then there is an argument for contributory negligence, if not full negligence. The problem is, you were also moving left into that same lane, or towards that same lane, ableit I get why you decided to move the way you did. It's a tricky one to argue, and tbh, I'd need to see a sketch/photos/diagrams along with statements from both parties to determine if the argument is one worth pursuing. If you have access to Binghams, you might be able to find a case that would help you figure out a % that might be possible to argue, and then if it's really worth the hassle to try and pursue the arguments. Cases that cover motorcylists are the ones where new lanes are created by the bikes overtaking in areas where most people wouldn't expect to see another vehicle, with the added difficulty of them not being easily spotted in blind spots if not properly checked etc. In some cases, when another vehicle creates their own 'lane' then you can make a good argument over their negligence, but again, it's hard to say for certain without personally being able to look at the locus, and compare the statements. What might work in your favour is the record of the report, with the time noted, and then at least you have a solid argument that she was trying to enter a lane she wasn't entitled to enter, but when you failed to see her, it's then going to come back to you changing lanes and not seeing another vehicle either. You could go round in circles trying to argue this, but it's possible to formulate a strong argument depending on what she says happened and why she was doing what she was.

Thanks everyone. I don't see any way that it wasn't at least partly my fault. Not unless she actively changed lanes behind me, but I don't think any of the cars coming up behind me were close enough to have done that in the time that it took me to move. I suspect she was probably going a little bit too fast, heading for the empty bus lane, and just didn't react quickly enough. She might have thought I was going to cut down the buslane too so didn't bother braking until it was too late. I wish I bloody had gone down the buslane now - there's no camera as far as I know!

If it's going to drag on then the cost of the claim is going to be mainly a hire car while her car is fixed I suppose. The damage wasn't massive to her car - the side panel shoved in a bit with some scuffing and scratching. Mine probably won't need anything doing at all. I guess we need to see what she says happened. She seemed like a perfectly open and honest person given that she admitted that she was going to enter the bus lane. She initially kicked off and swore at me, but then immediately calmed down and apologised and said she was just shocked. When she realised I had the DSs in the car she got quite upset and kept saying sorry and asking if they were ok. She was saying that she hadn't been able to stop because I changed lanes, so she's obviously intending to dispute liability, but I think she might be honest about whatever happened, as I have been. It was left as a "let's tell our insurers what happened and let them sort it out." I suspect she may also have doubts about whose fault it was.

I think the best possible outcome I can hope for is an equal liability result.

I am now installed on the sofa with wine feeling sorry for myself.

The other driver kept calling my mobile this evening, alternating between her mobile and her landline. I don't tend to answer the phone between 5 and 7 because it's carnage with a 3 year-old and a 1 year-old. I eventually realised it was her and called her back, thinking I might have given her a wrong number for my insurance or something.

She (with her husband chipping in in the background) were basically trying to get me to admit full liability. She claimed my insurance company were saying that I had claimed that it was her fault and trying to get me to admit that she hadn't been at fault. I told her I had given them the exact details of the incident, that I had never been asked to give any indication of liability and that I had been entirely truthful about the fact that I had changed lanes, but that I had obviously told them that she had been trying to enter a bus lane. She got quite agressive, saying she had "checked" and the bus lane was irrelevant. More nagging about "but it was your fault, did you tell them it was your fault" and lots of "the marks on my car will prove it" until I took the broken record approach and just kept saying "I've confirmed what happened. It's up to the insurance companies to decide what happens next."
She eventually said "fine, let them sort it out" and hung up.

I know it's stupid to be shaken up by something so minor, but I just feel a bit intruded upon. As far as I'm concerned, once matters are in the hands of the insurers, that should be it for contact between the parties. I had the baby asleep on me and the three year-old nagging at me and I got all stuttery and incoherent which is ridiculous for someone used to dealing with legal "stuff".

I've spoken again to my insurers and they say they have spoken to her (she's not using her insurance company - they're going with one of these claims handling companies because apparently there's more chance of getting the car replaced rather than repaired if you go down that route) but that they didn't say I was trying to blame her, but they they, the company, would be pursuing a 50/50 claim because of the bus lane issue. They basically said it was up to them whether they conceded liability or not - whether I think it's my fault or not isn't particularly relevant.

I know I'm being daft but I just feel a bit shit about the whole thing - they only live a couple of miles away and I've got this stupid image of them sitting there, chuntering about the horrible woman who is trying to wriggle out of the blame. I get the impression from what she has said that she thinks she was entitle to enter the bus lane because she was going to turn left a bit further down - she is still quite open about the fact that she was going to use the buslane. She seemed like a nice enough woman and I just feel crap and guilty.

I know, I'm being a massive wuss!

kungfu, I really wouldn't give it that much thought - it happens all the time. You think they'll be reasonable, but as soon as they go and speak to someone else, that's when they'll start to change their story. I agree with your insurer, it's likely to be a 50/50, for the reasons you've highlighted re the bus lane, and also with her car basically creating the extra, 3rd, lane. There is also the fact that she was trying to squeeze past your car, in the inside lane, when there was no room. In your shoes, I'd just write out your statement, while still fresh in your mind, and keep it handy for when your insurer will ask you for it - they'll likely need a written statement at some point if she's going to contest liability. As the end of the day, she's not chuntering about you being a horrible woman, she'll be chuntering that she can't just bully you into admitting full liability when she has some blame here.

With your statement, just be as factual as you can, and for emphasis, I'd highlight the timescale between you checking before you pulled out, the fact that your car was fully/almost fully in place i.e. in the inside lane just before the bus lane (also explaining you were not intending to enter this, just clear the build up of traffic as the lights were due to change) before she then appeared to your left, trying to create an extra lane/undertake you in order to enter the bus lane to gain access to the garage further along, colliding with your car. The fact you don't know where she came from is a problem, but when she does submit her version, you'll find out where she came from and then probably realise why you didn't see her. She might well have undertaken a few cars to try and 'beat the lights'. Your insurer will likely ask if you are willing to attend court (I'm sure you won't be too phased with the prospect ) and if you agree, they'll defend a 50/50 unless the other driver is able to prove you are fully to blame. For her to do that, she'll have to explain why she was undertaking on the approach to a bus lane where there was no where to go, and when your car was already established in the lane she was trying to get into. She really doesn't have a leg to stand on. And don't speak to her again, she'll just try and use that to grind you down, and she has blame here.

Stick to your guns and let your insurers handle you, she is trying to intimidate you, as she knows she is in the wrong.

my car has a tiny scratch so all the cost will be for her car which somehow has the whole side panel pushed in from a fairly light impact

So is that your front left corner, and her right side ?

It does sound like a blindspot thing.
She continued to overtake you as you pulled out ?

I think the blindspot was the more likely explanation - what I don't know is how she got there, iyswim. Whether she was behind me and then changed lanes quicker than me, or whether she came across the junction in that lane - I had looked in the rear-view mirror and in the side mirror and also glanced directly across at the side road to see if there was a bus about to turn left into the buslane when the lights changed, so I don't know how I didn't see that someone was going straight on at some point in the checks. It also wasn't, as far as I could tell, a particularly high-speed collision, which is why I think she might have thought I was about to drive down the bus lane so just kept trundling on regardless.

The damage on my car is slightly more than I thought but it's in an odd pattern. There is some front left damage (I didn't realise at first because that corner was quite badly scuffed and dented from something that happened while it was parked in a carpark - someone must have reversed into it) but nothing major. There is then nothing at all on the front passenger door, but the rear passenger door has a chip and the scratch that I mentioned. So there was contact at in two places which suggests she made light contact towards the back of the car and then carried on to the main point of impact. She was certainly further back than me at the first impact, because I couldn't see her when I first heard the collision which sounded like scraping rather than a bang, and then she carried on past me and pulled off the road in front of me.

The bottom line is that I don't know exactly how the collision happened, save that I clearly changed lanes when someone else was close enough for their to be a collision - it is therefore going to be at least half my fault and I've never suggested otherwise to the insurers. If it had been a simple right lane to left lane change then it would be entirely my fault, but the insurers take the view that the bus lane is relevant because she should have been either in a different lane, or stopping at around the same point I stopped in order to move back across to the other lane when the traffic cleared. If she hadn't been trying to continue on I can't see that it would have still happened because she would have been slowing right down to stop at that point.

I think she thinks I shouldn't have mentioned the bus lane at all, but I couldn't give a truthful and accurate account without doing so. I'm now half-wishing I'd just said "yes, entirely my fault, other driver doing nothing wrong". It wouldn't make any difference to losing my no claims or paying the excess and it now looks like it will drag on and on and I tend to worry and obsess about things like this.

[wet lettuce emoticon]

Kunfu, I'd wait and see what the other driver says and then decide if it's worth the hassle of pursuing the contrib argument. She might just reel off a whole load of blatant lies to make you seem more at fault, and that might just change your view of this 'nice' woman. When you mention the area of damage to your car, again, it suggests you have been there before she's arrived, as opposed to you pulling out just as she passed your car. It's kind of splitting hairs, as she might have just been behind you to your left, in the blind spot, and not really had any chance to avoid a collision. However, driving somewhere you shouldn't be, does have an impact on the cause of an accident and often will be taken into account when determining blame. Someone driving through a chevroned area or bus lane, or yellow box etc. has some impact on whether an accident happens or not, and when there is enough value to the claim, most insurers will try and argue the contrib to save on the overall costs. I predict that she'll submit an injury claim at some point, to give her claim more weight, so if you can stomach all that, then you don't have to fight it if you don't want to. If you think it's more hassle than it's worth, all you need to do is tell your insurer that you wouldn't be willing to attend court to assist with any defence they want to put forward, and then they'll have no option but to deal with her claim in full. I think she has some blame here, in that she's tried to 'skip' past the built up traffic, thinking she's only going into the garage as it's just along from the start of the bus lane, and has been going too fast to react to another car moving in front of her. Who is more to blame comes down to what each party says and and how the allegations against the other stack up. It could be 50/50, or some other split more in her favour. I guess it's your decision of you want to argue over this or not.

I'm rather sensing this may well go as a 50:50:

It is very much in the insurers economic interests for both parties to lose their no claims, so if there is a plausible case for a 50:50.
If one party has no claims protection and the other doesn't, then again there is an economic incentive for the insures to lean on the unprotected party if that is plausible interpretation of the incident.

I'm still not quite picturing whether cars that were legitimately turning left in the bus lane should all have turned left by the point you pulled out.

Bottom line though: Stop worrying.
Insurers will look at this for 2 minutes and make a judgement.

Be lucky.

If it goes 50/50 you won't lose your no claims (unless you claim for the minor damage to your car - I didn't) The other woman in my accident was clearly a loon and made a trillion mistakes in her statement but it still went 50/50.

Stick to your guns, do not speak to them, do not admit liability and play up the fact that you checked your mirrors carefully because of your precious cargo!

When you draw out the map of the accident the bus lane will be relevant.

Man up woman!

Exit, the NCD will be affect if it goes 50/50, and any payment is made to the other party i.e. 50% of the repairs or injury etc. Even if kungfu doesn't claim for her own damage, any payment made for whatever % of liab is agreed, will affect NCD.

Thank you all again. I've had no more calls so I'm feeling a bit less flappy about the whole thing.

Cumfy - there is no bus lane going into the junction - it becomes a bus lane coming out. So going into the junction, buses can carry straight on but all cars should be turning left, otherwise they would have to force their way back into the right hand lane. You do sometimes get people doing that - driving across the junction and then trying to bully their way back into the correct lane before the bus lane kicks in.

If she was saying she was going to do effectively what I was doing and tuck into the entrance to the buslane and then move back across, I think I would be held entirely to blame - although I can't see how it would have still happened in those circs as she would have had to be coming to a stop at the point the collision occurred because the other lane was stopped. It think it is the fact that she tried to go straight on that turned it from a near miss into an actual collision. The more I think about it, the more I think she thought I was going to do a cheeky nip down the bus lane, like she admits she was going to do. The collision wasn't high speed but I don't have the impression that she was trying to brake - she just seemed to carry on past at the same speed.

Or she was just too close to react of course.

I genuinely don't know what I think about it, to be honest. Like bunch says, my NCD has gone, no matter what proportion of the blame is attributed to me so I sort of wish I'd never brought up the buslane issue. Then she would have just got her car sorted and I would still be in the same position.

On the other hand, the insurance companies all use lie-detection phone systems now, so me not mentioning her possible contribution might have been enough to trigger that, and then I would be in a whole world of trouble!

Right I shall man up, keep being honest and hope that they sort it out quickly.

And thank you all for being lovely and patient and not screaming "Man up" much earlier in the thread!

I don't understand I didn't lose my NCD when I had my snow bump last year. Despite trillions of phone calls from add ons to the insurers about whiplash, hire cars, saying my car had £1,000 worth of damage (changed to a private quote of £100) and several exchange of letters and details of the incident, when eventually everyone got bored and called it a day and I heard no more, I was assured thay my NCD would not be affected, and I have just renewed my insurance and my NCD was still the same. Your other drive wasn't injured was she, so just tell your insurers that she was at fault and sit tight.

YOU DID NOTHING WRONG.

< man up

Exit, what you describe sounds more like each party 'bore their own losses' so neither would have claimed anything from the other's policy at the conclusion. That means your NCD won't be affected if your policy makes no payment to the other party for any part of their claim. It's a better outcome, and usually only applies when the losses are similar in value, or you can persuade the other side to accept (even if not in their interest - a rare occurance). The rule of thumb is if your insurer pays anything on your claim, but then cannot recover that from anyone else, then there is no 'zero balance' on the claim so NCD affected. If you pay something out, but are able to recover that to achieve the 'zero balance', NCD not affected.

Thanks bunch - yes I think it was settled as a 'no fault' - or everyone got bored! My insurers certainly did not pay anything - I would have pursued it if they had wanted to as she was an absolute loon.

Hope you are OK Kung - you are normally the voice of calm and reason whose posts I admire enormously.

she was an absolute loon

That is not such a rare occurance IME

Try not to fret about it. I got myself in a right old tizzy because the evil scumbags I bumped at 3 miles an hour screwed £11k out of my insurance company for 'whiplash'. But there's nothing I can do about it, and I just have to let it go for my own peace of mind and hope that they really get whiplash at some point so they know how it feels

We have a road haulage business - every, single, solitary incident involving one of our vehicles is always, withouth fail, our fault, and every single person suffers whiplash.

Amazing isn't it