SMB driving experts...

[Deleted member 7190]

She was on the roundabout and going straight on (no indicators) - at the last moment when she saw I had moved out she accelerated and took a sharp right straight into the side of me. Two witnesses ran over, one bloke said he's never seen anyone do a driving manoeuvre like that, it was totally un-natural and obviously deliberate.

Fair one, I get what you mean now.

 

[Arthur80]

I wouldn't be so sure mate, i my experience Insurers take the easy way out. A couple of years ago I was driving towards Shields at Tyne Dock and a woman deliberately drove into the side of me on the roundabout (sure it was one of those scams). At the scene she admitted it was her fault but as soon as she got home she claimed it was my fault as I shouldn't have been going straight on in the lane I was in (she said the left hand lane was for turning left up Commercial Road only, despite the fact there is a dedicated spur lane for this). My insurance company wanted to go 50/50 as they said it would be impossible to prove she was at fault, I told them that if they did that I would take them to court. In the end they backed me and she lost. The diagram is below (I'm the blue car).

Logon or register to see this image

Had a few near misses on that roundabout, coming from commercial road i stay in the left lane to turn right (as taught by my driving instructor) and people in the right hand lane always just drift over to the left without looking.
The worst one though was someone in the lane you've got marked deciding he wanted to turn left nearly wiping me out and not even realising what he'd done wrong.

 

[haway]

She was on the roundabout and going straight on (no indicators) - at the last moment when she saw I had moved out she accelerated and took a sharp right straight into the side of me. Two witnesses ran over, one bloke said he's never seen anyone do a driving manoeuvre like that, it was totally un-natural and obviously deliberate.

I see. Think you were lucky not to get done (obviously in a reasonable world you wouldn't) as I know one or two people who have been shafted on roundabouts where someone suddenly changed and hit in to them. The witnesses probably saved you, as otherwise it's one word against another etc.

 

[bernardbresslaw]

I see. Think you were lucky not to get done (obviously in a reasonable world you wouldn't) as I know one or two people who have been shafted on roundabouts where someone suddenly changed and hit in to them. The witnesses probably saved you, as otherwise it's one word against another etc.

That's exactly it mate. My insurers said they normally always go 50/50 on accidents on roundabouts as they're very hard to prove either way and that's why these scammers pick them, but my point to them was that they were ignoring the witness statements. They had also wrongly assumed that i wouldn't go to court against the lass if asked.

Because she kept pushing for whiplash claims with the "no-win" company despite the fact her motor insurers had already paid out, I eventually put a claim in against her for my foot (I'd had it trapped underneath the brake pedal) and won.

 

[haway]

That's exactly it mate. My insurers said they normally always go 50/50 on accidents as they're very hard to prove either way and that's why these scammers pick them, but my point to them was that they were ignoring the witness statements. They had also wrongly assumed that i wouldn't go to court against the lass if asked.

Good on you. Hopefully with dashcams these events will become less likely. Have been meaning to buy one but the faff of putting it up and down each time I drive puts me off.

 

[lenshack]

She broke a law by driving over cones, and into a closed lane. what she did there was f***ing pathetic, irresponsible, and dangerous. If no one wants to let you in, then wait, let them and their massive ego carry on.
She was just pissed off that she wasted her time by trying to gain extra time for herself , by going right to the end of the lane closure, and couldn't get her own way. It's f***ing childish.

I'd have done her for careless driving and criminal damage.

Discretion is the better part of valour.

While it's common sense to allow idiots like that stupid blonde bint into the queue and avoid the risks of a mishap, allowing her to get away with it simply encourages even more idiotic extreme behaviour and it's only a matter of time before the likes of her come unstuck big time, possibly badly affecting some other poor innocent soul.

Basically it's a no win situation for either party in the long term.

 

[Giddup Sausage!]

This is a good one, well done the police
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1893844857552573&id=1597935477143514

The copper should have done it, causing an obstruction and danger to vechiles behind him. Even when the copper blocks him he still tries to push infront. Unbelievable.

 

[longtimelurker]

"Call tha Paleese! Arghhhhh!!!! Are ya fuckin stupahd?! Ya on me foot, man!"

 

[Giddup Sausage!]

my wife had the same experience nearly 3 years ago. he was in a taxi and drove into the rear of the car the wife was driving, whilst stationary. he admitted it and said take it to any garage and he would pay. wife and her sister went to hospital with minor whiplash. phoned him up and told him. he went off it and refused to co-operate, so we went through the insurance. he gave a different version of events and it was to be treated as a knock for knock. I done an investigation. the junction where it happened was downhill, so the wife would of had to put the car into reverse gear. he never surrendered his cctv and eventually his insurance company told him, he was accepting the blame as he kept changing his story after every submission we made. It took nearly a year to sort out.

Our lass (no) had something similar. Parked up at the side of the road in a layby and some dizzy bint went into the back of her (there was a dog loose on the grass bit which looked like it would run onto the road and she must have been watching that). Lass admitted fault (even in texts) at the scene and then later made up a story (which she kept changing) that our lass pulled out onto her. In the end the insurance just went 50/50 on it and the lass (who was scared to leave the house, had nightmares, whiplash, lost her car due to being scared to drive it, etc..etc.. The cars were hardly doing any f***ing speed either) ended up getting shit loads of money and our lass got fuck all. She was even seen driving her car about after the accident dropping her children off at school.

The lass who went into her changed her story so much (which we kept pointing out and ripping apart in the statements) and even had extra people in the car at one point! The text messages apparently mean nothing either because she was "in shock and intimidated" at the scene (even tho the txts were sent WAY after).

Law/Insurers are a f***ing joke.

 

[soapster]

Our lass (no) had something similar. Parked up at the side of the road in a layby and some dizzy bint went into the back of her (there was a dog loose on the grass bit which looked like it would run onto the road and she must have been watching that). Lass admitted fault (even in texts) at the scene and then later made up a story (which she kept changing) that our lass pulled out onto her. In the end the insurance just went 50/50 on it and the lass (who was scared to leave the house, had nightmares, whiplash, lost her car due to being scared to drive it, etc..etc.. The cars were hardly doing any f***ing speed either) ended up getting shit loads of money and our lass got fuck all. She was even seen driving her car about after the accident dropping her children off at school.

The lass who went into her changed her story so much (which we kept pointing out and ripping apart in the statements) and even had extra people in the car at one point! The text messages apparently mean nothing either because she was "in shock and intimidated" at the scene (even tho the txts were sent WAY after).

Law/Insurers are a f***ing joke.

that's bad. not exactly good customer service. the bit about the admissions is just tosh and a get out to take the easiest route

mine was awful at the start despite us forwarding what they wanted and they just never replied to us. Don't know if the lass was off sick but never heard anything for months. I put the file together and informed them at an early stage I had contacted Northumbria police to establish if any cctv. cost £10 but there wasn't any, but never told them that. Being a taxi driver, the offender was easy to spot in his taxi. I just asked him to contact his insurers asap as he was refusing to return all calls. I kept a diary of all attempted contact. submitted everything and asked for the cctv that he should of had running in his taxi. I wish I had kept the emails now, but basically his insurance demanded answers from him and if no answers they would settle in our favour. Got an email about a month later stating he had now admitted liability and it was a misunderstanding on his behalf.

I often play with the idea of using a dash cam. It would have proved the case immediately and not finally resolved a year later.

 

[Deleted member 1358]

Common sense should prevail.
Audi driver is aggressive in their intent
Cam man is an arse
Both lanes should be used to maintain traffic flow
Should both be reported to police for poor driving and made to sit through a four hours of a driving course
Potential risk of hightened risk to other road users

They both let themselves down and to be fair more important things happening in the world.

I'd have been ashamed to have post my camera recordings

 

[The Archer]

Both went on like twats. No need what so ever.
Now both parties have to go through a whole load off ball ache for nee reason. Serves them both right.

Agreed. The Audi driver left it too late and when it was obv Cam man wasn't letting her in should have stopped but Cam man's journey would have been delayed by literally a second or two letting her in.

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

If that had been me, I'd have just chipped a couple of her teeth with me stiletto heel and been on my way.

 

[Deleted member 6694]

Common sense should prevail.
Audi driver is aggressive in their intent
Cam man is an arse
Both lanes should be used to maintain traffic flow
Should both be reported to police for poor driving and made to sit through a four hours of a driving course
Potential risk of hightened risk to other road users

They both let themselves down and to be fair more important things happening in the world.

I'd have been ashamed to have post my camera recordings

They were as 3 cars from the right had already been let in and it's not a great distance they travel and there was possibly 3 cars to the cones when the Audis appeared. To merge right at the cones in slow moving traffic is not the best way to do it as you end up with the right lane stopping and waiting to be let in which in turn stops the left lane.

The drivers should have been merging a few cars before the cones while moving to keep the flow of traffic through the cones and that's what the 3 initially did at the beginning. The 2nd Audi passes the cam driver just as they get to the Merge In Turn sign (the 1st did the same with the silver car in front) and they both knowingly went faster than the moving traffic even after seeing the 3 cars had just merged to try to jump a place or 2.

So if it had been done as some have suggested and cam driver let her in then it would have been 3 from left and 5 from the right stopping the traffic in the left lane in the process due to the uneven balance. As those 2 Audis sped up the following cars in the right lane will possibly do the same and jump the left lane cars and then they'd want letting in so would you allow 3 from the left and 5 in from the right again etc etc?

Cam driver did what quite a few would do and stopped the queue jumping and in this situation there was no real danger of someone dying given the speed, only cones about the poor little things. Maybe there was the potential for a low speed scrape due to the stupidity of the Audi driver trying to still barge in by changing lanes but only in this case. It's certainly a bit different to the twats who try to nip off the A19 northbound at the last moment for the A1231 Nissan turn off because the left lane in chocka.
why am I still posting in this thread? haha
Isn't it called 'Merge In Turn' for a reason, as it's certainly not 'merge as quick as you can to the cones' like some have implied earlier in this thread

 

[Deleted member 1358]

They were as 3 cars from the right had already been let in and it's not a great distance they travel and there was possibly 3 cars to the cones when the Audis appeared. To merge right at the cones in slow moving traffic is not the best way to do it as you end up with the right lane stopping and waiting to be let in which in turn stops the left lane.

The drivers should have been merging a few cars before the cones while moving to keep the flow of traffic through the cones and that's what the 3 initially did at the beginning. The 2nd Audi passes the cam driver just as they get to the Merge In Turn sign (the 1st did the same with the silver car in front) and they both knowingly went faster than the moving traffic even after seeing the 3 cars had just merged to try to jump a place or 2.

So if it had been done as some have suggested and cam driver let her in then it would have been 3 from left and 5 from the right stopping the traffic in the left lane in the process due to the uneven balance. As those 2 Audis sped up the following cars in the right lane will possibly do the same and jump the left lane cars and then they'd want letting in so would you allow 3 from the left and 5 in from the right again etc etc?

Cam driver did what quite a few would do and stopped the queue jumping and in this situation there was no real danger of someone dying given the speed, only cones about the poor little things. Maybe there was the potential for a low speed scrape due to the stupidity of the Audi driver trying to still barge in by changing lanes but only in this case. It's certainly a bit different to the twats who try to nip off the A19 northbound at the last moment for the A1231 Nissan turn off because the left lane in chocka.
why am I still posting in this thread? haha
Isn't it called 'Merge In Turn' for a reason, as it's certainly not 'merge as quick as you can to the cones' like some have implied earlier in this thread

Thanks for the comprehensive reply

 

[soapster]

They were as 3 cars from the right had already been let in and it's not a great distance they travel and there was possibly 3 cars to the cones when the Audis appeared. To merge right at the cones in slow moving traffic is not the best way to do it as you end up with the right lane stopping and waiting to be let in which in turn stops the left lane.

The drivers should have been merging a few cars before the cones while moving to keep the flow of traffic through the cones and that's what the 3 initially did at the beginning. The 2nd Audi passes the cam driver just as they get to the Merge In Turn sign (the 1st did the same with the silver car in front) and they both knowingly went faster than the moving traffic even after seeing the 3 cars had just merged to try to jump a place or 2.

So if it had been done as some have suggested and cam driver let her in then it would have been 3 from left and 5 from the right stopping the traffic in the left lane in the process due to the uneven balance. As those 2 Audis sped up the following cars in the right lane will possibly do the same and jump the left lane cars and then they'd want letting in so would you allow 3 from the left and 5 in from the right again etc etc?

Cam driver did what quite a few would do and stopped the queue jumping and in this situation there was no real danger of someone dying given the speed, only cones about the poor little things. Maybe there was the potential for a low speed scrape due to the stupidity of the Audi driver trying to still barge in by changing lanes but only in this case. It's certainly a bit different to the twats who try to nip off the A19 northbound at the last moment for the A1231 Nissan turn off because the left lane in chocka.
why am I still posting in this thread? haha
Isn't it called 'Merge In Turn' for a reason, as it's certainly not 'merge as quick as you can to the cones' like some have implied earlier in this thread

Under what authority did he have to do this. he did not have any right or authority to do this at all. stupidity by both drivers