My continuing saga from a collision in December is annoying me now!

I have a question!

The 3rd party insurer said "While it is not under the highway code, it is common practice to emerge halfway accross a junction and wait in the centre of the road for traffic from your left to give way, therefore Mr Avalon should accept 50% of the respnsibility as he did not give way to this vehice". I dispute this! If its not in the highway code then its not legal surely, common practice or not?

Rule 149 applies here does it not? One side of the road (mine) was 2 lanes, and the other side of the road was single carrigeway. I indicated right, and moved into a right hand filter lane, when the 3rd party hit me as she accelerated out of the junction to the offside rear of my car, where she drove straight into it! She claimed it was common practice to do this, but i maintained that whether it was common practice or not she still shouldnt have done it!

To me its like saying "Its common practice to break in to peoples houses - so therefore its your fault for having a house"?!

Can anyone shed any light on this, as i need more ammo to send back to my insurer to prove i am not at fault!

Personally, I agree with you. It's also common practice to let buses out when they are indicating, but that does not them the right to go ploughing into the traffice regardless. There's a difference between courtesy and right of way.

I think they're trying it on. Just respond by saying what you've already said: "it may be common practice but it should not be assumed that traffic will give way to cars waiting in the middle of the road." This woman misjudged the situation and in effect ploughed into moving traffic - simple as that.

I've seen it many times and I myself have pulled out halfway and waited for the traffic from my left to give way to me at the top of Eastern Avenue.. City Road has a filter lane for traffic turning right onto Eastern Avenue and if there is no traffic coming down city road, then I and many others have pulled into the filter lane and waited for traffic from the left to give way..BUT, I always make sure that the filter lane is clear first.. It's common sense really.. She should have waited until her way was clear before pulling out halfway.. She is the one at fault not you..

I agree she is at fault but proving it is an issue!

If you had driven into the side of her when she had been occupying the "half way" position for a reasonable time (i.e. long enough for you to see her and brake safely to avoid a crash) then she could argue 50-50 responsibility. However, she drove into the side of you and that is clearly not "common practice" and a clear failure to give way.

Tell them where to go.

Right then! They will feel my wrath! I am writing my letter to them now!

Refer it back to your own insurers, sounds ridiculous to me!

It's their way of trying to avoid paying out.

Yes this sounds like a standard "we'd like to try it on for a cop out" letter.

Write back, or get your insurer to write back, refuting any suggestion that "common practice" entitles her to anything, whether she was following it or not.

Try not to rush off a hot-headed response. Use resonable terms but be firm about it.

How about this:



Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your letter dated 18th March with regard to my continuing claim from December 2006.

After reading your letter and considering my options I have decided I cannot accept a 50/50 settlement.

My reasons for this are quite simple:

• I was established on the main road when the incident occurred.
• I was stationary in a right hand filter lane when the collision took place.
• I was indicating right when the collision took place.
• Whether or not it is common practice to emerge half way across the road at junctions or not, it is still not permitted in the Highway Code. Rule 149 would seem to apply to this situation, even though only one side of the road was dual carriageway. The 3rd party had no central reservation to take their vehicle, so therefore should have waited for both sides of the road to be clear before proceeding. It may be common practice, but it should not be assumed that traffic will give way to cars sat in the middle of the road.
• The 3rd party was behind a dotted line which means “Give way to traffic on the major road” which they clearly did not.
• The accident damage to my vehicle clearly indicates that the 3rd party ran into my vehicle.
• The independent witness’s statement I have already proved to be unfounded as they could not see the junction or either vehicle involved from their position.

As the 3rd party collided with me, due to their negligent driving and lack of attention I cannot accept 50/50, as they could easily have avoided the accident by obeying the Highway Code. This is not a case of debating “common practice”, but is a clear case of failure to obey the rules of the road.

Sounds alright to me.

I guess that this woman meant that it was "Common Practice" for her to collide with other vehicles at this junction.:confused: But yes she is certainly in the wrong :)

Who are her insurers? Sheila's Wheels? :)

I had an instance some years ago when driving along a main road. There was a filter lane for traffic wanting to turn right which had a queue of traffic in it and I was going straight on along the main road. As I got level with the front of the queue in the filter lane there appeared a car right in front of me crossing my lane. Well I had no chance and hit them in the side. Apparently they had been flashed or waved by the front car in the filter lane straight into my path.

They and their insurers tried eveything to get out of paying me - it was my fault for "undertaking" (a queue in a filter lane ??? I think not), it was the fault of the person who had flashed / waved them across (who surprisingly had not hung around), they had been given right of way by the front car in the filter lane and I should have stopped (would have if I had a chance) and as I hadn't I was in the wrong, I was speeding (not in a Vauxhall Chevette - its impossible)

They only paid up when I issued proceedings against them but it took me over 6 months to get my money. :rant:

Actually her insurer is Allianz-Cornhill - Fairly reputable, however i wonder if it is work experince boy (or girl) who is handling the claim? Mind you mine arent much better - called them the other day, i could hear a hoover in the background and then after a long pause and some throwing the phone around i got "...errr hows this work... hello?"

If you were stationary and she hit you, then it's her fault. She had brakes and could have stopped in time; send the letter to your insurance company - they should be acting on your behalf - that's what you pay them for. If you start communicating with her insurers then you could inadvertantly make errors which could cost you.

Phone your insurance company or send the letter to them and let them do it on your behalf.

In my professional opinion, the letter you have received is a load of rubbish.

And I agree with Classic - let the insurance company deal with it, you might inadvertently make a mistake that they can sieze hold of.

I will sned them the letter above and see what their response is. If i am at fault i dont mind holding my hands up, but i dont think i am!

Are they trying to say, that because the person had 'right of way' that they are entitled to plough into any traffic they have in front of them?

Surely natural intelligence tells you to pull up before you collide?
Or is this this just typical modern bad driving on both sides?

I will sned them the letter above and see what their response is. If i am at fault i dont mind holding my hands up, but i dont think i am!

You have been seriously advised not to take this line of action.

Those companies have more experience of 'how to avoid making payment' than you have of 'obtaining payment from them'.

You should not reply directly to them, but if you insist, reject their offer and stick to the simple facts:

"You were stationary and signalling when they started to emerge and collided with the side of your vehicle."

.."End of" ...

Do no enter into any discussion.
Do not debate what is right or wrong.