fuken insurance companies

[R6_kid:Me]

its been two months since the accident (27th of august) and they still havent got an estimate for their clients cage. Its only a bumper and light how long does that take to find out? About 5mins.

Their client is still maintaining that it is my fault, even though he pulled a u-turn on an intersection. (which i assume is highly illegal)
(i know that i hit him from behind, but the fuck didnt even check his rear view mirrors or he woulda seen two bikes behind him)

All the same should i have to wait this long or are they just pissing me round.

and for those that are slow im rather pissed off

oh, and they need an independant witness account. The only people that saw it were 2 school boys about 7years old and im sure they are gonna remember it well...

[StoneChucker]

I feel for you, hope you get it sorted soon. I do however think, as unfair as it may seem, that in the eyes of insurance it would be your fault. I know that NZ road/traffic law states that you must be able to stop within the distance of clear road ahead of you that you can see. (or some such wording).

Life sucks sometimes enjoy the good times

[sAsLEX]

but if the clear road in front of you is occupied suddenly then is it still your duty to be able to stop in time?? (i.e James Stampa)

[FlyingDutchMan]

By the sounds of it he was in front of you then decided to pull a U-ie. Unless he was drunk, or there was a no U-turn sign you are at fault.

[StoneChucker]

but if the clear road in front of you is occupied suddenly then is it still your duty to be able to stop in time??

Unfortunately yes, the way I see it/understand it. You have to be able to drive safely, including when you come across unforseen circumstances. Yes, obviously at times that may be unfair, but unless there are extenuating circumstances and you have witnesses, I think thats just the law.

By the sounds of it he was in front of you then decided to pull a U-ie. Unless he was drunk, or there was a no U-turn sign you are at fault.

I agree partially, I still think if you drive into/rear-end someone, you're very likely to "loose your no claims bonus"

[Gixxer 4 ever]

I feel for you, hope you get it sorted soon. I do however think, as unfair as it may seem, that in the eyes of insurance it would be your fault. I know that NZ road/traffic law states that you must be able to stop within the distance of clear road ahead of you that you can see. (or some such wording).

Life sucks sometimes enjoy the good times

Used to be "you had to stop within half your clear distance on a class one road and you had to be able to stop with in your clear distance on a class 2 road".
Yep I am getting old but I had reason to learn this many years ago when a car ran in to a mob of Ewes on a class 2 road.
I am sure you will lose the no claim. Bugger. As other have said shit happens and I am sorry to hear it.

[StoneChucker]

Used to be "you had to stop within half your clear distance on a class one road and you had to be able to stop with in your clear distance on a class 2 road".

Um, yeah thats what I meant, half the distance...

[Zapf]

I assume you were in the same lane when he did a u-turn?

[R6_kid:Me]

the road is just over "two lanes" wide but is not marked as a two lane road. He was off to the left as i was approaching, he swung to the right and stopped in the middle of the intersection.

as far as the hit from behind thing is concerned, i was already aware of that, in that sense i accept liability.

I understand that i probably should have been a bit further back, however i was outside the recommended distance (20m for 50kmh) as mentioned in the roadcode.

My reasoning for him being liable is
his action was illegal => within reasonable driving there was no way to anticipate it => cant have checked his mirrors as another bike was between us => he caused accident due to those reasons (it wouldnt have happened if he hadnt done the illegal maneuvre)
however
i came off my bike before stopping => not in control => hit his vehicle
which i understand makes it 'my fault'

my real point wasnt to gripe about the actual accident but rather the fact that the insurance company is being an absolute fuck head. Im building a bike at the moment so im prefer to know wat money i do and dont have. I am paying for damage to the other bike at the moment, not knowing what their verdict is and i am trying to sort out going to uni, so i'd prefer to know sooner rather than later if they are going to want my money.

So... do you think that the way they tend to screw people round is justified/nessacary???

[Zapf]

the road is just over "two lanes" wide but is not marked as a two lane road. He was off to the left as i was approaching, he swung to the right and stopped in the middle of the intersection.

as far as the hit from behind thing is concerned, i was already aware of that, in that sense i accept liability.

I understand that i probably should have been a bit further back, however i was outside the recommended distance (20m for 50kmh) as mentioned in the roadcode.

My reasoning for him being liable is
his action was illegal => within reasonable driving there was no way to anticipate it => cant have checked his mirrors as another bike was between us => he caused accident due to those reasons (it wouldnt have happened if he hadnt done the illegal maneuvre)
however
i came off my bike before stopping => not in control => hit his vehicle
which i understand makes it 'my fault'

my real point wasnt to gripe about the actual accident but rather the fact that the insurance company is being an absolute fuck head. Im building a bike at the moment so im prefer to know wat money i do and dont have. I am paying for damage to the other bike at the moment, not knowing what their verdict is and i am trying to sort out going to uni, so i'd prefer to know sooner rather than later if they are going to want my money.

So... do you think that the way they tend to screw people round is justified/nessacary???

Was he stopped on the side of the road? was he slowing down? has he got its indicators on?

If he was making a U-turn, he must have his indicators on towards the direction he is turning.

If he was stopped on the side of the road, then he pulled out to oncoming traffic.

If he was slowing down pulling off to the left then suddenly swinging to the right and stopped. Then he pulled out to oncoming traffic with or without indicating.

Was the section of the road solid white lines? solid yellow lines? If so it is not legal for him to do a U-turn in those places.

If you jumped off your bike at the last possible moment, believing that you'll cause more damage to yourself than if you didn't jumped. Then it maybe unreasonable to say that you were not in control.

All the above are really technical stuff which may help you against the insurance company, because I hate most of them. But the truth in a personal view is that you were following too close for the condition and didn't have an escape route planned.

good luck

[TwoSeven]

Not knowing the actual scenario, I suspect the insurance companies will still be trying to sort out liability (I dont know their process).

If you hit someone from behind before they got more than halfway thru their U-turn - then it implies you were tailgaiting - ie. not following at a safe distance and speed.
A very common example that happens in london is black taxi's can turn on their axis - so they will often suddenly stop and do a u-turn out of the blue.

If you hit someone from behind after they are more than half way thru their maneuover (u-turn) then they failed to give way - since the act of giving way also insures that you give sufficent room to oncomming traffic while you complete your move - which they didnt do.
A comon example for this is people who do u-turns out of the parking space on the side of the road - they look for the oncomming traffic - miss seeing the motorcycle, then promptly pull out into the path of the oncomming bike (its more normal for the bike to hit the side of the car rather than the rear).