Insurance claim help

[vgcspares]

lane splitting is not smart - I do it but accept if it goes pear shaped I've got no one else to blame but myself
clearing the claim is one thing (based simply on whether the cover applies, you have the correct license, have disclosed anything pertinent and haven't been done for DUI)
waiving the excess is something else and depends on the acceptance of liability or preponderance of proof ... and new evidence can come up later in the plot

so did they waive your friend's excess or just clear the claim ?

[CookMySock]

Yesterday - He got a letter from the insurance co. saying that she is now disputing fault.

This is normal business practice from the insurance company.

I would suggest you replied in writing and told them if that you cared nothing for their letter, and in the light of your recent legal advice, you would pursue their client in the small claims courts for your uninsured losses, medical expenses, as well as other costs, and that they should expect their client to contact them again shortly and make an additional claim to cover this, as at first glance it was the insurers' responsibility to cover them in such cases.

That will make their arse pucker.

Steve

[supraman_nz]

Man so many responses. I will pass these all onto my friend this afternoon.

Thanks Grahameeboy for the offer, I will contact you soon if he needs it.

Also funny someone should mention the Ngaranga gorge, as this is where it happend.

So in summation action should be
- Ring up insurance company to see why this is even happening after she admitted fault
- Back it up with a letter

[Shaun]

Lane splitting is legal...although it does occupy great areas of grey.
A vehicle that is changing lanes etc, must ensure the way is clear, and must indicate at least 3 seconds prior to performing said manouevre...that is your mates defence right there (she was in the wrong)

Sorry about this but, How is lane splitting legal, when we have a distance between vehicles RULE

IE, if you can get close enough to lane split, you are following to close in the first place?

As I said, Sorry

[MarkH]

the fact that the claim has been approved means they can't back out of it now.

Hence my suggestion of ringing the insurance company to ask: "What the fuck?"

When someone admits liability at the scene, then again later with their insurer, then denies liability while still admitting to making an illegal lane change - that's when I want my insurance company to explain to me why they are bugging me about it!

[MSTRS:Me]

Sorry about this but, How is lane splitting legal, when we have a distance between vehicles RULE

IE, if you can get close enough to lane split, you are following to close in the first place?

As I said, Sorry

No need to apologise.
There's been heaps of threads about lane-splitting...
The legal position is - must be done on the right side of any lane you are in, frowned on if traffic is moving at a 'reasonable' pace, speed differential not great.
No doing it in the left side of the lane...this is undertaking. No doing it between a central barrier and the solid line forming the right edge of the fast lane.
If a cop sees you - he will probably make a call as to whether you are splitting 'safely' and leave you alone - or not.

[MarkH]

No doing it in the left side of the lane

This is the part that I don't like about the law, mainly because I am always splitting on the left side of the lane. The reason is obvious when you look and the road position of the cars on the motorway, everyone drives to the right of their lane - easier to judge when you are sitting in the right hand side of the vehicle.

I personally think that they should legalise lane splitting and just have it illegal to lane split in a dangerous manner, why should someone safely lane splitting be charged just because the cop is having a bad day?

[MSTRS:Me]

This is the part that I don't like about the law, mainly because I am always splitting on the left side of the lane. The reason is obvious when you look and the road position of the cars on the motorway, everyone drives to the right of their lane - easier to judge when you are sitting in the right hand side of the vehicle.

I personally think that they should legalise lane splitting and just have it illegal to lane split in a dangerous manner, why should someone safely lane splitting be charged just because the cop is having a bad day?

That dotted line makes all the difference. Don't do it on the left of a car, but to the right of the lane marking.
As I said, splitting is a grey area, and I agree that it should be covered by legislation. The risk is that the powers-that-be will have chinwag about it, and actually rule it out, altogether. The status quo might be best. Hmmm?

[Shaun]

That dotted line makes all the difference. Don't do it on the left of a car, but to the right of the lane marking.
As I said, splitting is a grey area, and I agree that it should be covered by legislation. The risk is that the powers-that-be will have chinwag about it, and actually rule it out, altogether. The status quo might be best. Hmmm?

Your comments RE the Grey area are what I am talking about mate, the internet can be a very dangerous place, giving people true or false information all the time.

I would bet both my things, that Lane splitting is tech a NO NO!

And if accidents were to happen whilst this was going on, there IS a way out for the Insurance companies Technically

Covered by legislationas you say, IT Already is! Based on the legislation of following distance!!!!

It is IMPOSSIBLE to lane split, without following to Close.

The police will always ignore lane splitting, as it is practical, and they have to much shite to deal with already with all the loosers out there, BUT if lane splitting can be proved prior to an accident, they HAVE to do what they have to do, and that is what the letter of the rule book says.

POLICE MEN ON THIS SITE-- Please quote the law on this, and lets try to protect any one else from falling into this confort zone, of thinking lane splitting is teck OK, safe if done safely, But tech a NO NO.

[CookMySock]

IE, if you can get close enough to lane split, you are following to close in the first place?

Thats daft. How would it even be possible for cars to pass legally if that were the case?

Steve

[MSTRS:Me]

Your comments RE the Grey area are what I am talking about mate, the internet can be a very dangerous place, giving people true or false information all the time.

Yep...technically a No No.
However, it is still 'ignored' when sense is used. I did find this. can't find a (known) cop/s post that talks about splitting at all.

[The Stranger:Me]

Ok I will try and keep this breif but please bare with me.
A friend was lane splitting (traffic was stationary or as near as it) and a car lane changed right infront of him, only started indicating as they moved across lanes and he had no where to go but the rear of this persons car.

Person got out, she admitted she was in the wrong and got insurance details ...
He contacted his insurance co. and they sorted it out with her, she admited liability to them. Claim approved.
Last week got the work done to fix the bike (this was over 1 month since the accident.

Yesterday - He got a letter from the insurance co. saying that she is now disputing fault. Esentially she is saying that she and i qoute "quickly looked in mirror" and "indicated and moved across lanes at the same time". She didnt really state why she doesnt think shes at fault but I think shes trying to say , she did everything to check it was clear but when she moved my friend lane splited into her path.

So this esentially comes down to was lane splitting allowed?
He has to write a letter back to give his comments on her claim. Obviously hes going to say that she didnt give enough of a mirror check to see a bike (as she admited it was a quick look) and the fact she indicated at the same time she moved.

It would be appricated if you guys could give guidence on what should be said back about this.
Thanks in advance.

EDIT - I you know of any parts of the law we could quote regarding lane splitting / mirror checking / indicating that would be great.

He "has" to write a letter to which insurance company?
Often the "other" insurance company will send you a sheep letter (looks like a sheep, but it's really a wolf) trying to trick you into accepting liability. If that is the case here, either ignore it or pass it on to his/your insurer to deal with. If he/you get a call from the other insurer do not engage them, instead abuse them soundly for trying to get you to accept liability and refer them to your insurer.

Random thoughtson the incident, though I accept I don't know the answer.
She has to indicate for 3 seconds before moving.
She has to check the way is clear.
I believe that lane splitting is naughty and not strictly allowed, however, I assume she was pulling into a space in the traffic in the other lane. Were your "friend" in that space (even at the very back of it) I would argue that I had just finished overtaking when she pulled into my path, I wasn't actually splitting at the time.

[The Stranger:Me]

Agree completely. Which is why when I filter, I do it like a little pig-tailed girl.

You squeal with delight?

[PirateJafa]

So in summation action should be
- Ring up insurance company to see why this is even happening after she admitted fault
- Back it up with a letter

NO.

Just write them a letter and tell them that as they have already accepted liability(by repairing the bike), the case is CLOSED.

They're just trying to scare you into getting some money back. DON'T let them fuck you/him around.

[p.dath]

When payment is made by an insurance it is usualy done on the terms of a "full and final settlement".

So tell them that the matter has been settled. It's final.