Accident at a roundabout

[Martin963]

We were only 20 minutes off the boat at Roscoff when we were involved in an accident at a roundabout near Morlaix.

It’s quite a busy roundabout,  and in a line of cars approaching the roundabout I was the one that had to give way to a car that was already on the roundabout.   I had just begun to move off again when there was a bang from behind and we’d been hit by the car following us.   As I was moving (albeit very slowly) the damage could have been worse,  but our tailgate has a complex dent at the bottom left corner….

We filled in a constat aimable with the son of the other driver – but he insisted at the time that we had made an “unauthorised stop” on the roundabout and that therefore it was our fault.   We drew two pictures on the constat,  mine showing what the photos I took show – front wheels over the give way line,  the right hand back wheel still on it it  (which is where we actually ended up stopping following the crash) – his showing my vehicle well on the roundabout half way to the next exit!

Something not dissimilar happened to us in 2000,   and I know as a result that getting any sense out of the situation via insurers in two countries takes a long time (15 months in that case) during which of course one cannot prove that one is “blameless”,  therefore affecting claims bonus etc.   So in this case I have spoken to my insurers (Cornish Mutual) and submitted the necessary forms on the basis (with which they entirely concurred) that I would also contact the other party privately and see if they’d like to pay directly for my repairs – there was no obvious damage to their car.

I obtained a quote from a local garage to sort out the tail gate;   in truth it probably should be entirely replaced but as the car is five years old I’m prepared to accept a repair that looks OK.   I then contacted the other party with the quote (guaranteed to be less than €450) and this morning the son rang me back again saying that the accident was my fault – again he used the phrase “arret non autorisé” - and that someone they knew who’s an expert on French vehicle law agrees that it’s my fault.   They therefore won’t pay.

Now of course I can pursue them via my insurers.   I have photos showing the situation.   But if they are going to swear blind that I had stopped without authorisation am I going to get anywhere,  other than to end up with a situation where I am held at least partially to blame and therefore affecting my bonus etc?    (The bonus is protected but as far as I can see that counts for nothing if one changes insurers as they “mark up” the premium if there’s been a claim even though the bonus is protected).   Would I do better just to say to myself “how unfair but it could have been worse” and cough up the €450 and hope it doesn’t happen again.   If I set Cornish Mutual to pursue them and they fail to establish that the accident was the fault of the other party presumably it’s going to mean I’m held at least partially to blame……?   Is it always the case that the person who hits you from behind is at fault,  or are there “mitigating circumstances” in French law,  such as “un arret non-autorisé” on a roundabout?

Can any of you recommend what you’d do in the circumstances…..

I know that the only people who can really advise are my insurers,  but it would help to have some informal thoughts before I speak to them again on Monday.

Thanks folks.

[woolybanana]

Let the insurance company handle it; that is what they are there for. Give them copies of the photos of the accident as well as your constat to prove your case. The guy who hit you is operating the well oiled principle of never admitting anything and always try to blame the other guy.

Last week someone cut me up on a mini roundabout and I stopped her and let rip with some of the best French expletives I had. What was clear is that she did not know the code for the roundabout. Of course she tried to blame me, as all French people try to blame someone else, they are trained to it, but I am sure she will think twice before the tries that trick again.

Think of Cahuzac - lie, lie and keep telling the biggest porkies you can, then when really up shit creek, tell the truth and expect to be forgiven immediately and return to your job ( well, the parliament anyway).

[dave21478]

Fuck insurance companies and everything they stand for. They will do the minimum they can legally get away with to get you out of their hair - this normally means settling 50:50, which is the best way for them to minimise their costs. Photos and statements will make little difference to the claim and realistically, there are no winners.

If you want to let the insurers fight it, be prepared for it to drag on for months, if not years and even then to still end up going 50:50, which will cost you your excess, and you will then learn come renewal time that protected NCB is not worth the supplement they charge you for it.

Alternatively, get a replacement boot lid from a breakers yard and be done with it all.

My new Mazda seems to be jinxed and I have had two accidents in it since November. The first is still on-going with the insurers, and I never bothered with the second, where I was rear-ended after having to brake hard to avoid a silly cow stopping on the bypass to let a car out of a side road. No way was it worth the hassle of trying to claim for minor cosmetic damage.

[Chancer]

I concur, your insurer will maraculously raise your base premium by a significant amount come renewal time and blame the underwriters, as you say you cannot go elsewhere so you are stuck with losing some bonus or keeping it but with an inflated premium, I will never ever again accept protected bonus, I have even gone with what was not the cheapest quote to avoid it.

Problem is that you have already reported your accident to your insurers so even if you dont pursue it they or any will log it as claim pending and any future insurers will be notified of it, dont forget the French guy will certainly have informed his insurers of the accident citing you as 100% so they will now be cominag after your insurers, as Dave has said it normally ends 50/50 and both insurers win and both motorists lose.

Sorry to sound so negative but I have been there and done that, once I did my own repairs and still took a couple of years to get back my withdrawn bonus from the insurers.

The only possible positive is if you were to now realise that you suffered whiplash [I] But even then I'm not sure that a UK insurer can claim those sort of damages against a foregn motorist/insurer, I successfully claimed against a UK insurer when my French registered car was rear ended in the UK but i did it privately not via my French insurers, you can be sure that they would have found a reason to take away my bonus just to spite me!

[sid]

If this had happened in the UK it would have been easier to handle! No consolation, I know. Generally speaking when a vehicle runs into the back of another it is the second driver's fault; he was simply driving in such a way that he couldn't stop in the event of something unexpected happening in front of him. When determing the "blame" insurers sometimes make allowance for the first driver doing something stupid, but it's only a smae percentage usually. Whether or not you made an "unauthorised stop" (what a ridiculous term!) should make no difference. I'd be disappointed if it isn't the same here in France, but I am prepared to be told otherwise, as so many things are different.

I thought that the actual driver had to fill in the "constat aimable"? (Not a relative, who may have differing views).

I'd let your insurer handle it, telling him that the other driver did not respect the "distance de securité", but be prepared to take a long time.

I found this in my copy of the Code de la Route, and it's online too: see Article R412-12 on this page

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006177121&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006074228 

 

[NickP]

About ten years ago I had an accident that wrote of my car after it was sat on by a very large Camion in France. It took the insurance company over a year to sort out, and I only got back my excess and expenses when eventually it was confirmed that the other party wouldn't make any sort of claim. Mind you for a couple of scratches on a huge crash bar on the front of a Mann truck I'm not surprised. But it did appear that my insurance company, British, felt that as the other party didn't claim; that the other party was to blame???????  Which is quite bizarre as I had supplied them with enough information and proof for them to work out that the truck was in the wrong. As for your case I would think  do you feel lucky; and are you prepared to wait? of course if it goes against you and you lose your excess etc. then it's maybe better to drive around with a dent. Sorry cant help more, but Insurance is already tricky when claiming, add in British then French culture and thought process, result utter chaos. Good Luck

[woolybanana]

Hmmm, well, all in all, having considered the facts, and taking into consideration the advice you have received from the other posters, I reckon you have no choice but to go for the other party, as hard as possible.

[Martin963]

Thanks to all of you who have replied.   It's actually very uplifting to know that one isn't alone in these circumstances.   It's appreciated.

Seems to me the million dollar question is whether my insurers would be prepared to "tear up" the submitted (but not actioned) claim form in the absence of any other developments,  and if they did whether I could then legitimately say in the future that I had not been involved in an accident.   If that isn't an option then it seems I might as well go after the other party - as woolly suggests - as hard as possible,  seeing as I have nothing to lose.     It seems to me very unlikely that the other party would do anything further if they could help it,  given that there was no damage to their vehicle and - at least as I see it - having hit me in the rear they are at fault.   So if I could simply pay the €450 and have a clean slate then that would be the preferable option.   I'll just have to see what the insurers have to say on Monday morning.

I'll report back - in the meantime if anyone else has any further thoughts then I'd be very grateful for them.

Thanks again.

(Just for the record,  the son filled in most of the constat but his mother (who was driving) signed it.

[Pommier]

Years ago our car was rear ended whilst parked (legally) at the side of the road. The other driver admitted liability, our car was written off with a derisory payment from the other driver's insurance, then when our insurance came up for renewal, the premium had shot up "because we'd made a claim"!!!!

[Chancer]

Yes you can do what you propose, thats pretty much what I did but as it has been reported to them then they will treat it as a claim pending against you, as you have protected NCB and if they behave honourably and I suppose they must do at some time then you would not be out of pocket.

In my case I didnt have it (wont have it!) so my premiums went up for the next 2 renewals, I had to push very hard to get it back after 18 months, that is the liability period they work to but they werent going to give it back without a struggle.

Many with protected NCB would just say "what does it matter my insurance will pay, my bonus is protected" and thats when they get a nasty surprise, the irony of all this is that you could still get that nasty surprise by not exposing your insurer to a claim.

A lose lose situation as is frequently the case with insurers.

[YCCMB]

Here's what happened to me - in the UK - in a similar situation.

I hit the back of another car at a roundabout. The difference, arguably, was that the woman in front pulled away and then stopped again for no apparent reason. I was far enough away, and travelling so slowly that there was little damage. In fact, there was more damage to my car as I broke the numberplate.

We stopped to exchange details, she was very nice about it, and although she didn't admit any liability (and why would she?) I took photos of the (extremely minor) damage to her car, but (unfortunately) not her numberplate.

As it happened, she'd got out of her car and left her door open, and a woman driving past suggested that she'd better close it or someone might hit it, so she went back to her car (I thought) to close the door. I took the opportunity to go back to mine to get a business card with my contact details to give to her, and, as I turned round again, I saw her driving off!! I tried to follow, but she was going too fast and eventually I had to give up the chase!

When I got home, I rang my insurers because I was concerned that she DID have a photo of my numberplate at the very least, and might therefore record a claim, and I felt it better to advise my insurers.

By coincidence, my policy was just coming up for renewal, and I'd already had the renewal quote. My insurers, when I called, said they'd log the report and that it would stay "open" for 3 months,after which time if nothing came up, they'd close the file.

Two days later, I received a revised quote for my renewal, and it had increased by 35%, based simply on my advising them of this accident, in spite of the fact that I wasn't claiming anything for the damage to my own car, and when I called them they explained that it would be treated as if the other party HAD made a claim, but if, after 3 months, nothing was forthcoming, then they would refund a portion of the increase, but my premium would nevertheless go up, because I'd admitted to having an accident and therefore I was deemed a higher risk (I also have a protected NCB). They said that the money I was owed would automatically be refunded after the three months had elapsed if nothing further was heard.

So, it happened that the three months were up just after I returned from summer in France in September. No sign of any refund, so I called them. After a fair old runaround between departments, I was eventually connected to someone who informed me that it wasn't 3  months, but six, because they'd found that claims were taking as long as that to come through, in some instances. I protested that I'd categorically been told 3 months by more than one person, and asked when the six month rule had come in. The person told me that this had been the case for more than 12 months, so I asked how it could be that 3 months previously, I'd been told 3 months!!

After some to and fro, they eventually agreed to refund me with the caveat that if a claim did come up, they'd get back to me for the money again.

It was a nice surprise, however, that when they did eventually reimburse me, it was the full amount of the 35% increase they'd imposed.

[mint]

Martin, I am sorry to hear about your accident.  Isn't it just so very annoying when you have to pay for someone else's carelessness?

I have nothing to add to the answers already given but I just want you to know that I shall be contacting you after next week.

As you know, my life is rather full (as well as fraught) at the moment.

Plus, the weather is absolutely perishing.......[:(]

[Martin963]

Thanks sweet 17,   and everyone else who has contributed further.   Really it is a rather "dirty" industry isn't it......

I'm on standby for your call s17,  hadn't forgotten you,  my new satellite test rig is awaiting its first outing.   Although we'll look at your aerial first....

And goodness yes,  cold and cheerless doesn't do justice to the weather here in our bit of 24 either.....

A plus tard

[Russethouse]

Years ago someone went into the back of my fathers car on a roundabout damaging both cars, the excuse was that the driver thought my father was going to move off.

My late father dug his toes in and said that he was the car in front with the better view and it was up to him to judge whether he felt safe to proceed and he stuck to his guns as did the other party right up to getting to court where they withdrew before the case was called.

If you have the stomach for a battle, go for it, unless there is a big difference in French and English legislation you are in the right, and specifically let your insurance company know that is your attitude.

If you would be happier to forget it, get the repair done and move on.

[Chancer]

And who will fund this inter-community legal battle?

[Patf]

I had a similar accident in the UK and assumed it was my fault.

It was only a little tap, but the car in front of me was a great heavy 4 by 4 with a metal covered spare wheel on the back, which was barely scratched. Mine was a plasticky Ford Escort, whose bonnet crumpled like paper. Luckily no damage to the engine though.

I can't remember what I did about insurance, I think I just paid for the new bonnet.

[idun]

I couldn't help but think about this thread when I was out today at a very busy roundabout and frankly the sunday drivers were out.

We had a queue, which in reality was a traffic jam, simply because some drivers were not going for those gaps in the traffic, so not doing that job which they had given themselves of 'driving' which includes watching what other traffic is doing and where they are signaling. We were there ages and finally when we were almost at the front and there was just us and a car in front of me,  I could easily have ended up hitting the car in front of me as on several occassions there was time for us both to get out and yet neither of us did. As they just stood there waiting for no traffic, so they waited for a very big gap, which eventually came........ I didn't dare look at the tail back as I went out too. Cautious driving is one thing, but some people simply should not be behind a wheel.

[Val_2]

Know this roundabout well as I use it frequenty being in the vicinity and you need eyes everywhere because there are cars coming from four directions all at once and very fast usually. The number of accidents there over the years is numerous and it is the last roundabout before going onto the dual carriageway for Roscoff and the ferry. Personally speaking let your insurers deal with it but never declare yourself to blame whatever happens.

[Val_2]

Just read your account again and you might like to tell your insurers from someone who has used that roundabout for the past 23years plus that the chanel coming down from Roscoff upto the r/bout stops at an acute angle in as much as you often don't get cars already on the r/bout and coming towards actually signally until they straighten up and want to turn right.So many times have I come round there and the supposedly waiting traffic has begun to creep out until they suddenly realise I need to exist directly in front of them as the distance from that entry to the next exist is only a matter of metres at the most. Therefore you would have been stationary if there was trafic coming round and the kid behind should have left a good space before creeping up behind you because it sounds like he was a tailgater to me and they are prolific in France. Sorry about the language, my english is getting worse as I don't tend to speak it as much as I do french these days.

[HoneySuckleDreams]

Unfortunately I think you will end up being the one at fault. It will be very hard to prove otherwise, even though you know you are in the right.

The “un arret non-autorisé” is a catch all excuse. My wife stalled our car at a crossroads - you could see in all 4-directions for miles and the only other road user was a motobike about a km away. She had the time to try and start the car 3-4 times - so probably after 20 seconds was just about to get out of the car with the kids to push it to the side of the road, when the motor cyclits hit it.

She was in the wrong as it was “un arret non-autorisé”. The police were quite adamant that she shouldn't have been where she was - the motocyclist had, and I quote, "the right to drive into her". I really hope he learns to drive defensively otherwise he is going to have a very short life. What idiot deliberatly runs into something bigger than them? Apparently, if she had her hazard warning lights on she would have been in the clear.

Good luck!

 

[idun]

That is interesting, as three years ago in some very icy/snowy weather my car slid and just touched the side of a car which was where it should not have been. The insurer told me that it was for me not to hit 'stopped' vehicule when I was moving, no matter where it was. Apparently this person also expected our insurer to pay towards his damaged bumper and I was no where near that. In fact, as both vehicules were covered in snow and none fell off when the cars gently slid togheter.............and ours had no damage what so ever, one can but think that theirs wouldn't have either.

I felt cheated, but the weather was too bad to go and look at their car as the bloke lived some distance away.

[DerekJ]

I don't see (from your description of events) that you could possibly be to blame.

You weren't making a “un arret non-autorisé" as you had simply obeyed the rules of the road and "cédez le passage".

Additionally, you weren't stopped at all at the time of the impact... you were moving.

Or am I missing something?

[Chancer]

I have gotten into the unfortunate habit of brake testing the worst ofenders of tailgating in France, tho.se that sist on your bumpr for miles on end, flashing their lights and not even being able to overtake when its clear as they have cut off their own visibility.

Most of the time it leaves them visibly shocked and thereafter they keep well back but occasionally it can trigger a road rage incident.

I did it once to one of these black cross over things, it had bulges on the bonnet, may have been a Ford Kuga, the guy got really irate and closed the gap even more not that I had thought it was possible, I could no longer vn see his lights but could see the reflected glare from them as he was constantly flashing them at me, I was doing 80km/h in a 90 limit.

When the solid line expired and I expected him to overtake it was the vehicle behind him that did, an unmarked gendarme wagon, an arm came out of the passenger window and vigourously waved at him to pull over, I decided to be prudent and continue on my journey, maybe it was just as well if an arrêt non autorisé really is an offence although I was braking not stopping.

I thought that an arrêt non autorisée meant parking or abandoning ones vehicle including I guess waiting inside it in anywhere but an authorised area. I guess that would include stopping on a rond point.

I read the initial post again and a give way line was mentioned, I had wondered if this was one of those priorité à droite roundabouts? We have several around here, they are basically a 4 way P à D stop with a small island in the middle, there are no warning signs but the absence of lines gives them away, most people just drive around them and wont stop, if I am joining and there is someone on it that doesnt look like they are going to I always stop and am always rewarded by un coup de klaxon from the vehicles behind, one day one of the impatient buggers is going to shunt me and I guess it will be deemed to be my fault.

On the subject of tailgating and impatience, every time I return to my property by car I get the same acts of aggression, my parking is on the right, about 700 metres into the 50km/h zone of our village, I am in the middle of 4 pedestrian crossings that no-one stops for, when I do I get flashes, klaxonned and waved fists, when I arrive at my parking I have to turn right off the highway and drive slowly up the raised kerb, I indicate well in advance, brake slowly and even use my hazard flashers in the last few yards, the problem is the car behind will have been up my chuff for 600 metres trying to push me to drive faster although they will never overtake, probably again lost their visibility.

Anyway 9 times out of 10 as I leave the highway there will be the flashes, the klaxons, the waved fists and often insults shouted, not that I can hear them from in my vehicle, its the little repetitive never ending things like that that really make me despair about where I live [:(]

Every now and then i get my own back if they have been flashing me beforehand, I decide to pull up after my parking using the hazard flashers and reverse in as I am obliged to by the code de la route [:-))] its especially funny when they have several cars behind who also have not left a gap.

And then once in a while, maybe once a year someone doesnt tailgate me, they take note of my signals, they anticipate, look ahead and overtake me without hindering their progress or mine, I feel like whasing them up the road to congratulate them, times like that restore my faith in humanity.

[Val_2]

The r/bout in question is a large modern priority to vehicles already on it with exits off the dual carriageway to Roscoff, the main Citroën/Renault trucks and Centre Commercial sector and onto the N12 to Brest. It is clearly marked with white solid lines but as we all know there are many elderly people who still do not understand the changes made to r/bouts and they continue to drive straight on regardless of stopping plus I have noticed that many locals do not really understand which lane they should get into for their exit off. There is an island in the middle which is not high and grassed over and quite often gendarmes and the douanes park on the exits to stop and do contrôles. I came back from there earlier after doing a bit of shopping but it wasn't busy unlike between 17-19h when it can be bumper to bumper.

[Martin963]

Further thanks to all those who have contributed,  including the local knowledge from Val_2.

I spoke with my insurance who said there is no reason whatsoever why I shouldn't send in the photos and my version of the accident to the lady's insurers (Pacifica).   To this end I spoke to two people there,  one very helpful,  who passed me onto another - initially very helpful.   She seemed surprised at my "line of attack" but in the end asked for the policy number of her client.   She then let slip that the accident has NOT been reported to them,  no copy of the constat aimable has been submitted!!!

I perceive a useful weak point here.   I'm thinking that I might write again to the lady and say that I have informed her insurers of the accident and they are somewhat surprised not to have heard direct from her.   Of course I have no idea whether they'll take any action against her (and I'll openly admit that) but go on to say that it might make her case look better if she either declares the accident forthwith or settles with me privately.   

Unfortunately the girl at Pacifica then clammed up on me (I guess she realised she'd probably said too much) even to the point that she claimed that she had no idea where the Head Office for Pacifica could be found.   This is a red rag to a bull like me (couldn't she at least look it up - but it seems to be standard practice now at many companies,  presumably to discourage letters to the PDG) and the conversation ended with a mutual exchange of slight unpleasantness!!!  However,  I had my information and that's the main thing.

If I could find the address of the local agence near St Pol de Leon for Pacifica I'd be tempted to submit the constat anonymously along with the photos,  but I think I'll write to the lady for the moment and see if she is prepared now to see things in a different light.

http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/F2149.xhtml

Seems to suggest that not submitting the constat puts you in the wrong.