Who's fault was it?

[maryjanethespider]

Righty ho, this morning on the way to school i approached a juntion wanting to turn right, there was a queue of around 15 cars and i was at the back of it.

This was 8.45am this morning going past a school too....

From the left was traffic coming over a M-way bridge from a village going in to town and from the right was people either turning in the the estate or going back to the village from dropping kids off at school (school has flexible entry times to ease congestion from 8.40-9am)

About 3 mins later my turn to try and get out...

A car pulled up short from the left indicating to turn off of the main road,

a car was aproaching from the right also indicating to turn off,

as the lady in front could not go until this guy had turned and she has (as it seemed) pulled up short purposly to let us out, i double checked and went.

The second i went across the middle lines in the road a black polo undertook her by going on the path, i noticed a black spec when he came in to veiw in my mirrors (until i was fully straight) almost instantly he hit the side of a bus shelter

Apparantly he claims i forced him off the road? and is wanting my insurance to pay for his damages - although he did not hit my car just to add

I have 2 witnesses who claim the lady beckoned me out as she could not go until the guy went first (she and the guy indicating)

The guy behind me reckons the polo didn't check as he seen me go first then the polo, plus he undertook on a pavment.

The lady also said this guy had been driving up her !!!!! for about 3 miles

Where do i stand in all this, this guy was quite aggressive and was shouting abuse at this woman calling her a f******g b***t, christian driver, fat heffer.....

He has my phone number (mobile) and my name, reg number, with him screaming in my face i couldn't remember who my insurer was, he has the lady's number and insurance details as she was going to slow and obstructing the road and was the ultimate cause of the accident for driving like a ld bint.....i also swapped numbers with the lady too just in case i need a statement.

Any advice?

[BillScarab]

I'm no expert but from your post it sounds like the only car that was damaged was his. So I would have thought it was up to him to try and prove it was somebody elses's fault.

If you have witnesses to say he was driving on the pavement to pass the car stopped in the middle of the road I don't think he has much chance.

It may be worth calling your insurance company for advice and see what they say as presumably he will be contacting you at some point for your insurance details.

[Hintza]

I think he might have had a claim had he stayed on the road and gone round the woman. You would have been guilty of pulling out when not safe to do so.

However I would have thought that his using the pavement is probably not allowed. It sounds like he could be quite nasty so it might pay to contact the other woman and both of you then contact the police.

From what you say I would tell him to get stuffed as he was driving dangerously or without due care and attention. I personally would do nothing but if you are worried or scared then get to the police station and report it.

Edit:- The more I think about it just go to the police and report it get your facts right and have a drawing of the accident ready and a note of all witnesses. I wouldn't say anything to my insurer unless they advise otherwise.

[AdrianHi]

Unbelievable.
Clearly a case of road rage.
He mounted the pavement and hit a bus stop :eek:
I think you should contact the local police describing the whole incident including the Polo drivers abusive nature and the fact this was intimidating. This guy needs prosecuting for dangerous driving. You have witnesses to back you up.

[chigley]

I would also be thinking of reporting this as a race hate incident by the sounds of what you have said he called the other lady driver. Maybe if you point this out to him he will be less inclined to try anything on with you and your insurance........

[shoe*gal]

I know you are not supposed to pull out even if beckoned or flashed by another driver unless it's safe to do so but the lady had to stop to wait her turn to turn into the junction. The idiot guy should not have mounted the pavement no matter what especially near a school. I would do as suggested and contact the Police. I wouldn't inform the insurance company and I wouldn't give the prat any details either. He sounds like a complete moron and he's lucky he didn't hit someone at the bus stop. I hope he get's what he deserves - a bill from the council and forced to pay for his own repairs.

[pulliptears]

I would also be thinking of reporting this as a race hate incident by the sounds of what you have said he called the other lady driver.

calling her a f******g b***t, christian driver, fat heffer.....

What? Or was he a satanist?

[Indout96]

race hate incident

Just read this several times, not sure where race comes into it :rolleyes:

If your car was not involved in the accident you have no obligation to inform your insurance company.
Did you give him your address?? If not I would just forget it, if you did I would go to the police station and inform them that you are worried about him coming round to your house to intimidate you. They will record that and in the event that he does turn up on your doorstep they will respond far quicker.
I am guessing that he will try and say that you turning in front of him gave him no option but to mount the pavement or hit you but as no one was actually hurt the police will not be interested as it is just your word or his.

[pulliptears]

Just read this several times, not sure where race comes into it :rolleyes:


More of a Bus Stop hate incident I think :D And from what OP says he obviously didnt hate racing.

[Indout96]

You have witnesses to back you up

Not from what is in the OP. there are two witnesses that saw the woman beckon her across but it is still up to the driver to make sure if is safe to do so.
And one who thought he knew where a driver at least 3 car lengths away was looking and what he was thinking.

Sorry - not trying to be negative here but I did work in Motor Insurance for a few years

[sjc]

Did you involve the Police? 08:45 and busy he mounts the pavement, drives into a Bus Shelter, were there people at the Bus Shelter they were lucky he didn't hit anyone.

Personally I wouldn't of give him your details, would of called the Police and let them sort it out. Taking guidance from them. At the end of the day he hit something, whilst driving on the pavement and was obviously going too fast else he would of been able to stop.

[Wig]

If it was as you say then Black Polo was at fault. Take a photo of the junction, see if there is room for a car to undertake, when someone is stopped waiting to turn right - where the lady was. If the road is severely narrowed (on the near side) when a car is waiting to turn right then even if there was theoretically enough room for a car to undertake, the driver of that car should slow down and take due care and attention. Which means not be driving so fast past a waiting car, into the junction, so as to be unable to stop to avoid a collision.

His fault 100%

Report him to the police for abusive behaviour, they will give him a warning, but in the circumstances they might find the whole case (damaged bus shelter) very interesting and take further action regarding his driving.

[jonathon]

i disagree the op pulled out of a side road onto a main road, so the op pulled out in front of him causing him to swerve if the op hed been more careful thay would have seen the polo.

[Keith]

I have 2 witnesses who claim the lady beckoned me out as she could not go until the guy went first (she and the guy indicating)

Your at fault in my opinion.

You entered the road without checking it was clear and entered the path of another vehicle.

He may have bumped up a kerb, smacked a bus stop, but that happened before he hit you. Your actions of entering the path of the vehicle caused the accident.

[NikkiP]

but the polo came from behind the stopped car, and on the pavement.
So how the hell could a car coming out have made him go left on to the pavement when there was a car n front.
Go to the police, tell them your side with a sketch and then forget about it.
But in future the OP should not rely on someone flashing them out, even though this incident as described was not her fault.
Could have been a kid on a bike overtaking the stopped car !

[Keith]

Remember the OP is looking left, and by the sounds of it has taken a chance to exit a junction behind another car when they can not see a clear path...

Just to doubt the story of the op, lets remember only one car was waiting to turn right across his path..

A car pulled up short from the left indicating to turn off of the main road,

a car was aproaching from the right also indicating to turn off,

as the lady in front could not go until this guy had turned and she has (as it seemed) pulled up short purposly to let us out, i double checked and went.So a car from the left appears to have left enough room to let both cars out. From the OPs post, the time between the car stopping to let out both cars and him is 3 minutes.

At no point does it say that the car allowing him to exit the junction has checked for another vehicle.

The second i went across the middle lines in the road a black polo undertook her by going on the path, i noticed a black spec when he came in to veiw in my mirrors (until i was fully straight) almost instantly he hit the side of a bus shelterThe second you crossed the center lines, you notice the car going onto a path whilst he is a "black spec" in your mirrors and then he hit a bus shelter? You noticed a lot about a car which then hit you.

I have 2 witnesses who claim the lady beckoned me

You'd waited 3 minutes for a car to allow you out, the driver then beckoned you and you moved, at which point another vehicle was passing to the left of it, to get over the fact you've not see the vehicle you've made up some story about the car hitting a bus shelter after mounting a kerb.

You could not see a clear path and you went because someone waved you out. Think yourself lucky it wasn't a motorcyclist you didn't kill or cripple today.

[loftus]

I presume this is a T-Junction?
Would the lady waiting to turn right into the road you were leaving have normally blocked all the traffic coming from behind her until she had completed her manouevre, or is the road wide enough to allow traffic to pass her when she is stationary?
If the road is wide enough then the guy - however obnoxious he is - is not "undertaking" and you are at fault for moving into his path when the road wasn't clear. Being beckoned to do so is neither here nor there in this scenario.
If it isn't he should have waited for the lady to complete her turn and him striking the bus stop is his own fault as he had to mount the pavement to do it.

Keith I dont know where you get that the OP followed a car out because I think the 'us' she refers to is the occupants of her own car as she was on a school run, or that she waited 3 minutes whilst the lady was waiting to turn right. What she said was that it took her about 3 minutes to get to the head of the queue at the junction.

[squoog]

Apparantly he claims i forced him off the road? and is wanting my insurance to pay for his damages - although he did not hit my car just to add




In my experience even if you phone your insurance company for advice regarding something like this and dont make a claim it can still affect your premium when you renew.

[Wig]

Keith,

The OP to me is clearly saying the black polo had to go onto the path to undertake the woman, Polo was also doing this at speed. i.e. the reason he was on the path was to undertake the woman, not becasue our OP forced him off the road.

The OP said this:
" The guy behind me reckons the polo didn't check as he seen me go first then the polo, plus he undertook on a pavment."

"He undertook on the pavement" It also sounds to me like the woman had stopped to turn right, the polo was behind her. The polo got fed up waiting (we have testimony as to his impatient driving) The polo mounted the pavement to undertake the woman. He quickly found he could not force his way back onto the highway because our OP was finishing her manouver, he was unbeliveably in so little control of his vehicle that he hit a bus shelter :rotfl: This would be 100% the fault of the Polo and served him right too.


I concede that we have yet to have the OP confirm that this is exactly the way it happened and that the lane from her right was single and narrow (not wide enough for 2 cars). But this is the way it all reads to me.

[Doozergirl]

If there weren't two lanes that allowed the Polo driver to undertake safely then I think it's his own fault. If he was choosing to undertake then he should have been aware that traffic might have been trying to turn out from the right and that the car in front may have stopped to let him out. We're all taught how important it is to anticipate - this person clearly did not as he was travelling too fast to stop.

He was even blaming the woman he was trying to undertake :confused: If he had been tailgating her then he may well have been 'trying to prove a point' in undertaking and simply didn't pay proper attention. If he had been tailgating her then he would have probably had to stop behind her when she stopped, and then make a completely seperate manouvre, out of annoyance, to go past her.

Make sure whoever owns the bus stop has his details so they can bill him for the damage ;)

EDIT: Oh look, Wig said the same thing!

[Reggie Rebel]

So does his Polo now have a hole in the middle?

He mounted the pavement, he hit a bus stop, he's an !!!!. Tell him to get stuffed if he rings.

He should just be thankful their wasn't a coachload worth of children waiting at the bus stop

[Wig]

Hey OP,
How about a satelite photo of the junction.

[Indout96]

If there weren't two lanes that allowed the Polo driver to undertake safely then I think it's his own fault.

You do not need two lanes to pass a stationary (waiting to turn) car you need enought room for your car to fit through. The number of times I have gone through a gap to have a small car that was following me stop because there is not enough room is a joke, the driver generaly sits there stretching their neck upwards trying to judge the gap :rotfl:

If he was choosing to undertake

You only UNDERTAKE if there are two seperate lanes of traffic going in the same direction not if the right hand lane is waiting to turn.


We're all taught how important it is to anticipate - this person clearly did not as he was travelling too fast to stop.



Stopping takes a set amount of both time and space, no matter how fast your reactions you can not stop faster than this unless you hit something :rolleyes: if you are going 15mph and another veicle pulls out directly in front of you, there are only two choices. Hit it or take avoiding action via a change of direction. It is quite possible that the other driver saw this, checked the pavement, saw it empty and took this action choosing to collide with the shelter rather than risk hitting the OP's car and possibly injuring them. If I had done this I would also be rather upset at her for pulling out and a few choice words may have been said. :mad:


Lets not forget that we only have one side of the argument and whilst it may be 100% true it may not. Trust me the number of claim forms where BOTH drivers are totally to blame in the eyes of the other far, outway the "Sorry it was my fault" ones

[derrick]

but that happened before he hit you.

- although he did not hit my car just to add


Where do you get the fact that the OPs car was hit? they said "although he did not hit my car"

Defo the Polo drivers fault if what OP said is true, you do not drive on pavements!

[Keith]

I'm sure that said "damage" not hit last night, but hey it was late and I'd been down the pub :beer:

Anyway, liability, the but for test should be used.

If it wasn't for the OPs actions, would damage have been caused to the other party. If the answer is yes, then liability does not exist, if the damage would not have happened without the actions of the OP then the OP is liable.

Even if the other party has just broken a motoring law. If someone is speeding and you pull out and force them to crash, you'd still be partly liable, not 100% but some liability for the accident would lay at your feet.

[Wig]

You do not need two lanes to pass a stationary (waiting to turn) car you need enought room for your car to fit through.
But you need to act responsibly, if there are not two lanes then in this scenario, as Doozer said there is a reasonable chance of traffic coming from the right. It is driving dangerously to squeeze through such an area at speed and without caution, such that the driver ploughed into a bus shelter. Even if there was room to squeeze through, the circumstances of this accident would cause me to have no hesitation to apportion blame to the Polo of atleast 70% Especially if we are to understand that the Polo was at one point stationary behind the woman, the speed he must have pulled off with beggars belief.
You only UNDERTAKE if there are two seperate lanes of traffic going in the same direction not if the right hand lane is waiting to turn.I would call both scenarios an "undertake". I used the word "undertake" because it describes the act of passing a vehicle on its left hand side. I don't think it matters what the dictionary definition of the word "undertake" is, I think we all know what is meant when the word has been used in this thread.

BTW, Where did you get the definition of "undertake" to only apply to a multi-laned highway?


Stopping takes a set amount of both time and space, no matter how fast your reactions you can not stop faster than this unless you hit something :rolleyes: if you are going 15mph and another veicle pulls out directly in front of you, there are only two choices. Hit it or take avoiding action via a change of direction. It is quite possible that the other driver saw this, checked the pavement, saw it empty and took this action choosing to collide with the shelter rather than risk hitting the OP's car and possibly injuring them. If I had done this I would also be rather upset at her for pulling out and a few choice words may have been said. :mad: As already said the situation would call for cautious driving, driving so fast that you are unable to halt your car before impact, and fast enough that you
1) Have to change direction
2) Are fast enough to be able to drive up a pavement
In this sitution, I would blame the Polo. Even more so if he had previously been stationary behind the woman.

Lets not forget that we only have one side of the argument and whilst it may be 100% true it may not. Trust me the number of claim forms where BOTH drivers are totally to blame in the eyes of the other far, outway the "Sorry it was my fault" onesBut we have to assume what OP said is true, that is the acount that we are being asked to call our judgement on.

If I said to you I have 4 red balls and 2 blue, and I asked you if the number of blue was half the number of reds. I would look at you very strangely if you replied, ahhh but you could have 6 reds and 3 green so you actually could have no blue balls at all. - which reminds me of the football coach who when asked a silly question replied
"Well, if my aunty had balls she'd be my my uncle"

[Indout96]

But we have to assume what OP said is true

But all this is judged from i noticed a black spec when he came in to veiw in my mirrors so it must be true then.

Where did you get the definition of "undertake
I refer to only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so from the higway code they refer to it as overtaking not undertaking.

The OP has stated several times that she did not see the Polo and from that I can only assume that she is basing everything she said afterwards on what she was TOLD, the main witness was the one that "motioned" her out in the first place and if she had not done so then none of this would have ever happened.

As you are happy to quote sayings I'll end with the driver who was quoted as saying
"I've never had an acident in 30 years but I've seen hundreds in my mirror"


I will add however that I am not saying the OP is a fault - just setting forth other possible reasons for the accident, because you can bet your house on the fact that the Polo drivers account will not match the one OP has put.

[derrick]

As you are happy to quote sayings I'll end with the driver who was quoted as saying
"I've never had an acident in 30 years but I've seen hundreds in my mirror"

Would that be Conor by any chance :D

[Wig]

Anyway, liability, the but for test should be used.

If it wasn't for the OPs actions, would damage have been caused to the other party. If the answer is yes, then liability does not exist, if the damage would not have happened without the actions of the OP then the OP is liable.

Even if the other party has just broken a motoring law. If someone is speeding and you pull out and force them to crash, you'd still be partly liable, not 100% but some liability for the accident would lay at your feet.

This is not true IMHO, if there was no room for a car to come from the left (because the road was blocked by woman turning right), after checking the road was clear our OP would be free to move out and start to join the highway turning right. There would be no reason to expect a car to come from the left driving along the pavement. As long as the womans car remains stationary our OP can continue forwards legally.

In your rule book, a motorway can have the nearside lane with cars travelling in the correct direction. A nutter can drive the wrong way along the motorway in lane 2 passing all the cars in lane 1, until one of the cars iin lane 1 decides to overtake and pulls out into lane 2, too late to avoid a collision, the two cars end up head-on. If it wasn't for the legally driven car pulling out, there would have been no accident.


Another way to challenge your idea would be to say, If it wasn't for the Polo driving illegally on the pavement the accident would not have happened = the Polo's fault.

If it wasn't for the woman needing to turn right and stopping there, our polo driver would not have been stuck behind her and lost his patience = the womans fault.

If it wasn't for the school having an opening hour of 08.40am our OP would not have been there at that time = the schools fault.

[loftus]

Strange that the OP has been busy posting other threads but can't come back to clarify issues on her own:confused:

The more I think about this the more I suspect that maybe there was room for the Polo driver to pass the vehicle turning right, the OP pulled out because she was being beckoned forward, didn't see the overtaking Polo and caused him to take evasive action thereby striking the bus stop. This scenario seems to fit the facts best in my opinion although I am happy to be corrected.

[Doozergirl]

I don't give a toss if it's undertaking or overtaking. Thankfully you don't need to use the absolute correct terminology according to the highway code in conversation in order to be a courteous driver. I'm sure people knew what I was talking about.

I think what I think because the driver had been tailgating. The woman that stopped would not have had time to stop, beckon the OP out and for the OP to then react, check to the right, probably wave her thanks and then turn if the Polo, whom the lady driver had such intimate knowledge of, had been continuing along the road without stopping at all; unless he wasn't tailgating and was a good 50 yards behind all the time. Where would he have gone from tailgating then having the time to nearly hitting a car that had pulled out after all that time?

Also, the stopped car's position in the road would likely have been different letting someone out first than it would be if she was simply wanting to turn right without letting someone out first. You can read that from behind as well. If he was being aggressive before the accident then it's likely he carries a heavy weight of blame.

There was no surprise to me when I discovered the man that overtook me aggressively, when I was travelling at 40mph in a 40mph zone, in a ditch staring at his car 2 miles further down the road.

[loftus]

The bloke in the Polo sounds like an oaf BUT if he was following closely behind the car turning right, who had possibly been indicating her intent to turn on approaching the junction, then it is quite possible that if there was room for him to pass on the left - a perfectly legal manouevre - that he pulled around that car only to be confronted with the OP appearing in front of him and took evasive action.
It is also possible that he was so impatient that he did mount the pavement in trying to pass and struck the bus stop.
I still think the first scenario is more likely.

[Keith]

This is not true IMHO

Unfortunately when establishing liability, the first test for causation is the But For Test, which is if it wasn't for the actions of one party would the damage be caused to the other party.

If at the time of the accident the other car was on the pavement then there would be some protection for the OP, as the courts do not like to support people breaking the law, so whilst they may find against the Op they would be unlikely to award damages, etc.

[Pssst]

Regardless of who was at fault, it seems you may have acted incorrectly in coming out of gthe junction? I assume that the junction you were waiting at had give way or stop markings? If that was the case then that is what you should do and it may be highly dangerous to respond to anyones' beckonings since they need to comply with the highway code and in particular,road markings and give way procedures. I personally am sick of people making up their own rules at junctions. The procedures are clear,they are set out in the highway code and are there so that there is only one set of rules for ALL to follow,thus avoiding ambiguity and possible accidents

[Wig]

I find what you are saying extremely unlikely. I do not know for certain so I can't say you are wrong, but that is how I feel. I don't suppose you can back up your arguement with case law?

If person 'A' whilst going about their lawful business (driving or whatever) gets suddenly hit by person 'B' who is going about an unlawful (and therefore unexpected) business. The idea that person 'A' could be said to be to blame and unable to claim damages from 'B' is rediculous.

There is obviously a responsibility on 'B' to drive reasonably, even if they are driving on the pavement, it would be unreasonable and wreckless to drive on the pavement at such a speed that they would be unable to stop, as described in the OP.

Not wanting to appear rude, I'm just expressing my disagreement with you.

[Wig]

It sounds like the OP is to blame to me, they have a duty to ensure it was safe to enter the road and didnt do this.

The fact another car blocked it is irrelevent and just makes it more there fault

It was entirely forseeable cars would pass the stopped turning car therefore the OP needs to take care for this reason

I think the fact the other driver left the road to avoid her shouldnt change this.

You can always tell guilt when someone tries to blur the story with irrelevence as the OP did.

At best you will be liable for 50-50 I reckon and lose your ncd/be loaded etc

You think it's normal for cars to drive on the pavement to go around a car turning right?

You also admit the other driver "left the road" but you put no responsibility on him to check before he re-joins the road? Double standards?

[jonathon]

i do see the op has not returned to clear any thing up

[Wig]

If it was as you say, then she would have some blame, not all the blame IMHO.

If it was as described in the OP, with the Polo deliberately driving on the pavement, she has no blame at all.

I don't see what you can deduce from the timing to support your view. I previously noted that it sounds like the Polo was stationary behind the woman turning right, this indicates timing that puts our OP in the clear.

[photome]

The OP hasnt been back on this thread as she has been to busy getting angry on another thread, perhaps when she is calm she will be back.

I think the accident was partially her fault, she says she didnt see the polo (only a spec), wether there was room or not for it to get through, she should have been aware that something (a bike maybe) could have been coming through.

[derrick]

The OP hasnt been back on this thread as she has been to busy getting angry on another thread, perhaps when she is calm she will be back.

I think the accident was partially her fault, she says she didnt see the polo (only a spec), wether there was room or not for it to get through, she should have been aware that something (a bike maybe) could have been coming through.

Lets not start getting hypothetical and bringing other,(ghost), vehicles into the scenario, there was no bike! Stick with the thread.

[Quentin]

Undertaking is allowed if the car you are undertaking is stopped waiting to turn right.

The accident was caused by the OP pulling out when it wasn't clear to do so.

Lots of the info in the scenario are irrelevant.

(eg the witness who saw another driver beckoning her out, the other driver's comments about the injured party driving too close for the last three miles, the injured party shouting at the other driver, and the OP's view that another driver was to blame as she was driving too slowly, and causing an obstruction).

Best advice is let the insurance companies sort it out, and accept that you could lose some NCB!

[KeithP]

The OP hasnt been back on this thread as she has been to busy getting angry on another thread, perhaps when she is calm she will be back.
Don't be too upset if the OP doesn't reply. She has started 11 threads in her short MSE life but has only managed to get back on three of them.

[photome]

Lets not start getting hypothetical and bringing other,(ghost), vehicles into the scenario, there was no bike! Stick with the thread.


My point was that she was pulling out on to a main road and that she should have been aware of "anything " possibly coming past the stationary car, as others have pointed out it is perfectly acceptable to overtake on the inside when traffic is waiting to turn right.

[cyclonebri1]

Only two possible scenarios from the info I've read, either;

The op reacted to the signal given by the car turning right and the Polo driver was fully on the carriageway and swerved-OPs fault

As above but the Polo was overtaking on the pavement in which case he is at fault.

The witness statements will be the only important issue here.


The only question I have that shed some doubt on the OPs version is if the Polo was already on the pavement, why would it need to swerve and hit the shelter?


Probably all largely irrelevant anyway as the OP seems to have the witness "on board":rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Wig]

The only question I have that shed some doubt on the OPs version is if the Polo was already on the pavement, why would it need to swerve and hit the shelter?

Seems obvious to me that with 2 wheels on the pavement, he was about to come off the pavement, to rejoin, but then he saw the OP. He was driving so fast that he could do nothing but continue on the pavement until he hit the bus stop.

[derrick]

Seems obvious to me that with 2 wheels on the pavement, he was about to come off the pavement, to rejoin, but then he saw the OP. He was driving so fast that he could do nothing but continue on the pavement until he hit the bus stop.


But he should not have been on the pavement in the first place! pavements for pedestrians, roads for vehicles,(and for pedestrians when crossing ;)).
If the road was not wide enough for him to undertake without going on the pavement, he should wait until the car in front completes their right turn.

[loftus]

Without further information from the OP any further speculation about what happened and who is to blame is pointless. Even a location so we could look at the junction on google maps or the like would help to give a clearer idea of what may have happened.