tesco's car park

neilmcl

Does the OP not bother using her wing mirrors when manoeuversing then? Had she done so then it would have been apparent that the trolly buggy was coming up on her inside therefore making it unsafe for her to proceed turning left until she was sure of the other party's intentions. Sounds pretty 50/50 to me.

RadoJo

To be honest, from what the OP has written, it does sound as though they were at least poorly positioned in the lane - if they were turning left and there was enough room to their left for the trolley buggy to pull up along side them the their position in the road would probably have indicated that they were turning right rather than left.
However, the response from Tesco suggests that they have failed to actually check the details of the incident, being as they are referring to it as a customer-on-customer accident. OP - if you're completely sure that you didn't contribute to the accident then I would guess it's worth pursuing, but it's probably worth taking into account some of the suggestions on here to ascertain whether you could have been at least partially at fault before going in all guns blazing.

pulliptears

Apologies if Im way off the mark here....

Lets change the situation to a main road, and the trolley cart to a cyclist, OP turns left into the path of cyclist and would surely be facing a charge of Driving without due care.

Surely its the same thing and we are over analysing?

4743hudsonj

arenaman wrote: »

The way I see this is if the OP had overtaken the cart and was clear of it then had turned left and was on the next carriageway the cart has to give way because there's broken white lines and has to give way to anything that's already on the carriageway , it hasn't and has gone straight on into the path of the OP's vehicle, cart's fault.

Also the cart should have insurance as it's a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place.

see this is the other angle and just as viable as the other which others seem to be jumping too. The simple fact is we dont know enough to choose who is at fault! we dont know the times, distances and speeds involved.

neilmcl

Judging by the earlier post of the OP (post #10 I believe), she states that she was side-by-side with the cart at the junction, yet she still continued the manoeuvre.

4743hudsonj

neilmcl wrote: »

Judging by the earlier post of the OP (post #10 I believe), she states that she was side-by-side with the cart at the junction, yet she still continued the manoeuvre.

yet in her earlier posts she indicated she was in the manicure when the cart came along. So you cant just pick and choose what happened and what didnt, the op hasnt been particularly clear and has give different versions but whose to say she still isnt innocent.

I just think people are jumping to their own conclusions far to quickly and easily. Its almost like your all jumping on the band wagon base on no facts whatsoever as most where saying it was the cart at fault until one poster came along and opposed that. I'm not denying its the OP's fault, but neither am i condoning it, and i think its no place on other posters to do either when there are no facts and evidence to prove either.

pulliptears

mrs2fat wrote: »

<snip> He was coming up along the left side of my vehicle(side by side with him behind about 2 meters) and I think he assumed I was turning right to leave the car park, but as I could not find a space in the area I was leaving I was heading left into the larger carpark. I was signalling left at the time. He went into my rear passenger door.
<snip>

neilmcl wrote: »

Judging by the earlier post of the OP (post #10 I believe), she states that she was side-by-side with the cart at the junction, yet she still continued the manoeuvre.

correct neil. It seems quite clear cut to me anyway.

pinkshoes

pulliptears wrote: »

Apologies if Im way off the mark here....

Lets change the situation to a main road, and the trolley cart to a cyclist, OP turns left into the path of cyclist and would surely be facing a charge of Driving without due care.

Surely its the same thing and we are over analysing?

A car is entitled to overtake a cyclist if safe to do so.

A cyclist, like all other vehicles on the road, is NOT permitted to UNDERTAKE. By going up the inside of the car, the cyclist has undertaken.

In this case, as the car was clearly indicating left, the cyclist would be the one in the wrong.

This happened to someone I know in Oxford, and the cyclist paid for the damage to their car.

Based on this, the OP was clearly at the junction before the trolley thing, and was indicating to turn left, so the trolley thing should have given way. It's clear to me that the trolley thing had made the assumption that the OP was turning right.

pulliptears

pinkshoes wrote: »

A car is entitled to overtake a cyclist if safe to do so.

A cyclist, like all other vehicles on the road, is NOT permitted to UNDERTAKE. By going up the inside of the car, the cyclist has undertaken.

In this case, as the car was clearly indicating left, the cyclist would be the one in the wrong.

This happened to someone I know in Oxford, and the cyclist paid for the damage to their car.

but surely OP should have checked mirrors and seen the cart regardless and not just assumed it would stop?

pinkshoes

pulliptears wrote: »

but surely OP should have checked mirrors and seen the cart regardless and not just assumed it would stop?

It could have easily been in the blind spot by then, and the OP would be right to pay more attention looking to the right to see if it was safe to pull out. Given it's illegal to undertake, they shouldn't HAVE to check their mirror again.

Given that Oxford cyclists are mostly retards who think it's OK to undertake, I do occasionally re-check my left side mirror, but I shouldn't have to! (And it doesn't help in the slightest when they don't have lights on in the dark either!).

Ultimately, the trolley shouldn't have gone up the inside of the car.