We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
car crash
Comments
- 
            
That alone should be enough cause you to take care around that driver. You haven't a clue where the car is going to go so stay behind it and let it do what it wants.No indication of direction.
Don't put yourself in potential danger due to your own ignorance.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 - 
            Insurance-wise unless there's an independent witness then whoever is factually at fault will be totally irrelevant and the insurance company will probably want to settle 50/50. Very unfair, but if it would cost the insurance company more to fight than to pay out then you'll have a job to convince an insurance company to pursue it.0
 - 
            That alone should be enough cause you to take care around that driver. You haven't a clue where the car is going to go so stay behind it and let it do what it wants.
Don't put yourself in potential danger due to your own ignorance.
Bad wording on my part. Should have been no use of indicator. Locating the car in the right of the carriageway is an indication the driver may turn right.
How ever if we stayed behind everyone when driving, there would be no need for split ended carriageways at junctions or lanes on motorways etc
It's a fact. Sharing a road with others carries an inherent risk. You can't second guess everything some one will do. However we have a highway code to adhear to...... and from the OPs description, Car A didn't follow it. And Car B did. It was just the OPs unfortunate use of the term undercutting that a few people have picked up on to but the blaime on Car B.0 - 
            scheming_gypsy wrote: »but the problem is.... you'd be unable to prove any, unless you're strider with your in car camera.
Regardless, Car A cannot turn into the space Car B occupies. One thing we are missing in all this is a time/sequence diagram of the event. If both cars were stationary at the junction and Car A turns into Car B then Car A fault. (which is how I read it)
If car A was moving before car B started their movement up the left then yes I'd say it was Car B's fault. But I don't think that was the case was it ?
Both cars were at a stop. Car A moved off into the side of Car B with out checking left.... OP can you confirm ?0 - 
            Apart from anything else, why did Car A drive into Car B, if they were both stationary on the side road?
Would you not normally expect Car A to drive forward, into the main road, before turning his steering wheel to the left?
Or was he in fact already turned left before Car B approached, just not positioned entirely to the left?Mortgage | £145,000Unsecured Debt | [strike]£7,000[/strike] £0 Lodgers | |0 - 
            cyclonebri1 wrote: »It's been said already, the moving car, car A think? turned into the other car, so at fault.
Didn't see it? doesn't matter, at fault.
No one is innocent or correct or inncorrect, but someone carries the can for being inobservant????????????????
So, are you saying the moving car is at fault for not having been sufficiently observant? Just checking.0 - 
            Hi,
my wife (car
 was stationary at the junction. Car A was in a strange position, also stationary waiting for the traffic to clear. My wife obviously didn't move first because she couldn't see clearly on the main road as car A was already on the junction. Its just Car A turned left without looking properly (failed to final check) and crashed into my wife.
It could be as badger_lady said, the other car A did not pull out into the main road properly - but either way he should have checked properly before turning left.0 - 
            So, are you saying the moving car is at fault for not having been sufficiently observant? Just checking.
Takes the bait;
Yes, that's my take on it, a car pulls off from a standstill and comes into contact with another road vehicle, which maybe shouldn't have been there but was, how can it be the other drivers fault if his car was stationary.I like the thanks button, but ,please, an I agree button.
Will the grammar and spelling police respect I do make grammatical errors, and have carp spelling, no need to remind me.;)
Always expect the unexpected:eek:and then you won't be dissapointed0 - 
            cyclonebri1 wrote: »Takes the bait;
Yes, that's my take on it, a car pulls off from a standstill and comes into contact with another road vehicle, which maybe shouldn't have been there but was, how can it be the other drivers fault if his car was stationary.
Just like hitting a sign really.0 - 
            
I thought his comment was quite appropriate.cyclonebri1 wrote: »Turner I'll ask you politely 1 last time to please get off my back, I don't need a personnal troll thankyou.
                        0 
This discussion has been closed.
            Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
 - 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
 - 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
 - 454.3K Spending & Discounts
 - 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
 - 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
 - 177.5K Life & Family
 - 259.1K Travel & Transport
 - 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
 - 16K Discuss & Feedback
 - 37.7K Read-Only Boards
 

         
         
         