Thoughts on accident, who's at fault?

OddballJamie

DUTR wrote: »

Just looking at the original diagram again, if it is as drawn then it looks like the OP could be at fault, it appears he has driven into the rear quarter of the van.

Would explain the van mounting the kerb. If I was driving along and a car in the right lane turned left I would swerve left too.

Gonna be one for the insurance to fight out.

anotherbaldrick

YOU You need to be aware that where this alleged incident occurred is dead opposite the Sainsbury's supermarket, and traffic turning right into the JS car park is forming up on the right to get into lane for this. Just what the OP turning left into McDonalds was doing over there goodness alone knows.

Retrogamer

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

It appears the OP went to overtake some cyclists rather than wait behind them.
Then realised they couldn't cut in front of them to get into the car park without hitting them, so waited for them to get past then dashed in without checking it was clear and hit the van.

The van driver probably seen traffic sitting on the right hand side, with no idea what they were doing, assumed they were turning right ahead, went to pass on the left to progress and collided with the OP.

Foxy-Stoat_3

Will go 50/50 unless you have witnesses to back up your version on events.

Obviously the van was undertaking everyone to get to where he was going 2 seconds quicker but in reality insurance companies will settle 50/50 to save on THEIR costs and don't give a b*ll*x about YOUR costs.

Lesson learned.....any accident will be your fault until you can prove otherwise...invest in dash camera

DUTR

Foxy-Stoat wrote: »

Will go 50/50 unless you have witnesses to back up your version on events.

Obviously the van was undertaking everyone to get to where he was going 2 seconds quicker but in reality insurance companies will settle 50/50 to save on THEIR costs and don't give a b*ll*x about YOUR costs.

Lesson learned.....any accident will be your fault until you can prove otherwise...invest in dash camera

It is not illegal to undertake where traffic on the right hand side is stationary or moving at a slower speed, however between the 2 parties they have created an extra lane

londonTiger

it will most likely be 50:50

Why don't idiot motorists who witness an accident pull over and give their details. It's bloody annoying, I was a victim of an accident and I had to plead with a witness to just stay 2 minutes for me to take their details.

I learnt from that and wnever there is the slightest knock involving two other motorists I stop and offer to provide me details as a witness.

DUTR

londonTiger wrote: »

it will most likely be 50:50

Why don't idiot motorists who witness an accident pull over and give their details. It's bloody annoying, I was a victim of an accident and I had to plead with a witness to just stay 2 minutes for me to take their details.

I learnt from that and wnever there is the slightest knock involving two other motorists I stop and offer to provide me details as a witness.

In fairness, you don't know if anybody else witness an event that lasted a few seconds, and if nobody was fatally injured, why would someone want to have the added agro of completing statements and possibly attending court, it's all time for something they are not involved with.

warehouse

From the highway code:

Lane dividers. These are short, broken white lines which are used on wide carriageways to divide them into lanes. You should keep between them.

There are no markers, so it's a single lane. If the insurers even hint at 50/50 you need to be ready for a fight OP.

facade

londonTiger wrote: »

Why don't idiot motorists who witness an accident pull over and give their details. It's bloody annoying, I was a victim of an accident and I had to plead with a witness to just stay 2 minutes for me to take their details.

I learnt from that and wnever there is the slightest knock involving two other motorists I stop and offer to provide me details as a witness.

Very public spirited of you :A

Most drivers have wasted enough time waiting to get past an accident usually caused because someone is just too selfish to wait a few seconds for a clear space before manoeuvring, without subjecting themselves to a round of lengthy form filling in for what is just an insurance matter over a bit of twisted metal.

I wouldn't stop unless there was obviously someone injured/run over. (But I'm a mean spirited old grouch;)).

In reference to this accident, I'd say 50:50

The van driver should expect someone in the right hand lane to turn left, he must have seen it hundreds of times, I see it a couple of times a day.

The OP should know that if you stop and leave the tiniest bit of space up the inside someone will try and pass there even if it means mounting the curb.

Joe_Horner

I'm a little puzzled how the OP's insurer could "think it was two lane" without markings - doesn't bode well for a good settlement if that's the standard of knowledge involved!

The fact that people "make an extra lane" is neither here nor there - if there are no lane markings at that point - so the ones a little further on don't count - then the road is a single lane. The only exception to that is if there are signs advising of lane markings erased because of roadworks etc. Regardless of where the OP positioned himself, the van should not have tried to pass within the same lane.

That said, it sounds like the OP could certainly have done things better but hopefully he'll learn from the incident. Sadly, a van driver who accelerates up the inside of a single lane is unlikely to learn anything!