Thoughts on accident, who's at fault?

Retrogamer

warehouse wrote: »

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.

Why would that make it less chance of being 50/50?

The van shouldn't have passed on the left, but the OP should have checked it was clear before turning left. Both are at fault.

T-Sil

Thanks everyone for all of your responses. It certainly is interesting to read all of your different views!

I actually went back to the road today to have a look, and there is no way that section of the road is a double lane.

I do take on board the fact I could have been positioned better and closer to the left. However looking again at the distance between the end of the parked cars, the first left turning and the turning into Mcdonalds, it's probably only about 20 meters in total. I was going about 20mph, saw the cyclists, slowed down over to the left. I think it would have actually been impossible for me to have seen the cyclist and pull in behind them, without doing some sort of emergency stop!

Anyway, we will see what the insurance company say and hopefully the witness will back up what he said on the day - that he undercut me.

I am a bit concerned that I spoke to the witness AFTER the van driver had zoomed off. I hope he doesn't think I have made him up!! lol.

Thanks again everyone, I'll let you know the outcome!

londonTiger

DUTR wrote: »

The cyclists have to look out for thmselves, they do not own the road
looking at the street view, I'm not sure why you are so far out to execute a left hand manouvre



the road is two lane at the traffic junction.

technically OP may be in the right because they own the road as they're in front. The van was undertaking. That's as far as the "book" is concerned and insurance companies generally stick with the "book" rules.

But I do wonder what on earth OP was doing driving parly in the central reservation. The lanes are SO W--I--D--E as it is.

Clearly OP has made it appear that they were intending to turn right based on their position in the lane so van decided to pass on the left.

This is probably the #1 cause for accidents people not checking their mirror before manouvering.

T-Sil

Ooh I thought you might like to see the damage to both my car and the van!

I think it shows that I was hardly turned left, otherwise it would clearly be more of a dent in my car rather than a big scrape...

londonTiger

DUTR wrote: »

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.

you don't have to be watching an accident like a hawk to be a witness. You can be helpful just confirming the rough position on vehicles before the accident - that can make a world of difference.

E.g. if you are the vehicle behind the OP and you can see that OP was just inside their lane and NOT with two wheels in the central reservation. That will make a big difference in the outcome.

I bet a just a simple thing as the position of vehicles has very different accounts by each party involved and can swing the insurance companies verdict either way.

smashingyour...

T-Sil wrote: »

Ooh I thought you might like to see the damage to both my car and the van!

I think it shows that I was hardly turned left, otherwise it would clearly be more of a dent in my car rather than a big scrape...

How did you not see the van?

You obviously didn't look before you turned.

mattyprice4004

T-Sil wrote: »

Thanks everyone for all of your responses. It certainly is interesting to read all of your different views!

I actually went back to the road today to have a look, and there is no way that section of the road is a double lane.

I do take on board the fact I could have been positioned better and closer to the left. However looking again at the distance between the end of the parked cars, the first left turning and the turning into Mcdonalds, it's probably only about 20 meters in total. I was going about 20mph, saw the cyclists, slowed down over to the left. I think it would have actually been impossible for me to have seen the cyclist and pull in behind them, without doing some sort of emergency stop!

Anyway, we will see what the insurance company say and hopefully the witness will back up what he said on the day - that he undercut me.

I am a bit concerned that I spoke to the witness AFTER the van driver had zoomed off. I hope he doesn't think I have made him up!! lol.

Thanks again everyone, I'll let you know the outcome!

1 - Why on earth would you have to emergency stop for the cyclists? If you were aware of your surroundings, you'd have seen them before you had to make an emergency stop. See cyclists at 100 yards, see your destination, adjust speed accordingly. Not that difficult.

2 - To be in that position is ridiculous, I can't stand people who swing out to the middle of the road because they think they're driving the starship Enterprise. You can easily keep left, allowing other traffic to filter past you, and make the turn off.
To keep so far right and hinder other traffic that could quite happily bumble past you if you'd keep left is pretty daft, and has probably just cost you a fair amount.

You say you're a careful driver, I have to disagree. Such a manouvre was destined for failure, if this is typical for your driving perhaps it's time to go for a Pass Plus or IAM course - they're great.

Not meant to be unhelpful, just please take it all on board. Good luck with the claim.

T-Sil

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

1 - Why on earth would you have to emergency stop for the cyclists? If you were aware of your surroundings, you'd have seen them before you had to make an emergency stop. See cyclists at 100 yards, see your destination, adjust speed accordingly. Not that difficult.

2 - To be in that position is ridiculous, I can't stand people who swing out to the middle of the road because they think they're driving the starship Enterprise. You can easily keep left, allowing other traffic to filter past you, and make the turn off.
To keep so far right and hinder other traffic that could quite happily bumble past you if you'd keep left is pretty daft, and has probably just cost you a fair amount.

You say you're a careful driver, I have to disagree. Such a manouvre was destined for failure, if this is typical for your driving perhaps it's time to go for a Pass Plus or IAM course - they're great.

Not meant to be unhelpful, just please take it all on board. Good luck with the claim.

1. Because there was a row of parked cars, vans, trucks etc just before you are supposed to move over, so it was impossible to see the cyclists until you have passed the parked cars, which is basically right on top of the turning.

I don't know why you feel the need to be so insulting tbh!

mattyprice4004

T-Sil wrote: »

1. Because there was a row of parked cars, vans, trucks etc just before you are supposed to move over, so it was impossible to see the cyclists until you have passed the parked cars, which is basically right on top of the turning.

I don't know why you feel the need to be so insulting tbh!

It was meant as constructive criticism - even with a row of cars you'd still be able to see the cyclists. The road is arrow-straight and you're in a right hand drive car, meaning you'd see the cyclists in plenty of time to avoid an emergency stop.

People often find the truth insulting, the truth is you would, in my opinion, benefit from some driver training.

I note how you don't discuss the issue of your road positioning - do you think it was OK, or do you feel you would benefit from some tuition in that area?

Just my 2p worth - instead of biting back accept your weaknesses and seek to resolve them.

Edit - further to this, do you remember 'Mirror - Signal - Manouvre' from your driving tuition? If you'd have followed that, you'd have seen the van and not moved.

londonTiger

T-Sil wrote: »

Ooh I thought you might like to see the damage to both my car and the van!

I think it shows that I was hardly turned left, otherwise it would clearly be more of a dent in my car rather than a big scrape...

it's definitely going to be 50:50

you were both in the wrong, you may have had some leeway if it was a front wing to front wing damage. But based on the fact that you've scraped his rear corner suggests you turned without looking.