Thoughts on accident, who's at fault?

mattyprice4004

londonTiger wrote: »

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.

Be careful - you made my mistake and suggested he is in the wrong! You'll be accused of insulting soon.

Retrogamer

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!

Where did the cyclists come from and how many were there?

If they were cycling up the same stretch of road, weren't they in front of you before or during your passing of the parked cars?

smashingyour...

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Be careful - you made my mistake and suggested he is in the wrong! You'll be accused of insulting soon.

It obvious the op came on here looking for [STRIKE] the truth[/STRIKE] us to side with him.;)

lincroft1710

Van driver should have been more careful and driving more slowly while undertaking (which is a permitted manoeuvre on single lane roads in certain circumstances) and OP should have been better positioned and taken greater care when turning.

As most other posters have said 50:50

DUTR

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...

I trust you geo tagged the pics when you had taken them?
The van driver may argue that you were not indicating and he may well be believed as 'everybody' knows Beemer drivers do not use indicators

T-Sil

ooooookay I think I am going to step away from this thread for now. It's gotten a bit OTT honestly.

Thank you to the people that replied, I do appreciate all of the views. I didn't come here looking for an argument so I am going to leave it there.

z1a

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.

Because if you do you get hounded by ins. co. constantly by phone, then maybe asking you to go to court as a witness.
I will never do this again unless there is a serious injury involved.

Retrogamer

Please post back with any developments on the insurance side of things.

DUTR

T-Sil wrote: »

ooooookay I think I am going to step away from this thread for now. It's gotten a bit OTT honestly.

Thank you to the people that replied, I do appreciate all of the views. I didn't come here looking for an argument so I am going to leave it there.

In fairness, it doesn't matter what the consensus is regarding this particular episode, as it is the two insurers that will decide if the other party's client is liable. I don't think your query was in vain, but you can see from the responses, it won't be a clear cut, party A was right and party B was wrong.

neilmcl

T-Sil wrote: »

It had to be a BMW driver, you sure you indicated