Thoughts on accident, who's at fault?

Jamie_Carter

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...

So you drove into the van, rather than him hitting you then??

GAZ237

Seeing as the other driver was in such a rush to depart the scene.

Op have you run his no plate through http://ownvehicle.askmid.com/ To check if they were actually insured.

Jamie_Carter

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!

But there wouldn't be right on top of the turning when you passed the parked vehicles would you??? Unless they were parked on the single red line, and right across the junction before the turning into McDonalds.

Throbbe

For what it's worth I had a similar accident, only in my case I was undertaken by a car using the bus lane to my left, which ended just before the junction. Insurance went 50/50 (actually, both insurance companies admitted liability before changing their minds!).

Feeling narked that the accident had been caused by an illegal and dangerous undertaking manouvre I pursued it for well over a year and eventually went to court. The judge went 70/30 in my favour, with the view that I still had some responsibility to check that nothing was inside me before executing the turn.

Expensive things principles.

Leave it to the insurance, be thankful no-one was hurt, check your blind spot in future and get on with your life.

Jamie_Carter

GAZ237 wrote: »

Seeing as the other driver was in such a rush to depart the scene.

Op have you run his no plate through http://ownvehicle.askmid.com/ To check if they were actually insured.

Good idea. But not a good idea to tell the insurance company or the police that you have checked on that site, as you have to confirm that it is your vehicle.

The OP's insurance company have probably already checked that anyway.

londonTiger

Throbbe wrote: »

For what it's worth I had a similar accident, only in my case I was undertaken by a car using the bus lane to my left, which ended just before the junction. Insurance went 50/50 (actually, both insurance companies admitted liability before changing their minds!).

Feeling narked that the accident had been caused by an illegal and dangerous undertaking manouvre I pursued it for well over a year and eventually went to court. The judge went 70/30 in my favour, with the view that I still had some responsibility to check that nothing was inside me before executing the turn.

Expensive things principles.

Leave it to the insurance, be thankful no-one was hurt, check your blind spot in future and get on with your life.

How was he undertaking you if he was still in the bus lane? From your testimony it seems like you drove in him as you made a manouvure to turn left.

Correct me if I'm wrong but undertaking is when a car behind you goes in front of you by passing on the inside. If the car behind just drives faster (while still under the speed limit) and stays in the inside lane. That is not undertking.

Throbbe

londonTiger wrote: »

How was he undertaking you if he was still in the bus lane? From your testimony it seems like you drove in him as you made a manouvure to turn left.

Correct me if I'm wrong but undertaking is when a car behind you goes in front of you by passing on the inside. If the car behind just drives faster (while still under the speed limit) and stays in the inside lane. That is not undertking.

I think we're talking semantics here. I'd regard anyone passing me on the nearside as undertaking, but yes, I agree that there are circumstances under which it is perfectly legal and sensible. Indeed, if I'd hit a bus that was entitled to be in that lane I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

However, the driver in question was behind me in my lane as I approached the junction, then (I believe) cut into the bus lane to get past on the inside as I slowed.

To this day I'm sure I indicated and checked over my left shoulder (anyone driving in Cambridge regularly will know the frequency with which cyclists can get into that blind spot) but the fact is that I did complete a manouvre that contributed to the accident, so if I did look I didn't look hard enough.

shaun_from_Africa

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Good idea. But not a good idea to tell the insurance company or the police that you have checked on that site, as you have to confirm that it is your vehicle.

The OP's insurance company have probably already checked that anyway.

Despite the warnings on the site:

I understand it is an offence to wrongfully obtain information of this nature without any of the above reasonable causes. If I fail to provide true reasons for acquiring this information I may be committing an offence of unlawfully obtaining data contrary to section 55 of the Data protection Act 1998. I declare that the information provided will not be used for any purposes unrelated to this enquiry

You are not committing a DPA section 55 offence.

S55 of the act relates to personal data by which an individual can be identified, and simply knowing if a vehicle is insured cannot help you to identify someone.

You can if you wish, use the Askmid site to check if other vehicles are insured following an accident although there is a charge of £4 for this.
http://www.askmid.com/askmidenquiry.aspx

OddballJamie

Throbbe wrote: »

I think we're talking semantics here. I'd regard anyone passing me on the nearside as undertaking, but yes, I agree that there are circumstances under which it is perfectly legal and sensible. Indeed, if I'd hit a bus that was entitled to be in that lane I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

However, the driver in question was behind me in my lane as I approached the junction, then (I believe) cut into the bus lane to get past on the inside as I slowed.

To this day I'm sure I indicated and checked over my left shoulder (anyone driving in Cambridge regularly will know the frequency with which cyclists can get into that blind spot) but the fact is that I did complete a manouvre that contributed to the accident, so if I did look I didn't look hard enough.

The bus lanes by me allow taxis to drive in them and only have certain hours of operation, so you have to have your wits about you.

I'm surprised you managed to get 70/30, well done for that, I would've thought 50/50 best case.

RichardD1970

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Did you not check your nearside mirror before moving to the left?

Looking at the damage, there would be no point in checking his mirror, the van was already at least alongside him when he made his manoeuvre.