Thoughts on accident, who's at fault?

Jamie_Carter

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Despite the warnings on the site:

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

But using the link to gain free information, you have to tick the box to say that it is your own vehicle.

Jamie_Carter

RichardD1970 wrote: »

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.

There is always a point to checking your mirrors, especially if you are planning to change lane, change speed or turn. In fact it is a good idea to be fully aware of your surroundings just in case you need to swerve to take avoiding action.

OddballJamie

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

There is always a point to checking your mirrors, especially if you are planning to change lane, change speed or turn. In fact it is a good idea to be fully aware of your surroundings just in case you need to swerve to take avoiding action.

I think Richard means if the driver would've looked anywhere to the left then he/she would've seen that van immediately and not in the mirror, through the window.

Dread to think what could've happened if someone had been walking across the entry to McDonalds at the time and the van wasn't there.

smashingyour...

RichardD1970 wrote: »

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.

Rubbish, the van hasn't just appeared there. Had the op looked in the mirrors when they signalled to turn, they'd have seen it approaching

Jamie_Carter

OddballJamie wrote: »

I think Richard means if the driver would've looked anywhere to the left then he/she would've seen that van immediately and not in the mirror, through the window.

Dread to think what could've happened if someone had been walking across the entry to McDonalds at the time and the van wasn't there.

Yes I did understand what Richard meant. Maybe I didn't word my post very well, as I was just trying to elaborate on it, rather than disagree.

OddballJamie

smashingyour... wrote: »

Rubbish, the van hasn't just appeared there. Had the op looked in the mirrors when they signalled to turn, they'd have seen it approaching

Sounds like the OP was too busy blocking blocking the right lane watching the cyclists pass to notice they were being followed by a white van.

RichardD1970

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

There is always a point to checking your mirrors, especially if you are planning to change lane, change speed or turn. In fact it is a good idea to be fully aware of your surroundings just in case you need to swerve to take avoiding action.

OddballJamie wrote: »

I think Richard means if the driver would've looked anywhere to the left then he/she would've seen that van immediately and not in the mirror, through the window.

Dread to think what could've happened if someone had been walking across the entry to McDonalds at the time and the van wasn't there.

Yes, that's what I meant, sorry. Would never advocate not using your mirrors, just didn't read as I meant it too.

The position of the damage indicates that the van was almost past him when he made his manoeuvre, showing a complete lack of awareness of his surroundings. So, not only not using his mirrors but also his windows as well.

Jamie_Carter

Leave it out with your usual aggressive posts Gaz. I never claimed to be an expert on the legalities, I just pointed out what it says on the site. As far as I'm concerned, there may be legal implication, or there may not.

chris-j

Irrespective of markings this road is easily a double lane and demonstrated by fact it does not widen as it reaches the markings added at the traffic lights, the parking bays further back are on the carriageway and easily allow for a wide car to pass them. This is just council being stingy with the paint. Look at any wide road in UK and split lane markings are only ever put on full dual carriageways and close to danger spots and traffic junctions.
The OP is an absolute idiot turning into MacD's from right hand lane. If there were three cars behind him it is no wonder the van passed on inside.
I think an earlier poster got it right suggesting OP saw MacD's and decided they wanted one. The cyclists nonsense just does not add up in the story. It will go 50:50 but OP should just be grateful the van was not travelling fast and swerved to avoid his idiot manoeuvre.

londonTiger

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.

maybe semantics for you, but bus lane is not a pavement or a cycling lane. Cars can still drive there. motorcycles, emergency service vehicles, buses, bicycles, embassy vehicles etc can use bus lanes.

Also it's not illegal for cars to be in the bus lane, it's just that they have to pay £60 privelage every time they nip in.

So there's no reason what so ever for you to just throw out your due diligence and not look.

Because if you had done the same on a cyclist you would be 100% at fault.