Who's really at fault?

MalonsMilk

In December I had a car accident and the case is still rumbling on. My insurance company wants me to accept 50/50 responsibility but I don't think Im at fault.

I was driving along a straight road and came upon a car travelling 30ph in a 40mph zone. It was clear to overtake so I signalled, checked my mirrors and began my manoeuvre when he just turned right. No indication and he wasn't turning into a road, looked like he was turning into someones drive.

I have a witness who backs up my claim that it was a sudden about turn and when I talked to the person who owned the house that I got shoved into they confirmed that they had no idea who the man was. I believe now that he was travelling slowly as he wanted a place to turn round in, saw an open drive way and just did the manoeuvre without any due care or attention.

I feel like Im going crazy as I feel that if I was on a dual carriageway and he veered in front of me, would he still be able to claim that I was partially responsible? I feel like I cant overtake anyone now out of fear that they nay just decide to turn in front of me and I get caught out again. Help!

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

I think 50/50 is where it will rest as although you rightly feel aggrieved that he didn't signal, I'm guessing your description isn't quite right as I think it is unlikely that he was doing 30mph to turn into a drive, so I think the case rests on the car driving unusually slowly in a 40mph area.

So let's look again. You are coming up behind a car moving slowly on a main road. The question then comes as to why? It sounds to me like the other driver was looking for a difficult to find driveway (perhaps a friend or relative and they were unfamiliar with the area) and saw it and turned. Not an unusual thing to do and people's driving standard often falls when they are struggling with navigation.

They get blame for not checking mirrors and not signalling, you get blame for overtaking when it is not safe to do so. How did you work out that the car was travelling at a constant speed and unlikely to turn rather than moving slowly and about to manoeuvre?

Also, it may depend on the nature of the road, in some environments, a 40mph road is still a residential road and overtaking would be seen as unwise - if you are driving on a road that has driveways and other entrances then they constitute opportunities for things to go wrong. I would say the correct way to have handled it would have been to draw up behind, establish what the driver was up to, perhaps a warning toot before overtaking if the driver was driving unreasonably slowly, effectively kerb crawling. If they were making progress but below the speed limit, then live with it until it is absolutely safe to do so.

Comms69

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I think 50/50 is where it will rest as although you rightly feel aggrieved that he didn't signal, I'm guessing your description isn't quite right as I think it is unlikely that he was doing 30mph to turn into a drive, so I think the case rests on the car driving unusually slowly in a 40mph area.

So let's look again. You are coming up behind a car moving slowly on a main road. The question then comes as to why? It sounds to me like the other driver was looking for a difficult to find driveway (perhaps a friend or relative and they were unfamiliar with the area) and saw it and turned. Not an unusual thing to do and people's driving standard often falls when they are struggling with navigation.

They get blame for not checking mirrors and not signalling, you get blame for overtaking when it is not safe to do so. How did you work out that the car was travelling at a constant speed and unlikely to turn rather than moving slowly and about to manoeuvre?

Also, it may depend on the nature of the road, in some environments, a 40mph road is still a residential road and overtaking would be seen as unwise - if you are driving on a road that has driveways and other entrances then they constitute opportunities for things to go wrong. I would say the correct way to have handled it would have been to draw up behind, establish what the driver was up to, perhaps a warning toot before overtaking if the driver was driving unreasonably slowly, effectively kerb crawling. If they were making progress but below the speed limit, then live with it until it is absolutely safe to do so.

This was my first reaction too.

MalonsMilk

Thank you for your advice, I followed the car at 30mph for roughly about 12 seconds before deciding to overtake.I live in a very rural area and the place I was driving was in the middle of nowhere and not a residential area, the road is wide and straight and in good condition.

It has really screwed with my head now as I'm now so wary of overtaking any slow moving vehicle for fear of them doing an about turn on me and due to the fact that my area is very popular with tractors, lorries and cyclists I feel unable to overtake any of them.

Maybe people are telling me what I want to hear and reassuring me that it wasn't my fault, thanks for looking at it from a third party standard.

Comms69

MalonsMilk wrote: »

Thank you for your advice, I followed the car at 30mph for roughly about 12 seconds before deciding to overtake.I live in a very rural area and the place I was driving was in the middle of nowhere and not a residential area, the road is wide and straight and in good condition.

It has really screwed with my head now as I'm now so wary of overtaking any slow moving vehicle for fear of them doing an about turn on me and due to the fact that my area is very popular with tractors, lorries and cyclists I feel unable to overtake any of them.

Maybe people are telling me what I want to hear and reassuring me that it wasn't my fault, thanks for looking at it from a third party standard.

It's difficult to say for sure.


Look at it from the other driver, driving along, aware of a vehicle behind him, sees his turning and goes for it, only to be hit from the side.


Yes he should've looked, and signalled. 50/50 doesn't make it your fault either don't forget - not in a 'your driving was poor' sense anyway.


50/50 is just an accident.

neilmcl

MalonsMilk wrote: »

In December I had a car accident and the case is still rumbling on. My insurance company wants me to accept 50/50 responsibility but I don't think Im at fault.

I was driving along a straight road and came upon a car travelling 30ph in a 40mph zone. It was clear to overtake so I signalled, checked my mirrors and began my manoeuvre when he just turned right. No indication and he wasn't turning into a road, looked like he was turning into someones drive.

I have a witness who backs up my claim that it was a sudden about turn and when I talked to the person who owned the house that I got shoved into they confirmed that they had no idea who the man was. I believe now that he was travelling slowly as he wanted a place to turn round in, saw an open drive way and just did the manoeuvre without any due care or attention.

I feel like Im going crazy as I feel that if I was on a dual carriageway and he veered in front of me, would he still be able to claim that I was partially responsible? I feel like I cant overtake anyone now out of fear that they nay just decide to turn in front of me and I get caught out again. Help!

Nobody turns right into a drive from 30mph, not unless they were a stunt driver. Sounds to me they were already slowing down, before and during your overtake and your observations let you down, hence the 50/50.

Car_54

MalonsMilk wrote: »

I was driving along a straight road and came upon a car travelling 30ph in a 40mph zone. It was clear to overtake so I signalled, checked my mirrors and began my manoeuvre when he just turned right. No indication and he wasn't turning into a road, looked like he was turning into someones drive.

I'm sure you mean you checked your mirrors before signalling, not after.;)

By "signalling" I take it you mean your indicators. As you now know, these don't help if the driver in front doesn't use his mirrors. Using your horn would have made him aware (unless of course he was deaf).

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

MalonsMilk wrote: »

Thank you for your advice, I followed the car at 30mph for roughly about 12 seconds before deciding to overtake.I live in a very rural area and the place I was driving was in the middle of nowhere and not a residential area, the road is wide and straight and in good condition.

It has really screwed with my head now as I'm now so wary of overtaking any slow moving vehicle for fear of them doing an about turn on me and due to the fact that my area is very popular with tractors, lorries and cyclists I feel unable to overtake any of them.

Maybe people are telling me what I want to hear and reassuring me that it wasn't my fault, thanks for looking at it from a third party standard.

On the Advanced Driving course, in rural driving they make a big thing of clues to spot entrances and I think their position would be that if there are signs of an entrance then it is not a safe place to overtake. People might view the IAM position as overly cautious, but their presumption is that in driving you assume everyone else is about to do something wrong.

I would agree that it is a tough call to feel blamed for someone else's poor driving. It does sound like you took reasonable steps, but without independent witnesses it would be hard for insurers to tell the "he came from nowhere" from the "I followed him for a while" or even "I saw the car following behind who overtook without warning as I made my turn." Sometimes you have to accept that whatever you think happened, the insurers cannot be certain what really did happen (and the other driver may not be being dishonest in describing what they recall). As a cyclist, the one claim I believe when someone nearly drives into me at a junction is "Sorry, mate, I didn't see you". People are not good at observation.

sheslookinhot

The insurance co will have you guilty if you hit someone from the rear.

AdrianC

MalonsMilk wrote: »

...the place I was driving was in the middle of nowhere and not a residential area...

If it wasn't a residential area, how did he turn into the drive of somebody's house...?

Add in their "driving slowly", and 50/50 is not wrong. He shouldn't have turned without looking, while you had all the clues you needed to decide overtaking was a bad plan.

Simple rule: Don't EVER overtake where there's an entry (drive, junction) on the right-hand side of the road. Not only might the car you're overtaking turn into it, but somebody might turn left out of it.

marlot

MalonsMilk wrote: »

In December I had a car accident and the case is still rumbling on. My insurance company wants me to accept 50/50 responsibility...

I can understand you feeling aggrieved, and I think 50/50 is harsh. But even if it was settled at 90/10 (with the 10 being you), you still lose your no claims. So unless you could get it to 100/0, I think you just need to accept it and move on.