Direct line wrogly accepted liabilty on my behalf.

C_Mababejive

Thinking about it another way, the HW code says if you are turning right and are only preventing from doing so by oncoming traffic, you "may" enter the box junction. So there is no obligation to enter, but you may if you choose to do so.


Now if turning right and there is oncoming traffic, you have passed the stop line on your side of the lights,on the average junction it might be safer to hold short of the box because if there is oncoming traffic then whether you hold short or advance into the box doesnt matter. You still cant turn right,but holding short is a safer option because you are not exposed to traffic and have the protection of the traffic island.

I agree most people are in the habit of advancing into the middle of the box and angling slightly right and maybe this is something we could all reconsider.

As i say, all academic with no vid/photo evidence.

glentoran99

for the oncoming car to hit front left of the OP he must have been well turned into the lane, as anything less and would have been front right clipped

waamo

You say you weren't impeding the oncoming traffic. The other driver will claim you were too far forward.

The insurance company will likely believe that it is highly improbable that they would suddenly swerve into you deliberately.

Absent any independent witnesses they will go 50/50 at best or cave in with an at fault claim.

neilmcl

glentoran99 wrote: »

for the oncoming car to hit front left of the OP he must have been well turned into the lane, as anything less and would have been front right clipped

^ This exactly. To hit the nearside the OP must have been impeding the third party's progress, whether they were turning right or not. The OP was simply too far over.

AdrianC

And, as far as the actual question goes...

They accepted liabilty on my behalf to end the case quickly. Is there anything i can do?

Nope, they have every right to do that.

C_Mababejive

But the other driver was traveling in a forward direction and so presumably paying due attention as to what was happening out of his front window. How then, in such a circumstance, did he drive into the stationary OPs car? Looking at it that way, he could be deemed to be driving without due care and attention. Of course he will parry and say he was traveling forward and the OP turned right in front of him?

For the avoidance of doubt,the masculine shall also denote the feminine.

Richard53

C_Mababejive wrote: »

For the avoidance of doubt,the masculine shall also denote the feminine.

Or, as my English teacher used to say when discussing grammar: "the male always embraces the female".


He's get the sack for saying that these days.

Richard53

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

You should have waited on your own carriageway, ever so slightly turned, indicator on, waiting for a clear gap

For your own safety, it is better to wait with you wheels pointing forward. That way, if a car hits you from behind, you get punted straight down the road, not into the path of a speeding juggernaut coming the other way.

missile

neilmcl wrote: »

^ This exactly. To hit the nearside the OP must have been impeding the third party's progress, whether they were turning right or not. The OP was simply too far over.

I think OP is 100% to blame :money:

Ikki1

I do have independent witnesses. Directline told me they contacted them but the witnesses were rude an turned the phone off. At this point i rang my witnesses to ask whats going on, and they told me they hadnt been contacted. When i rang directline to tell them this i was told as i had spoken to my witnesses they were no longer credible. For the next couple months i was continuously told witnesses hadnt been contacted again and wont be either. But now ombudsman are telling me directline did contact witnesses again a couple months later but witnesses refused.