Car hit my car but not admiring fault.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Optimusf wrote: »

I fully understand what "Give way" means thank you very much

You would Give way to any car approaching, but in this instance the visibility was reduced due to the van, and as my wife slowly creeped on to the main road were all four wheels are on the actual main road.....you would think any incoming car would see a car middle of the road??????????????????? No? .........

You're wife became an obstruction to vehicles that were driving along the road.
Its not going to go in you're wife's favor in a month of Sundays. Creeping out, edging out, being in the middle of the road with all four wheel in the road, she was still CROSSING THE PATH OF ONCOMING VEHICLES and caused a collision she had the onus on her to make sure the way was clear, it wasn't, its her fault.

z1a

Amazing how many vehicle just appear from nowhere.

sheramber

Was the other car overtaking the parked van or was it travelling on the other side of the road?

casseus

sheramber wrote: »

Was the other car overtaking the parked van or was it travelling on the other side of the road?

irrelevant at this stage, Op's wife it seems went beyond the give way markings of her junction and proceeded out into the path of oncoming traffic when the way was not clear for her to do so. The vehicle who was proceeding down the roadway had priority over the OP's wife.

Optimusf

Ok fine but is there a rule/law that states this????????

If my wife was at fault she would have admitted fault, I either think half the world had gone mad or I'm missing something......

z1a

Optimusf wrote: »

Ok fine but is there a rule/law that states this????????

If my wife was at fault she would have admitted fault, I either think half the world had gone mad or I'm missing something......

I would say there's no "if" about it, she was at fault.

casseus

Optimusf wrote: »

Ok fine but is there a rule/law that states this????????

If my wife was at fault she would have admitted fault, I either think half the world had gone mad or I'm missing something......

The insurance companies go by current relevant case laws. Williams vs. Fullerton: Vehicle A was on a major road and approached a crossroads with a minor road. The driver looked right and left, started to cross, and then was hit in the side by Vehicle B, which was travelling along the minor road.
Outcome: The court ruled that liability is split 25%/75%

It was ruled that, even though Vehicle B should have given way, the driver of Vehicle A should have followed the looked right again rule.

The Highway Code (211): What does this say about emerging from a side/minor road onto a main road?

• Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle.
• Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users.
• Check mirrors and blind spot again to ensure you are not being overtaken and then make the turn.
• Do not cut the corner

Failure to adhere to the above can land you in hot water with plod for driving w/o due care or attention.

Aylesbury_Duck

Optimusf wrote: »

Ok fine but is there a rule/law that states this????????

If my wife was at fault she would have admitted fault, I either think half the world had gone mad or I'm missing something......

You’re missing something I’m afraid. It’s an unfortunate accident but I’m afraid your wife is at fault.

You need to fix your question mark key, it’s sticking. A lot.

Optimusf

Ok, that provides a bit more insight.

The reason why I'm so baffled by the general point of view is because of the following.....

The lane going from left to right had heavy traffic.

The right lane had no cars there

So my wife moved the car forward in the hope someone in the left to right lane would Give way.

Now the approaching car after she had hit my wife's car suggests two things

1) either she didn't see the car until the last minute and tried to swerve to the right hence why my wife's cars bumper has been damaged.

2)there was a little gap that the incoming car thought she could squeeze through.

I'm sorry, I see million times where the car coming from the minor road blocking a lane to get to the other side. From reading all your comments suggests that anyone who hits the car blocking will go on to always winning the claim potentially even though there's no witness and she could have been on the phone.

This also leads me to saying that this world has gone completely bonkers. So if I pedestrian is walking across the main road and they were to be hit by a car it is there fault.....so anyone and everyone can go about hitting a person or a car who is blocking the main road and win??????????????

SandraX

D_M_E wrote: »

If the van was parked up so as to considerably reduce visibilty for anyone coming out of the junction, then surely the driver of said van must also bear some resposibility for the accident?

Presumably nobody took details from the van driver and the police who attended never made any comment on this?

Not true.

As long as the van was parked within the highway code guideleines, not the van/drivers fault.

The onus lays with the driver entering the main road. The insurance co agrees with me that it's the OP's wifes fault.

sorry, I may sound harsh but no use crying over spilt milk and siffering for longer than required.

Just admit the fault, get the cars repaired and soon forgotten.

Goodluck

ps - we have put off buying a dash cam and reading stories like this makes me want one but its the hassel of saving and revieiws clips we are not good at.