Unusual Accident - Fault

Retrogamer

Just as you indicate and begin to change lanes, you can see the stationary down car, sat in the outside lane with the hazards on just for a fraction of a second.
The Truck driver seems to brake to anticipate the van driver might pull in front of him as well.

Not sure if the van driver didn't see the car until the last minute, or was just trying to go faster to avoid having to pull in behind the truck but yes unlucky unfortunately

But, yes

Retrogamer

Tallaght wrote: »

One of the reasons plenty of people are using dashcams in their vehicles.

That doesn't seem to have helped the OP with his insurance company.

foxtrotoscar_2

Are you really saying the truck and van are at fault for avoiding an accident and somehow you are not for failing to avoid one?

csgohan4

Scooby.Doo wrote: »

I'd say it's by you, you need to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

If you hadn't followed the van past the transporter until the van was clear it would never have happened.

While sadly the op will have a fault claim, I think the above statement is ridiculous. It's like saying because there's another car you had an accident.

Have you seen the clip, most normal people leave a large gap which the op had done and braking in that time, the op did well not to end up with more serious injuries

GDB2222

csgohan4 wrote: »

While sadly the op will have a fault claim, I think the above statement is ridiculous. It's like saying because there's another car you had an accident.

Have you seen the clip, most normal people leave a large gap which the op had done and braking in that time, the op did well not to end up with more serious injuries

I normally leave a much larger gap. The way I drive, people are forever pulling into the gap I leave, but I would have avoided that particular accident.

Also, the van was blocking vision of the road ahead, so that's another reason to hang back. You're supposed to be looking a couple of cars ahead, but the OP was so close behind the van he could not do that.

There was a clue something was up, when the lorry's brake lights came on, but there's no sign on the video that the OP slowed down..

All in all, the OP could have avoided the accident if he had driven more defensively and with more awareness of what was going on ahead. I suggest an IAM advanced driving course.

Having said that, lots of drivers would have had that collision, and I dare say that a lot of them would not have reacted as quickly and effectively as the OP to slow down. I certainly wouldn't, which is why I leave a large gap ahead. (And please don't pull into it!)

csgohan4

Scooby.Doo wrote: »

And had he shown a bit of restraint when the van swerved he'd be able to slot in behind the transporter.

His fault he was alongside with nowhere to go.

Hindsight is great isn't, I feel sympathy for the OP, but fair play for the dash cam, maybe that would help in shifting some of the blame to the other drivers in terms of costs

Rainbowgirl84

csgohan4 wrote: »

Hindsight is great isn't, I feel sympathy for the OP, but fair play for the dash cam, maybe that would help in shifting some of the blame to the other drivers in terms of costs

Blame? Blame for what? Truck and van driver avoided accidents and certainly didn't cause or contribute to the OP's. The van driver's only thought would be avoiding the hazard, which they managed to do successfully. The van driver did not cause this accident.

csgohan4

Rainbowgirl84 wrote: »

Blame? Blame for what? Truck and van driver avoided accidents and certainly didn't cause or contribute to the OP's. The van driver's only thought would be avoiding the hazard, which they managed to do successfully. The van driver did not cause this accident.

Blame in the sense of insurer's point of view, up to now the op has 100% blame as he rear ended them

The stationary car had no advance warning for the other drivers such as a triangle warning sign, but as I said it 'may'

GDB2222

csgohan4 wrote: »

Blame in the sense of insurer's point of view, up to now the op has 100% blame as he rear ended them

The stationary car had no advance warning for the other drivers such as a triangle warning sign, but as I said it 'may'

The OP drove so closely behind the van that he could not see the road ahead. Clearly, this accident was 100% due to that.

The fact that many other drivers would have made the same mistake does not excuse him.

Rainbowgirl84

csgohan4 wrote: »

Blame in the sense of insurer's point of view, up to now the op has 100% blame as he rear ended them

The stationary car had no advance warning for the other drivers such as a triangle warning sign, but as I said it 'may'

Is it mandatory in the UK to carry a triangle? Hazards were on I believe. I'm sure the OP would have mentioned if any other vehicle had made contact with the stationary car...which begs the question why was it only them who hit it?