Minor Car Accident : Who was at fault?

Flight3287462

aogra said:

- Car A drifts towards the right lane to get a better view of traffic ahead - at this point Car A is in both lanes (half the car in the left lane, half the car in the right lane) and stays like this for a few seconds.

That bit there is nonsense.  I really don't knw why you were drifting around all over the road, you had a clear empty lane on the left why didn't you just stay in it especially with a right turn coming up.

I'm not surprised B is a bit miffed. I wonder if he has video footage?

kinger101

Driving of both is questionable.  As is the decision to do this through insurance.  Whatever the outcome, you'll both pay more next year.

Do you remember that bit in the driving lesson where your instructor told you mirror, signal, manoeuvre?
 

aogra

Agreed, in hindsight it was not the best moves by either of us - it was slow moving traffic, in the left lane ahead you can see a parked taxi, I was trying to see past that, the semi drift out and back into lane lasted under three seconds.

Car B insisted to go through insurance for one  scratched alloy - that is his claim.

The question from an insurance standpoint would be who is at fault? in theory, if it were to go to court who would likely win? I personally do not know, I have no experience in these matters.

Sandtree

aogra said:

Sandtree said:

aogra said:

I am car A - there is dashcam footage (back and front) showing exactly what I described above, including speeds.

The argument for Car B is that they were already fully established on the left lane and my initial intention to move towards the right lane was enough indication/justification for it to advance.....

Sounds a link to the youtube video is required

Sure, see below.

Claims would have been so much more interesting if dashcams etc existed in my day... at best we got was forecourt CCTV footage where cars move 3' between each frame and so you see nothing. 

If I was representing vehicle A I would still go with no collision, author of your own misfortune but to be honest the rear footage is less clear... if it were my case I would be wanting to ensure the two videos were synchronised but it looks more like that the road widens to two lanes at which point it appears as if you are positioning to go into the right lane but then cut into the left. The third party is substantially alongside at that stage not just nosing ahead. 

Whilst I would attempt to say its their own fault I wouldnt feel defeated by going for a 50/50... the value of the claim is likely to be too insignificant to argue about a 60/40 or other minor variants of a shared liability.

aogra

Totally agree, and many thanks for your insight, very much appreciated. I would be happy with a 50/50 outcome, sounds fair under the circumstances. It's a small claim, likely to be under £200 for the total cost so insurance companies probably not caring too much about it, i.e. their time is probably worth more than that. Was just interested from a theoretical point of view on where fault would lie, might as well learn something new from this experience

GrumpyDil

Am I missing something here but for such a small amount of money? Both policies will have a claim against them which could impact costs for the next few years. 

photome

not sure what the camera car was doing drifting between lanes, the car behind would def think it was moving in to the right lane given the camera cars position.

looks like 50/50 though

400ixl

Reading the description in the original post you would put the blame with the following vehicle. Having now seen the video the description is not describing what happened, even if it is what the intention may have been.

The video doesn't show drifting across to see ahead, it shows a vehicle performing a lane change (shows the vehicle had exited the left hand lane) and then attempting to return to the original lane without observing what was in that lane. At the very least it is 50/50.

aogra

400ixl said:

Reading the description in the original post you would put the blame with the following vehicle. Having now seen the video the description is not describing what happened, even if it is what the intention may have been.

The video doesn't show drifting across to see ahead, it shows a vehicle performing a lane change (shows the vehicle had exited the left hand lane) and then attempting to return to the original lane without observing what was in that lane. At the very least it is 50/50.

Agreed, not the best move but my intention was never to change lane, but to look ahead of the parked parks which were located on the left lane further ahead (the cameras are not great at picking up distant objects but it was much clearer to the naked eye - I could see them ahead and was not sure if they were parked or merely waiting in traffic. Though I should probably have waited to cross the junction before trying to see). Looking at the front camera you can see how the dividing line that separates both lanes always stays around the middle of my bonnet, at least half my car was certainly always on the left lane. So the question I was originally asking was if this is enough to be classified as me exiting the left lane or not - did I exit the lane or was I technically still always on the left lane? did I still have right of way on the left lane? as clearly this would be a critical point - I personally do not know how the highway code would interpret this.

And PS. thanks all for your responses, I am finding the discussion really interesting, a real eye opener! 

Herzlos

It's bad form on both parts. Car A clearly looked like it changed from an empty lane to a full lane and then drifted back; I can't see how you'd have gotten a better view moving into a blocked lane. Car B passed on the inside before the maneuver was completed.

So yeah, accident caused by car A but should have been avoided by car B being more responsible.