Car insurance liability dispute UK

Fullprice13

@sheramber changing lanes is one thing but the other is to keep the safe distance from the car ahead. On top of this at the moement of contact  he is still on my lane, Hs front bumper is at the level of my right rear wheel.  I ammore than sure that in this moment your left whellis not supposed to be on the oher lane becasue you are dangerously too close. 

Ayr_Rage

Come on @fullprice13, you are clutching at straws.

The car moving to the right was changing lanes and you swerved into his path, irrespective of who was actually within each lane.

You made a unanticipated move and they had no time to avoid a collision.

facade

Taking the OPs description at face value, it should be split liability.

Car 2 was too close to the OP- actually encroaching into another lane and contributed to the collision.

When driving on what passes for "roads" nowadays, you should anticipate that a car is going to drive around a crater/crevasse/apparently bottomless pit* that you haven't seen yet, and also move outwards when approaching a junction- a lot of drivers think that stopping with their wheels past a Give Way or Stop line is good driving.

The OP should have been aware of car 2's presence, and simply braked to avoid hitting car 3, then car 2 would have driven into them if they were so committed to changing lanes that close to the OP.

(* round here the average "road" is so badly surfaced that you either crash through the craters or have to swerve from side to side quickly as there is no smooth line through them on what is left of the surface.)

Mildly_Miffed

Fullprice13 said:

Thank for the answers. I swerved slightly as the speed was not great becasue the car from the left hand side wanted to engage into the main road I was on. Then, I was hit by the other car (rear right). My main point is that I was still in my lane when I swerved. Please see below how it looked like.

Given how low the speed was, why didn't you just brake?

This is going to go against you, unless somebody has dashcam footage that shows car 2 was moving left into your lane at the time, then it may be split - depending on where you were each positioned in your lanes.

noitsnotme

Mirror, signal, manoeuvre... do they still teach that?

While you would not have been expected to signal in this particular situation, you did perform a manoeuvre without checking it was safe to do so first.

As someone said above, at such a low speed it would have been better to brake.  If the guy behind had then gone in to you it would have been their fault.

Mildly_Miffed

noitsnotme said:

Mirror, signal, manoeuvre... do they still teach that?

While you would not have been expected to signal in this particular situation, you did perform a manoeuvre without checking it was safe to do so first.

As someone said above, at such a low speed it would have been better to brake.  If the guy behind had then gone in to you it would have been their fault.

It sounds from the OP's description of the incident that they already knew that other car was there - so while the mirror would have been a good idea, it wasn't required in order to know that it was not clear to move right.

LightFlare

noitsnotme said:

Mirror, signal, manoeuvre... do they still teach that?

While you would not have been expected to signal in this particular situation, you did perform a manoeuvre without checking it was safe to do so first.

As someone said above, at such a low speed it would have been better to brake.  If the guy behind had then gone in to you it would have been their fault.

nope - its just manoeuvre, maybe signal and def not mirrors around here.

I was taught that indicators were just that - an indication of intent not an indication of immediate action

sheramber

You donlt need to convonce up. 

It is what your insurance company decide.

sheslookinhot

facade said:

Taking the OPs description at face value, it should be split liability.

Car 2 was too close to the OP- actually encroaching into another lane and contributed to the collision.

When driving on what passes for "roads" nowadays, you should anticipate that a car is going to drive around a crater/crevasse/apparently bottomless pit* that you haven't seen yet, and also move outwards when approaching a junction- a lot of drivers think that stopping with their wheels past a Give Way or Stop line is good driving.

The OP should have been aware of car 2's presence, and simply braked to avoid hitting car 3, then car 2 would have driven into them if they were so committed to changing lanes that close to the OP.

(* round here the average "road" is so badly surfaced that you either crash through the craters or have to swerve from side to side quickly as there is no smooth line through them on what is left of the surface.)

I agree, it’s knock for knock or 50/50.

DullGreyGuy

sheslookinhot said:

facade said:

Taking the OPs description at face value, it should be split liability.

Car 2 was too close to the OP- actually encroaching into another lane and contributed to the collision.

When driving on what passes for "roads" nowadays, you should anticipate that a car is going to drive around a crater/crevasse/apparently bottomless pit* that you haven't seen yet, and also move outwards when approaching a junction- a lot of drivers think that stopping with their wheels past a Give Way or Stop line is good driving.

The OP should have been aware of car 2's presence, and simply braked to avoid hitting car 3, then car 2 would have driven into them if they were so committed to changing lanes that close to the OP.

(* round here the average "road" is so badly surfaced that you either crash through the craters or have to swerve from side to side quickly as there is no smooth line through them on what is left of the surface.)

I agree, it’s knock for knock or 50/50.

Knock for knock agreements broadly ended in the mid 80s and fairly sure all were gone in the 90s