closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 127

Thread: Car crash - Who's in the wrong?

  1. #1
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    762

    Car crash - Who's in the wrong?

    As per the title I have had a minor accident this morn and I am confident I am in the right but the other party is trying to defend them self.
    Insurance has been notified and from my description there on my side but before the other party starts getting argumentative I just want to clarify I am in the right?

    Basically I was traveling along the road below at 30 mph, my car is high lighted in the red.
    The car in front (a VW Amarok) is marked in blue, he started turning left as if he was going off the slip road but then quickly shot in front of me and the front of my A6 went in to this rear door, he was almost completely straight when we crashed so close to a 'T bone' scenario. The crash is marked with the yellow 'X' at the junction.

    His argument is that he indicated right even though started going left (I never seen this and think he flicked them on when we crashed) and that his car is big and needs to bear left in order to swing it round and do a u-turn.

    My question is can you even do a u-turn on these small residential centre reservations?
    If you look on pic number 1 where the yellow van is in the distance there is a round about in front of that so he could have simply drove the other few hundred metre and safely done it. He was heading to the vets on the opposite side of the road where I have marked a blue dot.

    What do you think? Is he completely in the wrong or can he defend him self to the insurance company?
    I cant be bothered dragging this out so hopefully he agrees it was his fault. Annoyingly I have only had the A6 about 2 months!




  2. #2
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    776
    Irrespective of who is right and who's wrong unless he admits fault this sounds like it will frustratingly be settled with fault apportioned 50 / 50. So your insurer will cover your costs and vice versa.

  3. #3
    Master Tifa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Shropshire UK
    Posts
    1,690
    He's in the wrong.
    He entered YOUR lane.
    You can't just cut across traffic to effect a u turn.
    Even if he was turning right, he'd have been in the incorrect lane.

  4. #4
    No reason he couldn't do a u-turn there and is plausible that he has to go wide to swing round.

    On the other hand, even if he did signal could be interpreted by you that he was simply rejoining your lane and he shouldn't cut in front.

  5. #5
    Grand Master mart broad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    12,033
    Blog Entries
    5
    Without witnesses i reckon the Insurance companies will knock for knock
    I FEEL LIKE I'M DIAGONALLY PARKED IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE

  6. #6
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    762
    Knock for knock would be annoying when I have literally done nothing wrong.

    I was driving in the correct lane at the speed limit and his car then shoots in front of me, I braked and the car locked up but there just wasn't enough room to stop. Hardly knock for knock but no doubt the insurance companies will want an easy option.

  7. #7
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    North west England
    Posts
    896
    His fault 100%

    You hit his offside passenger door so he was driving across the front of you, no other outcome in my opinion, his fault.

  8. #8
    Definitely his fault.

  9. #9
    Grand Master number2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North and South.
    Posts
    30,573
    Then one could argue that you were driving too close.
    "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."

    'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.

  10. #10
    Sadly, in the absence of any other evidence, I'd have to call this 50/50 if I were the judge.

    I can see both arguments, from his perspective he had to do a wide sweep at it and was signalling all the time so you overtook a dude signalling and turning right, and from your perspective he just pulled across in front of you. Tough one but absent any other evidence it seems hard to draw any conclusion other than 50/50.

  11. #11
    Grand Master Dave+63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    15,914
    Annoying as it may seem, I believe that it’s probably going to be seen as your fault. The onus is on the car behind to be able to see far enough ahead and have the road awareness to be able to stop safely within the distance he can see.

    You knew the car was there and saw it pull to the left but failed to anticipate his next move. You said that you didn’t see him indicate right and presumably didn’t see him indicate left either. You didn’t know what he was doing and should have acted accordingly rather than assume that he was staying left.

    If you’re offered a 50/50 split I think you’d be wise to accept it.

    Sorry.

  12. #12
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    sussex uk
    Posts
    633
    Quote Originally Posted by mart broad View Post
    Without witnesses i reckon the Insurance companies will knock for knock
    Il go with the above

  13. #13
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Bolton , UK
    Posts
    74
    The other driver is at fault , just because he claims to have indicated does not negate the danger in the manoeuvre.

    A driver suddenly making a U-turn in the road can be very dangerous .When performing such a manoeuvre, one should take extra care for traffic coming from all directions and ensure that the road is totally clear before attempting to do it. It doesn’t matter that you may not have anticipated this sudden change of direction , the other driver has a duty to ensure that there are no other drivers/vehicles travelling on the road that he may put in danger by carrying out such a move. Drivers have been prosecuted for driving without due care for much less than these actions.
    He can dispute it but should think himself lucky he is not being prosecuted.

  14. #14
    Grand Master hogthrob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    16,848
    Is it really OK to initially swing left, so that you can make a right turn that would otherwise be too tight, especially on an A road? Surely the proper thing would be to use the roundabout ahead, or turn right into the side road and execute a turn there?

  15. #15
    Indicating doesn't mean you can make a maneuver regardless of what others are doing. The other diver is clearly at fault.

  16. #16
    Master vagabond's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Here and There....
    Posts
    6,432
    Blog Entries
    1
    I'm afraid I'd have to go with the 50:50 option - unless the other driver confesses to his mistake or corroborates your version of events, it will be your word against theirs.

    Without some form of evidence, the situation, the impact point and resultant damage to both vehicles may be interpreted in different ways.

    I don't suppose you have a dashcam?

  17. #17
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    762
    No dash cam unfortunately. Just photos after it happened which shows his car side ways on in comparison to mine.

    In regards to braking distance, there was plenty but by the time you factor in his manoeuvre it must left me short.
    I managed to slow down quite a bit but not enough, those extra couple of seconds might have resulted in me stopping just short.

    Seems like there is mixed reviews on here so will see how the insurance look at it.
    In my eyes though why should he be allowed to move left and partially leave my lane to head down a slip road and then automatically swing in front of me? Regardless of braking distance or indicators its just plain wrong and I dont know how any one can look at it as a normal/reasonable thing to do?

  18. #18
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Doncaster
    Posts
    51
    The fact that you actually drove into the rear of his car means you should have had time to stop. I think it could go against you

  19. #19
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by Latza View Post
    The fact that you actually drove into the rear of his car means you should have had time to stop. I think it could go against you

    I hit the drivers side rear door as his car was horizontally in front of me.
    If he was in the correct lane and I didn't have my braking distance I would have went straight in the back of him.

  20. #20
    Master vagabond's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Here and There....
    Posts
    6,432
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by GC2012 View Post
    No dash cam unfortunately. Just photos after it happened which shows his car side ways on in comparison to mine.

    In regards to braking distance, there was plenty but by the time you factor in his manoeuvre it must left me short.
    I managed to slow down quite a bit but not enough, those extra couple of seconds might have resulted in me stopping just short.

    Seems like there is mixed reviews on here so will see how the insurance look at it.
    In my eyes though why should he be allowed to move left and partially leave my lane to head down a slip road and then automatically swing in front of me? Regardless of braking distance or indicators its just plain wrong and I dont know how any one can look at it as a normal/reasonable thing to do?
    I wasn't questioning your version of events or implied you were in the wrong :-)

    Only the fact that all we have to go by in terms of evidence is the impact damage to both cars and pictures taken after the incident. If the other driver has a different recollection of the incident to you, then we do not have clarity on the events leading up to the incident.

    In those circumstances, the insurance companies are most likely going to settle this knock for knock to avoid hassle for them and a quick resolution.

    Interested to see how things pan out - fingers crossed for you to get a positive outcome.

  21. #21
    Grand Master PickleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    M25 J6 UK
    Posts
    18,259
    Not only could he have turned at the roundabout he could have filtered left and turned right around the island using a designated junction to get across the road. Yes, that would have entailed his crossing hatched road markings but the enclosing line in not solid and so it is permissible.

    Two scenarios occur to me:

    • he was unfamiliar with the area and having found the vet on the other side of the road reacted inappropriately, perhaps in anxious haste. That raises a question...had he taken any pets to that vet before?

    • is there any chance this was staged for insurance? Did he have a pet with him?



    I suppose it all depends upon whether your insurance company want to get involved.

  22. #22
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    762
    Thanks.

    I will keep everyone updated, hopefully it's back on the road ASAP.
    After looking at the car again I have noticed the bonnet gap is much wider on one side and the wing had a kink in it so a bit more damage than I initially thought.

  23. #23
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by PickleB View Post
    Not only could he have turned at the roundabout he could have filtered left and turned right around the island using a designated junction to get across the road. Yes, that would have entailed his crossing hatched road markings but the enclosing line in not solid and so it is permissible.

    Two scenarios occur to me:

    • he was unfamiliar with the area and having found the vet on the other side of the road reacted inappropriately, perhaps in anxious haste. That raises a question...had he taken any pets to that vet before?

    • is there any chance this was staged for insurance? Did he have a pet with him?



    I suppose it all depends upon whether your insurance company want to get involved.
    He knew the area and lives local but no sign of a pet.

    His policy was a traders insurance policy so presume he has some link to a garage but when talking told me the car was his ex's so he called her (I presume thats who was on the phone) to get me the insurers name.

  24. #24
    Grand Master Onelasttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Everywhere, yet nowhere...
    Posts
    13,716
    It's a single lane road and he was in front of you? Then he moves left and you presumably make to pass him on the outside? Then he swings round to the right and you effectively T-bone him?

    50:50 all day long.

    He shouldn't have pulled the manoeuvre without checking, but you shouldn't have presumed his intentions taking the exit. He wasn't indicating left so until he's clearly in the exit lane, and fully over the road markings separating the main carriageway and the left road, you should have been far enough behind to avoid the accident.

  25. #25
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    1,214
    I think it will go 50/50

    Despite the other driver being an idiot for attempting a u-turn (regardless of indicating) as the driver behind, in the eyes of insurance, you are expected to drive anticipating while other people being idiots. It's a one lane carriageway, so he hadn't yet gone down the slip road, so he hadn't yet left your lane, so you could be considered to be trying to overtake him which with his say so that he was indicating right, would make you the idiot from his viewpoint.

    Without a dashcam from your car or cars behind you it's difficult to judge either way.

    Do any of the local business's/houses have external CCTV?

  26. #26
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by Onelasttime View Post
    It's a single lane road and he was in front of you? Then he moves left and you presumably make to pass him on the outside? Then he swings round to the right and you effectively T-bone him?

    50:50 all day long.

    He shouldn't have pulled the manoeuvre without checking, but you shouldn't have presumed his intentions taking the exit. He wasn't indicating left so until he's clearly in the exit lane, and fully over the road markings separating the main carriageway and the left road, you should have been far enough behind to avoid the accident.
    He moved off left but I didn't intentionally overtake him, I just continued forward as if he was actually intending on doing what it looked like.
    His car slipped off to the left, mine continued straight and then he swung quickly from the left in front of me. I drive up and down this road often and it was no different than anyone else taking that left and heading to the high street.

    Personally I dont think he has seen me in the mirror and went to quickly do a u-turn in a tight location rather than using the round about about 20 seconds up the road and its back fired on him.

  27. #27
    Grand Master Dave+63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    15,914
    It’s one of those situations when he probably wasn’t looking in his mirrors and you weren’t fully aware of what might happen.

    As you say, it’s an every day occurrence for a car in front of you to pull off left and go down the High Street. You weren’t anticipating any different so had mentally moved on. His not doing the “usual thing” caught you unaware and you weren’t in a position to react in time.

    It’s as annoying as running into the back of someone at a roundabout who you expected to pull out but doesn’t.

    It’s still your fault because you hit him.

  28. #28
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    762
    Thats fair enough. Lets see what the insurance come back with and hopefully it's resolved quickly.

    Personally I still think he is to blame, what he done was blatantly wrong and if he had just used the round about like everyone else it wouldn't have caused this problem.

  29. #29
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Isle of Ynys Mon, Wales
    Posts
    3,569
    Blog Entries
    1
    If he doesnt have onboard camera whos to say he wasnt parked up on the inside then suddenly pulled out to turn across traffic? Tbh no point discussing as insurance companies make their own judgement based on what you and the other driver report. Do you have legal included in your insurance- they might continue to fight your claim depending on events recorded. Was he legally entitled to u-turn?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  30. #30
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ascot, Berkshire, U.K.
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave+63 View Post
    Annoying as it may seem, I believe that it’s probably going to be seen as your fault. The onus is on the car behind to be able to see far enough ahead and have the road awareness to be able to stop safely within the distance he can see.

    You knew the car was there and saw it pull to the left but failed to anticipate his next move. You said that you didn’t see him indicate right and presumably didn’t see him indicate left either. You didn’t know what he was doing and should have acted accordingly rather than assume that he was staying left.

    If you’re offered a 50/50 split I think you’d be wise to accept it.

    Sorry.
    Unfortunately, I have to agree.

  31. #31
    Master PhilipK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    4,215
    Without any evidence (e.g. dashcam or CCTV footage), it will be treated as a case of "he said, she said" and the insurance companies will do knock-for-knock.

  32. #32
    Master Chewitt13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    1,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve27752 View Post
    Unfortunately, I have to agree.
    I think you will be lucky to get 50/50. You are responsible for your own speed regardless of what the other person did

  33. #33
    I think they will go your fault as you were behind, It could be argued that you were to close if you couldn't avoid him.

  34. #34
    Master Templogin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Shetland
    Posts
    2,724
    Forget who is to blame, your premiums will go up, even in the event of a no fault accident. Insurance companies are on the same level as estate agents and marketing departments imho.

  35. #35
    Grand Master Andyg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    24,924
    The other driver is at fault simply because they cannot cross a carriage way unless it's safe to do so. The fact that you t-boned them reflect this. Just as it wouldn't be your fault (providing you were not speeding) if a pedestrian ran out in front of you.

    Had you t-boned them on a roundabout, or run a red light, ignored a give way/stop sign it would have been your fault because you entered their carriageway unsafely.

    I would not accept a 50/50 ruling irrespective of what your insurance company says. If you have legal cover be prepared to use it.

    Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
    Friedrich Nietzsche


  36. #36
    Master Templogin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Shetland
    Posts
    2,724
    Yes,legal cover is a good point however isn’t it usually designed to recover uninsured losses? I tried to claim back additional premiums that I would pay over the years and was politely told to FO!

  37. #37
    If the collision was a t-bone, how on earth can anyone suggest a 50/50 ruling? The OP simply says he was proceeding along the road and a car that pulled over to the left, suddenly veered into his lane, causing him to strike the side of the car before being able to apply the brakes.

  38. #38
    Grand Master Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Co. Durham
    Posts
    10,239
    As an ex traffic cop, I would say it's careless driving on his behalf. I would get an incident number off the police if you believe it's not your fault. Just go on line and you can get one to let your insurers know .
    Invest in a webcam too as the number of dickheads on the roads today are increasing.

  39. #39
    Master Lammylee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,971
    If he had a large trailer and was indicating well in advance and had to carry out that manoeuvre to get around a tight bend then I could see his point.

    However none of the above happened, he has appeared to have changed his mind at the last second and cut across your lane so in my mind it’s completely his fault.

  40. #40
    Craftsman mitch1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    wakefield
    Posts
    507
    well for what its worth I am with the ex traffic cop( probably first time I have ever agreed with a policeman LOL) and as a qualified automotive engineer for over 40 years for a large insurer qualified in accident reconstruction, I would go with you are proceeding lawfully in a correct manor with right of way and liability for the accident rests with the third party ( him ) .
    hope you get the right outcome .
    Last edited by mitch1956; 18th July 2019 at 18:28.

  41. #41
    Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    West Yorks
    Posts
    1,262
    Did amarok man completly cross the hazard perception markers before returning to the lane you were and he was previously in?

  42. #42
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Mid Glamorgan
    Posts
    5,472
    I’m baffled by the replies on here stating it’s the OP’s fault or that it should be 50/50.
    If the guy travelled far enough down the slip road that the subsequent crash ended as a t-bone then he would have clearly gone more than a cars width to the left before turning right. Anything less would surely have resulted in a rear quarter bump.
    Remember you are only required to drive 2 seconds behind the car in front to be deemed a safe distance (in dry conditions) and 2 seconds is not a lot of time to react.

  43. #43
    Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    West Yorks
    Posts
    1,262
    Quote Originally Posted by jaytip View Post
    I’m baffled by the replies on here stating it’s the OP’s fault or that it should be 50/50.
    If the guy travelled far enough down the slip road that the subsequent crash ended as a t-bone then he would have clearly gone more than a cars width to the left before turning right. Anything less would surely have resulted in a rear quarter bump.
    Remember you are only required to drive 2 seconds behind the car in front to be deemed a safe distance (in dry conditions) and 2 seconds is not a lot of time to react.
    the key here is did he leave the lane, completely cross the white lines, would seem to be possible if a t bone was the final outcome

    There is no regulation regarding safe distance, only guidelines, the proff of the pudding being if you hit the car in front it wasnt enough, drive to conditions, speed,visibility,weather,vehicle type,braking performance road surface etc etc

  44. #44
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    762
    His car didn't completely leave the lane. The road widens quite a lot just before the slip road as it takes you on a a high street so the cars on the left were stuck in a queue it wouldn't affect the cars on the right going straight on. See the bottom pic, next to the cars at the slip road you will see it widen.

    His car went this direction to the point where it was clearly to the left hand side of my car/vision so there was intent to go left, then a last minute fling to the right. Prior to this the guy was driving like a bit of a tool anyway as I was behind him for a few miles and seen him speeding off at lights. I suppose if the car is a trade car he wont have any care for it hence the driving.

    I will post a pic now so you can see the position of his car when it went in front of me. Like mentioned it wasn't a complete 'T' but close, another second or two and he would have been horizontally in front of me.

  45. #45
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    762
    The only damage to his car was the rear passenger door dented, thats where the left side of my car connected.

    Looking at my car I have the following:

    Bonnet is out of line, large gap to the passenger side
    Headlight is cracked
    Bumper is scuffed, trim snapped and plastic along the bottom bent
    Front wing is damaged and 'kinked' above the wheel

    I guess we know which car came out better

    As you can see from the position of my car there is a large gap between the parked cars (easily enough to get a large car through), this is where he was heading.


  46. #46
    Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    West Yorks
    Posts
    1,262
    if he didnt leave the lane then i cant see it going your way.

  47. #47
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portsmouth
    Posts
    174
    For what it’s worth I think this could either way
    I would suggest the outcome will rely on the quality of the representation ?







    Quote Originally Posted by GC2012 View Post
    As per the title I have had a minor accident this morn and I am confident I am in the right but the other party is trying to defend them self.
    Insurance has been notified and from my description there on my side but before the other party starts getting argumentative I just want to clarify I am in the right?

    Basically I was traveling along the road below at 30 mph, my car is high lighted in the red.
    The car in front (a VW Amarok) is marked in blue, he started turning left as if he was going off the slip road but then quickly shot in front of me and the front of my A6 went in to this rear door, he was almost completely straight when we crashed so close to a 'T bone' scenario. The crash is marked with the yellow 'X' at the junction.

    His argument is that he indicated right even though started going left (I never seen this and think he flicked them on when we crashed) and that his car is big and needs to bear left in order to swing it round and do a u-turn.

    My question is can you even do a u-turn on these small residential centre reservations?
    If you look on pic number 1 where the yellow van is in the distance there is a round about in front of that so he could have simply drove the other few hundred metre and safely done it. He was heading to the vets on the opposite side of the road where I have marked a blue dot.

    What do you think? Is he completely in the wrong or can he defend him self to the insurance company?
    I cant be bothered dragging this out so hopefully he agrees it was his fault. Annoyingly I have only had the A6 about 2 months!




  48. #48
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    762
    Thats fair enough. Like mentioned its up to the insurers and they will go for the easy option but its annoying as I really do feel he is to blame.
    I think him getting out and trying to justify the manoeuvre immediately speaks volumes and as mentioned its only an Amarok, not a bus so does he really need that much room to the point where he has to cross lanes just to do a u-turn?

  49. #49
    It looks like you over took him while he was still in the same (single) lane. From the original post it sounded like he was in a separate lane and moved into yours. I would have thought it was your fault on this basis and the fact you have said you were aware of his bad driving for many miles but failed to give him enough space.

  50. #50
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by mr.chef View Post
    It looks like you over took him while he was still in the same (single) lane. From the original post it sounded like he was in a separate lane and moved into yours. I would have thought it was your fault on this basis and the fact you have said you were aware of his bad driving for many miles but failed to give him enough space.
    There was no overtaking, his car moved off to the left and started going over the white lines. Mine continued straight at the same speed, nothing out the ordinary until then then swung his car in front.
    There was plenty of room for braking if he was in front of me and going straight on but if someone pulls in a few metre in front of you at 30mph there is nothing you can do in time.

    I fully understand it will probably be 50/50 but how can you justify what he done? Do people think that is normal driving?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information