Reply With QuoteAs above in post 50 (based on the final pictures and info) imo im afraid - single track road, possibly, probably indicating...
You incorrectly assumed He was turning off at the slip road, and attempted an overtake on a singletrack road.
The picture pretty clearly shows that he veered from left to right across your path. For the life of me I can’t understand anyone thinking it could have been your fault.
As above in post 50 (based on the final pictures and info) imo im afraid - single track road, possibly, probably indicating...
You incorrectly assumed He was turning off at the slip road, and attempted an overtake on a singletrack road.
Last edited by Omegamanic; 18th July 2019 at 20:06.
It's just a matter of time...
I hope you get them on your side
If you do you’ll be able to milk the system like everyone does
I’d love to be the one that doesn’t but if I was in your shoes and the insurer went non fault
I’d go all for everything 💴
Originally Posted by GC2012
It is normal driving unfortunately. Poor driving but entirely normal. As mentioned earlier, he clearly didn’t check his mirrors and see that you were about to pass him.
Unfortunately too, your anticipation was somewhat lacking; at least no one was hurt and it’s only a bit of damage to the cars.
You were passing him, or impact would have occurred at the rear.
He has not cleared the lane,so he is still in that lane
If he had totally left the lane, crossed the white lines then you would be blame free
If he puts on his claim form he was indicating you are doomed.
Wouldnt mention the indicators in any conversation with him.
You have already stated in a previous post he didnt leave the lane,now hes made it to the white lines.
You did not increase speed, so he slowed, continued unabated passing a vehicle that was still in that lane.
Last edited by MCFastybloke; 18th July 2019 at 20:17.
On previous posts I always mentioned his car was heading to the white lines and his passenger side wheels were heading over them, I never once said he was completely in that lane.
My line of view was clear and he was slightly to my left, he was turning off and I did not need to move right or squeeze through as you can see from the pics I am within the lines. He continued at the same speed and then came in front. I didn't over take otherwise my car would be in front. He should have just pulled to the left and waited for the traffic to clear rather than trying to cut in front of people?
To be honest I think he missed his junction, if you look at the map where the blue dot is you can see he could have turned there and then pulled out side the vets (this is the correct way). Maybe he missed this and with the next junction been just a matter of metres in front he didn't see me when panicking trying to get back round after missing it?
Its mixed views so everyone has their own opinion but put your self in my shoes and think would you be happy to walk away thinking it was knock for knock when a car flies in front of you?
At the end of the day I want my car repairing, Im not here to scam anyone or take the p1ss.
Last edited by GC2012; 18th July 2019 at 20:36.
One reason my dash cam is always on.
Of course, i hope the right outcome results.
A dash cam is definitely getting ordered now!
Stable door Horse Bolted springs to mind
Looking at the pictures in the OP and the picture after the accident. The road is a single lane, doesn’t mind how wide it is, the left hand turn is further up. Even though I can sympathise I reckon he probably won’t mention wanting to do a u turn and will simply say you did a t-pac manoeuvre on him.
I think the best you can hope for is a 50/50 decision. It is very easy to say that you attempted to pass the truck whilst it was still on the single lane carriageway because you incorrectly assumed that it was leaving to the left even though he was not indicating left,and that the crash was down to your lack of due care and attention.
At the point where the blue line starts, he’s still on the light grey part of the tarmac I.e. the straight on section rather than the LH filter lane - which is a darker grey.
As a 4WD I guess he has a wide turning circle. As long as the u turn is not signed as prohibited there (well worth a check) I guess he’s entitled to pull left first so he doesn’t have a shuffle back and forth on the other side and if he’s indicating right this should protect his manoeuvre.
Sorry, I’m still going with 50/50 being a good result for your, but with respect to Rod’s view.
Edited to add I've had a really good look on street view. I can't see any no u-turn signs I'm afraid, and I think unless you can prove he was not signalling (presumably he'll say he was) then I can't see anything more favourable than 50/50, sorry. It seems two lanes (straight-on and filter-left) hadn't really formed at the point of impact (adjacent the bollard). He must have been quite some way ahead slight earlier in the manoeuvre as he must have slowed to a crawl to do the u-turn?
A good case for having a dash cam I think.
Last edited by catch21; 18th July 2019 at 22:56.
Id be fighting that all the way. surely from the picture of the 2 cars resting position, the Amarok is completely in the wrong position on the road? Trying to do a u turn across chevrons in the road? Coming back across traffic on a slip?
Common sense should prevail, but unfortunately, in insurance, there is none. Or morals.
Its all about money, and they will sell any customer short for the cheapest outcome.
OP hope it goes your way...
Going off what you've said.. yes. He crossed your lane without due care.Is he completely in the wrong
However, if his story is different when explaining it to the insurance company you may have an injustice.
OP. Are there any security/CCTV cameras on the shop opposite that might have caught the incident?
To my deepest regret, i missed out on footage from a petrol station that would have recorded an accident where a moped drove into me. the camera was facing the exact spot it happened across entrance to petrol station. Another forum that i use, a member urged me pronto to go get the footage - you have a right to if it if they are recording members of public. They do only hold footage until the end of month...
Maybe/hopefully could help.
I’m sure I’m not alone here. A U turn is usually a slow manoeuvre, often involving full lock and requiring the full width of the road or at least a good part of it. So assuming there’s any other traffic I’d signal left, stop at the roadside, check both ways and only when I see the road clear carry out my manoeuvre. Obviously if it’s a dual carriageway with a suitable safe space to turn and wait in the central reservation the manoeuvre can be done one carriageway at a time.
Someone who simply pulls the manoeuvre across traffic without checking the road is clear has to be in the wrong, surely?
If you were driving at 30 then he must have been too. There is no way he could do a U-turn there at that speed so he must have been slowing or braking prior to his move to the left. You said yourself he was driving “like a tool”, so why were you not slowing (did you see his brake lights?) or backing off as “tools” are unpredictable?
I expect he was doing a panic turn without checking his mirrors but the insurer may well see it as you not paying enough attention.
Chevrons are not bounded by a solid white line, you are free to use.
Of course he is but he’s not entitled to pull across a road in front of traffic. He should have pulled over and waited until it was clear. How anyone can say that the OP is at fault in any way is beyond me- he had right if way. However how the insurance co see it may well be a different matter and a 50/50 could be the outcome.
if he has not left the lane as told by the op then he has a right of way as he is still in that lane, just as he can stop to let an old lady cross, slow to turn in a driveway etc etc he is still in that lane.
if he leaves that lane and that would be to totally cross the hazard perception markers then the onus of responsibility changes and he must take the responsibility of rejoining the lane of the carraigeway.
travelling along a dual carraige way in lane 1 would you attempt to pass a vehicle leaving via the slip before he had left the lane?
Or To conduct a pass in lane 3 of a multilane carraigeway before the slower vehicle had cleared the
lane?
To the OP
I think if you got in touch with one of the local IAM instructors, they are volunteers they would clarify the situation,being both knowledgedable and unbiased it could help you formulate the wording of your claim form to perhaps improve the clear representation of events.
Last edited by MCFastybloke; 19th July 2019 at 07:28.
Unfortunately, the 2 cars resting position is insufficient to prove liability or show what happened prior.
That said, a car impacted from the rear 3 quarter area could slew across the front of the following car like that. It doesn’t mean that the white truck was intending to go that way.
Personally, as annoying as it is, nobody was hurt and I’d just be looking forward to getting my car fixed properly and moving on.
I would just put my version of events to the insurer, and waste no more time on it.
Even if the OP is deemed non fault, premiums will still be rising. I was involved in 2 non fault collisions (one where I was injured) inside 3 years, and my premiums went up anyway.
As I said, no common sense, or loyalty applies.
Business out to make money - that’s what a business does.
A bit crappy mind - it took me near 3 years to settle a case where someone rear ended
me... we all know the law on that.
One court case, and thousands later.
OP good luck with whatever outcome.
Looking at the photos, had the guy in the pickup had any brains he would have gone a few yards further forward and then started his manoeuvre. That way he wouldn’t have needed to veer to the left first as he could have used the mouth of the junction of the road on the right to help facilitate the turn.
I suspect this will be a simple financially driven decision by the insurers, ie whether they have more to lose by paying the claim or fighting it in court.
Your statement and the other parties statement on what happened will clearly influence their decision as to whether they feel they have a solid case to fight, but on the basis that it is your word against theirs and given the relatively minor damage mentioned, I suspect they will go 50/50 to avoid a legal bun-fight.
Unfortunately, right or wrong is an irrelevance if you cannot prove what happened and/or it costs more to fight your corner.
I do hope things work out in your favour.
Judging by what you've said and what I've read, it's you who'll probably carry the can for this.
You observed the guy driving like a knob, didn't give him enough room, he didn't came from nowhere, he was sighted at all times, then you hit him after his ungracious maneouvre.
Sorry but that's how I see it.
You didn’t see it - it’s not the OP’s fault just because he didn’t anticipate someone doing a U turn in front of him.
Hmmm. A car in the same lane, in front, indicating, carried out a manouvre, in that lane, and was hit by the car travelling behind. All of that appears to factual. I appreciate all the mitigating factors, but nothing seems to be changing the facts of the matter.
It's just a matter of time...
Hmmmm. If he indicated right he should have gone right. The car behind went into the side of him not the back. Read all the guidance re U turns. The guy in the truck could be done for driving without due care and attention. If you are going to do a U turn then at least make sure there is nobody that is going to be inconvenienced by your manoeuvre.
Are you taking the p1$$ ?
Of course I didn't see it I was referring to what was described, the term "seeing it' was how i perceived it.
The OP asked for opinions, that's mine. The fact it doesn't coincide with what you "see" is totally irrelevant to me.
No I’m not. It might be your opinion but my opinion is mine. I didn’t see anything but, any moron doing a U turn on a main road without checking what’s behind him needs a talking to and as I said before could quite easily be done for driving without due care and attention.
But you told me I didn't see it. Obviously not but in pointing that out you portrayed yourself as a knob who decided to swerve off the topic and have at pop a my opinion.
You "see" that now ?
People are forgetting that no matter how wide the road was it was marked as a single lane. To me it doesn’t matter how left or right the truck in front went the OP overtaking on a single lane is what might go against him.
But it's not a "T-Bone" collision. The front left corner/wing has hit the rear passenger door of the vehicle in front. .
I wouldn't use that picture in your defence. It shows you've driven into the rear door of someone turning right.The only damage to his car was the rear passenger door dented, thats where the left side of my car connected.
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.
Exactly.
The other may have some contributory negligence, agree - but...
It's just a matter of time...
in addition it shows cars parked on the left side of the carriageway, limiting the amount the amarok could be over the white lines of the offshoot,
it does show a low speed impact you had enough time and space to get most of the braking done.
Although if getting into technicality’s,
It’s clear to see from that pic, that he’s never actually overtaken the Amorok.
If going from fact in the picture, the OP is behind, so could be held at fault?
Equally the Amorok /driver could be done for driving without due care and attention -
Is it reasonable to be in the position of the Amorok - as pictured- on a single carriageway?
Most bizarre responses ever. Looks pretty clear that the amarok has swung left and tried to do a quick u-turn without due care and attention.
At that point isn't it a dual carriageway?
"A man of little significance"
Nobody is getting ‘done’ for anything if the police aren’t involved.
The chances of the insurance companies doing anything other than settling quickly for what amounts to a low value everyday shunt with no injuries is pretty low I think.
We have a picture and one version of events.
Somewhere on an Amarok forum there’s probably a bloke talking about an impatient Audi that had been tailgating him for miles and then shot up his inside when he drifted off left a bit when he was unsure of where he was going...
Turn of phrase "done"...
Everybody seems to be an expert on this - me included :-)
Pedant mode on, maybe impatient, maybe tailgating, but not shot up his inside by the look of it. Overtaking, maybe.
Pedant mode off.
Map in the OP, looks very much like a single carriageway. Parked cars on left. Arrow indicates a road veering off left...
I could be wrong though...
You'd have to be a right tool to attempt a U turn there, especially immediately before a junction.
I've often wondered where liability lies where someone manages to swerve across the road so that are sideways on to you, eg when you are going straight ahead at lights and some smart alec coming the other way tries to do a right turn as you approach.
I'd hope that you are not liable but sadly I'm not sure what happens in practice.
No idea how authoritative this is:
https://mocktheorytest.com/highway-c...u-turn-AB2001/
It would only become a dual carriageway if there were a grass verge or something similar between both lanes
Doesn't that bit of tarmac/concrete count?
Actually it does, my bad.
I can't get over the post where you said you didn't overtake him and carried on driving at 30mph.
That must have meant he was trying to do the manoeuvre at 30mph, which would have been impossible. His brake lights must have come on at some stage?
Any driver attempting a ‘moving’ U turn on a busy road is IMO driving without due care and attention. The only way to safely carry out the manoeuvre is to come to a stop ensure there are no vehicles behind or oncoming and then and only then make the U turn.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
