It's you that says he's 100% at fault,

but he says that you are at fault!

So it is common practice?

I have images (admitedly from after we moved the vehicles!) which show the angle he turned to hit me due to the radiator/water trails left as we seperated the vehicles.They also show I was on my side of the road at the impact point.The damage to my car also shows the angle at which he hit me (he turned right in front of me to enter a side road and obviously didn't see me passing that road going the opp way).They show the tracks through the water/coolant one of our forklifts left to drag his dead van out of the road (these are also on my side of the road) and we know 100% he was turning in to the road I was passing, as the people he was delivering to came out to unload their goods from his smashed up van!

I'm also wondering at which point someone will ask for these pictures.I'm no crash scene investigator, but it can't be any more obvious.


EDIT

Thanks gecko.

No detail at all.Just says they have investigated, I am to blame and that I should confirm I was responsible.No police attended.He also didn't admit to anything (bar not having his belt on) but then our company policy is also to admit to nothing if we have an accident in our company vehicles (I was in my own car by the way)

I left work, got around 800 yards along the dead straight and dead end road I work in (on my way to the T junction at the end), saw the van coming in the distance, got half way across the entrance to another smaller dead end road on my left and the van which I assumed was just like any other passing vehicle on any other type of road, flung himself into the entrance to that road.I didn't have to time to do anything and had what can only be described as a slightly angled head on with him.

I'm just curious exactly what these investigations were, as it can't be any more obvious what happened.

Just send it to your insurers.

That's a bit of an odd description. Why not "he turned across my path"?

So perhaps he's saying you were too fast and should have been able to avoid a collission.

Care to post a Google earth link to the scene?

The impact points on the vehicles would be completely different if that was the case.

How fast were you going? It's a bit odd that he just turned across you - were you going quite slowly and perhps he just assumed you would let him across.

Yes, the impact points would be different.This is why I am wondering how they can say they have investigated the incident, or whether this was just a standard response (hence the post).I am left wondering if they are looking at images taken by the van driver after we moved the vehicles and are basing it on what may be his incorrect description.The right wing of my car has been pushed back over the wheel and the entire engine bay area has been shunted at the exact angle he hit me.

If you spin the google maps image round, I had just pulled away from the Acorn Insulation unit.My absolute max would have been 20 to 25 mph.My snaps after the accident show debris and fluid approx half way across the entrance to the road on the left.This was the impact point.I had no time to react at all and I am pretty sure he didn't indicate, as none of my usual 'spider senses' were tingling.

Our warehouse staff regularly see these van drivers whizzing about at a fair old pace.



Low black car, vs a high top multidrop van, on a Friday afternoon would be my guess.It happened to me several times in the Westfield and on my bike.

This. I had an accident when someone went across my path, when turning right at a set of lights.

He later tried to make out it was my fault (even though he admitted liability at the scene), by saying I was speeding and I came out of no where, despite the fact that it's a long staright road with no obstructions. I was furious when I heard but my insurer just turned round and said it has no relevance whatsoever in a case like this.

Sounds feasible - the guy's glanced into the distance but not right next to him. Happened to a mate of mine riding across a T junction - approaching driver admitted looking right and then pulling out as he looked left, never looking straight in front.

The speed question I asked was more about how slow you were going, not fast - I was wondering whether the van driver might have just assumed he could barge across and you'd let him.

So where was the impact? Side of yours to front of his, or front of yours to side of his?