Another “assess this accident” Q
Discussion
Single carriageway heading north/south, two lanes in each direction.
Car A is driving in the left lane, heading north. The right lane north filters right up ahead and is heavier and slower. Left lane north is free flowing but still slow (urban) - around 15mph.
Car B is in the right lane, heading south. Car B ignores a no right turn sign, cuts through a gap in the right lane heading north aiming to turn into a minor road (west, on car A’s left) but instead drives into the offside front of Car A.
Driver of Car B says he is insured but can’t remember with who. Claims car A was going “too fast”. Gives his name but no more.
For anyone in motor insurance: what are the chances of car A’s insurers saying that the driver of car A was partially at fault. As far as I can see this is 100% the fault of car B’s driver.
Car A is driving in the left lane, heading north. The right lane north filters right up ahead and is heavier and slower. Left lane north is free flowing but still slow (urban) - around 15mph.
Car B is in the right lane, heading south. Car B ignores a no right turn sign, cuts through a gap in the right lane heading north aiming to turn into a minor road (west, on car A’s left) but instead drives into the offside front of Car A.
Driver of Car B says he is insured but can’t remember with who. Claims car A was going “too fast”. Gives his name but no more.
For anyone in motor insurance: what are the chances of car A’s insurers saying that the driver of car A was partially at fault. As far as I can see this is 100% the fault of car B’s driver.
Seems pretty clear cut, car B's fault.
I had a marginally similar crash, where I was doing a full 18 mph up a cycle lane. Car in the lane to the right (stationary traffic) suddenly activated their signal and immediately started turning left. There was no quibble - their fault (and only a smashed up wing mirror from the contact, thankfully).
Given that they had more argument of priority than somebody trying to turn across two lanes of traffic, the fact that A was travelling more slowly, and that B was ignoring a road sign while doing so! Absolutely 100% their fault.
I had a marginally similar crash, where I was doing a full 18 mph up a cycle lane. Car in the lane to the right (stationary traffic) suddenly activated their signal and immediately started turning left. There was no quibble - their fault (and only a smashed up wing mirror from the contact, thankfully).
Given that they had more argument of priority than somebody trying to turn across two lanes of traffic, the fact that A was travelling more slowly, and that B was ignoring a road sign while doing so! Absolutely 100% their fault.
Car B’s statement is likely to be something like.
“I was looking to turn right into Road Z, a gap was left in the outside lane of traffic, I turned through the gap and inched out to enable oncoming traffic to see me and to improve my visibility. I was then struck by a speeding motorist that clearly was paying no attention to the road ahead and could have seen me 50 yds earlier.........”
“I was looking to turn right into Road Z, a gap was left in the outside lane of traffic, I turned through the gap and inched out to enable oncoming traffic to see me and to improve my visibility. I was then struck by a speeding motorist that clearly was paying no attention to the road ahead and could have seen me 50 yds earlier.........”
Green1man said:
Car B’s statement is likely to be something like.
“I was looking to turn right into Road Z, a gap was left in the outside lane of traffic, I turned through the gap and inched out to enable oncoming traffic to see me and to improve my visibility. I was then struck by a speeding motorist that clearly was paying no attention to the road ahead and could have seen me 50 yds earlier.........”
Were you in Car B ? ;-) “I was looking to turn right into Road Z, a gap was left in the outside lane of traffic, I turned through the gap and inched out to enable oncoming traffic to see me and to improve my visibility. I was then struck by a speeding motorist that clearly was paying no attention to the road ahead and could have seen me 50 yds earlier.........”
I had a very similar accident.
Car A was going straight across a two lane main road from a side road.
I was in the right lane (lane 2)
Traffic was stationary in the left lane (lane 1).
Car A went across lane 1 through a gap in traffic and then tried to cross lane 2 as I got to that point also.
I hit them broadside.
Totally their fault. IIRC, police weren’t particular interested in my speed etc.
Interestingly my wife was following me in her car and was able to act as an independent witness as she was not involved in the crash, even though she was clearly not independent!
Car A was going straight across a two lane main road from a side road.
I was in the right lane (lane 2)
Traffic was stationary in the left lane (lane 1).
Car A went across lane 1 through a gap in traffic and then tried to cross lane 2 as I got to that point also.
I hit them broadside.
Totally their fault. IIRC, police weren’t particular interested in my speed etc.
Interestingly my wife was following me in her car and was able to act as an independent witness as she was not involved in the crash, even though she was clearly not independent!
Seems very clear cut, Car B crossing two lines of traffic they have crossed one lane and waiting to cross the second, if they are claiming car A was travelling too fast then they must have seen Car A to claim that and should have given way as Car A had right of way.
If they say they did not see Car A then how can they claim it was travelling too fast in any case?
Of course I made no mention that there is a no right turn restriction anyway as an overarching factor.
For me Car B would be completely at fault
If they say they did not see Car A then how can they claim it was travelling too fast in any case?
Of course I made no mention that there is a no right turn restriction anyway as an overarching factor.
For me Car B would be completely at fault
Many years ago I had a similar accident (which wrote off my very nice Datsun 260Z)
It was a Sunday lunchtime in London...2 lanes of queuing traffic going south towards a bridge...Empty (and unrestricted due to time/day) bus lane on the inside.
I was going (not speeding...so approx. 25-30mph) up the bus lane about to turn left to avoid the queue...
Porsche 924 came across the road from turning on the opposite side and through a gap in the queue.. I hit the Porsche without ever seeing it.
Insurance came down on my side as I had done nothing wrong...other driver had failed to take account of the possibility of traffic in the bus lane...Police attended and charged other driver with "driving without due care"... It was fortunate I wasn't on a 'bike!
It was a Sunday lunchtime in London...2 lanes of queuing traffic going south towards a bridge...Empty (and unrestricted due to time/day) bus lane on the inside.
I was going (not speeding...so approx. 25-30mph) up the bus lane about to turn left to avoid the queue...
Porsche 924 came across the road from turning on the opposite side and through a gap in the queue.. I hit the Porsche without ever seeing it.
Insurance came down on my side as I had done nothing wrong...other driver had failed to take account of the possibility of traffic in the bus lane...Police attended and charged other driver with "driving without due care"... It was fortunate I wasn't on a 'bike!
To close this:
Car B’s insurers accepted 100% liability and are stumping up a cheque for the driver of car A’s excess.
The RK of car B failed to respond to the police’s notice asking for identification of the driver, so the police have sent the file somewhere else to decide whether to prosecute the RK for that failure.
Thank you to everyone who pitched in.
Car B’s insurers accepted 100% liability and are stumping up a cheque for the driver of car A’s excess.
The RK of car B failed to respond to the police’s notice asking for identification of the driver, so the police have sent the file somewhere else to decide whether to prosecute the RK for that failure.
Thank you to everyone who pitched in.
BlackWidow13 said:
To close this:
Car B’s insurers accepted 100% liability and are stumping up a cheque for the driver of car A’s excess.
The RK of car B failed to respond to the police’s notice asking for identification of the driver, so the police have sent the file somewhere else to decide whether to prosecute the RK for that failure.
Thank you to everyone who pitched in.
Excellent result. I assume you mean they’ve paid the driver of Car A for the excess and the Insurers of car A for the rest of the repair bill?Car B’s insurers accepted 100% liability and are stumping up a cheque for the driver of car A’s excess.
The RK of car B failed to respond to the police’s notice asking for identification of the driver, so the police have sent the file somewhere else to decide whether to prosecute the RK for that failure.
Thank you to everyone who pitched in.
I’m not surprised that the RK failed to respond. My bet would be that, although the car had insurance, it didnt cover the person driving it.
To close this a second time: a letter from the Police arrived today. The RK now has 6 points and a £120 fine following prosecution for failing to nominate the driver. Unclear whether he defended, but he was named in the letter, and that is the same name as the policy holder or car B, and the name given at the scene.
BlackWidow13 said:
To close this a second time: a letter from the Police arrived today. The RK now has 6 points and a £120 fine following prosecution for failing to nominate the driver. Unclear whether he defended, but he was named in the letter, and that is the same name as the policy holder or car B, and the name given at the scene.
What are the chances that the person driving the car wasn't the RK or person named on the Ins Policy ? 
Countdown said:
BlackWidow13 said:
To close this:
Car B’s insurers accepted 100% liability and are stumping up a cheque for the driver of car A’s excess.
The RK of car B failed to respond to the police’s notice asking for identification of the driver, so the police have sent the file somewhere else to decide whether to prosecute the RK for that failure.
Thank you to everyone who pitched in.
Excellent result. I assume you mean they’ve paid the driver of Car A for the excess and the Insurers of car A for the rest of the repair bill?Car B’s insurers accepted 100% liability and are stumping up a cheque for the driver of car A’s excess.
The RK of car B failed to respond to the police’s notice asking for identification of the driver, so the police have sent the file somewhere else to decide whether to prosecute the RK for that failure.
Thank you to everyone who pitched in.
I’m not surprised that the RK failed to respond. My bet would be that, although the car had insurance, it didnt cover the person driving it.
The OP said above that the name of the policyholder of car B (presumably the third party insurers divulged this) was the same name as the person the Police said was being prosecuted for FTF.
It reads to me that the driver/policyholder of Car B is a bit of a spanner and thought "I'd like some points please on top of my increased premiums for no good reason".
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff