Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Crash! Boom! Bang! - Car accident, who's at fault?

491 replies

NothingOnButTheRadio · 26/10/2020 16:36

Had a car accident earlier. Wondering what your thoughts are.

Car A had slowed down to turn into the first road on the right and was indicating.

Car B was turning left .

Not unusual to have a steady stream of traffic (lights further up the road.

Car A began turning. Car B ploughed into the side of Car A. Both drivers accusing the other. Both vehicles I'd think are write-offs.

Obligatory drawing - yes, I'm shit at drawing!

Car A

Crash! Boom! Bang! - Car accident, who's at fault?
OP posts:
MoonJelly · 29/10/2020 08:27

Car B must have come out of that road at a hell of a speed to cause such serious damage. I agree that the driver of B was at fault both because vehicles on the main road have priority and for the speed element.

ExclamationPerfume · 29/10/2020 09:04

The police agreed with me when I had an accident. It didn't stop my insurance company trying to get me to take 50/50 blame. I then ended up with 100% blame when the other party lied through their teeth. Your insurance premium will be affected either way so it doesn't really matter. You will be seen as a high risk client.

SoupDragon · 29/10/2020 09:14

I'm ok, bit of whiplash and back pain.

Eh?

Yes, I was car A. A&E (taken in ambulance) assessed me. X-ray shows broken bones in my leg and my dominant hand was crushed (more dominant hand) with a "plethora" of breaks, leading to many breaks / fractures.

AdobeWanKenobi · 29/10/2020 09:15

@SoupDragon

I'm ok, bit of whiplash and back pain.

Eh?

Yes, I was car A. A&E (taken in ambulance) assessed me. X-ray shows broken bones in my leg and my dominant hand was crushed (more dominant hand) with a "plethora" of breaks, leading to many breaks / fractures.

Crash! Boom! Bang! Bollocks! 😉
CitizenClem · 29/10/2020 09:48

If the police agreed with you, I'm not sure why you are posting tbh

Assuming it happened the way the OP describes, it is quite possible that the Police officer concurring with the OP may have been a mumbled "er, OK, yes Madam".

EugenesAxe · 29/10/2020 10:19

Car B was at fault... the way wasn't clear. If A had been at fault they would have driven into the side of B, not vice versa.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me if I'm honest. I hope you are A! Although obviously I'm sorry you were in the accident at all.

TabbyStar · 29/10/2020 10:35

Car B was at fault... the way wasn't clear. If A had been at fault they would have driven into the side of B, not vice versa.

Except we don't really know if the way was clear until A drove into his path, could have happened either way (though I did previously think it was more likely that B was looking right and didn't check left adequately).

Fizzydrinks123 · 29/10/2020 11:00

The insurance will decide you made a risky decision either way - whether you had right of way or not, you would still be half at fault. There was another car about to pull on to the main road and on the balance of probabilities would pull out and have right of way over you crossing across their path.

That's why at best it would be half fault each because they insure you to not just obey road rules but to anticipate and take avoiding action if an accident is about to occur.

Some accidents absolutely cannot be prevented, even after taking preventative action ie. braking or swerving etc.

This accident could have absolutely been prevented by the OP observing that in all probability Car B would move out from that turning at speed as there was a gap to their right. I think most people would have waited in that situation as not enough space or time to avoid the accident which did in fact happen.

ThisIsntMeHonestGuv · 29/10/2020 11:02

Car B was at fault... the way wasn't clear. If A had been at fault they would have driven into the side of B, not vice versa

That argument doesn't fully hold water.

If B had not been coming out of a side road and had hit A, A would be at fault for turning when it wasn't clear.

What we don't know is who moved first. But for B to be square on A, and for A not to have been able to cross one lane before B got there, A could well have moved off without paying attention to the fact that B was approaching.

NoWordForFluffy · 29/10/2020 11:31

@SoupDragon

I'm ok, bit of whiplash and back pain.

Eh?

Yes, I was car A. A&E (taken in ambulance) assessed me. X-ray shows broken bones in my leg and my dominant hand was crushed (more dominant hand) with a "plethora" of breaks, leading to many breaks / fractures.

Yep. Odd indeed. Or miraculous recovery!
vanillandhoney · 29/10/2020 12:01

I'm ok, bit of whiplash and back pain.

I thought you had broken bones and a crushed hand with a load of fractures and breaks?

LaurieSchafferIsAllBitterNow · 29/10/2020 13:16

I still say B

...but finding the Xrays for a plethora of broken bones and crush injuries on the day vs whiplash and backpain and a hire car in a fortnight somewhat curious.

nosswith · 29/10/2020 13:20

If someone is at fault it is not an accident. The cars did not move spontaneously.

Hence why I refer to car crashes, not accidents.

NoWordForFluffy · 29/10/2020 14:21

Accident means accidental. There are very few people who deliberately crash into others. Even if you're at fault, it can still be accidental.

vanillandhoney · 29/10/2020 14:24

@nosswith

If someone is at fault it is not an accident. The cars did not move spontaneously.

Hence why I refer to car crashes, not accidents.

But it's still an accident even though someone is at fault Confused

Accident just means "not on purpose".

ThisIsntMeHonestGuv · 29/10/2020 14:37

If someone is at fault it is not an accident

Huh? I'm struggling to understand.

I fell and busted my knee because I was on rough ground and was looking at something on my phone rather than where I was going.

Are you telling me I did that deliberately? It was definitely my own fault...

Fizzydrinks123 · 29/10/2020 14:51

medical and legal will often use the term collision for cars in this situation rather than accident, but slip back to using accident just as colloquial terminology.

NoWordForFluffy · 29/10/2020 15:31

We often use the term RTA in legal areas. Our Court rules have a Pre-Action Protocol for [LVPIC] in Road Traffic Accidents.

EyeDrops · 29/10/2020 15:46

So much about this thread doesn't make sense.

As we don't know the precise timings (and the fault would change a few seconds either way), I'm going to sit firmly on the fence with both should have been paying more attention.

SnackSizeRaisin · 29/10/2020 16:02

You are wrong OP. He was already on the main road before your junction, so technically the position is "turning off main road to side road" Vs "proceeding along main road". The fact that he had only recently joined the main road is not relevant. Why did you not see him when you turned? You obviously should have waited for the way to be clear. He would have expected you to wait as he was proceeding in a straight line. That is why he didn't stop even though you were indicating. There may be blame on both sides, but it's not obviously entirely his fault.

Cantona10 · 29/10/2020 16:05

Some wisdom in what you say...but...there is no such thing as "right of way" merely "priority".

SnackSizeRaisin · 29/10/2020 16:07

What we don't know is who moved first

But that isn't how it works. There is a priority set out about who goes first which is nothing to do with who got there first. You don't get to go through a red light just because you were waiting longer than someone whose light is on green. Similarly, you wait to cross a carriageway till it's clear, even if someone else joins the road higher up whilst you are waiting (effectively what happened here).

Cantona10 · 29/10/2020 16:08

How strange that you form an opinion as to who was in the right/wrong when you admit that you are not even a driver! True wisdom is to know that you don't know (Socrates).

HunterHearstHelmsley · 29/10/2020 16:41

I once read on here that those on your right only have priority on a roundabout if they got there before you (not that you started to turn before they appeared, but that if you had been waiting in a queue and they arrived, it was your turn.. ) Nothing surprises me now!

Fizzydrinks123 · 29/10/2020 18:00

Yes to RTA used and RTA protocols etc

However, there has been debate for a number of years that the term is offensive to families of people that are killed in RTA or suffer serious injuries and the term collision is often seen to be more appropriate.

The debate around terminology seems to have quietened but I remember within the last decade there was a lot of talk about trying to use the term collision in preference to RTA, but mostly seems to have died away.

I was referring to the posters above who were debating the word accident not always being applicable, and sometimes people find it upsetting the idea that the relative died in an accident which they felt was avoidable if the other driver had reacted quicker etc and therefore not an accident in their opinion.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.