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

[NothingOnButTheRadio]

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

Does it matter whether B had come out from a side road? The point is that they were travelling along the road and ploughed into the side of an obstacle in their path, presumably at speed if they didn't have time to brake.

The lack of consensus on this thread is certainly eye opening.

How far apart are the two side roads op?

@Disfordarkchocolate

Car B I think, they were joining a road. Car A had priority because they were already on the road were the crash occurred.

But A wasn't already on the road, they were on the opposite side and making a manoeuvre. They then turned into B's path and got hit, which implies (to me anyway) that they weren't paying attention.

B.

@vanillandhoney

Do you have any witnesses? The fact that B drive into you goes in your favour if it’s your word against theirs. You didn’t drive into anyone.

No, A drove into B's path and got hit head on. A shouldn't have turned right as the road clearly wasn't clear or safe.

The road may have been clear if B was busy looking to the right at oncoming traffic for a gap and then accelerated out without checking if the road was clear.

OP’s car could just as easily have been a child crossing the road.

Be grateful nobody was hurt. But B is most at fault. At worst op could have anticipated they might accelerate out without looking but not a failing to assume they would look first. If op’s car had been a child crossing would the child be to blame?

It’s shit anticipation by both drivers either way

I’d say Car A is at fault, the collision looks like it occurred on the main road which presumably Car B had already joined. For a collision to occur, Car A must have driven across the lane Car B was in when it wasn’t safe to do so. But it will also depend on where the impact occurred on both cars so will likely go down as 50/50 in the absence of witnesses or dashcam footage

Car A is at fault. As B was on the main road, A had a duty of care to ensure it was clear before beginning their manoeuvre across B's path.

i think people are badly misreading what you put theres 2 different side roads car a is making a right hand turn into the first road car b turned from the second side road safely got on the main road then was hit by car a going not giving way to the oncoming traffic when making a right turn. if my understanding is right its obviously car a is in the wrong

I suspect it was two people trying to take advantage of the same gap in traffic. Both should have been aware of the other.

The lack of consensus on this thread is certainly eye opening

Imo that's because it's unclear as to who moved when. Was B on the main road before A moved? That seems possible, if they are waiting for a gap in traffic.

Or did A move first? Did they both move at the same time?

Without more information, it's impossible to find a definitive answer, so people are basing it on their perception of how it might have transpired.

@thedancingbear

It’s shit anticipation by both drivers either way

True - if you can see a car is trying to join traffic, it’s sensible to also assume they are a prat who might swing out without looking left again.

But legally it’s still B at fault.

If B has been a child, A wouldn’t have knocked them down.

If A has been a child, B would have knocked them down.

A child cannot move a the same speed as a car, so that is not a realistic comparison but if a child walks without warning into traffic they can be found to be at fault. Rare but not unheard of

@vanillandhoney

Do you have any witnesses? The fact that B drive into you goes in your favour if it’s your word against theirs. You didn’t drive into anyone.

No, A drove into B's path and got hit head on. A shouldn't have turned right as the road clearly wasn't clear or safe.

Wrong.

A had right of way and the carriageway was not clear for joining traffic (B).

Car B is most at fault but Car A also has a responsibility to check that they can complete their move safely.

That's some thread title, op. I thought we were in for an episode of Batman.

But B is most at fault.

How do you figure that? If B is driving straight down the road, A should have waited until the road was clear, not turned straight into their path. If a car is driving down a main road, they have priority over the car turning across the road. Car A should have waited until the road was clear - if they'd looked properly, they'd have seen B coming and would have waited until it was safe.

If op’s car had been a child crossing would the child be to blame?

An accident with a pedestrian isn't the same as a two-car accident, though. Legally the driver is pretty much always at fault if they hit a pedestrian, but that doesn't mean the pedestrian's actions didn't contribute.

www.thompsons.law/services/road-traffic-accidents-claims/pedestrian-accident-claims

'A had right of way and the carriageway was not clear for joining traffic (B).'
it was clear for b it had joined the road earlier it wasn't clear for a to cross the oncoming traffic

@murmurgam

I suspect it was two people trying to take advantage of the same gap in traffic. Both should have been aware of the other.

Yep. I think there should have been better awareness and anticipation all round.

Looks like the other driver has started their own thread

A had right of way and the carriageway was not clear for joining traffic (B).

I disagree that A had right of way. They were making a manoeuvre that involved crossing a lane of traffic. If B hit them side on, they must have already been on the main road. A should have waited.

@wewereliars

A child cannot move a the same speed as a car, so that is not a realistic comparison but if a child walks without warning into traffic they can be found to be at fault. Rare but not unheard of

Car A were stationary and began a manoeuvre across the carriage - so probably the same speed as a child walking.

The only way B could have pulled out and hit A is if they didn’t look left as they pulled out.

In which case if A had been a child, the child would also have been written off.

No excuse for manoeuvring out of a junction at such speed that you write off two cars.

I would have thought car A was in the wrong as B must have already been on the road for A to have hit them when turning... does depend on the quality of the drawing though

I've Car A was on the main road and indicating, Car B should never have pulled out in front of A, even if there was a gap in the traffic. Anyone in Car A's place would assume that Car B isn't going to drive out directly in front of them, because Car A has the right of way.

The most obvious solution seems to be that Car B wasn't paying close enough attention, if Car A was indeed indicating.