Car accident - who was at fault?

[NCasOuting22]

I was recently involved in a car accident where 2 cars collided where the red and blue lines cross on the attached photo.

the left lane has white arrows painted in the road indicating to go straight on and has “petrol” written underneath it. The right lane also has white arrows painted on the road with “exit” written underneath it.

who was at fault?

YABU - blue car at fault
YANBU - red car at fault

This is so frustrating - the OP isn’t coming back to give us B’s version, are they.

Read the OPs posts, it’s all there

Blue car is at fault. The arrow just past the turn in, pointing right would make you assume the car park has a one way entrance exit parking system. Ask the insurers if there eyes are painted on... Wow really. Good luck as insurers are notorious for accepting blame incorrectly. Reminds me of my brother turning right at traffic lights (crossroads type junction) , motor cycle overtook him as he was turning right. Ended up in a collision, blame was laid at my brothers door!!!

He should have checked his blind spot. An insurer won't defend a case in court they can't win unfortunately

Of course stupid him for thinking someone would be overtaking him when signalling to turn right at traffic lights😂😅🤣😂maybe the OP in the red car should of checked her blind spot 😅🤣😂🤣😅😂Wow.....

I just can’t understand how they have come to that conclusion when the blue car has made so many faults whilst red car is just driving in lane correctly. Definitely take to court if they don’t see sense!

It seems ridiculous to add to the chorus but I genuinely can see no way that they can have come to that conclusion. I mean, it just doesn’t seem up for debate that anyone other than the blue car is at fault 🤷‍♀️

We don't know enough about what happened. Remember that the road markings in a private car park have no legal effect. If the cars were alongside each other and the blue car turned right, the blue car is at fault. However, if the blue car slowed down and signalled that it was turning right whilst the red car was some distance behind it, and the red car then accelerated to try and get past the blue car before it turned, the red car could be at fault.

The red car and the blue car had a race

They must think the OP is lying.

Sometimes it's ridiculous
My car rolled, approx 5m when the handbrake failed. It's a small polo that hit a (trying not to be outing!) car that they tried to destroy on top gear

First I got a letter that said "and both cars were parked with no occupants" and then a claim for personal injury
Then he claimed £3000 worth of damage
Insurance paid £900
Years later I got a bloody court letter for the rest, and insurance paid as it was cheaper than going to court
So my car rolling that tiny distance on a barely there slope, caused apparently £3000 of damage to his car and.. a scratch to mine that cost me £40

It's not as simple as that though. When you make a right turn you should always check your blind spot for cyclists or motorbikes who might be coming alongside. These types of vehicles filter through gaps.

I'm surprised they didn't get a split liability decision though as the Motorcycle was equally to blame

Not being rude but really wow if you see someone turning right and as a motor cyclist or cyclist you think in your head, I can filter through that gap then you really have to be some kind of pr*ck 😅😂🤣😂😅. Also I think it says it on the tin blind spot... Wonder if Motorcyclists and cyclists know about this with cars... Guess not... They will do however with lorries as it usually as an advisory sign on them🤔🤣😂😅sorry OP for taking over your post. I am dipping out now.

I actually work for a motor insurer determining liability and based on what you've said, I'd say you're not at fault. It will also depend on what information and evidence the third party (other driver) has provided though as everything is taken into account. I would ask your insurers for a breakdown of the full reasoning behind their decision along with the evidence to back up the decision.

It could be that they've said you turned in front of then to park (as vehicle damage could likely support this version of events) and without a reliable witness or cctv, it would be more plausible that you turned in front of them to park rather than they attempted to turn the wrong way into a one way system.

Claims are what can be proved rather than who was in the right, it's unfortunate but true.

In a lot of cases cctv isn't available as its only kept for 28 days and by the time the claim is passed to someone to actually investigate it, the cctv may no longer be available as we also have to have written consent from the policy holder as well as Id proof from you to even request it. Claims are likely only fully investigated when a claim is received against your policy rather than simply when you report it.

Best to request cctv yourself as soon as you're in an accident, take images of the scene, the damage and the inside of the other car. Note down any passengers and if anyone looked/complained of being injured at the time. Get witness names, emails and phone numbers too. If you can, try and get a photo of the cars still in contact with each other. Dashcam is always best but the above will help if you don't have any footage.

Insurers will 100% fully defend a claim they have enough evidence to defend. Based on your circumstances, I'd want to know what evidence the third party have and what their version of events is to make both the arbitrator and your insurers decide against you.

Hope that helps a little.

Why are you being so aggressive. It's a simple rule of the road. You check your blind spot behind turning.

Remember that the road markings in a private car park have no legal effect

I wish people would stop saying this. Of course you have to follow the rules of the road in the car park (and it may not be a private car park anyway, it could easily belong to a local authority). Are you really trying to say that if I drove around a car park on the right hand side of the road, that would be fine? Of course it wouldn't.

Also, "legal effect" and what insurers choose to blame is are not the same. There is no legal requirement to wear a cycle helmet in the UK but insurers will reduce your payout for injury if you don't wear one.

I wish the OP would come back and tell us what the "plausible" story is.

However, I don't really know why any of it matters. The insurers will pay, not her. Her premiums will go up regardless of fault.

You check your blind spot behind turning

do you really do that every time you turn right? I'd do it if I was changing lanes, but not eg I was driving along indicating to eg turn right into the road I live in.

Mirror signal manoeuvre. Nothing about checking blind spot after indicating and before making the turn.

the blue car, definitely.

The people saying it are correct.

If you ignore a no entry sign on the public roads you are committing an offence for which you can be prosecuted. If you ignore a no entry sign in a car park you are not committing any offence.

If you drive around a car park on the right hand side of the road you may annoy other drivers, but you have not committed any offence.

Ignoring signs in a car park may be held against you if you are involved in an accident and the fact you ignored the signs is a material factor. But, as someone who worked in insurance said up thread, car park signs are just drawings on the road. Unlike signs on the public roads, you are not under any legal obligation to obey them.

And it is not necessarily true that OP's premiums will go up regardless of fault. It is true that you get a no-claims bonus, not a no-blame bonus. However, if the insurer can recover the loss from the other driver, the OP's premiums may not be affected.

This thread is nearly three months old. And, whilst the OP makes it look like the driver of the blue car is at fault, but we simply don't know enough about the sequence of events to say that for sure. Both the insurance company and an independent arbitrator have decided the red car was at fault. Unless they are acting irrationally, there must be more to this incident than suggested by the drawing.

gatehouseoffleet

Insurers do take weird lines at times.

Oh yes, don't they just! I was on a motorbike and a van shot out of a side street, didn't stop to look. A few days later, my insurance company said it was my fault, because I was speeding; I bloody wasn't. Unfortunately, they said I could only use their lawyers, who quoted £400 an hour!

I had no idea that I could pick my own, till my dad said, "WTF? You've got legal insurance and they're making you pay?"

I went to an independent and gave him photos and diagrams, it took a while, but I got paid. He was totally aghast that my insurers had taken the line they did, they can't even have read the Police report, which stated that it was 100% the other guy's fault.

None of this sounds likely