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

Sorry, more details came to life as I was posting.
I would challenge strongly on this, unless there is a reason we haven't been told about I can't see how the red car is at fault.

What's the story they gave?

Similar happened to us one time. Car on the left of us, in a lane marked for "straight on or turn right", almost parallel with us turned right without indicating to turn right (we were in the 'right turn only" lane ) and went straight into our left wing.

It was deemed equal fault and 'knock for knock' by the insurance.

Tha barstewards.

It looks like a supermarket car park to me - was the blue car indicating to turn right and you overtook it in the exit lane?

Fight it. Fight it with everything. Do you have legal cover in your policy or with your house insurance / csma membership? Don't take this lying down. The insurers are just trying it on.

I agree with everyone else, I don't understand how the red car has been found to be at fault. What was Blue's story that it was deemed more plausible?

I'd keep fighting this!

Have I understood correctly that blue car turned across red car into a no entry lane?!

someone has already asked the question above.

I was going to make the same point.

blue car obviously at fault

That's the only thing I can think of, that you saw them indicating but whizzed past, but that doesn't negate the fact that they still should have waited before moving, and that they apparently turned into a no entry.

There does appear to be a school of thought that indicating means "I have priority" these days, so maybe the insurer thinks the same. There are some very odd "rules" which are not reflected in the Highway Code at all!

@AFS1 Have I understood correctly that blue car turned across red car into a no entry lane?!
I can’t see how on any interpretation red car could possibly at fault.

I agree.

Grrr that is so annoying. 🚗🔥🚙
I wonder if the other driver was male therefore more plausible 😂😂😂😂

Was it a very slow speed crash? The fact the damage was on your side and his front surly shows he crashed into you?

Was it on private land (supermarket?).

I don't know what's going on OP but I assume your insurance will be paying. Your premiums would go up regardless unfortunately, so it's "only" your no claims that is affected? Annoying but probably not worth getting too upset about.

I can't see how it could possibly be the red car's fault unless, as others have said, they were driving too fast or the other car was already turning (and that doesn't match the damage really)

Are we allowed to name the insurance company on here? I don't want to be insuring my car with a company that acts this way.

Blue is clearly in the wrong. I would also not let this go at all.

How on earth can the Blue cars story be more plausible when you were driving in a straight line and they turned right into the side of your car?

That’s insane - what exactly was more plausible about their story?!

That doesn't make sense as both lanes are "ahead only" lanes and going the same way.

need to hear blues side of the story. they are obviously accusing red car of something that hasnt been shared here

or has the insurance company (incorrectly from what appears to be the road markings) assumed it isn't two separate lanes in the carpark and red was "overtaking" when blue was indicating to turn right

Seen your update. That's arbitrators for you. Out of interest what evidence did they have?

It was on a supermarket car park and my insurer is requesting the cctv.

there was also an independent witness, who’s details I gave to my insurance company at the time, who has now been asked to give a statement.

I’ve told my insurance company that I’ll be taking it to court if necessary

Insurers do take weird lines at times. My husband once turned out of an opening and stalled as there was something wrong with the car. He put his hazard warning lights on while he was trying to restart the car and someone came whizzing round the corner and into him. Said DH had pulled out in front of him. Damage clearly didn't show that but insurers agreed 50-50.

Another story was that a friend of my mum's stopped in a layby to eat a sandwich. Someone ran into the back of her and said she'd pulled out in front of her. The insurers preferred her version of events, even though friend of mum didn't have her engine running and was clearly located in layby.

the lane they were turning into is also an "exit" lane...

Blue car a twat and in wrong totally. God knows how thats been judged your fault.
If it helps my mum was in a similar accident on her motorbike. no dashcams as was about 15 years ago. She was judged to be at fault despite the car that hit her crossing into her lane.
Mum disagreed and took it to court, refusing to accept liability. It went back and forth between solicitors forover 5 years before the guy gave in. Mum is stubborn AF (I do aspire to be as stubborn!) and would have kept on fighting!
But its a principle and common sense thing. How the heck can you be liable? Thats insane! Fight it OP!

To have decided you're at fault, they obviously haven't painted the same picture you have.
My guess is that their side is they were mid manoeuvre when you can speeding along.

You need to find out what they've said op.

There's more too this.
On what possible basis are they finding the blue car not at fault? What is their version of events?

Those talking about the blue car making an illegal manoeuvre are wrong. This is a car park, not a public road. The road markings shown in the photo are advisory, not compulsory. Even if there is a no entry sign at the end of the lane going off to the right (which doesn't seem to be the case), that has no legal effect unless the local council has passed a Traffic Regulation Order. Having said that, ignoring the road markings may go against you if there is an accident.

Whilst at first glance it looks like the blue car is at fault, a lot depends on the sequence of events. Where were the cars relative to each other when the blue car started its right turn? Was the red car going too fast? Did the blue car indicate? What does the blue car's driver say about what happened?