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

I wouldn't say it's "highly implausible". There are some right dickheads about. And there are some perfectly normal people who are normally good drivers but get flustered or are stressed or have a forgetful moment.

I have a friend who I have noticed doesn't look to the side OR check his mirrors when changing lanes. I've noticed it on a couple of journeys and he's had a couple of near-misses when I've been in the car with him. People have mentioned to him but he doesn't learn. I no longer accept lifts from him.

I once had a car drive into the back of me while I was stationary at a red traffic light with my handbrake on. Insurers decided it was shared fault 😕

How big is the value of the claim likely to be OP? I find the smaller the claim, the less they actually care about determining fault.

Happens quite often in service stations on motorways, or supermarket carparks with a separate petrol station.

If impact is described then maybe OP cut into the gap slightly which would have altered the position of the impact, is the only possible way I can see where it would be OPs fault at all

If they found the blue car's story more plausible what was their version of events?

Did they state that you were stationery and then moved forward as they started their turn or something else?

Like they were going slow enough to stop but instead when they saw they were pushing someone who's started the manoeuvre instead of stopping they tried to steer round

*passing

Maybe the blue car wasn't turning right at all - it could have been about to reverse park into one of the spaces on the LHS so moving the front of the car over a bit to make it easier. . If the red car was impatient and trying to get past when they should have waited it may be seen differently?

Thank you. That makes sense and saves me going around looking at car parks as well... I couldn't work it out at all!

I’d be checking the “qualifications” of the arbitrator and finding out if they belong to a trade body/institution, and a full explanation of how they came to their “finding”.

Very clearly blue! Fight this one, OP.

HNRTT but if that photograph is of the actual junction then on receipt of the statement the red car is at fault then perhaps a reply to ask them to explain further how the blue cars reckless decision to turn into a no-entry junction could ever lead to the red car being found at fault?

The red car and the blue car were in a place. Blue car's driver was off their face. They drove into a car. Their aim was a non-entry junction, by far. A silly thing to do.

Approach every car park like it's unique. They don't have anywhere near as much thought put into making them user friendly in the same way roads do and they can truly bring out the idiot in people

Blue car was about to reverse into a space OR turn into the no entry to park. Either way, had reverse lights or indicator on. Red car was behind and got pissed off with going slow behind blue car who was pausing all the time to find a parking spot. Red car impatiently overtakes, at the same time blue continues with manoeuvre and can't see red car initially. Blue hits into side of red with front of their car.

Red: don't be an impatient car park dick

🤷‍♀️

Was that it?

Blue

There is definitely information being withheld here. They would have given you an explanation as to why you are at fault, esp after an arbitrator had to review it. And you would have had a copy of what version of events the other party gave. The picture itself is meaningless, what matters is where the cars were positioned and what they were trying to do at the time.

I want to hear the "plausible" explanation from the blue car driver.

Only if op was lying when she said in an earlier post that the blue car was definitely not doing that and was turning right into the junction to collect people who were waiting there for them.

If the blue cars story is ‘more plausable’ then what is there version of events?
if it’s as clear cut as you have explained it then it’s impossible for them to find you at fault.

What was the other person's story? Was it at that exact place because the blue car is turning the wrong way down a one way system.

Blue car has made three fundamental errors. One, they were in a lane marked straight on and turned right. Two, they cut up red car. Three, they turned into a one-way part of the car park they shouldn't have, as the arrows clearly show.

None of which could have been expected or anticipated by the red car driver.

Is this the exact picture? Because it looks like the blue car is turning into a no entry lane, as well as cutting across you.

I'd like to hear the other side's version of events.

A couple of real lulus I know of:

1. I was in a car which was travelling along a suburban street when a driver didn't stop/slow down for the dotted white lines at the end of the side road he was on, & his car T-boned the car I was in. Damage was to the passenger door of our car & the front of the other car, but the other guy submitted photos of a previous accident he'd had & claimed our car had driven into him. He lost.
2. A friend was in a petrol station, standing next to his car, filling it, when a woman got back in her car, started it up & hit his car as she drove towards the exit. She leapt out of her car shouting, "That was YOUR fault!".😂

I have this feeling too. OP - what was the reason they gave you for finding you at fault and their story more plausible?

I suspect the blue car just wanted to move into that lane (not turn into a no entry road) but the OP sped up beside them mid-manoeuvre, and they collided.