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

The only way I can see the Red car being at fault is if the Red car started behind the Blue car, pulled out into the right-hand lane and overtook Blue after Blue had started indicating right.

We need to know what Blue Car's version of events is. It must be quite good, for it to be regarded as "more plausible". Unless OP thought Blue Car was dicking about and steamed into it regardless to make a point...

(Btw, those 'one way' things in supermarket car parks are basically meaningless).

Loved the Milky Way Advert!

If CCTV is supplied you'd be very lucky. I had an accident in a car park and was definitely the other parties fault, had a witness, it was obvious on the damage to both cars etc, the CCTV wasn't clear on who was at fault. Went down as a 50/50 claim, I was furious. My car was a write off and there was nothing I could do. I only got £550 pay out. You've no chance if there's not enough proof.

Insurers can be horrendous -
briefly, family member was accused of crashing into a person while coming out of a small side road, person claimed they jumped in front of car and shouted ‘stop’, and claimed contact was made. It was all untrue. It went to court as driver was charged with driving without due care and attention. CCTV was played in court which categorically showed the person had lied completely - no contact, no jumping in front of car, no shouting stop, showed vehicle stopped to let pedestrian past, once fully clear, vehicle moved. Judge literally laughed it out of court, dismissed immediately, gave pedestrian very stern words of their disgraceful, untruthful behaviour.
INSURANCE, however, made a £15,000+ payout to the pedestrian as that was cheaper than been took to court by them 🤷🏻‍♀️ Absolutely crazy and unfair. No amount of arguing with the insurance made any difference, they paid pedestrian anyway. Insurance was given all cctv, all court papers etc, but still they chose to pay 🤷🏻‍♀️
I hope you don’t have this kind if injustice OP.

Stick to your guns. I had something similar where the other driver did this same manoeuvre then claimed I'd crashed into them while they were waiting.

If you have a witness that should swing it. Hold your nerve.

The OP hasn't given the blue cars version of events. Her version is clearly going to result in everyone saying the blue car is at fault.

But the arbitrator has heard both. And people do lie when car accidents are involved. Including potentially the OP. Sometimes people aren't lying, they genuinely believe what they are saying, but either they are simply wrong or they have misjudged the intention of the other car.

Meh. Not really enough information

If you’re sure you’re in the right, stick to your guns. I ran into the side of a police car I’d been following (at a safe speed and distance) when it suddenly pulled over and u-turned in front of me. No indication and clearly no checking of mirrors - the driver obviously had no idea I was there or he’d have waited.

My insurance company’s attitude was “if you hit a police car it’s definitely your fault”. But I knew that, if the accident had been the other way round and I’d carried out that manoeuvre in front of a police car, they’d have, quite rightly, thrown the book at me! I felt this was so unfair that I decided I had to go to court and argue my case. It was terrifying but the judgement went my way, and the driver got a ticking off from the judge about “mirror, signal, manoeuvre”.

So what did the other party say about it?

If this is in a private eg supermarket car park then the arrows are suggestions not mandatory and therefore are meaningless

however the blue car should still not have cut across the front of the red card it should have checked mirrors indicated paused and when clear manoeuvred

Are you in the UK?

Are you sure you have attached the right part of the carpark? For the blue car to turn there, they would be going into a 1 way part - the wrong way

Were you moving or stationary ?

What does I wasn't indicating waiting for a space mean?

What was the blue cars story?

Yes, that's what I think.

Blue was mid-manoeuvre and OP sped into his path, causing them to collide. And if OP was coming from behind, the insurers will argue she should have been able to stop in time.

The arrows are advisory only but you could argue they give other drivers a reasonable expectation that you're not actually making that manoeuvre.

But yeah, in an empty car park then drive wherever you want

OP, everyone want to know what blues story was. What did they say? Did you ask and they refused to tell you?

What was the other party's story??

What the blue car did is so utterly ridiculous I can sort of understand why the insurers disbelieve it! That's not much help to you though unfortunately.

That was my thinking, that the insurance company may be incorrectly assuming the red car was traveling in the wrong direction on the wrong side of a road.

I was told when I worked in insurance that pretty much all car park claims go 50/50 as it is private land and essentially the road markings are just drawings on the road rather than being legal instructions. Not sure if this is still the case?

That looks like the Blue car turned into a one way road?

It's a car park, not a public road. The one-way system won't be legally enforceable, i.e. driving the wrong way isn't specifically an offence, although it might still count as careless driving. It's turning right from the left-hand lane when there is another vehicle going in the same direction in the right-hand lane that is more clearly careless, though.

That could be the plausible explanation that was given.

But OP said they were picking someone up from within the 1 way bit

So what is the other side's story??

Makes me glad I have a dash cam.

I now have the milky way advert song stuck in my head!.... 🎶🎶The red car and the blue car had a race, But all red wants to do is stuff his face... He eats everything he sees.... 🎶🎶

I had the opposite to this except it was as a road and I was indicating right a car chose to over take ( significantly over the speed limit) in a built up area, out side a school. I was deemed in the wrong because I should have checked no one was overtaking before I turned right.

Opps! Think I read so many replies I forgot that and just looked at the picture. Maybe red was still impatiently behind and overtook

If they were turning to collect people isn't there an argument to be made for them just seeing the people & turning without thinking?

Also if the knew they were collecting from there-why weren't they in the correct lane way before?