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 batshit. You must be so frustrated,
OP. It’s so cut and dry I’m gobsmacked at the bizarre decisions made.

Regardless of any signs/markings being advisory, it would make sense that you use the road in the manner marked. A deliberate breach of that shows that you don’t care about the result of your breach. Thus they are in the wrong.

Both cars are in “ahead only” lanes, clearly marked as such. If they cut across your lane they’re asking for trouble if any other vehicles are close by. If you wanted to change lane or turn, you would need to wait or risk a collision. They risked a collision and got one.

If everything you’re telling us and showing us is correct, I’d pursue this to the bitter end. (County Court)

I had to do this where my insurer, Aviva, did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to assist us (very loyal) customers. I then pursued the driver (NOT the insurer) making it very clear I’d not give up. He rear-ended and destroyed my car, and then admitted he nodded off at the wheel. His insurer, Saga, enjoyed taking the piss in endless phone calls and emails.

Their final email stated that I’ve ‘repeatedly threatened legal action’, without doing so. Guess what? Red rag to a bull. I won the case outright at County Court. Sleepy man got a CCJ against him, not Saga. He trusted Saga to fight his case, they didn’t even turn up.

Some people are very very stupid.

Make sure that your costs come within CC parameters though.

I'm assuming the blue car said you pulled out in front of him, I can't believe they're ignoring your independent witness! Take it to court, don't let them settle.

In terms of the road markings, yes, that is still the case.

I’d say blue car but if that car had almost completed the turn and the red car hit the rear quarter of the blue car I’d say the red car as they would have ample time to stop.

The blue car is very obviously at fault, as the collision could only have happened if they made the manouver without having checked mirrors all around for other vehicles. The fact that they were turning right from the left hand lane of a road with two lanes in that direction makes it worse, and the fact that they were turning right into a one-way lane also makes it worse, but these are merely agravations on top of the first fundamental mistake.

But just give the facts to the insurance companies and let them work this out. That's what insurance is for and why it's illegal not to be insured.

Also just noticed that the car shouldn’t be pulling into that line as there are double white lines at the entrance dictating that this is one way (the wrong way)
so definitely the blue car

Blue car 100%, the lane he is turning in to also has an arrow going out not in.

Blue car in the wrong. Don't see how the red car could ever be at fault in the scenario set out.

I would say 50 -50 on that.

I did have someone run Into the back of my car when I indicated left, wrote the car off. insurers said 50-50 as other driver claimed sun was in his eyes. a very detailed response went back with maps, photos plus a Bunch of calculations regards the angle of the sun at that time of day, position in relation to the road etc. his insurance paid out...... I had recently been studying astro navigation

If the blue cars story is ‘more plausable’ then what is there version of events?

Our insurance were quite good - but it did take them hearing about injures and that it could be a sizable claim - we had witnesses and damage that corresponded with DH version of events.

Policeman believed the nice middle class driver he'd found at scene and dismissed Asian taxi driver witnesses who helped DH and called an ambulance - tried to blame them and DH for accident - other driver had got fed up waiting in rush hour to turn right so decided to block other lane of traffic at bottom of a blind hill - no-one coming over had a chance to stop before hitting side of that car. DH was on a motorbike so was seriously hurt looking at multiple operations and policeman seem surprised by that cause driver hadn't thought him that bad .

Even my DP have dashcam now - so many bullshitter bad drivers out there.

If the blue car entered the lane of, and crossed the path of, the red car then the blue car is at fault

Also noticed on 2nd look the blue car is trying to enter a no entry.

I would 100% take it to Court of that was me as if the story is as you describe them the arbitrator needs a slap.

It's incidences like this that made me get a dash cam.

Best of luck OP.

It sounds like the other party have told their insurance company a very different story (e.g. that you pulled over into their lane just ahead of them or something) and the damage has been deemed to be more likely if their story were true rather than yours. What was their story?

Car Park road markings are not legally enforceable, they are just their for guidance. So two possible scenarios 1) that blue car turned into your path when it was not clear to do so or 2) blue car was crossing lanes when you sped up. But even if that was the case, they would go 50/50.

There must be one hell of a 'plausible' story for the arbitrator to rule in their favour! Maybe they have witnesses.

Do you know what that story is OP?

If the red car had sped up and hit the blue then the damage would be at the front of the red car and the side of the blue, but OP states that she has passenger door side damage and the blue had front right damage, which could only happen if blue hit the side of red. So therefore blue turned right into red without making sure the way was clear

It depends on what speed the red car was going, esp given it was a car park. It’s all conjecture though, the OP really needs to update us on what the plausible explanation was.

My insurance company’s attitude was “if you hit a police car it’s definitely your fault

Seriously? Have they actually seen how some police car drivers behave?

<Shakes head>

On the face of it the blue car, crossing your path, was at fault. Are they suggesting you appeared ‘out of nowhere’? Anyway, the video should clear it up.

Blue.
The red has right of way. You can only turn right once the traffic has gone.

Blue car, for crossing in front of red.

Blue

Did the blue car crash into the side of your car, or did you crash into the blue car as it turned? I think the blue car was wrong either way, but if you crashed into them, then I guess that's why the insurance company is saying you were responsible.

How on earth are you at fault? The other car cut across you and by the looks of it was going into a no entry/one way bit of the car park. How is their story more plausible? Bonkers!

What is their version of events? That would help. Based on yours I would say you are the innocent party but without knowing what they are saying it’s hard to understand the arbitrators view.