It's a car one - with diagram!

[Sandydonut]

NC just in case and AIBU for traffic. This has already been swiftly sorted out, but I'm curious for opinions on what happened.

Winding, wooded, country A road, line of cars all doing about 40.

About 30 yards ahead van goes fully into oncoming lane and and pauses.

Road at this point curves around a bend to the right. Road markings are long dashes with arrows to stop overtaking from oncoming direction.

Van turns left, fully across, at right angles, left lane to go into private side road on left.

Car hits van in centre of its body.

1. The private road entrance and width all the way is enough for more than two cars.
2. The road was a bend at this point, so while in oncoming lane, cars could have hit van.
3. The corner was not that sharp. If the van had slowed almost to a stop in its own lane and turned left, it would have made it without even swinging out into the oncoming lane, let alone putting 100% of itself over there.

What do you think? Diagram attached. If you want to vote, say YABU for Van being in the right, YANBU for Van being in the wrong.

I'd say that if the van is in the way of the oncoming traffic, the van is at fault. You stay on your own side of the road unless you are an HGV trying to make a tight turn.

Was the van going in the same direction as the car that hit it? If so, and the car therefore undertook the van, then the cars at fault.

But I don't understand why the car behind is effectively trying to undertake the van? Why wouldn't you just wait until they've turned?

so a car coming from behind van hit him as he was turning left?

car at fault

car should have been aware of vans unusual movement, and slowed down to accommodate

The van driver is at fault - were they indicating at all? I assume not from the description. You always have to second guess what other vehicles are about to do but even that's a stretch in this scenario! A tractor or lorry I would anticipate doing this but I would still expect them to indicate.

If van wasn’t indicating you could try 50/50 but you’d be hard pressed to prove it

So van is at front, turning left and hit by car behind because it swung out?

Did the van indicate? In which direction
Did it slow down or brake before the junction?
You said it "paused"? For how long?

If the car had time to see vans movement and slow down I would say car at fault.

I agree with PP that it would be safer to stop given the van's unusual movement but we need to know if the van was indicating.

the diagram needs some headlights on the vehicles so we can see which way they are driving.

but it seems like the van is at fault.

The van was committing a foolish manoeuvre - but the car that hit the van was also at fault. They were too close the van and didn't wait to see what the van was going to do.

I’d say the car is at fault, there is trees and a sharp bend from your diagram so was the van swinging out to get a better view of a vehicle potentially about to pull out? I can’t understand why the car wouldn’t have hung back to let the van continue with whatever manoeuvre he was about to do, was he indicating?

Yes van monouvre was odd and unnecessary. But if I was the car I'd slow down until I'd worked out what they were doing.

Was the van swinging wide because a car was coming out the left junction? So went wide to avoid a collision turning into it?

either way, if van was indicating, car is st fault

If the private drive was a turn back on itself (as illustrated in the picture) and the van was a long wheelbase model, it might well have needed to use the opposite lane to make that turn.

Provided the van was indicating left then I would say the following car driver is at fault. It might go 50:50, but I wouldn't make the van driver at fault in this.

Well, the van took a weird route to turn left, but the car at the front of the queue drove forward into it, if ive understood correctly. Car's fault in insurance terms, I'd think. Both drivers did stupid things.

Why did the car continue to drive towards a vehicle that was clearly performing some sort of maneuver? Why else would the van be on the wrong side of the road opposite an entry?

Basic driving skills - slow down or stop if there's a dangerous situation ahead. Don't just plough on clearly at too much speed if couldn't stop in time.

The van driver is at fault but probably the car driver is too as should have slowed if it wasn't clear what the van was doing and might have been too close to start with, if they weren't able to stop before hitting the van.

All cars moving in same direction.
Van had moved into oncoming lane and stopped there. Was room to turn without that. Van about the size of a camper.
Indicating is disputed.
Cars all about 3 second gap.
If van had not stopped, there would have been time for cars to stop. But it stopped, giving long enough for cars to catch up and then went across without looking.
No cars in private road to complicate it.

I think the car is at fault as the van had undertaken a strange and dangerous manoeuvre and the car didn't hang back to see what was happening.

The van is lucky that another car wasn't coming round the bend from the opposite direction.

So the van pulls over into the right hand lane (may or may not be indicating) and stops. The car thought it was a good idea to keep driving forward at speed? The obvious thing is to slow down and prepare to stop if necessary.

Unless there’s numerous independent witnesses saying van wasn’t indicating, car at fault as should have slowed down due to vans incorrect road placement

Could the car driver not see that the van was performing a manoeuvre?

I still feel the van is more at fault, completely stupid manoeuvre and then crossed the lane of moving traffic they'd just left.

What was the outcome OP?

I can't vote because the van was not in the right but neither was the car.