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.

The car is at fault. It comes across as an impatient car driver trying to undertake.

I remember being taught in driving lessons that larger vehicles can sometimes do this when they need to make a hard left turn and to give them space to complete the manoeuvre.

The car should have stopped when he saw the van manoeuvre, but the van should also have checked before driving across. IMO it's 50/50.

Many vans need to go onto the wrong side of the road to make turns safely, so he wasn't necessarily in the wrong or doing some kind of weird manoeuvre.

Car completely at fault. It would be obvious the van was about to perform a manoeuvre such as swinging wide into the left hand turning. You wouldn’t expect the van to stop in the right hand lane, so you should anticipate it’s doing a manoeuvre. Sounds like the car driver was impatient.

I’m presuming you’re the car driver? Also, initially you say the van stopped, then in your second post it paused. Also who is disputing the indicators, are other drivers saying the van was, or is it just you and the van driver disagreeing?

Either way I’d say car fully at fault.

Surely if the van had time to pull to the side and stop, the cars also had enough time to stop.

Car is at fault, even without indicating or knowing the road it was obvious what was happening

Van was on the wrong side of the road.
Car should have slowed down.

Tell us how it panned out now OP.

No question it’s the car drivers fault. Even if there was no indication from the van, it was obvious he was doing an odd manoeuvre and the car should have waited at a safe distance until the manoeuvre was completed or they were certain of the vans intentions.

Interesting. Thanks for opinions!
I suppose timing was everything really as ordinarily when something is odd ahead you would slow right down but there wasn't time to get to a stop.
Collision didn't result in airbags so was a slow one.

If there was a three second gap between the vehicles and the van had slowed to a stop why didn't the car have time to stop?

Cars fault for sure, undertaking. Car should have slowed as soon as the van swung out.

Crappy if the van didn't indicate. But still cars fault.

If the car didn’t have time to stop it was going too fast / travelling too close.

This...

Ordinarily being when the car behind has left a sufficient gap.

Surely if the van had time to pull over and come to a stop, the car had time to do the same thing?

What would have happened if the van needed to slam on the brakes for a deer or something?

Road bendy. All doing 40. Slowed to 25ish.

So how was it resolved?

If the van was indicating, the car should have stopped.

And I think that even if it wasn't, the car should have slowed down to proceed with caution given the odd behaviour of the van.

That said, regardless of which lane the van was in, it should have checked wing mirrors before turning.

Both at fault.

Too close or too fast, even at 25 then, for unexpected hazards. I get why the car driver might feel aggrieved but it’s still their fault.

Who was found at fault then?

Definitely car. It should have realised the van was doing something.

Definitely car in wrong, as per pp is that whole point of stopping distance?

I think we’re destined to never find out the outcome and who OP is.

I also don’t understand why the vote results are as they are when so many people are saying it’s the car at fault.

@aandrainwillmaketheflowersgrow if it had stopped in own lane cars would have braked. As it was, it went right, stopped, in that time, cars had caught up.

Whoever was driving the car (you?) was not paying attention. If a vehicle pulls into the opposite lane, you know this is a hazard (and you can usually tell from the position on the road that they’re turning) and need to slow down.

But the cars saw the van manoeuvre across the lane, so in their line of sight before during and after the van stopped, and should have perceived the potential hazard? Or else how would they have known what happened (they’d have just thought it was a random van parked on the other side of the road). Therefore it should have been obvious there was an unusual manoeuvre occurring and would be incumbent upon them to wait until they were certain what was happening. The way it’s been written just sounds like an impatient car driver thought, well you’re on the other side of the road now, I’ve got right of way on my side so I’m going to keep going and you’ll have to wait. Except that didn’t work out well for them.

This really. The van behaved oddly, and obviously didn't look/use mirrors before effectively crossing a lane, but the car should have been far back enough to stop. I always leave room when behind vans because they're often looking for addresses and can be erratic.