He never did pull along side neck and neck so to speak, from his stationary position he turned left, the fact that he was behind my Mrs and didn't see her is beyond me!
Mrs had a car accident
- Thread starter elrasho
- Start date
He never did pull along side neck and neck so to speak, from his stationary position he turned left, the fact that he was behind my Mrs and didn't see her is beyond me!
The first diagram does show his van behind my Mrs's car to the right though
As someone who is taking lessons, I have been taught to keep a firm eye on the traffic you wish to join (in this case coming from his right) until you see your gap, which you follow and accelerate to match the speed of the lane you are joining. This obviously means that you are either in the left lane to join, or in a single lane (which the van driver was).
I don't think it is unreasonable for him to not expect to be cut up, even if it happens there a lot, he might not be local and drive there often. Therefore, he wouldn't have seen the car sneak by on the left, then smashed in to it as he tried to get in his gap on Yew Tree Drive.
50/50 imo.
I don't think you understand the road traffic at the scene. Whinney Lane is a very quite road, Yew Tree Drive is hardly a busy dual carriage way. Theres no reason for the van driver to be thinking about matching the oncoming traffics speed as its a quite-ish dual carriage way. The faster drivers stay in the outside lane, the slow ones on the inside, the van driver could easily join the traffic and 'regular turning into a road speed' on the inside lane, its not a busy one at the best of times.
Sorry but that doesn't make sense to me, either. You've said the van has stopped 10+ feet from the junction, whereupon your wife then pulled forward into said junction ready to emerge. The van then turned left without moving forward at all, and yet somehow still struck the driver's door of her car. Simultaneously, you're claiming the van was behind your wife so should have seen her??!
How does a regular transit sized van, which is ten feet behind a junction, turn into the driver's door of a car waiting in that junction without even moving forward? It sounds more like your wife is wrong and the van wasn't that far back - hence she's at fault for 'squeezing' past on the inside.
Sorry but the more you've explained this the muddier it gets. While I appreciate your efforts I don't think the insurers are going to be thinking much differently tbh. Good luck, though.
Last edited:
I'm just basing this on what I have been taught by my instructor and books. As above, hitting the drivers door would indicate she was side by side, slightly ahead, rather than well in front, and the front blind-spot is worse in a van than most cars.
No no he obviously did move forward after my wife was at the junction. Other wise there's no way he could have hit her because he turned left he would have just gone behind her.
So my wifes at the junction waiting to go left, van driver is about 4 feet behind her (including the length of wifes car, meaning van is 10 feet from junction but 4 feet from her car). He moves forward and turns left and hits her drivers side door towards the middle. I will try and upload picture of the damage.
I never indicated they were side by side
Is this the part where the story gradually changes to sway opinion, when you don't get the answer you wanted to hear?
Without having been there or having some in-car footage, it's really difficult to make a definitive call.
From your description, it sounds to me like your wife wasn't driving defensively and put herself in this situation.
Without having been there or having some in-car footage, it's really difficult to make a definitive call.
From your description, it sounds to me like your wife wasn't driving defensively and put herself in this situation.
That's a different version again from the several you've already presented. Not trying to pick nits with you, but this is why you posted the thread after all. If we'd have been the insurer, you'd have been mincemeat by now! Only a few replies ago, you said:
Note 'from his stationary position'. Earlier you were trying to say the van hadn't moved and made his manoeuvre from a standing position, and that was justification for your wife undertaking him. Now he moved forward and turned left into her, without looking. Did that mean he saw a gap that your wife didn't take (assuming he was oblivious to her presence)?
So many holes in this story. While I appreciate you trying to do the right thing by your Mrs I have to say I wouldn't hold my breath with the insurers.
Indeed. Nice to see you around B.... It's been a while. I hope you're looking after yourself.
I find it hard to explain things via text, maybe I should have made a youtube video instead. Here's the write up she's going to send:
On Thursday 14th November 2013 at around 8:45am I proceeded down Whiney Lane towards Yew Tree Drive. As I approached there was a van stationary to the right of the lane on Whinney Lane about 10 feet away from the junction to Yew Tree Drive. At their position no one would know weather they wanted to join to dual carriage way, park on Whinny Lane, look around and examine the area in case he was lost etc…The driver of this van had no indicators on.
As I wanted to turn left onto Yew Tree Drive I passed the van on its left and waited at the junction with my indicator on to the left. At this point the van was behind me in the same place where I first saw him. Sometime later as I was waiting for a gap in the dual carriage way the driver then proceeded to turn left and made impact with my vehicle.
He then reversed his van causing more damage to my car as his van scraped along the bodywork. The van driver said he did go into me and so admitted it was his fault.
When I was at the junction waiting to join the dual carriage way the van driver was behind me to my right about 5 feet away. I could see the left front side of his van in my right side mirror. I was easily in his peripheral vision and since he decided he wanted to turn left he should have checked his left side mirror for cyclist, if he had done this he would have seen me too as he moved his head to check the mirror.
This accident was purely the van drivers fault for the following reasons:
· The van was in an unclear position on Whinney Lane
· The van driver did not see me even though he was behind me and in a higher up position
· The van didn't indicate to turn left at any point
· The van driver did not see me causing the accident
For these reasons the van driver is at 100% fault for this accident. Attached to this write up is a diagram showing where the vehicles were at the time of the accident.
After the accident the van driver admitted his van went into my car
On Thursday 14th November 2013 at around 8:45am I proceeded down Whiney Lane towards Yew Tree Drive. As I approached there was a van stationary to the right of the lane on Whinney Lane about 10 feet away from the junction to Yew Tree Drive. At their position no one would know weather they wanted to join to dual carriage way, park on Whinny Lane, look around and examine the area in case he was lost etc…The driver of this van had no indicators on.
As I wanted to turn left onto Yew Tree Drive I passed the van on its left and waited at the junction with my indicator on to the left. At this point the van was behind me in the same place where I first saw him. Sometime later as I was waiting for a gap in the dual carriage way the driver then proceeded to turn left and made impact with my vehicle.
He then reversed his van causing more damage to my car as his van scraped along the bodywork. The van driver said he did go into me and so admitted it was his fault.
When I was at the junction waiting to join the dual carriage way the van driver was behind me to my right about 5 feet away. I could see the left front side of his van in my right side mirror. I was easily in his peripheral vision and since he decided he wanted to turn left he should have checked his left side mirror for cyclist, if he had done this he would have seen me too as he moved his head to check the mirror.
This accident was purely the van drivers fault for the following reasons:
· The van was in an unclear position on Whinney Lane
· The van driver did not see me even though he was behind me and in a higher up position
· The van didn't indicate to turn left at any point
· The van driver did not see me causing the accident
For these reasons the van driver is at 100% fault for this accident. Attached to this write up is a diagram showing where the vehicles were at the time of the accident.
After the accident the van driver admitted his van went into my car
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
nailed it
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
It sounds like she nipped down the inside of the van and then wondered why, not expecting to somebody to nip down his inside when he was joining a dual carriageway onto which he could only turn Left, not Right, the van driver then hit her.
Its a quiet dual carriageway is it?
So quiet that your partner was waiting there for 'sometime' for a gap?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,272
- Location
- RG8 9
Looks to me like the van is at the junction on a single lane road waiting to turn left onto a dual carriageway. So they are keeping an eye out for a safe place to pull onto the dual carriageway, which is to their right. Your missus pulls alongside the left hand side of the van on a single lane road but in front, so she can also see the traffic as if she did not, the van would be in the way. Van driver see's a safe place to pull out and starts pulling out, but because your missus has pulled alongside him (ilegally), he hits her.
You don't ever pull out into the overtaking lane on a dual carriageway so there is no reason on earth she would presume that is what they were going to do. Plus she was late for work.
She is at fault.
You don't ever pull out into the overtaking lane on a dual carriageway so there is no reason on earth she would presume that is what they were going to do. Plus she was late for work.
She is at fault.
[TW]Fox;25311844 said:
Bust dual carriage way in my books is nose to back traffic
A quite one in my books is gaps where you can easily get in without having to ram the gas hard
She just rang to say her no claims his protected but they think it's gonna be 50/50
Wrong, the Van driver wasn't near the junction he was 10 feet back from the junction. He then started to move forward and turn left resulting in accident. Why would he be there if he wanted to use the dual carriage way, he cant be looking for gaps as there a slight hill blocking his view anyway!
Even the 'final draft' of the statement implies it's your wife's fault, sorry. If he was just short of the junction with no indicators, and the road layout implies left turn only (contrary to your earlier assertions) then why attempt to overtake him on the inside? She's basically supplying in writing the fact that she's failed to follow the highway code (I undertook him in a single carriageway when he wasn't indicating right), and then blamed him for not seeing her perform said act.
It was a quiet D/C where she'd waited some time for a gap in the traffic, whereupon the van driver tries to emerge onto the D/C, presumably seeing a gap that your wife failed to take advantage of - else she wouldn't still be waiting in the junction.
It just goes from bad to worse, and I think if you get 50/50 you've gotten off lightly.
It was a quiet D/C where she'd waited some time for a gap in the traffic, whereupon the van driver tries to emerge onto the D/C, presumably seeing a gap that your wife failed to take advantage of - else she wouldn't still be waiting in the junction.
It just goes from bad to worse, and I think if you get 50/50 you've gotten off lightly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,272
- Location
- RG8 9
He is allowed to be ten feet back as long as he can see up the road. Remember he is in a van and has a higher viewpoint than a car. The problem you face is that your missus pulled alongside him illegally. That is the single fact that will scupper her claim.