# How's my luck! Smashed the BM up yesterday



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

Morning all,
Had the unfortunate experience of having an accident yesterday, traveling back from work, about 5 mins from home and had someone do a sudden u turn on me leaving me no option but to crash into him.

Was going onto a single carriage way, from two lanes into one, there are signs at either end of the traffic island stating that no U turns are allowed.

What do you guys think regarding liability?


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

I think your insurers will likely go 50/50.

Yes, no U-turns but the other side will state that you should have kept a reasonable stopping distance behind him unfortunately.


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

millns84 said:


> I think your insurers will likely go 50/50.
> 
> Yes, no U-turns but the other side will state that you should have kept a reasonable stopping distance behind him unfortunately.


So anchoring up on a straight carriage way with no other cars around would be an acceptable reason for a 50/50
If there are no u turns allowed and he didn't do a u turn that would have stopped the accident happening completely?


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

Just to add, my insurer is treating this as a non fault accident but would I be right in saying that if the other guys story was made up and was different to mine then it would be re-looked at?


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

They will always form an initial view then discuss with the other side in more detail before coming to a conclusion.

I just think it has 50/50 written all over it. Yeah, the guy sounds like a right plum but it's easy for them to come back and say that you should have been keeping a reasonable stopping distance... Not saying that's right, I can just see it happening.


----------



## slim_boy_fat (Jun 23, 2006)

From pics 1 and 3 it _*looks*_ like you were overtaking him :car: and didn't make it back onto the single lane quickly enough? Happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong......

Not wishing to apportion blame, but at least 50/50 imho - just saying...


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

millns84 said:


> They will always form an initial view then discuss with the other side in more detail before coming to a conclusion.
> 
> I just think it has 50/50 written all over it. Yeah, the guy sounds like a right plum but it's easy for them to come back and say that you should have been keeping a reasonable stopping distance... Not saying that's right, I can just see it happening.


Yeah can totally see what your saying, it's easier for both party's to do a 50/50 as both insurance company's get their excess and both get more money renewal time.


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

slim_boy_fat said:


> From pics 1 and 3 it _*looks*_ like you were overtaking him :car: and didn't make it back onto the single lane quickly enough? Happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong......
> 
> Not wishing to apportion blame, but at least 50/50 imho - just saying...


No I came round and he was in front of me. In the direction of traffic I was in the right and he was in the left lane(closest to the Kerb). I started merging into the left lane when he suddenly done a sharp brake and turned right as if to turn around. As it was a single lane with both a Kerb on the left of me and a traffic island on the right I made contact with his drivers door with my front passenger quarter/Passenger headlight.
There is a boot sale in the field to the right of us on Sunday mornings, to get to the entrance of the boot sale when coming from my direction you would have to travel 2.2miles down the carriage way and turn around and come back on yourself.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

It's hard to see what went on from those pictures, but it is the car behind who has the responsibility of keeping a safe difference.


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

Gheezer said:


> Doing a U Turn over chevrons is illegal right? Am I seeing this right. Then it is traffic offence and he is in the wrong all day long......


That's the way I look at it


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

Doesn't matter if what he did was illegal, that's a seperate thing the police would look at. If you drive into a car parked on double yellows doesn't mean it's the other driver at fault. I think they'll go 50/50 just for an easy life but in reality you should have left enough of a gap to stop. To do a u turn he must have been slowing down unless he was handbraking it round so why were you so close that you couldn't stop?


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

Darlofan said:


> Doesn't matter if what he did was illegal, that's a seperate thing the police would look at. If you drive into a car parked on double yellows doesn't mean it's the other driver at fault. I think they'll go 50/50 just for an easy life but in reality you should have left enough of a gap to stop. To do a u turn he must have been slowing down unless he was handbraking it round so why were you so close that you couldn't stop?


Imagine when someone forgetting an exit at the last min and swerving to make it in time.
That's the best way I can explain how quickly he turned


----------



## SNAKEBITE (Feb 22, 2010)

Sad thing is that to make it easy they'll go 50/50.

To do otherwise will mean spending time and money on investigating it, which ultimately means less bubbly at the shareholders meeting, or maybe a veiled threat of everyone's premiums going up.

Don't expect the rozzers to get involved either, too much like hard work.

Any chance of witnesses/cctv/dashcams?


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

brobbo said:


> Imagine when someone forgetting an exit at the last min and swerving to make it in time.
> That's the best way I can explain how quickly he turned


But in that instance the car would be lane changing so would be at fault. He technically hasn't as it's where the single lane starts, another argument for you leaving more of a gap. The more I look at the photos the more I'm inclined to think you were trying to get past him before the single lane.


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

A passing observation is 50/50 at best. You might even be viewed as at fault as you went into the back of him from what I can see. I might be wrong. 

I went into the back of someone who missed their exit right turn off a road many years ago and decided to slam on the brakes. I got the blame fully as I went into the back of him regardless.


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

The 1st picture too shows a no u turn sign, so if there's 1 at the other end it could be just for that bit at the other side of the island in the photo. As Kerr said the broken white line on the chevrons is ok to cross whereas in the other direction it looks solid almost meaning there's a reason to cross the chevrons, road junction etc.


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

Darlofan said:


> But in that instance the car would be lane changing so would be at fault. He technically hasn't as it's where the single lane starts, another argument for you leaving more of a gap. The more I look at the photos the more I'm inclined to think you were trying to get past him before the single lane.


Thanks for your support, although I'm being upfront and honest about the situation.
There was no traffic on the road, absalutly no need to overtake him. 1.its dangerous. 2. For what reason when it's an average speed camera 50 yards in front.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

brobbo said:


> No I came round and he was in front of me. In the direction of traffic I was in the right and he was in the left lane(closest to the Kerb). I started merging into the left lane when he suddenly done a sharp brake and turned right as if to turn around. As it was a single lane with both a Kerb on the left of me and a traffic island on the right I made contact with his drivers door with my front passenger quarter/Passenger headlight.
> There is a boot sale in the field to the right of us on Sunday mornings, to get to the entrance of the boot sale when coming from my direction you would have to travel 2.2miles down the carriage way and turn around and come back on yourself.


Can you link the road so people can see it better?

Although you say the car boot was on the right, he'd need to perform a u-turn rather than turning right? You can cross chevrons that are not in solid lines, but I can't quite work out the layout. I now see that the picture with the Jeep shows a full u-turn and heading back down the slip road?

I can't really make out how you've ran into the side of him. The dual carriageway looks short leading back to the roundabout/junction/slip road.

The Citroen van would need to be going really slow to perform a u-turn. If you were merging safely that would have had to be done before you've even got to this point. There doesn't look to be two lanes anywhere near this point.

How did you end up arriving at the position where an old Citroen van could slow and start performing a u-turn before a M135i with good brakes ran into the side of him? That just doesn't add up to me.


----------



## sshooie (May 15, 2007)

This is one of the reason's dashcams are invaluable.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

sshooie said:


> This is one of the reason's dashcams are invaluable.


What would a dashcam prove?


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

Kerr said:


> What would a dashcam prove?


I suppose either way, we'd be able to see exactly what went on... Could still be 50/50 in this particular case though.

The damage on the van does look like more of a side impact, like you were beside him when he attempted the U-turn? I can't see how the impact wouldn't be around the rear/offside given your description?


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

Right here is a diagram as such as to what happened.
The red line is the vans route,the blue is mine, the yellow is the route you would take if you did a u turn.
I can see you all saying not leaving enough room etc etc but this guy put his anchors and doing a sharp right turn leaving me no choice. I didn't go into the back of him, my left passenger light came in contact with his door.
Humour me for a second:
If I was by the side of him wouldn't I have damage to my passenger door/left rear wing? And the same goes for his rear quarter? 
For me to do serious damage just to his drivers door his vehicle would have had to be at an angle such as if you was doing a u turn?


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)




----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

I'm done explaining myself now, feel like I'm on trial with you lot
Cheers :wall:


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

brobbo said:


> I'm done explaining myself now, feel like I'm on trial with you lot
> Cheers :wall:


You did ask. Why get upset when you don't hear what you want to hear? Nobody has said anything bad and the majority see the accident differently from you.

I think it's clear he was turning hence the damage to the side of his van.

The lines show the merge should have happened some distance before the attempted u-turn. He clearly shouldn't have been doing a u-turn.

Even though what he was doing was wrong, I can't see how you can justify running into him. Even if he had to perform an emergency stop, you'd still have hit him.

If you had a safe gap your car would easily out brake a Citroen van.

I honestly can't see how you can't be held partially responsible.

It'll be interesting to hear if an illegal manoeuvre overrules bad driving.


----------



## Will_G (Jan 23, 2012)

To me it looks like you've been close to the side of him as the road goes back to one lane. It appears you were in the lane to merge with his lane. He's possibly tried to do something naughty to close you off and you've collided. Cant see it other than 50/50.

Link to map for others
https://goo.gl/maps/DW1MDmus9xD2

If he had continued straight on were you planning on overtaking him by the end of the merge or were you planning to slot in behind?


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

Will_G said:


> To me it looks like you've been close to the side of him as the road goes back to one lane. It appears you were in the lane to merge with his lane. He's possibly tried to do something naughty to close you off and you've collided. Cant see it other than 50/50.
> 
> Link to map for others
> https://goo.gl/maps/DW1MDmus9xD2
> ...


No wasn't planning on an overtake as its a 2 mile stretch of average speed cameras about 50 mtrs from where the accident happened.


----------



## sshooie (May 15, 2007)

Kerr said:


> What would a dashcam prove?


Disproving accounts are often just as important, otherwise it's he said, she said and witnesses who may not see the whole account, that's exactly when the insurers will bend you both over and settle 50/50 and both lose ncb etc.


----------



## sshooie (May 15, 2007)

Had he slammed on and swerved for a pedestrian etc it would have been the same outcome imo, unfortunately you will more than likely have to bear some, if not all the responsibility, they may charge him with reckless or dwodc but more than likely each insurer will just pay for their own damage and you will both lose ncb.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

brobbo said:


> No wasn't planning on an overtake as its a 2 mile stretch of average speed cameras about 50 mtrs from where the accident happened.


Looking at the street view now that Will G has linked, and your photographs, it's a clear day, the road has very good visibility, the double lanes end long before the accident position, it's a 50mph zone.

How did you end up running into the side of a Citroen van? I just can't see how driving normally that could happen.

Yes I do understand he was performing an illegal u-turn, but surely you'd see brake lights on the van, your car catching up and know you had to react?

How could an old Citroen van outbrake a car with quality brakes and tyres, then begin to perform a u-turn?

I honestly can't see any other reasonable explanation other than you weren't paying attention, going too fast or were far too close.


----------



## macca666 (Mar 30, 2010)

Kerr I don't think an illegal manoeuvre will have much of an effect here. Dependant on how illegal a manoeuvre was i.e. speeding the wrong way down a one way Street it may have an effect but in this case I don't think it will.

It would generally have an effect as to whether Police may be involved or any charges against one driver i.e. careless driving or similar but my understanding is unless it's something blatant like my example above then it is unlikely that it would have an effect.

I'm with others and I know it's not what you want to hear OP but unless the other driver admits full liability then I think it'll be 50/50.

If the driver admits liability you should be OK though.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

sshooie said:


> Disproving accounts are often just as important, otherwise it's he said, she said and witnesses who may not see the whole account, that's exactly when the insurers will bend you both over and settle 50/50 and both lose ncb etc.


The way I'm reading this is the OP thinks that because the other driver performed an illegal u-turn this solely means he's at fault.

It's either that the driver at fault is 100% to blame for his illegal turn, or the OP has to take some blame for being too close. It's pretty much always that the driver behind is at fault.

A dashcam might be handy, but I don't think it would help the OP one bit. The circumstances don't appear to be under question, just the responsibility in such actions.


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

Kerr said:


> The way I'm reading this is the OP thinks that because the other driver performed an illegal u-turn this solely means he's at fault.
> 
> It's either that the driver at fault is 100% to blame for his illegal turn, or the OP has to take some blame for being too close. It's pretty much always that the driver behind is at fault.
> 
> A dashcam might be handy, but I don't think it would help the OP one bit. The circumstances don't appear to be under question, just the responsibility in such actions.


I can see it going 50/50 tbh, don't hold much hope as 80% have said its 50/50.
Being as it was a clear day with no traffic I couldn't see any reason for the vehicle to stop/slow down/ do a u turn.
It was unexpected so I guess I panicked and just tried to stop without hitting him resulting in me going into the side of him.


----------



## Cookies (Dec 10, 2008)

Firstly, really sorry to read this chum. However nice the car, it can be fixed. I take it nobody was hurt?

Anyway, from what I read from your posts and the diagrams, I think you may have been driving a bit too close, otherwise when he slammed on his brakes, you'd have been able to stop behind him, and not alongside. Now, I completely understand that when merging, you filter into the lane and then adjust your distance from the car in front, that's what usually happens in my experience. So there may be a few seconds where you merge a little too close to the car in front, technically speaking of course. I genuinely think it was just bad luck and timing for you to be merging, seeing that all was clear in front of him, and him slamming on the anchors and swerving right. 

I'd also hazard a guess that it'll be a 50/50 as his insurance company will more than likely be asking why you couldn't stop behind him, instead of going along side him and colliding with his door. 

Just my reading of the situation chum. Hope you get the car sorted btw. 

All the best. 

Cooks

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

Kerr said:


> It'll be interesting to hear if an illegal manoeuvre overrules bad driving.


Put it this way about 10 years ago I was reversing across a crossroads when I was it in the side. Other driver did one and having his reg number I didn't take off after him. Police came and said other car was down as scrapped. A neighbour came out and said she thought she knew him. Police **** me to one side and said as what I'd done was illegal it would be better not persuing it as regardless of other drivers circumstances I'd be at fault.


----------



## Rayaan (Jun 1, 2014)

Looks like you hit the side of him. 

If there's 2 lanes becoming 1, one guy usually has to go in front of the other and it appears the white van got there first especially since the lanes become 1 quite a long distance away from the accident and the front of your car hit the side of his.

You might even have to take full liability for this one if they realise how far it is from the merging lanes


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Rayaan said:


> Looks like you hit the side of him.
> 
> If there's 2 lanes becoming 1, one guy usually has to go in front of the other and it appears the white van got there first especially since the lanes become 1 quite a long distance away from the accident and the front of your car hit the side of his.
> 
> You might even have to take full liability for this one if they realise how far it is from the merging lanes


Mmm. What exactly was the OP doing not merging about where the silver car is on google maps? Was there some reason not for merging?

Didn't notice that before, but if you were merging into the left lane, you give way, OP didn't.


----------



## Titanium Htail (Mar 24, 2012)

Does the White van not have a duty of care to other road users, if he looked in his mirror would he not have seen you coming, so if he did look and proceeded anyway, or he did not look. For all you know he could have been stopping.

All that said, nobody was hurt fortunately cost will always be a factor.


----------



## mart. (Jul 7, 2008)

Sorry I cant see how you hit him like that from this view

Should have been sat far enough back to avoid him .


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

the way i see that is, there is a "no u turn" sign for a reason, accident hotspot maybe? otherwise what is the point of it being there??????? has to be a major factor surely?

maybe the van slowed as if it was broken down, pulling to the left side of the road, then without looking or indicating, it just turned in his path? van driver driving without due care and attention? but then, speaking from experience, insurance companies don't have any intention of helping you out, just themselves

just a theory


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

bidderman1969 said:


> the way i see that is, there is a "no u turn" sign for a reason, accident hotspot maybe? otherwise what is the point of it being there??????? has to be a major factor surely?
> 
> maybe the van slowed as if it was broken down, pulling to the left side of the road, then without looking or indicating, it just turned in his path? van driver driving without due care and attention? but then, speaking from experience, insurance companies don't have any intention of helping you out, just themselves
> 
> just a theory


Strange opinion to have. Unless the same insurance company is insuring more than one of the cars involved it's in their interests to fight for you. What they do have on their side is an awful lot of experience and will have a good idea what is worth fighting and what is not. It costs them to pay out but it will cost them more to try and fight it if they lose so they don't fight stuff if they don't expect to get the benefit of it.

Chances are the driver of the other vehicle, if he has any sense, will deny doing a u-turn so unless there's footage and/or reliable witnesses it's 50/50 at best.

If the other driver admits to slamming on the brakes and doing a u-turn does it make the accident anything other than a 50/50? I'm not sure it would. The only thing I can think of in this case that would make it anything other than 50/50 at best would be if the other driver had pulled out to do a u-turn from a stationary/parked position.

At the end of the day the OP was following at a distance and speed which meant he was unable to avoid a collision when the vehicle he was following braked suddenly. Not crashing into the vehicle in front is pretty much the first thing you're taught in a driving lesson and should be a pretty high priority whenever you're on the road. :driver:

Surely both OP and the third party were driving without due care and attention?


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

To me it looks like the BMW has tried to get past or stop the van from getting ahead of him where it goes from two lanes into one. From the streetview screenshot earlier in the thread, it's a pretty narrow road when it merges into one lane so was inevitable that the two vehicles were going to collide if side by side on the single carriageway.

Looking at the way the van door is folded forward, that would suggest that the BMW has been trying to push past, if he had been braking it wouldn't have folded up like that i don't think.

OP - I don't mean to jump on the bandwagon and try to shame you on here, just how i see it from the info you've given. I'm pretty sure the majority of the drivers on here have done some sort of bad driving at some point or another in their life.

Out of interest, did the airbags go off? I had a bmw 1 series a few years back which had a very similar amount of damage in an accident and the airbags went off. Was very surprised given the relatively light damage, bodyshop engineer said it was because the driveshaft had been given a big jolt, the car thought it was in a major accident.


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

rf860 said:


> To me it looks like the BMW has tried to get past or stop the van from getting ahead of him where it goes from two lanes into one. From the streetview screenshot earlier in the thread, it's a pretty narrow road when it merges into one lane so was inevitable that the two vehicles were going to collide if side by side on the single carriageway.
> 
> Looking at the way the van door is folded forward, that would suggest that the BMW has been trying to push past, if he had been braking it wouldn't have folded up like that i don't think.
> 
> ...


No it's quite alright, I can understand the points you've put across, obviously I was tired at the time, with that added to the guy doing what he done added up to a collision I guess.

No airbags went off no


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

I would say this will be determined by the angle of the impact on the van. If what the OP is saying, then in my opinion it will be a non fault accident. And yes, performing an illegal manouvre will have an influence on a decision, especially when it has contributed to the reason for the accident.

An incident as a result of a two lane merge would be more of a side on side impact and different from a direct impact as a result of a vehicle in the left hand lane turning hard right in front of a vehicle in the right hand lane.

By the way, 50/50 doesn't mean both insurers will get their excess, as 50% of losses are recoverable in the event of a 50/50 split liability decision. 

If it is determined that the van had


----------



## steve6690 (Feb 25, 2016)

I've had a play with Google street view from different angles and although my initial view was 50/50 I now think it was 100% the van drivers fault.
Traffic merging from 2 lanes into 1 nearly always has to, for a brief moment, be too close to the vehicle in front. That's because of the behaviour of traffic on the nearside which never leaves a proper gap, and often even deliberately closes up to stop someone getting back in.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.56509,0.5421079,3a,75y,340.92h,81.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgSnFVmWzLpo6wvovIKWhrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Looking at the view in the linked image shows two vehicles merging in what would be considered a normal manner of driving. Imagine a van in front of the first car suddenly anchoring up and doing a u-turn. The damage profile backs it up too, as the damage to the van is consistent with it turning across the BMW's path.
From a police point and view - cut and dried, the collision was caused by the actions of the van driver. Insurance companies can see things differently though.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

steve6690 said:


> I've had a play with Google street view from different angles and although my initial view was 50/50 I now think it was 100% the van drivers fault.
> Traffic merging from 2 lanes into 1 nearly always has to, for a brief moment, be too close to the vehicle in front. That's because of the behaviour of traffic on the nearside which never leaves a proper gap, and often even deliberately closes up to stop someone getting back in.
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.56509,0.5421079,3a,75y,340.92h,81.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgSnFVmWzLpo6wvovIKWhrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> ...


That's a good angle.

To be fair though, Insurers often rely on police reports to determine liability. If the police point of view is cut and dry, then a court's point of view "should" also be cut and dry. Insurers look at liability from a legal prospective.


----------



## steve6690 (Feb 25, 2016)

Shiny said:


> That's a good angle.
> 
> *To be fair though, Insurers often rely on police reports to determine liability*. If the police point of view is cut and dry, then a court's point of view "should" also be cut and dry. Insurers look at liability from a legal prospective.


True. I think they pay around £80 for a copy of the police report and it wouldn't make much sense to ignore its conclusions.


----------



## slim_boy_fat (Jun 23, 2006)

Did the Police *actually* attend the accident? These days, unless there are injuries, they're sometimes reluctant to turn out.

If there's been confirmation of that, I've missed it.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

slim_boy_fat said:


> Did the Police *actually* attend the accident? These days, unless there are injuries, they're sometimes reluctant to turn out.
> 
> If there's been confirmation of that, I've missed it.


It hasn't been said and it is most likely that they didn't. This is more of a case that Steve6690 was looking at it from a police perspective :thumb:


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

slim_boy_fat said:


> Did the Police *actually* attend the accident? These days, unless there are injuries, they're sometimes reluctant to turn out.
> 
> If there's been confirmation of that, I've missed it.


They did attend, towed my car out the way onto the grass and asked if I've exchanged details and left me to it.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Fair do's. As there were no injuries, I suspect it was more of a case of just getting the traffic moving again.

If they didn't interview you and take details, then it is unlikely they will have an incident report, which is a shame.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

steve6690 said:


> I've had a play with Google street view from different angles and although my initial view was 50/50 I now think it was 100% the van drivers fault.
> Traffic merging from 2 lanes into 1 nearly always has to, for a brief moment, be too close to the vehicle in front. That's because of the behaviour of traffic on the nearside which never leaves a proper gap, and often even deliberately closes up to stop someone getting back in.
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.56509,0.5421079,3a,75y,340.92h,81.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgSnFVmWzLpo6wvovIKWhrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> ...


I don't think the image does show merging in turn normally, I don't see why the renault hasn't changed to the inside lane well before the lane ends. Either they need to accelerate or give way to the car in the inside lane.

The u turn looks illegitimate but so does the renault in that lane, the damage profile certainly looks closer to a van turning into their path.

I'd be very curious about what insurers say.


----------



## mart. (Jul 7, 2008)

All the damage on both vehicles is on the sides. 

Still looks like it happened in the merge if you were behind him I would have thought you would have damaged the front of your car ?


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

mart. said:


> All the damage on both vehicles is on the sides.
> 
> Still looks like it happened in the merge if you were behind him I would have thought you would have damaged the front of your car ?


Surely that would depend on what angle he was at?
When I collided with him he was just turning, if he was at 90 degrees to me then all my front bumper would be damaged


----------



## steve6690 (Feb 25, 2016)

RisingPower said:


> I don't think the image does show merging in turn normally, I don't see why the renault hasn't changed to the inside lane well before the lane ends. Either they need to accelerate or give way to the car in the inside lane.
> 
> The u turn looks illegitimate but so does the renault in that lane, the damage profile certainly looks closer to a van turning into their path.
> 
> I'd be very curious about what insurers say.


None of the cars in that image are doing anything wrong. Sometimes people will drift across slowly into lane 1 depending on lots of factors - the behaviour of traffic to their nearside being just one.
The Renault, being ahead of the car to its nearside should not need to give way. If you're ahead of a car to your nearside when filtering, common sense dictates that car really should give way to you as you have effectively overtaken it, although you shouldn't overtake unless you have identified your gap.

The Germans have this sussed. I think they call it "Reissverschluss Verfahren" (zipper traffic) and by law a car in lane 1 must give way to one car in lane 2 if that lane is ending ie you must allow one car to filter in ahead of you.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

steve6690 said:


> None of the cars in that image are doing anything wrong. Sometimes people will drift across slowly into lane 1 depending on lots of factors - the behaviour of traffic to their nearside being just one.
> The Renault, being ahead of the car to its nearside should not need to give way. If you're ahead of a car to your nearside when filtering, common sense dictates that car really should give way to you as you have effectively overtaken it, although you shouldn't overtake unless you have identified your gap.
> 
> The Germans have this sussed. I think they call it "Reissverschluss Verfahren" (zipper traffic) and by law a car in lane 1 must give way to one car in lane 2 if that lane is ending ie you must allow one car to filter in ahead of you.


Rules 160 and 163, and in fact all the rules on overtaking. Not overtaking, keep left.

Common sense dictates that you give way to them, no other way. You give way to the traffic in the inside lane.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

RisingPower said:


> Rules 160 and 163, and in fact all the rules on overtaking. Not overtaking, keep left.
> 
> Common sense dictates that you give way to them, no other way. You give way to the traffic in the inside lane.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203


If you're suggesting the rules for overtaking apply to the rules for merging where two lanes become one I think you're wrong. Have you looked up those rules in the highway code?


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Nanoman said:


> If you're suggesting the rules for overtaking apply to the rules for merging where two lanes become one I think you're wrong. Have you looked up those rules in the highway code?


I'm suggesting the rules for keeping to the inside lane apply irrespective of whether there is a lane for filtering or not.


----------



## brobbo (Oct 19, 2007)

So I'm going to send the photos of the junction and the pictures I took at the scene tomorrow, is there anything specific I should be saying to strengthen my case?


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

RisingPower said:


> I'm suggesting the rules for keeping to the inside lane apply irrespective of whether there is a lane for filtering or not.


It's irrelevant. This is just after a roundabout/junction, a very common place for lanes to merge. You could be in the right hand lane by following the rules, not by overtaking.

Fair enough it may be a bit more relevant if you're talking about lanes merging on a motorway or dual carriageway, not just after a junction or roundabout but remember the Highway Code recommends merging in turn if it's safe to do so (zip system) where lanes merge. It doesn't mention anything about giving way to vehicles in the lane(s) to the left.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2016)

RisingPower said:


> I'm suggesting the rules for keeping to the inside lane apply irrespective of whether there is a lane for filtering or not.


Actually, there are no such rules. You can use any lane you like. You can even use any opposing (offside) lanes. However, you should move to your left to let faster traffic pass if it is safe and reasonable for you to do so.

However, in the picture, the Renault was arguably towards the righthand side of a single lane (the lane separators had disappeared by that point). The driver was obviously busy oggling the Google car .


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2016)

steve6690 said:


> The Germans have this sussed. I think they call it "Reissverschluss Verfahren" (zipper traffic) and by law a car in lane 1 must give way to one car in lane 2 if that lane is ending ie you must allow one car to filter in ahead of you.


How I wish we had such a rule here. Mind you, it would probably make no difference, far too many Brits turn into self righteous monsters when they get behind the wheel.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

BareFacedGeek said:


> How I wish we had such a rule here. Mind you, it would probably make no difference, far too many Brits turn into self righteous monsters when they get behind the wheel.


People just don't know how to use a merge system here.

Loads of people will join the left hand lane at the very back of the queue and not use the right lane. If you use the right lane you can see other drivers getting upset about it. You are made to feel bad if you try to use a merge system correctly.

Then there is the other drivers who feel it's their job to sit out and block the right lane from when they reach the very back of the queue.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2016)

Kerr said:


> People just don't know how to use a merge system here.
> 
> Loads of people will join the left hand lane at the very back of the queue and not use the right lane. If you use the right lane you can see other drivers getting upset about it. You are made to feel bad if you try to use a merge system correctly.
> 
> Then there is the other drivers who feel it's their job to sit out and block the right lane from when they reach the very back of the queue.


So very true! And, drivers in the LH lane then bunch up preventing any merging from those in the RH lane, causing even more congestion.


----------



## macca666 (Mar 30, 2010)

BareFacedGeek said:


> So very true! And, drivers in the LH lane then bunch up preventing any merging from those in the RH lane, causing even more congestion.


Then you've got the drivers who speed up the outside lane until the very last minute then expect someone to let them in immediately or just drive on the hatch markings forcing someone to stop and let them in!


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2016)

macca666 said:


> Then you've got the drivers who speed up the outside lane until the very last minute then expect someone to let them in immediately or just drive on the hatch markings forcing someone to stop and let them in!


Yep, as bad as each other really. Those drivers just seeing it as an opportunity to jump the queue. We just don't know how to merge properly. To be fair, we don't get taught how to do it in the first place.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Nanoman said:


> It's irrelevant. This is just after a roundabout/junction, a very common place for lanes to merge. You could be in the right hand lane by following the rules, not by overtaking.
> 
> Fair enough it may be a bit more relevant if you're talking about lanes merging on a motorway or dual carriageway, not just after a junction or roundabout but remember the Highway Code recommends merging in turn if it's safe to do so (zip system) where lanes merge. It doesn't mention anything about giving way to vehicles in the lane(s) to the left.


Sure, you could be in the right hand lane, but if there is nothing in the left hand lane, what exactly is the reasoning for hindering the progress of other road users?

Merging implies moving, they're not, they're waiting for the last possible moment to merge when there is no traffic.

Merge in turn would work perfectly, if, they were to merge, without forcing traffic in the other lane to come to a standstill. I'm yet to see this happen though and so far as i'm aware it's recommended at low speeds only.

Ok, you're right, it doesn't mention giving way, however it does mention you should only change lanes if it is possible to do so without forcing the user of the other lane to brake or change direction.


----------



## Crafty (Aug 4, 2007)

Kerr said:


> People just don't know how to use a merge system here.
> 
> Loads of people will join the left hand lane at the very back of the queue and not use the right lane. If you use the right lane you can see other drivers getting upset about it. You are made to feel bad if you try to use a merge system correctly.
> 
> Then there is the other drivers who feel it's their job to sit out and block the right lane from when they reach the very back of the queue.


I agree to an extent, but there are an equal number of people that will use the right lane of a merge and rather than attempting to merge just drive straight to the point that they can't drive any further without hitting oncoming traffic, forcing whatever car is in the left lane to give way.

There is a merge coming off a roundabout near me, the merge is probably 100 feet after the exit and every single day the above happens. I've actually seen oncoming traffic have to avoid a car in the right lane because they refuse to merge and see it as their right to drive to the very point of merge and be let in. This is so they can get two or three cars ahead, which probably amounts to a whole 5 seconds saved on their journey.

Its not only those int he left lane that are at fault.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

BareFacedGeek said:


> Actually, there are no such rules. You can use any lane you like. You can even use any opposing (offside) lanes. *However, you should move to your left to let faster traffic pass if it is safe and reasonable for you to do so.*
> 
> However, in the picture, the Renault was arguably towards the righthand side of a single lane (the lane separators had disappeared by that point). The driver was obviously busy oggling the Google car .


Yup and it looks safe and reasonable to do so.

Also, rules 160 so far as I understand and maybe wrongly says keep left.

The driver wasn't most likely aware of anything until the road ended directly in front of them.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Crafty said:


> I agree to an extent, but there are an equal number of people that will use the right lane of a merge and rather than attempting to merge just drive straight to the point that they can't drive any further without hitting oncoming traffic, forcing whatever car is in the left lane to give way.
> 
> There is a merge coming off a roundabout near me, the merge is probably 100 feet after the exit and every single day the above happens. I've actually seen oncoming traffic have to avoid a car in the right lane because they refuse to merge and see it as their right to drive to the very point of merge and be let in. This is so they can get two or three cars ahead, which probably amounts to a whole 5 seconds saved on their journey.
> 
> Its not only those int he left lane that are at fault.


Mmm also on slip roads which are apparently for forcing your way onto a motorway at 20mph, forcing all traffic on the motorway to either slam on brakes, change lanes and cause them to slam on, or just an accident.


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

RisingPower said:


> Sure, you could be in the right hand lane, but if there is nothing in the left hand lane, what exactly is the reasoning for hindering the progress of other road users?


If you enter a roundabout in the right hand lane you should exit the roundabout in the right hand lane. If that 2 lane road quickly becomes 1 lane... Same goes for if you're in a single lane road that joins another road to form 2 lanes then quickly becomes 1 lane.

Both reasons for being in the right hand lane which merges despite never overtaking anything. Overtaking has nothing to do with it in both these common cases. I think this thread is another example of being in the right hand lane for following the rules where overtaking doesn't come into it.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Nanoman said:


> If you enter a roundabout in the right hand lane you should exit the roundabout in the right hand lane. If that 2 lane road quickly becomes 1 lane... Same goes for if you're in a single lane road that joins another road to form 2 lanes then quickly becomes 1 lane.
> 
> Both reasons for being in the right hand lane which merges despite never overtaking anything. Overtaking has nothing to do with it in both these common cases. I think this thread is another example of being in the right hand lane for following the rules where overtaking doesn't come into it.


Nope, depends on which way you're going. You should keep in the left lane unless you're either overtaking or the road changes directions / splits.

"When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want."

See pretty picture here.

http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road---roundabouts-184-to-190.html


----------



## Cookies (Dec 10, 2008)

RisingPower said:


> Nope, depends on which way you're going. You should keep in the left lane unless you're either overtaking or the road changes directions / splits.
> 
> "When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
> signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
> ...


The amount of folk I see nowadays who approach a roundabout in the nearside (left) lane, with the intention of taking an exit at the 3 or 4 o'clock position is just incredible. How so many people can be unaware of how to position themselves for a right turn is bewildering.

Sorry for taking it off topic OP.

Cooks

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk


----------



## macca666 (Mar 30, 2010)

:lol::lol::lol:

Think we all agree that drivers are either selfish, ignorant or just downright stupid. The standards of driving nowadays is terrible and everyone thinks it's the other driver to blame......and I appreciate most times it is though we're straying off topic from the OP.

It amazes me how impolite drivers can be these days. I accept we all make mistakes but when we do why do we always want to argue or shout at the other driver who is actually in the right. A wave of the hand in acknowledgement or a flash of the hazards goes a long way and 9 times out of 10 will diffuse a situation rather than no acknowledgement which just aggravates the matter.

On another note I've just been on holiday in Italy and if you think British driving is bad you ain't seen nothing :wall::wall::lol:


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Cookies said:


> The amount of folk I see nowadays who approach a roundabout in the nearside (left) lane, with the intention of taking an exit at the 3 or 4 o'clock position is just incredible. How so many people can be unaware of how to position themselves for a right turn is bewildering.
> 
> Sorry for taking it off topic OP.
> 
> ...


Yup, causes plenty of accidents. Because you can just decide whenever you want to go wherever ignoring anything around you.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

macca666 said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> Think we all agree that drivers are either selfish, ignorant or just downright stupid. The standards of driving nowadays is terrible and everyone thinks it's the other driver to blame......and I appreciate most times it is though we're straying off topic from the OP.
> 
> ...


Yup, people can make mistakes, but there tends to be a difference between those who completely ignore any other traffic on the road and then flip other road users the bird when they cut the other road user up, or those who acknowledge they may have erred.

These days imho it's a real "me first" attitude wherever, no matter what accidents it causes along the way.


----------



## macca666 (Mar 30, 2010)

RisingPower said:


> Yup, people can make mistakes, but there tends to be a difference between those who completely ignore any other traffic on the road and then flip other road users the bird when they cut the other road user up, or those who acknowledge they may have erred.
> 
> These days imho it's a real "me first" attitude wherever, no matter what accidents it causes along the way.


I know we all have a funny story about this but I'm on the motorbike coming up to roadworks on a dual carriageway which I know are there because I travel the road everyday. Outside lane is closed so I'm slowing down to about 60 when a car overtakes and is level with me. We approach the 800 yards merge signs at which the driver brakes as she sharply pulls into the inside lane.

Not wanting to get sideswiped on the bike I brake and have to go onto the hard shoulder whilst sounding my horn (granted on a Honda cbr600 it's not very loud or macho :lol.

I pull in from the hard shoulder behind the vehicle travelling behind it at 50 through the roadworks whilst shaking my head in disbelief.

As we clear the roadworks I overtake only to be given the finger and some verbal which I couldn't quite lip-read :wall::wall::wall:

At this point I can clearly see that both the driver and passenger are in their 80s and just think WTF is going on in the world these days :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Rayaan (Jun 1, 2014)

Or some roads are just badly designed and you have no chance if you're passing by in the area for the first time


----------



## macca666 (Mar 30, 2010)

Rayaan said:


> Or some roads are just badly designed and you have no chance if you're passing by in the area for the first time


I agree with this completely which is why an acknowledgement goes a long way as we all make mistakes.

As stated by others though some people think everyone else should just get out their way no matter what.

In my example it was a straight piece of dual carriageway and you could see well in advance plus the driver pulled in immediately upon seeing the roadworks sign clearly not checking if the inside lane was clear. The merge was still 800 yds away!!

Again an apology acknowledgement would've went a long way rather than giving me the finger and I genuinely to this day have no idea what was going through her head to give me the finger


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

the only time i see traffic merging successfully, is when there is a sign up saying "MERGE IN TURN", otherwise, forget it, :lol::lol:


----------



## alan hanson (May 21, 2008)

RisingPower said:


> Yup, people can make mistakes, but there tends to be a difference between those who completely ignore any other traffic on the road and then flip other road users the bird when they cut the other road user up, or those who acknowledge they may have erred.
> 
> These days imho it's a real "me first" attitude wherever, no matter what accidents it causes along the way.


these be the ones who grip the steering wheel as though it's going to fall off look straight ahead don't move an inch or look else where. ignorance makes it fine it seems driving now is a selfish world everyone in a hurry and no one's willing to have manners etc...


----------



## ffrs1444 (Jun 7, 2008)

Who drives A303 often will find out


----------



## slim_boy_fat (Jun 23, 2006)

ffrs1444 said:


> Who drives A303 often will find out


Is that another way of saying "Who dares, wins"?


----------



## ffrs1444 (Jun 7, 2008)

slim_boy_fat said:


> Is that another way of saying "Who dares, wins"?


Its how some old returd struck my car


----------

