Is200 Accident Not My Fault Honest

[DINO]

Hi all,

My beloved is was hit by a FXXXER 1 month ago near a junction. To top it off the repair work was not good enough, who MoreThan use (DWS Bodyworks DO NOT USE THEM). In the end after not accepting the car it was done but the paint will never exactly match, due to the car being 8yrs old and sunlight affecting paintwork. Am I right in what i'm saying?

Secondly the other party claimed I went into him. I was in the left lane approaching the junction, he was on the right lane. i was going straight over the junction, whcih has only one lane. He was also going straight from the right lane. I was half a car ahead of him when he collided into me. Damage under my drivers door and then scraped the rest of the side to the back bumper. The Insurance company are saying its 50/50, as there are no witnesses, which either me or him could get due to the junction being busy. Is there anything I can do other than go to court as they will also say 50/50 or should I accept the losses and move on. What are youre thoughts.

[TigerFish]

I had a similar incident years ago and I refused the 50/50 settlement. In the end, due to the positioning of the damage (rear half of the car like yours), 100% liability was attributed to the other party.

[Andy-R]

Has the other party admitted to being in the right hand lane? if so take a pic of the road markings at the junction if the left hand lane is straight ahead only then there should be arrows to show it.

[Parthiban]

If this is what I think it is and simply a lane merger, surely whoever's behind should give way to the other car merging? Therefore as long as the damage starts on your car half way down, and his car is damaged at the front, then he's clearly just driven straight into you and therefore it's his fault.

I'd fight that to be honest if you have the time to do so.

[DINO]

Has the other party admitted to being in the right hand lane? if so take a pic of the road markings at the junction if the left hand lane is straight ahead only then there should be arrows to show it.

The other party cannot say otherwise due to the damage on my driver side.

[DINO]

Has the other party admitted to being in the right hand lane? if so take a pic of the road markings at the junction if the left hand lane is straight ahead only then there should be arrows to show it.

The orad was re-turfed so the marking were not there. But the left lane is to go left or straight and the right is to go right, if the lane accross the junction is a single lane, which it is.

[Steviewevie]

The trouble is, even if the damage is halfway down your car, in theory it could have been that you came across into his lane in front of him, I don't think the location of the damage really helps here. What you need are witnesses (or the other party admitting it was his fault, or photos), and if you can't get them then I'm not sure you'll get better than a 50/50 claim.

[Parthiban]

I don't think it's complicated at all, if two lanes merge to one, the traffic has to merge.

As long as both lanes were allowed to travel straight, the car in front has right of way, the other car essentially just drove straight into the side of you. You were in front, which means the other car should have pulled back to let you through.

The simple question is this - a 50/50 means that you were partially to blame. What exactly should you have done then if you were in front? Stop and pull behind the car that was behind you? Sounds ridiculous to me............

[DINO]

The trouble is, even if the damage is halfway down your car, in theory it could have been that you came across into his lane in front of him, I don't think the location of the damage really helps here. What you need are witnesses (or the other party admitting it was his fault, or photos), and if you can't get them then I'm not sure you'll get better than a 50/50 claim.

The other party is claiming that I came accross into his lane. But the lane merges into one after the junction, and I was half a car ahead of him, as the point of impact was under my drivers door to the back. Unfortunatley there were no witnesses, photos of the accident were given but just of the damage, not where the cars were positioned on impact. He was stationary at the lights on the right, I was approaching the lights, they turned green, I continued and he took off and went into me. This was just after the traffic lights in the box junction, before you merge into one lane after the junction. But as you say how can I prove this, such is life, should I just bear the loss?

[Andy-R]

If there is no lane to merge from the right through the junction then he's in the wrong as long as he's admitted trying to go straight on from a right hand turn only lane, even if the road markings are gone there must be some road signs to indicate which lane's which.

[Steviewevie]

That's kind of what I mean, it depends on what the other guy is saying. If he admits that you were over the roundabout and merging into one lane when the accident happened then the location of the damage might help. But if he's claiming it happened on the roundabout and there's no other evidence to say otherwise then I can't see how you can prove it was down to him.

[Rich OB]

It does also depend on what type of merge it was. For example if it was a marked merge say where you are being guided into the other lane, you are ahead then yes the car behind should've dropped back, but at the same time you still need to be sure the driver has. If it was just a 2 lane road getting narrower then you would need a signal to pull out in front of another car especially as you were on the left coming out to the right, which is the side you can legally overtake, Its like Stevie said you need to have an independent whitness.

As you say Dino the left lane is usually to go straight and left only, and the right lane to only go right, but as the road was being re-turfed there were no road markings. The other driver can't then be wrong for going straight from the right. But its worth pointing out to the insurance company that this is the normal lane discipline.

Dino, you also say the lights turned green on your approach, the other car was stationary. What it could seem like is that you undertook the other vehicle and tried to cut back in again the other side of the junction before you ran out of road/lane? Even if the right lane is usually only to turn right if there are no road markings the other driver can't be wrong for going ahead from that lane. If the markings were present it'd be more or less his fault. Also if you're used to the road and know how the road works, did you just automatically expect him to turn right as you approached the red light turning green?

[Parthiban]

I noticed you're in stanmore, was it around there somewhere? If so I know the area a bit, where exactly did it happen?

I still think in a 2 lane merge to 1 situation, whoever's in front has the right of way - essentially he has hit you from behind which makes it his fault. His only argument can be that you cut across him before it was necessary to do so, i.e. before the two lanes merged, which is I assume what he is claiming?

If so, I guess with no witnesses it's going to be hard to settle as anything other than 50/50, but I'd still try and push that you drove straight on and he ploughed into you............

One thing to note for the future is that when something like this happens, stop your car right where it is, take pics of everything using your phone (everyone has a phone cam nowadays) and only move the car once you have decent evidence. Might stop the traffic for a few minutes, but saves your a** in the long run.........(it's happened to me in the past and I learned my lesson, luckily for me it was minor damage so I repaired it privately but that's what I'd do if it ever happened again)

[Rich OB]

Thats exactly right what Parthiban says, take pictures of the incident at impact! (Doesn't work very well if you're to blame though Lol!!)

I don't agree totally that just because you're the car infront you have right of way, its like saying if you can't see nothing beside or ahead of you before you merge then why look as you have right of way anyway. The driving essentails guide advises you to have a quick check of your blind spot before you merge, change direction or lane if you're not 100% sure it is safe to do so.

I think without any proper evidence or whitness it will be hard to prove who was wrong. 50/50 maybe all you can do.

[Parthiban]

I don't agree totally that just because you're the car infront you have right of way, its like saying if you can't see nothing beside or ahead of you before you merge then why look as you have right of way anyway. The driving essentails guide advises you to have a quick check of your blind spot before you merge, change direction or lane if you're not 100% sure it is safe to do so.

Yep I understand where you're coming from, and I never drive assuming that - in fact I drive assuming everyone else is an idiot so will always ensure that my car is hardly ever in a position where it could be hit..........

In the example above, the solution would simply be to nail the throttle as you go through the lights and the other guy would have been nowhere near you

However, now that it's happened, I don't think you can blame the car in front for someone hitting you from behind - unless you're a complete moron, if the lanes are merging and there's a car in front of you, you need to hang back to give them room to come in. It's almost as though he deliberately hit you as given everything above being accurate, you didn't take him by surprise or anything, he just drove into you.......

[DINO]

I noticed you're in stanmore, was it around there somewhere? If so I know the area a bit, where exactly did it happen?

I still think in a 2 lane merge to 1 situation, whoever's in front has the right of way - essentially he has hit you from behind which makes it his fault. His only argument can be that you cut across him before it was necessary to do so, i.e. before the two lanes merged, which is I assume what he is claiming?

If so, I guess with no witnesses it's going to be hard to settle as anything other than 50/50, but I'd still try and push that you drove straight on and he ploughed into you............

One thing to note for the future is that when something like this happens, stop your car right where it is, take pics of everything using your phone (everyone has a phone cam nowadays) and only move the car once you have decent evidence. Might stop the traffic for a few minutes, but saves your a** in the long run.........(it's happened to me in the past and I learned my lesson, luckily for me it was minor damage so I repaired it privately but that's what I'd do if it ever happened again)

Hi the accident happened not even a mile from my house. I was on Kenton lane approching the Kenton Rd junction to go to Preston Rd.

[Parthiban]

Hi the accident happened not even a mile from my house. I was on Kenton lane approching the Kenton Rd junction to go to Preston Rd.

Is that the junction that has an HSS hire shop on the corner?

[Rich OB]

Yeah i do hear what you're saying too Parthiban, you have a valid point and i guess the insurance companies are thinking along the same lines as this argument which is why they want to settle it at 50 50.

Hope it all works for the best though Dino, insurance companies are a complete nightmare when you want something from them for the hundreds you pay them each year!!

[Parthiban]

insurance companies are a complete nightmare when you want something from them for the hundreds you pay them each year!!

Totally mate, I wouldn't be surprised if they collude on cases like these - for them 50/50 is best, they each pay half for the claim, and both get to put up premiums for next year!

[DINO]

Hi the accident happened not even a mile from my house. I was on Kenton lane approching the Kenton Rd junction to go to Preston Rd.

Is that the junction that has an HSS hire shop on the corner?

Yup thats the one.

[Parthiban]

Yup thats the one.

Ahh right, I know that place. Have you sent photos of the junction to your insurance company?

There isn't really enough room there for the "one lane merges into the other" argument, so as you were the car in front it seems stupid to call that 50/50. I'd get some pics of the junction from the direction you would have been travelling and send them in to your ins co. asap so they get an idea of what sort of space there is.

[DINO]

It does also depend on what type of merge it was. For example if it was a marked merge say where you are being guided into the other lane, you are ahead then yes the car behind should've dropped back, but at the same time you still need to be sure the driver has. If it was just a 2 lane road getting narrower then you would need a signal to pull out in front of another car especially as you were on the left coming out to the right, which is the side you can legally overtake, Its like Stevie said you need to have an independent whitness.

As you say Dino the left lane is usually to go straight and left only, and the right lane to only go right, but as the road was being re-turfed there were no road markings. The other driver can't then be wrong for going straight from the right. But its worth pointing out to the insurance company that this is the normal lane discipline.

Dino, you also say the lights turned green on your approach, the other car was stationary. What it could seem like is that you undertook the other vehicle and tried to cut back in again the other side of the junction before you ran out of road/lane? Even if the right lane is usually only to turn right if there are no road markings the other driver can't be wrong for going ahead from that lane. If the markings were present it'd be more or less his fault. Also if you're used to the road and know how the road works, did you just automatically expect him to turn right as you approached the red light turning green?

Like I said I as I approached the junction the lights were green. He took off without looking as he assumed the left lane was clear before he moved. The junction is not sqaure, going straight means you will need to vear right slightly as the exit after the junction is not in line before the junction due to one lane. When I noticed passing him I stepped on the pedal to try and avoid him. As Partiban said assume al drivers are idots, which is what I have been doing for the past five yrs and avoid quit a few idots by not placing my self in a position where an accident could happen. But this time I could not avoid it as I had passed him. I cannot post the picture of the junction for some reason, but have a look in google 3d maps. Its Kenton Lane at the junction with Kenton Road, the exit after Kenton Lane is Woodcock hill.