car accident

[joox]

need some help plz for insurance companies. i had an accident last week and i want to know where i stand as myself and the other driver are both blaming each other.

 

i was trying to turn right to a main road and a white van gave me way and as i reached the middle of the road, marked by zig zag lines and as i was looking to my left for oncoming traffic and car which swerved around the van appeared in front of me and we had a collision, between the zig zag lines.

 

i hope the above info is clear and i would like to know who would be at fault here?

[sailor sam]

When you mean zig zag lines, do you mean chevrons similar to this;

 

[joox]

yes and then continued zig zag lines as an island/traffic light approching

[sailor sam]

So the car (TP) was approaching from the opposite direction behind the van and the van stopped to allow you to turn right (across the oncomming traffic) and you proceeded and collided with the car which 'undertook' the van? have I got the correct? I am of course assuming there is not restrictions at the location, for example 'no right turn' ect.

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[crem]

So the car (TP) was approaching from the opposite direction behind the van and the van stopped to allow you to turn right (across the oncomming traffic) and you proceeded and collided with the car which 'undertook' the van? have I got the correct? I am of course assuming there is not restrictions at the location, for example 'no right turn' ect.

 

The way I read it sailor sam is that the OP was turning right onto the main road; the van was to his right giving way to him. As the OP reached the chevons in the middle of the road, in order to continue onto the far side and complete his right turn, he needed to look left for moving traffic already in that lane. The 3rd party coming from the OP's right, overtook the white van, using the chevron area and hit the OP.

[sailor sam]

Yeah, that could be right Crem. Or the TP car could of under took the van and didn't see the OP until it was too late. Who's your money on?

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[joox]

The way I read it sailor sam is that the OP was turning right onto the main road; the van was to his right giving way to him. As the OP reached the chevons in the middle of the road, in order to continue onto the far side and complete his right turn, he needed to look left for moving traffic already in that lane. The 3rd party coming from the OP's right, overtook the white van, using the chevron area and hit the OP.

 

you almost got it. except somehow i collided with the other car, so basically my grill hit the passenger's door, but i think the other car was trying to get back to the correct side of the road

[sailor sam]

From what you describe (and i'm not 100% clear on what happened), i would put you as 75% at fault. You were the one making the manouvre across the flow of traffic and were not allowing for the possibility of traffic overtaking the van. However, I am assuming that the road is wide enough for a stationary vehicle to be overtaken. Also, like I say, I am not clear on what happened. Maybe a diagram would help (similar what you must of provided your insurers with). Also, were there any witnesses... what about the driver of the white van?

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[joox]

i do have a few diagrams . how do i attach here?

[joox]

i also have 2 witnesses who work in the shop and saw what happened

[sailor sam]

i do have a few diagrams . how do i attach here?

 

You need to scan them and upload via photobucket.com

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[crem]

From what you describe (and i'm not 100% clear on what happened), i would put you as 75% at fault. You were the one making the manouvre across the flow of traffic and were not allowing for the possibility of traffic overtaking the van.

 

I wouldn't go as high as 75% blame the way I picture it, possibly 25/75 the other way round. The 3rd party was overtaking a another vehicle, near a junction and appears to have used a chevroned area to do so.

 

You should not be overtaking;

1 unless you know why the vehicle in front has stopped/slowed down

2 near a junction

3 by using the chevroned area (which is probably there to protect a right

turner off the main road)

 

The opinion of independant witnesses is always benefitial and will carry more weight than the OP's or 3rd party's report who of course have a vested interest in blaming the other.

[sailor sam]

I wouldn't go as high as 75% blame the way I picture it, possibly 25/75 the other way round. The 3rd party was overtaking a another vehicle, near a junction and appears to have used a chevroned area to do so.

 

You should not be overtaking;

1 unless you know why the vehicle in front has stopped/slowed down

2 near a junction

3 by using the chevroned area (which is probably there to protect a right

turner off the main road)

 

The opinion of independant witnesses is always benefitial and will carry more weight than the OP's or 3rd party's report who of course have a vested interest in blaming the other.

 

I would like to agree with you Crem, but without more info I can't. I was hit once years ago by a car overtaking another which had stopped to give way to me and (I was crossing a 2 lane road) I came off worse financially. Mind you, I was young and foolish then... now i'm old and foolish!

Having said thsi, IF the car did use the chevron area to overtake and there are witnesses, then I would agree.

 

Like I said previously, it would help if we could see a diagram. One thing though to the OP, was there a gap in the chevrons to enable you to make the right turn?

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

Edited June 9, 2010 by sailor sam

[my-spirit-soars-free]

Where there solid white lines round the chevrons, or dotted ones?

[crem]

The pics are going to be real helpful. I hope joox can upload them soon.

 

....or how about giving us a junction location so that we can look on google earth.

[joox]

hope this works:

 

4shared.com - document sharing - download SKMBT_C25210060908480.pdf

[joox]

You should not be overtaking;

1 unless you know why the vehicle in front has stopped/slowed down

2 near a junction

3 by using the chevroned area (which is probably there to protect a right

turner off the main road)

 

 

this is what i think.

[crem]

From your sketch it would appear the 3rd party overtook a vehicle within the zigzag area of a pedestian crossing which is against the law.

 

A google location would still be helpful

 

 

The Highway Code

 

 

Pedestrian crossings (191-199)

 

 

191

 

You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

 

[Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28]

[sailor sam]

Although I can't see the image properly (too small), as Crem says it appears that there is a zebra crossing there which wasn't mentioned before. If crem is right and the TP overtook within the zig zags, then the accident was caused directly from a moving traffic offence. In these cases, the police could of been involved and you could of reported the TP to tem for the offence.

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[crem]

Although I can't see the image properly (too small),

 

Sailor Sam, Click the blue download link and then you can display the pic full screen size.

[sailor sam]

Got it Crem, pity we didn't know about the crossing in the first place. From the OPs diagram, it appears the van was hit also. Can the OP clarify this?

 

I'll take another look tomorrow, but I ant feeling 100% atm so i'm off to bed!

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[sailor sam]

Ok, I've given this some more thought;

 

The OP is turning right from side road into main road. (I'm assuming there is no resttrictions in preventing this). Van stops to allow OP to turn and TP overtakes van (within the zig zag markings and across chevrons) and collides with OP. That is my take on the situ after looking at the diagram.

 

My first impression is that the TP seems to have broken the law here and as such cauesd the collision. I always advise in calling the police when an incident like this occurs even if there are no injuries. I know the police will try and fob you off. but at the end of the day, they are obliged to take a statement from anyone reporting a crime. This can assist the insurance process as well in my opinion. There are witnesses available also.

 

Having sdaid that, the TP could argue that the OP failed to give way. Just because a vehicle stops to allow you to pull out, does not mean its safe to do so. So without adequate evidence and witness statements, the TPs insurers will look at it that way. If the police were to have prosecuted the TP for the offences which contributed to the accident, this would have strengthend the OPs position. (Lets face it, had there been any injuries, this would of been the case.) The way this now seems to me (and I hope I am wrong), it will end up as a 50/50 claim. I'm also concerned about the van. in the digaram, it appears it was hit as well so we need to establish by whom. Perhaps the OP can tell us.

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[joox]

sam you got the fact right but the van was not hit. as the van was turning left i was right. i am blaming the other driver not only for trying to overtake on the zig zags but for the fact she did not realise that the van is giving way and also slowing to turn left. the police was called but as there was no injury we were told to exchange details.

[sailor sam]

sam you got the fact right but the van was not hit. as the van was turning left i was right. i am blaming the other driver not only for trying to overtake on the zig zags but for the fact she did not realise that the van is giving way and also slowing to turn left. the police was called but as there was no injury we were told to exchange details.

 

Ahh! another twist! the van was turning left and presumably indicating as such. I didn't spot that previously. The police will only act if you say you want to make a complaint but they certainly won't suggest that you do so i'm not suprised at that.

 

Obviusly the TP has overtaken a vehicle which he believed was turning left. You were asked a few posts ago whether the hatched area was marked with broken or solid lines. If they were broken then the TP is entiltled to cross them under those circumstances, but if they were solid then he isn't. Can you give us the location so we can have a look on google?

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[crem]

You were asked a few posts ago whether the hatched area was marked with broken or solid lines. If they were broken then the TP is entiltled to cross them under those circumstances, but if they were solid then he isn't.

 

 

I agree to a point about being able to enter a hatched area surrounded by broken white lines, but that still doesn't take into account it was within a zebra crossing white zigzag area in which case the 3rd arty should not have been overtaking.

 

Personally I still feel this is heading towards being a 50/50. Remember, feeling morally right with your actions has nothing to do with how insurance companies settle these things, they only ever look at the finance side.