My crash. Thoughts on the write-up/diagram.

Please can I have comments on the following, which I will be sending to the insurers with the claim forms.

 

http://www.uk2sucks.net/crash.jpg

 

 

I was in the Toyota Supra (reg. no. M100 TLC), at point A in the diagram, waiting to turn right onto Viaduct Rd.

 

I was aware of two oncoming vehicles on the other side of Manchester Rd, vehicles B and C.

 

Vehicle C was at a safe distance for me to make the turn, vehicle B was not. At about vehicle B’s location marked on the diagram, vehicle B began to flash its RH indicator, as if to turn into George Richards Way. At this point, I decided to make my turn, since vehicle C was at a safe distance, and I thought vehicle B was going to turn away from me.

 

Unfortunately vehicle B was not turning, and was actually going straight ahead. At this point, we collided where the big X is on the diagram. The collision was slightly off head-on, as I had turned in to the other driver who was coming straight. My vehicle was left roughly where the collision happened, since I was barely moving, but vehicle B veered off into the railings at position E in the diagram.

 

I can only imagine that either the driver had accidentally caught their indicator, or had left the indicator on after overtaking.

 

Moreover, vehicle B could not have turned right, as the lane was for ahead only (not marked as such, but there is a designated filter lane for RH turns into George Richards way).

 

The filter lane is marked at position D.

 

It is my opinion that I was at fault for not being aware that vehicle B would not have been turning right, due to the presence of the filter lane, and also for relying on the indicator as fact that she would be turning.

Sadly I'd say you were still at fault (in the eye of the law). You should never take indication or lane position as gospel

Sadly I'd say you were still at fault (in the eye of the law). You should never take indication or lane position as gospel

 

I already knew that dude! Did you read the last line?

 

I just want to know if it sounds OK/honest/understandable, no big blunders that are gonna do me wrong or anything?

 

Diagram look OK? Could be better? Any offers to spruce it up?

 

That sort of thing!

 

I don't have the time to be arguing fault anyway, even if there was a very very remote chance of going knock-for-knock. I'm ready to accept liability and need to move on.

Sadly, I do believe - indicators mean f*** all it seems when it comes to these matters (even though I think you have a fair case) - it is like being flashed to *come on mate* - never ever heed that... you cannot use it as an excuse for misinterpreting people. That being said, how are you supposed to know the lane she was in was for ahead only by the way? - I myself as a visitor to your area would not know the road that well, and wouldn't be expected to determine that from my side of the road. These days I always assume everyone is a cnut and they are telling me lies... also I think I have managed to develop ESP! There are some whacky feckers out there on the road - I think they refer to indicators as "optional body lamps".

 

P.S> looks a decent enough diagram. I just wouldn't admit to knowing what her lane designation was for.

I just wouldn't admit to knowing what her lane designation was for.

 

Good point. See.. there's a blunder, and there's no lies either. Right after the crash, for 15 minutes I was saying "but she was indicating", then a lad said "yeah but she would have been in THAT lane if she was turning".

 

So I honestly didn't realise until I was told after the accident.

Oh hang on, you're telling me to act dumb on the "she would have had to have been in the filter lane if she was turning right.."

 

I don't see the point. I need this wrapped up ASAP.

You seem keen to admit fault. Will your insurance company be OK about that? I've been told that they don't like it.

You seem keen to admit fault. Will your insurance company be OK about that? I've been told that they don't like it.

 

I'm only admitting fault to my own insurer.

 

The form says "In your opinion, who or what was the cause of the accident"

 

Do you still have reservations or do you think I'm just answering the question honestly, in order to keep things swift?

Slight re-write, any better (last few paragraphs):

 

I was in the Toyota Supra (reg. no. M100 TLC), at point A in the diagram, waiting to turn right onto Viaduct Rd.

 

I was aware of two oncoming vehicles on the other side of Manchester Rd, vehicles B and C.

 

Vehicle C was at a safe distance for me to make the turn, vehicle B was not. At about vehicle B’s location marked on the diagram, vehicle B began to flash its RH indicator, as if to turn into George Richards Way. At this point, I decided to make my turn, since vehicle C was at a safe distance, and I thought vehicle B was going to turn away from me.

 

Unfortunately vehicle B was not turning, and was actually going straight ahead. At this point, we collided where the big X is on the diagram. The collision was slightly off head-on, as I had turned in to the other driver who was coming straight. My vehicle was left roughly where the collision happened, since I was barely moving, but vehicle B veered off into the railings at position E in the diagram.

 

I can only imagine that either the driver had accidentally caught their indicator, or had left the indicator on after overtaking.

 

I have since been made aware that vehicle B would have had to have been in the filter lane in order to be turning right, and realise therefore that this was my mistake.**

 

The filter lane is marked at position D.

 

It is my opinion that I was at fault for not being aware that vehicle B would not have been turning right, due to the presence of the filter lane.

 

**should I get rid of that bit? Keep it?

Get rid of it - less is more. You didn't know this at that time - how could you? You are applying afterthought to something that you are not sensibly supposed to know as far as I can tell, from your own lane position. You aren't lying - at the time, you were taking in good faith what the other car was indicating, and you acted on their indication. You expected to pass near side to near side? I probably wouldn't even mention that car B was not in a good position for you to turn if they were *not* turning - that is taken as read, you don't need to say that? I know you were thinking about it - but if they (insurance company) pay attention to the fact you noticed them there, it could be taken you took the risk anyway as opposed to no percieved risk?

OK. Some tweaks then. Now I'm thinking about the last line. Along the lines of Jake's comment, do I need to re-itterate about the filter lane, and that I think it was my mistake due to not being aware of it, or should I just let them surmise that for themselves (e.g. get rid of the last line "It is my opinion that..").

 

:

I was in the Toyota Supra (reg. no. M100 TLC), at point A in the diagram, waiting to turn right onto Viaduct Rd.

 

I was aware of two oncoming vehicles on the other side of Manchester Rd, vehicles B and C.

 

Vehicle C was at a safe distance for me to make the turn.

 

At about vehicle B’s location marked on the diagram, vehicle B began to flash its RH indicator, as if to turn into George Richards Way.

 

At this point, I decided to make my turn, since vehicle C was at a safe distance, and I expected that vehicle B was going to turn away from me, so that we would pass near side to near side.

 

Unfortunately vehicle B was not turning, and was actually going straight ahead. We then collided at position X on the diagram. The collision was slightly off head-on, since I had turned into the other driver who was coming straight ahead.

 

My vehicle was left roughly where the collision happened, since I was barely moving, but vehicle B veered off into the railings at position E in the diagram.

 

I can only imagine that either the driver had accidentally caught their indicator, or had left the indicator on from an overtake.

 

I have since been made aware that vehicle B would have had to have been in the filter lane in order to be turning right.

 

The filter lane is marked at position D.

 

It is my opinion that I was at fault for not being aware that vehicle B would not have been turning right, due to the presence of the filter lane.

but the question does say "Who or what was the cause". Perhaps I should say:

 

In answer to the given question of "Who" in my opinion was the cause, I think I was the cause due..

 

oh feck it. which is it. have it or don't have it. They do say "Who or what.."

The only other piece of advice I can offer is... never admit fault.. even if it *was* yours. *shrug* - it is the advice my old man always gave me Kinda grates I know especially if you are an honest soul that thinks hard about these things. Trust me - the other guy always trys it on, if it is their fault - they will always try it on. Insurance companies, will always try and not pay, the other guy will always blame you... two facts of life. You need to cut back on your costs the best way possible. Up to you amigo. You seem to be torn with this respect. I personally think you were not in the wrong in my eyes. Stupid fecker indicating when they shouldn't have been - my personal pet hate.

OK I'll ditch the last line. They can decide for themselves.

 

I have to say though, although it was my fault technically, I can "feel" when i look at the picture, and my position etc., just how easily it happened. She was indicating, so I went.

 

This is what I meant before in the original thread when I said I just had this feeling that it could so easily happen again.

Good luck with this dude. Just good that nobody was hurt and it is all just an argument over liability in the end shame the supe had to take ahit though

Thanks mate. It'll all work out in the end.

To be honest Mate I don't reckon you are the cause, even if in the eyes of the Law you are at fault.

 

If you think logically backwards from the time of the collision.

 

1. The two cars collided. This happened because -

 

2. You crossed the lane of traffic when a car was going straight on. This happened because -

 

3. You saw an indicator and didn't fully understand the road layout (There is no crime in not understanding the road layout.) This happened because -

 

4. The driver of the other vehicle either falsely indicated or did not cancel an old signal. Either of which would either fail youon a driving test or at very least get you marked down.

 

Maybe this is flawed logic, but this is how I see it and a mates dad who is ex police traffic branch back in Ireland also says the same.

 

To sum up, it is not unreasonable for you to expect that you could turn right when you see the indicator.

imo, as long as you've got protected no claims i would just admit liability, it makes the claim so much quicker and u would get ur supe back on the road faster. everybody wins!

In my opinion, (which usually counts for diddly!) youve admited liability far too much, put more emphasis on her being in the wrong for indicating the way she did.

If your not already with Sky, maybe worth calling and speaking with Scott, see how he thinks you should play it.

You were breaking the law just by waiting at position A, I'd keep a low profile

You were breaking the law just by waiting at position A, I'd keep a low profile

 

There is that *shhhh*

My 2p...

 

I don't think you need to mention vehicle C, just that the road was clear behind vehicle B. It makes it sound as if you were clogging your "high-powered sports car" to cross the junction in front of C.

 

You don't need to mention your theories about why the indicator was on, just that it WAS on.

 

Maybe say at the beginning that Manchester Road is a dual carriageway with a separate filter lane for approaching traffic to turn right, and lose the stuff about since being made aware of the filter lane.

You were breaking the law just by waiting at position A, I'd keep a low profile

Why? You can enter a box junction if your exit (i.e. Viaduct Road) is clear. Maybe make the point that when you entered the box, Viaduct Road was clear

I'm sure in the highway code it states that if your exit is clear you can enter and sit in the box, so, maybe no law breaking there afterall.

I was in the Toyota Supra (reg. no. M100 TLC), at point A in the diagram, waiting to turn right onto Viaduct Rd

 

*shrug*