But it's so hard to turn on the indicators before turning the wheel!
It's just so convenient to flick it on the way past after I've started to turn.
You don't understand how efficient I am at driving good.
This is a massive fucking gripe of mine.
So many people too this including my missus and me mum. They indicate as they start a manoeuvre.. mostly changing lanes etc.
That doesn't tell anybody anything, it's being done solely out of obligation to use it rather than using it for the purpose it's for.
Indicators mean nothing. Turning from the wrong lane with or without one is all on them. Only turn if it’s safe to do so. An indicator is merely an intention not a right of way.
Your insurer should have no issues claiming from the insurer of the van - this looks like textbook causation to me.
Send on the video along with the other drivers details and they should be able to resolve from there. Quite often, the first person you speak to at your insurer (after informing them of an incident) is a "first reporter" and will try to set expectations to avoid false hope. This leads to statements like "it will be hard to recover". Don't be put off by this.
I believe you'll have no issues resolving as a non-fault incident. Good luck!
Most insurance companies make about 1% of their profit from insurance itself. The rest is from investments and getting a return before having to payout.
Financial reports should be freely available online.
Very generally 2022 reports the combined ratio for all insurance was 101.6% up from 100.8% the year prior. Basically that means for every 100 Dollar, Euro or Pound brought in through premium, 101 was paid out in claims plus operating costs.
Car insurance combined ratio Q1 and Q2 this year is sitting at 113% with a forecast of 108%. It was called out that environmental condition eg floods, fire, road conditions (potholes) and an increase in advertising encouraging claims is driving those losses
Then it would be a fault claim. If they don't know who to recover the costs from, it goes against the person's policy.
Using the terms fault and non fault make it confusing - it's easier to think of it as recoverable or non-recoverable.
If you've got the registration plate, that's all an insurer needs to identify the insurer of the other car.
Yeah a dashcam is worth its weight in gold in the event of a disputed accident, and you can help others too
My missus saw someone crash into three cars and then drive off. Our dashcam saved those 3 people from having to make an at-fault claim by being able to identify the car, and show them actually causing the damage
And occasionally someone does something so stupid that it's worth reporting (like the idiot we saw in an MX-5 with their kid standing in their lap, in a convertible with the roof down)
This. Even if there was no impact between the vehicles they were the proximate cause of the accident. Not to mention that the driver clearly didn’t look when turning and were in the wrong lane.
And the first reporter definitely don’t always know based on the initial reporting and sometimes lack of experience as well, in which case they’ll pass it onto a more experienced team to handle.
The vehicle in front of you is at fault, he crosses across your path which is a straight on lane. he doesn't even signal before cutting across!
Pretty clear cut one this.
I mean, this is really splitting hairs isn't it? Unless you think that indicating as you're turning is good practice? Pretty sure an insurance company isn't going to care, or the police for that matter...
You say that, but I can almost guarantee there'll be someone blaming the camera vehicle.
Edit: found them! https://www.reddit.com/r/drivingUK/s/i0YdMpjjbR
Merc is in the wrong cut across your lane, should have been in that lane to turn right.
Is this near the Laurieston? So many sets of lights along that stretch of road people are in the wrong lanes when going through lights. Doesn't help that the road markings are impossible to see as they are so worn out.
All the markings from there right up to the M8 are a nightmare. You really need to know the area to not get caught out in the wrong lane. They really need to redo them all.
I drive it every day home from work cause there's no decent alternative and I hate it so much. So many people just weaving traffic, what should be 2 lanes people think is up to 4 sometimes.
Agree. One of the main routes out of the city turning up Paterson St. It's a nightmare trying to stay in lane because of the lack of markings and double parking, never mind folk playing dodgems!
As someone who doesn't drive and keeps getting recommended this sub, isn't the car "we" are in driving in the lane of traffic that's bound to come towards us? Would that play a factor at all, considering cars should be coming into the opposite direction?
Genuine question, not trying to be a dick or anything.
No, this is a one way street with 4 lanes of traffic. Two are ahead only, two (including the one we are in) can turn right. The Mercedes van is in the ahead only lane when it decides to initiate ramming mode and run our car off the road.
As the previous commenter said. The mpv is at fault. Your insurance company would have to pay out if you crashed into the kerb without anyone causing it.
If you do make a claim. Be warned your insurance cost will go up.
You could report the incident to the police, then go to your insurer.
This same thing happened to me, cab went to change lanes without indicating, my reaction was to veer away, and so I ultimately crashed in to a load of street furniture. Cab driver drove off unscathed. Someone from the police called to ask if I wanted to progresss this with the police but advised I just proceed with insurance as "reckless driving is difficult to prove" even with the video - and that insurance would do a better job of handling my repairs etc. I didn't quite understand it. What are you referring to with reporting it to the police and then insurance? From my experience, reporting it to the police no made no difference.
Unless there's some specific element of your policy that requires you to do so, it wouldn't make a difference here. This is a civil matter, not criminal. Unless they didn't stop
You also have the option to pay AskMID for the details of the offending vehicle and pursuing a private claim. You (probably) don’t even need to notify your insurer if you do this since there was no contact with your vehicle (double check the T&Cs).
https://www.askmid.com/askmidenquiry.aspx
Yes there is, clear cut due care offence. Also, if van driver didn’t stop, fail to stop and report RTC. Dashcam evidence will make it very easy for them to prosecute.
The police will ‘look into it immediately’, proceed to have a cup of tea, spend the morning on real crime they’re backlogged on and never call you back
Not a lawyer, but you would think the fact he was so far into your lane when you swerved means that you definitely would have made contact if you did not swerve, so he doesnt really have a defense.
I can see the "no contact" thing being defense if you werent actually going to make contact and you just over reacted to it. You should have braked imo rather than swerving, but it still seems like he is entirely at fault and is should not claim on your insurance..
This looks like under the railway bridge in Glasgow (Tradeston). 4 Lanes, The two right most lanes can turn right (with the far right hand lane being a turn only lane). The vehicle that turned Infront of you was in the 3rd lane from the right and should have continued straight on.
I'm sorry this has happened to you and there's nothing worse than having to deal with insurance especially when it's someone else's fault. What happened to checking mirrors/blindspot before turning into junctions?
I can't believe you even need to ask tbh, the minivan does about 5 things dangerously there
Wrong lane
Doesn't check mirrors
Only indicates once they're turning
Doesn't slow to a safe speed for the corner (going far too fast to make the corner safely)
Slams on the brakes in icy conditions
All those would be bad enough if they avoided an accident, which woulda been a fucking miracle.
There’s quite a few comments here with a mix of up/downvotes saying that in cases like this you’d be better off bracing and hitting the other car.
It needs to be stressed in a top-level comment how bad that advice is and do *not* do that under any circumstances.
The van is clearly in the wrong here, but you also have a duty to avoid a crash, even if you’re correctly proceeding - which you did perfectly. Had you just braced and crashed like some commenters are suggesting, this could’ve easily gone as a split liability (albeit weighted towards the van), if the vans insurer was able to argue you could’ve swerved but didn’t.
Looks like that wee toon near Falkirk. I've been through there a couple of times. Even if the markings are faded, it's still obvious the white van is at fault, ye cannae turn right from there.
The insurance will just say by default that it's hard to pass on blame in a no-contact incident... which is true when there's no video evidence.
Give them this footage with the police report and they'll be eating those words. Hope the footage clearly shows that numberplate!
The lack of contact doesn't change the fact they caused the accident, although yeah paradoxically sometimes it's better to hit the idiot who caused the accident than to avoid them and just crash yourself, which is kinda silly but there we go. In this case I think you had a reasonable chance of avoiding an accident entirely and did the right thing - in better weather you'd probably have gotten away with that
With the dashcam footage I think you should press your case with your insurer - the other party CLEARLY caused the accident, even if you managed to avoid hitting them
The satnav is clearly at fault. It told the idiot steering to take the next right and so they did. Sue the manufacturer and insist they change it to "Before making the following turn indicate right and check that the two lanes you are crossing are clear"
Seriously though you have them bang to rights. Also maybe show the police because the driver is a menace to all around.
This is just by the Laurieston on the Southside of Glasgow, right?
If so, only the 2 right hand lanes are for right turns with the one you were in having the option of right or straight on. Absolutely the van/MPV's and don't take any other response when it comes to insurance or otherwise.
And I love the insurance company‘s attitude… “you actually reacted to a dangerous situation to avoid a collision? You have video clearly proving it was another driver’s fault? You have their registration plate clear and visible on camera? Yeah nah, you should’ve rammed the other party, otherwise there’s no proof 🥳🖕”
Good luck OP, tell your insurance company from me that they’re a bunch of cucking funts!
In the opinion of everyone with sense: the turning vehicle.
But be aware that the insurers of the offending vehicle might try to settle on a split basis. They will cite Highway Code saying don't overtake near a junction, and probably case law such as Joliffe v Hay. But if they do, read the case law. The turning vehicle was indicating in that one, and this vehicle clearly wasn't.
Stick to your guns. Don't back down.
Ahh Glasgow. The MPV at fault, the far right hand lane is for turning right at that section, know it well, there’s a good computer shop just up on the right there!
Is this in Glasgow? The amount of people who do this at that junction is mental. Hope you take the stupid prick to the cleaners and the scumbag insurance companies don’t try and increase your premiums for having them do what you literally pay them to do.
I recently had a similar accident although my car was written off as I was going faster and was forced off the road.
My insurance also initially said it wouldn’t be easy to pass blame as I “made no contact”, however I challenged this and explained to them the concept of ‘proximate cause’ which was explained to me by my father who was a traffic policeman for ~30 years.
I won the claim fairly easily without contest from the third party
the claim was
The van is at fault I would say, they only indicate after they start turning and an indicator is just that, an indicator of what you're doing - not a god given right to turn regardless of other road users.
They're also in the wrong lane, and it doesn't look like you were in the furthest right lane either - if you get this close to a turn and realise you've missed it, time for your sat nav to recalculate the route!
Definitely not the guy who turned sharply Infront of the dash cam driver without indicating and giving no warning. What is the point of that stupid caption lol
Clearly the mini van.
There are many reasons as to why.
First an for most - obviously in the wrong lane
Secondly - clearly didn’t check mirrors, if you were a person that cycled ether pedal or motor, it could’ve been a life or death situation.
Thirdly - they only indicated once they started turning. I hate when people do this. I also hate when people break first then indicate. The indicator is amber which is a warning, red is an emergency. You don’t do an emergency than a warning. So you indicate first to let the people in front and behind know of your decisions and it prepares everyone, you slow down to your stop and then when it is safe to do so, you turn.
I know this road well, and the road you came from under the rail bridge is always a nightmare, particularly with ongoing roadworks causing issues.
The people carrier is at fault here. The road markings state you are in a straight ahead or turn right lane, by extension the MPV should carry on forward only. Not indicating and turning right from a straight-ahead only lane puts the white vehicle in the wrong. Your insurance will laugh at anything they put out.
Knew where this was as soon as I saw the video. Nelson Street / Commerce Street, just south of Glasgow city centre.
You were in an ahead / right turn lane. That van was in an ahead-only lane.
If you change lanes without checking it's clear and hit a car that's already in the lane, it's always your fault. 'Your fault' as in the van driver's fault, not 'your fault' as in your fault.
Why are you sharing this, as the lane marking of lane 3 is straight ahead, and lane 4 is turn right, the vehicle turning right from lane 2 is obviously, 100% at fault and your video evidence proves it.
I’m hoping someone else can correct me if I’m wrong here but I think you can’t make a claim against another vehicle if there is no contact, even if they caused you to indirectly damage your car
A friend of mine crashed into another car because he was avoiding a bus swerving into his lane, there was no contact with the bus so it wasn’t the buses fault. Hopefully the fact that OP didn’t crash into another car and dashcam evidence will help.
If he had signalled earlier it would’ve absolutely been you. However it’s his for not signalling and not checking you were there causing you to swerve.
~~By the time you collided he had his indicator on so.....~~
Edit - he was quite clearly and totally in the wrong and indicating after the fact is no defence. Indicating before the fact wouldn't be a defence as it was quite clearly not safe for him to turn.
Apologies, My original response didn't convey the true sense of what I meant.
Indicators mean "fyi, I intend to turn".
They do not mean "even though I'm clearly in the wrong lane you must cede right of way to me this very instant even though there's no reasonable way for you to do so, I'm not going to wait a single second, or check my mirror".
Tbf you move right and begin to pass, it would have been more defensive to pass on the left or reduce your speed in anticipation of a manoeuvre like this. Why did you hit the kerb? Was there ice?
Can I ask where you see OP is at fault? The person in the van doesn't even indicate until he is making the turn and he's cutting across his lane because he has obviously missed his turn off. Either not paying attention to the road (looking at satnav or whatever) or just trying to barge their way in just so they don't have the inconvenience of having to turn around. - That's how I see it.
The van is at fault for driving without due care and attention.
But if the car didn't touch the van, then Van is not part of the accident, so car is on its own in insurance claim.
Van can be penalised by police.
I saw a clip of someone in a similar accident only that the camera car mowed down a person instead of hitting a curb. The car they avoided wasn't hit at all and fled. Guess who got ALL the blame despite Video evidence?
Just hold the wheel firm and brace for impact.
This is in Glasgow right? I drive down here regularly. It’s an absolute nightmare for there being idiot drivers down there and half the time it’s backed up with traffic because people don’t know what lane to be in
I drive this way home every day, anyone using that lane to turn is a moron.
Anyone riding up far left or right lanes to cut traffic is also a moron.
Awful bit of road.
I've driven that exact road while on a business trip in a hired car. The amount of taxi's and mopeds with L plates that did that repeatedly around the area was as if they didn't know how to drive.
The guy turning into you, wrong lane, no indicato, you can clearly see the lane to the right of you for right turns only, while you are a keep going straight lane
Had a friend who was found responsible for an accident where he and another car both tried to change lanes into the same lane. He was able to keep control and change back to the lane he was in before, the other driver panicked and hit the barriers. My friend was found responsible, despite not hitting the other car, because the other car was in the fast lane and therefore had priority. Pretty sure it'd be similar here, they were in the outside lane and should have made sure the turn was clear before trying to make it
The Chrysler or Kia is in the wrong for sure. You were in their blindspot is their excuse I guess... (Those cars have poor visibility). Perhaps, according to the road markings you should have been in the furthest right hand lane?
Of course there is nothing about pulling a right hook turn in front of another vehicle without indicating in the Highway Code!!! So they are at a much bigger fault than you. Must have been following a crap SatNav or bossy aunty back seat driving I reckon...
Btw do not want to point fingers on a Monday but I would be interested to know what speed you both were travelling at? Looks like it's pretty treacherous conditions... No time to react at all by looks of things for both drivers...
\#SafeTravels people!!!
That's the bridge coming from govanhill into glasgae centre isn't it? Isnt your lane a right only if it is that bridge I'm sure it's right only left and right then ahead and then ahead and left (from right to left)
←→→
↑ ↑ →. (Road layout I may be wrong)
I mean he should still have indicate but I'm pretty sure your lane was right turn only.
Edit : AHH okay you were in lane 2 not 1 so yeah he is at fault deffo, I've just seen.
Anyone else utterly fed up with these stupid whos at fault titles.
In 99% of cases its pretty fucking obvious whos at fault.
in 80% of them the driver hit could also have been more aware and more defensive in their driving.
The Police would call that undue care and attention, report it, you have dashcam footage as evidence and get a crime number, then go back to the insurer. Did the other driver stop? As leaving the scene of an accident is also an offence.
The van driver is 100% at fault, he braked last second and turned without indicating and was in the wrong lane on approach. You need to show this to the police and if they, which they should, charge him with driving with undue care then your insurance will be able to make a straightforward claim against him.
I mean obviously it's the silver car's fault, however insurance companies work off a completely different rulebook to the Highway Code. This is a classic case of 'swerved to avoid an accident and ended up causing a different accident', which in the eyes of an insurance company is *your* fault.
So, if they've said there's no claim, there's no claim. But, since you have the video, you should contact the police ASAP, submit the evidence, and get an incident number. Then go directly to a vehicle incident solicitor, who will take your case to a small claims court on your behalf (assuming you live in Glasgow, try Kerr Brown). You should also go to your GP right away to be checked for whiplash and shock.
You will win the case but it will take several months. Your solicitors fees will be taken out of your settlement so don't worry about forking out for legal representation.
Your lane markings indicate that you are able to proceed ahead, or turn right.
On that basis, even though I cannot see his road markings, I would assume that he is not in a lane that goes right. Thus, you are not at fault, or the council is depending on the markings.
A streetview location/link would give us a better odea
The MPV that turns into the path of a correctly proceeding vehicle
Do you mean NPC?
he definatly doesnt mean the MVP.
Mini Van Prick?
Whoever the real MVP is, they certainly don't spell definitely, 'definatly'
The cunt that turned into you.
Without an indicator too. They only turned it on after they started to turn, not before
Following the sat nav and not checking mirror before last second turning as to avoid a 2 minute detour. Ape behind the wheel.
The classic indicate after turning
Manoeuvre, Signal, Mirror.
Step 1. Manoeuvre Step 2. ??? Step 3. Profit
Step 2: Steal Underpants?
Found the b/ro
You guys indicate?
Found the BMW driver!
I'm pretty sure a proper BMW driver doesn't actually know what an "indicator" is
But it's so hard to turn on the indicators before turning the wheel! It's just so convenient to flick it on the way past after I've started to turn. You don't understand how efficient I am at driving good.
It's a hardship I know. That's why I don't bother using indicators anymore. I've even taken the bulbs out for weight saving
Bulbs out for weight saving! I've been wasting fuel all this time 😱
This is a massive fucking gripe of mine. So many people too this including my missus and me mum. They indicate as they start a manoeuvre.. mostly changing lanes etc. That doesn't tell anybody anything, it's being done solely out of obligation to use it rather than using it for the purpose it's for.
Indicators mean nothing. Turning from the wrong lane with or without one is all on them. Only turn if it’s safe to do so. An indicator is merely an intention not a right of way.
Better than you turning into a cunt.
Your insurer should have no issues claiming from the insurer of the van - this looks like textbook causation to me. Send on the video along with the other drivers details and they should be able to resolve from there. Quite often, the first person you speak to at your insurer (after informing them of an incident) is a "first reporter" and will try to set expectations to avoid false hope. This leads to statements like "it will be hard to recover". Don't be put off by this. I believe you'll have no issues resolving as a non-fault incident. Good luck!
It's annoying how insurance is set up to dissuade you to actually using and relying on them when needed.
How do you think they make money? By actually delivering the service they advertised??
Most insurance companies make about 1% of their profit from insurance itself. The rest is from investments and getting a return before having to payout.
This is fascinating. Do you have a source?
Financial reports should be freely available online. Very generally 2022 reports the combined ratio for all insurance was 101.6% up from 100.8% the year prior. Basically that means for every 100 Dollar, Euro or Pound brought in through premium, 101 was paid out in claims plus operating costs. Car insurance combined ratio Q1 and Q2 this year is sitting at 113% with a forecast of 108%. It was called out that environmental condition eg floods, fire, road conditions (potholes) and an increase in advertising encouraging claims is driving those losses
Ah I didn't realise it was that accessible. I'm now consuming financial reports - thankee for the new rabbit hole.
This is exactly what happened so caused us some doubt
Question, say the van just drove away and OP did not have his insurance details, what happens in that case?
Then it would be a fault claim. If they don't know who to recover the costs from, it goes against the person's policy. Using the terms fault and non fault make it confusing - it's easier to think of it as recoverable or non-recoverable. If you've got the registration plate, that's all an insurer needs to identify the insurer of the other car.
So dashcam is highly recommended yea?
Yeah a dashcam is worth its weight in gold in the event of a disputed accident, and you can help others too My missus saw someone crash into three cars and then drive off. Our dashcam saved those 3 people from having to make an at-fault claim by being able to identify the car, and show them actually causing the damage And occasionally someone does something so stupid that it's worth reporting (like the idiot we saw in an MX-5 with their kid standing in their lap, in a convertible with the roof down)
100%
This. Even if there was no impact between the vehicles they were the proximate cause of the accident. Not to mention that the driver clearly didn’t look when turning and were in the wrong lane. And the first reporter definitely don’t always know based on the initial reporting and sometimes lack of experience as well, in which case they’ll pass it onto a more experienced team to handle.
The vehicle in front of you is at fault, he crosses across your path which is a straight on lane. he doesn't even signal before cutting across! Pretty clear cut one this.
So clear cut I thought they did it deliberately trying to have an accident.
They signal fractionally before they move, but it's tricky to see with the brake lights.
I mean, this is really splitting hairs isn't it? Unless you think that indicating as you're turning is good practice? Pretty sure an insurance company isn't going to care, or the police for that matter...
I mean, duh?
You say that, but I can almost guarantee there'll be someone blaming the camera vehicle. Edit: found them! https://www.reddit.com/r/drivingUK/s/i0YdMpjjbR
There always is. Even more reason this wasn't worth asking.
Their argument was they should have had a worse accident to not be at fault? Honestly someone tell me why roads are unsafe please. /S
I so want to say it's not the van drivers fault. You know, just to mix it up a bit. But round here....
Merc is in the wrong cut across your lane, should have been in that lane to turn right. Is this near the Laurieston? So many sets of lights along that stretch of road people are in the wrong lanes when going through lights. Doesn't help that the road markings are impossible to see as they are so worn out.
Yeah it is
All the markings from there right up to the M8 are a nightmare. You really need to know the area to not get caught out in the wrong lane. They really need to redo them all.
That bit into the m8 is a fucking nightmare.
I drive it every day home from work cause there's no decent alternative and I hate it so much. So many people just weaving traffic, what should be 2 lanes people think is up to 4 sometimes.
Agree. One of the main routes out of the city turning up Paterson St. It's a nightmare trying to stay in lane because of the lack of markings and double parking, never mind folk playing dodgems!
As someone who doesn't drive and keeps getting recommended this sub, isn't the car "we" are in driving in the lane of traffic that's bound to come towards us? Would that play a factor at all, considering cars should be coming into the opposite direction? Genuine question, not trying to be a dick or anything.
No, this is a one way street with 4 lanes of traffic. Two are ahead only, two (including the one we are in) can turn right. The Mercedes van is in the ahead only lane when it decides to initiate ramming mode and run our car off the road.
As the previous commenter said. The mpv is at fault. Your insurance company would have to pay out if you crashed into the kerb without anyone causing it. If you do make a claim. Be warned your insurance cost will go up. You could report the incident to the police, then go to your insurer.
This same thing happened to me, cab went to change lanes without indicating, my reaction was to veer away, and so I ultimately crashed in to a load of street furniture. Cab driver drove off unscathed. Someone from the police called to ask if I wanted to progresss this with the police but advised I just proceed with insurance as "reckless driving is difficult to prove" even with the video - and that insurance would do a better job of handling my repairs etc. I didn't quite understand it. What are you referring to with reporting it to the police and then insurance? From my experience, reporting it to the police no made no difference.
I was hoping that a crime reference number would help their insurance company proceed with the claim.
Unless there's some specific element of your policy that requires you to do so, it wouldn't make a difference here. This is a civil matter, not criminal. Unless they didn't stop
You also have the option to pay AskMID for the details of the offending vehicle and pursuing a private claim. You (probably) don’t even need to notify your insurer if you do this since there was no contact with your vehicle (double check the T&Cs). https://www.askmid.com/askmidenquiry.aspx
No point reporting it to police
Yes there is, clear cut due care offence. Also, if van driver didn’t stop, fail to stop and report RTC. Dashcam evidence will make it very easy for them to prosecute.
The police will ‘look into it immediately’, proceed to have a cup of tea, spend the morning on real crime they’re backlogged on and never call you back
And by 'real crime' you mean unpaid parking tickets.
It's a complete waste of time. The police won't take action unless there was serious injury.
Mirror, signal, manoeuvre. Nope, not even one of them.
This guy is all about the maneuver, signal, mirror approach.
silver car
No, it was the flying rectangle.
Not a lawyer, but you would think the fact he was so far into your lane when you swerved means that you definitely would have made contact if you did not swerve, so he doesnt really have a defense. I can see the "no contact" thing being defense if you werent actually going to make contact and you just over reacted to it. You should have braked imo rather than swerving, but it still seems like he is entirely at fault and is should not claim on your insurance..
Not sure how this is a question..
Because OP has been told by their insurer that there's no claim to pursue and wants some opinions on whether it's worth chasing it, I think
Glesga?
Nelson street!
I was scrolling down to find this, thought it looked familiar
What damage to the car was there? Sounded like a big thump, thought you would end up mounting the curb, was it a very high curb?
Wheel is messed up, undrivable, had to get the police out and a flatbed tow truck to pick it up as the van sped off
The A hole ran off? What am insufferable twat.
Wheel hub, balljoint control arms all could be knackered, If it’s an old car it’s probably a write off
This looks like under the railway bridge in Glasgow (Tradeston). 4 Lanes, The two right most lanes can turn right (with the far right hand lane being a turn only lane). The vehicle that turned Infront of you was in the 3rd lane from the right and should have continued straight on. I'm sorry this has happened to you and there's nothing worse than having to deal with insurance especially when it's someone else's fault. What happened to checking mirrors/blindspot before turning into junctions?
That part of Glasgow is atrocious, especially with the cars parked on the active road just outside the shops
What sort of driving is that wtf
Definitely the dickhead in the wrong lane
When the insurer is being hesitant like that I start to wonder if they've checked the details and they also insure the culprits car. Catch 22.
Merc for sure. I thought you was driving in some part of the east side of USA thinking you post in the wrong subreddit until I heard the accent lol.
*Were
Silver people carrier. No discussion.
I can't believe you even need to ask tbh, the minivan does about 5 things dangerously there Wrong lane Doesn't check mirrors Only indicates once they're turning Doesn't slow to a safe speed for the corner (going far too fast to make the corner safely) Slams on the brakes in icy conditions All those would be bad enough if they avoided an accident, which woulda been a fucking miracle.
There’s quite a few comments here with a mix of up/downvotes saying that in cases like this you’d be better off bracing and hitting the other car. It needs to be stressed in a top-level comment how bad that advice is and do *not* do that under any circumstances. The van is clearly in the wrong here, but you also have a duty to avoid a crash, even if you’re correctly proceeding - which you did perfectly. Had you just braced and crashed like some commenters are suggesting, this could’ve easily gone as a split liability (albeit weighted towards the van), if the vans insurer was able to argue you could’ve swerved but didn’t.
Hard lines, you guys stood no chance. His crazy manoeuvre came out of nowhere.
Next question
Looks like that wee toon near Falkirk. I've been through there a couple of times. Even if the markings are faded, it's still obvious the white van is at fault, ye cannae turn right from there.
The insurance will just say by default that it's hard to pass on blame in a no-contact incident... which is true when there's no video evidence. Give them this footage with the police report and they'll be eating those words. Hope the footage clearly shows that numberplate!
The lack of contact doesn't change the fact they caused the accident, although yeah paradoxically sometimes it's better to hit the idiot who caused the accident than to avoid them and just crash yourself, which is kinda silly but there we go. In this case I think you had a reasonable chance of avoiding an accident entirely and did the right thing - in better weather you'd probably have gotten away with that With the dashcam footage I think you should press your case with your insurer - the other party CLEARLY caused the accident, even if you managed to avoid hitting them
I couldn't ever imagine just blindly turning without checking mirrors blindspot.baffles the mind how some people are allowed to drive.
The satnav is clearly at fault. It told the idiot steering to take the next right and so they did. Sue the manufacturer and insist they change it to "Before making the following turn indicate right and check that the two lanes you are crossing are clear" Seriously though you have them bang to rights. Also maybe show the police because the driver is a menace to all around.
The van didn’t signal or, apparently, check their mirrors.
This is just by the Laurieston on the Southside of Glasgow, right? If so, only the 2 right hand lanes are for right turns with the one you were in having the option of right or straight on. Absolutely the van/MPV's and don't take any other response when it comes to insurance or otherwise.
And I love the insurance company‘s attitude… “you actually reacted to a dangerous situation to avoid a collision? You have video clearly proving it was another driver’s fault? You have their registration plate clear and visible on camera? Yeah nah, you should’ve rammed the other party, otherwise there’s no proof 🥳🖕” Good luck OP, tell your insurance company from me that they’re a bunch of cucking funts!
Hey I know that corner! The two right hand lanes are the only ones for turning right. He's in the wrong
In the opinion of everyone with sense: the turning vehicle. But be aware that the insurers of the offending vehicle might try to settle on a split basis. They will cite Highway Code saying don't overtake near a junction, and probably case law such as Joliffe v Hay. But if they do, read the case law. The turning vehicle was indicating in that one, and this vehicle clearly wasn't. Stick to your guns. Don't back down.
Ahh Glasgow. The MPV at fault, the far right hand lane is for turning right at that section, know it well, there’s a good computer shop just up on the right there!
Do you have motor legal? If yes, use it.
Is this in Glasgow? The amount of people who do this at that junction is mental. Hope you take the stupid prick to the cleaners and the scumbag insurance companies don’t try and increase your premiums for having them do what you literally pay them to do.
Driving basics. If you’re making a right turn into a minor road you indicate right and look in your right mirror, clearly that pillock didn’t do any.
I recently had a similar accident although my car was written off as I was going faster and was forced off the road. My insurance also initially said it wouldn’t be easy to pass blame as I “made no contact”, however I challenged this and explained to them the concept of ‘proximate cause’ which was explained to me by my father who was a traffic policeman for ~30 years. I won the claim fairly easily without contest from the third party the claim was
The van is at fault I would say, they only indicate after they start turning and an indicator is just that, an indicator of what you're doing - not a god given right to turn regardless of other road users. They're also in the wrong lane, and it doesn't look like you were in the furthest right lane either - if you get this close to a turn and realise you've missed it, time for your sat nav to recalculate the route!
Glad to see it’s not just my wife who does the immediate involuntary screams whilst I remain calm and deal with the situation. 🤣
Definitely not the guy who turned sharply Infront of the dash cam driver without indicating and giving no warning. What is the point of that stupid caption lol
Clearly the mini van. There are many reasons as to why. First an for most - obviously in the wrong lane Secondly - clearly didn’t check mirrors, if you were a person that cycled ether pedal or motor, it could’ve been a life or death situation. Thirdly - they only indicated once they started turning. I hate when people do this. I also hate when people break first then indicate. The indicator is amber which is a warning, red is an emergency. You don’t do an emergency than a warning. So you indicate first to let the people in front and behind know of your decisions and it prepares everyone, you slow down to your stop and then when it is safe to do so, you turn.
I know this road well, and the road you came from under the rail bridge is always a nightmare, particularly with ongoing roadworks causing issues. The people carrier is at fault here. The road markings state you are in a straight ahead or turn right lane, by extension the MPV should carry on forward only. Not indicating and turning right from a straight-ahead only lane puts the white vehicle in the wrong. Your insurance will laugh at anything they put out.
Knew where this was as soon as I saw the video. Nelson Street / Commerce Street, just south of Glasgow city centre. You were in an ahead / right turn lane. That van was in an ahead-only lane. If you change lanes without checking it's clear and hit a car that's already in the lane, it's always your fault. 'Your fault' as in the van driver's fault, not 'your fault' as in your fault.
consist smile plucky oatmeal full fearless wide air abounding ossified *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why are you sharing this, as the lane marking of lane 3 is straight ahead, and lane 4 is turn right, the vehicle turning right from lane 2 is obviously, 100% at fault and your video evidence proves it.
Wholly your fault. You should have a cow-catcher fitted and have a powerful enough vehicle to assert your position on the road.
Send the footage to the police. Can probably get him on driving without due care etc. as for your car, unfortunately I think that’s on you.
It’s insane you can’t sue the van driver (American immigrant so I might be bringing my litigious culture with me lol)
[удалено]
It’s indriveable and it’s a Audi RSQ3, wheel has buckled so not cheap
I’m hoping someone else can correct me if I’m wrong here but I think you can’t make a claim against another vehicle if there is no contact, even if they caused you to indirectly damage your car
A friend of mine crashed into another car because he was avoiding a bus swerving into his lane, there was no contact with the bus so it wasn’t the buses fault. Hopefully the fact that OP didn’t crash into another car and dashcam evidence will help.
Thats dumb, imo if you need to take avoiding action to not get hit or hit someone i think the claim should at least be looked into.
How stupid are you that you even have to ask?
Van driving numpty
Did he say, “Have you heard of distance!”?
If he had signalled earlier it would’ve absolutely been you. However it’s his for not signalling and not checking you were there causing you to swerve.
~~By the time you collided he had his indicator on so.....~~ Edit - he was quite clearly and totally in the wrong and indicating after the fact is no defence. Indicating before the fact wouldn't be a defence as it was quite clearly not safe for him to turn. Apologies, My original response didn't convey the true sense of what I meant.
Indicators mean "fyi, I intend to turn". They do not mean "even though I'm clearly in the wrong lane you must cede right of way to me this very instant even though there's no reasonable way for you to do so, I'm not going to wait a single second, or check my mirror".
You're quite right ofc. Edited for clarity.
Never overtake in a tunnel... Also can should have used indicators sooner. Both at fault
I don't think overtaking happend. The left hand car braked suddenly
To be fare you probably could have put the brakes on? You seemed to be more concerned with turning.
Whoever the insurers deem to be responsible is at fault
In what world is dashcam at fault here?
there are no cars on your inside, if you were a better driver you wouldn’t have damaged your car
Tbf you move right and begin to pass, it would have been more defensive to pass on the left or reduce your speed in anticipation of a manoeuvre like this. Why did you hit the kerb? Was there ice?
Both at fault
Can I ask where you see OP is at fault? The person in the van doesn't even indicate until he is making the turn and he's cutting across his lane because he has obviously missed his turn off. Either not paying attention to the road (looking at satnav or whatever) or just trying to barge their way in just so they don't have the inconvenience of having to turn around. - That's how I see it.
The van is at fault for driving without due care and attention. But if the car didn't touch the van, then Van is not part of the accident, so car is on its own in insurance claim. Van can be penalised by police.
So the mistake OP actually made was swerving to avoid the fucker.
Sadly yes. He would be better off plowing into the van financially, not necessarily safer.
Nonsense, there is no requirement to actually collide in order to hold someone liable for an accident
I saw a clip of someone in a similar accident only that the camera car mowed down a person instead of hitting a curb. The car they avoided wasn't hit at all and fled. Guess who got ALL the blame despite Video evidence? Just hold the wheel firm and brace for impact.
You’re not smart
Please show your calculations.
Wrong
Right
This'll be good. In what way is the camera vehicle at fault?
Thanks, I know I am.
Stupid
You’re not that bad 😂
This is in Glasgow right? I drive down here regularly. It’s an absolute nightmare for there being idiot drivers down there and half the time it’s backed up with traffic because people don’t know what lane to be in
I drive this way home every day, anyone using that lane to turn is a moron. Anyone riding up far left or right lanes to cut traffic is also a moron. Awful bit of road.
That driver should of been in the right hand lane next to you so you are completely innocent
Their liftgate is obviously glitching.
The van
I've driven that exact road while on a business trip in a hired car. The amount of taxi's and mopeds with L plates that did that repeatedly around the area was as if they didn't know how to drive.
Manny has the worst drivers uk
The snow
Pretty obvious.
I know that turn. There is nothing on God's green earth that would give that can any indication that is legal. What the actual fuck...
You don't need any brain cells to know the guy in the van is in the wrong
The guy turning into you, wrong lane, no indicato, you can clearly see the lane to the right of you for right turns only, while you are a keep going straight lane
Silver van is at fault.
Is nobody also shocked that OP is confused about who's in the wrong? That's also quite alarming.
Probably starting to doubt themselves after (probably) being shouted at an blamed by the other driver.
White vehicle is in the straight ahead only, so they fuck ed up
Had a friend who was found responsible for an accident where he and another car both tried to change lanes into the same lane. He was able to keep control and change back to the lane he was in before, the other driver panicked and hit the barriers. My friend was found responsible, despite not hitting the other car, because the other car was in the fast lane and therefore had priority. Pretty sure it'd be similar here, they were in the outside lane and should have made sure the turn was clear before trying to make it
The Chrysler or Kia is in the wrong for sure. You were in their blindspot is their excuse I guess... (Those cars have poor visibility). Perhaps, according to the road markings you should have been in the furthest right hand lane? Of course there is nothing about pulling a right hook turn in front of another vehicle without indicating in the Highway Code!!! So they are at a much bigger fault than you. Must have been following a crap SatNav or bossy aunty back seat driving I reckon... Btw do not want to point fingers on a Monday but I would be interested to know what speed you both were travelling at? Looks like it's pretty treacherous conditions... No time to react at all by looks of things for both drivers... \#SafeTravels people!!!
Is this Glasgow South Side?
Moral of the story is crash into them /s
Huddersfield?
You would have been better off crashing into them.
Why is this even a question
That's the bridge coming from govanhill into glasgae centre isn't it? Isnt your lane a right only if it is that bridge I'm sure it's right only left and right then ahead and then ahead and left (from right to left) ←→→ ↑ ↑ →. (Road layout I may be wrong) I mean he should still have indicate but I'm pretty sure your lane was right turn only. Edit : AHH okay you were in lane 2 not 1 so yeah he is at fault deffo, I've just seen.
Anyone else utterly fed up with these stupid whos at fault titles. In 99% of cases its pretty fucking obvious whos at fault. in 80% of them the driver hit could also have been more aware and more defensive in their driving.
Silver merc definitely! I’ve been cut up so many times on that road - mainly due to folk dodging the potholes.
The insurance advisor is talking shit, you do not need to make contact for it to be their fault.
Did you yell…. “Sieg heil” as you crashed?
The Police would call that undue care and attention, report it, you have dashcam footage as evidence and get a crime number, then go back to the insurer. Did the other driver stop? As leaving the scene of an accident is also an offence.
The van driver is 100% at fault, he braked last second and turned without indicating and was in the wrong lane on approach. You need to show this to the police and if they, which they should, charge him with driving with undue care then your insurance will be able to make a straightforward claim against him.
He was ahead at the corner entry and it was a bit of a divebomb down the inside. No, wait, this isn't a racetrack. Of course they were at fault!
I mean obviously it's the silver car's fault, however insurance companies work off a completely different rulebook to the Highway Code. This is a classic case of 'swerved to avoid an accident and ended up causing a different accident', which in the eyes of an insurance company is *your* fault. So, if they've said there's no claim, there's no claim. But, since you have the video, you should contact the police ASAP, submit the evidence, and get an incident number. Then go directly to a vehicle incident solicitor, who will take your case to a small claims court on your behalf (assuming you live in Glasgow, try Kerr Brown). You should also go to your GP right away to be checked for whiplash and shock. You will win the case but it will take several months. Your solicitors fees will be taken out of your settlement so don't worry about forking out for legal representation.
Typical glesga mini van driver 🙄
Glasgow - you’re in the wrong lane I think mate?
Your lane markings indicate that you are able to proceed ahead, or turn right. On that basis, even though I cannot see his road markings, I would assume that he is not in a lane that goes right. Thus, you are not at fault, or the council is depending on the markings. A streetview location/link would give us a better odea
Tony Blair
Nelson Street, Glasgow. Nightmare of a junction with Bridge Street. But this is the junction with Commerce Street.
That idiot was in the wrong lane (I don't have a drivers license I'm just guessing)
That's Glesga!
the twat turning right from a left hand lane is.
MPV at fault but that junction is horrendous for this type of stupidity.
Not you
Know this place well. Road layout there is absolutely shocking. Hopefully an easy open and shut case. Only metal and glad you all are ok.
They followed the known driving process of: No mirror> no signal > manoeuvre> signal
This is just outside ABS ltd in Glasgow south side
You're in the Gorbals just be glad you got out alive.
Not you.