Originally Posted by _Meridian_ (Post 11053489)

It goes fifty-fifty because both are at fault. The fault of the overtaking driver is obvious: don't overtake a vehicle which is about to turn in front of you. But the turning driver must also make sure that is safe to turn. Since a vehicle crashed into you, it clearly wasn't. It doesn't matter that the other vehicle should not have been there, the turning driver must still check. Suppose the overtaking vehicle had been an emergency vehicle? If you're not looking, you can't guarantee that you would have caught the lights being reflected somewhere.

Nope, 50:50 is correct.

And the other reason is: as with most accidents, it's entirely possible for both drivers to come up with different explanations, both of which would fit the damage. With no witnesses and no admitted liability, it's always going to go equal shares.

Originally Posted by markjmd (Post 11053522)

Utter b*ll*cks, the highlighted section. Unless the overtaking driver was already well out into the opposite lane before the turning driver began his maneouvre, the turning driver is basically a helpless passenger in an unavoidable T-bone, once the overtaker has decided to go ahead with his. And even if the overtaker is already well out, the fact he shouldn't be there at all in the first place still puts the majority of blame on him, in just the same way as someone would be if they had a head-on while driving the wrong way up a one-way street.