I reckon that could be a 'knock for knock' settlement after the insurance companies read the 'he said, she said' statements.

Just a thought, but what if the van had been a bike or motorbike legally filtering?

This is a difficult one, in that was the van illegally overtaking, or was turning right at the lights ahead of him and moving up to the (probably) smaller queue for the lights.

Also was the car who let her out turning left into the road she was emerging from, if it was indicating then the van again could have a valid reason for going past.

Leaving my work is a similar exit to the one your wife was taking, sometimes people coming from my right will indicate their intention to let you go (some just slow up without indicating**), again sometimes people from the left will co-operate too (yes the last dying days of courtesy, treasure them before they vanish forever), and i try to get out smartly to make sure those who slowed to let m,e out are held up for as little as possible...However...think bike...always but always emerge slowly enough that if a biker or cyclist is hammering past the traffic, especially to your right, that your way is clear before emerging.

Hopefully your wife took pictures of the incident at the time before vehicles moved on, and together with picture of the road layout she might be held not to be at fault if the van would be held to blame by a reasonable person.

Dashcam may not have helped in this situation, as it would not have shown the build up to this from the van's perspective.

**on our annual driving assessment our trainer tells us not to indicate to anyone else that they can pull out in front or similar, by doing so you (the flasher or waver) are taking part responsibility for what may happen...yes by all means leave a suitable gap but whether the other driver takes advantage of it is then entirely their responsibility...this has come hard for some of us who came from the old school of courteous lorry driving, ie that quick flash of the left indicator to let an obviously competent driver behind know its safe to overtake is now frowned upon.

blame and claim culture has destroyed so much of what made this country in so many different ways.

Edited by gordonbennet on 26/05/2019 at 10:36

I assume we are supposed to put together two points which are separate in the OP's account.

He states that the van involved was "illegally overtaking the queue of traffic". He later says "...if I'd crossed a solid white line (and hatched area)..."

So we assume this describes the van, though it's not directly stated. (I have my barrack-room lawyer's hat on here.)

Were the police involved? They should have been, as the van driver had committed an offence.

The OP's comment "...maybe these are two unrelated events in the eyes of the law..." is probably true up to a point, though I would say the van driver would be held at least partly responsible for causing the accident.

I can't see that dashcam footage would have helped in this case, unless there was any other detail the OP has not mentioned - e.g. an admission of liability by the van driver which could have been caught on microphone.

The lack of public-spiritedness of potential witnesses is disappointing, but if the facts are not disputed it makes no difference.

As has been suggested, the insurance companies will probably decide it's not worth investing much time and effort into a detailed investigation and agree on 50/50.

The most important thing is that no-one was hurt, though if speeds had been higher it could have been different.

One lesson the OP's wife could draw from this is that she must proceed only when she can see her way is clear. If I understand the situation correctly, she did not think that anyone would be "illegally overtaking" and did not see the van until it was too late.

The use of a dashcam could be a good idea generally.

Edited by FP on 26/05/2019 at 11:49