[londoner]

I was exiting a side road intending to turn right onto a main road. After ensuring there was no traffic approaching from my left and observing that the traffic on my right was stationary due to traffic lights, I noticed that the right-hand lane of the main road was clear. I proceeded to enter this lane cautiously. However, once I was established on the road, another driver decided to change lanes without apparent awareness of my vehicle, resulting in a collision where I scraped the bottom half of their car and dented by bumper.
My insurance company has determined that I am 100% liable for the incident. However, I believe that the other driver’s lack of vigilance and failure to observe their surroundings before changing lanes contributed to the accident. Given that both parties had a duty to proceed with caution, I am questioning whether the liability should be shared.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by londoner

I was exiting a side road intending to turn right onto a main road. After ensuring there was no traffic approaching from my left and observing that the traffic on my right was stationary due to traffic lights, I noticed that the right-hand lane of the main road was clear. I proceeded to enter this lane cautiously. However, once I was established on the road, another driver decided to change lanes without apparent awareness of my vehicle, resulting in a collision where I scraped the bottom half of their car and dented by bumper.
My insurance company has determined that I am 100% liable for the incident. However, I believe that the other driver’s lack of vigilance and failure to observe their surroundings before changing lanes contributed to the accident. Given that both parties had a duty to proceed with caution, I am questioning whether the liability should be shared.

It is called "Strict Liability"

You failed to give precedence to traffic on the major carriageway (regardless of the actions of others) and I am guessing the junction you emerged from was controlled by a "Stop" or "Give Way" sign/lines which just compounds the liability.

You may think it unfair, but that is how the system works and has always worked as the evidence is stacked against you.

[Beelzebub]

Probably not!

But, in any event, it will make no difference to you. Whether you are judged 100% at fault or only 10%, it's still a "fault" claim. The effect on your NCD or future premiums will be the same.