[PACER]

I am sure many have said similar things or offered a bunch of explainations. From a 27 year career in policing and 17 of those in traffic in the LMD I would suspect that some of those are likely correct and/or appropriate. From you original post I would offer this:

One I agree with some the title is missleading as there is no and you offer no evidence that the off duty member is lying. He is providing his perspective and you validate it somewhat in your explaination that it blinked once or twice. I ask is that sufficient warning to other drivers of your intent to perform the action indicated. Not likely.

If this is a residential road with not dividing marks then it is completely legal to pass and from your explaination quite expected and normal if your brother was driving very slowly and obviously looking for something, why would other drivers has to follow allong. It would be incumbent on your brother to before turning ensure that could be done safely.

Teh fact the other driver was charged with an offence does not mean they are automatically found at fault. civil responsibility is different from criminal responsibility. Civily they would look at what an average normal person or driver would do in a situation and what a responsible driver would do.

So would given the circumstances what would the average driver do from both perspectives. They then determine from that fault, in this case I can see an arguement for both sides and would have expected that they may go 50%.... It seems with a bit of fighting (that often helps your case) they went 75% to the other and 25% to you. They may have done the same for him if he put up a fight as well.

Anyway good to see it is sorted out and you are ok with the result.