I'm not stating who was MORALLY wrong, just the way that the insurer is likely to view it unless there were independent witnesses. This is how the disgusting little oiks who defraud insurers work every day. They pull out on another driver and BANG - there goes your no claims discount.
In this case (and don't get upset with me here) an insurer will simply say that YOU hit HIM and that's the end of it. You should have been driving at a speed that would have allowed you to anticipate the other driver's folly.
As I said to you earlier - the difference between reality and the insurance world are completely at odds. I sympathise - really (and anyone knowing SHARK! will be surprised here) but the situation is one that the insurance world sees every day.
SHARK!
For every positive action, there's an equal and opposite government plan.