You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Hi, was wondering if there were anyone on the forum knowledgeable in the area of road traffic laws/insurance.
Scenario
I was sitting in a que of traffic about 200 yards from an island (single carriage way both ways), there was a junction to the right up ahead, I checked my mirrors and started to indicate. When I got to the junction I started to into the junction on the right, then a car coming up the outside (effectively overtaking cars behind in the que) hit me, it appeared as though she was overtaking a que to shoot up on the wrong side of the road to turn into the same junction I was turning into.
I dont think she was making a legal move, I didn't think you should over take on the approach to a junction or when sat in a very slow moving que? However I may be wrong and wanted other opinions so I know how best to handle the situation.
Many Thanks
Report to the police, detail it clearly to your insurance company and let them deal with it?
Tricky one. She shouldn't really have been there but you still should have checked. Not illegal to pass a stationary queue of traffic on the wrong side of the road and is a pretty standard move for cyclists. I expect the insurance co will want to go knock for knock as that is less work for them. If you want a better outcome then it will be work for you.
If you take the queue away, you were turning right at a junction with another road. She was on the wrong side of the road overtaking past a right hand turn.
Her fault.
So you were in the right hand lane (ie, not in hatch markings or anything, but an indicated lane) and she drove into the back of you?
As above, report the accident to the police and your insurance - this is what you're supposed to do following an accident.
From your description, it sounds like it was the other drivers fault. Your insurance will ask you to explain in detail what happened and draw a picture of the road, junction, cars etc. You might want to write it all down now while it's fresh in your mind.
Should be open and shut, but, since it's STW...
You should be checking before turning, you could have had a motorbike or pushbike or fire engine passing you. Her move sounds mad but that's not the entire point.
You should have checked your mirror when preparing to make the turn, not when sat in a queue putting your indicator on.
She should have seen your indicator.
I guess it'll go 50:50 and you should be glad it wasn't a motorbike/cyclist filtering that you pulled out on.
Did you take pictures at the time (most of us have non-dumb phones now so I presume you have? It would be the first thing I would be doing in the event of a collision.
She hit you from behind - her fault.
dooosuk - MemberYou should have checked your mirror when preparing to make the turn, not when sat in a queue putting your indicator on.
She should have seen your indicator.
I guess it'll go 50:50 and you should be glad it wasn't a motorbike/cyclist filtering that you pulled out on.
This was what I was going to say. So, easier to copy it....
If you haven't already,go back and take some photos of the junction and road leading up to it.
Helps make sense out of the sketches.
If I understand the OP correctly, he shouldn't need to check(or be expected to check) for cars coming up and trying to overtake him when he is manoeuvring to turn right.
"Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’"
****ing take her for all shes got for being a moron. See this all the time up here where folk think they are too important to wait.... ive nearly been headon'd in the car by pricks doing exactly this. (long after ive stopped the car noting their presence)
The Highway Code explicitly forbids overtaking in junctions IIRC....
I got pulled up on this on my advanced motorbike course by the Police rider assessor.
quite. Unless there happens to be a car/ambulance/cyclist there, in which case he'll hit them. Always check before manoeuvring.he shouldn't need to check(or be expected to check) for cars coming up and trying to overtake him when he is manoeuvring to turn right.
my experiance of these overtaking at junctions kind of people is that they are moving at speeds far inexcess of appropriate for the manuver as they know they are pushing their luck......and believe they are invincible in their little bubble of tin - meaning you can check and then they will be into your side before you have completed your manuver.
its specifically stated for cyclists and motorbikes not to overtake cars at junctions and ambulances on the wrong side of the road should have a few clues as to its coming - as well as doing so in a safe and controlled manner - not at balls to the wall.
M-S-M....
(single carriage way both ways)
Given that there's no such thing as a single carriageway one way (other than a one-way street), I presume you mean a single lane both ways.
In which case, how was she overtaking on the right if it was a single lane?
Her fault. You don't overtake near junctions, that was (almost) a golden rule on my driving courses.
I thought the general quick 'test' was if that you hit someone from behind its your faul... ie hers in this case.
Unless there happens to be a car/ambulance/cyclist there, in which case he'll hit them. Always check before manoeuvring.
Again, I might be misunderstanding, but if he is in the filter lane to turn right, anything overtaking him would be at fault, I certainly wasn't taught to check for overtaking cars when turning right.
Although I do agree with M-S-M (very much drummed into me) but in no way would someone be expected to have a vehicle overtake there and if they did, they are at fault.
If it was an ambulance, the ambulance driver would still be at fault even if they had the sirens on. You simply don't overtake at junctions.
Why report to police? Only need to involve them if someone was hurt or failed to stop. They won't be interested otherwise. Just inform your insurance company who will likely try and split blame 50-50 so both insurance companies win. You then need to decide if it's worth fighting or take it on the chin.
wanmankylung - Member
M-S-M....
Seems like that's a selective thing on this thread.
Still should be her at fault though
how ever it sounds like he was hit in the side - which is where it gets messy.
how ever- when my mrs was driven into the side of by a car leaving a parking space - we were found to be in the wrong as our car was on the wrong side of the road (due to the multiple cars being parked on our side the road) go figure.
What do you mean by no such thing as a single carriageway?
Had similar with a motorcyclist overtaking me whilst turning right into my drive, police came down in my favour in their report, which influenced the outcome with the insurers (motorcyclist 100% at fault).
Her fault.
Did she cross any solid white lines? Did she enter a hatched area?
What do you mean by no such thing as a single carriageway?
Ist not a single carrige was both ways.... its either a single carriage way or a dual carriageway
can't really see what all the fuss is about (if I understand the description correctly). Her fault. Unless you're The Sunday Post, where it's "both parties A & B are to blame" 🙂
I seem to recall my dad got taken out by a motorbike as he did something similar in town, turned right into a narrow street (I assume was indicating, though that seemed to have bene hotly debated), motorbike T-boned him trying a cheeky overtake in town centre.. I think I knew the motorcyclist which made it all bit awkward..
"Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’"
Yes, but:
161: "All mirrors should be used effectively throughout your journey. You should use them in good time before you signal or change direction or speed."
170: "Take extra care at junctions. You should look all around before emerging."
179: "Well before you turn right you should use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you."
Although mostly this, which appears under the heading "Turning right":
180: "Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn."
From the description of events given, it seems that both drivers are clearly at fault here.
I dont think she was making a legal move
It's legal unless it can be demonstrated to constitute careless or dangerous driving. (The same applies to turning without checking for overtaking vehicles.)
From the description of events given, it seems that both drivers are clearly at fault here.
It is very rare that there is anyone who has a part in a crash could have done nothing to lessen the impact.
It is very rare that there is anyone who has a part in a crash could have done nothing to lessen the impact.
Taking collisions as a whole, yes (for some definition of "very rare"). Though not for certain types of collision, eg cyclists struck from behind.
179: "Well before you turn right you should use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you."But mostly:
180: "Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn."
You're working on the basis that she had come from a long way back and had overtaken multiple cars before hitting the OP. It's far more likely that she was only one or two cars behind - there's enough time between looking in your mirror and pulling out for a car to pull out and hit you.
More importantly the OP was indicating right and as such the other car should have seen this and stopped.
What do you mean by no such thing as a single carriageway?
That's not quite what I said. I said there's no such thing as a single carriageway [i]in one direction[/i] (and by implication, a dual carriageway in the other) unless it's a one-way street.
A popular misconception is that "dual carriageway" = two lanes. That's not what it means; the presence of a central reservation between different directions of traffic flow is what defines a dual carriageway. You can have a two-lane single carriageway or a single-lane dual carriageway, but what you can't have is a single carriageway in one direction and a dual carriageway in the other because Physics.
161: "All mirrors should be used effectively throughout your journey. You should use them in good time before you signal or change direction or speed."
This is physically impossible, to use all your mirrors, throughout the whole duration of the journey.
That's not what it says. Try again.
No such thing as an "accident" - something, somewhere wasn't as it should have been.
IMO from your description, you were doing things as you should, she was being impatient and drove into you, instead of doing what you did, and waited in the queue till she got to the junction and then turned right.
I guess you have to leave it up to the insurance but it seems to me as a layman that she was totally in the wrong, overtaking at an inappropriate point (by a junction), without checking the road ahead was clear, and for inappropriate reasons (too impatient to wait).
I hope she gets prosecuted for careless driving, points + a re-education course...
Put 'normal' people into cars and they go crazy... we badly need some re-education/proper enforcement/better karma
You're working on the basis that she had come from a long way back and had overtaken multiple cars before hitting the OP.
Well, yes, because the OP said she was "overtaking cars behind in the que (sic)". Note that I included the phrase, "from the description of events given".
More importantly the OP was indicating right and as such the other car should have seen this and stopped.
Mm. You did read the bit where I said "it seems that [i]both[/i] drivers are clearly at fault", yes? 🙂
Sounds like 50:50 to me.
She shouldn't have been there, regardless of whether she should've been there you should still have looked properly. Could've been a motorcycle filtering or a child's face or something.
Quite cut and dried : both at fault.
hypothetically.... (since its STW)
The OP had done the same thing and hit a cyclist who was filtering past rather than a car? Would we have the pitchforks out?
I'm saying 50-50 fault wise. Even if its not, the insurers will see it that way.
Well, yes, because the OP said she was "overtaking cars behind in the que (sic)". Note that I included the phrase, "from the description of events given".
I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt here, but I'm guessing he did not actually see her overtaking the cars behind him and decide to pull out right in front of her (although this is STW so anything is possible).
At what point do you stop looking in your mirrors and actually move? If the last time he looked in his mirror was when he originally pulled out of the traffic into the right filter then yes I can see an argument that he was partially to blame.
Of course it would be impossible for the insurance companies to define when that last check was made (unless he admits to it).
Of course it would be impossible for the insurance companies to define when that last check was made (unless he admits to it).
It's academic anyway. If he last looked immediately before manoeuvring or a fortnight ago, either way he didn't see her so didn't perform adequate observation.
If he last looked immediately before manoeuvring or a fortnight ago, either way he didn't see her so didn't perform adequate observation.
Disagree
It's academic anyway. If he last looked immediately before manoeuvring or a fortnight ago, either way he didn't see her so didn't perform adequate observation.
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur ]Res ipsa loquitur[/url], innit.
Disagree
Well, it hinges on the definition of "adequate". Adequate for what? Adequate to avoid the collision, adequate for reasonable best effort (which moves the requirement of definition on to that phrase) or adequate for the average Joe's own personal consideration of having done something?
so its at least 50-50 as she didnt look out the window infront of her face where things happen while she moves along......wonder where she was looking - maybe in her mirror if she adopts the cougar process.
Ooh, sarcasm: that's [i]very[/i] constructive.
😉
so its unreasonable to think she might look out of the viewing portal on the front of her car while traveling in the wrong lane to skip stationary cars.
Actually come to think of it - last time i encountered one of these muppets they didnt seem to think they had to , not even to avoid oncoming cars who were traveling along in the correct direction for their lane......
This is why you're taught the 'lifesaver' on right turns on a motorbike.
In the words of my instructor 'If you turn right and some overtaking idiot ploughs into you, it might not be your fault, but you're still ****ed, so do your lifesaver.'
Wow posted before my appointment came out to a lot of replays!! Certainly food for thought, I understand all yhisbif it was a bike, if it was an ambulence etc but just to be clear we're talking seconds between mirror signal manover, had I been looking in my mirrors when I pulled out I may have been hit by oncoming traffic... No win situation. I know that it was her fault (I also know had I looked in my mirror again I may have seen her but then I may have missed oncoming traffic, can't look both ways at once) I'm trying to understand how insurance will see it and as stated will probably go 50:50.
Just to clarify she drove into my wing as I turned into the junction. There was no filter lane purly me turning right on a normal road from the left lane across the lane coming from the other direction.
I know she was not directly behind me, can't say exactly how many cars she had passed but I do believe she was driving irratically and didn't want to que.
I do feel like the victim as I waited till I got to the junction, mirror signal manover and wham I'm hit in the wing!
so its unreasonable to think she might look out of the viewing portal on the front of her car while traveling in the wrong lane to skip stationary cars.
That's something you've inferred without any basis at all. I don't recall anyone saying she wasn't to blame or shouldn't be expected to have looked at and reacted to anything in front of her.
no reading cougars posts he expects the OP to have made the turn while looking behind himself the whole time - anything less is not enough observation.
I don't agree with your summary of mirror usage, it takes a fraction of a second to shoot a quick glance in a mirror / check a blindspot one last time, but,
It was a single lane road, no filter lanes, you were turning right at a junction, and she was on the wrong side of the road (at least partially) overtaking a line of traffic through that junction? Is that right? If that's the situation I think you've got a much stronger case.
Care to post a Google Maps location, that might help?
no reading cougars posts he expects the OP to have made the turn while looking behind himself the whole time - anything less is not enough observation.
No, I think he's saying that there are only two possibilities:
- the OP looked behind but failed to see a car that was there to be seen, or
- the gap between the OP looking behind and the collision occurring was sufficient for a driver to have emerged from the queue behind, overtaken any vehicles behind the OP, attained a speed at which they were unable to stop when the OP pulled out, and then collided with him
And I think he's implying that if the latter were the case, the course of events that necessarily happened between the look and the collision would mean that the time between those two points was long enough to be argued as inadequate in the context of HC rule 180, while the first was, pretty much by definition, also inadequate.
(And if that's what he's saying, then FWIW I broadly agree, subject to exceptional circumstances such as the other driver doing 100mph or something.)
It was a single lane road, no filter lanes, you were turning right at a junction, and she was on the wrong side of the road (at least partially) overtaking a line of traffic through that junction? Is that right? If that's the situation I think you've got a much stronger case.
As an aside: this happens all the time at the level crossing in town… Seems a perfectly acceptable pragmatic measure if done with due care and attention.
*waits for edward2000 to misunderstand what "all the time" means*
no reading cougars posts he expects the OP to have made the turn while looking behind himself the whole time - anything less is not enough observation.
That's not what I was suggesting either. Are you deliberately trying to exaggerate what I'm saying to the point of ridiculousness? (Is there an opposite to reductio ad absurdum?)
If she's overtaken a line of cars to get to the junction then she's not just "appeared out of nowhere" (hateful phrase) but has been coming for a little while; a quick final check to look for asshats doing exactly this sort of idiotic stunt before committing to the turn may have potentially prevented the accident.
If you think it's impossible to make a turn without fully checking your surroundings, I'd suggest motorcycle lessons. You'll very quickly find out how little most people actually see when driving.
was the junction at the islands? And does that mean she the wrong side of the islands?
If so I think it would be hard to defend her actions.
Bez > yes, that's broadly what I was saying, thank you. If you fail to see another vehicle then the reason why is academic, the fact remains that you didn't see them.
A lot of this comes down to experience. You don't naturally expect people to be in unexpected places (that's pretty much what "unexpected" means). The OP almost certainly wouldn't have expected someone to try and overtake at that point and so I'm guessing wouldn't have considered it necessary to even check. I'll bet he does in future though!
They say that you only really start to learn to drive after you've passed your test, and there's some truth in that. It's just not feasible to cater for every possibility at a test level (because as the adage goes, as fast as you design bigger and better idiot-proof systems, nature designs bigger and better idiots). As you clock up more miles, and more people astonish you on a daily basis, you add more tools to your repertoire to help avoid these halfwits.
This is why I mentioned motorcycle lessons; they go into much more depth than the driving test does with relation to observation and anticipation (or at least, they did when I took it). Presumably because the consequences of getting it wrong are a bit different! I came out of my bike lessons a considerably better driver than when I went in.
Sounds like she was at fault but a quick mirror check by the OP just before turning could have prevented the collision.
a quick final check to look for asshats doing exactly this sort of idiotic stunt before committing to the turn may have potentially prevented the accident.
Could've prevented the accident, but hasn't shifted the blame onto the victim. My motorcycle instructor called it the lifesaver.
she's not just "appeared out of nowhere" (hateful phrase)…
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/from-out-of-nowhere/
…but has been coming for a little while
Ah, so she was distracted then 😉
It's been alluded to before (from the POV of a bike filtering) but there's a bit of analogy with bikes really, isn't there - the lifesaver is pretty predominant, in the motor cycle training world, and if the OP was a bicycle doing the same manoeuvre, you'd be expecting to do that check even if it's not mandatory ("should").
Legal blame and at fault - probably not. Avoidable incident - probably.
Are you deliberately trying to exaggerate what I'm saying to the point of ridiculousness? (Is there an opposite to reductio ad absurdum?)
That is a reductio ad absurdum but you prove the premise leads to somethign ridicolous
Sense is the opposite of it hence why you have yet to experience it on here 😉
From what I can tell they have come down the wrong side of the road overtaking, ignoring a car indicating and then hit the OP on the wrong side of the road.
I am struggling to see what the OP has done wrong here though he may have decided to look on the wrong side of the road for an idiot doing something stupid.
as for a cyclist I would be very careful about filtering past a turning point and even more so when cars were indicating, i would not be bombing it down the wrong side of the road and if I were I would expect this approach to end in tears at some point.
Not sure about this one, if you were indicating she certainly should have expected you to pull out, but not knowing the road layout were you just sitting pointlessly in the queue or was she hooning it up the wrong side of the road into the side street?
As you say there was a traffic island it sounds like you could have proceeded up the middle of the road (instead of pointlessly waiting behind cars in the queue) in order to turn right - but the road markings may have indicated otherwise.
I'd guess 50:50 but I'm really not sure from your description. Good luck anyway.
It's been alluded to before (from the POV of a bike filtering) but there's a bit of analogy with bikes really, isn't there - the lifesaver is pretty predominant, in the motor cycle training world, and if the OP was a bicycle doing the same manoeuvre, you'd be expecting to do that check even if it's not mandatory ("should").
But it's also been noted that there's another analogy, which substitutes the two-wheeler in place of the other driver. And the equally obvious consequences of this scenario serve to illustrate why Rule 180 exists and why it confers some responsibility on the person making the turn to perform that same check.
I am struggling to see what the OP has done wrong here
It's pretty plain in rule 180, no? "Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken."
He said he did check them I dont think many folk would check for someone on the wrong side of the road overtaking everyone. TBH i dont think i do a life saver in the car but not 100% certain.
I guess, as other say, both sides can always do something to avoid the crash if we set the bar really high. However the main responsibility* [ blame] clearly lies with the person who performed the over taking manoeuvre on a car indicating to turn to right by driving on the wrong side of the road. It was , as the accident shows, clearly not safe to over take at that time
* though not 100 % if you want to be strict about it
He said he did check them
Yes, but, as Cougar was pointing out, it's the "make sure you are not being overtaken" bit that's key. Clearly, whatever action he took failed to make sure of that.
I dont think many folk woudl check for someone on the wrong side of the road overtaking everyone
Where else is someone overtaking going to be?
Anyway, this is part of the problem. Not many folk [i]do[/i] do all the things they should. Hence collisions.
You're right there. And to be honest I'm not sure I'd have been *that* diligent/ responsible / observant. I'd like to think so, but, but..
Have been in several (though not *too* many) accidents / collisions in 30+ years of driving/biking. All / most have been preventable on my part, a couple entirely my fault and only a wall or verge took the hit, other was a right of way violation (not mine) - but I could have reacted quicker than freeze and then skid not very gracefully into the other vehicle..
I guess it'll go 50:50 and you should be glad it wasn't a motorbike/cyclist filtering that you pulled out on
friend of mine filtered passed stationary traffic on motorbike, passing on their outside. Car turned right from queue and knocked him off.
Insurers found the car driver 100% at fault. The filtering was lawful (broken not solid central white line) and the driver performed a reckless manoeuvre - a right turn with no mirror or signal.
Where else is someone overtaking going to be?
Yes fair point 😳 However in stationary traffic with nowhere to pull back in[ for the overtaking car ]its less likely someone will check
Are they technically overtaking if they do the move to turn into the junction?
Does this alter the legality?
Are they not just executing the move on the wrong side of the road?
Having taken lessons quite recently I believe it's now 'mirror, signal, [b]mirror[/b], manoeuvre'. Might have helped avoid the OP's collision.
However in stationary traffic with nowhere to pull back in[ for the overtaking car ]its less likely someone will check
Possibly. Maybe they're not intending to pull back in, though: maybe they're about to turn right into a road, car park, driveway, etc. (As mentioned, that's a regular occurrence at our local level crossing; in fact on one side of it people also frequently do it to turn left further up the queue.) No idea what the OP's scenario was, though.
Anyway, it's virtually irrelevant to the issue of liability: yes, it helps explain someone neglecting to check, but it doesn't diminish their responsibility under the Highway Code to do so.
Are they technically overtaking if they do the move to turn into the junction?
Does this alter the legality?
Are they not just executing the move on the wrong side of the road?
It's not illegal to drive on the other side of the road to pass cars. Doesn't matter whether it's to overtake or to access a turning. What matters in terms of legality is whether it's done in a manner that can be shown to be careless or dangerous.
Legal culpability is totally different to civil liability, though.
Right back from work now and can discuss /answer any questions...
I have been driving 16 years averaging 15,000 mile a year so fairly experienced I've had one little knock in that time (very gentaly drove into the back of someone who stalled at lights!).
I am a confident but cautious driver, ring roads/motorways, dual carriageways etc always always check over my shoulder before pulling out....I think I was just caught out as it was so unexpected (don't they say always expect the unexpected!?) I do feel I had done enough given the circumstances but in hindsight realised it would have been prevented should I have taken another look!
However just because I could have prevented surely dose not mean that I'm at fault? A car that pulls out onto oncoming traffic would be a fault it doesn't mean the other drive he has hit has joint liability because 'if he were driving slower and braked quicker he could have prevented it'.
167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
> approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
> where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
This is why I thought her manover was illegal!?^^^^
However just because I could have prevented surely dose not mean that I'm at fault? A car that pulls out onto oncoming traffic would be a fault it doesn't mean the other drive he has hit has joint liability because 'if he were driving slower and braked quicker he could have prevented it'.
Personally it seems like you could have prevented the collision but she was quite clearly being impatient by overtaking in order to turn right and should therefore not have been there for you to see whether you did or didn't look. i.e. you could have prevented it, but she created the situation in the first place...
Be interesting to see where this one goes re insurance/legals cos IMHO there's way too much impatient driving these days and it causes chaos - we need more Police and more prosecutions. So many people seem to think 'I can so I will' rather than 'I can, but it's illegal or risky or stupid so I won't'
However just because I could have prevented surely dose not mean that I'm at fault?
This is the crux really. "I don't know" is the honest answer; I'm tempted to agree with you, but insurance companies are bastards and may not.