[Closed] Car Accident - Am I at Fault?

Quick question, Im sure I read that where the OP was turning to the right, there was a traffic island, presumably in the middle of the road he was turning out of. Would that Island also have a bollard with keep left on it? That might be the way to argue it.
Incidentally, what would have happened if someone turned into the road (from the main road) the OP was pulling out of? Would the crasher have driven into them as well?
I think the OP's been unlucky, because realistically most people would not expect a car to come up the wrong side of the road to overtake them at a junction.

bigyin...your reading it slightly wrong...it's not easy to explain.

Imagine a 'normal' road, one left lane, traffic moving my direction, one right lane, oncoming traffic, island 200 yards ahead, 180 yards before the island there is a street/junction to the right.

I was in a que waited to get to the junction before turning, as I start to turn car comes up the right hand lane to turn right into the junction I am about to turn into, she clips my front right wing.

To see google maps search for The Old White Horse' Stourbridge (it's on the island) to the left is south lane, I was on South lane heading towards the island, I was turning right into Glebe Lane.

Here?

https://goo.gl/maps/Bdo7VT62Div

There's no way she should've been overtaking standing traffic there. But I'd definitely have thrown a lifesaver in just in case of cyclists / motorbikes filtering.

Look at case law and see which is most similar to your situation,

Pell v Moseley 2003
Irvin v Stevenson 2002
McGill v Addy 1999
Moss v Dixon 1998
Hillman v Tompkins 1995
Joliffe v Hay 1991
Pratt v Bloom 1958

Someone did that to me at work, turned into a junction as I was overtaking the line of traffic. They tried to take me to caught but they lost as they should have checked their mirrors before turning right.

100% the other drivers fault.

As it says in the Highway Code you DO NOT overtake approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road, &/or where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works.

The other sections quoted from the H.C. where it says you SHOULD do this, that, or the other are immaterial in this incident.

DO NOT= Just that.
SHOULD= Advisory.

Someone did that to me at work, turned into a junction as I was overtaking the line of traffic. They tried to take me to caught but they lost as they should have checked their mirrors before turning right.

Bit different if it's an ambulance that you run into?

Drac - Moderator
Someone did that to me at work, turned into a junction as I was overtaking the line of traffic. They tried to take me to caught but they lost as they should have checked their mirrors before turning right.

As in they tried to take you to court, the case was heard and they lost, or it never made it to court?

Based on what has been described, I don't think it is clear cut.

This sounds like it's going to be a carve up, both parties at fault.

so basically you were in the traffic proceeding along waiting for your right turn and the other driver decides to jump the whole line of traffic driving on the wrong side of the road to take the same right turn? if thats what happened then you have nothing to worry about

As in they tried to take you to court, the case was heard and they lost, or it never made it to court?

They tried right up to the day I was due, I was just getting ready to leave when I got a phone call to say they'd pulled out and their solicitor accepted it was their client's fault.

Bit different if it's an ambulance that you run into?

Not really as that's one reason you should check.

Changing the circumstances a little.
If the OP was parked at the side of the road, and performed as described, there would be no doubt that he "was" in the wrong.
I think you might be taking this on the chin. The fact that she overtaking near a junction is a distraction, if it had been a bike filtering past you still would have taken them out.
If you've been hit in the side, I'd suggest that the other car was in your blind spot.
Tough one, but no one was hurt, that's the main thing.

if thats what happened then you have nothing to worry about

OP manoeuvred suddenly into the other parties path, self evidently without adequate mirror/over shoulder check. Other party was performing a legal, if rash/plain dumb manoeuvre, and failed to notice OPs indication. Both parties have blame to bear; insurance companies will go 50:50 to avoid court costs. Simple, if harsh on OP. But as has been pointed out, there could be legitimate reasons that road users could be making the same manoeuvre, cyclists, emergency services, lunatics...

I wonder if any of the claimants in those similar cases listed above thought the same before they lost the case.

I wonder if he was their solicitor.

So it's decided then, we consult Holly.

I don't think we're going to reach consensus on this; it's down to the insurers to fight out. I'd be interested to hear the outcome.

I don't think either party comes out of this smelling of roses.
When I teach school kids to ride on the road, the 'lifesaver' is probably the most important, most emphasised part of the whole course - the kids always use it before moving across the road. I see no reason why this should be any different just because of the mode of transport.
I suspect it'll be split 50/50 (because, of course, the other driver was 'filtering carefully when some lunatic pulled out without indicating').
Glad no-one was hurt, take it on the chin and move on!

If it's where Cougar reckons on google maps then she must have either started or continued her overtake through crossing zig zags, which is very naughty, or alternatively been so close behind the OP when she made her move that it's only taken a moment to go from in the queue (and not there to see in his mirror) to hitting him, which IMO doesn't make him unobservant.

Don't let the pedants blind you with the textbook and rationalisation.

She is a crazy bee-atch and you were undertaking a perfectly safe and legitimate traffic movement.

120% her fault, if not more.

Speaking from experience of having a claim go 50/50 when my car was written off by an old codger pulling out of a side-road, across traffic, onto the dual-carriageway I was already on and destroying the rear 3/4 of my car, you are absolutely 100% to blame irrespective of what actually happened.

The Financial Ombudsman is your friend.

The OP should definitely have looked, as you always should, but it doesn't really matter it was a motorbike, cyclist, or anything else: Overtaking a car indicating to turn right at a junction is no different to say, going up the inside of a lorry turning left at a set of traffic lights. It's a stupid thing to do.

15 years ago, for insurance purposes it would have been both parties at fault.

Witness testimony would be a big factor in deciding the balance of contributory negligence.

I don't know what's changed since then though.

Overtaking a car indicating to turn right at a junction is no different to say, going up the inside of a lorry turning left at a set of traffic lights. It's a stupid thing to do.

Assuming they were indicating before the they started overtaking, could be the OP put the indicator on then turned straight away, you know just after a quick glance in their mirror, meaning the person overtaking had no chance to act.

If incident accurately described and location as per map image, you are both at some degree of fault due to the HC rules already quoted. However, your sole error is failing to check for the unexpected, i.e; a final mirror check to see if someone is overtaking where they normally wouldn't. Her culpability stems from consciously deciding to overtake a line of traffic on the approach to a blind junction with unknown regard either for the possibility of a preceding vehicle turning right or a left turner emerging from said junction. So if you were signalling in plenty of time and she still didn't react appropriately, she's mostly to blame. If, however, she was crawling down the opposing lane, signalling right and watching for other road users, and you signaled and turned in one move, that would put a bit more blame on you. Neither of you is an independent witness so the insurers will carve it up and settle on what's most profitable for them.

could be the OP put the indicator on then turned straight away

[b]I was sitting in a que of traffic about 200 yards from an island[/b] (single carriage way both ways), there was a junction to the right up ahead, I checked my mirrors and [b]started to indicate.[/b] 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.

You may be right but that's not how it was explained.

As the OP didn't see them and we don' t have the 3rd party's version we have no idea either way.

Even if he was driving with his eyes closed I'd like to hope he knows at what point he switched his indicator on. Unless he was lying or mistaken then we know absolutely.

By that logic, we have no idea either way that he wasn't riding a rickshaw in Tunisia when the vehicle in front of him spontaneously combusted.

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'.

No, but assuming he was driving at a reasonable speed below the limit and wasn't distracted then he wouldn't be violating any Highway Code rules, would have very clear priority, and wouldn't be initiating a manoeuvre.

167 … This is why I thought her manover was illegal!?^^^^

Nothing illegal about it. If it said "You MUST NOT…" then it would be backed by legislation. As it stands, it's just advisory.

Someone did that to me at work, turned into a junction as I was overtaking the line of traffic. They tried to take me to caught but they lost as they should have checked their mirrors before turning right.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-28093019 ]This guy, however…[/url]

100% the other drivers fault.
DO NOT= Just that.
SHOULD= Advisory.

No. "Do not" is advisory and has exactly the same status as the shoulds and all the other stuff. The "Must" and "Must not" rules are backed by (rather, are lay representations of) legislation. The specific statute they refer to is given below each one.

UPDATE

I have reported the incident to my insurance company, the advisor has run it past her senior who has agreed with the adviser, they are treating it as a non fault incident. I explained that the 3rd party driver is planning to claim against me and was advised that they will fight any claim as they believe I was not at fault.

Thank you for all of the interesting responses, as I said in most situations I do take a quick look over the shoulder and will now be doing it in all situations as I will be more aware of the potential unexpected.

Finally it was much easier explaining the incident verbally over the with the adviser having a map in front of here. 🙂

Was she over the middle line (the one separating boths sides of the road)? If so, she is at fault and she can get done (endangering others, I think)...if she was across the line then she is at fault. The fact she drove into the back of you suggests she is at fault anyway as she clearly wasn't driving with due care and attention.

I think absolutely everyone's agreed she's at fault 😉

No. You pulled out when someone was overtaking you, because you failed to check that there might be someone overtaking you. You're at fault. The fact that she hit a side panel- your wing? confirms this.

She's at fault for overtaking near a junction, you're at fault for not checking.

A few folk above seem to be convinced of the opposite, and use terms such as 'the wrong side of the road'. In the right circs, there is no 'wrong side'.

Might be going over old ground here but 'lifesavers' in a car - this has been done on here before (some time ago) and the outcome was you should never be looking over your shoulder in a car (although I always did and still do especially on motorways). I believe Molgrips was a big believer in never doing it in a car.

Why would that be, then? There have been multiple times when it has resulted in me seeing vehicles I hadn't noticed in my mirrors. (Though I doubt it would make a difference in the OP's scenario: it's more effective on multi-lane carriageways where the vehicle alongside is doing roughly the same speed.)

the outcome was you should never be looking over your shoulder in a car

That's no outcome I'd have bought in to. Are you sure?

I guess playing devil's advocate for a second there's an argument that if you're constantly aware of your surroundings then you shouldn't have to shoulder-check, as anything in a blind spot will have arrived there from outside of one so you should have already seen it, but situations on the road can change so very quickly that it's not a technique I'd want to subscribe to.

That is to say, I consider myself to be a pretty observant driver, most of the time at least; I spend a lot of time looking what's around, beside and behind me as well as (obviously) ahead. But I wouldn't trust myself to be so aware as I didn't need shoulder checks any more. And really, it takes a moment of time and could potentially stop you from killing someone, I'm struggling to see why there's any argument for not doing it.

when theres a steel sheet over your right hand shoulder......

i mean really i probably should have killed millions of babys faces by now.

a number of car drivers should spend a couple of days driving a van - they will realise how much more observant you need to be when ****wits like to occupy the blind spots for long periods- ive had them sit there for miles and miles on the dual carridgeway - more often than not i notice them enter and not leave other times i have to physically move the mirror to check the blind spot manually because i dont trust other road users in the slightest.

then theres the folk who dont realise how much room an HGV needs to stop in a hurry and impedes their braking gap before hitting their brakes.....

or the 4 out of 10 drivers i passed queing in rolling traffic up to a round about this morning - on their phones and the 1 doing her make up complete with make up bag on her lap.....

the standard of i dont give a shit in this countries crap.

i dont trust other road users in the slightest.

That's probably a healthy stance, TBH. (-:

I've never understood the 'sitting in blind spots' thing either, it's something I'd actively try to avoid on a motorway. Ditto being directly alongside someone else; I like to have an escape route. But the number of people who will sit on your rear quarter for miles if you let them, it's staggering. Either get past if you're overtaking or drop in behind me if you aren't, andwhyareyoueveninthatlane?! Argh.

when theres a steel sheet over your right hand shoulder......

Well, duh.

But you don't ever lean forwards a bit and quickly glance out through the door window?

I guess playing devil's advocate for a second there's an argument that if you're constantly aware of your surroundings then you shouldn't have to shoulder-check, as anything in a blind spot will have arrived there from outside of one so you should have already seen it, but situations on the road can change so very quickly that it's not a technique I'd want to subscribe to.

Yes, quite. I'm the same, but just occasionally the glance through the window reveals something. (Depends what I'm driving: one or both of my cars have anti-blind spot mirrors which mean a car's nose is visible alongside before its rear is out of the mirror; the van's better at losing things.)

The key to it is understanding that even if you're as diligent and conscientious and well-drilled as you can be, your subconscious still doesn't actually tell you what your eyes see:

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

Once you realise that, it becomes clear that even if you think you know what's going on around you, looking at least twice and ideally along different paths is a necessary tactic.

I blame the immigrants.

Don't worry OP, if you had been sitting in your living room and a car came through the wall the STW pedantics would still find a way to blame you.

I think the zig zags for the crossing may also have a part to play.
TBH going on the wrong side of the road passing stationary traffic to then turn right is not a manoeuvre I'd ever be comfortable making, even for a car length or so. All it takes is 1 person to come out of the side road and then where do you go?
It may not be illegal, but its bloody stupid.

Don't worry OP, if you had been sitting in your living room and a car came through the wall the STW pedantics would still find a way to blame you.

Did your house have right of way?

I've never understood the 'sitting in blind spots' thing either, it's something I'd actively try to avoid on a motorway. Ditto being directly alongside someone else; I like to have an escape route. But the number of people who will sit on your rear quarter for miles if you let them, it's staggering. Either get past if you're overtaking or drop in behind me if you aren't, andwhyareyoueveninthatlane?! Argh.

yeah this. motorways, i try not to draw alongside vehicles unless i can go cleanly past them (except in very heavy traffic where all lanes are going much the same speed) - i particularly hate sitting alongside lorries, especially when you think about how many are left hand drive and so might have no idea you're there.

but that means leaving a gap ahead of - my gosh - sometimes even the whole length of a lorry. which is often tantamount to having a neon sign above your car saying PLEASE TAILGATE ME, AS IT MIGHT HELP ME MOVE A FEW FEET CLOSER TO THE CAR IN FRONT

i particularly hate sitting alongside lorries, especially when you think about how many are left hand drive and so might have no idea you're there.

No. You pulled out when someone was overtaking you, because you failed to check that there might be someone overtaking you. You're at fault. The fact that she hit a side panel- your wing? confirms this.

If i have right of way and someone hits me I coudl still have done something to avoid it but that wont make it my fault

A few folk above seem to be convinced of the opposite, and use terms such as 'the wrong side of the road'. In the right circs, there is no 'wrong side'.

If we do this and we hit something the obvious conclusion is that it was not safe to do so.

What if you do it and someone drives a car directly into your otherwise clear path? This can happen even when driving along the normal side of the carriageway; does that mean "the obvious conclusion" is that it's not safe to drive past a junction at all?

What if you do it and someone drives a car directly into your otherwise clear path?

This can happen even when driving along the normal side of the carriageway; does that mean "the obvious conclusion" is that it's not safe to drive past a junction at all?

Yeah, and why do people persist in thinking roundabouts have lanes and are acceptable places to undertake, drive alongside you, and then get stinky when you indicate to exit the roundabout ? I have taken to driving up the middle when I enter the roundabout to ensure there is no room for such numpti-ism, no ambiguity, and no dufus can put his dumb car in a stupid place.

Muppets.

P.S - except obviously where roundabouts have lanes painted on them, a practice which is happily dying out.

You mean its not clear then.

In the same way as the carriageway in my example is "not clear".

It has to be safe to execute the move not safe to start to execute and hope nothing goes wrong during the overtake.

So it also has to be "safe" to proceed past a junction, not safe to start to proceed and hope nothing goes wrong during the crossing.

"Safe" is not an absolute: there's always some risk of something. Granted, there are more and different risks when overtaking, and also in this particular case there was a visual indication of someone intending to do something at some unknown point which would have presented a clear risk, but the underlying point is that turning a car into the path of a moving vehicle is common to both scenarios.

This isn't a defence of the driver who was overtaking: she was quite clearly heavily at fault. Mostly I've just been trying to point out that statements like "it's [implied: entirely] her fault" disregard rule 180 (and arguably more).

Yeah, and why do people persist in thinking roundabouts have lanes and are acceptable places to undertake, drive alongside you, and then get stinky when you indicate to exit the roundabout ?

Multi-lane roundabouts without guided lanes just seem like a massive design fail. Another product of the "more tarmac therefore better" culture of the 60s and 70s.

I'm not reading all that ^^^ but I just wanted to add:

You should be checking before turning, you could have had a motorbike or pushbike or fire engine passing you.

Some may recall that last Christmas [url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/please-be-careful-on-them-roads-people-rta-content ]my wife and I witnessed that very thing happen right in front of us[/url] an overtaking motorcyclist ploughing into the side of a car turning right.

It wasn't pretty. We both still think about it. 🙁

Regardless of who is legally at fault and the various other blame games, [b]please [i]EVERYONE[/i] check you mirrors and your blindspots before turning[/b], even if someone [i]shouldn't[/i] be there.

There is more at stake than insurance.

Yeah, and why do people persist in thinking roundabouts have lanes and are acceptable places to undertake, drive alongside you, and then get stinky when you indicate to exit the roundabout ? I have taken to driving up the middle when I enter the roundabout to ensure there is no room for such numpti-ism, no ambiguity, and no dufus can put his dumb car in a stupid place.

This happened to me recently. Woman in a Quahqai suddenly appeared very close to my left about to get sandwiched between me and the railing when I was exiting 3rd exit on a roundabout. I don't even know how/when she got there or entered the roundabout, but the roads were clear so she must of done some acceleration to get that close to parallel with me whilst on a roundabout.

I had this scenario happen to me many years ago. The overtaking driver was found 100% at fault.

where does it stop......

what about an overtaking driver overtaking an overtaking driver.......

- brother in law had exactly this happen to him when out on the road bike.

bus overtaking him, impatient motorcyclist came razzing up the outside of it all at high speed.... bang.

Think it was molgrips who either was for or aganst but certainly brought up the concept of queing to overtake.......theres definantly milage in it.......

This happened to me recently. Woman in a Quahqai suddenly appeared very close to my left about to get sandwiched between me and the railing when I was exiting 3rd exit on a roundabout. I don't even know how/when she got there or entered the roundabout, but the roads were clear so she must of done some acceleration to get that close to parallel with me whilst on a roundabout.

there's a roundabout near me. [i]Every time[/i] there's someone who enters the roundabout on my left and wants the 3rd exit. Then they honk their horn and shake their fist when I try to move across for the exit in the generally accepted manner. Every single time - gah

It's like this OP - other driver is at fault. End of story.

there's a roundabout near me. Every time there's someone who enters the roundabout on my left and wants the 3rd exit. Then they honk their horn and shake their fist when I try to move across for the exit in the generally accepted manner. Every single time - gah

That happened to me almost daily on a roundabout that was part of my car commute.

In the end I gave up and always used the left hand lane even though I wanted the last exit.

I did wonder how many other people were reluctantly in the left lane for the same reason, as we all cursed each other for not following the rules 😀

When I used to teach "local practice" was just as important as the official rules of the road. There's no point sticking to the highway code if you're just annoying everyone else.

Like if you have two cars heading in opposite directions, both wanting to turn right?
The correct way is to pass each other and tehn turn right, but what everyone does is turn right before they pass each other.
I remember being on a driving lesson and trying to do it the right way, the look of confusion on peoples faces when you tried to go past them was priceless!

I'm pretty sure they don't teach that any more bigyinn.

[img] [/img]

Though they do point out that turning in front of each other blocks your view of other vehicles (in this instance a cyclist).

Also, on most junctions if you tried to do it offside-to-offside you simply wouldn't have space to turn (as the above illustration itself kind of shows).

Just checked with my Father in Law, ex Strathclyde Police Roads Chief Inspector, and a retired crash investigator.

He's of the opinion that both are at fault, but with maybe a 60/40 split of blame towards the overtaker. Overtaker was taking an unnecessary risk, overtaken failed to check that the roadway was clear.

I never trust drivers of cars with anti blind spot mirrors - they scream of a driver unaware of their surroundings 😉