Pulling out into overtaking car - who's at fault?

[ModernAndy]

XJ Flyer said:

ModernAndy said:

XJ Flyer said:

Which would leave the question why was the green car on the wrong side of the road 'if' there was enough room to clear the obstacle and return to the correct side.

possibly because a car doing 25mph would need more room to pull back in than the space legally left clear in front of a junction.

And around 25 feet reaction distance plus braking distance to avoid an emerging vehicle.All of which suggests that the legal parking distance combined with the possibility of vehicles emerging from junctions without looking left could be a minefield of grey areas.Resulting in similar issues to that of actually overtaking through a junction.

the car pulling out may not have slowed for the junction leaving the car doing the overtake with no time to react but otherwise I'd agree.

[mwstewart]

The green car was established in its lane when you pulled out in front of it. I just won a case based on this exact scenario.

[XJ Flyer]

Trophybloo said:

Whether or not the green car was travelling on the right side of the carriage way, the red car has the absolute duty to ensure it is safe to emerge before doing so. Without actually obstructed vision (and how many driving tests have been failed emerging under such circumstances) the red car has no defence, and precious little even with vision obstruction!

There's no doubt that the red car is to blame.The question is could there 'also' be 'some' blame attached to the green car and/or the parked car.

[Trophybloo]

ModernAndy said:

That's pretty much how I'd see it. Whether it's as clear as that in law is another matter. I can see insurance companies wanting to go 50/50 on something like this and if I were the driver of the green car I'd want it to be 100% the red driver's fault if the accident was totally unavoidable due to their misguided pulling out.

As I reported above I actually successfully ensured total absence of liability for my OH. The law is clear, the onus is entirely on the emerging vehicle to ensure it is safe to do so - regardless of what might or might no be happening on the carriage way to be joined. Clearly it wasn't safe to join hence the collision. More open and shut than being rear-ended, despite the fact you hear all sorts of waffle about confusing signals, road positions, lamp posts in the way etc.
To OP - no, absolutely no 'blame' on the green car. It was performing a legitimate manouvre and is entitled to rely on other road users obeying the law (albeit there are often times when it is wise not to insist upon your rights ).

Edited by Trophybloo on Tuesday 5th August 14:07

[tenpenceshort]

Trophybloo said:

As I reported above I actually successfully ensured total absence of liability for my OH. The law is clear, the onus is entirely on the emerging vehicle to ensure it is safe to do so - regardless of what might or might no be happening on the carriage way to be joined. Clearly it wasn't safe to join hence the collision. More open and shut than being rear-ended, despite the fact you hear all sorts of waffle about confusing signals, road positions, lamp posts in the way etc.

It will depend entirely on the circumstances. If the established car in this scenario was travelling at 100mph and the driver texting on his phone, would the emerging driver still be fully responsible for the damage from the resultant collision?

[sunbeam alpine]

Trophybloo said:

ModernAndy said:

That's pretty much how I'd see it. Whether it's as clear as that in law is another matter. I can see insurance companies wanting to go 50/50 on something like this and if I were the driver of the green car I'd want it to be 100% the red driver's fault if the accident was totally unavoidable due to their misguided pulling out.

As I reported above I actually successfully ensured total absence of liability for my OH. The law is clear, the onus is entirely on the emerging vehicle to ensure it is safe to do so - regardless of what might or might no be happening on the carriage way to be joined.

This. Friends of ours are just going through a similar insurance claim. In their case the vehicle they hit was overtaking moving traffic, speeding, and on the wrong side of a solid white line. They looked one way - the normal direction you would expect traffic to come from - then set off, head-on into the other car.

My first thought was that they would be in the clear given the other vehicle was performing an illegal manoeuvre, but - as stated above - the emerging vehicle has to ensure it is safe to pull out. Fortunately neither driver is being prosecuted!

[ModernAndy]

The other more complicating thing is that just because the car pulls out, doesn't mean the car overtaking has to hit it. If they are negligent in spotting the car pulling out and not braking in time when they could have, they are much more responsible for the accident.

[Trophybloo]

tenpenceshort said:

It will depend entirely on the circumstances. If the established car in this scenario was travelling at 100mph and the driver texting on his phone, would the emerging driver still be fully responsible for the damage from the resultant collision?

Highway Code
170
Take extra care at junctions. You should

watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
watch out for long vehicles which may be turning at a junction ahead; they may have to use the whole width of the road to make the turn (see Rule 221)
watch out for horse riders who may take a different line on the road from that which you would expect
not assume, when waiting at a junction, that a vehicle coming from the right and signalling left will actually turn. Wait and make sure
look all around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely.

172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25

The use of 'Must' in 172 for the case in question as opposed to a totally illegal (and in this case unfeasible)action gives the red car the full responsiblity. The green car may be commiting a blameworthy act in terms of a car coming in the opposite direction, but not emerging from a junction.
Incidentally how often on a dualled A road have members had someone emerge having totally mis-judged the speed of approaching traffic travelling at the legal speed, or worse bail out of an attempted right turn and overhang the central res?

Edited by Trophybloo on Tuesday 5th August 14:24

[TheInternet]

Trophybloo said:

As I reported above I actually successfully ensured total absence of liability for my OH.

Is this something you had to fight for? In this case it would be preferable to avoid split liability from an insurance point of view, though I can imagine that being proposed.

Also, the red car did not come to a stop at the junction. Not until it was involved in a crash, at least.

Edited by TheInternet on Tuesday 5th August 14:27

[Trophybloo]

TheInternet said:

Trophybloo said:

As I reported above I actually successfully ensured total absence of liability for my OH.

Is this something you had to fight for?

Also, the red car did not come to a stop at the junction. Not until it was involved in a crash, at least.

The initial report to the insurance company stated the case and we explicitly stated that there was no negligent act by my OH in respect of road use whereas the other driver had 'crashed' a give way to hit us side on.
We then got a letter back where the other party alledged that my OH had been signalling left and was partly liable.
It was then I sent the photos (road positions marked, clarity of view, speed signs etc), gave names of witnesses who would testify our route travelling to vist them (we had just phoned ahead before commencing the journey) would not involve a left turn at the point of the accident but rather the right hand turn coming up (which is why we were in the right hand lane). We repeated that we repudiated liability entirely and would rely on the other party's breach of the highway code should the matter need to come to court (legal cover is so nice to have).
Letter back a few weeks later where the other party's insurance had accepted full liability.
I think it pays to go in hard where you know you are in the right. The only thing I could have done better was photos at the time to show his misted side window and actual view of the cars where the impact occurred (didn't have a camera with me at the time, never travel without one now).


As a side issue the Highway Code relating to parking at junctions says:
DO NOT stop or park:
...opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space

Frequently in urban streets one side of the road, even opposite junctions where the carriageway has been deemed wide enough, is a continuous authorised parking space with single or double yellows on the junction side of the road.

Edited by Trophybloo on Tuesday 5th August 14:54

[uncle tez]

I have a similar situation on my street.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.584565,-2.210916...

The blue toyota on the left is normally further out into the road and there is usually another car behind it, meaning I normally have to drive on the right to get past. I often have people pulling out from the right as they just look to the right before pulling out.

Edited by uncle tez on Tuesday 5th August 15:05

[Trophybloo]

uncle tez said:

I have a similar situation on my street.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.584565,-2.210916...

The blue toyota on the left is normally further out into the road and there is usually another car behind it, meaning I normally have to drive on the right to get past. I often have people pulling out from the right as they just look to the right before pulling out.

Edited by uncle tez on Tuesday 5th August 15:05

Blue Toyota is illegally parked as there are no 'authorised parking bay' road markings. The gap in the pavement looks like the former entrance to a yard or similar that existed before the bungalow was built. So here you are still within your rights to overtake the Toyota and it could be claimed against for narrowing the carriageway at the junction in the event you are involved in an incident. This would be a separate civil case assuming the collision didn't involve the parked vehicle.

[uncle tez]

What about the lack of road markings/give way signs at the junction on the right ? I've always assumed that I have right of way as I am already on the carriageway before he has turned onto it ?

[tenpenceshort]

It's not as clear cut as people here are making out, and at the risk of repetition, it will depend entirely on the circumstances. It can go from 100% on the emerging driver to 100% on the established one.

The briefest of Bailii searches gives me an accident where a car emerging from a junction collides with an oncoming, speeding motorcyclist, causing the biker to crash and, unfortunately, die. The biker is held entirely to blame and none apportioned to the emerging driver.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/3211.h...

[TheInternet]

tenpenceshort said:

It's not as clear cut as people here are making out, and at the risk of repetition, it will depend entirely on the circumstances. It can go from 100% on the emerging driver to 100% on the established one.

The briefest of Bailii searches gives me an accident where a car emerging from a junction collides with an oncoming, speeding motorcyclist, causing the biker to crash and, unfortunately, die. The biker is held entirely to blame and none apportioned to the emerging driver.

The judgement in that case is understandable, however hopefully most people are reading the details specified in the OP and responding on that basis. Might be wishful thinking of course.

[tenpenceshort]

TheInternet said:

The judgement in that case is understandable, however hopefully most people are reading the details specified in the OP and responding on that basis. Might be wishful thinking of course.

Of course it depends on the facts in each case, and I'm not suggesting that the case I linked has a bearing on the one in the OP.

What I am suggesting is that those declaring a blanket exemption on the possibility of an established driver being responsible, are plain wrong.

[Trophybloo]

uncle tez said:

What about the lack of road markings/give way signs at the junction on the right ? I've always assumed that I have right of way as I am already on the carriageway before he has turned onto it ?

Mmmm, tricky junction rules under para 170 apply still so you are correct in assuming you have right of way. However, lack of markings or signage could infer to someone joining the road constituting the bar of the T, that they could have right of way on approaching (give way might exist for traffic coming from left and signage not visible). You would probably have a 50-50 situation here should a nerfing arise. It would depend on which is considered the superior carriage way, is it a straight road with a junction at right angle or a bend in the carriageway with a junction joining on the outside of the bend. Hopefully the bits of road have different street names e.g x street is the road with a junction with y lane joining it at right angles

[SK425]

tenpenceshort said:

I don't think it's so clear cut as to apportion 100% of the damage to one party or the other.

What negligence might the driver of the overtaking car been responsible for? Did they proceed sufficiently cautiously, knowing that vehicles are likely to emerge from the junction? I would have thought a careful driver, to be free from any responsibility, would have been able to stop well before being collided into.

I would argue both parties have been negligent, as the established driver failed to sufficiently take into account the risk of vehicles entering from the junction and the driver entering failed to keep a proper look out when doing so.

This.

I can't see the picture but from the description it sounds like the driver of the red car committed a give way line offence, which isn't likely to help their cause, but even if that's the case and there's no question over the green car's priority, that priority isn't enough to confer immunity on the green car's driver. They still have to be careful.

[threespires]

This situation happens to me nearly daily.

I drive a very small car & even though I'm usually driving close to the city speed limit, cars behind just have to overtake NOW, often with a right turn ahead as shown in OP's picture.

I'm certain that one day the driver behind who just absolutely must immediately pass this small car in front regardless of road conditions will clobber a car turning left as shown..

[ModernAndy]

tenpenceshort said:

It's not as clear cut as people here are making out, and at the risk of repetition, it will depend entirely on the circumstances. It can go from 100% on the emerging driver to 100% on the established one.

The briefest of Bailii searches gives me an accident where a car emerging from a junction collides with an oncoming, speeding motorcyclist, causing the biker to crash and, unfortunately, die. The biker is held entirely to blame and none apportioned to the emerging driver.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/3211.h...

As far as the article says he was only severely brain damaged as a result of the accident although you may know more about the case than I do. I had a read over it and it's quite clear the motorcyclist's speed put them at odds with the visibility of the junction and had the most tragic consequences for them.

Also mentioned here: http://www.toppingpartnership.co.uk/company-news/c...

As the Lady Justice states, "The precautions (taken by the driver edging out to get onto the road) would have been sufficient to ensure the safety of vehicles being driven along the main road in a reasonably prudent manner."

the comment is, "This case highlights that if a driver is emerging from a side road in a cautious and careful manner and a collision occurs with a driver on the main road, liability will not necessarily attach to the emerging driver. Although claimants suffering catastrophic injuries attract sympathy from the courts, the defendant's standard of driving is a crucial factor to these cases. Andrew Hibbert, BLM Southampton. BLM represented the defendant in this case."