Pulling out into overtaking car - who's at fault?
Discussion
Speed Badger said:
Just to skew the original question a tad, what if the dark red 'car' is not stationary, but moving - a bit of a dawdler doing, say 22mph in a 30, and was being overtaken by the green car when the collision happened?
Edited by SK425 on Wednesday 6th August 12:01
pork911 said:
There are no witnesses and the OP has not raised anything that would suggest it's anyone's fault other than entirely the red car driver.
Isn't the green car's speed relative to visibility into the junction a factor that could be relevant? The OP doesn't say anything about how far into the junction the green car driver can see. I've certainly been faced with situations like this where I wouldn't be comfortable as fast as 25mph (I note the OP said "under 25mph", although not how much under) because of the lack of vision into the side road - hedges and such like. If I went through that fast and hit an emerging idiot, I imagine I could be judged to have not been sufficiently prudent in my choice of speed and therefore partly responsible.Speed Badger said:
Just to skew the original question a tad, what if the dark red 'car' is not stationary, but moving - a bit of a dawdler doing, say 22mph in a 30, and was being overtaken by the green car when the collision happened?
I already covered that in my variables post. It potentially pits some liability onto the overtaking car probably 20-30% but the red car remains primarily at fault. He should look both ways before emerging. The green car shouldn't overtake near a junction, but that won't shift the whole blame onto him or even half of it.
SK425 said:
pork911 said:
There are no witnesses and the OP has not raised anything that would suggest it's anyone's fault other than entirely the red car driver.
Isn't the green car's speed relative to visibility into the junction a factor that could be relevant? The OP doesn't say anything about how far into the junction the green car driver can see. I've certainly been faced with situations like this where I wouldn't be comfortable as fast as 25mph (I note the OP said "under 25mph", although not how much under) because of the lack of vision into the side road - hedges and such like. If I went through that fast and hit an emerging idiot, I imagine I could be judged to have not been sufficiently prudent in my choice of speed and therefore partly responsible.by all means we could have a thread considering the circumstances in which the red car might no be entirely to blame but it would be never ending....what if....
pork911 said:
again we'd be back to ifs and buts that simply aren't there ('the OP has not raised anything that would suggest it's anyone's fault other than entirely the red car driver')
by all means we could have a thread considering the circumstances in which the red car might no be entirely to blame but it would be never ending....what if....
That was my point when 10penceshiort started throwing in all sorts of variables. by all means we could have a thread considering the circumstances in which the red car might no be entirely to blame but it would be never ending....what if....
LoonR1 said:
That was my point when 10penceshiort started throwing in all sorts of variables.
I was answering the misleading statements of principle you threw about. You know the kind... "owners can't be held liable if you hit their animal on the road", or "a driver using a mobile phone when involved in a accident is irrelevant to liability". That sort of thing. Are we going to have this every thread, where you say someone can't be liable for something, then are proven to be wrong, then refuse to admit your mistake, resorting to insults instead?
tenpenceshort said:
LoonR1 said:
That was my point when 10penceshiort started throwing in all sorts of variables.
I was answering the misleading statements of principle you threw about. You know the kind... "owners can't be held liable if you hit their animal on the road", or "a driver using a mobile phone when involved in a accident is irrelevant to liability". That sort of thing. Are we going to have this every thread, where you say someone can't be liable for something, then are proven to be wrong, then refuse to admit your mistake, resorting to insults instead?
k outta Dodge. People can either benefit from what you know or ignore/know better - their choice.
GC8 said:
... You know what you know,...
Which is how insurers settle claims. This doesn't necessarily reflect how a Court would settle a claim notwithstanding Loon's claim that he can accurately predict the same. When someone asks the question, who is at fault?, it isn't always clear what they are asking.
Personal opinion (popular on SP&L); how an insurer would settle the claim (Loon's area of expertise), or how a Court may find on the facts, (Not Loon's area of expertise).
The problem with many questions on SP&L, (which is why Loon is missing my posts) is that the OP wants a straightforward answer, not an accurate one.
Loon likes straightforward answers even if they are not accurate. Often they are helpful. Sometimes they are wrong. Not because he lacks understanding of insurance but because he gives that experience too much weight, often using absolute terms.
In my experience you cannot be as sure as Loon appears to be of what a Court may decide.
FWIW, to answer the OP's question, I agree with Loon regarding likely liability, to the extent it is unlikely to be anything other than mostly or entirely the red car driver's fault.
Driver emerges from minor road and doesn't check the road is clear. That's negligent. Driver on main road can expect traffic to give way unless he is given notice of a driver not doing so.
I reserve the right to disagree in the future.
pork911 said:
SK425 said:
pork911 said:
again we'd be back to ifs and buts that simply aren't there ('the OP has not raised anything that would suggest it's anyone's fault other than entirely the red car driver')
The speed of the green car was raised by the OP.so?
Zeeky said:
The problem with many questions on SP&L, (which is why Loon is missing my posts) is that the OP wants a straightforward answer, not an accurate one.
Loon likes straightforward answers even if they are not accurate. Often they are helpful. Sometimes they are wrong. Not because he lacks understanding of insurance but because he gives that experience too much weight, often using absolute terms.
Many of the responses have been straightforward and quite likely accurate too, though naturally each must be taken in the appropriate context. In this particular case LoonR1's comments are extremely helpful, but they do not render other replies invalid or unwelcome.Loon likes straightforward answers even if they are not accurate. Often they are helpful. Sometimes they are wrong. Not because he lacks understanding of insurance but because he gives that experience too much weight, often using absolute terms.
Red car to blame, but then add or subtract other factors.
Speeds, timings, exact distances etc.
Some things we know, some we don't.
Was dark red car stationary or moving?
If it's stationary then green has no choice but to pass.
If it's moving then green can legally pass, but it's a bit silly too.
Is the junction a major junction, a farm track, a driveway?
Just how fast was green going? what was the speed limit? What was the speed at impact?
What were the road markings?
Ultimately, give way means give way.
Speeds, timings, exact distances etc.
Some things we know, some we don't.
Was dark red car stationary or moving?
If it's stationary then green has no choice but to pass.
If it's moving then green can legally pass, but it's a bit silly too.
Is the junction a major junction, a farm track, a driveway?
Just how fast was green going? what was the speed limit? What was the speed at impact?
What were the road markings?
Ultimately, give way means give way.
Snowboy said:
Red car to blame, but then add or subtract other factors.
Speeds, timings, exact distances etc.
Some things we know, some we don't.
Was dark red car stationary or moving?
If it's stationary then green has no choice but to pass.
If it's moving then green can legally pass, but it's a bit silly too.
Is the junction a major junction, a farm track, a driveway?
Just how fast was green going? what was the speed limit? What was the speed at impact?
What were the road markings?
Ultimately, give way means give way.
Why do you always postSpeeds, timings, exact distances etc.
Some things we know, some we don't.
Was dark red car stationary or moving?
If it's stationary then green has no choice but to pass.
If it's moving then green can legally pass, but it's a bit silly too.
Is the junction a major junction, a farm track, a driveway?
Just how fast was green going? what was the speed limit? What was the speed at impact?
What were the road markings?
Ultimately, give way means give way.
in a form of
Iambic pentameter?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff