Hit in rear whilst performing a 3 point turn - liability
Discussion
Mandat said:
they were comitted to the 3 point turn before I had arrived at the scene, hence they have priority to complete the manoeuvre.
But a 3 point turn is 3 manoeuvres, not one. With a requirement to check that it's safe to proceed (and if you recall, to apply the handbrake!) between each part. There's no magic "I've started so I'll finish" about it.After part 2 is complete, you're stationary, facing basically the right way, close to the kerb but on the wrong side of the road. Any driver seeing you at that point might reasonably assume you're parked.
You'd have no "priority" at all. Even in a Q7.
silentbrown said:
Mandat said:
they were comitted to the 3 point turn before I had arrived at the scene, hence they have priority to complete the manoeuvre.
But a 3 point turn is 3 manoeuvres, not one. With a requirement to check that it's safe to proceed (and if you recall, to apply the handbrake!) between each part. There's no magic "I've started so I'll finish" about it.After part 2 is complete, you're stationary, facing basically the right way, close to the kerb but on the wrong side of the road. Any driver seeing you at that point might reasonably assume you're parked.
You'd have no "priority" at all. Even in a Q7.
Mandat said:
Vis a vis my previous example, are you the type of driver that proceeds to drive behind a reversing lorry, which is stationed perpendicular to the carriageway becuse you have reasonably assumed that it has parked that way?
I like your stubbornness, even coming up with ridiculously different scenarios like this one. The OP would be hidden to an extent within the traffic that he's turned round in, because he's too important / impatient / ignorant to queue up like other road users. A lorry probably wouldn't be hidden.
Interesting thread and not read all of the points so please forgive me if this has been mentioned or is a silly question but.....he was hit in the rear about 20m down from where he had made the turn so he was driving in a straight line and getting on with his life. So wasn't it the other drivers fault for hitting him up the arse? I always thought if you hit someone in the arse it was your fault for not maintaining correct speed, following distance etc.?
i.e. you look after your front end and its the job of the guy behind you not to hit you?
i.e. you look after your front end and its the job of the guy behind you not to hit you?
GokTweed said:
Interesting thread and not read all of the points so please forgive me if this has been mentioned or is a silly question but.....he was hit in the rear about 20m down from where he had made the turn so he was driving in a straight line and getting on with his life. So wasn't it the other drivers fault for hitting him up the arse? I always thought if you hit someone in the arse it was your fault for not maintaining correct speed, following distance etc.?
i.e. you look after your front end and its the job of the guy behind you not to hit you?
Yes he got hit up the rear 20m after completing his manoeuvre by a car that was 200 yards up the road as he started the last bit. The maths works out that the other car had to travel those 220m at a steady 175mph (ish) so as it was stationary to begin with, then it was doing around 300mph when it hit him and caused a minor bit of damage to his car. i.e. you look after your front end and its the job of the guy behind you not to hit you?
OP, let's have some pictures of your damage. It's been asked for many times now.
LoonR1 said:
Mandat said:
Vis a vis my previous example, are you the type of driver that proceeds to drive behind a reversing lorry, which is stationed perpendicular to the carriageway becuse you have reasonably assumed that it has parked that way?
I like your stubbornness, even coming up with ridiculously different scenarios like this one. The OP would be hidden to an extent within the traffic that he's turned round in, because he's too important / impatient / ignorant to queue up like other road users. A lorry probably wouldn't be hidden.
I would apply the same principle to a vehicle performing a 3 point turn, reverse parking or any other manoeuvre, which might temporarily obstruct the carriageway.
I don't know why you take issue at the reason for the OP's need to turn around in the road, which is rather immaterial anyway. What's the point in calling him "too important / impatient / ignorant to queue up like other road users"?
Mandat said:
The lorry example is one that I see most often on the roads in London, and illustrates the principle that once a manoeuvre has been commenced by a vehicle established on the road before other traffic arrives at the location has priority to complete the manoeuvre, and that the traffic coming accross the hazzard of the reveresing lorry should slow / stop and wait for the manoeuvre to be completed.
I would apply the same principle to a vehicle performing a 3 point turn, reverse parking or any other manoeuvre, which might temporarily obstruct the carriageway.
I don't know why you take issue at the reason for the OP's need to turn around in the road, which is rather immaterial anyway. What's the point in calling him "too important / impatient / ignorant to queue up like other road users"?
I've yet to see a lorry hidden in queuing traffic, or one that pops out from a line of traffic just in front of you. I would apply the same principle to a vehicle performing a 3 point turn, reverse parking or any other manoeuvre, which might temporarily obstruct the carriageway.
I don't know why you take issue at the reason for the OP's need to turn around in the road, which is rather immaterial anyway. What's the point in calling him "too important / impatient / ignorant to queue up like other road users"?
The OP is going to lose this. Read the thread.
LoonR1 said:
Mandat said:
Vis a vis my previous example, are you the type of driver that proceeds to drive behind a reversing lorry, which is stationed perpendicular to the carriageway becuse you have reasonably assumed that it has parked that way?
I like your stubbornness, even coming up with ridiculously different scenarios like this one. The OP would be hidden to an extent within the traffic that he's turned round in, because he's too important / impatient / ignorant to queue up like other road users. A lorry probably wouldn't be hidden.
Further clarification: I was not hidden by other traffic. By the time I completed phase 2, the traffic I was in had moved ahead. I should also add the vehicle I was in straddled nearly the whole width of the two lanes. There was no room for a vehicle to squeeze through the gap in front of me.
I have no idea where people have got 2-300mph from! 30mph is roughly 80ft per second, circa 250m in the 10 seconds from when I saw him turn into the road. Do the maths!
I have no idea where people have got 2-300mph from! 30mph is roughly 80ft per second, circa 250m in the 10 seconds from when I saw him turn into the road. Do the maths!
Mandat said:
Unless the OP was parked up and having a cuppa between each phase of the 3 point turn (as entirely reasonable according to Silentbrown) then I can't see how any traffic approacing from 200m away should not see the 3 point turn in the process of being executed in the road in front of them, and therefore react as they should to any hazzard on the road by slowing down and preparing to stop.
Have you got a driving licence? think about this. Why did the OP do this in heavy traffic? Work out how easy it is to disappear whe reversing into traffic. Them come back and explain your stance again. silentbrown said:
Mandat said:
Good photo but the lorry is paralel to the road, not perpendicular. 
If you think that, I'd love to see you try parallel parking. (OK, it may not be exactly at 90 degrees to the carriageway. Give me a break.)Do you live in a parallel universe somewhere, where cars park up during the execution of 3 point turns, and lorries usually find themselves perpendicular to the road by standing on end vertically?
Mandat said:
Are you the type of driver that proceeds to drive behind a reversing lorry, which is stationed perpendicular to the carriageway becuse you have reasonably assumed that it has parked that way?
Nobody's suggested that giving space and time to a car you notice doing a 3-point turn isn't a polite and defensive thing to do. But that doesn't make it the other guys priority. Read the OP's posts. He never says that he SAW the car that hit him before the accident. It's very general 'some traffic'. If you'd seen the car before completing the turn, you'd wait until it either passed or slowed.
He simply didn't see it. But it was there.
LoonR1 said:
Have you got a driving licence? think about this. Why did the OP do this in heavy traffic? Work out how easy it is to disappear whe reversing into traffic. Them come back and explain your stance again.
The reason for the u turn is irrelevant. There could be a thousand reasons for the OP wanting to turn around.The point about potentially being lost in traffic when reversing is valid but the car would have first have to pull accross the opposing lane during the first point of the 3 point turn, which would have been a reasonably clear indication to the to the approaching vehicles that the OP is turning around.
Whenever I need to turn around in the road in similar circumstances, I ensure that the nose of my car always stays visibe to any approching vehicles to specifically avoid becoming lost in the traffic, and I do this becaue of the many previous situations that i have seen idiots carry on driving through a hazzard where another vehicle is executing a manoeuvre (like the lorry example).
Mandat said:
In everyday driving we all get in each other's way all the time, requiring a change in speed or direction; be it turning left, turning right, parking, stopping at traffic lights or zebra crossings, doing u or multi point turns, etc. It's called traffic and we all have to adapt to the hazzards and circumstances that we encouter all the time on the roads.
most of those examples are people already established in their lane. If you choose to do a u turn, multi point turn or turn right then you need to take special care. It's called avoiding an accident. Defensive driving means we adapt to hazards, but that doesn't remove the prime responsibility to avoid creating hazards in the first place.Mandat said:
Unless the OP was parked up and having a cuppa between each phase of the 3 point turn (as entirely reasonable according to Silentbrown) then I can't see how any traffic approacing from 200m away should not see the 3 point turn in the process of being executed in the road in front of them, and therefore react as they should to any hazzard on the road by slowing down and preparing to stop.
If the op got hit at 20m then the 3rd party was, what 50m away at the time he decided to initiate point 3 of the manoeuvre? I can't see how the op would not react to the hazard of the traffic established on the carriageway by waiting until it was past?Mandat said:
the car would have first have to pull accross the opposing lane during the first point of the 3 point turn, which would have been a reasonably clear indication to the to the approaching vehicles that the OP is turning around.
Except...OP said:
Half way through the manoeuvre, I saw traffic ahead join the main road towards me
So likely the other guy didn't see the first part, because they were joining his road from the lights. And they were 200M away. At 25MPH that's about 18 seconds. And he claims to have driven maybe 10 seconds after completing the turn before the accident. This just doesn't stack up.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff