Hit in rear whilst performing a 3 point turn - liability
Discussion
Did you cause the other driver to change or alter course speed or direction by making your 3 point turn? (leaving the collision out of it for a minute)
If the answer is yes, as it clearly is, then you are guilty of S3 RTA 1972 as amended etc, basically, Driving without due care and attention and reasonable consideration for other road users!
And your actions have caused the incident. If you had not made the turn, then a collision would not have occurred.
Trying to place blame on the other driver by accusing him of being on the phone when you clearly have no evidence of such facts, will not negate the fact that you have at some stage during your manoeuvre pulled across the path of the other road user which has caused the collision.
What was the other car? And do you know the distances from where you saw him/he saw you and how long it would have taken him to travel that distance and at what speed etc?
A good old traffic mans saying.... Don't profess your innocence by trying to prove the guilt of others!
Man up and take the hit! (Excuse the pun!)
Take the 50/50 and think yourself lucky you are not being prosecuted for S3.
If the answer is yes, as it clearly is, then you are guilty of S3 RTA 1972 as amended etc, basically, Driving without due care and attention and reasonable consideration for other road users!
And your actions have caused the incident. If you had not made the turn, then a collision would not have occurred.
Trying to place blame on the other driver by accusing him of being on the phone when you clearly have no evidence of such facts, will not negate the fact that you have at some stage during your manoeuvre pulled across the path of the other road user which has caused the collision.
What was the other car? And do you know the distances from where you saw him/he saw you and how long it would have taken him to travel that distance and at what speed etc?
A good old traffic mans saying.... Don't profess your innocence by trying to prove the guilt of others!
Man up and take the hit! (Excuse the pun!)
Take the 50/50 and think yourself lucky you are not being prosecuted for S3.
FlyingFin said:
Did you cause the other driver to change or alter course speed or direction by making your 3 point turn? (leaving the collision out of it for a minute)
If the answer is yes, as it clearly is, then you are guilty of S3 RTA 1972 as amended etc, basically, Driving without due care and attention and reasonable consideration for other road users!
And your actions have caused the incident. If you had not made the turn, then a collision would not have occurred.
If I wanted to turn right and had to stop in the road waiting for a gap causing the traffic behind to stop I'd be doing this.If the answer is yes, as it clearly is, then you are guilty of S3 RTA 1972 as amended etc, basically, Driving without due care and attention and reasonable consideration for other road users!
And your actions have caused the incident. If you had not made the turn, then a collision would not have occurred.
If I legitimately parked on a road I may cause this.
Bit of a sweeping statement isn't it without more details on distance, time the car was making the manoeuvre etc
You have no idea what speed he was doing yet you accuse him of "speeding", you guess he was on the phone again with no evidence. From your account I don't believe you pulled safely out of your turn and actually caused the accident. Sounds like you're lucky to be offered 50:50 so should take it.
From insurance point of view they love making a 50:50 because both parties can have their NCD reduced.
From insurance point of view they love making a 50:50 because both parties can have their NCD reduced.
A turn in the road is completely legal, failing to stop in the distance he could see is clear proof of his speeding. This is underlined by the fact you were hit in the rear which shows you had completed the manoeuvre. Don't take the 50/50.
This solicitor are you paying or is it a legal cover that comes with the insurance? If it is the latter remember they represent the insurance company not you.
tl;dr tell them to swivel it is clearly the other drivers fault.
This solicitor are you paying or is it a legal cover that comes with the insurance? If it is the latter remember they represent the insurance company not you.
tl;dr tell them to swivel it is clearly the other drivers fault.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Friday 20th February 10:34
We've nowhere near enough information have we really?
You're doing a 3 point turn, you've reversed back towards the curb, now obscured by the car in front of you and you then pull out into the line of traffic to complete the turn without looking and give the guy nowhere to go... your fault
Or.. the other guy has sped down the road and for some reason doesn't see you, but he should and could have and has rear ended you.. and the 3 point turn is largely academic, you are on the road, pointing the right direction, just not going very fast and have been visible.. his fault.
One word against the other. The damage on the cars might tell us something. I can see why its going 50/50.
You're doing a 3 point turn, you've reversed back towards the curb, now obscured by the car in front of you and you then pull out into the line of traffic to complete the turn without looking and give the guy nowhere to go... your fault
Or.. the other guy has sped down the road and for some reason doesn't see you, but he should and could have and has rear ended you.. and the 3 point turn is largely academic, you are on the road, pointing the right direction, just not going very fast and have been visible.. his fault.
One word against the other. The damage on the cars might tell us something. I can see why its going 50/50.
I don't think we have all the information here but if I take the OP's statement at face value, I still belive him not to be liable.
The turn had been completed so not relevant. If the damage was to the side or rear quarters I could understand, as the damage is supposedly all to the rear, it suggests the 3rd party ran into the back of the OP.
Iven if he was not quite up to 30mph, it's for the car behind to be able to stop in distance that is clear. I think the stopping distance is 75ft?? at 30mph which i think is a little over 20 meters. As the OP says he was 20 meters clear, the 3rd party would have to been going considerably more tono stop in that space considering the OP was doing 20mph+?
The turn had been completed so not relevant. If the damage was to the side or rear quarters I could understand, as the damage is supposedly all to the rear, it suggests the 3rd party ran into the back of the OP.
Iven if he was not quite up to 30mph, it's for the car behind to be able to stop in distance that is clear. I think the stopping distance is 75ft?? at 30mph which i think is a little over 20 meters. As the OP says he was 20 meters clear, the 3rd party would have to been going considerably more tono stop in that space considering the OP was doing 20mph+?
Maybe its just me, but the OP committing to phase 3 of the 3 point turn and causing the other driver to swerve, sound like OP just pulled out without looking and was the cause of the crash.
Pretty much the same as if someone pulled out of a junction, didn't see or judge another cars speed and they rear end them due to the person pulling out in front of them.
How is this one any different?
Pretty much the same as if someone pulled out of a junction, didn't see or judge another cars speed and they rear end them due to the person pulling out in front of them.
How is this one any different?
Let me clarify. At the point I reversed and touched the kerb behind, I saw the car join the road some 200m away, I then completed the turn very quickly, and had straightened up and got up to 20+mph before getting rear ended. The third party claims I pulled out in his path.
The whole point is the the party should have seen me execute the turn and slow down accordingly. He didn't. But it's his word against mine.
I think the compromise may have to be 50/50 if the third party accepts this.
Fortunately my NCDs are protected and this should not have a significant impact on my insurance. Different story for the third party as he was a young bloke who had recently had his car repaired for a previous accident. I imagine he will fight this robustly in an attempt to avoid further impact on his own insurance.
The whole point is the the party should have seen me execute the turn and slow down accordingly. He didn't. But it's his word against mine.
I think the compromise may have to be 50/50 if the third party accepts this.
Fortunately my NCDs are protected and this should not have a significant impact on my insurance. Different story for the third party as he was a young bloke who had recently had his car repaired for a previous accident. I imagine he will fight this robustly in an attempt to avoid further impact on his own insurance.
my thoughts...based on the roads being perfectly straight with a clear line of sight from the stopped TP to OP
completing a 3 point turn takes more than the time needed to stop.
If OP had pulled out and been hit in the front yes I'd say OP's fault.
As OP is saying he had completed the turn in the road and was central in his lane at 20-30mph then the TP would have had plenty time to look ahead and see that OP was in his lane. I would suggest TP having seen OP decided that he wasn't going to complete his turn before he arrived and instead of slowing sped up to try and go round OP before spotting another hazard (central island?) and aborting into the rear of OP.
There wasn't sufficient time for OP to complete his manoeuvre before the arrival of other road users and TP made a poor decision or was not paying full attention to the road ahead. 50:50 to me seems right, I'd just be glad it was OP in the road and not a child.
completing a 3 point turn takes more than the time needed to stop.
If OP had pulled out and been hit in the front yes I'd say OP's fault.
As OP is saying he had completed the turn in the road and was central in his lane at 20-30mph then the TP would have had plenty time to look ahead and see that OP was in his lane. I would suggest TP having seen OP decided that he wasn't going to complete his turn before he arrived and instead of slowing sped up to try and go round OP before spotting another hazard (central island?) and aborting into the rear of OP.
There wasn't sufficient time for OP to complete his manoeuvre before the arrival of other road users and TP made a poor decision or was not paying full attention to the road ahead. 50:50 to me seems right, I'd just be glad it was OP in the road and not a child.
MYOB said:
The whole point is the the party should have seen me execute the turn and slow down accordingly. He didn't. But it's his word against mine.
Well it sounds like you just admitted to performing a manoeuvre which caused another driver to have to change speed or direction, so..... MickC said:
Well it sounds like you just admitted to performing a manoeuvre which caused another driver to have to change speed or direction, so.....
Nope. He should have seen me when joining the road some 200m away, and continuously as he drove down the road. It's not like I appeared out of nowhere.MYOB said:
MickC said:
Well it sounds like you just admitted to performing a manoeuvre which caused another driver to have to change speed or direction, so.....
Nope. He should have seen me when joining the road some 200m away, and continuously as he drove down the road. It's not like I appeared out of nowhere.first time you mentioned it happened just after you straightened up, now you are saying it happened after you got to 20+ mph...
Which is it as the story is slowly modifying itself to your defence.
If it happened just after you straightened up and at 20+mph, you must have seen him too close and decided to boot it hoping he would see you surely? Not the 200m away and he rams you at 70-80 mph... It takes 14.9 seconds to cover 200m at 30mph, so if your distance is right and he just joined the road 200m and accelerated he must have made a right mess of your car and wrote it off completely?
MYOB said:
Nope. He should have seen me when joining the road some 200m away, and continuously as he drove down the road. It's not like I appeared out of nowhere.
In your original post, you say that half-way through the manouvre, you saw the traffic coming from 200m away - and judged you were clear to finish. Clearly, you were wrong. At a guess, your "half-way" was the point between 1 and 2 in silentbrown's image. So you then put the car into reverse to 2. At that point, you then decided to just pull forward, regardless of the fact that the traffic you KNEW to be there now being much closer than 200m away. Did you wait and ensure it was clear, or that the first car would let you out? No, you just pulled out anyway, and hoped. You then, seemingly, accelerated away without actually even looking in the mirror to see how badly you'd misjudged it, because the next you knew was when you were hit.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff