Hit in rear whilst performing a 3 point turn - liability
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
Martin4x4 said:
A turn in the road is completely legal
Not if you pull into somebody else's path, it isn't.Martin4x4 said:
failing to stop in the distance he could see is clear proof of his speeding.
Not if somebody pulls into his path, it isn't.TooMany2cvs said:
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.The car that hit him was 200m away at the time that the OP 'quickly accelerated up to 20+ give it 4/5 seconds and was hit afterwards, so therefore the other driver must have covered that 200m in 4/5 seconds and hit him straight afterwards.
basic calc http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/speed_d...
200m in 4 seconds = 111 mph
200m in 5 seconds = 90 mph
So the OPs car must have been an absolute wreck.
Does OP have pictures of the devastation?
Du1point8 said:
looking at it more...
The car that hit him was 200m away at the time that the OP 'quickly accelerated up to 20+ give it 4/5 seconds and was hit afterwards, so therefore the other driver must have covered that 200m in 4/5 seconds and hit him straight afterwards.
basic calc http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/speed_d...
200m in 4 seconds = 111 mph
200m in 5 seconds = 90 mph
So the OPs car must have been an absolute wreck.
Does OP have pictures of the devastation?
Nope, at the point I executed the 2nd point of the turn (when the rear touched the kerb), I saw the car turn into the road. I then turned into the opposing lane and sped up and it was a few seconds after this I got hit. If I had to estimate, I would guess it was approx 10 seconds from the point I saw him and started the third point of the turn to that of the impact. However, this is a wild guess.The car that hit him was 200m away at the time that the OP 'quickly accelerated up to 20+ give it 4/5 seconds and was hit afterwards, so therefore the other driver must have covered that 200m in 4/5 seconds and hit him straight afterwards.
basic calc http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/speed_d...
200m in 4 seconds = 111 mph
200m in 5 seconds = 90 mph
So the OPs car must have been an absolute wreck.
Does OP have pictures of the devastation?
I'm aware there may be some inconsistencies but the accident occurred more than a year ago and I'm having to refresh my memory by perusing my written account of the accident.
I have already stated to the solicitors that although I'm not accepting any form of liability, I'm happy to compromise and accept a 50/50, should the third party agree. It's my belief that when there's a vehicle completing a 3 point turn, any other parties should be observant and slow down and let the other party finish the move. After all, how many times have we seen L drivers doing 3 point turns, and you have to slow down or stop to let them finish?! The third party should have done the same. After all, it was a 30mph zone, and the oncoming traffic was free at the point of me beginning my 3 point turn.
Appreciate hearing everyones' views though. Very helpful to put everything in context.
MYOB said:
How many times have we seen L drivers doing 3 point turns, and you have to slow down or stop to let them finish?
Yes, but you're doing that because it's sensible defensive driving, not because you'd be liable if the learner pulled straight into your path. If you were in this position and - for whatever reason - a learner completes his turn into your path and you rear-end him you'd certainly consider it was his fault. Even if you hadn't slowed down for him.
I see the 50/50 wibblists are out in force on here
Insurers don't like 50/50 because they have to pay 50% of the total cost. They rarely get this back in premiums and even with the reduced NCD the customer can go elsewhere. It's not rocket science to work that out is it?
50/50 is a s
t outcome in general. Insurers want blen to be one way or the other. It's much cleaner for all sorts of technical and operational issues.
Insurers don't like 50/50 because they have to pay 50% of the total cost. They rarely get this back in premiums and even with the reduced NCD the customer can go elsewhere. It's not rocket science to work that out is it?
50/50 is a s
t outcome in general. Insurers want blen to be one way or the other. It's much cleaner for all sorts of technical and operational issues. MYOB said:
Nope, at the point I executed the 2nd point of the turn (when the rear touched the kerb), I saw the car turn into the road. I then turned into the opposing lane and sped up and it was a few seconds after this I got hit. If I had to estimate, I would guess it was approx 10 seconds from the point I saw him and started the third point of the turn to that of the impact. However, this is a wild guess.
I'm aware there may be some inconsistencies but the accident occurred more than a year ago and I'm having to refresh my memory by perusing my written account of the accident.
I have already stated to the solicitors that although I'm not accepting any form of liability, I'm happy to compromise and accept a 50/50, should the third party agree. It's my belief that when there's a vehicle completing a 3 point turn, any other parties should be observant and slow down and let the other party finish the move. After all, how many times have we seen L drivers doing 3 point turns, and you have to slow down or stop to let them finish?! The third party should have done the same. After all, it was a 30mph zone, and the oncoming traffic was free at the point of me beginning my 3 point turn.
Appreciate hearing everyones' views though. Very helpful to put everything in context.
Im sorry... how did you pass your test?I'm aware there may be some inconsistencies but the accident occurred more than a year ago and I'm having to refresh my memory by perusing my written account of the accident.
I have already stated to the solicitors that although I'm not accepting any form of liability, I'm happy to compromise and accept a 50/50, should the third party agree. It's my belief that when there's a vehicle completing a 3 point turn, any other parties should be observant and slow down and let the other party finish the move. After all, how many times have we seen L drivers doing 3 point turns, and you have to slow down or stop to let them finish?! The third party should have done the same. After all, it was a 30mph zone, and the oncoming traffic was free at the point of me beginning my 3 point turn.
Appreciate hearing everyones' views though. Very helpful to put everything in context.
Everyone is supposed to wait for you to finish?
You are supposed to only carry on and finish the 3 point turn when its safe to do so after looking both ways at least twice, if its not you do not simply go and then blame the other driver as they are supposed to wait.
Just because people sometimes have patience with learner drivers doesn't make it part of the highway code that you take precedence.
Du1point8 said:
Im sorry... how did you pass your test?
Everyone is supposed to wait for you to finish?
You are supposed to only carry on and finish the 3 point turn when its safe to do so after looking both ways at least twice, if its not you do not simply go and then blame the other driver as they are supposed to wait.
Just because people sometimes have patience with learner drivers doesn't make it part of the highway code that you take precedence.
No need to be a condescending buffoon. Your attitude suggest that drivers should have carte blanch to drive through obstacles in the road. Don't be silly.Everyone is supposed to wait for you to finish?
You are supposed to only carry on and finish the 3 point turn when its safe to do so after looking both ways at least twice, if its not you do not simply go and then blame the other driver as they are supposed to wait.
Just because people sometimes have patience with learner drivers doesn't make it part of the highway code that you take precedence.
MYOB said:
No need to be a condescending buffoon. Your attitude suggest that drivers should have carte blanch to drive through obstacles in the road. Don't be silly.
And yours suggests you believe you always have precedence over everyone else. It's clear you were being impatient by trying to avoid a queue, turn round and probably take a rat run route around it. Unlikely that you'd be patient with your 3 point turn. You'd get destroyed in court.
LoonR1 said:
And yours suggests you believe you always have precedence over everyone else.
It's clear you were being impatient by trying to avoid a queue, turn round and probably take a rat run route around it. Unlikely that you'd be patient with your 3 point turn. You'd get destroyed in court.
Nope. My belief is that common sense should prevail. But obviously not. It's clear you were being impatient by trying to avoid a queue, turn round and probably take a rat run route around it. Unlikely that you'd be patient with your 3 point turn. You'd get destroyed in court.
Time to end this before it gets ugly!
As I alluded to earlier, appreciate the views. For the record I have been driving cars for 25 years and riding motorbikes for many years without a single incident. The third party is young and has already had one prior but I appreciate this is irrelevant.
Let's hope an amicable settlement can be reached, including on here!
As I alluded to earlier, appreciate the views. For the record I have been driving cars for 25 years and riding motorbikes for many years without a single incident. The third party is young and has already had one prior but I appreciate this is irrelevant.
Let's hope an amicable settlement can be reached, including on here!
For what it's worth, I passed my car test 3 years ago (been riding bikes for nearly 10 years) and while learning to drive, on the turn in the road, I was told you can only start your manoeuvre if the road is totally clear. i.e. you can't even see another car on the same bit of road.
If a car appears while you are performing the turn, you must stop what you are doing and give them precedence (obviously not in the middle of the road, at either of the kerbs).
If they stop and let you complete the turn, that's up to them but you must let them make the choice between carrying on their journey, or waiting for you to finish.
If you don't stop for them and carry on causing them to alter speed or direction, it's a fail on the test.
If a car appears while you are performing the turn, you must stop what you are doing and give them precedence (obviously not in the middle of the road, at either of the kerbs).
If they stop and let you complete the turn, that's up to them but you must let them make the choice between carrying on their journey, or waiting for you to finish.
If you don't stop for them and carry on causing them to alter speed or direction, it's a fail on the test.
LoonR1 said:
MYOB said:
Life is too short to get disappointed about insignificant events!
Then admit liability and move on with it Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff