First accident help
Discussion
Because of the cyclist, would this not be the OPs fault?
The jeep had 3 options once the OP decided to overtake. Perform a hash stop, pull into the OP or hit the cyclist.
Surely as you were overtaking him, it's your responsibility to ensure the road ahead is clear?
Not trolling, genuinely intrigued.
The jeep had 3 options once the OP decided to overtake. Perform a hash stop, pull into the OP or hit the cyclist.
Surely as you were overtaking him, it's your responsibility to ensure the road ahead is clear?
Not trolling, genuinely intrigued.
Andyjc86 said:
Because of the cyclist, would this not be the OPs fault?
The jeep had 3 options once the OP decided to overtake. Perform a hash stop, pull into the OP or hit the cyclist.
Surely as you were overtaking him, it's your responsibility to ensure the road ahead is clear?
Not trolling, genuinely intrigued.
Both the OP and the driver of the jeep can be shown to have not done something they should have done.The jeep had 3 options once the OP decided to overtake. Perform a hash stop, pull into the OP or hit the cyclist.
Surely as you were overtaking him, it's your responsibility to ensure the road ahead is clear?
Not trolling, genuinely intrigued.
For this reason I don't think 100% blame can be attributed to either party alone. I'll be impressed if OP can argue it away from 50:50.
Andyjc86 said:
Because of the cyclist, would this not be the OPs fault?
The jeep had 3 options once the OP decided to overtake. Perform a hash stop, pull into the OP or hit the cyclist.
Surely as you were overtaking him, it's your responsibility to ensure the road ahead is clear?
Not trolling, genuinely intrigued.
Nope it's up to the jeep driver to actually have her eyes open while driving, anticipate the impending need to change lanes to overtake the cyclist, adjust her speed, check her mirrors, signal when clear and make the correct decision to slow down or pass the cyclist. It's not her right to just swap lanes without checking. The jeep had 3 options once the OP decided to overtake. Perform a hash stop, pull into the OP or hit the cyclist.
Surely as you were overtaking him, it's your responsibility to ensure the road ahead is clear?
Not trolling, genuinely intrigued.
This accident occurred because the driver of the jeep clearly wasn't reading the road, had situational awareness of what was around her and she changed lanes.
When I was learning to fly, this was one of the biggest things my instructor told me. Never let the plane get ahead of you. You should already have planed what was happening in the future and be acutely aware what was happening in the present moment it's called situational awareness. It's also very pertained to driving a car.
Markbarry1977 said:
Nope it's up to the jeep driver to actually have her eyes open while driving, anticipate the impending need to change lanes to overtake the cyclist, adjust her speed, check her mirrors, signal when clear and make the correct decision to slow down or pass the cyclist. It's not her right to just swap lanes without checking.
This accident occurred because the driver of the jeep clearly wasn't reading the road, had situational awareness of what was around her and she changed lanes.
When I was learning to fly, this was one of the biggest things my instructor told me. Never let the plane get ahead of you. You should already have planed what was happening in the future and be acutely aware what was happening in the present moment it's called situational awareness. It's also very pertained to driving a car.
The OP started the first overtake. It was his responsibility to make sure the overtake was safe. It is no excuse that he didn't see the cyclist because if he couldn't see it then it wasn't safe to overtake. He should have pulled back and moved to try to see on the inside or pulled out into the right lane and checked it was clear before overtaking (the fact that he was using cruise control does not suggest a safe and proper overtake to me). The driver of the Jeep is at fault too for not looking before her overtake but it understandable as she was probably focusing on the cyclist and didn't expect to be overtaken herself. This accident occurred because the driver of the jeep clearly wasn't reading the road, had situational awareness of what was around her and she changed lanes.
When I was learning to fly, this was one of the biggest things my instructor told me. Never let the plane get ahead of you. You should already have planed what was happening in the future and be acutely aware what was happening in the present moment it's called situational awareness. It's also very pertained to driving a car.
Esceptico said:
Stuff
It was a safe overtake, right up to the point where the Jeep pulled out having not even looked if it was safe to do so! The cyclist wouldn't have made a difference if the Jeep had looked at the situation...Nothing wrong with overtaking someone on cruise control if the road allows it. Why accelerate if you've got enough road to execute the move?
Jim1556 said:
Esceptico said:
Stuff
It was a safe overtake, right up to the point where the Jeep pulled out having not even looked if it was safe to do so! The cyclist wouldn't have made a difference if the Jeep had looked at the situation...Nothing wrong with overtaking someone on cruise control if the road allows it. Why accelerate if you've got enough road to execute the move?
ks to me. Maybe I've misunderstood but what did you expect the lady in the Jeep to do? From what you have said she had a cyclist in front of her as you are overtaking - so she has three options that I can see so were you expecting her to slam on the brakes so you could overtake her? If you overtake someone it is your responsibility as the person overtaking not to force them to change course or speed. Perhaps you would do better to think of it from her perspective: if you were coming up to a cyclist and as you went to pull out and found someone overtaking you, how would you feel? Even assuming you didn't make her mistake and pull out without looking I can bet you wouldn't be too happy about doing an emergency stop to avoid hitting the cyclist. Overtaking on cruise control is okay if you can see the road but you couldn't see the road because you missed a cyclist so that defeats your own argument. In your shoes I would be feeling very grateful that I hadn't caused an accident with the cyclist (likely to have been quite serious) rather than my NCB. Esceptico said:
Jim1556 said:
Esceptico said:
Stuff
It was a safe overtake, right up to the point where the Jeep pulled out having not even looked if it was safe to do so! The cyclist wouldn't have made a difference if the Jeep had looked at the situation...Nothing wrong with overtaking someone on cruise control if the road allows it. Why accelerate if you've got enough road to execute the move?
ks to me. Maybe I've misunderstood but what did you expect the lady in the Jeep to do? From what you have said she had a cyclist in front of her as you are overtaking - so she has three options that I can see so were you expecting her to slam on the brakes so you could overtake her? If you overtake someone it is your responsibility as the person overtaking not to force them to change course or speed. Perhaps you would do better to think of it from her perspective: if you were coming up to a cyclist and as you went to pull out and found someone overtaking you, how would you feel? Even assuming you didn't make her mistake and pull out without looking I can bet you wouldn't be too happy about doing an emergency stop to avoid hitting the cyclist. Overtaking on cruise control is okay if you can see the road but you couldn't see the road because you missed a cyclist so that defeats your own argument. In your shoes I would be feeling very grateful that I hadn't caused an accident with the cyclist (likely to have been quite serious) rather than my NCB. I'm not going to get into an argument or discussion on here with you. The simple fact is I am right and your wrong.
Markbarry1977 said:
Esceptico I'm sorry but your just plain wrong. Once the OP has established himself in the overtaking lane the the jeep drive has no right to just change lanes into the op because she's not reading the road. She should have either slowed down once the op had started the overtake or better still used her eyes and her brains and perhaps initiated her own overtake earlier.
I'm not going to get into an argument or discussion on here with you. The simple fact is I am right and your wrong.
Rather than just claiming you are correct perhaps you could back up your argument. Try looking at the Highway Code:I'm not going to get into an argument or discussion on here with you. The simple fact is I am right and your wrong.
Rule 162
Before overtaking you should make sure
the road is sufficiently clear ahead
Rule 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
The OP clearly couldn't see far enough ahead as he didn't see the cyclist.
The OP would have forced the Jeep to slow down (had she looked). On both counts he should not have overtaken when he did.
Everyone makes mistakes. I've made plenty. The important part is recognising them and trying to learn from them. Perhaps the OP should try riding bikes. Mistakes aren't usually punished with a bit of panel damage. Focuses the mind a bit more I find.
Retroman said:
Check her mirrors and blind spot to ensure it's clear & safe to overtake before doing so?
Seems a reasonable expectation to me.
She should have done that. But do you really do that every time you overtake a cyclist? Be honest. If you are I suspect you are a rare (and very good) driver. My brother in law went to use his wife's car and found that the rear view mirror had fallen off into the footwell at some point...his wife hadSeems a reasonable expectation to me.
been driving and not even noticed!!
Overtaking on the road should be approached like on a trackday - it is your responsibility to get past safely without having to rely on the person being overtaken seeing you or reacting as you think they should react.
Esceptico said:
Jim1556 said:
Esceptico said:
Stuff
It was a safe overtake, right up to the point where the Jeep pulled out having not even looked if it was safe to do so! The cyclist wouldn't have made a difference if the Jeep had looked at the situation...Nothing wrong with overtaking someone on cruise control if the road allows it. Why accelerate if you've got enough road to execute the move?
ks to me. Maybe I've misunderstood but what did you expect the lady in the Jeep to do? From what you have said she had a cyclist in front of her as you are overtaking - so she has three options that I can see so were you expecting her to slam on the brakes so you could overtake her? If you overtake someone it is your responsibility as the person overtaking not to force them to change course or speed. Perhaps you would do better to think of it from her perspective: if you were coming up to a cyclist and as you went to pull out and found someone overtaking you, how would you feel? Even assuming you didn't make her mistake and pull out without looking I can bet you wouldn't be too happy about doing an emergency stop to avoid hitting the cyclist. Overtaking on cruise control is okay if you can see the road but you couldn't see the road because you missed a cyclist so that defeats your own argument. In your shoes I would be feeling very grateful that I hadn't caused an accident with the cyclist (likely to have been quite serious) rather than my NCB. Anything except crash into another car (or the cyclist), obviously.
If it happened to me (your scenario I've highlighted) how I felt wouldn't matter. Not hitting other stuff is the main thing.
CallorFold said:
Doesn't sound like 50-50 at all to me, sounds like the Jeep changed lanes into the rear quarter of OP's car....
Jeep should have slowed for cyclist, and changed lanes to avoid the cyclist when it was safe to do so. Mirrors, blind spot etc. etc.
Completely and utterly this. The one mistake the OP made was not reading the road far enough ahead, but in mitigation seeing anything through 4x4's can be nigh on impossible. She neglected to A) check it was safe to pull out B) slow down to allow him to pass, being in the knowledge she needed to pass the bike, C) give any indication before her manoeuvre. If she had as much as signalled the OP could have aborted, or (width of road allowing of course) pulled out wider to clear them both safely. 100% the other parties fault IMO.Jeep should have slowed for cyclist, and changed lanes to avoid the cyclist when it was safe to do so. Mirrors, blind spot etc. etc.
Was the cyclist a little old lady on a butcher's boy bike, or a 'lycra warrior'? If the latter, the other driver might have been hesitant about overtaking a fast-moving cyclist. I find it hard to believe the OP couldn't see the cyclist whilst following the 'jeep' for 5 seconds - maybe driving too close?
280E said:
Was the cyclist a little old lady on a butcher's boy bike, or a 'lycra warrior'? If the latter, the other driver might have been hesitant about overtaking a fast-moving cyclist. I find it hard to believe the OP couldn't see the cyclist whilst following the 'jeep' for 5 seconds - maybe driving too close?
Possibly, however, when preparing to overtake a slow moving vehicle most of us close the gap prior, in preparation. To minimise time exposed to danger when committing to the overtake. Part of assessing an overtake involves good road positioning on the approach, to enable clear sight lines on both offside and nearside. It sounds as if the OP had decided quite some time previously that he was going to overtake this particular vehicle, and may have become fixated on getting past, rather than on good observation.
'I didn't see' is often more a case of 'I didn't look'.
'I didn't see' is often more a case of 'I didn't look'.
Bigends said:
As soon as you inform the insurancec company -regardless of blame or how how things finish -itll mean higher premiums for the next five years
Not this one again...That's not necessarily the case - my parked car was reversed into by someone. I claimed via an AMC (as the other party wasn't co-operating with insurance details).
My renewal was lower or the same with at least half a dozen insurers after I advised them of the claim.
Esceptico said:
Rule 162
Before overtaking you should make sure the road is sufficiently clear ahead
Rule 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
Before overtaking you should make sure the road is sufficiently clear ahead
Rule 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
280E said:
Part of assessing an overtake involves good road positioning on the approach, to enable clear sight lines on both offside and nearside.
OP, while many here may think it is their right to simply charge past anything moving slower than their cruise control setting I'm afraid this is not an opinion based in reality.While none of us were there so can't really offer a definitive view I think on balance this will end up 50:50.
Have to say that as a cyclist aswell as a driver I would be deeply unimpressed with someone deciding to overtake a 4x4 which happened to be overtaking me resulting in a collision. In future I would recommend paying heed to the bold in 280E's post as it sounds like simple good luck that you're talking to insurers about this from home rather than Police Collision Investigators from an interview room.
Esceptico said:
She should have done that. But do you really do that every time you overtake a cyclist? Be honest. If you are I suspect you are a rare (and very good) driver. My brother in law went to use his wife's car and found that the rear view mirror had fallen off into the footwell at some point...his wife had
been driving and not even noticed!!
Of course i do. I've assumed virtually everyone does.been driving and not even noticed!!
If i didn't, how would i be sure no one else was overtaking me?
Seems pretty idiotic to assume the road will be clear and just pull out without checking.
Esceptico said:
Overtaking on the road should be approached like on a trackday - it is your responsibility to get past safely without having to rely on the person being overtaken seeing you or reacting as you think they should react.
But no one is psychic and no one knows for sure what the car in front is going to do, so unless people are able to read minds and / or have x ray eyes there's always going to be a risk when overtaking. Unfortunately for the OP the accident happened as the other party were negligent and started to overtake before making sure it was clear to do so. It's not negligent to not take steps to avoid someone else's negligence.Edited by Retroman on Sunday 15th May 10:41
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff