First accident help

[PorkInsider]

Retroman said:

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.
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.

Completely agree.

I can't imagine pulling out to overtake anything without checking mirrors first.

[Bigends]

rscott said:

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.

I was hit whilst stationary five years back - non blameworthy on my part -all costs covered by the other drivers insurance. No claim against me. Every year ive looked for quotes with and without declaring the accident. Always higher when declaring than not. Ive certainly not had a lower quote. Nobody can definitively say the quotes wont go up

[rscott]

Bigends said:

rscott said:

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.

I was hit whilst stationary five years back - non blameworthy on my part -all costs covered by the other drivers insurance. No claim against me. Every year ive looked for quotes with and without declaring the accident. Always higher when declaring than not. Ive certainly not had a lower quote. Nobody can definitively say the quotes wont go up

And, unlike your first post, no one can claim they'll go up either.

[Markbarry1977]

The responses to this post by some are almost incomprehensible, how can the OP be in anyway to blame.

He checked his mirrors, no doubt signalled, moved into a lane to overtake and at the point where he is 3/4 of the way past the jeep the jeep driver failed to check her mirrors, failed to signal, changed lanes and collided with the OP who was already in the lane.

If there was an emoji for throwing hands up in dispair while shaking a head in total disbelief then this post is definatley a prime candidate for it for those blaming the OP.

OP I can't tell you what to do nor am I in the legal profession, but anything but 0% liability for you would be all I would accept as fair and honest if I were in your situation.

This post reminds me I have to go and fit the dash cam to the Porsche in case I have the misfortune of meeting someone who believes it is okay to change lanes without using their mirrors or signalling.

:-( will have to do.

[rscott]

Markbarry1977 said:

The responses to this post by some are almost incomprehensible, how can the OP be in anyway to blame.

He checked his mirrors, no doubt signalled, moved into a lane to overtake and at the point where he is 3/4 of the way past the jeep the jeep driver failed to check her mirrors, failed to signal, changed lanes and collided with the OP who was already in the lane.

If there was an emoji for throwing hands up in dispair while shaking a head in total disbelief then this post is definatley a prime candidate for it for those blaming the OP.

OP I can't tell you what to do nor am I in the legal profession, but anything but 0% liability for you would be all I would accept as fair and honest if I were in your situation.

This post reminds me I have to go and fit the dash cam to the Porsche in case I have the misfortune of meeting someone who believes it is okay to change lanes without using their mirrors or signalling.

:-( will have to do.

Not sure where the idea of 'changing lanes' comes from - this wasn't on a dual carriageway

[Bigends]

rscott said:

Bigends said:

rscott said:

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.

I was hit whilst stationary five years back - non blameworthy on my part -all costs covered by the other drivers insurance. No claim against me. Every year ive looked for quotes with and without declaring the accident. Always higher when declaring than not. Ive certainly not had a lower quote. Nobody can definitively say the quotes wont go up

And, unlike your first post, no one can claim they'll go up either.

Mine have - every year

[Chester draws]

Markbarry1977 said:

The responses to this post by some are almost incomprehensible, how can the OP be in anyway to blame.

He checked his mirrors, no doubt signalled, moved into a lane to overtake and at the point where he is 3/4 of the way past the jeep the jeep driver failed to check her mirrors, failed to signal, changed lanes and collided with the OP who was already in the lane.

If there was an emoji for throwing hands up in dispair while shaking a head in total disbelief then this post is definatley a prime candidate for it for those blaming the OP.

OP I can't tell you what to do nor am I in the legal profession, but anything but 0% liability for you would be all I would accept as fair and honest if I were in your situation.

This post reminds me I have to go and fit the dash cam to the Porsche in case I have the misfortune of meeting someone who believes it is okay to change lanes without using their mirrors or signalling.

:-( will have to do.

So you think that the OP met all the below rules in the HC regarding overtaking?

Rule 162
Before overtaking you should make sure

• the road is sufficiently clear ahead
• there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.

Rule 163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

• not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake

Rule 166
DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe.

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

Obviously the Jeep driver has obligations to check before they make their manoeuvre, and if they had done so the incident wouldn't have happened. Equally so, if the OP had met all their obligations the incident wouldn't have happened either.

So IMO both parties should shoulder the blame.

The opinion of the police and the insurance companies are the only ones that really matter here, and I'm sure the OP will update the thread as things develop.

[Retroman]

rscott said:

Not sure where the idea of 'changing lanes' comes from - this wasn't on a dual carriageway

I imagine the OP had to change into the oncoming lane to perform the overtake.

[Esceptico]

Retroman said:

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

It seems pretty idiotic to me to commit to an overtake when you can't see the road is clear ahead (especially the bit you are wanting to fill).

My strong suspicion is that the fact the OP was using cruise control is a good part of the reason for the crash. Rather than slow down (and so cancel the cruise control), check that it was safe to overtake and then overtake I suspect the OP has sailed up to the Jeep and tried to go straight past without checking properly. It is irrefutable that he didn't check properly because he missed the cyclist. Following a 4x4 might restrict your view of the road ahead but that doesn't mean you can just overtake anyway. Like passing lorries or buses it means taking time to get a view ahead of them to make sure it is safe and then get past. Or pull out onto the other side of the road and move closer to the car in front to check it is clear before completing the overtake (or slow down and pull back in if it isn't).

[Retroman]

Esceptico said:

It seems pretty idiotic to me to commit to an overtake when you can't see the road is clear ahead (especially the bit you are wanting to fill).

Yes, but not as idiotic as driving into the side of a car that's trying to overtake you.

Esceptico said:

My strong suspicion is that the fact the OP was using cruise control is a good part of the reason for the crash. Rather than slow down (and so cancel the cruise control), check that it was safe to overtake and then overtake I suspect the OP has sailed up to the Jeep and tried to go straight past without checking properly. It is irrefutable that he didn't check properly because he missed the cyclist. Following a 4x4 might restrict your view of the road ahead but that doesn't mean you can just overtake anyway. Like passing lorries or buses it means taking time to get a view ahead of them to make sure it is safe and then get past. Or pull out onto the other side of the road and move closer to the car in front to check it is clear before completing the overtake (or slow down and pull back in if it isn't).

But the road ahead was clear for the car to overtake right up until the idiot drove into the side of them

Imagine there is a tractor driving at 20mph on the road and a car is driving behind it and it isn't overtaking the tractor.
Do you sit behind both and refuse to overtake in case the car decides to at some point, or do you overtake both if there is room to do so?

[PorkInsider]

Chester draws said:

So you think that the OP met all the below rules in the HC regarding overtaking?

Rule 162
Before overtaking you should make sure

• the road is sufficiently clear ahead
• there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.

Rule 163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

• not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake

Rule 166
DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe.

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

Obviously the Jeep driver has obligations to check before they make their manoeuvre, and if they had done so the incident wouldn't have happened. Equally so, if the OP had met all their obligations the incident wouldn't have happened either.

So IMO both parties should shoulder the blame.

The opinion of the police and the insurance companies are the only ones that really matter here, and I'm sure the OP will update the thread as things develop.

Which one(s) do you assume OP didn't comply with?

[HerrSchnell]

Retroman said:

But the road ahead was clear for the car to overtake right up until the idiot drove into the side of them

Imagine there is a tractor driving at 20mph on the road and a car is driving behind it and it isn't overtaking the tractor.
Do you sit behind both and refuse to overtake in case the car decides to at some point, or do you overtake both if there is room to do so?

Tractor is a strawman argument, it would be blindingly obvious that a vehicle twice the size of the car in front and most likely with flashing amber beacons is there.

The point here is that the OP did not check to the nearside of the vehicle he moved to overtake. In doing so he failed to observe the cyclist and anticipate the actions of the Jeep driver.

Negligence on both sides.

I'll throw another strawman back at you.

Let's say the OP had seen the cyclist and judged the closing speeds of Jeep and cyclist accurately; should he have continued the overtake?

[Esceptico]

Retroman said:

But the road ahead was clear for the car to overtake right up until the idiot drove into the side of them

Imagine there is a tractor driving at 20mph on the road and a car is driving behind it and it isn't overtaking the tractor.
Do you sit behind both and refuse to overtake in case the car decides to at some point, or do you overtake both if there is room to do so?

Your imaginary tractor is a complete red herring. The Jeep was not crawling along behind the cyclist. The Jeep was driving at normal speed (not as fast as the OP) and moved over to go around the cyclist. Should she have done mirror-signal-manoeuvre? Yes. Should she have expected someone to overtake her whilst she was pulling around a cyclist? In a perfect world, yes, but I expect a lot of people would not have because they would have been concentrating on the cyclist and not what was behind them.

[Chester draws]

PorkInsider said:

Which one(s) do you assume OP didn't comply with?

All of 'em.

[Esceptico]

Scottishlad said:

Appreciate all the replies, interesting to read from both sides.

I still believe I'm 100% not liable from a legal perspective although as I've already admitted if the cyclist was visible I would have certainly held off. She collided with myself because she did not look at her mirrors and pulled into the lane I was well established in. I did not force her to swerve or brake as the cyclist was still a distance in front. The damage on both vehicles reflects this and thankfully the cyclist was not involved and just continued on.

When I looked the road was clear, even with the cyclist I could have continued on the other side of the road for easily another mile with no traffic at all.

The cyclist was very hard to see and was not visible from behind the jeep, even with a reasonable gap behind, I was not tailgating as the adaptive cruise brings the speed of my car gradually to meet the jeeps but keeps a certain distance which is adjustable but, cannot tailgate. I overridden the cruise control by hitting the accelerator as I pulled out to overtake.

OP: when did you first see the cyclist? If the cyclist was some way in front of the Jeep did you see him before you caught up with the Jeep or only when alongside?

[anonymous-user]

OP - somewhere on the accident report form will be the question: "Did you sound your horn or give any other warning?"

What will be your answer?

[davepoth]

Scottishlad said:

When I was alongside the jeep I seen the cyclist otherwise I would have braked and pulled back behind. I was too far committed to brake as braking would prolong the time I was alongside the jeep.

How far ahead was the cyclist?

I'm conflicted on this. My initial response was "42mph club, probably texting" and the jeep's fault but after a bit of thinking I don't know - overtaking puts your car into a place it wouldn't normally be, and the onus is on the overtaker to make sure it's done safely. The jeep driver definitely failed in her observation - if I'm ever driving significantly slower than the speed limit for any reason I keep a close eye on whatever's behind for this exact reason - but there was possibly an observation fail by the OP on the cyclist.

Now if the cyclist was half a mile down the road then the jeep driver had no business pulling out to overtake that early anyway, which I guess makes it important.

[Esceptico]

Scottishlad said:

When I was alongside the jeep I seen the cyclist otherwise I would have braked and pulled back behind. I was too far committed to brake as braking would prolong the time I was alongside the jeep.

Sorry OP but you seem to be contradicting yourself as in your other post you said that the road was clear for about a mile on the other oncoming lane.

[superlightr]

Markbarry1977 said:

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:

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:

This post reminds me I have to go and fit the dash cam to the Porsche in case I have the misfortune of meeting someone who believes it is okay to change lanes without using their mirrors or signalling.

:-( will have to do.

lol. You make yourself sound pretentious. A forum is for discussion, there is rarely a black and white answer.


The OP did not assess the road ahead, he did not anticipate the vehicle in front moving out to overtake the cyclist, the OP did not check to see if the road was clear to overtake. The cyclist was there all the time.
OP lets see a google map of the road pls.

Yes the jeep 'should' have mirrored/indicated/moved etc but if the OP was checking and planning ahead and really looking at the road he 'should' have seen the cyclist.

Overtaking on CC ! - gulp. That sounds a terrible idea. It does not give you the flexibility you need during an overtake I would suggest.

Edited by superlightr on Monday 16th May 13:00

Edited by superlightr on Monday 16th May 13:03

[mph1977]

Retroman said:

I wouldn't expect this one to go 50/50 personally.

They changed their road position without checking it was clear to do so, thus i'd expect full liability to fall with them if they're honest when they report their side of the story.

What details did you get from them?

however they will attempt to defend with the OP hadn't observed properly and took an illadvised overtake when it was obvious to the ordinary prudent motorist that the 'jeep' was going to pass the cyclist ...