First accident help
Discussion
The golden rule on overtaking is don't overtake if you can't see the road ahead is clear for you to get past and back on your side (without causing the vehicle you are overtaking to take any action). The OP couldn't see but has relied on blind luck that the road was clear. His luck ran out. This seems like a text book case of why you shouldn't break the golden rule!
I'm not trying to point a finger. I've certainly made mistakes on overtakes in the past. Hopefully I've learnt my lessons.
I'm not trying to point a finger. I've certainly made mistakes on overtakes in the past. Hopefully I've learnt my lessons.
Retroman said:
If the Golden rule is you should check your mirrors & blind spot before changing lane, i agree
So you think that is the most important part of overtaking (on a single carriageway)? Checking behind you? Not checking in front to see if it is safe to overtake at all? For some reason you seem to want to defend the OP's actions at all costs. You are making yourself look a bit foolish doing so.Esceptico said:
So you think that is the most important part of overtaking (on a single carriageway)? Checking behind you? Not checking in front to see if it is safe to overtake at all? For some reason you seem to want to defend the OP's actions at all costs. You are making yourself look a bit foolish doing so.
Ok, i'll bite. If the OP had seen the cyclist and was able to determine they could overtake both the car and cyclist safely in the space they had.
Would it still be the OP's fault if they went to overtake and someone drives into the side of them?
It just blows my mind that someone would attempt an overtake without checking their mirrors or blind spot. If they did, they would have seen the OP and could slowed down.
I'm not suggesting what the OP done is good practise but there is far greater negligence in the incident described with the third party than the OP IMO.
Retroman said:
Esceptico said:
So you think that is the most important part of overtaking (on a single carriageway)? Checking behind you? Not checking in front to see if it is safe to overtake at all? For some reason you seem to want to defend the OP's actions at all costs. You are making yourself look a bit foolish doing so.
Ok, i'll bite. If the OP had seen the cyclist and was able to determine they could overtake both the car and cyclist safely in the space they had.
Would it still be the OP's fault if they went to overtake and someone drives into the side of them?
It just blows my mind that someone would attempt an overtake without checking their mirrors or blind spot. If they did, they would have seen the OP and could slowed down.
I'm not suggesting what the OP done is good practise but there is far greater negligence in the incident described with the third party than the OP IMO.
Was on a NSL A road recently and following line of traffic doing 40 mph. Nice long straight opened up and I passed 2 cars before the penultimate car decided to pull out. Spidey sense or experience told me to watch it closely and I managed to give her quite a fright letting her know where I was. An apologetic wave and she limped past the first vehicle at 42mph whilst I had to dive in behind.
So I saw there were vehicles in front but there was no indication that they intended to pass the vehicle at the head. I'd have been annoyed if we had collided and it wasn't deemed 100% the third party fault.
Retroman said:
Esceptico said:
So you think that is the most important part of overtaking (on a single carriageway)? Checking behind you? Not checking in front to see if it is safe to overtake at all? For some reason you seem to want to defend the OP's actions at all costs. You are making yourself look a bit foolish doing so.
Ok, i'll bite. If the OP had seen the cyclist and was able to determine they could overtake both the car and cyclist safely in the space they had.
Would it still be the OP's fault if they went to overtake and someone drives into the side of them?
It just blows my mind that someone would attempt an overtake without checking their mirrors or blind spot. If they did, they would have seen the OP and could slowed down.
I'm not suggesting what the OP done is good practise but there is far greater negligence in the incident described with the third party than the OP IMO.
In NSL the Jeep must have been doing 45-50 even if driven by a plodder. Bicycle unlikely to be doing more than 25. So speed difference of 20-30 mph. It seems exceedingly unlikely that the OP had time to get safely past without causing Jeep to have to slow down. And why would you risk it?
Passing two cars that are following each other at roughly the same speed is not the same as a car overtaking a bicycle.
Passing more than one vehicle is risky. I do it almost every time I am out on my bike. But I don't blindly screech past. I treat each vehicle as a separate overtake. I often drop back in between the two vehicles rather than risk it. What's the point as the next opportunity is never that far away?
Esceptico said:
Really?
In NSL the Jeep must have been doing 45-50 even if driven by a plodder. Bicycle unlikely to be doing more than 25. So speed difference of 20-30 mph. It seems exceedingly unlikely that the OP had time to get safely past without causing Jeep to have to slow down. And why would you risk it?
Passing two cars that are following each other at roughly the same speed is not the same as a car overtaking a bicycle.
This is all completely valid however if the third party had bothered to check it was clear before changing lane the accident would not have happened. You could say the same for the OP but i think there is a greater onus of negligence on the third party in this instance.In NSL the Jeep must have been doing 45-50 even if driven by a plodder. Bicycle unlikely to be doing more than 25. So speed difference of 20-30 mph. It seems exceedingly unlikely that the OP had time to get safely past without causing Jeep to have to slow down. And why would you risk it?
Passing two cars that are following each other at roughly the same speed is not the same as a car overtaking a bicycle.
I can understand how someone might not see a cyclist in front of a 4x4. You wouldn't see it glancing but if you were extra vigilant with observations you could. I'd conclude they have looked at the road ahead, but not well enough
I can't understand how someone can't see or hear a car beside them though unless they simply didn't look at all. Not looking at all, is more negligent than not looking well enough
I'm not a Judge or someone who deals with insurance claim disputes so my opinion is only that.
Esceptico said:
Passing more than one vehicle is risky. I do it almost every time I am out on my bike. But I don't blindly screech past. I treat each vehicle as a separate overtake. I often drop back in between the two vehicles rather than risk it. What's the point as the next opportunity is never that far away?
Are you one of these people that forces drivers to slow down because you've entered into their safe braking space?Retroman said:
Are you one of these people that forces drivers to slow down because you've entered into their safe braking space?
More annoying for me is the fact the Jeep driver didn't notice a car catching them up before any overtake took place!If I'm out for a drive and a car approaches from behind (usually only on the motorway), I assume they're driving faster than me and would like to pass, I move over when I've finished my overtake and even lift off too occasionally, knowing I'll be pulling out again to overtake yet another MLM!
On an A/B road, it rarely happens as I don't dawdle, but the last time it did, I was passing through a small village at the 30 limit - stereotypical woman in a 4x4 flew past at 40ish. Thankfully, I was in the M3 and soon pissed on her chips in the NSL (yes, she was still doing 40ish!)...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff