Hypothetical - accident whilst taking evasive action

[donkmeister]

Driver A is driving like a knob, and makes a manoeuvre that will drive them into Driver B unless Driver B moves hard right. This causes Driver B to crash into the motorway central reservation but not Driver A.

I'm not talking about a baulked overtake, road-rage, anything like that. Just a case where:
- Driver A is driving down a sliproad,
- Driver B, already on the motorway observes this and moves to lane 2 to allow Driver A plenty of room to join,
- Driver A cuts hard right into lane 2 and B has the choice of:
- a) allow a collision to take place
- b) brake and steer right to increase the room around the car and hopefully avoid a crash

What recourse, if any, does Driver B have if they choose the evasive action but in the process wallops the armco?

I witnessed this situation today, although fortunately Drive B managed to keep it on the road despite getting offside wheels over the edge marker. But it got me thinking, had they crashed Driver A would probably not have stopped and someone might argue that Driver A hadn't been part of the accident even if they had caused it.

[vonhosen]

Driver A is a part of the accident in law.
You don't have to collide with others to still be a part of it.

[CoreyDog]

vonhosen said:

Driver A is a part of the accident in law.
You don't have to collide with others to still be a part of it.

It's a scenario I've wondered myself that the OP presented, very nearly happened to me on the A1 a few weeks ago when elderly driver of a Focus didn't check his blind spot (or did but still moved out anyway).

Would Driver A then be failing to stop at the scene and also would Driver A be liable for the damage to Driver B if it came to an insurance claim?

[vonhosen]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...

[llewop]

vonhosen said:

Driver A is a part of the accident in law.
You don't have to collide with others to still be a part of it.

this and your link to the regulation both seem perfectly reasonable, to perfectly reasonable people.

However, a numpty that barges their way onto a motorway without a care about other vehicles (or just plain not noticing them ) would almost certainly take the view, if they even bother to look behind them; 'nothing to do with me.....' and carry on without hesitation.

Does make me think that even though it would be counter-intuitive and potentially a worse accident - make sure that if you going to hit anything; hit the numpty!

[vonhosen]

llewop said:

vonhosen said:

Driver A is a part of the accident in law.
You don't have to collide with others to still be a part of it.

this and your link to the regulation both seem perfectly reasonable, to perfectly reasonable people.

However, a numpty that barges their way onto a motorway without a care about other vehicles (or just plain not noticing them ) would almost certainly take the view, if they even bother to look behind them; 'nothing to do with me.....' and carry on without hesitation.

Does make me think that even though it would be counter-intuitive and potentially a worse accident - make sure that if you going to hit anything; hit the numpty!

Driver A doesn't get to make the determination (that matters) of whether in fact they are a part of it or not. Others do.
They can of course have the attitude 'nowt to do with me' & drive on, but the evidence presented will determine whether they are liable (both for the collision & for any offences committed, including Failing to stop/report a collision).

[croyde]

Had a car pull across me and I crashed my bike avoiding him.

We didn't touch but luckily there were witnesses.

He got points and fine a few months later but it took a couple of years to get a payout from his insurers for my totalled bike and lose of work due to being in hospital.

[Chrisgr31]

Happened to someone I know. Driving a car on a dual carriageway someone joined from the sliproad in a dangerous fashion which result in the person I know swerving, losing control. A passenger was paralysed.

The police charged the driver of the car joining from the sliproad, not sure it was with reckless or dangerous driving, but they were found not guilty.

However the insurance company of the person I know , facing a very large personal injury claim, didn't accept that answer and went to court against the other driver.

They settled on the doorstep of the court. The insurance company of the driver on the sliproad accepted something like 75-80% of the blame. Cant remember the exact details. But certainly it was a very high percentage.

[TooMany2cvs]

donkmeister said:

Driver A is driving like a knob, and makes a manoeuvre that will drive them into Driver B unless Driver B moves hard right. This causes Driver B to crash into the motorway central reservation but not Driver A.

I'm not talking about a baulked overtake, road-rage, anything like that. Just a case where:
- Driver A is driving down a sliproad,
- Driver B, already on the motorway observes this and moves to lane 2 to allow Driver A plenty of room to join,
- Driver A cuts hard right into lane 2 and B has the choice of:
- a) allow a collision to take place
- b) brake and steer right to increase the room around the car and hopefully avoid a crash

c) brake harder, and allow A in front. They only need to drop back a couple of metres or so, since they must be travelling at a pretty similar speed for this to be an issue.

donkmeister said:

What recourse, if any, does Driver B have if they choose the evasive action but in the process wallops the armco?

Then they made a bad choice, and have had a single-vehicle collision - unless they can prove that A really did cause it and there was absolutely no other option. Which is going to be bloody hard.

d) hit A.

[Pica-Pica]

TooMany2cvs said:

donkmeister said:

Driver A is driving like a knob, and makes a manoeuvre that will drive them into Driver B unless Driver B moves hard right. This causes Driver B to crash into the motorway central reservation but not Driver A.

I'm not talking about a baulked overtake, road-rage, anything like that. Just a case where:
- Driver A is driving down a sliproad,
- Driver B, already on the motorway observes this and moves to lane 2 to allow Driver A plenty of room to join,
- Driver A cuts hard right into lane 2 and B has the choice of:
- a) allow a collision to take place
- b) brake and steer right to increase the room around the car and hopefully avoid a crash

c) brake harder, and allow A in front. They only need to drop back a couple of metres or so, since they must be travelling at a pretty similar speed for this to be an issue.

donkmeister said:

What recourse, if any, does Driver B have if they choose the evasive action but in the process wallops the armco?

Then they made a bad choice, and have had a single-vehicle collision - unless they can prove that A really did cause it and there was absolutely no other option. Which is going to be bloody hard.

d) hit A.

e) brake hard and pull into left lane you have vacated.
Because, if you have vacated lane 1, you know what is behind you (you have been keeping observation of what is around you, and having an escape route, yes?)

[donkmeister]

TooMany2cvs said:

c) brake harder, and allow A in front. They only need to drop back a couple of metres or so, since they must be travelling at a pretty similar speed for this to be an issue.

Appreciate a car length is only 5 metres but it was that close that I have to say, from where I was I honestly don't think they could have braked harder. I thought there had actually been a collision.

[donkmeister]

Pica-Pica said:

e) brake hard and pull into left lane you have vacated.
Because, if you have vacated lane 1, you know what is behind you (you have been keeping observation of what is around you, and having an escape route, yes?)

Another non-starter I'm afraid - as I've said above, it was that close. A and B were actually alongside, B moving left would have definitely resulted in a collision.

All others, I'm somewhat reassured to hear that idiot "A"'s can face their comeuppance, although disheartened by the account of one such causing a horrible life-changing collision and getting away with it.

[DIW35]

This all assumes someone gets the number plate of the numpty as he drives off into the distance. Sounds like another good reason to have a dashcam fitted.

[Chrisgr31]

donkmeister said:

All others, I'm somewhat reassured to hear that idiot "A"'s can face their comeuppance, although disheartened by the account of one such causing a horrible life-changing collision and getting away with it.

Guessing his insurance renewal was interesting though!

[DocSteve]

donkmeister said:

Pica-Pica said:

e) brake hard and pull into left lane you have vacated.
Because, if you have vacated lane 1, you know what is behind you (you have been keeping observation of what is around you, and having an escape route, yes?)

Another non-starter I'm afraid - as I've said above, it was that close. A and B were actually alongside, B moving left would have definitely resulted in a collision.

All others, I'm somewhat reassured to hear that idiot "A"'s can face their comeuppance, although disheartened by the account of one such causing a horrible life-changing collision and getting away with it.

The question is, why did A move into lane 2 immediately after joining? This is a common scenario and usually due to A (in this case) joining lane 1 and closing on a vehicle already established in lane 1 at lower speed than car A. This is something that can be anticipated and managed with planning.

Of course there are always unusual occurrences and if car A joined an empty lane 1 then it would be an odd manoeuvre - however, assessment of the speed of car A and avoiding being alongside by modifying speed (by driver of car B) could have helped.

In my view, the focus when driving and analysing such incidents should be on how to avoid them, not the legal or other implications for poor drivers.

[Pica-Pica]

DocSteve said:

donkmeister said:

Pica-Pica said:

e) brake hard and pull into left lane you have vacated.
Because, if you have vacated lane 1, you know what is behind you (you have been keeping observation of what is around you, and having an escape route, yes?)

Another non-starter I'm afraid - as I've said above, it was that close. A and B were actually alongside, B moving left would have definitely resulted in a collision.

All others, I'm somewhat reassured to hear that idiot "A"'s can face their comeuppance, although disheartened by the account of one such causing a horrible life-changing collision and getting away with it.

The question is, why did A move into lane 2 immediately after joining? This is a common scenario and usually due to A (in this case) joining lane 1 and closing on a vehicle already established in lane 1 at lower speed than car A. This is something that can be anticipated and managed with planning.

Of course there are always unusual occurrences and if car A joined an empty lane 1 then it would be an odd manoeuvre - however, assessment of the speed of car A and avoiding being alongside by modifying speed (by driver of car B) could have helped.

In my view, the focus when driving and analysing such incidents should be on how to avoid them, not the legal or other implications for poor drivers.

Indeed, these impending scenarios are observable and predictable. As you approach the slip road, prepare to adjust and modify your safety bubble to suit.
The most probable reason for car A’s manoeuvre is that they wanted to be in lane 2 and relied on just a mirror check, and car B was in their blind spot. I am always aware of avoiding being in another car’s blind spot.

[Chrisgr31]

DocSteve said:

The question is, why did A move into lane 2 immediately after joining? This is a common scenario and usually due to A (in this case) joining lane 1 and closing on a vehicle already established in lane 1 at lower speed than car A. This is something that can be anticipated and managed with planning.

Of course there are always unusual occurrences and if car A joined an empty lane 1 then it would be an odd manoeuvre - however, assessment of the speed of car A and avoiding being alongside by modifying speed (by driver of car B) could have helped.

In my view, the focus when driving and analysing such incidents should be on how to avoid them, not the legal or other implications for poor drivers.

This is why in the case I mentioned the other driver was not 100% responsible. It was agreed that the driver on the dual carriageway had some responsibility as they could have slowed etc.

[SydneyBridge]

I had an accident on the M40 a few years ago, where it splits in two to join the M42. I was in lane 2 of 4, car on left of me cut across to lane 3, just as motorway split. Swerved to miss him, lost control snd smacked head onto into barriers at side and destroyed car.
Luckily the other driver came back,
He was charged and pleaded guilty the day before we were due in court.
It was an instant reaction to swerve and miss him

[kowalski655]

Years ago I represented a lady friend in court after she had driven her car( a very nice XR3) into a parked van as a car came round a blind corner too fast & on wrong side of the road,and she had to swerve to avoid a head-on.
Other driver tried to weasel out of it but eventually got most of the blame (she may have been going a bit too fast )
So a person who didnt actually bend their car but who causes an accident can definietly be liable

[SydneyBridge]

As long as they stop at the scene.