u-turn who's to blame
Discussion
hi all
My mother clipped someone today as they were performing a U-turn.
This U-turn I think is verging on the legal.
My mum was in a line of three cars waiting to turn right from the main drag (old shoreham road hove).
A gap appeared and the car in front, my mum and the car behind her all turned right.
The first car once entering the road on the right, swung a u turn quickly round the pedestrian bollards in the middle of the road, my mum who was behind slammed the anchors on (she said the car made a juddering noise. ABS kicked in?) and she clipped the car, not square up the back though more in the corner.
The car behind her hit her slightly and drove off (scratched paint on the bumper nothing broken).
Still would have been nice if they stopped.
So I am thinking that the car which did the u turn was driving with out care or attention to other road users, due to the fact that my mum had to swerve and break.
Am I right?
My mother clipped someone today as they were performing a U-turn.
This U-turn I think is verging on the legal.
My mum was in a line of three cars waiting to turn right from the main drag (old shoreham road hove).
A gap appeared and the car in front, my mum and the car behind her all turned right.
The first car once entering the road on the right, swung a u turn quickly round the pedestrian bollards in the middle of the road, my mum who was behind slammed the anchors on (she said the car made a juddering noise. ABS kicked in?) and she clipped the car, not square up the back though more in the corner.
The car behind her hit her slightly and drove off (scratched paint on the bumper nothing broken).
Still would have been nice if they stopped.
So I am thinking that the car which did the u turn was driving with out care or attention to other road users, due to the fact that my mum had to swerve and break.
Am I right?
Sorry, but this would appear to be down to your Mum. Although the U-turn was an unexpected manouevre she was the one behind, and as such, has to allow for the guy in front.
The situation would have been the same had the guy in front had to stop suddenly for some reason.
>> Edited by trevorh on Friday 6th January 10:23
The situation would have been the same had the guy in front had to stop suddenly for some reason.
>> Edited by trevorh on Friday 6th January 10:23
Sure you're mother should have made allowances but the person she hit has the responsibility to indicate his intentions before slamming on the brakes and making the turn.
Trouble is, without witnesses this is impossible to prove, which is why you're mum no doubt, will be held liable.
Trouble is, without witnesses this is impossible to prove, which is why you're mum no doubt, will be held liable.
If the driver in front was going slow enough to du a u-turn around some bollards then I guess she was either driving too close to stop, or too fast to stop.
What if the other driver had slammed on to avoid someone stepping out in front of them - would the other driver still be responsible for your mother's driving?
If she had left enough space, she would have not needed an escape route.
What if the other driver had slammed on to avoid someone stepping out in front of them - would the other driver still be responsible for your mother's driving?
If she had left enough space, she would have not needed an escape route.
havoc said:
Morally, the u-turner (assuming they didn't indicate).
How do you indicate a U-turn - surely it's a right indicator (which would have been on anyway).
I hate to say it, but looks like the fault lies with your mum for driving too close.
Good point well made. Sounds like she's basically rushed the turn to squeeze through a gap in the traffic and come unstuck as a result. Still a dodgy manoever for the car in front to make, especially "around" a pedestrian refuge. I'm sure a trafpol witnessing such a U-turn would have something to say on the matter.
havoc said:
I hate to say it, but looks like the fault lies with your mum for driving too close.
Sorry to say, I totally agree.
You must always have enough space in front of you to be able to stop - whether that's 200ft or 2ft, and evidently she did not.
Everyone's ok though so it's a dented pride and you bet she won't do it again so a lesson learned.
Tony
Obviously undertaking the U-turn is a risky manouvere with somebody following so closely behind (better to drive up the road and turn at the first available turning/opportunity) however it would be difficult to prove that they were 100% negligent in this case. There may be a possibility of a contributory negligence on their part, say 10-20% if a skilled claims negotiator can achieve this. Which would ultimately mean that 10-20% of your Mum's claim (whatever this may be) would be paid by his insurers. Which would be something.
Best regards.
Steve
Best regards.
Steve
pdV6 said:
Morally, the u-turner (assuming they didn't indicate).
How do you indicate a U-turn - surely it's a right indicator (which would have been on anyway).
I hate to say it, but looks like the fault lies with your mum for driving too close.
Good point well made. Sounds like she's basically rushed the turn to squeeze through a gap in the traffic and come unstuck as a result. Still a dodgy manoever for the car in front to make, especially "around" a pedestrian refuge. I'm sure a trafpol witnessing such a U-turn would have something to say on the matter.
if she rushed the turn how come she was hit from behind by another car that failed to stop and exchange details. thanks for all the replys
i thought it was a long shot, i just thought that there may have been some kind of law about u-turns around pedestrain refuges or at a junction. but its u-turns when the signs are up that are illegal.
pigeondave said:
On offence intended - in my mind's eye you've managed to paint a picture of 3 cars nipping through the gap nose-to-tail...
Just a thought - did the 3rd car "push" your mum into the 1st one? 
pdV6 said:
On offence intended - in my mind's eye you've managed to paint a picture of 3 cars nipping through the gap nose-to-tail...
It was your mums fault, likewise it was the car behind your mums fault too (the colision involing those to not the u-turner).
Regards the 3rd car pushing you, I've heard of people (especially motorway shunts) being blaimed (insurance liability) for hitting the car in front when shuntted from behind. I think you have to prove that you were stationary at the time of the car behind you hit you.
havoc said:
How do you indicate a U-turn - surely it's a right indicator (which would have been on anyway).
I think this is good enough reason NOT to indicate if you're in a lane which only goes right anyway. Then, if you're indicating, it means you're actually going to U-turn. I hate those who only start to indicate right once they've moved into the right-turn lane.
If I want to do anything "strange" like U-turn, I wait till there's nobody up my back even if it means I have to drive on for a while. I think pulling a U-turn immediately after a right turn and with someone close behind shows a lack of care for others. Presumably there was a "good" reason why he needed to do this? Was it perhaps because he couldn't turn left? If it was simply to do a 180 then you would do a proper U-turn at the junction, turn right first. It does seem like an odd thing to do.
If there was three cars waiting to turn right from a main road and your mother was the second car then when the first car moves across the carraigway your mum should have waited until he had moved far enough into the turning before she moves off.
If he had stalled with his rear end just inside the turning your mum would have had nowere to go, she would have been broadside in the road, just imagine.......
IMO its not a U turn.
If he had stalled with his rear end just inside the turning your mum would have had nowere to go, she would have been broadside in the road, just imagine.......
IMO its not a U turn.
woodytvr said:
Regards the 3rd car pushing you, I've heard of people (especially motorway shunts) being blaimed (insurance liability) for hitting the car in front when shuntted from behind. I think you have to prove that you were stationary at the time of the car behind you hit you.
Generally insurers will look at the number of impacts the car at the front of the queue suffered. If Car 1 (front), feels 1 impact only, then the general consensus is that Car 3 (back), has caused the damage to cars 1 and 2.
If there are 2 impacts, then insurers tend to suggest that car 2 (middle), hit car 1 first. Car 2 was then hit by Car 3 and subsequently hit Car 1 again. Hence the 2 impacts.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff