Apportion blame please!!!
Discussion
My journey to work includes the A12 - a dual carriageway. Quite often I have seen near miss accidents on the following situation and have often wondered who would be at fault.
A car is travelling in the offside lane and decides to switch to the nearside lane. Problem is they do it where a slip road is joining and nearly takes out the car joining from the slip road. This quite often happens as the A12 is very conjested and the nearside lane is usually moving at a faster speed.
Now who is at fault - the chap already on the A12 or the guy joining it. Both have a duty to ensure their manoeuvre is clear but very often if they are relying on just their mirrors wont see each other.
Personally I never change lanes where a slip road is joining.
A car is travelling in the offside lane and decides to switch to the nearside lane. Problem is they do it where a slip road is joining and nearly takes out the car joining from the slip road. This quite often happens as the A12 is very conjested and the nearside lane is usually moving at a faster speed.
Now who is at fault - the chap already on the A12 or the guy joining it. Both have a duty to ensure their manoeuvre is clear but very often if they are relying on just their mirrors wont see each other.
Personally I never change lanes where a slip road is joining.
Most likely the guy joining. You do not have right of way when joining. You MUST give way to traffic already on the motorway/dual carriageway.
And yes. I used to travel the A12 all the time to Ipswich and Back. Some of that road is clearly dangerous - I used to see prangs on a weekly basis...
Edited to say that the capitalised MUST in the post above is wrong. I'm afraid its a should as Shaun_E points out in rule 233 later in this thread.
>> Edited by Don on Friday 20th February 10:01
And yes. I used to travel the A12 all the time to Ipswich and Back. Some of that road is clearly dangerous - I used to see prangs on a weekly basis...
Edited to say that the capitalised MUST in the post above is wrong. I'm afraid its a should as Shaun_E points out in rule 233 later in this thread.
>> Edited by Don on Friday 20th February 10:01
Don said:
Most likely the guy joining. You do not have right of way when joining. You MUST give way to traffic already on the motorway/dual carriageway.
I bet you can't find that in the Highway code. (I don't believe it's there)
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
There is in increasing number of mutants usually driving Festas or Micras or anything ending in O who do driving thingy in the middlelanecositssafe then look for an on ramp to start their comingoffthemotorwaywassaname manouvre. Lots of near misses, god know why but perhaps DNA tests will find the fault.
Big_M said:
My journey to work includes the A12 - a dual carriageway. Quite often I have seen near miss accidents on the following situation and have often wondered who would be at fault.
The A12 is one road where the inside lane can be positively lethal. I have lost count of the number of times I have been making decent progress in the inside lane when some idiot has joined the lane from an entry slip at about 5 mph. If the outside lane is occupied you have nowhere to go, you just have to hope that the abs works.
The entry slips often give no room to get up to speed before joining the road, to be safe you either need a very large gap to pull into or an extremely fast car - and a lot of drivers have neither.
If you crashed into the back of a car who joined the road directly in front of you would it be your fault? I know it is usually the fault of the driver behind, but is this always the case?
>> Edited by david_s on Thursday 19th February 23:30
monster1 said:
I bet you can't find that in the Highway code. (I don't believe it's there)
Rule 109.
Que?
Rule 109 relates to shaded areas, not merging on motorways / dual carriageways. Here it is:
www.highwaycode.gov.uk/10.shtml#109
Care to try again?
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
safespeed said:
Most likely the guy joining. You do not have right of way when joining. You MUST give way to traffic already on the motorway/dual carriageway.
I bet you can't find that in the Highway code. (I don't believe it's there)
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
You're making me think, now!
I'll have a really good poke around in the Highway Code / Motoring Law books I've got as well as Roadcraft / IAM stuff. I'll try and find out if its one of those HC recommends things or a legal requirement...
Roadrage: You are correct in that only MUST/ MUST NOT noted Highway Code rules are enshrined in law. However I believe that in the event of an accident of prosecution if you have been found to have been breaking HC rules this can be used to determine if you were driving carelessly - which IS an offence.
That's my understanding anyway. I'm sure Tonyrec/Silverback Mike could elucidate further.
I think the answer is here:
www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs09.shtml
and
www.highwaycode.gov.uk/10.shtml#109
It would appear that the markings at the end of the slip road imply that you should give way to the traffic on the "major road" coming from your right.
I'll do some more looking about. I thing you are right, Paul, that there is no explicit rule stating
"Give Way to traffic on the motorway" - I think its the road markings that do it.
Traffic BiBs: any comment?
www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs09.shtml
and
www.highwaycode.gov.uk/10.shtml#109
It would appear that the markings at the end of the slip road imply that you should give way to the traffic on the "major road" coming from your right.
I'll do some more looking about. I thing you are right, Paul, that there is no explicit rule stating
"Give Way to traffic on the motorway" - I think its the road markings that do it.
Traffic BiBs: any comment?
My brother had a serious accident on the A1 when he lost control avoiding someone who came out from the sliproad. One of his passenergs was paralysed.
The Police stated that my brother should have moved out of the inside lane to the inside to give the oncoming car room. however they also prosecuted the other driver for dangerous driving or similar, but much to the fury of the police he got off. I should say the other driver never stopped but another driver got his registration. Despite being local he didn't go home either for over 24 hours and there was a belief he might have been over the limit but unprovable.
In view of the amount of damages involved due to the injuries to my brothers passenger his insurance company took out a private prosecution of the other driver, for dmaages. The other drivers insurance company settled out of court to pay something like 80% of the damages. I can't remember the exact figure.
My brothers insurance companies view was that the other insurance company were effectively agreeing their client was to blame. They decided to accept less than 100% because of the expense of taking the case all the way and losing. Particularly in view of the sum of damages involved.
The Police stated that my brother should have moved out of the inside lane to the inside to give the oncoming car room. however they also prosecuted the other driver for dangerous driving or similar, but much to the fury of the police he got off. I should say the other driver never stopped but another driver got his registration. Despite being local he didn't go home either for over 24 hours and there was a belief he might have been over the limit but unprovable.
In view of the amount of damages involved due to the injuries to my brothers passenger his insurance company took out a private prosecution of the other driver, for dmaages. The other drivers insurance company settled out of court to pay something like 80% of the damages. I can't remember the exact figure.
My brothers insurance companies view was that the other insurance company were effectively agreeing their client was to blame. They decided to accept less than 100% because of the expense of taking the case all the way and losing. Particularly in view of the sum of damages involved.
Shaun_E said:
rule 233 www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.shtml
Yep. That's the one. Well done.
Note the "should"...rather than the MUST however. So this means that this particular rule is advisory (IIRC) but ignoring it could be used against you in the event of a prosecution for careless or dangerous driving.
Seems to me that the Road Traffic Act should be firmed up in this respect...
Don said:
rule 233 <a href="http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.shtml">www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.shtml</a>
Yep. That's the one. Well done.
Note the "should"...rather than the MUST however. So this means that this particular rule is advisory (IIRC) but ignoring it could be used against you in the event of a prosecution for careless or dangerous driving.
Seems to me that the Road Traffic Act should be firmed up in this respect...
And until it is, when you're on the motorway, be especially prepared for people to merge without giving way. Personally I get well out of the way and give way to anything in these circumstances. And it isn't a good place to overtake slower vehicles either. If I'm in L3 I probably slow to match L2 speed (and drive with a stagger) until I'm clear of the merge area.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
safespeed said:
When you're on the motorway, be especially prepared for people to merge without giving way. Personally I get well out of the way and give way to anything in these circumstances. And it isn't a good place to overtake slower vehicles either. If I'm in L3 I probably slow to match L2 speed (and drive with a stagger) until I'm clear of the merge area.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
My technique exactly. Create a "safety space" around you and co-operate with the person merging. Gets you both there faster and safer.
IAM advice is to assist merging drivers by moving out if at all possible/reasonable.
Oh.
The problem with fast dual carriageway A roads like the A12 is that the entry slips in many cases are effectively just T junctions, so cars join at speeds of a few mph and then accelerate up to speed. When approaching such junctions at speeds of around 70mph it is not possible to leave adequate space for all eventualities.
If you are in the inside lane (where you should be unless overtaking) and the outside lane is occupied, then taking avoiding action when somebody pulls out directly in front of you is not easy!
If you are in the inside lane (where you should be unless overtaking) and the outside lane is occupied, then taking avoiding action when somebody pulls out directly in front of you is not easy!
safespeed said:
Shaun_E said:
rule 233 <a href="http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.shtml"><a href="http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.shtml">www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.shtml</a></a>
Yep. That's the one. Well done.
Note the "should"...rather than the MUST however. So this means that this particular rule is advisory (IIRC) but ignoring it could be used against you in the event of a prosecution for careless or dangerous driving.
Seems to me that the Road Traffic Act should be firmed up in this respect...
And until it is, when you're on the motorway, be especially prepared for people to merge without giving way. Personally I get well out of the way and give way to anything in these circumstances. And it isn't a good place to overtake slower vehicles either. If I'm in L3 I probably slow to match L2 speed (and drive with a stagger) until I'm clear of the merge area.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Back to those old modal verbs - per the diagonal hatch thread!
To add to the confusion - take a peek at the driving theory test data bank on this question!!
That is when you realise why accidents happen!!
Don said:
Roadrage: You are correct in that only MUST/ MUST NOT noted Highway Code rules are enshrined in law. However I believe that in the event of an accident of prosecution if you have been found to have been breaking HC rules this can be used to determine if you were driving carelessly - which IS an offence.
That's my understanding anyway. I'm sure Tonyrec/Silverback Mike could elucidate further.
Don, you are quite correct in what you say. Whilst going against the Highway Code MAY not always be an offence in itself,contravening it is certainly not 'deemed' by the Courts to be of 'Best Practice'.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff