Who's at fault here?

[sim72]

OK, the road from top to bottom is an A-road, NSL; the two side roads are country roads. For cars coming from the south, the right turn is around 50m before the left turn. The yellow sections are hatched areas. The red section is a central refuge for cars coming from the north to turn right. There is a similar section for cars coming from the south to turn right before the hatches.

The driver of the blue car is waiting to turn right onto the main road. The driver sees the silver car and the green car approaching from the south. The silver car is indicating left, and the green car is indicating right. Seeing no conflict, the driver of the blue car pulls out, only for the green car to drive around the slowing-down silver car, over the hatched area, and into the side of the blue car.

This is currently going 50/50 because the driver of the green car says they were not indicating and there are no independent witnesses. What say the PH forum?

Google maps image: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.399051,-1.205059...

Edited by sim72 on Friday 8th August 17:11

Edited by sim72 on Friday 8th August 17:15

[TurboHatchback]

I would personally put the blame solidly on the green car. Any half way competent driver could see that overtaking there is a stupid idea though it is also the requirement of the car turning out to ensure that it is clear to do so so I can see why the insurance would go 50-50. Whilst it is reasonable for the blue car to see the situation as clear he failed to take into account the possible stupidity of others (the green car) and hence was a small part to blame.

All IMHO of course, I am not a lawyer, an insurance person or a police officer.

[Ash170990]

If ive read it right and the driver of the green car was over taking the Silver car then i can only see it as his fault for overtaking at what is near enough a crossroad... also imo only..

[3Dee]

TurboHatchback said:

All IMHO of course, I am not a lawyer, an insurance person or a police officer.

...or indeed a pole-dancer!

[TheEnd]

Hmm, blue car for me, an indicator would make me think that Mr Green is about to overtake.

[Snowboy]

Blue.
He didn't give way and pulled into the road when it wasn't safe to do so.

Assuming there wasn't a solid white line then it was a perfectly legal overtake.

[Pothole]

50/50. Green should not overtake there, blue should wait till his view to the right is unobstructed and not assume Silver is actually turning and/or not hiding a bike, really small vehicle...

[Winky151]

TurboHatchback said:

I would personally put the blame solidly on the green car. Any half way competent driver could see that overtaking there is a stupid idea though it is also the requirement of the car turning out to ensure that it is clear to do so so I can see why the insurance would go 50-50. Whilst it is reasonable for the blue car to see the situation as clear he failed to take into account the possible stupidity of others (the green car) and hence was a small part to blame.

All IMHO of course, I am not a lawyer, an insurance person or a police officer.

Agree blue car wil be deemed not to have taken care when pulling out hence the 50:50 but how many of us would expect the green car whilst apparently indicating to turn right subsequently overtake opposite or near to not one but two junctions, across cross-hatching (illegal in its self I believe) & potentially into the face of any vehicle entering the right turn lane. Sounds like the insurers are trying to take the easy ride. I'd tell them to contest it & put blame onto the green car.

[PurpleMoonlight]

50:50 seems fair. They both made an error.

Although the driver of the blue car should note never to trust indicators.

[12lee]

I'd say 50:50 is a result for the blue car. The hatching has dotted lines so it's legal to enter. The onus was on the blue car to give way to oncoming traffic. Just because it did not see/was not aware of the green car doesn't change its obligation entering a main road from a minor road to obey the give way. For the blue car it's 'unlucky' that the green car was there and did what it did, but, had the blue car waited for another few seconds, it would have been aware of the green car who although driving unnecessarily impatiently and creating risks for itself, didn't do anything illegal (but IMO did drive stupidly). I think by the letter of the law the blue car was in the wrong so the 50:50 is a result for the blue car.

[HTP99]

I was under the impression that in the Highway Code it say that you should never overtake a car turning into a junction; it looks exactly like the green car was impatient and was overtaking the silver car as it slowed to turn left, or am I missing something?

[Randomthoughts]

I'm going to say blue car. Whilst it always amazes me the number of people that move out to overtake someone to gain a whole second of their dreary beige lives as the car in front turns left, I know not to just assume I can go because there's an indicator on and the car behind 'shouldn't' be overtaking.

[Pothole]

Winky151 said:

TurboHatchback said:

I would personally put the blame solidly on the green car. Any half way competent driver could see that overtaking there is a stupid idea though it is also the requirement of the car turning out to ensure that it is clear to do so so I can see why the insurance would go 50-50. Whilst it is reasonable for the blue car to see the situation as clear he failed to take into account the possible stupidity of others (the green car) and hence was a small part to blame.

All IMHO of course, I am not a lawyer, an insurance person or a police officer.

Agree blue car wil be deemed not to have taken care when pulling out hence the 50:50 but how many of us would expect the green car whilst apparently indicating to turn right subsequently overtake opposite or near to not one but two junctions, across cross-hatching (illegal in its self I believe) & potentially into the face of any vehicle entering the right turn lane. Sounds like the insurers are trying to take the easy ride. I'd tell them to contest it & put blame onto the green car.

you believe WRONG. Exactly why many accidents happen.

[Winky151]

Pothole said:

ou believe WRONG. Exactly why many accidents happen.

Not totally wrong.

Rule 130 of the Highway Code

[quote]Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.

So it depends how that road is marked but was it necessary to enter that area to overtake the vehicle turning left?

[gaz1234]

silver car of course

[HTP99]

From the Highway Code:

167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

[sherbertdip]

50/50.

Driver of car pulling out shouldn't unless he is SURE there is nothing coming.

Driver of car overtaking shouldn't do that, best practice is to slow down, he/she couldn't be sure that a car wouldn't pull out of side road, which happened!

[agtlaw]

The BMW driver.

[Pothole]

Winky151 said:

Pothole said:

ou believe WRONG. Exactly why many accidents happen.

Not totally wrong.

Rule 130 of the Highway Code

[quote]Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.

So it depends how that road is marked but was it necessary to enter that area to overtake the vehicle turning left?

I know the section of the HC which refers to hatched lines. OP dioesn't say if they are bordered by broken lines but they generally are in this situation. I've been pulled for overtaking in this kind of box and successfully argued my way out of it (Plod was about 19, solo and hadn't a clue what he was talking about - he agreed that it depends how you interpret 'necessary'.

[mph999]

HTP99 said:

From the Highway Code:

167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

Do Not, as opposed to Must Not, so stupid, given the layout, but not illegal.