Turning across a give way
Discussion
Had an "incident" on the way to work this morning and although we have come to an agreement repairs wise, am curious as to the liability.
Situation is :
2 lane main road, traffic lights at end.
Tesco filling station close to lights on left hand side with give way at entry and exit points.
Lights ahead on red, traffic in lane 1 stationary
I want to turn into tesco using keep clear from lane 2 across front of stationary traffic which I and umpteen cars do every morning.
I make turn across stationary car who as I'm turning moves forward and clips my rear quarter, wheel and bumper.
Damage to other car minimal, mine is looking a bit sorry!!
Chap claims he was moving into space in front of give way (I had looked and there wasn't a full car length so deemed it safe to pass and turn.
Is it 50:50 or entirely one party fault?
My car is an A6 so there is a good amount of vehicle that has passed the front of him before he hit me...
Situation is :
2 lane main road, traffic lights at end.
Tesco filling station close to lights on left hand side with give way at entry and exit points.
Lights ahead on red, traffic in lane 1 stationary
I want to turn into tesco using keep clear from lane 2 across front of stationary traffic which I and umpteen cars do every morning.
I make turn across stationary car who as I'm turning moves forward and clips my rear quarter, wheel and bumper.
Damage to other car minimal, mine is looking a bit sorry!!
Chap claims he was moving into space in front of give way (I had looked and there wasn't a full car length so deemed it safe to pass and turn.
Is it 50:50 or entirely one party fault?
My car is an A6 so there is a good amount of vehicle that has passed the front of him before he hit me...
shouldn't you have been in lane 1 to turn left into the petrol station?
sounds like you've come up the outside past cars in the left lane, some of whom are waiting for the traffic to move up so they can turn where you did.
even though you were hit, the driver who hit you was probably only expecting a car to turn in from traffic coming in the opposite direction and not come up from behind on his right hand side and cut across.
sounds like you've come up the outside past cars in the left lane, some of whom are waiting for the traffic to move up so they can turn where you did.
even though you were hit, the driver who hit you was probably only expecting a car to turn in from traffic coming in the opposite direction and not come up from behind on his right hand side and cut across.
TooMany2cvs said:
I'd say 50/50. No matter how bloody silly going down L2 to turn left because L1's stationary might be, the other guy did manage to pull away with the side of a vehicle filling his windscreen.
I'm no expert on these things but I'd be surprised if it was 100% one party's fault too.I wouldn't go as far as some and say I'd never do this. I don't think it's that silly, but I'd want things like eye contact and clear acknowledgement from the driver I was crossing before I crossed them.
I assume it's a 2 way road so the keep clear section is there for vehicles coming the other way turning right ?
What would you expect the outcome to be had you have been travelling in the opposite direction and turned right across him while he was stationary, and the then set off when you were half way past?
I suspect there's a little more to this, i suspect the other side of the story might be along the lines that he never really came to a halt, he was still creeping the whole time, which if there were any truth to it makes it seem a lot more like your fault, and if there wasn't any truth to it, without a dashcam, you'd have a job convincing anyone.
What would you expect the outcome to be had you have been travelling in the opposite direction and turned right across him while he was stationary, and the then set off when you were half way past?
I suspect there's a little more to this, i suspect the other side of the story might be along the lines that he never really came to a halt, he was still creeping the whole time, which if there were any truth to it makes it seem a lot more like your fault, and if there wasn't any truth to it, without a dashcam, you'd have a job convincing anyone.
Sir Bagalot said:
Entirely one partys fault. And it wasn't the guy who hit you.
Really? Who drove into who exactly? OP says queuing traffic, pretty much stationary, so it's not like matey-boy was slamming the anchors on as OP moved into his braking zone is it? Not only that but OP only got the rear half of his car clipped which kind of implies the other guy should have seen what was going on before he moved.
Without witnesses though....
SK425 said:
I wouldn't go as far as some and say I'd never do this. I don't think it's that silly, but I'd want things like eye contact and clear acknowledgement from the driver I was crossing before I crossed them.
Agreed. Eye contact with, and acknowledgement from, the other driver is key to this manoeuvre.Thanks for the replies so far all. Not trying to pin blame or liability on anyone, as I say it's all been sorted and I've agreed to pay for repairs on his vehicle. Was just interested to hear opinion and stir up a little debate.
It's something I see cars do everyday as I work alongside the Tesco and I turn into the opening most days from lane 1 and relatively regularly from lane 2. I guess my luck has run out and I'll stick to queuing in lane 1.
To add a little detail, he was definitely stationary when I started the manouvre and I checked as I always do If making the manouvre that the space in front of the give way was occupied. There was approx half a car length free which the other chap said he was moving into... This would have left his back wheels in the give way but that's something I see most days so not a surprise. I regularly see people completely block the give way both in and out of the tesco as if it doesn't count because it's a petrol station forecourt. That's a rant for a different thread though!
As I say a manouvre with accepted risk on my behalf, turned out to be an expensive one today.
It's something I see cars do everyday as I work alongside the Tesco and I turn into the opening most days from lane 1 and relatively regularly from lane 2. I guess my luck has run out and I'll stick to queuing in lane 1.
To add a little detail, he was definitely stationary when I started the manouvre and I checked as I always do If making the manouvre that the space in front of the give way was occupied. There was approx half a car length free which the other chap said he was moving into... This would have left his back wheels in the give way but that's something I see most days so not a surprise. I regularly see people completely block the give way both in and out of the tesco as if it doesn't count because it's a petrol station forecourt. That's a rant for a different thread though!
As I say a manouvre with accepted risk on my behalf, turned out to be an expensive one today.
nipsips said:
Your fault entirely I'm afraid.
You were changing lanes, its down to you to make sure its safe to do so. What negligence are you going to pin on the other driver?
Driving into a car in front of you seems pretty negligent to me. It was down to the other driver to make sure it was safe to move off from stationary too.You were changing lanes, its down to you to make sure its safe to do so. What negligence are you going to pin on the other driver?
I had to read the OP several times as it didn't seem to make sense. Essentially rather than wait in the left hand lane to turn left, you've decided to go down the right hand lane and use a gap in the stationary queue in the right lane to turn left?
There's a similar spot near where I live where people regularly cut along a left lane to take a right turn through stationary traffic. I always cringe when I see it as there's just so many things to go wrong, the car in the right lane moves, or hasn't left a gap or someone arrives in from the right turn junction.
I'm sure it probably could have gone 50/50 with insurers as they are too lazy to care, but morally you're in the wrong. You were carrying out an unexpected manouvre, appearing from behind a car in slow moving traffic and expecting him to be checking that randoms are NOT going to be trying to cut across his moving queue of traffic. And it must have been moving because he managed to drive into your back end as you swung across the front of him.
Glad to see you sorted it out with him, I'd say it's your fault and can't really see what the other guy was supposed to have done wrong. All IMHO of course.
There's a similar spot near where I live where people regularly cut along a left lane to take a right turn through stationary traffic. I always cringe when I see it as there's just so many things to go wrong, the car in the right lane moves, or hasn't left a gap or someone arrives in from the right turn junction.
I'm sure it probably could have gone 50/50 with insurers as they are too lazy to care, but morally you're in the wrong. You were carrying out an unexpected manouvre, appearing from behind a car in slow moving traffic and expecting him to be checking that randoms are NOT going to be trying to cut across his moving queue of traffic. And it must have been moving because he managed to drive into your back end as you swung across the front of him.
Glad to see you sorted it out with him, I'd say it's your fault and can't really see what the other guy was supposed to have done wrong. All IMHO of course.
SK425 said:
Driving into a car in front of you seems pretty negligent to me. It was down to the other driver to make sure it was safe to move off from stationary too.
So in two lanes of traffic, if you were in the left hand lane you would expect a car being driven in the right hand lane to cut across you to do a left turn? - Jog on! The OP was trying to be clever by using the outside lane to do a left turn because he couldn't be arsed to be patient and wait for the traffic to move in the left hand lane.
The driver in left hand lane would be expected to be on the look out for a car approaching from the opposite direction wanting to turn across him, but not a car travelling in the same direction as he was, in the outside lane.
If the OP had been seen by the Police causing this accident, chances are they'd be considering a charge of driving without due care and attention!
4rephill said:
So in two lanes of traffic, if you were in the left hand lane you would expect a car being driven in the right hand lane to cut across you to do a left turn? - Jog on!
The OP was trying to be clever by using the outside lane to do a left turn because he couldn't be arsed to be patient and wait for the traffic to move in the left hand lane.
The driver in left hand lane would be expected to be on the look out for a car approaching from the opposite direction wanting to turn across him, but not a car travelling in the same direction as he was, in the outside lane.
If the OP had been seen by the Police causing this accident, chances are they'd be considering a charge of driving without due care and attention!
Fair enough, but OP did say they guy was definitely stationary AND he caught the back of OP's car, implying that there was a gap between OP making his move and the other guy lurching forward.The OP was trying to be clever by using the outside lane to do a left turn because he couldn't be arsed to be patient and wait for the traffic to move in the left hand lane.
The driver in left hand lane would be expected to be on the look out for a car approaching from the opposite direction wanting to turn across him, but not a car travelling in the same direction as he was, in the outside lane.
If the OP had been seen by the Police causing this accident, chances are they'd be considering a charge of driving without due care and attention!
It does sound like OP's fault but I don't think the other guy is totally blameless.
rallyeS2 said:
It's something I see cars do everyday as I work alongside the Tesco and I turn into the opening most days from lane 1 and relatively regularly from lane 2. I guess my luck has run out and I'll stick to queuing in lane 1.
Everyone doing it doesn't make it correct. It's the same as drivers overtaking a queue of traffic to make a right turn because they don't have the patience to wait until the queue moves forward to the turning point.There will always be a risk of incident in taking these chances and no one else can be blamed if you come unstuck. So yes OP, stick to lane 1 in future.
4rephill said:
SK425 said:
Driving into a car in front of you seems pretty negligent to me. It was down to the other driver to make sure it was safe to move off from stationary too.
So in two lanes of traffic, if you were in the left hand lane you would expect a car being driven in the right hand lane to cut across you to do a left turn? - Jog on! I don't really get the controversy here. Do some people think that suggesting the other driver was at fault is the same as suggesting the OP wasn't at fault? There's no reason fault can't lie with both parties in a collision.
Springing yourself upon someone in an unexpected manner without taking great care to ensure that they know what you're going to do before you do it to them is a bad idea. Moving off without looking where you're going is a bad idea too.
The car pulling away doesnt have a duty of care to anybody other than traffic moving in his own lane. If someone wants to enter his lane, to either get in front of him or to turn left in front of him, then it is their responsibility to make sure it is safe to do so.
I appreciate what you are saying, however it all boils down to what a reasonable man is expected to do. Is it reasonable to turn left across lane 1 to exit the road, no.
I appreciate what you are saying, however it all boils down to what a reasonable man is expected to do. Is it reasonable to turn left across lane 1 to exit the road, no.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff