"Traffic Cops" 5 Spike This Evening

[KungFuPanda]

Anyone watching the above programme at the moment?

One of the incidents was a white Audi S3 driven by an Asian chap which crashes into the rear of a red Merc 4x4 which pulls out from a minor road.

Disregarding the insurance position of the Audi, the coppers and the voiceover bloke seem to be pinning all liability on the driver of the Audi.

Having seen the CCTV footage on the programme showing that the red Merc pulled out of the side road into the path of the correctly proceeding Audi, I'm surprised that they're all trying to blame the driver of the Audi.

Personally at worst, I would think maybe 25% liability may attach due to the speed the Audi was travelling at.

[largelunchbox]

He was speeding twice the limit, deserves a jail sentence

[Alucidnation]

Did the Merc hit the Audi?

[EU_Foreigner]

largelunchbox said:

He was speeding twice the limit, deserves a jail sentence

Irrespective of the speed limit, the car pulling out should always check and estimate the closing distance. It is not difficult to see someone coming at you at great speed.

[jamei303]

Sounds like the Audi driver is a tt and is therefore rightfully guilty.

What if the red Merc had been a child crossing the road? Would it have been their fault for not realising the Audi was doing twice the limit?

[J2daG1990]

KungFuPanda said:

Anyone watching the above programme at the moment?

One of the incidents was a white Audi S3 driven by an Asian chap which crashes into the rear of a red Merc 4x4 which pulls out from a minor road.

Disregarding the insurance position of the Audi, the coppers and the voiceover bloke seem to be pinning all liability on the driver of the Audi.

Having seen the CCTV footage on the programme showing that the red Merc pulled out of the side road into the path of the correctly proceeding Audi, I'm surprised that they're all trying to blame the driver of the Audi.

Personally at worst, I would think maybe 25% liability may attach due to the speed the Audi was travelling at.

Normally you would be correct, but if there was proof the Audi was speeding at twice the limit and the car pulled out based on the distance the blame wouldn't fall on the Merc.

[BumbleTumble]

jamei303 said:

What if the red Merc had been a child crossing the road? Would it have been their fault for not realising the Audi was doing twice the limit?

Why add the emotional element of a child into what should be a logical discussion?

But i do agree the Audi takes the blame. The Audi is doing something other drivers aren't expecting, similarly to reversing around a corner. You should be aware of other drivers when doing something unusual.

[Osinjak]

jamei303 said:

Sounds like the Audi driver is a tt and is therefore rightfully guilty.

What if the red Merc had been a child crossing the road? Would it have been their fault for not realising the Audi was doing twice the limit?

That didn't take long, did it?

[Dr Jekyll]

I was told by a solicitor some time ago that the general rule is this situations is:

(Assuming Merc pulls out in front of Audi)

Audi speeding but only by a few MPH and/or the normal speed for that road.
Merc's fault.

Audi speeding significantly but still visible before the Merc pulled out
50/50

Audi going so fast so as not to be visible when the Merc pulled out.
Audi's fault.


NOBODY is saying the Audi driver wasn't at fault, just that the Merc driver might have been at fault AS WELL by making an assumption about the speed the Audi was approaching.

Edited by Dr Jekyll on Friday 19th October 11:17

[DIW35]

Dr Jekyll said:

I was told by a solicitor some time ago that the general rule is this situations is:

(Assuming Merc pulls out in front of Audi)

Audi speeding but only by a few MPH and/or the normal speed for that road.
Merc's fault.

Audi speeding significantly but still visible before the Merc pulled out
50/50

Audi going so fast so as not to be visible when the Merc pulled out.
Merc's fault.


NOBODY is saying the Audi driver wasn't at fault, just that the Merc driver might have been at fault AS WELL by making an assumption about the speed the Audi was approaching.

Not sure you meant that last bit. How could the Merc be at fault if he pulled out when he couldn't see anything coming?

[Dr Jekyll]

DIW35 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

I was told by a solicitor some time ago that the general rule is this situations is:

(Assuming Merc pulls out in front of Audi)

Audi speeding but only by a few MPH and/or the normal speed for that road.
Merc's fault.

Audi speeding significantly but still visible before the Merc pulled out
50/50

Audi going so fast so as not to be visible when the Merc pulled out.
Merc's fault.


NOBODY is saying the Audi driver wasn't at fault, just that the Merc driver might have been at fault AS WELL by making an assumption about the speed the Audi was approaching.

Not sure you meant that last bit. How could the Merc be at fault if he pulled out when he couldn't see anything coming?

Sorry, meant Audi's fault.

[EU_Foreigner]

Just like the Audi should have seen the Merc and expected the unexpected of a slow car pulling out.

[Dr Jekyll]

EU_Foreigner said:

Just like the Audi should have seen the Merc and expected the unexpected of a slow car pulling out.

Yes, though someone pulling out of a junction is more to be expected than someone approaching at twice the limit.

[Carrot]

Osinjak said:

jamei303 said:

Sounds like the Audi driver is a tt and is therefore rightfully guilty.

What if the red Merc had been a child crossing the road? Would it have been their fault for not realising the Audi was doing twice the limit?

That didn't take long, did it?

Or an adult crossing the road. Adults wish to live too.

[Osinjak]

Carrot said:

Osinjak said:

jamei303 said:

Sounds like the Audi driver is a tt and is therefore rightfully guilty.

What if the red Merc had been a child crossing the road? Would it have been their fault for not realising the Audi was doing twice the limit?

That didn't take long, did it?

Or an adult crossing the road. Adults wish to live too.

What about kittens? Or fluffy wuffy baby ducklings?

[Truffs]

Don’t worry about them. Think of the hedgehogs. More of them die than children or adults or kittens or ducklings (fluffy or not).

Hedgehog lives matter too you know.

[Ian Geary]

Dr Jekyll said:

Audi going so fast so as not to be visible when the Merc pulled out.
Audi's fault.

Edited by Dr Jekyll on Friday 19th October 11:17

Assuming that visibility isn't rubbish, what speed do people think a car has to be travelling to render it "invisible".

I would think some fraction of the speed of light.

A car going 60 is just as visible as a car going 30. Yes, it will get to you twice as fast, but that is completely different from it not being observable at all.

Whether a driver "expects" the car to reach them twice as fast is a fair question, but then so is: is a quick glance that doesn't assess the speed of oncoming traffic taking sufficient care when pulling out in front of traffic?

I would be more 50:50.

[Dr Jekyll]

Ian Geary said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Audi going so fast so as not to be visible when the Merc pulled out.
Audi's fault.

Edited by Dr Jekyll on Friday 19th October 11:17

Assuming that visibility isn't rubbish, what speed do people think a car has to be travelling to render it "invisible".

I would think some fraction of the speed of light.

A car going 60 is just as visible as a car going 30. Yes, it will get to you twice as fast, but that is completely different from it not being observable at all.

Whether a driver "expects" the car to reach them twice as fast is a fair question, but then so is: is a quick glance that doesn't assess the speed of oncoming traffic taking sufficient care when pulling out in front of traffic?

I would be more 50:50.

A speed that means it was still out of sight (round a bend perhaps) when the Merc pulled out into an apparently clear road, but reached the junction in time to crash into it. Which would also imply the Audi was going too fast to stop in the distance that could reasonably be expected to remain clear.