Near miss - who was wrong?
Discussion
A colleague of mine had a narrow escape this morning.
Scenario:
Pitch black. 2 way, long straight road. He wants to turn left out of a T-junction onto this road into a 40 zone. Looks right, headlights in the distance, can easily pull out and get up to speed before the car gets to him. Looks left, a line of 5-6 cars coming out of a 30 zone into the 40, just a bit further up the road it becomes derestricted.
Pulls out, suddenly realises that one of the cars to his left is on his side of the road and is overtaking the line of traffic very quickly. Colleague can't go anywhere, somehow the overtaker manages to just miss the front of his car.
If there would have been a crash would have been my colleagues fault for not assessing the situation properly before pulling out? Or should the overtaker have assessed the situation better and not overtaken. Or would it have been knock for knock?
Hmm
Scenario:
Pitch black. 2 way, long straight road. He wants to turn left out of a T-junction onto this road into a 40 zone. Looks right, headlights in the distance, can easily pull out and get up to speed before the car gets to him. Looks left, a line of 5-6 cars coming out of a 30 zone into the 40, just a bit further up the road it becomes derestricted.
Pulls out, suddenly realises that one of the cars to his left is on his side of the road and is overtaking the line of traffic very quickly. Colleague can't go anywhere, somehow the overtaker manages to just miss the front of his car.
If there would have been a crash would have been my colleagues fault for not assessing the situation properly before pulling out? Or should the overtaker have assessed the situation better and not overtaken. Or would it have been knock for knock?
Hmm
If the overtake was legal, it was legal.
If your mate was stopped at a 'give way' sign he needs to give way and only proceed when safe to do so.
Of course technically no-one in these things is ever blameless ie the 'non-fault' party could have only stopped sooner, or didnt overtake at that tme etc... however I can see the chips firmly stacked agaisnt your mate as although an overtake may or may not have been the right thing to do in the situation that will always be debatable. Crossing a give way when its not safe to do so the blame will always land back on you.
If your mate was stopped at a 'give way' sign he needs to give way and only proceed when safe to do so.
Of course technically no-one in these things is ever blameless ie the 'non-fault' party could have only stopped sooner, or didnt overtake at that tme etc... however I can see the chips firmly stacked agaisnt your mate as although an overtake may or may not have been the right thing to do in the situation that will always be debatable. Crossing a give way when its not safe to do so the blame will always land back on you.
Thanks Justin, I thought as much,
Would it depend on whether the overtaker was already overtaking?
If it was just a line of cars on the opposite carriageway (as it appeared to my colleague him at the time), but then the overtaker started to overtake after my colleague had put his nose onto the main road.
Just to add, if the overtaker was speeding in the 30 or 40 zone to overtake, does that make it an illegal overtake?
Would it depend on whether the overtaker was already overtaking?
If it was just a line of cars on the opposite carriageway (as it appeared to my colleague him at the time), but then the overtaker started to overtake after my colleague had put his nose onto the main road.
Just to add, if the overtaker was speeding in the 30 or 40 zone to overtake, does that make it an illegal overtake?
Edited by Matts_Zed on Friday 8th December 11:26
My spiel to associates in similar circumstances (for turning right, but still applies to going left):
Look right at the car that's going to hit you;
Look left at the idiot that's going to hit you;
Look forward at the car you're going to hit.
"Blame" is tricky. I suppose the presence of the give-way line would tip the balance, although I would suggest that no-one should be overtaking if there's a junction ahead (and you can't get back in safely).
Look right at the car that's going to hit you;
Look left at the idiot that's going to hit you;
Look forward at the car you're going to hit.
"Blame" is tricky. I suppose the presence of the give-way line would tip the balance, although I would suggest that no-one should be overtaking if there's a junction ahead (and you can't get back in safely).
I'd say its a 50/50 because both parties were completing manouvers, so therefore both owes a duty of care to everyone around them, including eachother. Both insurance companies would argue and then come to a 50/50 agreement, happens more often than you might think.
But if your colleague had pulled out and established themselves on the road just as the other patry was overtaking, only then it would be a non-fault claim.
But if your colleague had pulled out and established themselves on the road just as the other patry was overtaking, only then it would be a non-fault claim.
Matts_Zed said:
Just to add, if the overtaker was speeding in the 30 or 40 zone to overtake, does that make it an illegal overtake?
Speed(ing) isn't necessarily negligance, but if it was a factor, you'd have to prove it...no chance, sorry. Even with witnesses, you can't prove he was speeding so its a mute agrument.
Matts_Zed said:
Thanks Justin, I thought as much,
Would it depend on whether the overtaker was already overtaking?
If it was just a line of cars on the opposite carriageway (as it appeared to my colleague him at the time), but then the overtaker started to overtake after my colleague had put his nose onto the main road.
Just to add, if the overtaker was speeding in the 30 or 40 zone to overtake, does that make it an illegal overtake?
Would it depend on whether the overtaker was already overtaking?
If it was just a line of cars on the opposite carriageway (as it appeared to my colleague him at the time), but then the overtaker started to overtake after my colleague had put his nose onto the main road.
Just to add, if the overtaker was speeding in the 30 or 40 zone to overtake, does that make it an illegal overtake?
Edited by Matts_Zed on Friday 8th December 11:26
That is an important point. I envisaged the near miss happenning where you mate looked and was just about to pull out when he saw the overtaker.
If your mate was already on the road, then it would be the overtaker who would be at fault... technically.
I say this 'technically' as in practice it would be very difficult to prove 'who was there first'.
The Hitman said:
Matts_Zed said:
Just to add, if the overtaker was speeding in the 30 or 40 zone to overtake, does that make it an illegal overtake?
Speed(ing) isn't necessarily negligance, but if it was a factor, you'd have to prove it...no chance, sorry. Even with witnesses, you can't prove he was speeding so its a mute agrument.
I hit a car that pulled out in front of me and witnesses claimed I was driving at well in excess of the speed limit. The Police said my speed didn't matter, he still shouldn't have pulled out. They did decline to prosecute him for careless driving though.
In the OP's case, I would suspect a lot would depend on how witnesses (if any) saw it. It's much more likely that they guy pulling out of the side road didn't look properly than the overtaker pulling out into the joining car. I would guess however that there would have been longer 'hazard' lines in the centre of the road, so overtaking at that point might be considered careless?
I'd say it would be the fault of the overtaker. He would have been involved in a collision with him on the wrong side of the road. He shouldn't be overtaking near junctions.
Hmmm - but what if it wasn't a junction but a drive-way. At what point is it reasonable to overtake. I'm not sure now.
Hmmm - but what if it wasn't a junction but a drive-way. At what point is it reasonable to overtake. I'm not sure now.
Your colleague needs to ask himself whether he looked both ways properly before pulling out. How long did he wait at the give way before pulling out?
The overtaker needs to ask himself if overtaking at a junction was such a sensible move and to question his own observation skills (didn't he see your colleagues headlights, for example).
The overtaker needs to ask himself if overtaking at a junction was such a sensible move and to question his own observation skills (didn't he see your colleagues headlights, for example).
jap-car said:
I'd say it would be the fault of the overtaker. He would have been involved in a collision with him on the wrong side of the road. He shouldn't be overtaking near junctions.
Hmmm - but what if it wasn't a junction but a drive-way. At what point is it reasonable to overtake. I'm not sure now.
Hmmm - but what if it wasn't a junction but a drive-way. At what point is it reasonable to overtake. I'm not sure now.
Agreed with the first para, but not entirely. I would think very hard before overtaking near ANY side-road, regardless of what side of the road, for this reason. That said, if chappy looked in both directions he would (I assume) have seen the overtaking car either indicating or actually overtaking just as he was about to pull out. Plus as he was joining the road it was his responsibility to make sure it was safe.
Stupid overtake, but still a 50-50.
2nd para - had those thoughts myself. Rural driveways can be hard to spot, depends on your judgement, I guess.
I wonder if anyone was using their indicators? Must say my sympathy would be with your colleague. Assuming he is sitting there with his headlights on and indicating at a T-junction on a straight section of road in the dark, it seems hard to imagine how the overtaker could have missed him. If he could see your friend sitting at the junction, then the overtake was very stupid. Regardless of who has strict right of way, what on earth did he think your mate was likely to do next? Even if the overtaker was indicating right when your mate got to the junction, it would not be unreasonable for your mate to assume that the overtaker was actually planning on turning right into the road from which your mate was pulling out. Strikes me that the onus on any driver should be to behave in as predicatable a way as possible, and overtaking is always going to be a slightly unusual thing to do, so you should be doubley careful you telegraph your intentions clearly to anyone in the vicinity.
I don't think the average driver bothers to actively look left before pulling out at such a junction. They will only see what is in their field of vision when looking straight forward.
To be honest, I can't say for sure that I wouldn't have been caught out in the same way as your colleague, but this is something I will remember for the future.
To be honest, I can't say for sure that I wouldn't have been caught out in the same way as your colleague, but this is something I will remember for the future.
My Dad had an accident in similar circumstances a few years back. He was overtaking having just passed the NSL signs exiting a village when a van came out of a junction on my Dads right, the van driver having looked right only. ‘CRUNCH!’ Van driver was done for without due care and attention. It was pointed out to the van driver that the give way signs meant he had to give way to any traffic on the major road regardless of which direction that traffic was travelling or which side of the road it was on. My Dad did get a ‘verbal wrist slap’ from the Bib for overtaking near a junction but there was no prosecution. Van insurance paid out for 85% of damage to my Dads car.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff