Speeding or pulling out without looking

[podwin]

Watch this little video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMEo8djd8mw&fea...

Someone pulls on onto the road from the kerbside, and what looks like a white Golf seems to make a point of it. The Golf driver sounded his horn at the driver of the black ML.

If the Golf actually rear-ended the ML, would it be 100% his fault? Or would they put some blame on the ML for pulling out?

[markCSC]

podwin said:

If the Golf actually rear-ended the ML, would it be 100% his fault? Or would they put some blame on the ML for pulling out?

Looks like the Golf is doing way over 30 so probably yes, his fault.

[monthefish]

markCSC said:

podwin said:

If the Golf actually rear-ended the ML, would it be 100% his fault? Or would they put some blame on the ML for pulling out?

Looks like the Golf is doing way over 30 so probably yes, his fault.

...and there were a good few seconds between the ML pulling out and the golf coming into view - Golf had plenty of time to react (ease off the throttle/brake) to avoid any situation.


That said, it is very annoying when people pull out in front of you causing you to have to take action to avoid them.
You should only be pulling out if you can do so in such a way that no other driver has to do anything different.

[dingocooke]

Years ago a traffic cop told me that they tend to see it as fault of the vehicle pulling out only 'if' the impact was in front of the 'B' post, in other words, the accident was potentially avoidable or excessive speed involved if the impact was behind the 'B' post...I had just knocked the front off a Vauxhall Viva with my 1275 GT Mini...

It does amuse me how people look straight at you and then pull out; especially when there is nobody behind!!

Edited by dingocooke on Tuesday 21st August 15:19

[podwin]

It is a bad road for speeding, and feel sorry for the people living on it.

It has two primary schools on it, a church and houses either side, but people do 45 all day, and I have seen groups of bikers overtaking at what must be 60+.

It is a very wide road, and I think that is why people speed on it.

Trying to pull out is always bad as a car arrives from around a bend doing 40+ and is up your rear, as in the video.

I asked the council about traffic calming and their response was "I have interrogated our accident database and there have been no personal injury accidents in the last 3 years attributable to speed and regret therefore at the present time other than asking for periodic enforcement by Greater Manchester police on the speed issue I can take no further action on this matter."

So no child has been hit yet, so no problem exists. This is one place (i.e. outside schools) I'd like to see speed cameras.

[ViperDave]

100% the fault of the ML. The golf is established in the traffic lane and has right of way. Doesn't matter what speed he is doing as the responsibility to ensure a safe manoeuvre in joining traffic is on the ML. The ML failing to see the golf is their negligence, if they see it, failing to correctly ascertain its speed before commencing a maneuver is also their negligence. Having an accident with the golf and getting out of the ML shouting. I didn't see you, or you came flying up at a rate of knots out of nowhere is admitting the MLs negligence.

[otolith]

You can't tell from that angle - I'd like to see where the Golf was when the ML started to pull out.

[ViperDave]

otolith said:

You can't tell from that angle - I'd like to see where the Golf was when the ML started to pull out.

Doesn't matter, the golf was established in a traffic lane when the ML pulled out. If the ML could not see the road clearly then it should not have parked there in the first place such that it had to pull out into a traffic lane without a clear view.

[podwin]

There is a bend to the left, the problem is often, it is clear when you start to move out.

If a car comes round at a reasonable speed its OK to complete the manoeuvre you have started, i.e. pulling out onto the carriageway.

The problem is when they are driving too fast and you have started moving with nothing in sight, a car appears and you then either stop, so blocking half of the road should a car come the other way, or complete it with the speeder driving into the rear as in the video.

[mnkiboy]

ViperDave said:

Doesn't matter, the golf was established in a traffic lane when the ML pulled out. If the ML could not see the road clearly then it should not have parked there in the first place such that it had to pull out into a traffic lane without a clear view.

Isn't there an expectation in a 30 limit that the traffic won't be doing much more than 30?

I wrote to our local council just last Saturday regarding speeding on the estate where I live. Despite it being a 20 limit, plenty of cars happily do double that speed as there is no traffic calming in place. One exit is particularly bad for visiblilty and i've been caught out once or twice trying to pull out and finding a car bearing down on me rather too quickly, and with parked cars either side nowhere to go.

[tercelgold]

There is a stretch of 70mph Dual Carrigeway near me with a central reservation and most importantly roundabouts along it, on a sports bike you can be off the roundabout and up to the speed limit in maybe 0.4 seconds, while the driver in lane 1 is about to move into lane 2, right of way doesn't always mean the person trying to join is in the wrong. I'd say if anyone was in the wrong it was the Golf driver, considering the time they had to react either they had to slow down quickly and just managed to hold it or they were being a tt and trying to have a go at someone in front.

[otolith]

ViperDave said:

otolith said:

You can't tell from that angle - I'd like to see where the Golf was when the ML started to pull out.

Doesn't matter, the golf was established in a traffic lane when the ML pulled out. If the ML could not see the road clearly then it should not have parked there in the first place such that it had to pull out into a traffic lane without a clear view.

How do you know that the Golf didn't accelerate hard from a standing start after the ML started its maneouvre?

[Torquey]

I'm sure the insurance companies would have setting 50/50 on this one. It tends to be the easy way out for them nowadays.

[podwin]

I don't think someone like the Golf driver can make an issue about someone pulling out in front of them if they are speeding, making said speeding driver a complete cock in my opinion.

[monthefish]

Torquey said:

I'm sure the insurance companies would have setting 50/50 on this one. It tends to be the easy way out for them nowadays.

...and both drivers lose NCB = good result for industry as a whole.

[ViperDave]

otolith said:

ViperDave said:

otolith said:

You can't tell from that angle - I'd like to see where the Golf was when the ML started to pull out.

Doesn't matter, the golf was established in a traffic lane when the ML pulled out. If the ML could not see the road clearly then it should not have parked there in the first place such that it had to pull out into a traffic lane without a clear view.

How do you know that the Golf didn't accelerate hard from a standing start after the ML started its maneouvre?

because the golf was already in frame and decelerating when the ML entered the left hand traffic lane where the golf had right of way.

[Boydie88]

I'm currently claiming off of someones insurance because although he jumped a red light, he also hit me at such an angle and so far into the junction that I am convinced he could have taken evasive action.

All happened at the Army and Navy Roundabout in Chelmsford. Part time lights were in operation, I pulled onto the roundabout when mine went green and then noticed an Astra that has no intention of stopping for his lights so I gunned it to avoid him hitting my drivers door and he ended up smashing into just behind my rear wheel but with the near side of his vehicle - if he turned away from impact, it would have been his offside that hit me, he also hit me so far aroudn the roundabout that I'm convinced he could have stopped in time if he actually tried.

The guy admitted he didn't realise the lights were in operation (the actual quote "I have never seen those lights on red before") and then took full blame at the scene but I'm sure he saw me as a way of putting in a crash for cash scheme thinking I'd jumped out in front of him until he realised the lights were in fact in operation. Sadly I couldn't get my phone recording to get him saying that without making it obvious.

I'm just getting a story in case his insurance company say I jumped a red because no witnesses stopped (thank you wkers of Chelmsford!). Ultimately, he has gone into the back of my car when he has had significant space to stop in.

[otolith]

ViperDave said:

otolith said:

ViperDave said:

otolith said:

You can't tell from that angle - I'd like to see where the Golf was when the ML started to pull out.

Doesn't matter, the golf was established in a traffic lane when the ML pulled out. If the ML could not see the road clearly then it should not have parked there in the first place such that it had to pull out into a traffic lane without a clear view.

How do you know that the Golf didn't accelerate hard from a standing start after the ML started its maneouvre?

because the golf was already in frame and decelerating when the ML entered the left hand traffic lane where the golf had right of way.

At the point the Golf enters the frame, the ML is up to speed on the wrong side of the road and starting to cross the central line. Were it a two lane one-way street I'd perhaps see it a little differently, but it isn't.

[8potdave]

I would 100% say it's the fault of the ML driver. He should have been able to judge the speed of the Golf not just assume it's 30 because that is the limit. What if it was an emergency services vehicle?

[ViperDave]

otolith said:

ViperDave said:

otolith said:

ViperDave said:

otolith said:

You can't tell from that angle - I'd like to see where the Golf was when the ML started to pull out.

Doesn't matter, the golf was established in a traffic lane when the ML pulled out. If the ML could not see the road clearly then it should not have parked there in the first place such that it had to pull out into a traffic lane without a clear view.

How do you know that the Golf didn't accelerate hard from a standing start after the ML started its maneouvre?

because the golf was already in frame and decelerating when the ML entered the left hand traffic lane where the golf had right of way.

At the point the Golf enters the frame, the ML is up to speed on the wrong side of the road and starting to cross the central line. Were it a two lane one-way street I'd perhaps see it a little differently, but it isn't.

the bold bit is where he enters the golfs right of way. The golf was already there and both his presence and speed were available to a fully observant ML driver at which point the ML driver should have stopped on the RHS of the road, He may have started a maneuver but it was not complete without compromising the right of way of the golf who we can see is fully established in the traffic lane.