Hypothetical - who would be at fault?

[Streetcop]

IMO...

The car emerging from the junction is the one to blame...
The GIVE WAY sign is what you would have contravened.

It is possible that an insurance firm might try for a 50/50 blame...but ultimately...the actions of the emerging driver would be wrong and would be the one that I would recommend on my form for prosecution.

That is despite the 'highway code' advice about overtaking at junctions etc.

You'll probably know that the circumstances described are usually where car v motorcycle come unstuck. ie: the bike overtakes the car turning left, as the car from the side road emerges...

[stubydoo]

Streetcop said:

IMO... The car emerging from the junction is the one to blame... The GIVE WAY sign is what you would have contravened. It is possible that an insurance firm might try for a 50/50 blame...but ultimately...the actions of the emerging driver would be wrong and would be the one that I would recommend on my form for prosecution. That is despite the 'highway code' advice about overtaking at junctions etc. You'll probably know that the circumstances described are usually where car v motorcycle come unstuck. ie: the bike overtakes the car turning left, as the car from the side road emerges...

I ought to be a policeman........

[dilbert]

nonegreen said:

One thing is certain Professor David Beggs civil servants would record it as a speed related accident and slmost certaily apportion blame to the vehicles on the main road. Incidentally they would do this while gossiping about holdays in Spain and last nights East Enders.

Fantashtic

[anniesdad]

In the case of the car/bike indicating to turn left into a side road off a main road, and a car emerging from that side road taking the other parties indication as the drivers/riders intent to turn. There is a well documented case in the RTA legal fraternity, namely Wadsworth v Gillespie that covers this exact scenario.

Blame was apportioned 2/3 - 1/3 in favour of the driver/rider on the main road indicating.

I'm not aware of any case law, allying to Flemke's original question, however if I were the case handler acting for the vehicle alighting from the side road, I would be looking to obtain a split liability settlement. However, I would expect that we would be shouldering the majority of the blame.

>> Edited by anniesdad on Monday 7th February 10:11

[flemke]

anniesdad said:

I'm not aware of any case law, allying to Flemke's original question, however if I were the case handler acting for the vehicle alighting from the side road, I would be looking to obtain a split liability settlement. However, I would expect that we would be shouldering the majority of the blame.

Understood and agreed. In my example, however, you (in the car leaving the junction) did not misjudge the speed of or have a problem with car X (which was indicating left).
I should have posed the hypothetical differently: suppose that you approached the T-junction aiming to turn right, came to a stop, saw car X approaching from the right and, because it was not on a path that would collide with yours, you pulled out from the junction. As you were executing your right turn, car Y pulled out from behind car X and hit you.
It seemed to me that both parties would be at fault. As the overtaker is the "aggressor" in terms of interaction with other traffic, intuitively it seemed to me that the greater responsibility lay with him. I was curious as to whether the actual rules said different.
Cheers.

[anniesdad]

flemke said:

because it was not on a path that would collide with yours

Are we talking here about a car that has already commenced a left turn? Hence is not on a path, so as to collide with your alighting vehicle ie. you know that the vehicle is turning as he has already commenced a turn and not that he "might" be turning. This car proven to be turning is then overtaken (whilst undertaking its turn) at the junction by a closely following vehicle. This vehicle "straddles" the centre lines, you pull out and the accident occurs.

In these circumstances and IMHO, the car pulling out in this eventuality is if not completely at fault then 80-90% at fault. If you can get away with split liability, then great, but I would think chances of this are remote.

Areas of damage could come into play here as well. If say the damage to your car is all to the front, it could be proven that you had undertaken your turn and were safely established on your side of the road, when the third party hit you effectively head on. If damage is to the side of your vehicle, you're looking at shouldering the blame.

>> Edited by anniesdad on Monday 7th February 11:18

[nismo200sx]

Interesting that you discuss this as this very nearly happened to me last night. I was turning right out of a side road. A Bus approaching from my right stopped and signalled for me to pull out. no traffic approaching from left so commenced my turn( carefully).
as I passed the front of the bus a car had decided to overtake it on the wrong side of the road(single carriageway) hidden by the bus. Fortunately we both stopped before any collision. Who is at fault in this scenario?

[ca092003]

mxdi said:

I did this once when down in Cornwall, someone was indictaing left to go into where I was pulling out of, they slowed, so I pulled out and they decided to go straight on, no accident but he did use some rude signs. So now I NEVER pull out until it is completely clear, even if there is someone behind me honking their horn because I dont go, which was the case last week

I once witnessed a neighbour (a Paramedic who is now an Emergency Vehicle driving instructor) indicate to turn right into a side road. He was going too fast and I cautioned my mother about moving off. Sure enough, he didn't turn and just proceeded straight past.

[anniesdad]

Firstly, IMO, you did what most would do and pulled out after receiving an indication to do so, by the bus driver. Both, pulling out on and overtaking buses (on a single lane carriageway and to a lesser degree on a dual carriageway) is a move undertaken with very high risk. As a driver, you understood this as you excercised sufficent caution and drove in such a way as to avoid an accident. The same could be said of the overtaking driver. However had the accident occurred, I would say again that a split liability settlement would have been fair, with you shouldering most of the blame.

[anniesdad]

ca092003 said:

mxdi said: I did this once when down in Cornwall, someone was indictaing left to go into where I was pulling out of, they slowed, so I pulled out and they decided to go straight on, no accident but he did use some rude signs. So now I NEVER pull out until it is completely clear, even if there is someone behind me honking their horn because I dont go, which was the case last week I once witnessed a neighbour (a Paramedic who is now an Emergency Vehicle driving instructor) indicate to turn right into a side road. He was going too fast and I cautioned my mother about moving off. Sure enough, he didn't turn and just proceeded straight past.

In my time i've had a LOT of these cases go through my hands. But not as many as the "car in front pulls off to join a roundabout, stops for some reason (enter what you want here) and is then hit in the rear by the following vehicle.

[flemke]

anniesdad said:

flemke said: because it was not on a path that would collide with yours. Are we talking here about a car that has already commenced a left turn? Hence is not on a path, so as to collide with your alighting vehicle ie. you know that the vehicle is turning as he has already commenced a turn and not that he "might" be turning. This car proven to be turning is then overtaken (whilst undertaking its turn) at the junction by a closely following vehicle. This vehicle "straddles" the centre lines, you pull out and the accident occurs.

anniesdad,
I wrote "path" to minimise words and avoid seeming even more pedantic than I usually must do.
What I meant was, let's assume that car X is not turning or indicating a turn - it's just driving in your direction. Its speed and distance from the junction are such that you can safely leave the junction and turn right onto the main road. In the course of your making that turn, car Y, which is going much faster than X, overtakes X and hits you.
Before you left the junction you couldn't see Y behind X, which is why you presumed that it was safe to turn right. The argument against you must be that you should have recognised that there could be a blind spot (with a bike, Seven, etc.) behind X and thus waited until there could be no doubt that it was safe to leave the junction.
On the other hand, car Y didn't need to overtake at all (hence the "aggressor" label) in order to make its way. Although car Y was invisible to you, it is almost always the case that Y would have had an indication (whether signposted or simply visible to observor) that there was a junction coming up on his left, and from it something might emerge.




>> Edited by flemke on Monday 7th February 12:59

[anniesdad]

I understand. In simple terms, your agressor will find himself/herself blameless in the accident, unless independent witness evidence leads to the contrary at which point there may be some contributory negligence and a split liability settlement agreed. If however, the case went to court it is anyone's guess as to whom the judge may find in favour of. As I said, I am not personally aware of any UK case law that may set precedent in these exact circumstances.