Left turn lane accident - who exactly is to blame?
Discussion
Red Devil said:
In this case, the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5 page 82 disagrees with you.
A diagram 1038 marking is advisory but the addition of TURN LEFT converts it to a diagram 1036.1 marking: the latter is regulatory.
MANDATORY TURNS
13.6 Lane arrows supplemented with the legend TURN LEFT (see figure 13-3), TURN RIGHT and AHEAD ONLY are prescribed as diagrams 1036.1, 1036.2 and 1037.1 respectively.
These versions may be used only where they indicate the effect of a statutory prohibition (direction 7).
Confirmed by TSRGD 2016 Schedule 9 Part 6 item 19 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedu...
As has already been posted, this only applies where the only available option is to turn left. For example where the only other road is a No Entry, so all traffic must turn left to avoid it. A diagram 1038 marking is advisory but the addition of TURN LEFT converts it to a diagram 1036.1 marking: the latter is regulatory.
MANDATORY TURNS
13.6 Lane arrows supplemented with the legend TURN LEFT (see figure 13-3), TURN RIGHT and AHEAD ONLY are prescribed as diagrams 1036.1, 1036.2 and 1037.1 respectively.
These versions may be used only where they indicate the effect of a statutory prohibition (direction 7).
Confirmed by TSRGD 2016 Schedule 9 Part 6 item 19 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedu...
The are two issues here as I see it.
The legal issue - Driver B is in the wrong
The Insurance/blame issue - You are both in the wrong
If police had witnessed it and decided to prosecute, that would stand in good stead for your insurance to claim everything back from Driver B. In reality, that rarely happens, so you always have to think of how the insurance will see it.
You, even though you were not doing anything wrong legally, could prevent any contact but choose not to, would equally be liable to Driver B who did choose to do something wrong legally.
We do unfortunately live in a driving society where people are in a rush to get everywhere and on the balance of probability, they will force their way into gaps knowing that most people will avoid contact.
Eventually though, the people that do this get more confident each time and they will one day come across someone who won't be paying attention or just has the f
k it attitude and hits them.
The legal issue - Driver B is in the wrong
The Insurance/blame issue - You are both in the wrong
If police had witnessed it and decided to prosecute, that would stand in good stead for your insurance to claim everything back from Driver B. In reality, that rarely happens, so you always have to think of how the insurance will see it.
You, even though you were not doing anything wrong legally, could prevent any contact but choose not to, would equally be liable to Driver B who did choose to do something wrong legally.
We do unfortunately live in a driving society where people are in a rush to get everywhere and on the balance of probability, they will force their way into gaps knowing that most people will avoid contact.
Eventually though, the people that do this get more confident each time and they will one day come across someone who won't be paying attention or just has the f
k it attitude and hits them.Tomo1971 said:
The are two issues here as I see it.
The legal issue - Driver B is in the wrong
The Insurance/blame issue - You are both in the wrong
If police had witnessed it and decided to prosecute, that would stand in good stead for your insurance to claim everything back from Driver B. In reality, that rarely happens, so you always have to think of how the insurance will see it.
You, even though you were not doing anything wrong legally, could prevent any contact but choose not to, would equally be liable to Driver B who did choose to do something wrong legally.
We do unfortunately live in a driving society where people are in a rush to get everywhere and on the balance of probability, they will force their way into gaps knowing that most people will avoid contact.
Eventually though, the people that do this get more confident each time and they will one day come across someone who won't be paying attention or just has the fk it attitude and hits them.
Whatmcpuld he have been prosecuted for? Not following advice only signs? The legal issue - Driver B is in the wrong
The Insurance/blame issue - You are both in the wrong
If police had witnessed it and decided to prosecute, that would stand in good stead for your insurance to claim everything back from Driver B. In reality, that rarely happens, so you always have to think of how the insurance will see it.
You, even though you were not doing anything wrong legally, could prevent any contact but choose not to, would equally be liable to Driver B who did choose to do something wrong legally.
We do unfortunately live in a driving society where people are in a rush to get everywhere and on the balance of probability, they will force their way into gaps knowing that most people will avoid contact.
Eventually though, the people that do this get more confident each time and they will one day come across someone who won't be paying attention or just has the f
k it attitude and hits them.I fking hate tts like this, they know full well they are in the wrong but are so arrogant they also know 99% of people will just let them in because they are either too timid or dont want the hassle. You can only hope that occasionally they come across someone who gets out and gives them a good pummelling.
I was on the M60 the other day at Simister island going to Leeds, the two lane slip road that goes off to the roundabout was jammed solid, it took about 20 minutes to clear it, the 2 lane motorway going straight on to Bury was clear as a bell, yet I must have counted 50 cars in that 20 minutes that drove right to the front of the queue where the solid chevrons start and just sat stationary in lane 1 going to bury with their left indicator on. The pieces of st didn't give a fk that it was causing hold ups for people going to Bury or that they might get a 40 tonne truck up their arse.
The galling thing was everyone of them was let in within a few seconds because obviously the people letting them in were concerned a big crash was about to happen. There should be a camera on that junction and every one that pulled that manoeuvre should get a 5 year ban.
king hate tts like this, they know full well they are in the wrong but are so arrogant they also know 99% of people will just let them in because they are either too timid or dont want the hassle. You can only hope that occasionally they come across someone who gets out and gives them a good pummelling.I was on the M60 the other day at Simister island going to Leeds, the two lane slip road that goes off to the roundabout was jammed solid, it took about 20 minutes to clear it, the 2 lane motorway going straight on to Bury was clear as a bell, yet I must have counted 50 cars in that 20 minutes that drove right to the front of the queue where the solid chevrons start and just sat stationary in lane 1 going to bury with their left indicator on. The pieces of s
t didn't give a fk that it was causing hold ups for people going to Bury or that they might get a 40 tonne truck up their arse. The galling thing was everyone of them was let in within a few seconds because obviously the people letting them in were concerned a big crash was about to happen. There should be a camera on that junction and every one that pulled that manoeuvre should get a 5 year ban.
Gavia said:
Tomo1971 said:
The are two issues here as I see it.
The legal issue - Driver B is in the wrong
The Insurance/blame issue - You are both in the wrong
If police had witnessed it and decided to prosecute, that would stand in good stead for your insurance to claim everything back from Driver B. In reality, that rarely happens, so you always have to think of how the insurance will see it.
You, even though you were not doing anything wrong legally, could prevent any contact but choose not to, would equally be liable to Driver B who did choose to do something wrong legally.
We do unfortunately live in a driving society where people are in a rush to get everywhere and on the balance of probability, they will force their way into gaps knowing that most people will avoid contact.
Eventually though, the people that do this get more confident each time and they will one day come across someone who won't be paying attention or just has the fk it attitude and hits them.
Whatmcpuld he have been prosecuted for? Not following advice only signs? The legal issue - Driver B is in the wrong
The Insurance/blame issue - You are both in the wrong
If police had witnessed it and decided to prosecute, that would stand in good stead for your insurance to claim everything back from Driver B. In reality, that rarely happens, so you always have to think of how the insurance will see it.
You, even though you were not doing anything wrong legally, could prevent any contact but choose not to, would equally be liable to Driver B who did choose to do something wrong legally.
We do unfortunately live in a driving society where people are in a rush to get everywhere and on the balance of probability, they will force their way into gaps knowing that most people will avoid contact.
Eventually though, the people that do this get more confident each time and they will one day come across someone who won't be paying attention or just has the f
k it attitude and hits them.Gavia said:
vonhosen said:
He could be prosecuted for careless/inconsiderate driving.
Blimey, I hope I never ever make a simple mistake that causes a couple of seconds inconvenience if that’s the outcome. As an aside you'd fail your driving test for it (that's without it resulting in a collision).
vonhosen said:
You'd better hope then, because that's a potential outcome (the decision being another's not yours).
As an aside you'd fail your driving test for it (that's without it resulting in a collision).
I’m not overly worried about passing my driving test, as I did that four decades ago. As an aside you'd fail your driving test for it (that's without it resulting in a collision).
I can just see the police being so quiet that they’d push this all the way to court and the CPS being so bored would be desperate for such a value adding case.
Gavia said:
vonhosen said:
You'd better hope then, because that's a potential outcome (the decision being another's not yours).
As an aside you'd fail your driving test for it (that's without it resulting in a collision).
I’m not overly worried about passing my driving test, as I did that four decades ago. As an aside you'd fail your driving test for it (that's without it resulting in a collision).
I can just see the police being so quiet that they’d push this all the way to court and the CPS being so bored would be desperate for such a value adding case.
The decision to take it all the way to a trial where they proceed with it is yours, but don't expect them to automatically fold because that's what you elect to do.
vonhosen said:
They do for minor speeding cases, or even more minor non endorsable offences, so they are quite happy to do so for careless/inconsiderate driving cases.
The decision to take it all the way to a trial where they proceed with it is yours, but don't expect them to fold because that's what you elect to do.
IIRC you’re ex-plod. Your pedantry is ridiculous, there is not a cat in hell’s chance that someone who makes the described manoeuvre would end up in court, let alone be found guilty. If you want to believe they would then that’s you prerogative, but I’ll stick with the real world. The decision to take it all the way to a trial where they proceed with it is yours, but don't expect them to fold because that's what you elect to do.
Gavia said:
vonhosen said:
They do for minor speeding cases, or even more minor non endorsable offences, so they are quite happy to do so for careless/inconsiderate driving cases.
The decision to take it all the way to a trial where they proceed with it is yours, but don't expect them to fold because that's what you elect to do.
IIRC you’re ex-plod. Your pedantry is ridiculous, there is not a cat in hell’s chance that someone who makes the described manoeuvre would end up in court, let alone be found guilty. If you want to believe they would then that’s you prerogative, but I’ll stick with the real world. The decision to take it all the way to a trial where they proceed with it is yours, but don't expect them to fold because that's what you elect to do.
Some CPS advice.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic...
vonhosen said:
Well I've seen people prosecuted & convicted for Sec 3 RTA when they have misused lanes resulting in near misses as described by the OP.
Some CPS advice.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic...
Near misses caused by the OP? You’re not going to change your mind and nor am I. Some CPS advice.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic...
Gavia said:
vonhosen said:
Well I've seen people prosecuted & convicted for Sec 3 RTA when they have misused lanes resulting in near misses as described by the OP.
Some CPS advice.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic...
Near misses caused by the OP? You’re not going to change your mind and nor am I. Some CPS advice.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic...
The difference is I have direct experience that people have been prosecuted & convicted for such things (a probationer's bread & butter back in the day).
Whether you change your mind or not does not change that fact, or frankly concern me at all.
vonhosen said:
The person going in a direction contrary to the lane marking & there being a near miss following that.
The difference is I have direct experience that people have been prosecuted & convicted for such things (a probationer's bread & butter back in the day).
Whether you change your mind or not does not change that fact, or frankly concern me at all.
And I’m sure that the police resource situation is exactly the same today as it was back in the time when you were a probationer The difference is I have direct experience that people have been prosecuted & convicted for such things (a probationer's bread & butter back in the day).
Whether you change your mind or not does not change that fact, or frankly concern me at all.
Gavia said:
vonhosen said:
The person going in a direction contrary to the lane marking & there being a near miss following that.
The difference is I have direct experience that people have been prosecuted & convicted for such things (a probationer's bread & butter back in the day).
Whether you change your mind or not does not change that fact, or frankly concern me at all.
And I’m sure that the police resource situation is exactly the same today as it was back in the time when you were a probationer The difference is I have direct experience that people have been prosecuted & convicted for such things (a probationer's bread & butter back in the day).
Whether you change your mind or not does not change that fact, or frankly concern me at all.
We weren't discussing that, merely that it can & does happen, not how often it does.
The percentages are in favour of you getting away with it, just like they are in your favour with speeding or running a red traffic light.
You're left where we virtually started this conversation, with you 'hoping' it doesn't result in a prosecution, because there is no certainty that it won't. That's because it can where the officer viewing it decides it's worth a little bit of writing from them when they see you do it.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 20th January 19:16
mcg_ said:
That looks like a pretty badly designed junction.
Nothing physical to prevent left turners from going straight ahead by the looks of it? Some road marking would help as a minimum.
Those who can do, those who can’t, County Council.
The OP said there are 3 separate left turn arrows, accompanied by 'TURN LEFT', in the nearside lane on the approach to the junction.Nothing physical to prevent left turners from going straight ahead by the looks of it? Some road marking would help as a minimum.
Those who can do, those who can’t, County Council.
My understanding is that markings only on the road , with no additional signage, are advisory only, because in heavy, slow moving traffic they are not visible.
Fine if you are local or this is your regular commute, but if this is a one off journey, you have no way of knowing which lane you should be in.
It sounds to me that the 'pusher in' could quite easily have been a non-local, caught out in heavy traffic, and trying to get back into the right lane. The fact that he was going slower than the cars in the right lane and had already been passed by a couple of other cars seems to agree with this.
The OP was behind him and tried to block a legitimate merge. If this resulted in a collision, I've no doubt the OP would be held liable.
I wasn't there so can't say that this is definitely the case but that's what sounds more likely to me than someone aggressively lane hopping to gain a few spaces.
Fine if you are local or this is your regular commute, but if this is a one off journey, you have no way of knowing which lane you should be in.
It sounds to me that the 'pusher in' could quite easily have been a non-local, caught out in heavy traffic, and trying to get back into the right lane. The fact that he was going slower than the cars in the right lane and had already been passed by a couple of other cars seems to agree with this.
The OP was behind him and tried to block a legitimate merge. If this resulted in a collision, I've no doubt the OP would be held liable.
I wasn't there so can't say that this is definitely the case but that's what sounds more likely to me than someone aggressively lane hopping to gain a few spaces.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff