Other driver pranged barrier while overtaking.
Discussion
Hol said:
Dont like rolls said:
Stuff in an excessive number of posts)
for the official record, why Exactly did you join Pistonheads 4 months ago?You can spot them a mile off.
Carrying on arguing as if they had never left, and racking up thousands of posts within 2 or 3 months.
He’ll get banned again though at some point no doubt. They always do.
Seems to me that it's worth going back to what the OP has told us.
Re the first bit in bold: I would certainly know what type of vehicle was immediately behind me. How come she didn't?
Either she was unobservant or the pickup was further back. The second and third bits suggest a camel train had formed behind the bus.
If so, it is quite likely a risky multiple vehicle overtake by the pickup driver ensued. In that scenario the closest court case I can find is Challenor vs Williams and Croney.
That involved a collision between two vehicles rather than the overtaking one hitting a roadside barrier. The overtaking driver was held to be 100% liable.
The OP has told us there doesn't appear to be any dashcam evidence. I'm guessing there were no independent human witnesses either.
Paulm4 said:
60mph A road, single lane in each direction, one mile straight with a bus stop in the middle. The bus in front of my wife pulled into the bus stop but was still sticking out a wee bit. My wife pulled out to overtake the sticking out bit and heard a scraping sound, a work owned 4x4 had attempted to overtake both her and the bus and had ditched into the barrier rather than hit her.
The other driver took my wife's insurance details etc and suggested it was her fault that he had hit the barrier. She says she checked her mirror before moving and saw no sign of him and is 99% she had her indicator on. She doesn't know if he was directly behind her or a couple of cars back.
The other driver never touched our car but was suggesting He'd be claiming off us and called his work/insurance at the scene, asking how many kids were in our car etc.
No dashcams in his vehicle as far as I can see and none in ours.
Who's at fault? Can he claim off us and should I notify my insurance that there might be an incoming claim.
Thanks in advance
The other driver took my wife's insurance details etc and suggested it was her fault that he had hit the barrier. She says she checked her mirror before moving and saw no sign of him and is 99% she had her indicator on. She doesn't know if he was directly behind her or a couple of cars back.
The other driver never touched our car but was suggesting He'd be claiming off us and called his work/insurance at the scene, asking how many kids were in our car etc.
No dashcams in his vehicle as far as I can see and none in ours.
Who's at fault? Can he claim off us and should I notify my insurance that there might be an incoming claim.
Thanks in advance
Paulm4 said:
Having spoken to my wife first hand, it seems that the bus had stopped for a second at most, she moved out slightly but doesn't believe she crossed the white line onto the other side of the road as it was just the rear right corner of the bus that was sticking out. They had been stuck behind the bus for miles as there is limited overtaking opportunities on a twisty rural road. She says she checked her wing mirror but not her rear view. Presumably she just glanced at it as she didn't intend to cross to the other side of the road and therefore didn't see anything *roll eyes emoji*.
Seems to me that the L200 type truck tried to overtake the whole que at once, got near the front and presumed my wife would pull out completely in front of him when he saw her start to move right so binned it into the barrier unaware that she was not going to cross into his lane. Final resting position was:
Bus is in bus stop/wife in her lane/truck in adjacent lane against barrier with space between our car and him.
We are nearly 4 weeks on from the first post and we still don't know whether the 3rd party has made a claim against the OPhether it goes 50/50 or not I don't really mind, as long as everyone is ok. It'll be the first claim I've had it 22 years so I'm probably overdue an anal pounding by the insurance people ??
At this point nearly 4 weeks after the OP's first post we still don't know whether the third party has made a claim pinning the blame on the OP's wife.Seems to me that the L200 type truck tried to overtake the whole que at once, got near the front and presumed my wife would pull out completely in front of him when he saw her start to move right so binned it into the barrier unaware that she was not going to cross into his lane. Final resting position was:
Bus is in bus stop/wife in her lane/truck in adjacent lane against barrier with space between our car and him.
We are nearly 4 weeks on from the first post and we still don't know whether the 3rd party has made a claim against the OPhether it goes 50/50 or not I don't really mind, as long as everyone is ok. It'll be the first claim I've had it 22 years so I'm probably overdue an anal pounding by the insurance people ??
Re the first bit in bold: I would certainly know what type of vehicle was immediately behind me. How come she didn't?
Either she was unobservant or the pickup was further back. The second and third bits suggest a camel train had formed behind the bus.
If so, it is quite likely a risky multiple vehicle overtake by the pickup driver ensued. In that scenario the closest court case I can find is Challenor vs Williams and Croney.
That involved a collision between two vehicles rather than the overtaking one hitting a roadside barrier. The overtaking driver was held to be 100% liable.
The OP has told us there doesn't appear to be any dashcam evidence. I'm guessing there were no independent human witnesses either.
Every case is fact specific. You've not highlighted the most pertinent point, in that the car driver admitted failing to make proper observations before beginning the manoeuvre to move out of her lane into the opposing one.
In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if the pickup driver had sufficiently light damage that pragmatism kicks in and better to fix some scratches than have a claim to declare and an excess to pay.
In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if the pickup driver had sufficiently light damage that pragmatism kicks in and better to fix some scratches than have a claim to declare and an excess to pay.
janesmith1950 said:
Every case is fact specific. You've not highlighted the most pertinent point, in that the car driver admitted failing to make proper observations before beginning the manoeuvre to move out of her lane into the opposing one.
I'm well aware that each case is fact specific which is why I was careful to add the qualifier 'closest' when quoting Challenor.I think your criticism is a tad harsh. These are the relevant bits from the OP's posts.
PaulM4 said:
She says she checked her mirror before moving and saw no sign of him and is 99% she had her indicator on.
PaulM4 said:
She says she checked her wing mirror but not her rear view.
A pertinent question is whether the rear view mirror would have provided a view of the overtaking vehicle that the wing mirror did not.A shoulder check would also have been beneficial but I suspect that car drivers* who don't frequent PH (other forums are available) have never heard of it.
janesmith1950 said:
In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if the pickup driver had sufficiently light damage that pragmatism kicks in and better to fix some scratches than have a claim to declare and an excess to pay.
Agreed.* Not bikers though. For them it can be the difference between life and death.
janesmith1950 said:
Every case is fact specific. You've not highlighted the most pertinent point, in that the car driver admitted failing to make proper observations before beginning the manoeuvre to move out of her lane into the opposing one.
In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if the pickup driver had sufficiently light damage that pragmatism kicks in and better to fix some scratches than have a claim to declare and an excess to pay.
It was a company owned and liveried vehicle So I doubt the driver would have any choice in whether to claim or not. The side was also fairly well staved in, not just a few scratches.In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if the pickup driver had sufficiently light damage that pragmatism kicks in and better to fix some scratches than have a claim to declare and an excess to pay.
Will try and get a chance to call my insurance tomorrow and see if the 3rd party has made any contact.
oyster said:
It does feel like there’s some defending the overtaking driver because he is more ‘one of us’ - a keen driver as opposed to a dawdler holding us up.
As far as we know we have a vehicle performing an overtake ( irrespective of whether its the right thing to have started ) then a car in front of it, who has stated that it hasn't checked properly pulling out in front of it and forcing it to take evading action to prevent collision.The overtaking vehicle wasn't having an accident before said car moved across so there is culpability if not in whole then in part.
NewUsername said:
oyster said:
It does feel like there’s some defending the overtaking driver because he is more ‘one of us’ - a keen driver as opposed to a dawdler holding us up.
As far as we know we have a vehicle performing an overtake ( irrespective of whether its the right thing to have started ) then a car in front of it, who has stated that it hasn't checked properly pulling out in front of it and forcing it to take evading action to prevent collision.The overtaking vehicle wasn't having an accident before said car moved across so there is culpability if not in whole then in part.
It's not enough to blame someone else for making a (completely predictable) late manoeuvre.
We're all advised to give cyclists a wide berth when passing to cover for their risk of a late swerve to avoid a pothole/drain/wobble etc. Why should we expect a car to maintain a completely straight path with no deviation at all? Especially when it's in close proximity to a known hazard (a bus near a bus stop).
sibriers said:
Yeah - you know, the one the bus was stopped at? That they were overtaking?
The one that the bus had not yet stopped at (when the 4x4 was already committed) and that you cannot see ?...that one...?You can play XRay Specs as well
https://www.google.com/maps/@57.4093109,-4.3383227...
Dont like rolls said:
sibriers said:
Yeah - you know, the one the bus was stopped at? That they were overtaking?
The one that the bus had not yet stopped at (when the 4x4 was already committed) and that you cannot see ?...that one...?You can play XRay Specs as well
https://www.google.com/maps/@57.4093109,-4.3383227...
How do you get to "already committed" from "checked mirror but didn't see the 4x4"?
You thinking the bus indicated, came to a stop in a "massive" bus stop and the OP's OH started manoeuvring all AFTER the 4x4 started his move?
- Heroic 10 car overtake FTW.
Hilarious!
I get they were committed as they were (very close to) next to the driver who pulled out and cannot have been at WARP speed as they did not kill themselves when forced into the barrier (or turn over/go down the steep embankment).
Think about the time it takes to get to where they were when the driver pulled out without looking correctly.
I take it you now accept they were unlikely to have seen the bus stop ?
Think about the time it takes to get to where they were when the driver pulled out without looking correctly.
I take it you now accept they were unlikely to have seen the bus stop ?
My take away from this thread is that overtaking is fine and you are always in the right when doing it so long as nothing is coming the other way and there are no solid white lines
I am going to shoot up the outside of everyone waiting at traffic lights or any other obstruction from now on and sit next to the car that is at the front, when the lights turn green I will hoof it off and crack on.
My logic now goes: Clear road with nothing coming, stopped traffic, no-one indicating, over take the whole queue and if they don't look then that's their fault.
If I stack it into anything at all then I can claim on the nearest cars insurance.
Profit.
I am going to shoot up the outside of everyone waiting at traffic lights or any other obstruction from now on and sit next to the car that is at the front, when the lights turn green I will hoof it off and crack on.
My logic now goes: Clear road with nothing coming, stopped traffic, no-one indicating, over take the whole queue and if they don't look then that's their fault.
If I stack it into anything at all then I can claim on the nearest cars insurance.
Profit.
Dont like rolls said:
You reject the Highway Code as a document then ?
A rule is nothing without the application of interpretation and common sense.Much of the highway code is written as guidelines and is intended to be applied sensibly.
In my opinion the 4X4 had an accident with himself though failing to read the road and drive according to the circumstances. Due care and attention was not applied.
As I said before, the highway code writer did not envisage a berk in a 4x4 overtaking a queue of traffic slowing before they passed a bus that was pulling into a bus stop in a built up area. It was to make sure faster vehicles could pass slower ones on the road so as not to have progress impeded for miles and miles, probably written back at the dawn of motoring. Over due for a revision to stop people like you reading it and extrapolating silly conclusions from it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff